Of course, this now brings me to a question: often, in cases where a specific theory is espoused, and 'non-critical data' is thrown out, it's because there's some opinion or goal at stake. What I wonder if, what were the researchers attempting to gain/prove by this? Such as, when you've got researchers trying to downplay the prominence, importance, and power of women in other cultures, because you're towing the party line of patriarchal superiority.

Or is it wrong to assume that there's always an overt ulterior motive? Could it just be that they assumed one specific concept was right, because it was the first thing they thought of? What is your opinion on why they would be doing this?

RE "[Resi] was referred to as part of the then-pharaoh's 'harem,' … Was this a poorly chosen word by a male curator, perhaps?"

Perhaps it was an effort to make something so different from the daily lives of most visitors "accessible" by using a "familiar" term. I would agree the word choice was curious.

RE "I was also quite captivated by the chair of Princess Sitamun…"

I find these types of items–the personal items of daily life–the most fascinating. The monumental, ceremonial, and presentational items are all works of art, but these types of items: the chairs, combs, game board, and so on seem much more "real" to me.

RE "Also very cool was that the cat-men were (at least to me) clearly dancing! … On the other side of the chair there were two tambourine players…"

Oh, come on! I still say they were clearly bowling! :) The long stride, the one hand holding the large spherical object, supported by the other hand. Obviously bowling. Obviously. :D

I'm glad you had a swell time, and I really like your observations. You were clearly having a blast. :)

Hope all is well,
Rick

And on a completely unrelated note I just realized that I have used the word 'nifty' for the last 20+ years because I loved the way you use it. :-D

Hm, a quickie recap afterward? I'll think about it… it's my hope the paper gets clearer as you go along, after all. With luck, it'll stand on its own… maybe? Let me know. ;)

…good god, I'm starting to talk like this paper. I'm amazed I've been able to understand the bulk of what I've read so far, and this part of it only focuses on the fact that what you're saying may completely be off base, and how you are trying to remain completely objective about it, as well as trying to avoid typical mental pitfalls when addressing matters of this scope. And *that* takes up an entire blog posting!

I'm not saying humility is not important, or objectivity (although in most respects, I'd have to say that pure objectivity is entirely impossible, as your own paper would seem to agree with), or the fact that you're looking at it from the perspective of someone that has not been a part of this particular phenomenon, or any of that. I agree. But what I wonder, reading this paper, is if some of this writing is less an attempt to reassure the reader as to the fallability of your writing, but rather more political, to avoid stepping on the toes of yet another hierarchical, patriarchal construction. Because it does seem to go on a bit on the subject.

As interesting as I'm sure your paper will be, it might be difficult for the layman (like me) to deconstruct, and a retelling of your conclusions in your own words, rather than in academic terms, might work better (or at the very least, take up less space!)

It's an interesting thing, I tell you, to wake up first thing in the morning, and read this while you're still knocking the bedbugs from your skull. ;)

And then I reread the line, and thought about it again, and realized that my initial interpretation of the sentiment was that we always cherry pick and only remember the best things about our lives. And that's not what the writer was saying, I can see that now. 'Image of the self' is a key component, here.

If we are the sort to jump up and down on ourselves over the things that we have done wrong, the mistakes we have made, then of course, we will remember the untidy parts of our lives quite clearly. Self-serving memory does not always mean *positive* memory.