Tradition and Transformation in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress for Young Egyptologists 15-19 September, 2015, Vienna ... the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Lev) 9783700180050, 3700180055

Citation preview

ANDREA KAHLBACHER – ELISA PRIGLINGER (EDS.) TRADITION AND TRANSFORMATION IN ANCIENT EGYPT

ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND LXXXIV

Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant

CAENL Edited by Manfred Bietak and Barbara Horejs for the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology

Volume 6

ANDREA KAHLBACHER – ELISA PRIGLINGER (EDS.)

TRADITION AND TRANSFORMATION IN ANCIENT EGYPT Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress for Young Egyptologists 15–19 September, 2015, Vienna

Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Bert G. Fragner, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Danuta Shanzer, Peter Wiesinger, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

Coverphoto: Thoth, God of Writing and Knowledge, Ramesseum, Luxor/West Bank  

This publication was subject to international and anonymous peer review. Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication, it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee.

    !" # $  the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-3-7001-8005-0 Copyright © 201% by Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Graphic Design: HAPRA GmbH., Puchenau Printing: Prime Rate, Budapest https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8005-0 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Made in Europe

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EGYPT, NUBIA AND THE LEVANT

Vol. 1 ANGELIKA LOHWASSER, Aspekte der napatanischen Gesellschaft. Archäologisches Inventar und funeräre Praxis im Friedhof von Sanam – Perspektiven einer kulturhistorischen Interpretation. Wien 2012. Vol. 2 INGRID GAMER-WALLERT, Die Wandreliefs des Zweiten Lichthofes im Grab des Monthemhat (TT 34). Versuch einer zeichnerischen Rekonstruktion. Mit Beiträgen von ELEONORE SCHINDLER VON WALLENSTERN und SABINE HERRMANN. Wien 2013. Vol. 3 INGRID ADENSTEDT, Reconstructing Pharaonic Architecture in Nubia. The Case Study of SAV1, Sai Island. Wien 2016. Vol. 4 JULIA BUDKA (Ed.), AcrossBorders I. The New Kingdom Town of Sai Island, Sector SAV1 North. Wien 2017. Vol. 5 MANFRED BIETAK and SILVIA PRELL (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Palaces. Volume I. Wien 2018. forthcoming CAROLINE SAUVAGE and CHRISTINE LORRE, A la découverte du royaume d’Ougarit (Syrie du IIe millénaire). Les fouilles de C. F. A. Schaeffer à la Minet el-Beida et Ras Shamra (1929–1937).

Additional series listed at the end of this volume.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MATERIAL CULTURE Old Kingdom Model and Miniature Vessels from Giza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katarína Arias Kytnarová, Lucie Jirásková and Martin Odler

15

Transformation in Cultic Perception. Beer Jars Versus Miniaturised Beer Jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katarína Arias Kytnarová

31

Late Period Bronze Casting at the First Cataract. The Technological Objects from the Qubbet el-Hawa Necropolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johannes Auenmüller

45

Changes in Funerary Culture and Stone Vessel Production in the Early State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keita Takenouchi

61

New Kingdom Temple Towns in Nubia. Transformation of an (Urban) Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jördis Vieth

73

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL STUDIES Between Tradition and Transformation. The Apis Cult under Cambyses II and Darius I (c. 526–486 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     

87

Action, Reaction & Interaction. The Mechanics of the Amarna Period Erasure Campaign and its Impact on the Theban Necropolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Alice McClymont State and Social Complexity Transformation. An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Predynastic Egypt . . . 123 Paolo Medici Changes and Development in the Title Hm-kA from the Old to the Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Raúl Sánchez Casado

PHILOLOGY Semantic Changes in Ancient Egyptian. Some Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Gaëlle Chantrain Retention or Rejection. The Fate of ‘Ältere Komposita’ at the Transition from the ‘Dreisilbengesetz’ to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Roman Gundacker

8

Table of Contents

RELIGION AND ANCIENT BELIEFS Reinventing the Afterlife. The Curious Figure of Medjed in the Book of the Dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197    Nun: a Traditional and Static Conception? The Evolution of the Conception of Primeval Matter between the Middle and the New Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Cloé Caron The bA over Time. Continuity of Concept, Discontinuity in the Figurative Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Emanule Casini The Tomb of Osiris. Perception, Representation and Cultural Construction of a Sacred Space in the Egyptian Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Angelo Colonna

ART AND ICONOGRAPHY Traditionally Unharmed? Women and Children in New Kingdom Battle Scenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245    The Evolution of Libyans’ Identity Markers in Egyptian Iconography. The Tjehenu Example . . . . . . . 261 Elena Panaite Breaking the ‘Rules’? Innovation in New Kingdom Painting and Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275    Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

This volume presents the papers of the Fifth International Congress for Young Egyptologists (ICYE), which took place in Vienna from September 15th to 19th, 2015. The conference was hosted jointly by the University of Vienna, the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. The conference series started in 2003, when the First International Congress for Young Egyptologists was held in Siena under the topic “Water in Ancient Egypt”. Since then conferences in Lisbon (2006 – “Erotica, Eroticism and Sexuality in Ancient Egypt”), Budapest (2009 – “Commerce and Economy in An  '* +#;!@ X  [ Ancient Egypt”) have taken place. The idea behind this series is to give young scholars the opportunity to present their research publicly and that very often [ #$ \] ^ + '  how to present before an international audience, but also to receive input from other colleagues, to discuss problems we all face researching Egypt’s past and to get in touch with other young Egyptologists from all over the world. The great number of abstracts we received, the high number of participants, and the discussions after the presentations show that conferences like the ICYE are highly welcomed among young researchers. Thus, we are glad that our colleagues from Leiden will maintain this tradition and will organise the next ICYE.   [   __ #^   were presented. With the overall topic “Tradition and Transformation in Ancient Egypt” we tried to invite   ]`   [[   #     continuity of traditions and consequent cultural transformation. The main aim was to stimulate research and an exchange of ideas and to build bridges for a ^ ' [    ]  '  '   # impression given by the ancient Egyptian culture is that of continuity and long-lasting stability. In fact, we can observe many different kinds of transformation processes alongside an unbroken tradition. These changes are visible in all areas of society: politics, art, language, economy, religion, etc. This volume gives an insight into the research presented and the results of various discussions afterwards. In the record of more than three thousand years, Egyptian culture was not sealed and static but had to be learned and transmitted and to be of social

importance to its members. It must be emphasised that culture, including physical adaptations, ideas, beliefs and behaviours, is always subjected to changes in time. These transformations may be of slow, fast or even abrupt character and the particular impact on the society may vary from slight to very  $  +[#  tain events or developments that led to discernible changes in the past. In the study of ancient cultures and civilizations, the questions about what remains and what is changing are always of great importance. It is the attempt to get a deeper understanding of the life and thinking of our ancestors. Tradition refers to the persistence in a given area over a period of time in individual attributes, artefact types, technologies or language and script as well as to cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions. Cultural tradition is extremely important for the formation of a cultural identity, which is why the examination of tradition is always an essential part of historical and cultural studies. Cultural changes are dynamic processes and can be caused by developments in technology, political and religious ideas or substantial experiences with diverse societies or environmental factors. In connection with profound transformations, external in{  $   | +  ]   times when new ethnic groups joined the Egyptian community and in some cases assimilated into the society and actually became carriers of the Egyptian cultural tradition – in other cases they did not. At certain times, foreigners were even at the top of the society. For example, in the middle of the 2nd Millennium BC, after the Middle Kingdom, the Hyksos settled in the eastern Nile Delta and ruled in Egypt for about a century. The Hyksos (HqAw xAswt, “rulers of foreign lands”) must be seen as a foreign dynasty which was rooted in a population of Near Eastern origin. They brought to some degree their own customs and practices to Egypt but they also adopted indigenous elements. This resulted in a very special cultural mix in the eastern Nile Delta. Another example is the Libyan Period, in which foreigners again were able to seize power in Egypt. The common assumption that the Libyans were Egyptianised is deceptive. The nature and provenance of the extant evidence tends to obscure the

10

Introductory Remarks

retention of their ethnic identity, but this is apparent in the persistence of Libyan names and titles in  '}  $  [ [+   ~'   {enced diverse aspects of society such as the political structure, language and script, as well as the sphere of the afterlife. Change can only rarely be studied in isolation or on the basis of a single type of evidence. One seeks to understand transformation in ancient Egypt by asking a series of essential questions: what is the nature of a particular change, when and where did it come about, through what agency, for what purpose, which parts of Egyptian society did it affect, and how lasting were its consequences. In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to involve as many different cultural aspects as possible. Only in the connection of known historical events with examinations of the development of material culture and the consideration of sociocultural factors can tradition and transformation of ancient Egyptian society be understood. In Egypt, especially religious traditions are observable over a long period of time. The ancient Egyptian belief in the afterlife takes precedence over almost all aspects of life and living. Some religious ideas and rites can be even traced over centuries, for example, the Osiris myth or the custom [ $$$# [  +    ]   procedure of rituals changed or ideological variants emerged over time, but nevertheless many traditions have been preserved. Although many archaeologists have found plenty of aspects of continuity in certain classes of material culture, one needs to evaluate the meaning of this continuity.    +    [      # traditions is a point of interest. For example, the revitalisation of certain forms or motifs that had not been employed for several decades or centuries. The reasons for this kind of revival are manifold and to some extent rather complex. Sometimes it can be seen as an orientation to the past after a time of political or social crisis. One prominent example is the archaism of the Egyptian Late Period, when past styles and models were back in use. However, archaism was a continuum and is detectable as early as the Old Kingdom. The intention behind this phenomenon was, among others, to legitimise political sovereignty or to increase authority and thus maintain the striving for power. The concept of cultural continuity is often used in different contexts and does not necessarily imply the same meaning. For this reason, it is crucial for each study dealing with cultural aspects to describe

exactly what is meant with continuity and discon' ']   #  further step can be taken to ask about the respective connections and mechanisms. In the Fifth International Congress for Young Egyptologists we tried to answer some questions about tradition and transformation in ancient Egypt by means of case studies from different epochs and places as well as various methodological approaches. The conference started with the keynote lecture by Manfred Bietak, Professor emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Vienna, about “ The Hyksos Enigma”. He presented the new ERC-funded project, in which he and his team will try to solve the mystery of the Hyksos, and explore why they came  '+]   {  ]]' they disappeared. This time period is extremely affected by transformation as well as innovation, and provides us with a great amount of material culture and physical remains useful for a study of the impact of western Asiatic people on the culture of Egypt. The study of the archaeological record gives us the opportunity to examine developments in past societies and to analyse changes in different aspects [  [  ^ '$  #    #[ '  $ tify its function and circumstances of production. In this context, Katarína Arias Kytnarová focused on miniaturised beer jars from the Old Kingdom cemeteries at Abusir. She explored the development of their shape and the spatial distribution and occurrence in comparison with the full-sized originals, from which she was able to demonstrate a transformation in cultic perception. In another paper she investigated, together with Lucie Jirásková and Martin Odler, model and miniature vessels from burial chambers in the Giza cemeteries. Their study shows the development and functional meaning of diverse materials used for small-size vessels. A similar approach was taken by Keita Takenouchi in his contribution to stone vessel production in the early state. Through his case study from Abu Roash a change of the role and social meaning of stone vessels during the Proto-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Periods may be demonstrated. He pointed out that stone vessels functioned as political media for regional integration in the Early Dynastic society. Johannes Auenmüller presented technological objects, dating to the Late Period, from the Qubbet el-Hawa necropolis. These unparalleled objects stem from a local bronze casting workshop and

Introductory Remarks

provide a detailed insight into the production and technology of these artefacts. It is a matter of a unique collection of objects that illustrate the conceptual design and workmanship of casting moulds. A contribution to the development of temple towns in Nubia was made by Jördis Vieth, who investigated the transformation process of these towns in the course of the New Kingdom. Besides questions of settlement typology, she tried to shed light on the relationship of the inhabitants of the towns and their hinterland, which changed during this time. The Egyptian state as a whole also went through times of great change. One very good example is the Amarna Period in which there was a strong religious rethinking. Under the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten a campaign of erasure was conducted against certain words and images, especially the $   #   [   }$}   @ 'mont dealt with the execution of this campaign and the ideological impact of this action. Another example of a crucial turning point in Egyptian history is the formation of the Egyptian state itself. This very complex historical process is a much-debated topic, and E. Christiana Köhler, Head of Department of Egyptology at the University of Vienna, gave another keynote lecture on “An Archaeology of Cultures and Peoples? Investigating the Origins of Egyptian Civilization in the 21st Century CE”. She explained the environment, material evidence and culture of the Early Dynastic Period and focused on the different approaches in modern research. Paolo Medici, on the other hand, contributed a methodological approach that uses both theory and archaeological data in order to develop an improved theory about the state’s formation. Raúl Sánchez Casado examined the development of the title Hm-kA, one of the most representat^ [# [ [ ' +[$    Middle Kingdoms. He observed a reduction in the $ [[#    [ chical positions, which points to a drastic change in    [ [# | more, he observed an alteration in the spelling of the title Hm-kA which could be more than a mere change in the graphic conventions. Especially in linguistic questions transformations are very often detectable. Language change can be observed as variation in a language’s phonetic, morphological, semantic, syntactic, and other features. The variation in language is continuous and multifaceted. Gaëlle Chantrain works on semantic problems and presented several cases of lexemes undergoing

11

one or several semantic changes. Two markers were especially emphasised: change of gender and of clas# €$` [  [$pound nouns (‘Ältere Komposita’) and demonstrated his evaluation of the preconditions for these special nouns which are different from all other nouns with respect to certain morphological characteristics. Besides that he provided some thoughts on the circumstances of creation, application and elimination of ‘Ältere Komposita’. During the First Millennium BC numerous transformations took place due to the clear dominance of [    ' `^‚ ‚ explored the tension between tradition and transformation in regard to the Apis cult under Cambyses II and Darius I. The worship of the Apis sacred bull, a herald of the creator-king-god Ptah, transformed into the underworld-king-god Osiris after natural death, emerged as one of the most important religious institutions at Memphis. The authors investigated the main characteristics of the Persian patronage of the divine Apis bulls with connection to the political reality in Egypt. Throughout the whole Egyptian tradition the Osiris myth, in which the god is murdered by his brother Seth, played a very special role in religion. Angelo Colonna attempted to answer the question of the location of the burial by means of iconographic evidence because the literary sources do $`  # [    [[ contribution relied on the iconic form and symbolic structure of the images of Osiris’ tomb and the development through artistic elaboration. Another prevalent feature in Egyptian religious perception is that of Nun, a watery primeval matter. There are several explanations of the Egyptian cosmogony but they all have one thing in common – Nun. Cloé Caron reappraised the evolution of the conception of the primeval matter. While the image of the creator god profoundly shifted during the Middle and New Kingdoms, the Nun remains the recurrent element of the Egyptian cosmogonic vision. In this regard, the relationship of Nun and the creator god was highlighted. The Book of the Dead developed from a tradition of funerary manuscripts dating back to the Egyptian Old Kingdom}   #   X`[ the Dead is Medjed, a bell-shaped creature with human legs and eyes, occasionally adorned with a  [  '  # ] one of the demons mentioned in the Spell 17. Ilaria @  ^  #  tributed an investigation of the visual concept of the

12

Introductory Remarks

netherworld through an examination of 21st to 22nd Dynasties’ Books of the Dead. Closely linked to the Egyptian conception of an afterlife is the idea of the soul. The ancient Egyptians believed that the human   ] $   [ #^  + $  ]   bA played a crucial role. Emanuele Casini presented his analysis of the non-royal bA, including both the concept and its visual rendering over time. From the mid 18th Dynasty onwards, he is represented as a human-headed bird. Casini suggested that the bA possessed two different forms from the Middle Kingdom onwards, the avian and the human, but was not depicted then. There are many examples of fascinating illustrations that changed in the art of ancient Egypt or occurred just for a certain time period. The study by Inmaculada Vivas Sáinz dealt with the question of innovation and new pictorial resources in New Kingdom art. She focussed on the frontal poses of animals depicted in private Theban tombs. It seems that some Egyptian painters tried to break with the tradition, producing works with a greater liberty re   ƒ [#  tell, if the appearance of animal frontal depictions developed independently within the Theban work]{  '[  € $    [  ]„ $+†‡‚ worked on depictions of foreign women and children in battle scenes. He noticed the absence of violence against foreign women and children as well as the absence of violence committed by them in visual and written culture. These attestations thus

Andrea Kahlbacher Institute of Egyptology University of Vienna

contrast markedly with battle scenes dated to the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. Another iconographical subject was provided by Elena Panaite, who demonstrated the evolution of Libyans’ identity markers in Egyptian iconography. She focused on the major changes in the representation of the Tjehenu during the New Kingdom and discussed the question of whether the identity markers contribute to a better understanding of the historical events, underlying the ideological conceptions. Ian Shaw, Head of Department of History and Archaeology at the University of Chester (United Kingdom), rounded off the conference with his presentation on the topic “Technological Transformations: Chariots, Fridges and Ballistic Missiles”. The focus of his lecture lay on technological achievements for the military enforcement of claims to power, as well as innovations for the Egyptian daily life. The success of the conference would not have     ]   #   [   University of Vienna, the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OREA, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology), the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien and the Austrian Research Association. We also want to express our gratitude to the scientific committee (Manfred Bietak, Lubica Hudáková, Peter Janósi, Gerald Moers, Vera Müller, Helmut Satzinger, Ian Shaw) and our colleagues, who helped us with the organisation (Benedikt Fuchs, Eva Grabler, Kristina Hutter, Irene Kaplan, Claudia Mally, Doris Teply).

Elisa Priglinger OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Austrian Academy of Sciences

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MATERIAL CULTURE

OLD KINGDOM MODEL AND MINIATURE VESSELS FROM GIZA* Katarína Arias Kytnarová, Lucie Jirásková and Martin Odler1 Abstract: Small-sized vessels represent a common component found in OK tombs and cemeteries. They are to be found in     +    #

 [ [       $  They did not share the same functions and designations; for different purposes and matters, diverse kinds of material were purposefully chosen, and the shapes and usage of the model and miniature vessels differed in whether they were made of pottery, stone or copper. The aim of this paper is to compare the development and the functional meaning of diverse materials  [$

Š‹ ^  + ƒ $ # '^  ^     $ [    ] [#   Giza cemeteries. The origins of a systematic miniature and model vessel production are usually dated to the beginning of the 4th Dynasty, although some examples of very small vessels already occurred in the Predynastic Period. The mass production of miniatures

INTRODUCTION

$ [ $+[

] '  #

' copper, is clearly traceable in all the major cemeteries of the pyr$# [  $   }   ^ $    #'  '+ ' $  nected chronologically. After the 4th Dynasty, ceramic miniature vessels only rarely occur in the burial chambers, but are often found in the hundreds and thousands in refuse layers in or around cultic areas (such as chapels, corridors and in front of niches) and  #

[ [X Œ 'Œ' ]ly decreases in the course of the 6th Dynasty. Contrarily, stone miniature vessels slowly start to occur during the 4th Dynasty in burial chambers. The 5th dynasty introduces a kind of standardisation, whereas in the 6th Dynasty they enter burial shafts and slowly lose their place within burial chambers. Copper miniatures abound mostly during the 6th Dynasty and seem to replace    ƒ$ ][# ‘ $ 

Small-sized vessels were already introduced in the Predynastic Period,2 and since then they remained in use, although in limited numbers. Most of these vessels were perfectly crafted, and, in case of stone pieces, completely drilled inside. The authors of this paper decided to call them miniaturised rather $ ^   [   #nition of this particular part of the material culture (see infra). Later, during the OK, they were made of stone, pottery and copper, used often as substantial materials for the production of burial equipment. The function of the vessels was, however, different in the Pre- and Early Dynastic Period and in the OK.3 Generally, the burial equipment in the OK became poorer and tombs were somewhat more standardised.4     

[  # velopment of the OK small-sized vessels that were

    $ [[#   in the Giza necropolis (Tab. 1). The cemeteries of Giza were chosen on purpose, since there it is pos #$[$ ] [ „+ namely from the beginning of the 4th Dynasty until the end of the 6th Dynasty.5 Giza has the largest excavated area from all the OK sites. Substantial parts of the Giza tombs have been published and even the extensive unpublished documentation, such as scans of original excavation journals, notebooks, drawings and photos, is accessible online, through the websites of the Giza Archives, the Giza Projekt and online museum collections of e.g. the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.6 Therefore, they enable us to reconstruct the development of burial equipment from the point of view of small-sized vessels, their variety, pattern of distribution, and material variations. Although traditional approach deals with the different materials (stone, pottery, copper) separately, we would like to

*

5

1

2 3 4

This paper was written within the framework of the Charles University Progress project Q11 – Complexity and resilience. Ancient Egyptian civilisation in multidisciplinary and multicultural perspective. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic), [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. SWAIN 1995. ALLEN 2006. ROTH 1995; BAINES and LACOVARA 2002.

6

From the point of view of material culture, the 3rd Dynasty has to be included into the Early Dynastic period, as Radwan (RADWAN 1983) observed in the corpus of metal vessels. For the Giza Archives, see http://www.gizapyramids.org/; for the Giza Projekt, see http://giza-projekt.org/Einleitung/ Giza-Projekt.html. The collections of the MFA in Boston are available through http://www.artstor.org/content/ giza-archaeological-expedition-archive.

Structure

G 7000 X

G 8260

G 8250, Tomb of “princess”

G 7143, Shaft B

G 8738, Mastaba of Shaft 559

G 8656, Shaft 585

G 8220

D 203, Shaft 1

G 5070, Shaft 316

D 208, Shaft 9

G 8887, Shaft 294

G 7753, Shaft A



Cemetery G I S

@  # 

@  # 

 # 

@  # 

@  # 

@  # 

–  # 

–  # + Cemetery en echelon

–  # 

@  # 

 # 

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

Nfr, Jt(j).y=sn

Nxt-kA

Dynasty 6, early [stone vessels]

Dynasty 5 – 6 [PM]; Dynasty 6, early [stone vessels]

Dynasty 5, late –Dynasty 6, early [Spiekermann]

Dynasty 5, the reign of Niuserre – Djedkare [stone vessels]

Dynasty 5, end or Dynasty 6 [PM]

Dynasty 5, middle [Radwan]

Dynasty 6 [PM]; Dynasty 5, second half [Radwan]

Dynasty 5, middle or end [Hassan], Dynasty 5, middle [Dulíková]

unknown

%:Sm

Dynasty 5, beginning [Reisner]

Dynasty 4, end [PM]

unknown

unknown

Dynasty 4, middle to end or Dynasty 5, beginning [PM]

Dynasty 4, the reign of Khufu

Dating

BA-bA=f/#nmw-bA=f

@tp-Hr=s II

Owner (names after SCHEELE-SCHWEITZER 2014)

x

STEINDORFF and HÖLSCHER 1991, 96–98; LEMand SCHMITZ 2011 passim; http://www. giza-projekt.org/Mastaba/Mastaba_D203. html

http://www.gizapyramids.org

x

x

HASSAN 1936, 139–150, pls.XLV–LIV; PM III 1, 264

x

x

x

STEINDORFF and HÖLSCHER 1991, 100–104; LEMBKE and SCHMITZ 2011 passim; http:// www.giza–projekt.org/Mastaba/Mastaba_ D207_208.html

JUNKER 1944, 45–64, pls. XI–XIV

BKE

x

x

x

x

HASSAN 1941, 78–92, pls. XXV–XXVII; PM III 1 260–261 HASSAN 1953, 21–33 , pls. XVII–XXIII

x

HASSAN 1941, 240–244, pls. LXV–LXVII

x

x

Copper     

x

x

x

Stone     

http://www.gizapyramids.org

HASSAN 1953, 1–5, pls. I–VI; PM III 1, 239–240 x

x

REISNER and SMITH 1955; RADWAN 1983, 45, Taf. 21: 120. HASSAN 1953, 7–11, pls. pls. VII–XV; PM III 1, 239

Ceramic     

Bibliography

16 Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Lucie Jirásková – Martin Odler

Structure

G 8640

G 8640, Shaft 626

G 2001, Shaft D

G 2381, Shaft A

G 2006

Shaft 688



@  # 

@  # 

–  # + Cemetery G 2000

–  # + Cemetery 2300

–  # + Cemetery G 2000

–  # 

Bibliography

Dynasty 6, late or First Intermediate Period [PM] – dating of the tomb of her supposed husband

JUNKER 1947, 151–153; PM III 1, 167

LILYQUIST 1979, 6; http://www.gizapyramids. org

MADDIN et al. 1984; LILYQUIST{65  , Giza Mastaba Series 1, Boston.

