Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Origyptian Wrote:
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Any explanation for why it appears without a phyle name?
> > > >
> > > > What do you understand by a phyle name?
> > > > The ˤprw names in these chambers appear
> > > > without phyle names.
> > > >
> > > > M.
> > >
> > > Why would this cartouche not have such a name
> > > associated with it but others do?
> >
> > Which others?
> >
> > None of the ˤprw names in these chambers
> > have phyle names associated with them (whereas the
> > recorded ˤprw names of Mnk3wrˤ do).
> >
> > What do you understand by a phyle name?
> >
> > There are only so many ways of saying it.
> >
> > M.
>
> I'm referring to the glyphs that follow the
> cartouches throughout the RCs as discussed in
> Roth's thesis. That half cartouche isn't followed
> by glyphs the way the other cartouches are.

Those are not phyle names. Suggest you read again, with emphasis on the difference between names of ˤprw and names of z3w (phyles).

From 2014:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,335103,335139#msg-335139

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Mar-17 21:39 by Martin Stower.