An ortho here said Roth had conducted an "exhaustive study of all the crew marks in the relieving chambers". The orthos on this board have used Ann Roth and her phyles to substantiate the authenticity of the Khufu cartouche. The logic being Vyse could not have known about phyle names therefore he couldn't have forged it. Out of curiosity, I thought I'd double check Roth to see just how exhaustively she studied the marks in the chambers. This is what Roth gives as a result of her exhaustive study.....
Which cartouche is where? Which are on a north wall? South, etc.?
Here is her explanation :
The distribution of the gang names on the walls of the relieving chambers is an interesting foreshadowing of later developments. In each chamber, the blocks of the north side are marked with one gang name and those of the south side with another, while the end walls are divided in half and the blocks are marked with the name of the gang whose name is on the nearest side wall. This distribution is presented schematically in figure 7.2. The pattern suggests that the pyramid was constructed by gangs whose responsibility was divided between its northern and southern halves.
To say this "distribution is presented schematically in figure 7.2" is a stretch of the imagination. Although worded very poorly, what she's doing is dividing the chambers into quadrants, the end walls (east & west) were divided in half, or so she thinks. So the left side of the east wall would be closest to the north side wall and these two walls were worked by the same gang. I've made these walls pink in my diagram. The right side of the east end wall would be closest to the south side wall (lavender).
The left side of the west wall would be closest to the south wall (green), and the right side of the west wall would be closest to the north wall (blue). Like I've illustrated here....
How about those graphics! Cut me some slack here, I'm using a basic drawing program.
Instead of pointing out each phyle and the discrepancies in her statement, I'll let you examine the placement of the phyles for yourself. I have not marked which names are in which chamber, that is irrelevant. What is relevant to examining Roth's conclusion, is which walls the phyles are on - north, south, east or west.
The 3 gangs (phyles) present in the chambers (according to egyptologists) :
1. White Crown Khnum-Khuf is powerful gang
2. Pure Ones of the Hor Medjedu gang
3. Friends/Companions of Khufu gang
The Walls :
SOUTH walls have: White Crown & Pure Ones & Friends of Khufu (3 different names)
NORTH walls have : White Crown - which is spelled 4 different ways. Details (shakes head)
EAST walls have : one illegible something
WEST walls have : White Crown & Pure Ones (2 different names) or maybe 3 names
But we needn't know the translation of the phyles, because just by looking at their placement would tell us which gangs worked where, no matter what the name was, if they were indeed assigned to the cardinal directions, (according to Roth's idea}
So the White Crown gang appears on south, north and west walls. Following Roth's idea, the White Crown gang worked on 3 different directions, but this goes against what she stated. I call it her "idea" because by now her statements are not looking like a hypothesis much less a theory.
There is another major problem; since there are no names on the east wall of any chamber, we have no idea what gang worked on those. That cuts out 2 quadrants from the plate of evidence we are expected to eat of. Now we are left with only 2 quadrants, north-west and south-west, that can provide us with the evidence necessary for an exhaustive study.
A 3rd quadrant, south-west, must also be taken off the plate for it does not abide by Roth's now fanciful imagination. In fact, her entire phyle thingy falls apart in this quadrant. How are we to conduct an exhaustive study if we only have 2 walls out of 8 to evaluate? We are now at a dead end, we cannot pursue this 'hypothesis' further because the evidence isn't there. Evidently Roth based her conclusions on the north-west walls only.
But that doesn't deter Roth who takes it further.....
"It should be noted that the blocks marked with the gang name based on the name Khufu are on a higher course of masonry than the blocks marked with the Khnum-Khufu gang on the northern wall of the same chamber, so that there may also have been a new gang assigned to the north wall (not preserved in the evidence) at the same time as a new gang came to work on the southern wall."
This is nothing but a guess in an attempt to explain one of the discrepancies in her by now, exhausted study. On the north walls the gang name is spelled 4 different ways, some with 5 glyphs and some with 6. And they're not in the same order.
The south walls add a 5th way of spelling. And this she would explain away with "a new gang come to work".
She goes on......
"This patterning of gang names has interesting implications for the study of how pyramids were built. "
But there is no patterning. There are similarities in glyphs on the north and south walls and that's all. As is the usual practice, the variations are explained away as different spellings of the same name, or are yet another name the king possessed.
But to continue with Roth.........Quote
my favorite author c.1863
The most vulnerable point in Egyptology is the facility with which it "identifies" a hieroglyphic name, found anywhere, with any historical personage unprovided with a monument. Hieroglyphs afford a delightful latitude for these experiments : they are read backward or forward, upward or downward, from centre to flank, or from flank to centre, at the pleasure of the artist, or the interpreter. Many of the phonetic characters stand for more letters than one, and all the symbolical ones may be variously interpreted ; so that it may be truly said of this study that the vowels go for nothing, and any consonant may be changed into another. It would be hard if, with such advantages, monumental evidence could not be found. In point of fact, a large proportion of modern "identifications" consists of such mere resemblances, arbitrarily brought together, and as arbitrarily removed when a different hypothesis requires a new arrangement. We have names slipped a thousand years up or down the chronological scale at pleasure ; and it is quite common with Baron Bunsen to assign as a proof of identity, that no other place fits so well. He might as well take his readers into Moses' shop, and asseverate that the best fit was made to their own measure.
"The fact that the gangs changed during the construction of these chambers implies that gangs or even crews served in a rotation of some sort; if more evidence for this rotation could be found elsewhere, it might provide a useful guide to the rate of construction."
Now she's stating it as FACT. The gangs changed during construction, well they must have because the distribution isn't as she claims it should be. So since the "pattern" doesn't follow her idea, she has now made up two more facts; the gangs changed during construction AND they rotated. Now everything fits into her theory/hypothesis/idea.
And what is a RATE of construction?
In conclusion, considering the lack of evidence in the chambers, Vyse could not have known about the phyle names because they are not phyle names. They have nothing to do with north or south or east or west.
We are witness to the birth of a myth that will be touted as FACT for probably the next 100 years.
Whew! I'm exhausted. You guys will have to take up this extensive study.