EICHLER, E. 1993

 0&  {65  }  ~&>5tischen Alten Reiches, GOF IV 26, Wiesbaden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HASSAN, S.

ALLEN, S.

1941

{6  [UX^U`UX^?, Cairo.

2006

1948

/0 {6    [   €: /0 $!! &Q|   the Old Kingdom, 2 Vols., Cairo.

1953

The Mastabas of the Seventh Season and Their Description, Excavations at Giza 1935–1936, Vol. VII, Cairo.

Miniature and Model Vessels in Ancient Egypt, 19–24, in: M. BÁRTA (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, Prague.

ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ, K. 2011

2014

Abusir South 2007: Preliminary Ceramics Report. The Tomb of Priest Inpunefer and the Anonymous Tomb AS 47, Památky archeologické CII (2011), 117–158. Ceramic Finds, 71–260, in: J. , K. ARIAS KYTNH. VYMAZALOVÁ, A. POKORNÁ and J. BENEŠ, Abu !"  #$% & ', Prague.

AROVÁ,

in preparation Morphological Origins of the So-Called Min @| $ # @ $¡+ in: Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne. ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ, K. and JIRÁSKOVÁ, L. 2015

76

Ritual Tradition and Transfer between Shape and Meaning – Model Beer Jars in Stone and Pottery, Prague Egyptological Studies XV (2015), 59–68.

EICHLER 1993.

JIRÁSKOVÁ, L. 2017a Abusir Miniature and Model Stone Vessels of the Old Kingdom, 425–443, in: T. GILLEN (ed.), #@'5   Traditions in Ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the confer00   >!| &:€0`‚0ƒ  > ?_U^, AegLeod X, Liège. 2017b Model Stone Vessels of the Old Kingdom – Typology and Chronology, in: M. BÁRTA, F. COPPENS and J.  (eds.), *   „„   0 †  ?_U], Prague 2017, 145–156. JUNKER, H. 1929

[  ‡      ‡>  !  "friedhof, Vienna/Leipzig.

Old Kingdom Model and Miniature Vessels from Giza [‡   Nfr#! ':Qdfjj#%ˆ': KAHjf #%0=!'    } 0 0 ‰ [ banlagen, Vienna/Leipzig.

R EISNER, G.A. and FISHER, C.S.

1944

[  ‡  $0   "! 0!. Erster Teil, Vienna.

R EISNER, G.A. and SMITH, W.S.

1947

[‡ $0 "! 0!. Zweiter Teil, Vienna.

1950

[‡ !"! 0!, Vienna.

ROTH, A.M.

1951

[‡ ƒ 0!Š 0 055>  , Vienna.

1995

1943

1914

1955

KYTNAROVÁ, K. 2009

‹ > ! 0 ƒ !0   60 ‡>> !  0 {6   ! 0 0   ! {&>5&>  0 Cemeteries of Abusir South, unpublished M.A. thesis, Charles University, Prague.

LAPP, G. 1986

Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches: unter Berücksichtigung einiger späterer Formen, SDAIK 21, Mainz. [ +ƒ‰ & ‰‹>  +%& derausstellung, München. Ancient Egyptian Mirrors from the Earliest Times through the Middle Kingdom, MÄS 27, Berlin. Old Kingdom Models from the Tomb of Impy: Metallurgical Studies, JEA 70 (1984), 33–41.

MALYKH, S.E. 2010

Egyptian Votive Pottery of the Old Kingdom, Moscow. (in Russian)

MORALES, A. 2015

Iteration, Innovation und Dekorum in Opferlisten des Alten Reichs: zur Vorgeschichte der Pyramidentexte, ZÄS 142 (2015), 55–69. Categorizing Archaeological Finds: the Funerary Material of Queen Hetepheres I at Giza, Antiquity 74.286 (2000), 898–908.

ODLER, M. 2015

2017

Copper Model Tools in Old Kingdom Female Burials, 39–58, in: M.S. PINARELLO, J. YOO, J. LUNDOCK and C. WALSH (eds.),   @ 0  {&>5&> ?_UY+ Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium, Oxford. For the Temples, for the Burial Chambers. Sixth Dynasty Copper Vessel Assemblages, in: M. BÁRTA, F. COPPENS and J.  (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the † ?_U], Prague 2017, 293–315.

RADWAN, A., 1983

Die Personennamen des Alten Reiches. Altägyptische Onomastik unter lexikographischen und sozio-kulturellen Aspekten, Philippika 28, Wiesbaden. /0!8 [\U_U\U_?, Giza Mastabas 2, Boston.

1980

!0"  >+‹  0  #[U_?X'Ž/=#[?__U'Ž#[?UX€'Ž‹ #[ ?UX\'Ž;&>:! =:; ! #[?^]?]^'Ž ‡=>: /= :     #[ ?^^\ : ?^Y^: ?^€€', Giza Mastaba Series 4, Boston.

SPIEKERMANN, A. and K AMPP-SEYFRIED, F. 2003

Giza: Ausgrabungen im Friedhof der Cheopspyramide von Georg Steindorff, Kleine Schriften des Ägyptischen Museums der Universität Leipzig 6, Leipzig.

STEINDORFF, G. and HÖLSCHER, U. 1991

Die Mastabas westlich der Cheopspyramide nach den { &    >, Abusir VI, Prague.

WILDE, H. 2013

Grabbeigaben und ihre symbolische Bedeutung anhand eines Konvolutes aus Giza (Mastaba D 208): Überlegungen zum privaten Jenseitsglauben im Alten Reich, ZÄS 140 (2013), 172–187.

‡ %5! Qj &!~‰&>5# *!~&    j&    5~ ', Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung II 2, München.

REISNER, G.A. 1942

„„ ‹ >!0|$% &ƒ ary Pottery and Burial Customs, Warsaw.

SIMPSON, W.K.

MÜNCH, H.-H. 2000

* >!‹*: &[?_‚Y` ?_XX: ??^_`??^U  ??Y_: Giza Mastaba Series 6, Boston.

1976

MADDIN, R., STECH, T., MUHLY, J.D. and BROVARSKI, E. 1984

*;  >!0[  5 . The Tomb of ;5Q; 00 !05*>!{&>5tian Civilisation in the Old Kingdom, Cambridge, MA.

SCHEELE-SCHWEITZER, K. 2014

LILYQUIST, C. 1979

Preliminary Report on the Work of the Harvard-Boston Expedition in 1911–13, ASAE 13 (1914), 227–252.

R ZEUSKA, T.I. 2006

LEMBKE, K. and SCHMITZ, B. (eds.) 2011

* ;  > ! 0 [   5 :  U: Cambridge, MA.

29

Online sources (last accessed on the 27th of March, 2016) www.gizapyramids.org www.giza-projekt.org

TRANSFORMATION IN CULTIC PERCEPTION  * Katarína Arias Kytnarová1 Abstract: In the course of the OK, large-sized beer jars were copied in miniaturised form. Their numbers are distinctly lower compared to regular beer jars and they appear only in certain contexts. This paper would like to explore not only the development of the shape of these miniaturised beer jars throughout the period of the later OK, but also to compare their spatial distribution and occurrence in relation t o the full-sized originals. This research is based on a theoretical analysis as well as on a practical study of the ceramic material from the cemeteries at Abusir. The explored tombs in these cemeteries are

unique in that they encompass almost the whole span of the „^ ]  [ [# +  [$ $ $ [ ' [$    '$# [ } [# ^‹  ^   } ] [# '$ ied in the area of the so-called Lake of Abusir. This short study will concentrate on a diachronic comparison within the course of the OK, with a focus on the area of the Memphite necropolis, but also taking note of the development in the Egyptian provinces.

INTRODUCTION

This research is based on a theoretical analysis as well as on a practical study of the ceramic material from the cemeteries at Abusir. The explored tombs in these cemeteries are unique in that they encompass almost the whole span of the OK and have  ]    [   [# +    [$ members of the royal families buried in the pyramid # [} [# ^‹   ^  } ] [#  and anonymous persons buried in the area of the socalled Lake of Abusir. This short study will concentrate on a diachronic comparison within the course of the OK, with a focus on the area of the Memphite necropolis, but also taking note of the development in the Egyptian provinces.

Beer jars belong among the oldest pottery groups that were continually in use. They are attested already in the Early Dynastic Period2 and are evidenced as part of the burial equipment or ritual offerings even in the most modest graves throughout the whole of the OK.3 They are also present in the relief decoration of the tombs, and the jars termed Dwjw are depicted both during beer production and in the offering lists that name different types of beer.4 They are recognised as one pottery group on the basis of their hand-made technique of production, coarse low quality material, very rough surface treatment, function and, with a few exceptions (such as the tall and low tubular forms), a rather similar general shape with an ovoid or spindle-shaped body. In the course of the OK, large-sized beer jars were copied in miniaturised form.5 Their numbers are distinctly lower compared to regular beer jars and they appear only in certain contexts. This paper would like to explore not only the development of the shape of these miniaturised beer jars throughout the period of the later OK, but also to compare their spatial distribution and occurrence in relation to the full-sized originals.

During the past decades, the chronological significance of beer jars has increased due to studies of vessels from primary contexts, enabling us to explore not only topics such as the spatial distribution of beer jars, but also their morphological development as a dating criterion.6 Tentatively, it is possible to divide the development of the OK beer jars into three main stages, namely 1) 3rd to early 4th Dynasty, 2) mid-4th to 5th Dynasty and 3) 6th Dy-

*

3

1

2

This paper was written within the framework of the Charles University Progress project Q11 – Complexity and resilience. Ancient Egyptian civilisation in multidisciplinary and multicultural perspective. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic), [email protected]. E.g. from Helwan (KÖHLER 2014+# ! at Abusir South, PhD thesis, Charles University, Prague.

ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ, K. 2010

Pottery from the Tomb of Hetepi (AS 20), 25–47, in: M. Bárta, F. COPPENS and H. VYMAZALOVÁ (eds.), Abu /0/!;5 * 0/ ^^–^]]_–]^, Prague.

2011a Abusir South 2007: Preliminary Ceramics Report. The Tomb of Priest Inpunefer and the Anonymous Tomb AS 47, Památky archeologické CII (2011), 117–158. 2011b Pottery from the Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet and the Neighbouring Structures, 63–108, in: H. VYMAZALOVÁ (ed.), * /0/!% =0 Surrounding Structures, Prague. 2014a Pottery, 109–143, in: M. BÁRTA et al. (eds.) 2014. 2014b Ceramic Finds, 71–260, in:     " AROVÁ, H. VYMAZALOVÁ, A. POKORNÁ and J. BENEŠ, Abu !"  #$% & ', Prague.

8j ::j*{45, London.

HOPE, C.A. and MCFARLANE, A. 2006

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* /0/!0‹ ! 5#* ^\', Prague.

* 0  0$% &‹ +/0‹ >:‡oration Techniques and Colour Conventions, Oxford.

CASTEL, G. and PANTALACCI, L. 2005

Les cimitiéres est et ouest du mastaba di Khentika, FIFAO 52, Cairo.

CASTEL, G., PANTALACCI, L. and CHERPION, N. 2001

Le mastaba de Khentika : tombeau d’un gouverneur de H$ ˆH* {5 :j, FIFAO 40, Cairo.

FALTINGS, D. 1989

Die Keramik aus den Grabungen an der nördlichen Pyramide des Snofru in Dahshur. Arbeitsbericht über die Kampagnen 1983–1986, ‡*%45 (1989), 133–154.

1998

Die Keramik der Lebensmittelproduktion im Alten @ 0 & 50 * 0~&  [ 0sartikels, SAGA 14, Heidelberg.

FIRTH, C.M. and QUIBELL, J.E. 1935

/0 5 ‹>  : {6    „„ : ? , Cairo.

HAWASS, Z. and SENUSSI, A. 2008

Old Kingdom Pottery from Giza, Cairo.

JÉQUIER, G. 1929

/6  5     5    ‹5  , Cairo.

JUNKER, H. 1929

[j 0Š    *   " 0! " !& % ‡ " helm Pelizaeus unternommenen Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von [‡  ‡> !"! hof, Vienna/Leipzig.

ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ, K. and JIRÁSKOVÁ, L.

1944

[‡ $0 "! 0!, Vienna.

2015

1950

[‡ !"! 0!, Vienna.

2015

Burial Shafts and Chambers of Nefer and Neferhathor in Tomb AS 68d. A Comparative Evaluation of the Ceramic, Prague Egyptological Studies XV, 3–14.

2016

Preliminary Report on Ceramic Finds from the Funerary Contexts in the Tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) in Abusir South, BCE XXVI, 111–129. Ritual Tradition and Transfer between Shape and Meaning – Model Beer Jars in Stone and Pottery, Prague Egyptological Studies XV (2015), 59–68.

KANAWATI, N. and ABDER-RAZIQ, M. 2000

BÁRTA, M. 1996

Several Remarks on Beer Jars Found at Abusir, CCÉ 4 (1996), 127–132.

2001

* /0 * 0, Prague.

2006

The Pottery, in: M. VERNER, M. BÁRTA and H. BENEŠOVSKÁ, *   /0 ‹>   56 ! Raneferef. The Archaeology, Prague.

/0 /   >  „„ :   /0 / ! Nikauisesi, ACE Reports 14, Sydney.

KÖHLER, E.C. 1998

/Qƒ H– j‡ %    5~ „Q%  ! Š0*@ 0#0 0  ', ArchVer 94, Mainz.

2005

;}{6   0{ >‡>  >: UXX\X‚, SAGA 24, Heidelberg.

Transformation in Cultic Perception 2014

;}{6   $5  Y:/U`]_, SAGA 26, Rahden/Westfalen.

KÖPP, H. 2009

Die Rote Pyramide des Snofru in Dahshur – Bemerkungen zur Keramik, 61–69, in: T.I. RZEUSKA and A. ! (eds.), Studies on Old Kingdom Pottery, Warsaw.

KROMER, K. 1972

’  0 0 *& &  [ 0 #*@'+   0Š  ƒ Š0=0  5&UX\U: SAWW 279, 5. Abhandlung, Vienna.

1978

Siedlungsfunde aus dem frühen alten Reich in Giseh. ’  0 0 *& & UX\U`UX\]: DÖAWW 136, Vienna.

KYTNAROVÁ, K. 2009

‹ >!0ƒ !0 60‡>>! 0{6  !00 !{&>5&> 0eteries of Abusir South, MA thesis, Charles University, Prague.

1942

Travaux de l’Institut francais d’archéologie orientale en 2004–2005, jƒ*$ 105 (2005), 405–543.

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1892

Medum, London.

PETRIE, W.M.F., MACKAY, E. and WAINWRIGHT, G.A. 1910

1955

Ägyptische und nubische Keramik der 1.–4. Dynastie, 173–189, in: W. KAISER, F. ARNOLD, M. BOMMAS, T. HIKADE, H. JARITZ, P. KOPP, W. NIEDERBERGER, J.-P. PAETZNICK, C. VON PILGRIM, B. VON PILGRIM, D. RAUE, T. RZEUSKA, S. SCHATEN, A. SEILER, L. STALDER and M. ZIERMANN, Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht, ‡*%55 (1999).

REISNER, G.A. 1931

Mycerinus. The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, Cambridge, Mass.

*;  >!0[  5 /0/ ! ;5Q; : 0 0  ! 05, Cambridge, Mass.

RZEUSKA, T.I. 2006

„„ ‹ >!0|$% &ƒ  > Pottery and Burial Customs, Warsaw.

2011

Back to Meidum, in: M. BÁRTA, F. COPPENS and   (eds.), * „„  0† ?_U_:Prague.

2013

Pottery, in: K. "% (ed.), Saqqara V. Old King  }05‹>  56 0 ‡ >  ‹  ?+ [&>:*0 5&>: ƒ : Conservation, Warsaw.

SEIDLMAYER, S.J. 1996

Die staatliche Anlage der 3. Dynastie in der Nordweststadt von Elephantine. Archäologische und historische Probleme, 195–214, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), ;‹ &>5:  >5 ‚  UU*5 UXX? % , Vienna.

VON DER WAY, T. 1989

Tell el-Fara’in – Buto. 4. Bericht, ‡*% 45 (1989), 275–307.

WARDEN, L.A. 2010

Meydum and Memphis (III), London.

RAUE, D. 1999

*;  >!0[  5 :Cambridge, Mass.

REISNER, G.A. and SMITH, W.S.

PANTALACCI, L. 2005

43

The Relationship of Pottery and Economy in Old King{&>5+*8 ! , PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania.

WEEKS, K.R. 1994

 !  > [ €___:  & [ €_U_ #! 50'Ž[€_?_#> 'Ž[€_^_#>'Ž[€_Y_ #05 ! 0':Giza Mastaba Series 5, Boston.

!, A. 2007

Preliminary Report on the Ceramics, 283–324, in: M. LEHNER and W. WETTERSTRÖM (eds.), Giza Reports. The [ ‹55 &‹ =‹ =;  >:  >:          [ > Y: Boston.

LATE PERIOD BRONZE CASTING AT THE FIRST CATARACT The Technological Objects from the Qubbet el-Hawa Necropolis Johannes Auenmüller1 Abstract: The Qubbet el-Hawa necropolis to the north of the First Cataract across the Nile from modern Aswân is a well-known ar      ' #Š[Œ 

 of objects that were discovered by Egyptologists from the University of Bonn in 1969 in the rock-cut tomb QH 207. These objects, housed at the Egyptian Museum of Bonn University today, are materials of a local bronze casting workshop that was active around 550–450 BC. They illustrate the conceptual design and workmanship of casting moulds as well as the complete casting

 [$

‹ #    Š]ƒ Œ + ]  [ ]ƒ$   #  ‹   # '  `  $  ly preserved and therefore unique casting moulds have helped to understand the production and technology of these particular objects. This paper presents the basic data on these unparalleled objects and communicates the principal results of the materials research and of the imaging methods employed in the course of a  #  ` X;!5: & 50 ƒ   sowie der Bedeutung innerhalb der Kulturkontakte zu Griechenland, ÄAT 81, Wiesbaden.

WENTSCHER, J. 2011

Persönliche Erinnerungen an die Ausgrabungen auf der Qubbet el-Hawa, 125–136, in: L.D. MORENZ, M. HÖVELER-MÜLLER and A. EL HAWARY (eds.), Zwischen den " [ !  &>5 Š& , Rahden/ Westfalen.

61

CHANGES IN FUNERARY CULTURE AND STONE VESSEL PRODUCTION IN THE EARLY STATE Keita Takenouchi1 Abstract: This paper examines the social meanings of stone vessels in Early Dynastic society. So far, scholarship has focused on such aspects of stone-vessel production as ‘large-scale production’ and ‘attached specialisation’. However, the mortuary usage of stone vessels has until today not been analysed in depth. Therefore, this study 1) analyses vessel size and pictorial sources and 2) compares assemblages of wares and stone types with tomb sizes through a case study of Abu Roash. The vessel sizes of open forms, such as bowls, dishes and plates, were found to differ according to the types of stone used in the 1st Dynasty: mudstone for shallow dishes and plates, basalt for deep bowls and limestone and travertine for deep to 

]] – [   [ '  [ +#ing allowed me to suggest that the function of the stone vessel  ] #  

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE In the Proto- to Early Dynastic Period, the Egyptian state rose through various key elements such as long-distance trade, military organisation, administration and kingship. Among these various elements, the archaeological evidence has often shown that craft production kept pace with state formation. In particular, full-time specialists attached to the government or palace probably manufactured stone vessels in bulk. The stone vessel was established as the primary burial equipment in Early Dynastic Egypt. Using the theory of craft specialisation, changes in aspects of production are easily explained by the social situation of the early state. By the Naqada IIIC2–IIID Period, stone vessels made up about 20 percent of funerary goods.2 Stone

1

2 3 4 5

PhD student, Research Associate, School of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Waseda University (Japan), [email protected]. HENDRICKX 2011, 95. KOPP 2007. STOCKS 2003. The study of stone vessels in Early Dynastic Egypt can mainly be categorised into three parts: typological and chronological studies, see PETRIE 1896, 1920; REISNER 1931; EL-KHOULI 1978; ASTON 1994; HENDRICKX 1996; KOPP 2007; inscriptional studies, see KAPLONY 1963, 1964, 1965; RAFFAELE 2005; petrological and geological studies, see ASTON 1994; HARREL, BROWN and MASOUD 2000, and the reconstruction of manufacturing techniques. The study on stone vessels has recently tended to concentrate on the recon-

During the 1st Dynasty the largest tombs in the Abu Roash cemetery contained various wares, including ‘subspecies’ and vessels made of black stone, such as mudstone, basalt and tuff. During that period, a ‘hierarchical norm’ might have been established in the selection of stone vessels. By contrast, the stone-vessel assemblages in nearly all 2nd Dynasty tombs were composed of common wares and stones. Thus, the ‘hierarchical norm’ apparently disappeared during that period. Moreover, stone vessels might have been distributed to local sites with common assemblages. It can be argued that the mortuary usage of stone vessels was widely promoted in the whole Nile Valley by the royal ideology. The role and social meaning of stone vessels changed during the Protodynastic and Early Dynastic Periods. It is clear that stone vessels functioned as political media for regional integration in the Early Dynastic society.

vessels concentrated on the tombs of the upper class in the Early Dynastic Period.3 This suggests that the economic opportunities of elites increased during this time. The production of stone vessels is especially important when discussing craft specialisation.4   ]

     [  #   polishing of many of the vessels suggest sophisticated workmanship. Moreover, procuring raw materials from sites often at a considerable distance from the Nile Valley was only possible through the disposition of elite ‘patrons’. While stone vessels were among the most important burial equipment of this time, scholarship +[ $+ ' {'  [ their production, such as ‘large-scale production’ or ‘attached specialisation’.5

struction of manufacturing techniques and tools through experimental studies, see STOCKS 2003, the observation of drilling and polishing marks on the surface of the vessels, see HENDRICKX et al. 2001, and stone implements found from workshops, see VON DER WAY 1988; JÓRDECHKZ 2004. In this regard, Kopp researched the mortuary usage of stone vessels, see KOPP 2007. Kopp made clear that compared to the Predynastic Period, stone vessels tend to concentrate on the tombs of the upper class in the Early Dynastic Period. In addition, he discussed the relationship between rare stone types and rich tombs in the First Dynasty. However, Kopp does not mention the social meanings and/or functions of the stone vessels themselves. Therefore, scholars have so far not examined the mortuary usage and the social meanings of stone vessels in the Early Dynastic Period in detail.

62

Keita Takenouchi

What is the background of these changes in stone vessel production? Why did the utilisation of stone vessels increase dramatically? The mortuary usage of stone vessels has not been discussed in detail. An development in craft specialisation is often a sign of growing social differentiation and changes in social relationships. However, demand and utilisation are preconditions for an industry. Therefore, this paper examines the social meanings and roles of stone vessels in the Early Dynastic society. Given the amount of labour required to produce them, it is clear that stone vessels were valuable and served important functions. First, I will examine the function of vessels as containers. I will consider the substantial function of stone vessels in eatingand-drinking funerary rituals. Next, I will explore the relationship between stone vessel assemblages buried in tombs and the social status of the tomb owners. The variety of wares and the types of stone are different in each tomb. This might be greatly affected by the social status and/or wealth of the tomb owners. METHODS Following, two analytical methods were used: W" 9 #?  #' %      '  8?9 The actual function of vessels as containers has been  #      ' [$    ' 'nasty and the OK. Cylindrical jars are commonly represented in relief slabs and offering lists. Their      #   $     ments.6 Non-handled jars served as containers for cosmetic products. Open forms such as bowls, dishes and plates served as containers for funerary meals. The use of these bowls and plates for prepared foods #$ ' „  [7 However, it has not    #  ] [    ^  + [+ meats, fowl) were contained in/on the bowls, dishes and plates, aside from a few discussions of the Early Dynastic Period.8 Therefore, the vessel sizes of the

6 7 8 9

10

HENDRICKX 1994, 125. HENDRICKX 1994, 127. HASSAN 1938, 26; HENDRICKX 1994. Volume calculations would be preferable for the determination of the social rank of the tomb owners, see e.g. G RISWOLD 1992; CASTILLOS 2000. However, because the height of the tombs is not described in the reports of the cemeteries of Abu Roash, we cannot calculate the volume of the tombs. KLASENS 1958a, 1958b, 1959, 1960, 1961.

open forms (Figs. 1–3) for each stone type were analysed. The vessel size is an important clue for determining the function of a vessel. Afterwards, the vessel sizes were compared with the pictorial sources of funerary relief slabs and offering lists. W" 9 #? % ?%  #      ^       {  [ ]     have social implications. The variety of wares and the materials of the stone vessels could have been restricted by social norms to certain classes of people. This assumption is considered in the analysis. Many methods exist for determining social rank, each with their own drawbacks. Previous scholars ^ [  ‹ {$ sess the social position. The tomb size (i.e. the hor‹ {$ [  $  ] chosen as an indicator of the wealth or social rank of the tomb owners.9 I selected the cemetery of Abu Roash as a case study, because it was used continuously throughout the Proto- to Early Dynastic Period and because a large number of stone vessels10 were discovered there.   $ ‹  ] $        # ures and descriptions in the publications of Abu Roash. The numerical value was obtained by multiplying the long axis by the short axis. Following, I compared the tomb size with the assemblage of wares and the types of stone used for the vessels. Each tomb considered in this study was then dated using Hendrickx’s chronology:11 the Proto-Dynasty is IIIA–B, the 1st Dynasty is IIIC, and the 2nd Dynasty is IIID. $ '‘  #       12 $ '‘  # '  = }§X§@ '   jar), G/Z13 (non-handled jar) and S/T (bowl, dish, and plate) – can be categorised as the basic assemblages since these types have generally been found in many tombs (Fig. 1). Other types – I, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, U, X, Y, V, DD, EE, FF, GG, XX and YY, consisting of vessel stand, handled jar, jug with

11 12

13

HENDRICKX 2006. EMERY 1938, 1939, 1949, 1954, 1958. Moreover, his typological list was later used and extended by Klasens from the Leiden Museum of Antiquities during his excavation at the site of Abu Roash. See KLASENS 1961 with additional literature on previous works. Types Z1, Z12, Z13 and Z15 (the right end of the middle on # š]  [  1st Dynasty, the used stone gradually becomes of a

# Œ '  `      [ ¨#  Š[Š   ‘

+  same time considerably facilitated the large-scale [ ^  š*31 He also noted that >š ]  $  ^   $' ^    

] ] # ' +  interior of tuff vessels was apparently drilled with a ¨#  Š[Š   ‘  š* 32. Tuff vessels had the same size as travertine and limestone ones. Therefore, travertine and limestone bowls were manufactured using the same tools and methods. This increase in soft stone and the decrease in hard stone (e.g. basalt and diorite) enabled a largerscale production in the 2nd Dynasty. It is also possible, however, that the decrease in black stone vessels was caused by changes in funerary rituals. Vessels made of mudstone, basalt and diorite were apparently no longer needed in eating-and-drinking funerary rituals. Thus, the functions of bowls, dishes and plates as indicated by the stone type in the 1st Dynasty seem to have disappeared in the 2nd Dynasty. This could be related to the emergence of the relief slab during the same period. A relief slab depicts the funerary repast and the associated offerings. Thus, stone vessels buried in tombs as real vessels did not need to express a practical function by the used stone type. It is possible, therefore, that the decrease in black stone vessels was caused not only by an increased production of soft stone vessels, but also by the introduction of relief slabs. Furthermore, ‘small vessels’ are almost all $  #' +]  restricted rim (the right end of the middle on Figs.

25

29

   ^    ƒ  {    ]+       [  vessel and is calculated by means of 100 × Mx / H. A bowl is VI 150~275, a dish is VI 275~500, a plate is VI 500+. 26 KÖHLER;!!+#  ‡>    ! &QQ‡  , UPAC 2, Leipzig.

1931

Mycerinus: the Temple of the Third Pyramid, Harvard.

1958b The Excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at Abu Roash: Report of the Second Season: 1958. Part I, OMRO 39, 32–55. 1959

The Excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at Abu Roash: Report of the Second Season: 1958. Part II, OMRO 40, 41–61.

1960

The Excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at Abu Roash: Report of the Third Season: 1959. Part I, OMRO 41, 69–94.

1961

The Excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at Abu Roash: Report of the Third Season: 1959. Part II, OMRO 42, 108–128.

KÖHLER, E.C.

REISNER, G.A.

STEVENSON, A. ;!!     # [ ' ''nastic Palettes, in: R. MAIRS and A. STEVENSON (eds.),  @ 0 {&>5&>?__]. Proceedings of 0  60* >5  }0 0 /  ‹  0    >! &€`‚?__]:Oxford. STOCKS, D.A. (ed.) 2003

{65   {&>5  * 0&>+ }

& Technology in Ancient Egypt, London/New York.

STOCKS, D.A. 2003

Making Stone Vessels, in: D.A. STOCKS (ed.), {65 ments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, London/New York.

2008

Early Dynastic Society at Memphis, 381–399, in: E.M. ENGEL, V. MÜLLER and U. HARTUNG (eds.), Zeichen +  ˜ 0 &>5[0 0 Ehren von Günter Dreyer, Menes 5, Wiesbaden.

TEETER, E. (ed.)

2009

;} + 0 { > ‡>   $ % & ƒnerary Relief Slabs, SAGA 25, Heidelberg.

VON DER WAY, T.

2014

;}+{6   $5  Y:/U–]_, SAGA 26, Rahden/Westfalen.

KROEPER, K. and WILDUNG, D. 1994

 0*$ {   Q! Š0&0 0 0  Friedhof im Nildelta. Gräber 1–UUY. Mainz.

2000

 0*$ {   Q! Š0&0 0 0  ƒ 0!  [ ~ UU]–?_Y, Mainz.

2011 1988

Before the Pyramids, Chicago. Tell el Fara’in-Buto, 3. Bericht, ‡*% 44 (1988), 297–306.

WILKINSON, T. 2010

The Early Dynastic Period, 48–62, in: A.B. LLOYD (ed.), *5 * {&>5, Blackwell 5   0 *  " : *  ;  >, Chichester.

+X7,$>+[5+>$;7\7" >#   #@\%W5 '8 Jördis Vieth1 Abstract: This paper will present the phenomenon of ‘temple towns’, built by the Egyptians in the course of their conquest of Nubia, their southern neighbour, during the NK. The focus lies on investigating the development of these towns over a time span of nearly 500 years. This began with the reoccupation of the enormous Egyptian MK fortresses between the First and Second Cataract and continued until the construction of walled, temple centred towns placed in open areas as far south as the

Fourth Cataract. This transformation process will be exempli# '   X +}`+}$– + Island and Sesebi. The political background will also be considered along with the theoretical aspects behind the reconstruction of the temple towns. Furthermore, the important question regarding the inhabitants of these ‘colonial’ settlements will also be tackled – whether they were Egyptians, Nubians or Egyptianised Nubians.

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EGYPTIAN OCCUPATION IN NUBIA

2. TOWNS AND CITIES IN THEORY

Kamose, the last sovereign of the Theban 17th Dynasty, prevented an alliance of the Hyksos with Nubian rulers. Instead, he led a military campaign into Lower Nubia, where he came as far as the old MK fortress of Buhen.2 However, it took another 90 years [   ' #[ $ ' campaigns to conquer Nubia. Thus, Egypt’s southern frontier was pushed beyond the 4th cataract – an event which was marked by a stela at Hagr el-Merwa at the time of Thutmose III.3 Under the same king Nubia was structured into Wawat or Lower Nubia (from the 1st to the 2nd cataract/Semna) and Kush or Upper Nubia (from the 2nd cataract/Semna to the 4th cataract) (see map: Fig. 1). Later on, the viceroys were given a deputy for each of these divisions, the idnw, who helped with the administration directly on site.4 In the following centuries major construction programmes were undertaken in Nubia as far as Gebel Barkal. But afterwards only very few building activities can be detected, for example by the late Ramesside kings, until one of the last Nubian viceroys, Panehsy, changed sides and fought against the Egyptians, marking the beginning of the end of the Egyptian occupation in Nubia.5

Back in 1972, a short article by Kemp was published  # [  $ [+ ] „ $     [#  ]6 Only two settlements were known in greater extent by that time   [   + {      [ knowledge back in the 1970s. These two settlements were Amara West and Sesebi, both situated between the 2nd and 3rd cataract, founded by the Egyptians and dat  „| < „ $   $[#  towns because they were enclosed by a town wall. Furthermore, according to Kemp they had particular features in common, such as a planned grid, an Egyptian stone temple and administrative and residential buildings made of mudbricks. Therefore, these towns with [$  $`  #' [  $ 7 Since then Kemp’s model has been generally accepted and was never really evaluated again, although recently a lot of fresh research has continued to be conducted in Sudan.8 As mentioned earlier, all these NK settlements in Nubia included a stone temple, for which perhaps, the term ‘temple town’ evolved. But except for Kemp and later on Hein and Morkot, no one attempted  

' #    [  ^ settlements that cover a time span of nearly 500 years. However, they were all labelled as ‘temple towns’.9 It is

1

5

2 3

4

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich (Germany), PhD researcher of the ERC Starting Grant project AcrossBorders by Julia Budka, hosted by the Austrian Academy of Sciences/LMU Munich, [email protected]. HABACHI 1972; SMITH and EMERY 1976, 206. ZIBELIUS-CHEN ;!  @   0  5 : ADAIK 8, Glückstadt.

HEIDORN, L.A. 1999

Nubian Towns and Temples, 579–583, in: K.A. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, London/New York.

HEIN, I. 1991

Die Rammessidische Bautätigkeit in Nubien, GOF IV 22, Wiesbaden.

BUDKA, J. and DOYEN, F.

HESSE, A.

2012/13 Living in New Kingdom Towns in Upper Nubia – New Evidence from Recent Excavations on Sai Island, Ä&L 22/23, 167–208.

1981

BUZON, M.R.

5:^\__j–*‡]__:ProblÄg 29, Leiden.

TRIGGER, B. 1965

;  > |}  :Yale University Publications in Anthropology 69, New Haven.

1976

Nubia Under the Pharaohs, Ancient Peoples and Places 85, London.

VALBELLE, D. 2004

SMITH, S.T. 1991

* "U/0* 0  @5 :ExcMem 36, London.

TÖRÖK, L. 2009

Aniba, 272–278, in: |:Wiesbaden.

SCHIFF GIORGINI, M. 1971

* "| & {&>5  :London.

/0{&>5 *  :New York.

SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T. 1975

2014

SPENCER, P. and SHINNIE, P.L.

POSENER, G. 1958

SPENCER, N., STEVENS, A. and BINDER, M.

Egypt and Nubia, 227–251, in: S.E. ALCOCK (ed.), {5  ‹ 5  !  * 0&>  ;  >: Cambridge/New York.

MORRIS, E.F. 2005

Sesebi 2011, SudNub 15, 34–39.

Egyptians on the Middle Nile, 92–99, in: D.A. WELSBY and J.R. ANDERSON (eds.), Sudan. Ancient Treasures: an {60    ! @ ‡    !  0  tional Museum, London.

VERCOUTTER, J. 1963 1986

Excavation at Aksha. September 1961–January 1962, Kush 11, 131–139. Préface: L’archéologie de l’Ile de Saï, 7–17, in: B. GRA(ed.), La Nécropole Kerma. Sai 1, Paris.

TIEN

VOGEL, C. 2004

Ägyptische Festungen und Garnisonen bis zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches, HÄB 46, Hildesheim.

2010

Master Architects of Ancient Nubia: Space-saving Solutions in Middle Kingdom Fortresses, 421–430, in: W. GODLEWSKI and  &  (eds.), Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian  :" }   >:?\*&–?5  ?__€:ƒ? ‹5 :PAM supplement series 2, Warsaw.

84

Jördis Vieth

WELSBY, D.A. 2004

The Hidden Treasures of Lake Nubia, SudNub 8, 103– 104.

ZIBELIUS-CHEN, K. 2013

Nubien wird ägyptische Kolonie, 135–155, in: S. WEand K. ZIBELIUS-CHEN (eds.), Die Kulturen Nubiens – ein afrikanisches Vermächtnis, Dettelbach.

NIG

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL STUDIES

+>++>3",7>7$",>3";$3">7$ >?"8!  !%977 ,7@'š ]    ]   [   '  ' #  ƒ    $   ' one sanctuary or another: e.g. Memphis vs. Sais) or successively (the policy represented by [the Apis] stela and the inscriptions [on the statue] of Udjahorresnet following a  [   š*  +      doubt that the Persian takeover of Egypt passed without any disturbance and uncontrolled upheavals, having in mind the initial distrust and tensions between conqueror and those conquered, especially after the battle of Pelusium, the murder of the Persian envoy and the fall of Memphis. Although many modern authors persistently advocate the opinion that the hostile tradition towards Cambyses among the Classical writers (Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo) is part of a literary topos and is possibly coloured by later Persian misdeeds under Xerxes I and especially Artaxerxes III (e.g. LLOYD5&  >  ;  ! Jack A. Josephson, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 38, Leiden/Boston.

BOTHMER, B. 1960

{&>5 5 !0|‹ #\__j*‡ U__', New York.

BRANDL, H. and JANSEN-WINKELN, K.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AGUT-LABORDÈRE, D. 2005

Le sens du Décret de Cambyse, Transeuphratène 29, ¿ *6 *;  >!0‹  {pire, Winona Lake.

BURKARD, G. 1994

Literarische Tradition und historische Realität: die persische Eroberung Ägyptens am Beispiel Elephantine. Teil I, ZÄS *  „   : ?€ ¿?\   ?__Y, Paris. Pas d’Apis pour Sarapis, 213–225, in: A. GASSE, F. SERand C. THIERS (eds.), Et in Ægypto et ad Æegyptum. Recueil d’études dédiées à Jean-Claude Grenier, CENiM 5/2, Montpellier.

VAJEAN

1899

Textes provenant du Sérapéum de Memphis, RT 21, ›"¿_

1900

Textes provenant du Sérapéum de Memphis, RT 22, 5 0  /   #Ÿ &6H' 5~  0[ &:/ U+/6:/ ?+/60&, ÄgAbh 69, Wiesbaden.

GORRE, G. 2009

Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d’après les sources privées, StudHell 45, Leuven.

GOZZOLI, R. 2006

/0 "  & ! ;  >  *  {&>5  & 0 ƒ     j # U_\_¿U‚_ j'+ /   Perspectives, London.

GRALLERT, S. 2001

DEVAUCHELLE, D. 1994

Zwanzig demotische Apisinschriften, ‡*% 53, ;_¿›"

j `  ! ` " 0 &>5 0 jQ  Res  & 0 !   *!~&     ^_ Dynastie, ADAIK 18, Berlin.

GRIMAL, N. 1981

| 50‹ #Ÿ  0'>›  #5  \    Y Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende, Berlin.

KITCHEN, K. 19862 /0 /0     ‹   {&>5 #UU__–€]_ j', Westminster. KLASENS, A. 1945–48 Cambyses en Egypte, JEOL *Q@ !  ;  /5, New Haven.

2015

Persian Period, in: W. GRAJETZKI and W. WENDRICH (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles.

The Persians and the Continuity of Egyptian Culture, " 05*5 €Q‚:UXX_`**   0 gen, Chicago.

JOSEPHSON, J.A. 1988

KOCH, C. 2014

An Altered Royal Head of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, JEA 74, 232–235.

JURMAN, C. 2009

2010

From the Libyan dynasties to the Kushites in Memphis: historical problems and cultural issues, 113–138, in: G.P.F. BROEKMAN, R.J. DEMARÉE, and O.E. KAPER (eds.), The Libyan period in Egypt: historical and cultural   0?UQ?Y0‡> ‹  &! ! |    >:?]Q?\$ ?__\. Leiden; Leuven. Running with Apis. Memphite Animal Cults as a Point of Reference for Social and Religious Practices in Late

Usurpation and the Erasure of Names during the Twen'Šƒ''+_¿˜5^\__j`*‡]__, ProblÄg 29, Leiden. ;   , Leiden.

THOMPSON, D.J.

DIODORUS SICULUS

POLYAENUS  '   $  +   '  –± [{+ Leipzig 1887. STRABO Geography, with an English translation by H. L. Jones, Vol. VIII, Book XVII, General Index, The Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge, MA 1917.

20122 Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton. VENTICINQUE, P.

ONLINE SOURCES (last accessed on the 27th of March, 2016)

2006

Transcription of Papyrus Zagreb 597-2 available here: https:// sites.google.com/site/pierremeyrat/Home/publications.

What’s in a Name? Greek, Egyptian and Biblical Traditions in the Cambyses Romance, BASP˜_+7$k7>+3"!>7$ >?'?' #?"[ +!8 78' ? Theban Necropolis Alice McClymont1 Abstract:   [   $  #   [   }$  + #

'   [}$   §}`  +] the campaign of erasure instigated against certain words and im +  ' $ #  [  }$–  the motivation behind these erasures has been discussed, the execution of the campaign and its impact on certain monuments deserves more thorough study. The private tombs of the Theban necropolis provide an ideal case study to explore these aspects. The following paper will provide a threefold examination. Firstly, it considers the individuals who physically carried out the destruction. The erasers themselves have received only limited and generalised characterisations in the scholarship, however a

holistic analysis of the erasures show that there was great variation in what was targeted, and thus potentially great variation in the identity, organisation, and skill of those who executed them. Secondly, the space of the necropolis and tombs in which the erasures occurred is examined to explore questions such as accessibility, movement, and method. Individual tombs and erasures can demonstrate how certain erasers interacted with these monuments and how these spaces affected their work. Finally, by considering the act of erasure itself, the ideological impact of the campaign is addressed, revealing the effect of the destruction on the function of the tomb, and the multifaceted relationships that the living had with these mortuary spaces.

INTRODUCTION

While there is much to be said about ‘what’ was targeted and ‘why’ during the Amarna Period, the questions of ‘how’ and ‘where’, i.e. the method and physical context of the destruction, remain neglected. The following discussion will explore these av    œ# '+    erasures, i.e. the groups or individuals who carried them out; secondly, the physical space of both the necropolis and the tombs, and how the campaign affected this space (or how this space affected the campaign); and thirdly, the potential ideological implications of the erasures for the tombs, the tomb owners, and the erasers themselves.

The reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten can be seen as a meeting point between tradition and transformation, and one result of this meeting was the campaign of erasure against certain elements that apparently had no place in this king’s new religious programme. The primary target of this campaign was the name and image of the god Amun, which was intentionally damaged on a number of monuments throughout Egypt, but certain other el $  ]         #  ƒ2 In the decoration of the private tombs in the Theban necropolis, other common erasures included the name of Amun’s consort Mut, as well as the sign in words such as mw. t ‘mother’;3 the words nTr.w ‘gods’ and p sD. t ‘ennead’;4 #  [   [# ]       `   $Š monly referred to as the sem-priest);5 and symbols of Amun such as rams and geese.6

1

2

3

Macquarie University, Sydney (Australia), [email protected]. For an overview of the deities and monuments targeted, see GABOLDE 1998, 32–34. E.g. ‘Mut’ in TT 55 (DAVIES 1941, 17, pl. VIII, lower register, line 9); ‘mother’ in TT 79 (GUKSCH 1995, 165, pl. 41, line 12).

THE ACTORS OF THE ERASURE CAMPAIGN >?d  #7 9 In considering who was responsible for the erasure campaign, it seems indisputable that the direction must have come from the highest authority, pre-

4

5

6

E.g. nTr.w in TT 110 (DAVIES 1932, 287, pls. 36, 39, lines 1, 5, 15); psD.t in TT 66 (NI. DAVIES 1963, 10–11, pl. XI [upper], left, lines 3–4). E.g. in TT 82 (DAVIES and GARDINER 1915, 40, pl. V); in TT 90 (DAVIES 1923c, 26, pl. XXXV). E.g. ram head decorations on coils of rope in TT 69 (HARTWIG;!5+;  > & 0/ ! the Pharaohs, translated by A. Jenkins, New York.

2003

The Ramesside Tomb and the Construction of Sacred Space, 46–52, in: N. STRUDWICK and J.H. TAYLOR (eds.), The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, London.

2006

Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies, translated by R. Livingstone, Stanford.

2014

From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change, Cairo.

BAINES, J. and LACOVARA, P. 2002

Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society: Respect, Formalism, Neglect, Journal of Social Archaeology 2, 5–36.

BELL, L. 1997

The New Kingdom “Divine” Temple: the Example of Luxor, 127–184, in: B.E. SHAFER (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca/New York/London.

BORCHARDT, L. 1934

Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleu    % :   U`U?XY , Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Berlin.

BRAND, P. 1999

Secondary Restorations in the Post-Amarna Period, JARCE 36, 113–134.

BRYAN, B.M. 2001

Painting Techniques and Artisan Organization in the Tomb of Suemniwet, Theban Tomb 92, 63–72, in: W.V. DAVIES (ed.), Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt, London.

BOCHI, P.A. 1999

Death by Drama: the Ritual of damnatio memoriae in Ancient Egypt, GöttMisz 171, 73–86.

DAVIES, N. DE GARIS 1913

ƒ  /0 / #j & 0 ! 0 050!:  : ‡&: 0}~>  / ', ASEg 21, London.

1917

The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes, PMMA 1, New York.

1920

/0/!*!  :   ! :!0  " !:#€_', TTS 2, London.

1923a Akhenaten at Thebes, JEA 9.3/4, 132–152. 1923b The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes 2, PMMA 3, New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALDRED, C.

1923c /0 / ! /} $!ˆ  ! /0  0 ƒ 0 #\]X_', TTS 3, London. 1930

The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes I, PMMA 5, New York.

1932

Tehuti: Owner of Tomb 110 at Thebes, 279–290 in: S.R.K. GLANVILLE (ed.), Studies Presented to F. Ll. [#+~

ASSMANN, J.

1941

The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose, MET 1, London.

1997

1943

The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes I, PMMA 11, New York.

19753 Egypt: the Amarna Period and the End of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 49–97, in: I.E.S. EDWARDS, C.J. GADD, N.G.L. HAMMOND and E. SOLLBERGER (eds.), The Cam &* ;  >?+/0 {0 *&@& U^‚_`U___j, Cambridge. 0{&>5 +0 >!{&>5 "  Monotheism, Harvard.

120

Alice McClymont

DAVIES, Ni. DE GARIS

HARTWIG, M.

1963

2011

An Examination of Art Historical Method and Theory: a Case Study, 313–326, in: A. VERBOVSEK, B. BACKES and C. JONES (eds.), Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptolo& +; !  &   } 0! 0 Paradigmenwechsels in den Altertumswissenschaften, Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft 4, Munich.

2013

/0/05!#//€X'+0* : : and Science of Painting in an Egyptian Tomb, ARCE Conservation Series 5, Cairo.

! /0/#^‚:€€:U€?:} 0 {6 5! ‚U', PTT IV, Oxford.

DAVIES, Ni. DE GARIS and GARDINER, A. 1915

/0/!*0#‚?', TTS 1, London.

DIJK, J. VAN 2000

The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom (c. 1352–1069), 272–313, in: I. SHAW (ed.), /0 $6!  ;  >!* {&>5, Oxford.

DZIOBEK, E. 1992

‡[  +/0 ‚U, ArchVer 68, Mainz.

1994

‡ [ ~   Q*+/0 €U U^U, ArchVer 84, Mainz.

EATON-KRAUSS, M. 2003

Restorations and Erasures in the Post-Amarna Period, 194–202, in: Z. HAWASS and L. PINCH BROCK (eds.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: ‹  & ! 0 { &00    &  ! {&>5& :: ?___, Cairo.

ERMAN, A. 1934

‡ @ &  &>5 +0 "  &0  vier Jahrtausenden, Berlin.

FLOWER, H. 2006

The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture, Chapel Hill.

GABOLDE, M. 1998

HAYES, W.C. 1960

A Selection of Tuthmoside Ostraca from Der el-Bahri, JEA 46, 29–52.

HEDRICK, C.W. 2000

;  > +‹ &@0   !ory in Late Antiquity, Austin.

HEGAZY, E. S. A. and TOSI, M. 1983

* /0 ‹  /+ /  ?X], ArchVer 45, Mainz am Rhein.

HORNUNG, E., KRAUSS, R. and WARBURTON, D.A. (eds.) 2006

Ancient Egyptian Chronology, HbOr 83, Leiden.

IVERSEN, E. 1996

The Reform of Akhenaten, GöttMisz 155, 55–59.

JAROŠ-DECKERT, B. 1984

‡H* 0À/  0, CIAHA 3, Lyon.

[ & * !+UX€^QUX\_+‡[  :Theben 13, Main am Rhein.

KANAWATI, N. and HASSAN, A.

1978

‡ [   j=: & ‹0„+ /0  ^Y^, AVDAIK 7, Mainz.

1996

1995

Die Gräber des Nacht-Min und des Men-cheper-Ra-se+/0 ‚\\X, ArchVer 34, Mainz.

KEMP, B.J.

GUNDLACH, R. 1991

Das Grab des Sennefer, 36–62, in: A. EGGEBRECHT (ed.), Sennefer: die Grabkammer des Bürgermeisters von Theben, Mainz.

1987

/0/  >„„ +/0/!* 0hor, ACE Reports 9, Warminster. The Amarna Workmen’s Village in Retrospect, JEA 73, 21–50.

LABOURY, D. 2010

Akhénaton, Paris.

HABACHI, L.

LYON CRAWFORD, C.

1958

2007

Clearance of the Tomb of Khereuf at Thebes (1957– 1958), ASAE 55.2, 325–350.

HARI, R. 1984

La religion amarnienne et la tradition polythéiste, 1039–1055, in: F. JUNGE (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und @ & &>5+{0  "!0 " !: Š  0  ƒ 0Š ?+@ gion, Göttingen.

Collecting, Defacing, Reinscribing (and Otherwise Performing) Memory in the Ancient World, 10–42, in: N. YOFFEE (ed.), &  &0‹ 0‹+ >: Memory and Landscape in Archaeological Research, Tuscon.

MANNICHE, L. 1988a Lost Tombs: a Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monuments in the Theban Necropolis, London.

Action, Reaction & Interaction 1988b /0 " ‡   ! /0  /0 / #// \\: U\]:?YX', CNIP 4, Copenhagen. MANUELIAN, P. DER 1999

Semi-Literacy in Egypt: Some Erasures from the Amarna Period, 285–298, in: E. TEETER and J.A. LARSON (eds.), Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in ; !{} ƒ", SAOC 58, Chicago.

SAAD, R. 1972

|  &    >    5 d’Amon-Re à Karnak, Dissertation Lyon.

SALEH, M. 1977

Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes: 1. The Tomb of Q* 0YU?:?/0/!%0>Y_]:^ /0/!0>U‚€, ArchVer 14, Mainz.

MEGALLY, M.

SCHULMAN, A.R.

1981

1964

Un intéressant ostracon de la XVIIIe dynastie de Thèbes, jƒ*$81 Supplement, 293–312.

MOSTAFA, M.F. 1995

‡[ ! 050#//?]\', Theben 8, Mainz. The Theban Tomb 260 of User, SAK 20, 173–202.

1997

1996

/0/!%0 !+/0/UX?, OIP 102, Chicago.

2003

PARKINSON, R. 2008

The Painted Tomb-Chapel of Nebamun: Masterpieces of Ancient Egyptian Art in the British Museum, London.

PEDEN, A.J. 2001

/0 [ !ˆ  ! ‹0   {&>5+ 5  @ ! !  "  & # ^U__`^^? j', ProblÄg 17, Leiden.

POLZ, D. 1990 1997

Bemerkungen zur Grabbenutzung in der thebanischen Nekropole, ‡*%46, 301–336. ‡[ ; %+/0 ]Y, ArchVer 74, Mainz am Rhein.

Temples, Priests, and Rituals: an Overview, 1–30, in: B.E. SHAFER (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca/ New York/London.

SHEDID, A.G. and SEIDEL, M.

NIMS, C.F., DEVRIES, C.E., HUGHES, G.R., LARKIN, D.B., LESKO, L.H., WENTE, E.F., WILSON, J.A., BARNWELL, M.J., COLEMAN, R.H., GREENER, L., HUXTABLE, G., ROMER, J., KNUDSTAD, J. (eds.) 1980

Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period, JARCE 3, 51–69.

SHAFER, B.E.

NASR, M.W. 1993

121

/0 / !  0+ 0 *   ;  > !  { &00 ‡>> $!ˆ H /  "  /0, translated by M. Eaton-Krauss, Mainz.

STRUDWICK, N. /0 / ! *5  /=!   /0 #//?X\', ADAIK 19, Berlin.

TEETER, E. 2015

Religion and Ritual, 328–343, in: M.K. HARTWIG (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, Chichester.

VERNUS, P. 1982

Name, 320–326 in: LÄ IV, Wiesbaden.

WILSON, J.A. 1956

The Culture of Ancient Egypt, Chicago.

WINTHROP-YOUNG, G. 2005

Memories of the Nile: Egyptian Traumas and Communication Technologies in Jan Assmann’s Theory of Cultural Memory, New German Critique 96, 103–133.

REDFORD, D.B. 1984

* 0+0;  % &, Princeton.

REEVES, N. 2001

Akhenaten: Egypt’s False Prophet, London.

RUMMEL, U. 2013

Gräber, Feste, Prozessionen: der Ritualraum Theben-West in der Ramessidenzeit, 207–232, in: G. NEUNERT, K. GABLER and A. VERBOVSEK (eds.), Nekropolen: [ `j `@ j  ~&} Š0  *     5&  #*5     ›  Économie, administration et organisation territorial, Paris. Estates (Old Kingdom), in: E. FROOD and W. WENDRICH (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. Ancient Egyptian Administration, HbOr 104, Leiden.

NEWBERRY, P.E. 1909

Impressions of Seals from Abydos, AAALiv 2, 130.

1902

SPENCER, C.S. On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation: Neoevolutionism Reconsidered, JAA 9, 1–30.

2010

Territorial Expansion and Primary State Formation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107/16, 7119–7126.

2014

Modeling the Evolution of Bureaucracy: Political-Economy Reach and Administrative Complexity, {; 13.1, 42–66.

SPENCER, C.S. and REDMOND, E.M. 2003

Militarism, Resistance, and Early State Development in Oaxaca, Mexico, {; 2.1, 25–70.

2004

Primary State Formation in Mesoamerica, ARA 33, 173–199.

STEIN, G. 1994

The State, (translated by J.M. Gitterman), New York.

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1900

/0 @> / ! 0 ƒ  ‡>> , MEEF 18, London.

1901

/0 @> / ! 0 ƒ  ‡>> , MEEF 21, London. Chiefdoms at the Threshold: the Competitive Origins of the Primary State, JAA 31, 22–37.

Economy, Ritual, and Power in ‘Ubaid Mesopotamia, 35–46, in: STEIN G. and M.S. ROTHMAN (eds.), Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. The Organiza ‡> !56 >, Madison.

WEBER, M. 1966

The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York.

WENGROW, D. 2006

REDMOND, E.M. and SPENCER, C.S. 2012

Ein Bruchstück altägyptischer Annalen, AAWB, Berlin.

1990

OPPENHEIMER, F. 1926

135

The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social Transforma    0Q{*! : U_:___  ?€]_ j, Cambridge.

WENKE, J.R.

RENFREW, C.

1999

Patterns in Prehistory, New York.

1986

2009

The Ancient Egyptian State. The Origins of Egyptian  #‚___`?___j', Cambridge.

Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, 1–18, in: C. R ENFREW and J.F. CHERRY (eds.), ‹  ‹ >      Q‹   Change, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

ROTHMAN, M.S. 1994

Evolutionary Typologies and Cultural Complexity, 1–10, in: G. STEIN (ed.), Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. The Organizational Dynamics of Com56 >, Madison, Wis.

SANDERS, W.T. 1974

Chiefdom to State: Political Evolution at Kaminaljuyu. Guatemala, 97–121, in: C.B. MOORE (ed.), Reconstruct &56  +** 0& „ , BASOR Supplement 20, Cambridge, Mass.

WILKINSON, T.A.H. 1999, Early Dynastic Egypt, London. YOFFEE, N. 1993

Too Many Chiefs?, 60–78, in: N. YOFFEE and A. SHER(eds.), * 0& /0 >+"00*&da?, Cambridge. RATT

2005

Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations, Cambridge.

ONLINE SOURCES (last accessed on the 27th of March, 2016)

SERRANO, J.A.

Stevenson, A.

;!!%   [   †#œ][ferent Concepts in the Same Context, 1119–1137, in: B. Midant–Reynes and Y. Tristan (eds.), Egypt at its Ori& ?  ! ¿$ & !0 ‹ > { >‡> {&>5—:/:]0` ‚05 ?__]:OLA 172, Leuven.

2016

The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation, Journal of Archaeological Research: http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s10814-016-9094-7

E. Frood and W. Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles: http://repositories.cdlib.org/ nelc/uee/1012

CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TITLE Hm-kA FROM THE OLD TO THE MIDDLE KINGDOM Raúl Sánchez Casado1 Abstract: This paper deals with some of the most unmistakable changes and developments that the title Hm-kA underwent between the OK and the MK. The Hm-kA, as one of the most    ^ [#[ [ ' +  presence in the sources. These sources are far more abundant in the OK than in the MK, and the way in that these documents present the Hm-kA denotes that the title experienced a development that altered some of its features with respect to previous periods. In this paper, I will focus on three aspects of this title:

the change in the spelling of the title in regard to the position of the arms (signs D32 and D28), which could be more than a mere change in the graphic conventions; the reduction in the $ [[#   [    positions as a proof of the profound change in the structure and   [   [# ™     [ $         [  [#+]     { [  [$[[    structure, functions and conception.

INTRODUCTION

takes part in the funerary cult, this translation can easily lead to some misunderstanding. Overall, if we take into consideration other terms, such as mortuary priest, used for the wt-priest, which can be easily confused, especially in the translation into other modern languages. The Hm-kA was a long-lived title, already documented by the Early Dynastic Period.9 Although its presence would decline in later periods, it still survived until the Late Period.10 During this long time of two thousand years the title has evolved, and even if some of its characteristics were altered, its    [#[ [ '  seems to have remained constant. In this paper, I shall focus on some of the most remarkable changes that the title experienced be]  „ „ #  +]

 approach the change or modernisation of the spelling of the title; then, I will discuss the changes that [[     [ [# ™ #

'+]

 ^   ]'] HmkA was depicted during these two periods.

 '[ [#  [$   #  '  '[   [  Egyptian religion in general, and the cultic practice in particular. The publication of studies on the Egyptian priestly organisation has been a constant throughout the history of Egyptology,2 especially those topics that   ] $ Š $  #

']  high priesthood3 of the main Egyptian worship centres. Nevertheless, we do not have too many studies that deal, as a single subject, with the different priestly titles, and it is only recently that titles as important as the lector4 or the sem5 have been the subject of monographs. Consequently, there are still several priestly titles that need to undergo thorough examination. The Hm-kA is undoubtedly one of these cases. Although there are some papers on the topic,6 the title is still lacking a detailed monographic study.7 This circumstance may seem surprising given the $ [# ' $ing the funerary cult, and the important number of sources available, especially for the OK. The title has been traditionally translated as funerary priest, ka-servant or ka-priest.8 Among these translations, the one that seems to me least adequate and nevertheless has been used most is that of funerary-priest. Since the Hm-kA is not the only priest that

1

2 3 4 5 6

Ancient History Department, University of Seville (Spain), [email protected]. E.g. KEES 1953; SAUNERON 1960; BLACKMAN 1998. E.g. LEFEBVRE 1929; KEES 1964; MAYSTRE 1992. FORSHAW 2014. LARCHER 2013. Cf. KAPLONY 1965; ALLAM 1985; LUFT 1986; GOLOVINA 1992; SEYFRIED 2013.

CHANGE IN THE GRAPHICAL CONVENTIONS OF THE TITLE Hm-kA IN THE OK AND THE MK In general terms, the title Hm - kA is quite homogeneous in its spelling. It is commonly constituted by the sign Hm and the pair of arms (signs D28 and

7

8

9 10

Accordingly, I have decided to make this topic the subject of my doctoral thesis, which is currently being developed at the University of Seville, under the supervision of Dr. José Miguel Serrano Delgado and Dr. Antonio Morales Rondán. Cf. ERMAN and GRAPOW 1953, 90; GARDINER 1957, 581; FAULKNER 1962, 169. E.g. KAPLONY 1963, no. 391. E.g. EL-SAYED 1975, 77.

138

Raúl Sánchez Casado

D3211), which in most cases surrounds the Hm sign.12 Determinatives are not often shown when the title appears in singular form, while the sign A1 is the most frequently used to write the plural form.13 In the tomb of Akhethotep at Saqqara,14 one can see the substitution of the pair of arms sign by the sign D29, namely the ka-sign upon a banner.15 In this way, it can be argued that the most relevant change is precisely the substitution in the spelling of the title from sign D32 (group D31) to sign D28 (group D31A), which alters the position of the arms sign. This change seems to have taken place between the OK and the MK, the use of the group D31 being more common during the OK, while D31A was more often attested in the MK and successive periods. Loret16] [ #  this change and propose that the group D31 should not be read as Hm - kA but as sekhen. He also explained that the sign Hm should be interpreted as a beer jar over a support, which would justify that the original translations of the title were that of “porteur”. Loret’s theory was later adopted and developed by Montet, who in the conclusion of his classical work     5 ›   6 égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire undertook an interesting approach that mainly searched for a clear  # [    ƒ [  [   Hm - kA [#  $' [       to the analysis of the title, Montet tends to avoid offering a translation, and his interest focused on providing a comprehensive introduction before even analysing what he considered to be a double mistake in the interpretation of this title: “erreur de lecture” and “erreur de traduction”.17 He argued that the sign D32 should not be read with the phonetic value kA, because the sign is not used with this particular sound value in any other word. The  $ #  [    _;+   [ + ]  be different from that of D28, as attested in terms

11 12

13

14 15 16 17

The system of quotation of signs follows GARDINER 1957. There are some examples where the signs are not written as a group: e.g. MOHR {&>5  Tomb Chapel in the Museum of Antiquities, Leiden.

MONTET, P. 1925

 5 ›6›&>5  l’Ancien Empire, Strasbourg.

1928

Les Tombeaux de Siout et Deir Rifeh, Kêmi I, 53–68.

1930

Les Tombeaux de Siout et Deir Rifeh, Kêmi III, 45–111.

KANAWATI, N. 1983

Die Erzählung des Sinuhe, BiAeg 17, Brussels.

LANGE, H.O.

Changes and Developments in the Title Hm-kA from the Old to the Middle Kingdom MORET, A.

SAUNERON, S.

5& : ? `\05 0Q‡0#?‚__`X]_ 0 ', Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64, Mainz am Rhein.

HARI, R. 1985

|  0›   5    ! 05 #// ]_', Geneva.

LAISNEY, V. 2007

L’enseignement d’Aménémopé+ 5Ž} 0*55 6>0 Š , @ #  @ ‹ }   ' _+ GOF IV 38, Wiesbaden.

2005

Where is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Alterna^ @ # \  '+Metaphor and Symbol 20.2, 95–113.

;!!"     ]  # [ @ #  ~    Scripts, 473–484, in: V.M. LEPPER (ed.), “After Polotsky”. New Research Trends in Egyptian and Coptic Linguistics, LingAeg 14. GRINEVALD, C. ;!!! }''  '[@ # +›!=;+œ G. SENFT (ed.), >!  ˆ :|guage, Culture and Cognition 4, Cambridge.

*  {&>5  |    * j  ! @ & + The New Kingdom, Berkeley/Los Angeles.

LOPEZ, J. 1982

Catalogo del museo egizio di Torino. Serie seconda   $     ]\^?_`]\YYX:Milan.

NARROG, H. 2012

 >: = >    0&+  Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Oxford.

NEVEN, L. 2013

Remarques sur les variations de genre de certains substantifs en néo-égyptien, LingAeg 21, 139–157.

PEUST, C. 2007

Die Konjugation des Verbs für „gehen“ im Neuägyptischen, GöttMisz 212, 67–80.

POLIS, S. 2009a Etude de la modalité en néo-égyptien, Dissertation Liège. 2009b Interaction entre modalité et subjectivité en néo-égyptien. Autour de la construction mri + iwcirc “souhaiter que”, LingAeg 17, 201–229. QUACK, J. F. 1994

‡  |0  *  {  ~&>5 0  " 0 6 in seinem kulturellen Umfeld, OBO 141, Fribourg.

RAGAZZOLI, C. 2008

Â& Â&>5 ;   ›rature, Paris.

SAPPAN, R. 1987

/0 @0 Q|&   ˆ  !   Changes, Braunton.

STELLA, A. 2012

GROSSMAN, E., POLIS, ST. and WINAND, J. (eds.) 2012

|6   * {&>5 , Hamburg.

Le verbe de perception nw(A) en égyptien ancien. Etude de sémantique lexicale, 439–558, in: E. GROSSMANN, S. POLIS and J. WINAND (eds.), |6     *cient Egyptian, Hamburg.

GROSSMAN, E., LESCUYER, G. and POLIS, S.

TACKE, N.

2014

2001

Contexts and Inferences. The Grammaticalization of the Later Egyptian Allative Future, 87–136, in: E.

157

Verspunkte als Gliederungsmittel in ramessidischen Schülerhandschriften, SAGA 22, Heidelberg.

158

Gaëlle Chantrain

VERHOEVEN, U. 2001

Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift, OLA 99, Leuven.

Studies and Comparative Linguistics, Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55, Berlin. 2016

VERNUS, P. 2001

Sagesses de l’Égypte pharaonique, Paris.

1995

Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Egypte pharaonique, Paris.

VYCICHL, W. 1983

Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte, Leuven.

WENTE, E.F. 1990

Letters from Ancient Egypt, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 1, Atlanta.

WINAND, J.

The Syntax-Semantics Interface in Earlier Egyptian: a Case Study in Verbs of Cognition, 109–139, in: J. ALLEN, M. COLLIER and A. STAUDER (eds.), Coping with Obscurity: 0j }" 05{   {&>5 [  , Wilbour Studies in Egyptology and Assyriology 4, Atlanta.

in print j} ‡      ‡  Q 0, in: A. DORN and S. POLIS (eds.), Deir el-Medina and the /0 5  +‡  &0   } 0     0  > ! " , AegLeod 11, Liège. ZABA, Z. 1956

|6 ‹005, Prague.

1992

Etudes de néo-égyptien, 1. La morphologie verbale, AegLeod 2, Liège.

ONLINE SOURCES (last accessed on the 27th of March, 2016)

2014

The Oblique Expression of the Object in Ancient Egyptian, 533–560, in E. GROSSMAN, M. HASPELMATH and S. RICHTER (eds.), Early Encounters. Egyptian-Coptic

Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae: http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/index. html. Ramses database: http://ramses.ulg.ac.be.

RETENTION OR REJECTION The Fate of ‘Ältere Komposita’ at the Transition from the ‘Dreisilbengesetz’ to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’ Roman Gundacker1 Abstract: Among the compound expressions of ancient Egyptian, a group of c. 120 compound nouns (‘Ältere Komposita’) is different from all other nouns with respect to certain morphological characteristics. Above all, their word stress is pe     #Š   $ +   penultimate or antepenultimate syllable of the compound. Over time, syllable structure and stress rules changed and allowed only for the retention of those words which somehow could be brought in line with patterns which displayed word stress on the ultimate or penultimate syllable. A great number of ‘Äl-

tere Komposita’ must have failed to clear that hurdle, and even those which managed to do so were only able to accomplish this     '  '   # $    [   which allowed for truncation by one syllable. All those which did not exhibit such qualities were rejected and, at least in part, substituted with replacement formations. This paper aims at evaluating the preconditions for ‘Ältere Komposita’ to get adjusted to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’, and, furthermore, at examining which strategies were at work when they were dropped and had to be replaced with words to be newly created.

1. NOMINAL COMPOSITION IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN – ‘ÄLTERE KOMPOSITA’ VS. ‘JÜNGERE KOMPOSITA’

‘Ältere Komposita’

Ancient Egyptian knows a great number of compound nouns, i.e. ‘grammatical combinations of words, that is lexical items or lexemes, to form new words.’2 Since the ground-breaking investigation by Fecht,3 they have been divided into two groups: ‘Ältere Komposita’4 and ‘Jüngere Komposita’.5 Those two kinds of compounds display essentially divergent morphological properties,6 which, on the basis of selected examples, can be summarised as follows:

1

2

3

Recipient of an APART-fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Department Egypt and the Levant, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna (Austria), Roman.Gundacker @oeaw.ac.at. I am very much indebted to Andrea Kahlbacher and Elisa Priglinger for their commitment and patience with me and my paper. Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Joachim F. Quack for critical suggestions and bibliographical references and to Janet H. Johnson for her support with Demotic glosses, for commenting on an early draft of this paper and for proofreading it. However, needless to say, any mistake or error of fact or judgment is my responsibility alone. DRESSLER 2006, 24. |  #[$+ i.e. synthetic formations treated as morphological, deri^ + {  + '+    $ units, cf., e.g., SPENCER 1991, 309–344; FABB 1998; BAUER 2001; DE SAUSSURE 2001, 126, 148, 153–154, 161, 184–186, 213; BOOIJ et al. 2000–04; DRESSLER 2005; M ARSCHAL 2008; LIEBER and ŠTEKAUER 2009; cf. also M ALZAHN 2010, 2012, in print; LINDNER 2011–15 (with numerous additional references). FECHT 1960a.

= ] # Š  $  – word stress is found on the penultimate or antepenultimate syllable – last elements never consist of more than three consonants framing at maximum two syllables Jnj-Hrj.t ~ *JÌnÍÎj-HÌrÍt > ex. (1) *(ฎÌ)nÏÎ HrÌ ~ Middle Babylonian (pre-tonic) Na-ax-ra- ‘“the one who has returned the Far One”, Onuris’7

4

5

6

7

This term (also ‘Komposita älterer Bildungsweise’) was coined by FECHT 1960a, §§ 7–9. The phenomenon as such was #$  'STEINDORFF 1904, § 134; cf. GRIFFITH 1909, III 301, n. 2 (‘ancient compound’); SETHE 1910, 25, 1911, 28, 1923, 190–193 (‘ältere Wortzusammensetzungen’). This antonymic term (‘nouveaux composés’) was promoted by VERGOTE 1973–83, Ib § 94; cf. RICHTER 1998. Even in the most recent grammars and treatises on Egyptian historical linguistics, this distinction is neglected and the con [$] #  '+$   #

' #  [  '  behaviour, lexical specialisation or phenomena of the writing system (above all, determinatives at the very end of phrases). Cf., e.g., JANSEN-WINKELN 1996, §§ 125–129; BORGHOUTS 2010, §§ 83d, 84e, 85f, 86e, 87b2.4, 88f; ALLEN 2013a, 25, 71, 77, 2014, 48, 79–81; BROSE 2014, §§ 16.1.6, 21.4, 22, 48.2, 62, 63.1, 64.2–3, 65.2, 73.3, 87.2, 90.3, 93.2.5. Hieroglyphic spelling after PILLET 1923, 153 (naos of Senwosret I, post-Amarna restauration); The earliest attestation is, perhaps, from the reign of Khafra (KAPLONY 1977–81, II 83, pl. 27; for an attestation from the time of Pepy I, cf. KAPLONY 1977–81, II 370–371, pl. 100; for further evidence, cf. BROVARSKI 1993, 21; LEITZ 2002–03, I 378–380; HANNIG 2003, 1585); for the vocalisation patterns of the individual

160

Roman Gundacker

¦A-wrr ~ *¦ÐA-wÑrÍr > *¦Ðww(Ñ) ~ ex. (2) -ௗ௅೘ ‘Great Land (8th Upper Egyptian nome, also the environs of Thinis and Abydos)’8 ex. (3) wpw.t-rA ~ *wÍpÐwÌt-rÌA > *w . pÒÎ r ~ ÐÑ೥Ò¨  [ $‘$ Š religious ritual) 9 ex. (4) Hm-nTr ~ *HÐm-nÌTÌr > *HÓÎ  ~ SB ƙĿĻŇ ‘“god’s servant”, priest’10

8

elements, cf. OSING 1976a, I 129, 143; SCHENKEL 1983a, 154, 157; cf. also FECHT 1960a, § 319, n. 444; for the cuneiform rendering of the personal name Jnj-Hrj.t-mcj.w ‘Onuris is born’ as mNa-ax-ra-ma-áš-ši in the Amarna correspondence, EA 21,33, cf. RANKE 1910, 13; KNUDTZON 1915, I 154–155; MORAN 1992, 50; RAINEY 2015, I 158–159 (for an alternative, though less plausible interpretation of the relevant passage, cf. KNUDTZON 1915, II 1587; EDEL 1948, 24; RAINEY 2015, II 1354; GUNDACKER 2018, 126–127); for Umlaut affecting i (if unstressed or bearing only a secondary or side stress) in contact with H by the time of the 18th Dynasty, cf., e.g., tA-Hm.t-njcwt ‘the king’s wife’, which was rendered as SAL Ta-xa-mu-un-zu-uš < *tÌA-HÍm-ฎcÏ in the Deeds of Shuppiluliuma 29.A.iii,8 (GÜTERBOCK 1956, 94; cf. FEDERN 1960; KRAUSS 1978, 14–15, 18, 41–44; GABOLDE 1998, 188; BREYER 2011, 171–175, 194, 261, 377). Cf. furthermore the unusual spelling , which perhaps indicates the position of the stressed vowel, Jnj-Hrj.t ~ *ฎÌnÏÎ HrÌ (NK, SPELEERS 1923, 49 no. 38); for this ‘Älteres Kompositum’, cf. also GUNDACKER 2018, 126–127; The origins of this god, in the beginning  [ #  + '  SCHENKEL 1982). There, the mythological motif of the return of the lion goddess Mehit, which soon became associated with Hathor and the episode of Ra’s divine eye (cf. PT 405 § 705a jr.t=k tw tpj.t wpw.t @w.t-@rw ‘this eye of yours (i.e. of Ra’s) which is upon the vertex of Hathor’), evolved (JUNKER 1917; OTTO 1975; VON LIEVEN 2003; for this mythological concept and its extensive late variants, cf. JUNKER 1911; SPIEGELBERG 1917; DE CENIVAL 1988; INCONNU-BOCQUILLON 2001; QUACK 2004, 128–139; QUACK and HOFFMANN 2007, 195–229; for the Greek translation, cf. REITZENSTEIN 1923; SIGNORETTI 2010; THISSEN 2011; PRADA 2012; FEDER 2013; WEST 2013). Hieroglyphic spelling after PT 459 § 867a M (all references to Pyramid Texts, if not stated otherwise, after SETHE *rÐjjÍbÑw > *rÐjbÑ ~ *rÐฎbÑ >*rÐjbÏÛ*rÐฎbÏ ÿ rA-nj-jb ~ (*rÌA-nÍÎj-jÍb >) *rÌnÍÎjjÍb (~ *rÌnÍÎb?) ‘“mouth of the heart”, stomach, abdomen’71

Retention or Rejection

ex. (30a) bA-nj-p.t ~ *bÍA-nÍÎj-pÍt > bA-m-p.t ~ *bÍnÙÎpÏæ
ðØÔÔÚ+
ôØÔÔÚÿ (*bÍÎA-mÌ-pÍt >) *bÍÎAm . pÏ ‘sacred ram of heaven, sacred ram of/in heaven’73 } ]$ ] {  $ $Š phological principles so that they must be judged as   

'  ¨Ç   „$‘ # grj-nj-p.t ~ *gÍrÐฎm of these, . pÏ > pÏ ~ S ƝŃĿĿĹŁĩ ‘“bird of the sky”, dove’,74 *g=rÓÎฎm . displays the assimilation -np- > -mp- already in the 20th Dynasty. In Demotic sources, this word can be found in various writings,75 among them grppy,76 the reduplicated p of which still constitutes a conundrum. However, this peculiar spell 

][  #[ ]+ ]   $  $# +Š er secondary compound of this kind. In Demotic, Hrppy¨>{'  [ this word is written the sky”, a kind of bird’,77 which, per analogiam,

may be traced back to *Hrj-nj-p.t, although no hieroglyphic forerunner is attested. It is thus possible that Hrppy¨>{'  [ `'*+`[‘ was perhaps created by analogy to grj-nj-p.t ‘bird of the sky’, dove’, in which the unattested singular grjj.w ‘birds (of a certain of the rare word kind)’78 was replaced with an etymologically transparent synonym, i.e. Hrj¨{'  ‘+‘+79 a nomen agentis derived from Hrj ¨ {'‘80 If so, this kind of reshaping of ‘Ältere Komposita’ developed a life of its own and became a model for creating new (secondary) ‘Ältere Komposita’. However, it must be borne in mind that the Überlieferungszufall may deprive of original ‘Ältere Komposita’ so that their younger replacement formations look like genuine creations by analogy. A good example for this bjA-nj-p.t ~ (*b Þj ÞAmay be found with nÍÎj-pÍt >) *bÌnÙÎpÏ ~ S ģġĻijŁĩ ‘“metal of heaven”, iron’,81 the hypothetical earlier variant of which, bjA-p.t ~ *bvNJj ÞÎA-pÍt ‘“metal of heav-

73

 |   #    $  [$+ [  "% ^ ™   Greek renderings of this earliest replacement formation are attested as personal names (MITTEIS 1906, no. 97 XV, 27; BAGNALL and RUFFINI 2012, no. 127; GRENFELL and HUNT 1907, no. 401, 41; BRASHEAR 1995, 79–80; PREISIGKE 1922, 71, 73). Hieroglyphic spelling after the inscriptions of the [#[$  $@"! *gÍÎjjÌ besides *&Í ÖÎ=Ì} > *&Í ÖÎ=Ì ‘birds (doves)’. Cf. also grgr ‘(a kind of) bird’ in the Tebtynis Onomasticon (OSING 1998, I 128, 130, n. m, II pl. 10, Q, 18) and qrqr ‘(a kind of) bird’ in Papyrus Chester Beatty IV, vo. 8,15 (GARDINER 1935, I 28–44, II pl. XXI). Attested as ‘birds (of a certain kind)’ in Papyrus Sallier IV, vo. 4,7 (056&, GARDINER 1937, 91; CAMINOS 1954, 349). Wb. III, 146 (13); According to Osing, this is nothing but a specialised variant of Hrj ‘to be far off, to go away’ (Wb. III, 144–146 (5); HANNIG 2006, 597; OSING 1976a, I 38, 61). Hieroglyphic spelling of the replacement formation after Papyrus Harris I 40b,11 (GRANDET 1994, I 277, II 156, n. 620); This creation of the NK replaced the older nomen sim56 bjA ‘iron’ attested since the Pyramid Texts (cf. HANNIG 2003, 414, 2006a, I 798–799). The original formation may

172

Roman Gundacker

en”, iron’, is so far barely attested. Nevertheless, the ‘Book of Gates’ knows of an ophidian deity called bjA-tA ‘“metal of the earth”, iron’,82 which is certainly a metonymic name.83 The compound noun, which here serves as a theonym, should thus be viewed as the natural counterpart of bjA-p.t ‘“metal of heaven”, iron’ with the latter denoting meteoric iron and the earlier denoting iron ore (be it tellurian iron or be it ore, i.e., among others, haematite and magnetite).84       [#  +   $ unknown to what extent the analogical creation of ‘Ältere Komposita’ occurred, but this certainly was a restricted phenomenon. During the Saitic and Late Period, what had started out as bA-p.t ‘sacred ram of heaven’ must have been reshaped once more, because Demotic writings85 and the Coptic offspring hint at a variant containing the adjective aA ‘great’.

EXCURSUS: OBSCURATION OF COMPOSITIONAL CHARACTER AND MORPHOLOGICAL ALIGNMENT Some ‘Ältere Komposita’, which contain nomina actionis aut abstracta    # $ +87 became       #^  '   $  [   „+ which allowed for the creation of a complete verbal paradigm. Even though this process only affected a rather limited number of ‘Ältere Komposita’, some highly prominent words belong among this type. wn-Hr ~ *wÐn-HÌr > *wÐnHÌ ex. (31) ¨>  [ [ *+ ^ ‘ÿwnH ~ *wÖÎ nÌH > SേĿʼnőĻƙ¨ ^  #^ ‘88 ex. (32) cn-tA ~ *cÐn-tÌA > *cÐntÌ ‘“kissing of sntj ~ *cÐntÏ ‘to *+' ‘ÿ adore, to honour’89

ex. (30b) bA-m-p.t ~ (*bÍÎA-mÌ-pÍt >) *bÍÎAm . pÏ bA-aA-nj-p.t ~ (*bÍA-aÐA-nÍj-pÍt >) ÿ *bÍaÐAm . pÏ > *bÐam . pÏ ~ S ģġġĹŁĩ ‘sacred ram of/in heaven, great sacred ram of heaven’86

Despite the fact that historicising writings always hinted at the origins of these ‘new’ verbs, their actual compound character must have been obscured due to sound changes causing the loss of a consonant or syllable respectively. Furthermore,

be preserved in a magical text from the New Kingdom now in Turin (Pleyte and Rossi 1869–1876, II pl. CXVIII lin. 3, 12). Meteoric iron is known from the Predynastic Period onwards, cf. REHREN et al. 2013; JOHNSON et al. 2014; JOHNSON and TYLDESLEY 2016; for iron in Egypt in general, cf. WAINWRIGHT 1932; HARRIS 1961, 51–60; HELCK 1960–1969, 418–419, 968, 985 –986, 1971, 391; AUFRÈRE 1991, I 177– 181, II 431–445; CHAABAN 1995; OGDEN 2000, 166–168; RAUNIG 2014; for the vocalisation patterns of the individual elements, cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 32, 147, 154, n. 259, 157, 172, 403; OSING 1976a, I 232, 314, II 408, n. 90, 652–653, n. 676; for the Coptic offspring, cf. CRUM 1939, 41a; WESTENDORF 1965–77, 25;  [\`a, 24–25; VYCICHL 1983, 29–30; cf. furthermore FECHT 1960a, §§ 155–158, 160–166; GRAEFE 1971, 30–32. Cf. HORNUNG 1979–84, I 338, II 231 (‘der Erzgestaltige der Erde’); ZEIDLER 1999, II 285 (‘der sich Entfernende (in) der Erde’); LEITZ 2002–03, II 735; for the translation adopted here, cf. lemma no. 500341, Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla); for the replacement formation bjA-nj-tA ‘“metal of the earth”, iron’, which can be found on the East Gate of the temple at Dendera, cf. HARRIS 1961, 60; PM VI, 108; CAUVILLE 1999. For a similar example, cf. n. 47 above. Wb. I, 436 (1)–438 (5); HANNIG 2006a, 262; cf. also n. 81 above. ERICHSEN 1954, 111; JOHNSON 2002–14, fasc. b, 5 (with further references). Demotic spelling after Papyrus Sorbonne 1248, 10 (cf. JOHNSON 2002–14, fasc. b, 5); for the various Coptic offspring, including *bÍaÐAm . pÏ > *baÐAm . pÏ ~ OF ģġĹŁĩ > *baÓÎ Am . pÏ ~ S ģĿĿĹŁĩ, cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 150–154; OSING 1976a, II 431–432, n. 97; CRUM 1939, 39b; WESTENDORF

1965–77, 24, 494;  [\`a, 23; VYCICHL 1983, 28; cf. furthermore FECHT 1960a, §§ 146–149, 160–166; for the vocalisation pattern of aA ‘great’, cf. OSING 1976a, I 143; SCHENKEL 1983a, 155; GUNDACKER 2013b, 97, n. 101; cf. n. 68 above. GUNDACKER 2013b. Hieroglyphic spelling denoting a religious festival (perhaps the public appearance of a god’s cult statue) as found in the tomb of Khety II (Asyut tomb 4, FIP, GRIFFITH 1889, pl. 14 lin. 83; KAHL 1999, 24); for the Coptic offspring, cf. CRUM 1939, 486a; WESTENDORF 1965–77, 274–275;  [\`a, 214; VYCICHL 1983, 235; Demotic writings contain both historicising (wn-Hr, in particular in traditionalist or ritual context, cf., e.g., ‘Myth of the Sun’s Eye’, Papyrus Leiden I 384, V,4 and X,4–5, SPIEGELBERG 1917, 18, 30, 104; DE CENIVAL 1988, 10–11, 28–29, 82) and phonetic (wnH, cf. RYHOLT 1998, 160, n. 49) variants, cf. ERICHSEN 1954, 92; JOHNSON 2002–14, fasc. w, 103–104 (with examples including wnH=f); for the vocalisation patterns of the individual $ [ #^  ]   model for reinterpreting the compound nomen actionis aut abstractum #^ +[OSING 1976a, I 36–41, II 350, n. 12, 355, n. 17, 420–421, n. 93; The corresponding verbal syntagma wn Hr ‘“to open the face”, to draw attention to’ is already extant in the OK, cf. HANNIG 2003, 345; GUNDACKER 2013b, 99. Cf. furthermore Wb. I, 321 (15)–313 (6); PEUST 1999, 280. Hieroglyphic spelling after an inscription of Merenra near Hesse (Urk. I, 110 (13)–(16)); for the unetymological spelling of the NK, cf. an inscription on the seventh pylon of the temple at Karnak (LD, III pl. 195b–c) and the Instruction of Ani (B 16,7; 20,15; QUACK 1994, 55–56); This ‘Älteres Kompositum’ is mainly found in parallel to Dj.t-jA ‘giving of

82

83 84

85

86

87 88

89

Retention or Rejection

lexical specialisation set these compounds some][$ [

'{  $^   phrases, which allowed for semantic isolation and a special morphological development.90 In the case of wn-Hr¨>  [ [ *+ ^ ‘ÿwnH > Sേ ĿʼnőĻƙ ¨  ^   #^ ‘+ $    reshaping even allowed for the transferral into the most prominent class of verbs, i.e. triliteral verbs, because of the loss of r at the bare end of the word. The development of cn-tA ‘“kissing of ground”, ' ‘ÿsntj ‘to adore, to honour’ went not that far, i.e. this ‘Älteres Kompositum’ was reanalysed as a quadriliteral verb, although, unfortunately, no vocalised offspring seems to be preserved. 2.2. The Rejection of ‘Ältere Komposita’

173

their etymological imponderability and morphological peculiarities, which made them appear ‘irregular’ when compared to nomina simplicia of the ordinary system of noun formation.91 ??U5 ˆ ‡ 55 !{ and Decomposition The fading of second elements of ‘Ältere Komposita’ due to sound changes which caused the loss of consonants92          #  appearance of a second element. This process was moreover advanced if this element was no longer perceived as an indispensable part of the ‘Älteres Kompositum’ contributing to the semantics of the compound. The investigation of this phenomenon is  # '[ ' $  $ of historicising graphic conventions which cover up morphological and phonological developments.

It is of course impossible to provide exact information on those ‘Ältere Komposita’ which for some reason could not be adjusted to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’ and were thus discarded. However, in some instances, both the ‘Älteres Kompositum’, which was capable of passing the transition from the ‘Dreisilbengesetz’ to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’, and an independent replacement formation can be traced. This must be taken as evidence for ‘Ältere Komposita’ as being at risk of becoming sorted out and substituted on a larger scale. The reasons for this were perhaps

Some adverbial expressions,94 among them m-bAH ‘before, in front of’95 m-bAH-aw besides m-wHm-aw besides m-wHm ‘reand

praise’, perhaps another ‘Älteres Kompositum’, which sec ']   ]#^  (r)Dj.t jAjw ‘giving praise’ (for the time being, cf. GUNDACKER 2013b, 100, n. 117). It is thus plausible, as Peust suggested (PEUST 1999, 279, n. 352; cf. JANSEN-WINKELN 1996, § 63), that cntA ‘“kissing of ground”, proscynesis’ was reinterpreted as #^  $ +[

'{  ^  ' $ cn tA ‘“to kiss the ground”, to do the honneurs’ is already extant in the OK, cf. HANNIG 2003, 1155–1156; GUNDACKER 2013b, 100; for Demotic attestations, cf. ERICHSEN 1954, 435; JOHNSON 2002–14, fasc. s, 247; cf. furthermore GOYON 1968, 95, n. 60; KLOTH 2002, 162. For a similar example, cf. ex. (34) with n. 97 below. Cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 330–347. Cf. nn. 29, 54 and 70 above. This title, which is almost always found abbreviated, is well attested since the OK (e.g., false-door of Tepemanch, MARIETTE 1889, 195; Urk. I, 190 (14); for the full spelling , cf. the stela of Idi, CG 1588, FIP, BORCHARDT 1937–64, II 66). If the assumed revocalisation is accepted, there would have been hardly any difference between the high-ranking title HAt.j-aw ‘“whose arm is foremost”, duke’ and the common designation HAt.j ‘foremost one, leader’, which is attested since the Early Dynastic Period (KAHL 2002–04, III 284–285; for OK and MK attestations of the  56 in titularies, cf. JONES 2000, no. 1852–1857; HANNIG 2003, 758, 2006a, I 1593). Perhaps HAt.j ‘foremost one, leader’

may be seen as the precursor of HAt.j-aw ¨#  + ` ‘ with the latter created in order to differentiate between the [#    '+       ƒ  ly frequent expression. A later but comparable instance of disambiguation may be seen in the NK, when the common nisba adjective ~ *HÑwÙÎtÏ < *HÑAÙÎtÍj ~ HAt.j ‘foremost one, leader’ and the relicts of the archaic title HAt.j-aw ~ *HÑAÍÎtÍj-aÑw > *HÑAÍÎdaÏ ~ ‘“whose arm is foremost”, duke’ are again differentiated phonetically and graphically (cf. the (auto)biography of Amenemhab, Urk. IV, 895 (2)– (3)), though only spuriously in the shadow of historicising writings. By contrast, Fecht assumed that the title HAt.j-aw ‘“whose arm is foremost”, duke’ never was adjusted to the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’ (FECHT 1960a, §§ 337–343) but was properly decompounded. Since this would result in total homophony with the simple nisba adjective and could easily be explained as a simple replacement, and since there is no morphophonological objection to the adjustment proposed above, this explanation is less persuasive. For the vocalisation patterns of the individual elements, cf. VOLTEN 1937, 135; FECHT 1960a, §§ 337–343; OSING 1976a, I 203, 311, II 738–742, n. 897; for the supposed juncture of t and a, cf. ex. (40); cf. furthermore BAER 1960; HELCK 1954, 20– 21, 111–113; FECHT 1956, 47–51; GOEDICKE 1961; SCHMITZ 1976; BAUD 1999, I 180–183, 256–260, 308–310. Cf. FECHT 1960a, § 340 (with additional examples). Wb. I, 343(4)–(7); HANNIG 2006b, 225.

90 91 92 93

HAt.j-aw ~ *HÑAÍÎtÍj-aÑw > *HÑAÍÎtÍaÑ > ex. (33) *HÑAÍÎtaÏ> *HÑAÍÎdaÏ‘“whose arm is foremost”, HAt.j ~ *HÑAÙÎtÍj > *HÑAÙÎtÏ duke’ besides ‘foremost one, leader’93

94 95

174

Roman Gundacker

peatedly’96 are comparably ambiguous. Despite the bAH-aw and (*) wHm-aw may fact that (*) be analysed as ‘Ältere Komposita’, but this cannot be proved beyond doubt, it is impossible to show that these compound expressions were affected by decomposition because the attestations are clearly in fam-bAH vour of the assumption that the variants m-wHm had always existed side by side and m-wHm-aw. m-bAH-aw and with A decompositional process may be assumed for the following noun, from which, via backformation, a secondary verb was denominised and thus a new word family was created. Awj.t-jb ~ *AÌwÑÎ jÑt-jÍb > *AÌwÑÎ jÑtÍb ex. (34) > *AÌwÑÎ jtÍb > *AÌwÑÎ wtÍb > *AÌjjØÎ tÍb > *AÌjjÚÎ tb. iytm ‘“width of heart”, joy’ ~ *AÌjjÚÎ tm . ~ Awj.t ‘joy’97 ÿ Awj¨ '‘ÿ One must concede that this is less the dropping than, in a synchronic perspective, the elimination of indistinct residues. It is thus debatable whether this can be called decomposition stricto sensu, although the elimination of the relicts of what once was the second element of the compound must have been

96 97

Wb. I, 420 (1)–421 (10); HANNIG 2006b, 257. Hieroglyphic spelling after the pyramid temple of Sahura, BORCHARDT 1910–13, I pl. 11; for further attestations of the Early Dynastic Period and OK, cf. KAHL 2002–04, I 1; HANNIG 2003, 4; for the unetymological Demotic writing, cf. Papyrus Berlin 6750 x+3, 1, 2, 6, 18, x+4, 2, x+5, 3 from Soknopaiou Nesos (WIDMER 2015, 93–94, 159; cf. also SMITH 1979, 91–95; VITTMANN 2002/03, 120); There also existed a variant which dropped the t[ # $ œ ~ *AÌwwØÎ bÏ < *AÌwÑjÑÎ t-jÍbÑw < Awj.t-jbw (Tale of Woe 6,4, cf. CAMINOS 1976, 6, 16; for further attestations of this peculiar writing, cf. QUACK 2001, 174, n. 57). According to the phonetic writing, this involved the variant jbw¨ ‘+]+ + { $ `[   difference; cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 153, n. 257, 305, n. 434, 433, n. 613; GUNDACKER 2018, 111–112; for the vocalisation patterns of the individual elements, cf. FECHT 1960a, § 122, n. 205; OSING 1976a, I 64–77, 97–106, 1976b, 5–6, 63, 69–70, 110, 123–124, 1998, I 82, 172, 208; GUNDACKER 2011, 66 [with n. 259]; cf. also QUACK in preparation; The proposed reconstruction Awj.t-jb ~ *AÌwÑÎ jÑt-jÍb is based on the observation (cf. FECHT 1985, 87–88; PEUST 1999, 135) that b is hardened (fortition) at the end of a word if directly preceded by the stress vowel, but softened (lenition) in the [[ [  ]Š# '

   + b is affected by lenition and changed to m (for a similar case, cf. OSING *HÌwÐฎnÌTÌฎ > *HÌwÐnÌtÌ > *HÌwÐntÌ > *HwÐntÌ > *HwÓÎ ntÏ > *HฎÓÎ ntÏ ~ Old Nubian -ƙĿĻħĩ ‘“mansion of god“, Hw.t-nTrj.t ~ (*HÌwÌt-nÑÎ TrÍt  $ ‘ÿ , >) *HÌwÌnÑÎ ฎrÍÿþHÌฎnÑÎ ฎtÏ103 > *HÏnÏÎฎtÏ ~ S ƙĩĻĩĩŇĩ ‘“divine house”, monastery’104

usually interpreted as *HÐmnÌtÌ ~ *HÐnnÌTÌ < *HÐm-nÌTÌr (cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 78–80), there can be no doubt that the ‘Zweisilbengesetz’ already was in force (cf. the alteration and substitution of ‘Ältere Komposita’ in the FIP and MK) and that, accordingly, this must represent a replacement formation. Since this is not the priestly title per se but a personal name (for ‘Berufsnamen’, i.e. titles used as personal names, cf. RANKE 1935–52, II 187–191), it is not compulsory to expect the traditional ‘Älteres Kompositum’. This suggestion is corroborated by the fact that this personal name belongs to the Amarna Period, which was fond of segregating from established concepts and words connected to the polytheistic tradition; it is also noteworthy that this $     ~   '  #    €` ‘ #  þHÌQÖÎ Ì is thus most likely (RANKE 1910, 15; VYCICHL 1990, 250). In the NK (PEUST 1999, 73, 226), Hm-nTr entered Meroitic as a loanword (HINTZE 1973); the common spelling Q#'Q#' again indicates *HÌQÖÎ Ì, because in a syllable’s offset, which is the case in the expected appearance of the ‘Älteres Kompositum’ Hm-nTr ~ *HÐm-nÌTÌr > *HÐntÌ during the NK, n would not be written (cf. RILLY and DE VOOGT 2012, 110–112, 121– 122). However, Meroitic displays a late change in written forms from #'#' to #' (RILLY 2007, 113, 291, 301, 308, 367, 392, 431), which might indicate a second loan *HÐntÌ, perhaps during the occupation of the southernmost parts of Egypt in the early Ptolemaic Period (whether the idiom of the priesthood of Philae may thus be assumed as the source?). Differently ROWAN 2015, 78. Cf. GUNDACKER 2013b. Cf. FECHT 1960a, §§ 84–87; cf. also GUNDACKER 2015, 156– 157, n. 311, in print. For the original variant of this toponym, cf. n. 25 above; This variant of the toponym Memphis is not attested in genuinely Egyptian sources, it is known only from the so-called ‘Era of Menophris’ (‡î
›ƒö
`x€Ñ„xŒ…), which is an arti# [  Š€$ KRAUSS 1978, 264–273). Although often considered a perhaps unhistorical king’s name (e.g. STRUVE 1929; VON BECKERATH 1976 (with additional references); POPKO and RÜCKER 2011, 48–49), this term (BIOT 1823, 303–309), which is transmitted together with the commentary dx„ô
‡಻…
‡‚೘
^ˆ€ö…
ƒ|†‡‚~಻…
߃‚wxrvt‡t of Theon of Alexandria (4th century AD) on  ìÒÕãÔÒÐÔØÕØãÚ'@  $'TIHON 1978,

1985), must be considered a toponym if the information provided by Olympiodorus the Younger in his commentary YЅ
‡ö
ƒ„೥‡‚€
‡೥€
`x‡xŒ„‚~‚v|}೥€
£„|†‡‚‡p~‚ˆ…
†Š~|t on Aristotle’s `x‡xŒ„‚~‚v|}o (STÜVE 1900, 113) is taken into account because he states 65      that Alexandrians refer to the heliacal rising of Sothis at Memphis, not at Alexandria (cf. ROWTON 1946, 109–110; DEPUYDT 1995). For the vocalisation pattern of the nomen abstractum nfrw, cf. OSING 1976a, I 72; SCHENKEL 1983a, 195, 2005; cf. furthermore FECHT 1960a, §§ 81–84; QUACK 2002a, 50–51; GUNDACKER in print. For this kind of analogical levelling within word families in order to sustain a homogeneous root, cf. PEUST 1999, 153–154. The hieroglyphic spelling of this word is constant ever since #  _''[KAHL 2002–04, III 300–301; HANNIG 2003, 784–785; cf. furthermore Wb. III, 4 (11)–5 (9)); for the extraordinary writing of the replacement formation, cf. the (pseudo)block statue of Nemlot, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung 5791 (22nd Dynasty, Lower Egyptian origin, most likely Heliopolis, cf. ROGGE 1990, 152; JANSEN-WINKELN 1996, § 129); for the Old Nubian rendering of the original ‘Älteres Kompositum’ as ŇĿƙĿĻħĩ < tA-Hw.t-nTr with the meaning ‘(pagan) altar’, rarely attested in the 9th and 10th century AD, cf. ROQUET 1972 (cf. 

[\\\ ]`\ gwith n. 351];േħ instead of Ň is perhaps due to assimilation, *-ĻŇ > *Ļħ, cf. ROQUET 1972, 114; cf. also BROWNE 1989, 1–4). This word is certainly a Coptic loanword; Roquet supposed a Bohairic origin and that the initial consonantal cluster developed an anaptyctic vowel which was realised as Ŀ due to Nubian ‘vowel harmony’ (assimilation), *ıĿĻħĩÿŇĿƙĿĻħĩ (ROQUET 1972, 105–107, 110). Alternatively, however, the ^ $+      ]Š#  ^]  ĩ# and the ‘long article’ Ňĩ (*ŇĩƙĿĻħĩÿŇĿƙĿĻħĩ), could also suggest Sahidic origin (cf. TILL 1961, §§ 24, 63; for loanwords from various Coptic dialects in Old Nubian, cf., e.g., ROQUET 1972, 100–108; loanwords from different Coptic dialects in  ÙøÝÒÕڊ'$ ]   +      +  these words formed part of Old Nubian proper and were not termini technici of the Christian lingua sacra and, on the other hand, that this hymn was translated from either Greek or Coptic to Old Nubian in Nubia itself, supposedly by a Nubian monk). The ‘long article’ would furthermore be in-

100 101

102

103

104

176

Roman Gundacker

Further systematic morphological updates may include the creation of analogous compounds which display instead of aw ‘arm etc.’105 the correspond  [$¨Ç   „$‘ $ #  to special idioms, e.g., lingua magica, or fossilised as adverbs, and were thus largely ousted by their younger counterparts.

Future research will certainly point out more phenomena of this kind, even though they are par  '[#     ]ing conventions and challenging to judge because of the shortage of vocalised relicts.

rj-aw ~ *rÐj-aÑw > *rÐฎaÑ > *rÖÎ aÌ > ex. (39) rj-aw.wj ~ *rÖÎ aÏ > *rÖÎ a ~ S Ńő besides *rÌj-aÑÎ wwÌj > *rÌ-aÑÎ wwÌ > *rÌ-aÏÎ wwÏ ‘“deed of arm”, action, manner’106

Another way of replacing ‘Ältere Komposita’ was to create entirely new phrases to be univerbated which consisted of different constituents than the compound to be replaced. In case one word is applied again but the other one substituted with a synonym, these examples can be detected rather easily. However, if all elements of the ‘Älteres Kompositum’ are replaced with other words in the surrogate, it becomes impossible to judge whether there

ex. (40) c.t-aw ~ *cÍÎt-aÑ} > *cÍÎdaÑ} > േ *cÍÎdaÑ > *cÏÎ daÏ ~ Oc ŅĩŇġijേ@CQGBCQേ c.t-aw.wj ~ *cÍt-aÑÎ wwÌj > *cÍฎ-aÑÎ wwÌ > *cÏQ aÏÎ wwϨ>   $ [$*+{  ‘107

105

106

dicative of the position of the stress syllable, since it must be preceded by two consonants, i.e. H and presumably w, which was dissimilated to a glottal stop */ฎ/ before *-ÓÎ -. It is also remarkable that the Coptic expression ƙĩĻĩĩŇĩ ‘monastery’ is exclusively Sahidic, whereas other Coptic dialects use BL ġĿʼnįŇ (< jwd.t ‘separation’, cf. S ġʼnįŇ) ‘enclosure, clausura, monastery’, ALOF Ňġʼn, B ŇőĿʼn (< Dw ‘mountain’, cf. S ŇĿĿʼn) ‘mountain, solitude, monastery’ (cf. CRUM 1939, 21a, 441a–b; WESTENDORF 1965–77, 15, 253;  [\`a, 359; VYCICHL 1983, 19, 233) or Greek loanwords instead (cf. ROQUET 1972, 111). Given that Hw.t-nTrj.t ‘divine house’ was adopted in Sahidic in order to denote Christian monasteries, this word cannot have been a common designation of pagan temples in this dialect’s region. It would thus be natural for Sahidic to denote pagan sanctuaries as Hw.t-nTr. In Bohairic, however, both Hw.t-nTrj.t and Hw.t-nTr must have been per ^ # [@   ]   use of either of them, which could be supported by the statue of Nemlot found at Heliopolis. For the Coptic offspring of the replacement formation, cf. CRUM 1939, 689a; WESTENDORF 1965–77, 379–380;  [\`a, 289; VYCICHL 1983, 306; for the vocalisation patterns of the individual elements, cf. OSING 1976a, I 213, II 441, n. 102; SCHENKEL 1983a, 182; GUNDACKER 2013a, 61, n. 216; Peust wondered why S ƙĿĻŇ ‘(pagan) priest’ did not display the expected schwa (i.e. *ƙĿĻŇĩ, PEUST 1999, 279, n. 350); given the similarity between *HÓÎ ntÏ ~ S *ƙĿĻŇĩ ‘(pagan) priest’ and *HฎÓÎ ntÏ ~ S *(ĩ)ƙĿĻŇĩ ‘sanctuary, altar’, one may expect disambiguation by means of deleting the schwa of S *ƙĿĻŇĩേÿƙĿĻŇ ‘(pagan) priest’. Wb. I, 156 (1)–159 (2); HANNIG 2003, 247–254, 2006b, 133–135; OSING 1976a, I 185, 203, II 738–742, n. 897, 1976b, 61 [with n. 449]; SCHENKEL 1983a, 92. Hieroglyphic spelling of the original compound after the (auto)biography of Hesi (early 6th Dynasty, KANAWATI and ABDER-RAZIQ 1999, pl. 33b, 59b; STAUDER-PORCHET 2015, 194–195); hieroglyphic spelling of its expanded counterpart after PT *669 § *1969a *N (JÉQUIER 1936–40, I pl. X [lin. 759]); for the Coptic offspring of the ‘Älteres Kompositum’, the younger counterpart of which is not attested in Greek renderings or Coptic, cf. CRUM 1939, 290a;

??^@5} 0& 

107

WESTENDORF 1965–77, 161;  [\`a, 135; VYCICHL 1983, 171–172; for the common adverbial phrase m-rj-aw ‘indeed, also, too’, which is attested since the SIP or early NK, cf. ERMAN and # [\ff k a_fc  and GROLL 1993, 139; WINAND 2009; Joachim F. Quack most kindly informed me that a collection of Demotic attestations, which mostly have been misread in primary publications, is to be published in The Carlsberg Papyri Vol. 11. For the vocalisation patterns of the individual elements, cf. OSING 1976a, I 203, 213, II 369, n. 49, 484, n. 154, 668, n. 734, 738–742, n. 897, 1976b, 61 [with n. 449]; SCHENKEL 1983a, 92; cf. furthermore FECHT 1960a, §§ 179–186, 217; Even though   # $    

'  #  ] rA ‘mouth’, it is perhaps more plausible to analyse this as a root noun rj ~ *rÐj ‘deed’ besides jrj ‘to do’, cf. GUNDACKER 2013b. The de facto contemporaneous attestation in the 6th Dynasty of both rj-aw and rj-aw.wj makes it highly unlikely that one actually replaced the other. Perhaps the variant rj-aw.wj containing the dual aw.wj ‘arms’ started out as an emphatic or expressive form (cf., e.g., the dual in order to express entirety: mAa.tj ‘the two truths, the double, i.e. perfect truth’ in BD 125, KRISTENSEN 1950–1951; LEITZ 2002–03, III 228–229; cf. THAUSING 1939, 52; THAUSING and KERSZT-KRATSCHMANN 1969, 31 [with n. 63]; SEEBER 1976, 140-147; HORNUNG 1979, 233, 492–493; ASSMANN 1990, 147). Due to its increased compatibility with the ‘Zweisil   ‹‘+#

'  ƒ [$ rj-aw.wj dominated, even though it is, ironically enough, the fossilised relicts of the ‘Älteres Kompositum’ rj-aw which are found in Coptic. Cf. also the contemporaneous variants tp.j-aw and tp.j-aw.wj ‘earlier, former’ (FECHT 1960a, § 189). Hieroglyphic spelling of the original compound after PT 466 § 884b P.M; cf. another attestation in the tomb of Nikhnumankh and Hotepkhnum (scene 12, time of Nirawoser, cf. ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA50  /     } 0 / tion and Commentary, 2 Vols., OIP 3–4, Chicago.

BRESCIANI, E. 1964

BIOT, J.-B. 1823

179

Ägypten und Anatolien: politische, kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte zwischen dem Niltal und Klein  ?5& : ?___, Vol. I, Cairo. CAPART, J. 1907

 6À„„ 0, 2 Vols., Brussels.

1984

Sed, 779–780, in: LÄ II, Wiesbaden.

CAUVILLE, S.

1993

Abydos in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, Part II, 15–44, in: D.P. SILVERMAN (ed.), ƒ ;  Ka. Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, SAOC 55, Chicago.

DE

1999 1972

Un acte de renonciation consécutif à un partage de revenus liturgiques memphites (P. Louvre E 3266), jƒ*$ 71, 11–65, pl. I–XII.

1988

Le mythe de l’oeil du soleil. Translittération et Traduction avec Commentaire philologique, Demotische Studien 9, Sommerhausen.

BROWNE, G. 1989

  $ , Meroitica 11, Berlin.

BRUNNER, H. 1937

‡ /6[ ~  ;  5    Siut mit Übersetzung und Erläuterungen, ÄgForsch 5, Hamburg.

, J. 1963

The True Form of the Name of King Snofru, RSO 38, 89–92.

1964

An Alternative Etymology of the Bohairic Word for ‘Interpreter of Dreams’, JEA 50, 184.

1976

Coptic Etymological Dictionary, London/Cambridge.

BRUNTON, G. 1927

8j , BSAE and ERA 29 (1923), London.

BRUYÈRE, B. 1928

Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh, FIFAO 5.2, Cairo.

1952

Tombes thébaines de Deir el Médineh à décoration monochrome, MIFAO 86, Cairo.

BUCHBERGER, J. 1995

Das Harfnerlied im Grab des KA(=i)-m-anx oder die Riten des „sn nTrw“, 93–123, in: D. KESSLER and R. SCHULZ (eds.), [ 0 ! !Š  " !  j  Htp dj Hzj, MÄU 4, Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Vienna.

, J. and GARDINER, SIR A.H. 1957

ƒ   !{&>5 ;   ‹5>  0j  0 Museum, 2nd Series, London.

BUSSMANN, R. 2010

‡  ‹  5 &>5    _     UU Dynastie. Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesell0! 0  } 0@ ‹  , ProblÄg 30, 2 Vols., Leiden/New York/Köln.

CALDERINI, A. and DARIS, S. 1935–2010 ‡        && ˆ   5& ˆ  dell’Egitto Greco-Romano, 5 Vols. and 5 Supplements, Cairo/Madrid/Bonn/Pisa/Rome. CALLENDER, J.B. 1984

Studies in the Nominal Sentence in Egyptian and Coptic, NES 24, Berkeley/London/Los Angeles.

CALLENDER, V.G. 2012

;0 H&/0" 0 !{&>5 % &! ‡> `, Prague.

CAMINOS, R.A. 1954

Late Egyptian Miscellanies, Brown Egyptological Studies 1, London.

1976

*/!", Oxford.

CAMPAGNO, M. 2003

Another Reason for the Foundation of Memphis, 154–159, in: Z. HAWASS and L. PINCH BROCK (eds.),

;   $ , Oxford.

, J. and GROLL, S. 1993

A Late Egyptian Grammar, 4th edition, StudPohl Series Maior 4, Rome.

CHAABAN, M.A. 1995

BUDGE, SIR E. A. W. 1923

|5‡ |5 H :Cairo.

CENIVAL, F.

Metallurgical Industries of Old Kingdom and Prehistoric Egypt, 189–192, F.A. ESMAEL (ed.), Proceedings of 0ƒ   ! * {&>5  Mining & Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Ar ! :U_QU?*5 UXX], Cairo.

CHAPPAZ, J.-L. 2005–07 Une stèle de donation de Ramsès III, BSEG 27, 5–19. CHASSINAT, É. 1909

|   ‡ Qj0 # 50&', Vol. I.1, Cairo.

1932

Le Temple d’Édfou, Vol. VII, MMAF 24, Cairo.

CHOMSKY, N. and HALLE, M. 1968

The Sound Pattern of English, New York.

CINQUE, G. 1993

A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress, Lin&  „ > 24, 239–298.

CLARYSSE, W. 1997

Greek Accents on Egyptian Names, ZPE 119, 177–194.

CLÈRE, J.J. 1983

Autobiographie d’un général gouverneur de la HauteÉypte à l’époque saïte, jƒ*$ 83, 85–100, pls. IX–XII.

CONDON, V. 1984

Two Account Papyri of the Late Eighteenth Dynasty (Brooklyn 35.1453 A and B), RdE 35, 57–82, pls. IV– VII.

CRUM, W.E. 1939

A Coptic Dictionary, Oxford.

Retention or Rejection 1942

&>5& 0 ; [ 5}\_[burtstag gewidmet, Berlin.

An Egyptian Text in Greek Characters, JEA 28, 20–31.

CURTO, S. 1953

Nota su un rilievo proveniente da Gebelèn nel Museo Egizio di Torino, Aegyptus 33, 105–124.

CZAPKIEWICZ, A. 1971

Ancient Egyptian and Coptic Elements in the Toponomy of Contemporary Egypt, Cracow.

1955–64 Altägyptische Grammatik, 2 Vols., AnOr 34, 39, Rome. 1980

Der älteste Beleg für den Titel HAtj-pat und sein Weiterleben bis in die römische Zeit hinein, Serapis 6, 41–46.

1984

‡  0 !   [ !     Q[ ~    ~&>5    ;  5  + {  " derherstellung nach den Zeichnungen der Description de l’Égypte, ARWAW 71, Opladen.

1987

Ein bisher unbeachteter Beleg für ein „Kompositum älterer Bildungsweise“, 124–136, in: J. OSING and G. DREYER (eds.), ƒ ‰ƒ0 !!Š [ 0  ƒ0  €] [ &  € ƒ   UX‚\, ÄAT 12, Wiesbaden.

1994

Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache, 2 Vols., ARWAR 77, Opladen.

2008

‡ ƒ& ~  5 8;} *U * 0   : ‡ &: /6:  0~& 0 j!ƒ [ ~ *0‰  !‰0 & % Q<0 >! [  Vieler, 3 Vols., Paderborn.

DARESSY, G. 1893

Statues de Basse Époque du Musée de Gizèh, RT 15, 150–162.

DAUMAS, F. 1977

Hathor, 1024–1033, in: LÄ II, Wiesbaden.

DAVIES, N.M. DE GARIS 1948

Seven Private Tombs at Kurnah, MET 2, London.

DAVIES, N.M. DE GARIS and MACADAM, M.F. LAMING 1957 VON

* 5! {&>5 ƒ  >:‹  +‹. Oxford.

DEINES, H. and WESTENDORF, W.

1961/62 [  ‰    &>5 , Vol. 7.1–2, "”  0    0/6, 2 Vols., Berlin. DEPUYDT, L. 1995

On the Consistency of the Wandering Year as Backbone of Egyptian Chronology, JARCE 32, 43–58.

1997

Civil and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt, OLA 77, Leuven.

DIBLEY, G. and LIPKIN, B. 2009

A Compendium of Egyptian Funerary Cones. London.

DONADONI ROVERI, A.M. 1990

Gebelein, 23–29, in: G. ROBINS (ed.), Beyond the Pyramids: Egyptian Regional Art from the Museo Egizio, Turin, Atlanta.

DRESSLER, W.U. 1968

Ved. divé-dive und die indogermanischen Iterativkomposita, 39–47, in: M. MAYRHOFER (eds.), Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift !Š " 0j  #U‚X‚`UX€\', Innsbruck.

2006

Compound Types, 23–44, in: G. LIBBEN and G. JARE(eds.), The Representation and Processing of Com5" , Oxford. MA

DRESSLER, W.U. (ed.) 2005

Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers ! 0UU0 50&> &: :ƒ?__Y, Amsterdam.

DUNKEL, G.E. 1999

On the Origins of Nominal Composition in Indo-European, 47–68, in: H. EICHNER and H.C. LUSCHÜTZKY (eds.), 5   &      Jochem Schindler, Prague.

EDEL, E. 1948

Neue Keilschriftliche Umschreibungen ägyptischer Namen aus den Boazköytexten, JNES 7, 11–24.

1954

Zur Vokalisation des Neuägyptischen, $ 2, 30–43.

1955

Die Inschriften des Alten Reiches V. Die Reiseberichte des rw-wjf (Herchuf), 51–75, in: O. FIRCHOW (ed.),

181

EDGERTON, W.F. 1947

Stress, Vowel Quantity, and Syllabic Division in Egyptian, JNES 6, 1–17.

EDWARDS, I.E.S. 1965

Lord Dufferin’s Excavations at Deir el-Bahri and the Clandeboye Collection, JEA 51, 16–28, pls. IX–XII.

EFFLAND, U. ;!!%   $ ¦ $        š¨ = telalterliche Schatzsucher in Abydos, 71–82, in: E.-M. ENGEL, V. MÜLLER and U. HARTUNG (eds.), Zeichen aus   ˜ 0 &>5[0 0{0ren von Günter Dreyer, Menes 5, Wiesbaden. ;!  6, 2 Vols., PhD thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna. 2009b Zur Struktur der Pyramidennamen der 4. Dynastie, Sokar 18, 26–30. 2010

Eine besondere Form des Substantivalsatzes. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf ihre dialektale und diachrone Bedeutung, LingAeg 18, 41–117.

2011

On the Etymology of the Egyptian Crown Name mrsw.t. An ‘Irregular’ Sub-Group of m- #ƒ |$tions, LingAeg 19, 37–86.

GILLAM, R.A. 1995

Die altägyptischen Festkalender in den Tempeln der griechisch-römischen Epoche, ÄAT 15, Wiesbaden.

GUNDACKER, R.

1913–24 *&>5 00 !%” & 0 zu Berlin, 2 Vols., Leipzig. 2009

183

2013a Die Eigennamen der Könige der IV. Dynastie. Ihre Struktur und Bedeutung gemäß ägyptischen und griechischen Graphien, LingAeg 21, 35–130. ;!5  $ % &+ Perspectives on the Pyramid Age. Proceedings of the !   ;      >: *5  ?€0: ?_U?, Harvard Egyptological Studies 1, Leiden/New York/ Boston. Where to Place ‘Ältere Komposita’? Traces of Dialectal Diversity among Early Toponyms and Theonyms, 101–176, in: D. WERNING (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth   ! {&>5 Q5 | &   #   ' j  : U\`?_ ƒ  > ?_U€, LingAeg 25, Hamburg. The Names of the Kings of the Fifth Dynasty According to Manetho’s Aegyptiaca, 42 pp., to be published in the proceedings of the Conference Old Kingdom Art * 0&>:" }?_UY, Warsaw.

in preparation Composita incompta? Complex Noun Formations in Ancient Egyptian Between Rule and Exception, c. 30 pp. (manuscript), to be published in: V. SADOVSKI (ed.), ‹  &!0  !  Ÿ  &   ‹ Q     ! Ancient Eurasia: Linguistic, Religious, and Socio-Eco *5  !  ; ! Prof. Dr. Gebhard J. Selz, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. GUNN, B. 1917

Interpreters of Dreams in Ancient Egypt, JEA 4, 252.

GÜTERBOCK, H. 1956

The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son Mursili II, JCunStud 10, 11–68, 75–98, 107–130.

HABACHI, L. 1955

God’s Fathers and the Role They Played in the History of the First Intermediate Period, ASAE 55, 167–190, pls. I–III.

HANNIG, R. 2003

&>5 0"”  0:*@ 0{ •} schenzeit, Hannig-Lexica 4, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 98, Mainz.

2006a &>5 0"”  0  @ 0•}  Zwischenzeit, Hannig-Lexica 5, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 112, 2 Vols., Mainz. 2006b [ ‰;}”  0&>5 0Q‡0. Die Spra0 ‹0 #?‚__`X]_ 0 ':  & { tion, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 64, Mainz. HARPUR, Y. 2001

The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep. Discovery, Destruction and Reconstruction, Oxford.

HARRIS, J.R. 1961

|6 & 50    *  {&>5    , Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung Nr. 54, Berlin.

HEIDEN, D. 2002

Die Stele des P3-dj-Pp, SAK 30, 187–201.

HEINLE, E.-M. 1993

Die Zusammenrückung, 65–78, in: H. WELLMANN (ed.), >0  0 *5  "  &  Deutschen, Heidelberg.

HELCK, W. 1950

Das Horusgeleit, ArOr 18, 120–142.

1956

Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten, UGAÄ 18, Berlin.

1960–69      " 0!&0 0   Reiches+[+}}–‹5    ^? Jahrtausend v. Chr., ÄgAbh 5, Wiesbaden.

1974

Die altägyptischen Gaue, BTAVO Reihe B Nr. 5, Wiesbaden.

1977a Die ‚Weihinschrift‘ aus dem Taltempel des Sonnenheiligtums des Königs Neuserre bei Abu Gurob, SAK 5, 47–78, pls. II–III. 1977b Gauzeichen, 422–426, in: LÄ II, Wiesbaden. 1987

Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit, ÄgAbh 45, Wiesbaden.

HENDRICKX, S. and HUYGE, D. 2014

Neolithic and Predynastic Egypt, 240–258, in: C. RENand P. BAHN (eds.), /0 &" ‹ 0 tory, Vol. I, Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the ‹ ˆ, Cambridge.

FREW

HINTZE, F. 1947

Zur Struktur des Wortes im Ägyptischen („Ersatzdehnung“ und Metathese), Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1, 19–24.

1973

Some Problems of Meroitic Philology, 321–336, in: F. HINTZE (ed.),   *  U    /&&!Š     0ƒ 0& j  UX\U, Meroitica 1, Berlin.

1980

Zur koptischen Phonologie, Enchoria 10, 23–91.

HOCH, J.E. 1994

  "  {&>5 /6!0}% & /0   ‹ , Princeton.

HOFFMANN, F. 2002

Die Hymnensammlung des P. Wien D6951, 219–228, in: K. RYHOLT (ed.), * ! 0  0    !  ! ‡   : 50&: ?^`?\ *&UXXX, CNIP 27, Copenhagen.

HORNUNG, E. 1979

Das Totenbuch der Ägypter, Düsseldorf/Zürich.

1979–84 Das Buch von den Pforten im Jenseits nach den Versionen des Neuen Reichs, 2 Vols., Aegyptiaca Helvetica 7–8, Geneva.

Retention or Rejection HUDE, C. 1927

;   ;  , SCBO, 2 Vols., 3rd edition, Oxford/New York.

JOHNSON, D. and TYLDESLEY, J. 2016

INCONNU-BOCQUILLON, D. 2001

Le mythe de la Déesse Lointaine à Philae, BdE 132, Cairo.

JACOBS, J. 2005

Spatien: zum System der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung im heutigen Deutsch, LIT 8, Berlin.

JACOBY, F. 1923–58 ‡ ƒ & & 0 0;   , 3 Tomes in 13 Vols., Berlin/Leiden. JACQUET-GORDON, H. 1962

2004

Altägyptische Berufstypologien, LingAeg Studia Monographica 4, Göttingen.

JAMES, T.G.H. 1953

/0  ! %0    0 0 , ASEg 30, London.

2002–14 /0 ‡  ‡   > ! 0 $    ! 0    > ! 0 & #‡‡', 30 fasc., Chicago (05+ 0 &  05   Q dictionary-oriental-institute-university-chicago). JONES, D. 2000

5~ ~&>5 0[   /6 ‡  Zwischenzeit, ÄAT 34, Wiesbaden.

* 6 ! *  {&>5  / : {5 0  Phrases of the Old Kingdom, BAR International Series 866, London.

JUNKER, H. 1911

‡  *&   ;0 Q/!   , APAW 1911, Berlin.

1917

Die Onurislegende, DAWW 59, Vienna.

KAHL, J. 1994

‡> ~&>5 0;  &>500 !   _Q^‡> , GOF IV 29, Wiesbaden.

1999

 `/0+{ ƒ  " 0~&  Traditionen, ProblÄg 13, Leiden/Boston/Cologne.

JANSEN-WINKELN, K. 1996

Iron from the Sky. The Role of Meteorite Iron in the Development of Iron-Working Techniques in Ancient Egypt, 408–423, in: C. PRICE, R. FORSHAW, A. CHAMBERLAIN and P.T. NICHOLSON with R. MORKOT and J. TYLDESLEY (eds.), Mummies, Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt. Multidisciplinary Essays for Rosalie David, Manchester.

JOHNSON, J.H. (ed.)

Noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire Égyptien, BdE 34, Cairo.

JÄGER, S.

185

2001–14 0 ! 5~ , 4 Vols., Wiesbaden.

2002–04 ƒ Š0~&>5 0"”  0, 3 fasc., Wiesbaden.

JANSSENS, G.

2004

Religiöse Sprachsensibilität in den Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten am Beispiel des Namens des Gottes Seth, 219–246, in: S. BICKEL and B. MATHIEU (eds.), ‡HÀH :/6‹>  /6 des Sarcophages, BdE 139, Cairo.

2007

Ober- und Unterägypten – eine dualistische Konstruktion und ihre Anfänge, 3–28, in: R. ALBERTZ, A. BLÖBAUM and P. FUNKE (eds.), @~  [  ` /5& sche Konzepte in den antiken Kulturen des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, München.

2008

LQU und @ఱR: Die Anfänge, 307–351, in: E.-M. ENGEL, V. MÜLLER and U. HARTUNG (eds.), Zeichen aus dem    ˜ 0   &>5 [0 0  {0  von G. Dreyer, Menes 5, Wiesbaden.

1967

Contribution to the Hamito-Semitic and the Egyptian Phonetic Laws, CdÉ 42, 86–122.

1969

Word Accent and Vocalization in Old Egyptian, CdÉ 44, 241–262.

JASNOW, R. and ZAUZICH, K.-T. 2005

The Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth. A Demotic Discourse on Knowledge and Pendant to the Classical ;  , 2 Vols., Wiesbaden.

JEFFREYS, D. 2004

Hierakonpolis and Memphis in Predynastic Traditions, 837–842, S. HENDRICKX, R. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIALOWICZ and M. CHLONICKI (eds.), {&>5$ &     >!j  *‹  &!0   !  Ÿ$ &  ! 0 : ‹ >  { >‡> {&>5:H%  }:?‚0*&`U 5 ?__?, OLA 138, Vol. I, Leuven/Paris/Dudley.

JÉQUIER, G. 1911

Le Papyrus Prisse et ses variantes, Paris.

1929

/6  ‹     5    ‹›5  , Cairo.

1936–40 |!›  ‹5 , 3 Vols., Cairo.

KAISER, W. 1959

Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen Frühzeit I: Zu den Smsw @r, ZÄS 84, 119–132.

1960

Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen Frühzeit I: Zu den Smsw @r (Fortsetzung), ZÄS 85, 118–137.

KAMMERZELL, F. 1990

Funktion und Form. Zur Opposition von Perfekt und Pseudopartizip im Alt- und Mittelägyptischen, GöttMisz 117/118, 181–202.

1991

Augment, Stamm und Endung. Zur morphologischen Entwicklung der Stativkonjugation, LingAeg 1, 165–199.

1997

Zur Umschreibung und Lautung, XXIII–LIX, in: R. HANNIG, [ ‰ ;}”  0 &>5 0Q‡0. ‡ 5 0 ‹0 #?‚__`X]_ 0 ', Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 64, Mainz.

JOHNSON, D., GRADY, M.M., LOWE, T. and TYLDESLEY, J. 2014

Microstructural Analysis of a Predynastic Iron Meteorite Bead, 129–140, in: R. METCALFE, J. COCKITT and R. DAVID (eds.), Palaeopathology in Egypt and Nubia. A Century in Review, Archaeopress Egyptology 6, Oxford.

186 2005

Roman Gundacker Old Egyptian and Pre-Old Egyptian. Tracing Linguistic Diversity in Archaic Egypt and the Creation of the Egyptian Language, 164–247, in: S.J. SEIDLMAYER (ed.), /6  ‡ ~   ~&>5 0 * @ 0, TLA 3, Berlin.

KANAWATI, N. 2003

5    0{&>5  ‹+    ‹5>, London.

KANAWATI, N. and ABDER-RAZIQ, M. 1999

The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Vol. V, The Tomb of ; , ACE Reports 13, Warminster.

KAPLONY, P. 1963

‡ 0 ! ~&>5 0ƒ Š0 , ÄgAbh 8, 3 Vols., Wiesbaden.

1964

‡ 0 ! ~&>5 0ƒ Š0 :55: ÄgAbh 9, Wiesbaden.

1977–81 Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reiches, 3 Vols., MonAeg 2–3A.B, Brussels. KEES, H. 1927

Zum Ursprung der sogenannten Horusdiener, *"[ 1927, 196–207.

KESSLER, D. 1975

Eine Landschenkung Ramses’ III. zugunsten eines „Großen der /;@"“ aus MR-MŠa.F, SAK 2, 103–134, pl. II.

KRISTENSEN, W.B. 1950–51 De dubbele gerechtigkeid, 50  ‡   > ! {&>5  !ˆ /6, ProblÄg 15, Leiden.

MONTANARI, F. 1992

Vocabolario della lingua greca, 2nd edition, Rome.

MONTET, P. 1957–61 La géographie de l’Égypte ancienne, 2 Vols., Paris. MORAN, W.L. 1992

The Amarna Letters, Baltimore/London.

MORENZ, L.D. 1997

(Magische) Sprache der ‚geheimen Kunst‘, SAK 24, 191–20.

2001

Neues zum pr-anx – Zwei Überlegungen zu einem institutionellen Zentrum der sakralen Schriftlichkeitskultur Altägyptens, GöttMisz 181, 77–81.

188

Roman Gundacker

2003

Ortsgötter, frühe Tempel und älteste Schriftzeugnisse in Ägypten, ArOr 71, 467–478.

2004

j Qj0  > 0 • 0 ‡  ; ausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens, OBO 205, Freiburg/Göttingen.

1987

Die Partizipien im Ägyptischen und in den semitischen Sprachen, 337–360, in: J. OSING and G. DREYER (eds.), ƒ ‰ƒ0 !!Š [ 0 ƒ0€] [ &€ƒ  UX‚\, ÄAT 12, Wiesbaden.

1998

;   0‹5> / , 2 Vols., The Carlsberg Papyri 2, Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Copenhagen.

MOYER, I.S. and DIELEMAN, J. 2003

Miniaturization and the Opening of the Mouth in a Greek Magical Text (PGM XII.270–335), JANER 3, 47–72.

OTTO, E.

MÜLLER, M.

1960

Der Gebrauch des Königstitels ==, ZÄS 85, 143–152.

2002

Review of J. E. Hoch, Semitic Words in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton, New Jersey 1994, OLZ 97, 29–43.

1961

Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, ÄgAbh 3, 2 Vols., Wiesbaden.

1975

Augensagen, 562–567, in: LÄ I, Wiesbaden.

2011

Ägyptische Phonologie? Möglichkeiten & Grenzen linguistischer Modelle bei der Beschreibung des Lautsystems einer extinkten Sprache, 509–532, in: A. VERBOVSEK, B. BACKES and C. JONES (eds.), Methodik  ‡       &>5&  ; !  & eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Paradigmenwechsels in den Altertumswissenschaften, Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft IV, München.

PANTALACCI, L. 1994

Les mots composés dans le lexique des Textes des Pyramides, 285–291, in: C. BERGER, G. CLERC and N. GRIMAL (eds.), ;&À5 0/0  ‡>tie, 3 Vols. (Einführung and I–II), Berlin.

NEUGEBAUER, O. and VAN HOESEN, H.B. 1987

[  ; 5, MAPS 48, Baltimore.

NEUGEBAUER, O. and PARKER, R.A. 1960–72 {&>5 *  /6, 3 Vols. in 4 tomes, BES 3, 5–6, Providence. NEWBERRY, P.E. 1909

Impressions of Seals from Abydos, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 2, 130, pls. XXII–XXV.

NUNN, J.F. 1996

Ancient Egyptian Medicine, London.

NUR EL-DIN, M.A.A. 1974

The Demotic Ostraca in the National Museum of Anti„  | U`]X_:Leiden.

OGDEN, J. 2000

Metals, 148-176, in: P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

|& !ˆ&  H*>, Nancy.

PESTMAN, P.W. 1994

The New Papyrological Primer, Leiden.

PESTMAN, P.W., QUAEGEBEUR, J. and VOS, R.L. 1977

@ /6‡› „j  &, 3 Vols., Leiden.

PETRIE, SIR W.M.F. 1892

Medum, London.

1897

Deshasheh, EEF 15, London.

1902/03 Abydos, 2 Vols., EEF 22, 24, London. PEUST, C. 1992

Zur Herkunft des Koptischen į, LingAeg 2, 117–125.

1999

{&>5 ‹0&>*  0‹0&> of a Dead Language, MonÄS 2, Göttingen.

2010

Die Toponyme vorarabischen Ursprungs im modernen Ägypten. Ein Katalog, GöttMisz Bh 8, Göttingen.

PILLET, M. 1923

Le naos de Senousert Ier, ASAE 23, 143–158, pl. I.

OLSEN, S.

PLAG, M.

2000

2006

Compounding and Stress. A Closer Look at the Boundary between Morphology and Syntax, Linguistische Berichte 181, 55–69.

ORTNER, L., MÜLLER-BOLLHAGEN, E., ORTNER, H., WELLMANN, H., PÜMÜEL-MADER, M. and GÄRTNER, H. (eds.) 1991

1974

PLAG, M., KUNTER, G. and LAPPE, S. 2007

Substantivkomposita, Komposita und kompositionsähnliche Strukturen 1, Berlin.

OSING, J. Isis und Osiris, ‡*%30, 91–113.

The Variability of Compound Stress in English. Structural, Semantic and Analogical Factors, English Language and Linguistics 10, 143–172. Testing Hypotheses about Compound Stress Assignment in English. A Corpus-Based Investigation, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 199–232.

POLZ, D. 1990

Die Sna-Vorsteher des Neuen Reiches, ZÄS 117, 43–60.

1976a Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, 2 Vols., Mainz.

POPKO, L. and RÜCKER, M.

1976b ‡  5~~&>5 0 ‹5>  j U_‚_‚, ÄgAbh 33, Wiesbaden.

2011

P. Lips. Inv. 1228 und 590: Eine neue ägyptische Königsliste in griechischer Sprache, ZÄS 138, 43–62, pls. I–III.

189

Retention or Rejection POSENER, G.

2002b Zum Namen der Pyramide, Sokar 4, 15.

1956

| ›  5  „HÂ&>5>tie, BEHE 307, Paris.

2003

Zum Lautwert von Gardiner Sign-List U 23, LingAeg 11, 113–116.

1966

Quatre tablettes scolaires de Basse Epoque, @{ U‚: ]_–64.

2004

Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte, Vol. III, Die demotische und gräko-ägyptische Literatur, EQA 3, Berlin.

POSENER-KRIÉGER, P. 1970

La nuit de Re, RdE 22, 131–137.

2006

1994

Le coffret de Gebelein, 315–326, in: C. BERGER, G. CLERC and N.-C. GRIMAL (eds.), ;&À & +[ :U€`?Uì ?_U_, Geneva.

in preparation Beiträge zu den ägyptischen Dekanen und

0  @5   & 0 0Q ” 0", Habilitation thesis, Heidelberg.

PRASAD, M.

QUACK, J.F. and HOFFMANN, F.

1972

2007

Accent in Compound: Origin and Development of Com5  $ Q* > !  * ‹  !  } Der Kompositionsakzent: Ursprung und Entwicklung des Kompositums im Altindischen in Bezug auf seine Akzentuierung, Habilitation thesis, Heidelberg.

PREISENDANZ, K. (with contributions by DIEHL, E., EITRAM, S. and JACOBY, A.) 2002

Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, 2 Vols., reprint of 1st edition (Vol. II, 1923) and of 2nd edition (Vol. I, 1972) respectively, Leipzig/Berlin.

PREISIGKE, F. 1922

Namenbuch, enthaltend alle griechischen, lateinischen, ägyptischen, hebräischen, arabischen und sonstigen semitischen und nichtsemitischen Menschennamen, }   & 0 0 #‹5> :$  : 0 !: 0  }'&>5 0  ˆ, Heidelberg.

PÜMPEL-MADER, M., GASSNER-KOCH, E., WELLMANN, H. and ORTNER, L. (eds.) 1992

*=  5 ‹   5  &, Komposita und kompositionsähnliche Strukturen 2, Berlin.

QUACK, J.F. 1994

‡  |0  *  {  ~&>5 0  " 0 6 in seinem historischen Umfeld, OBO 141, Freiburg/ Göttingen.

2000

Review of H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn. Eine Etappe auf dem „Gottesweg’ des loyalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches, ÄgAbh 60, Wiesbaden 1999, BiOr 57, 534–541.

2001

Ein neuer Versuch zum Moskauer literarischen Brief, ZÄS 128, 167–181.

2002a Zwischen Sonne und Mond – Zeitrechnung im Alten Ägypten, 27–67, in: H. FALK (ed.), ; 0   ‡> •"     0 •  0&  Antike und Gegenwart, Bremen.

Anthologie der demotischen Literatur, EQA 4, Berlin.

QUIBELL, J.E. 1905

* 0  $=, Catalogue Général Nr. 1101–1200, 14001–14754, 2 Vols., Cairo.

QUIRKE, S. and COLLIER, M. 2006

The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and Medical, BAR International Series 1471, Oxford.

R AINEY, A.F. 2015

The El-Amarna Correspondence. A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna Based  !*{6/, HbOr I, The Near and Middle East, Vol. 110, 2 Vols., Leiden/New York/ Berlin.

R ALLI, A. 2013

Compounding in Modern Greek, Studies in Morphology 2, Stuttgart.

R ANKE, H. 1910

Keilschriftliches Material zur altägyptischen Vokalisation, Berlin.

1935–52 Die altägyptischen Glückstadt.

Personennamen,

2

Vols.,

R ASHED, M. 2009

The Goddess Bat and the Confusion with Hathor, 334– 348, in: B.S. EL-SHARKAWY (ed.), /0;  

{&>5&> ; !* {Q‡ , Cairo.

R AUNIG, W. 2014

Frühes Eisen in Nordostafrika, 269–291, in: A. LOHWASSER and P. WOLF (eds.), Ein Forscherleben } 0"•‚_[ & !! " &: ‡  *  , Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin – Sonderheft 2014, Berlin.

190

Roman Gundacker

REDFORD, D.B. 1986

Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books. A Con  0>!0{&>5 !;  >, SSEAP 4, Mississauga.

REHREN, T., T. BELGYA, A. JAMBON, G. KÁLI, Z. KASZTOVSZKY, Z. KIS, I. KOVÁCS, B. MARÓTI, M. MARTINÓN-TORRES, G.   $

 =     ENTMIKLÓSI and  ol'$" 2013

5,000 Years Old Egyptian Iron Beads Made from Hammered Meteoritic Iron, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4785–4792.

REICH, N. 1910

1923

Die griechische Tefnutlegende, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg.

REVILLOUT, E. 1880

1987

1966

Das ältere ägyptische Umschreibungssystem für Fremdnamen und seine sprachwissenschaftlichen Lehren, Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrikakunde 5, Hamburg.

1971

Das Ägyptische als Semitische Sprache, 263–326, in: F. ALTHEIM and R. STIEHL (eds.), Christentum am Roten Meer, Berlin/New York.

ROWAN, K. ;!5& :  &: ^`X5 UXX], OLA 82, Leuven.

The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54, 4th edition, Chicago. Une légende égyptienne d’Anat, RdE 24, 154–159.

LE MARQUIS DE ROCHEMONTEIX, F.J.M.R. DE CHALVET, CHASSINAT, E., CAUVILLE, S. and DEVAUCHELLE, D. 1987

Le temple d’Edfou, Vol. I, 2nd, revised and corrected edition, MIFAO 10, Cairo.

1990

Le temple d’Edfou, Vol. II, 2nd, revised and corrected edition, MIFAO 11, Cairo.

ROGGE, E. 1990

Statuen des Neuen Reiches und der Dritten Zwischenzeit, CAA Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Lieferung 6, Vienna.

The Edwin Smith Papyrus: Updated Translation of the Trauma Treatise and Modern Medical Commentaries, Atlanta.

SATZINGER, H.

ROCCATI, A. 1972

Indoiranische Komposita und freie Syntagmata mit prädikativischem bzw. partitivischem Attributionsverhältnis der Elemente, 295–334, J. CLACKSON and B.A. OLSEN (eds.), Q{ 5 "  ƒ  + ‹  & ! 0 !  ;  0    > ! 50&:$ ?_0`???___, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 2, Copenhagen.

SANCHEZ, G.M. and MELTZER, E.S. 2012

RISCH, E. 1974

A Parallel to the Inaros Story of P. Krall (P. Carlsberg 456+P. CtYBR 4513): Demotic Narratives from the Tebtunis Temple Library (I), JEA 84, 151–170.

SADOVSKI, V. 2004

La langue du royaume de Méroé: Un panorama de la plus ancienne culture écrite d’Afrique subsaharienne, BEHE 344, Paris.

RILLY, C. and DE VOOGT, A.

Mesopotamian Chronology and the ‘Era of Menophres’,  „ 8, 94–110.

RYHOLT, K.

RILLY, C. 2007

Der Kairener Hymnus an Amun-Re. Zur Gliederung von pBoulaq 17, 405–428, in: J. OSING and G. DREYER (eds.), ƒ   ‰ ƒ0 ! !Š  [ 0  ƒ0  €] [ &  € ƒ   UX‚\, ÄAT 12, Wiesbaden.

RÖSSLER, O.

Mycerinus. The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, Cambridge.

REITZENSTEIN, R.

Sur l’origine d’un hapax en vieux-nubien : ŇĿƙĿĻħĩ < copte : (Ň+)ƙĩĻĩŇĩ < égyptien : Hw.t-nTr?, jƒ*$ 71, 97–118.

RÖMER, M.

Ein demotisch-griechischer Kontrakt eines Hauskaufes, 50 6 14, 1–34, pls. 1–5.

REISNER, G.A. 1930

ROQUET, G. 1972

5 0, GOF IV 12, Wiesbaden. 1986

Das Wort für König (von Oberägypten), GöttMisz 94, 57–73.

1990

Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft, Darmstadt.

1994

ôഇƹm.t-Perfekt und ôഇƹm.tºࡦ -Stativ: Die beiden Pseudopartizipien des Ägyptischen nach dem Zeugnis der Sargtexte, 157–182, in: H. BEHLMER (ed.), ... quaerentes   :ƒ&!Š "!0 " !  \_[ &:Š  0  0Š :Göttingen.

1999

*múXnvt ‚Fähre‘. Die Graphie mw0 des Nominalbil ­#ƒ  $œ      ƒ + GöttMisz 168, 87–100.

1950 2010

Altägyptische Festdaten, AAWMainz 10, Mainz. und die Bedeutung der griechischen WieDer Titel     ÐÔÔÚ [®   ~      + Orientalia Nova Series 79, 375–378.

SEEBER, C. 1976

Untersuchungen zu Darstellungen des Totengerichts im alten Ägypten, MÄS 35, München.

SELKIRK, E.O., 1982

/0>6!" , 2nd edition, Cambridge.

SETHE, K. 1903

Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte Ägyptens, UGAÄ 3, Leipzig.

1907

Bemerkungen zur ‚Geschichte des Schiffbrüchigen‘ (Im Anschluß an Ermans Bearbeitung dieses Textes in ÄZ 43), ZÄS 44, 80–87.

1910

Untersuchungen über die ägyptischen Zahlwörter, ZÄS 47, 1–41.

1911

Das Wort für König von Oberägypten, ZÄS 49, 15–34.

1923

Die Vokalisation des Ägyptischen, ZDMG 77, 145–207.

1925

Zur Wiedergabe des ägyptischen h am Wortanfang durch die Griechen, ["[ 1925, 50–56.

192 1930 1962

Roman Gundacker Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter, Abhandlungen für die Kunst des Morgenlandes 18, Leipzig. Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den altägyptischen Py  6, 6 Vols., 2nd edition, Hamburg.

SHALOMI-HEN, R. 2006

/0"  &![/0{  !‡  ˆ  0$% & ˆ & tion in Ancient Egypt, GOF IV 38, Wiesbaden.

SIGNORETTI, M. 2010

A Tale of Two Tongues? The Myth of the Sun’s Eye and its Greek Translation, 725–732, in: T. GAGOS, A. HYATT, A. VERHOOGT and T. WILFONG (eds.), Proceedings of the /}>Qƒ !0    &  ! ‹5> &>: **  ?__\, Ann Arbor.

SIMPSON, W.K. 1974

The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering 05!‡> U?U^, Pennsylvania.

, das kopt. ƙĿĻŇ, ZÄS 45, 141.

1908

STEWART, H.M. 1976–79 Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection, 2 Vols., Warminster. STRUDWICK, N.C. 2005

/6! 0‹>  *&, Writings from the Ancient World 16, Leiden/Boston.

STRUVE, W. 1929

Die Ära ‚›ƒöÞãØÕÑÒãÛÚ¨ ŸŸ' nethos, ZÄS 63, 45–50.

STURM, J. !{&>5 5 ‹  & 0$ Kingdom, London.

SPELEERS, L. 1923

@   5 ›&>5 › >6  „ Àj 6, Brussels.

SPENCER, A. 1991

 50& /0 >+*  "  ture in Generative Grammar, Malden.

SPALINGER, A.J. 1995

Is the Development of Linking Elements in German a Case of Exaptation?, 317–340, in: M. NORDÉ and F. VAN DE VELDE (eds.), {65 |&&0&, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 36, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

TALLET, P. and LAISNEY, D. 2012

Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï (Ouadi ‘Ameyra). Un complément à la chronologie des expéditions minières égyptiennes, jƒ*$ 112, 381–398.

TEODORSSON, S.-T. 1976

Month Representations, CdÉ 70, 139–40.

SPIEGELBERG, W.

Le papyrus magique du Vatican, Orientalia Nova Series 3, 68–87.

The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia XXXVI, Lund.

TERNES, E. 2002

Review of C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology. An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language. Monographien zur Ägyptischen Sprache 2, Göttingen 1999, LingAeg 10, 441–444.

1910

Der Sagenkreis des Königs Petubastis nach dem Strass &  0‹5> } "  ‹riser Bruchstücken, Leipzig.

1917

‡ ~&>5 0>0 &#‹5>   /  ! ` ÷%ˆŸ' 0  |    0 ‹5> ^‚Y, Strasbourg.

THAUSING, G.

1920

Neue Schenkungsstelen über Landstiftungen an Tempel, ZÄS 56, 55–60, pls. IV–VI.

THAUSING, G. and KERSZT-KRATSCHMANN, T.

1929

Eine griechische Wiedergabe von sA-nsw, ZÄS 64, 135– 136.

1931

(with contributions by O. WALTER) Die demotischen Papyri Loeb, Papyri der Universität München I, Munich.

1939 1969

1991

Hezi’s Autobiographical Inscription: Philological Study and Interpretation, ZÄS 142, 191–204.

STEINDORFF, G. 1904

%5 0 [     0 0 : "”   zeichnis und Literatur, Berlin.

‡ & ‰ ~&>5 0 /0 #‹5>  @  0' der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, SÖKK 1, Kairo.

THISSEN, H.-J.

STAUDER-PORCHET, J. 2015

Der ägyptische Schicksalsbegriff, ‡*% 8, 46–70.

Ägyptologische Beiträge zu den griechischen magischen Papyri, 277–292, in: U. VERHOEVEN and E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. ƒ&!Š ‹0  55‡ 0  €][ &?Y5 , Vol. 8, Gram     0/6, Berlin.

1965–77 %5 0 ;}”  0 j   ! [   %5 0 ;}”  0  " 0 5 gelberg, Heidelberg. 1999

;0 ~&>5 0  , HbOr I, The Near and Middle East, Vol. 36, 2 Vols., Leiden/Boston/Köln.

WIDMER, G. 2015

Egyptian, 40–56, in: C.T. HODGE (ed.), Afroasiatic. A Survey, JLSP 163, The Hague/Paris. Le rapport de l’Égyptien avec les langues Sémitiques. Quelques aspects du problème, 49–54, in: A. CAQUOT and D. COHEN (eds.), Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique: ‹ :U€`UX= UX€X, JLSP 159, The Hague/Paris.

Iron in Egypt, JEA 18, 3–15.

WÄLCHLI, B.

1973–83 Grammaire Copte, 2 Vols. in 4 fasc., Leuven. 1974

193

@›  H$ ` H; |55>  j   ‹ €\]_  j   ‹ ‚\€]: › &&  la persistance de la tradition sacerdotale dans le Fayoum à l’époque romaine, Ägyptische und Orientalische Papyri und Handschriften des Ägyptischen Museums und Papyrussammlung Berlin 3, Berlin.

WILDUNG, D. 1968

‡  @ ~&>5 0  %” &  j}‰  0   0} /   ‹0 8 Š    %” & der ersten vier Dynastien, MÄS 17, Berlin.

VITTMANN, G.

WILKINSON, T.

2002/03 Ein Entwurf zur Dekoration eines Heiligtums in Soknopaiu Nesos (pWien D. 10100), Enchoria 28, 106–136.

2000

Royal Annals of Egypt. The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments, London/New York.

VOLTEN, A.

2002

Early Dynastic Egypt, 2nd revised edition, London/ New York.

1937

   " 0 0 *

, DVSM XXIII.3, Copenhagen.

VYCICHL, W. 1960

Wie hieß König Snofru wirklich?, RSO 35, 123–127.

1983

Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte, Leuven.

1990

La vocalisation de la langue Égyptienne, BdE 16, Cairo.

WILLEMS, H. 1991

WINAND, J. 2009

WACKERNAGEL, J. 1905

Altindische Grammatik, Vol. II.1, {  & " lehre, Nominalkomposition, Göttingen.

WADDELL, W.G. 1940

Manetho, LCL 350, Cambridge/London.

The End of Seankhenptah’s Household (Letter to the Dead Cairo JdE 25975), JNES 50, 183–191. La particule m-r-a en néo-égyptien, 521–538, in: W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE and S. HENDRICKX (eds.), {   j>    ;  ! | | , OLA 191, Leuven.

WINDUS-STAGINSKY, E. 2006

Der ägyptische König im Alten Reich: Terminologie und Phraseologie, Philippika 14, Wiesbaden.

194

Roman Gundacker

WOLF-BRINKMANN, E. 1968

MANETHO

Versuch einer Deutung des Begriffes ‚b3Ÿ0  Überlieferung der Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches, PhD Dissertation, Basel/Freiburg.

‡  ƒ &   & 0 0 ;   , 3 Tomes in 13 Vols., edited by F. Jacoby, Berlin/Leiden 1923–58 (here: vol. IIIC no. 619).

WRESZINSKI, W. 1923–38 Atlas der ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, 3 Vols., Leipzig.

Manetho, LCL 350, edited by W.G. Waddell, Cambridge/London 1940. OLYMPIODORUS THE YOUNGER

YAMAZAKI, N. 2003

YOYOTTE, J. 1961

Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Edita consilio et auctoritate academiae litterarum regiae borussicae, Vol. 12, pars 2, Olympiodori in Aristotelis meteora commentaria, edited by W. Stüve, Berlin 1900.

Zaubersprüche für Mutter und Kind: Papyrus Berlin ^_?\, Berlin. Études géographiques I. La » Cité des Acacias « (Kafr Ammar), RdE 13, 71–105.

PLUTARCH ‡ $ , translated and edited by J.G. Grif#+@[[5  HÂ&>5 , Paris.

ntf nb r Dr SAa(w) wnn.wt, P. Leiden I 350, IV 15.

Des hommes de larmes, des hommes de tristesse? La conception anthropogonique dans les Textes des Sarcophages, JSSEA 40, 81–105.

HORNUNG, E. 1982

BARUCQ, A. and DAUMAS, F. 1980

213

61

Autofellatio and Ontology. Ancient Egyptian Religion and the Problem of Closure, Lecture given at Virginia Commonwealth University  5  ?_ UXX€, http://www.oocities.org/athens/academy/1326/ontology.html.

X.t=f nw.w im(y) s.t Hapy Hr ms nt(y).t nb.t sanx wnn.wt, Pap. Leiden I 350, V 21–22.

THE bA OVER TIME ! 9 #! '8],' 9? "* Emanuele Casini1 Abstract: The present paper aims at analysing the non-royal bA, paying attention to both the concept and its visual rendering. Contrary to the religious belief of the dualism ‘body plus soul’, the ancient Egyptians believed that the person consisted of a mechanism based on the union of many constituent elements, among which the bA played a crucial role. Although the contributions to the bA concept are not lacking, its essence still remains uncertain, something between a constituent element or part of the living person/deceased and an alter ego of the dead. From the mid-18th Dynasty onwards, the bA was repre-

sented as a human-headed bird, but little is known about the way of representing it before the NK. It seems inconceivable that before this epoch the bA did not possess any iconography, despite the continuity of concept essentially from the late OK onwards. By analysing some clues, including both textual sources and archaeological materials, it seems likely that the bA possessed two different forms from the MK onwards, the avian and the human one, not being imagined, probably, as something different from the person to whom it belonged, already in the late OK.

INTRODUCTION

The present paper takes into account the question of the iconography of the bA with particular attention to the period before the 18th Dynasty, without obviously overlooking the concept itself. During the passage from the late OK to the MK the bA concept was characterised by some changes,

  $  +[$ @[# ƒ onwards, to non-royal individuals as well. The Pyramid Texts were directed to the dead king only and, consequently, the references to the bA bear a different meaning. The non-royal version of the bA emerged later so that widespread access to the bA was possible for more and more private individuals,   ' @[# ƒ The lack of OK textual evidence referring to the non-royal bA could be due to the degradable materials on which the funerary texts for the nobles were written. As some recent studies highlight, the Pyramid Texts were the surviving part of a wider corpus of funerary literature that even non-royal individuals    #[$4 The earliest record of a bA referring to a private man can be found on a lintel in the tomb of the nobleman Herimeru, who was buried at Saqqara during the 6th Dynasty.5 This case presents itself as an eloquent example of bA-possession by non-royal people in the OK, as evident in the wish ‘sein Ba möge fortdauern bei Gott’.6 The reference to the bA, in this case, points out the wish that the deceased’s bA$'  #[$  [  god of the necropolis. Some scholars have considered it in the light of the almost outdated theory of

*

3

2

Among religious concepts that of the bA has received many contributions, nevertheless no univocal conclusion has yet been reached and scholars’  

  $  {      ]  spectrum of meanings belonging to the term itself and it seems impossible to enclose it in a single  # Š' bA may be explained as a constituent element of the living person as well as of the deceased, sometimes as an alter ego of the    ' @ Œ  '+  $   #tion can be offered since the nature of the bA changes according to different contexts. For this reason, many scholars prefer to keep the original term bA intact, instead of translating it with the term ‘soul’.3 In fact, by doing so it would suggest a dichotomy ‘soul plus body’ that was absolutely unknown to the ancient Egyptians.

1

2

My deep gratitude goes to Andrea Kahlbacher and Elisa Priglinger for having organised a wonderful International Congress for Young Egyptologists in Vienna. PhD Student at the University of Basel (date of beginning: August 2016), [email protected]. For an overview about the bA concept, see d 1968; BONGIOANNI and TOSI 1997, 35–62; ASSMANN 2005, 87–94; JANÁK 2011; HARRINGTON 2013, 3–7.

4 5 6

d 1968, 112–113. HAYS 2011, 115–130. PM III.2, 626. ALTENMÜLLER 1993, 4.

216

Emanuele Casini

the ‘democratisation’ of the afterlife, considering the inscription in question as the proof of the appropriation of the bA by non-royal people. Altenmüller hypothesises that ‘eine Übernahme von speziell königlichen Jenseitsvorstellungen als Folge einer Demokratisierung des königlichen Totenglaubens ist bei den Vorstellungen von der Ba-Seele daher nicht zu erkennen’.7 In effect, the physical absence of the Pyramid Texts within the non-royal tombs does not imply a denied hereafter to ‘common’ people, rather, it could have depended on constraints dictated by decorum.8 In any case, Herimeru’s inscription is invaluable evidence of the bA attributed to non-royal individuals at least towards the end of the OK. SOME REMARKS ON THE bA CONCEPT X'  '  $  

 [   @[#  ƒ  the Book of the Dead it is possible to observe a continuity of the bA concept. Some ideas, such as the interdependence between the bA and the corpse, that originated in the MK, continued in the NK. Part of spell CT 304 reads: ‘my soul (bA) is with me and will not go far from me’.9 The same idea is also expressed by some spells and vignettes of the Book of the Dead, which point out the very close relationship between the dead and his bA. Despite this continuity of concept, some questions still remain unsolved. First, the bA does not ^   ]

Š #    +    $   ' conceived of as a constituent element of the person10 and as one of the modes through which the deceased could continue to live and manifest himself, a sort of his alter ego.11 This ambivalence depends on the $'^[[  `[ ƒ # ^    $  # ^     + showing the four sons of Horus while offering the deceased his saH, kA, ib and bA, give us an evident example of the bA conceived of as a constituent element. For instance, a rectangular sandstone relief kept at

ALTENMÜLLER 1993, 15. On the effects of decorum especially in the NK, see BAINES 1990, 1–23; BAINES 2007, 14–30. 9 FAULKNER 1973, 223. 10 ASSMANN 2005, 87–112. 11  }#$ ' 'd 1968, 113. 12 For the picture, see the British Museum online catalogue. 13 KAMPP 1996, 452. 14 For the inscription and all the attested testimonies regarding this motif, see ASSMANN 1979, 67–77, pl. X. 15 KAMPP 1996, 447–450. 7

the British Museum (EA 5533612), which Assmann demonstrated as coming from the tomb of Amenemhet (TT 163, 19th Dynasty13), shows the four sons of Horus bringing the deceased his constituent elements, in particular Hapi offering the bA to him.14 On the contrary, some characteristics of the bA, for instance its freedom of movement, lead us to consider it as an active and independent entity, not a simple part of the living or of the dead. Some tomb wall   # ^    ]+ indeed, the deceased and his bA-bird as the agents of the same actions as well as the partakers of the same   #[ [  [ | + $[ the priest of Amun Tjanefer (TT 158, between 19th and 20th Dynasty15) the deceased is drinking water from a pool and his bA-bird receives water from the tree goddess;16 the deceased’s bA is also depicted while hovering among the palm trees near the pool,17 so displaying an autonomy that was not proper for the other constituent elements. There is another unsolved question concerning the origin of the bA]'[  kar states that the bA  {   @[# ƒ and in the Book of the Dead exists only after death. A series of MK texts (spells CT 99–104), originating in the Heracleopolitan Period, may suggest that the bA already existed in the living, as if it was a constituent part released at death.18 According to Gee, these same spells would refer to the sending of the bA to visit individuals in dreams.19 The opinions thereby vary and  [# '[  bA exclusively to the dead or even to the living is due to the great diversity of the sources which we refer to. The 12th Dynasty autobiographical stela of Semti (British Museum EA 574,20 reign of Amenemhet II) provides us with an interesting clue in support of

`‘ '   ^ œ¨ ple be kind of heart to my monument, gentle to my memorial! For I have not done wrong; I gladdened the god with right, so as to be yonder ensouled, #  +      + $  [  '‘21

16

8

17 18 19 20

21

A motif that will be successfully represented even in the following periods until the Roman epoch (d 1968, 145). SEELE 1959, pls. 11, 15. WILLIAMS 1962, 52. See also BARTA 1969, 86–87. GEE 2003, 230. For the picture of the stele in question, see the British Museum online catalogue. For the translation, see LICHTHEIM 1992, 36, n. 33. As for the hieroglyphic text, a drawing of the stele is available in the British Museum online catalogue.

The bA over Time

The stative forms bA.k(w)i and Ax.k(wi), translated ' ~ $  ¨  ‘  ¨#  ‘+ ƒpress the result of an action completed after the individual’s death. Since the dead became an Ax spirit  '[  +  $$$#  # 

+  Œ [ ]bAand Ax-states leads us to consider also the bA-state as achievable only after death. This aforementioned interpretation is logical, nevertheless there are also many valuable textual references to the bA of the living, an aspect that we ^  ` `    [  literature passages – which contain these references – different from that of the funerary spells, however, a comprehensive examination of the sources is absolutely necessary, because they can broaden our horizons concerning this issue. It is probable that the ancient Egyptians strongly believed in the possession of the bA during one’s lifetime, thus attributing some illnesses, malaises and stress to its temporary exit from the body. Some literary passages seem to contain the traces of a somewhat popular belief referring to the bA. According to the ancient Egyptians, loss of consciousness and fainting were thought to be caused by a temporary exit of the bA due to conditions of stress or strong emotions, as evident in the Tale of Sinuhe. There, the protagonist cannot bear the emotional stress of being in front of the king and the tremble of his limbs, along with a sense of confusion, is attributed to the exit of the bA out of the body. The passage in question reads: ‘bA=j sb.w Ha.w=j Ad.w HAty=j n ntf m X.t=j rx=j anx r mwt’,22 ‘My bA had gone, my limbs had trembled. My heart was no longer in my body (so that) I could (not) recognize life from death’.23 It is surprising to consider how the exit of the bA could seize up the human mechanism. More surprising seems to be the fact that the ancient Egyptians could attribute the state of inebriation of a person to the wandering of the bA, as clearly expressed in a rebuke contained in the Ramesside Papyrus Anastasi IV and addressed to a scribe who `$ œ¨š 'X]der, and thou art like a crooked steering oar in a boat that obeys on neither side; thou art like a shrine void of its god, like a house void of bread’.24 `-

22 23

24

Transliteration after KOCH 1990, 73–74. For additional translations, see BRESCIANI 1969, 174; BETRÒ 1990, 55. Quotation from d 1968, 118, n. 17; an additional translation is offered in BRESCIANI 1969, 330.

217

terprets this passage as an idiom used to express the irrationality produced by drinking alcoholic beverages, thus refusing the existence of the bA during the living’s lifetime. On the contrary, these beautiful and meaningful images, that of the shrine without its god and that of the house without bread, fully communicate to us how a body without its bA was     #  $        few traces of a likely popular wisdom that assigned the bA to the living. In addition, these two aforementioned examples seem to suggest that the bA was thought of as a sort of ‘vital force’, a feature that was rather proper of the kA   {   out how the boundaries between the concepts of bA and kA sometimes still remain nebulous. A passage in the Instructions for King Merikara recounts that the bA comes back to the place it knows, to the ‘yesterday’ path, from which it does not distance itself.25 Two options can be likely: the bA may know its former way because it is a conscious element inside the living, so it can relive the same experiences that the living has already lived. Otherwise, the bA may visit the ‘path of yesterday’ during the living’s dreams, thus suggesting the exit of the bA out of the person’s body while he is sleeping.26 These are certainly only a few clues, nevertheless they do exist and they give us another perspective on the question of the existence of the bA before or after death. REFLECTIONS ON THE bA ICONOGRAPHY With regard to the iconography, so far only a few scholars have wondered how the bA was represented before the appearance of the human-headed bird in the mid-18th Dynasty. In order to shed light on this question, it is necessary to examine the iconographic apparatus, starting from the well-known bA iconography and then investigating the less known aspects regarding its hypothesised visual rendering before the NK. We can say with certainty that the bA was represented as a human-headed bird from the mid-18th '']+ # ^ ]

 the writing system, as is evident in the almost si-

25

26

For the textual reference in question, see BRESCIANI 1969, 93. Even part of spell BD 89 refers to the bA as coming back to the ‘yesterday’ place; the passage in question reads: ‘May you then allow this my ba-soul to go out bearing the meat-offerings from the eastern horizon of the sky, to follow to the place where he was yesterday’ (QUIRKE 2013, 205). HASENFRATZ 1991, 92–93.

218

Emanuele Casini

multaneous appearance of the hieroglyph representing the human-headed bird with the incense pot.27 We can locate the appearance of this new iconography at about the time of the reign of Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BC). In the burial chamber of Sennefer’s tomb (TT 96, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, reign of Amenhotep II28) the deceased’s bA-bird is represented on the tomb walls in association with spell BD 151.29 The earliest hitherto known bA-bird statuette, that of Yuya (Cairo JE 95312), which belongs to a very close period, bears a tangible trace of an initial canonization for the representation of the bAbird itself, as is evident in its short wig and colours. The occurrence of the bA-bird statuettes was probably not so widespread during the NK. Two bA-bird statuettes are depicted, respectively, in a frieze of objects and in a funerary procession scene in the tomb of Horemheb (TT 78, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, reign of Amenhotep III30). Beyond the possible interpretations,31 this unique evidence as well attests to the existence of bA-bird statuettes around the mid-18th Dynasty. These three-dimensional bA-bird specimens, many of which I analysed in my Master’s degree thesis,32 can be divided into at least two [[  [   +¨  ‘¨#  ‘  ¨#  ‘   $  ]  ] one or more holes beneath the base, sometimes still with tangs for the attachment, used as ornamental appliqué for elements of the funerary equipment. The freestanding ‘statuettes’ are the specimens without any hole or tang beneath the base, for which we can hypothesise a placement above the sarcophagus or inside a niche.33 This iconography as well as the concept itself enjoyed an enduring timespan, including the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. In addition, the bA-bird iconography was assimilated by the Nubians, as attested to by the numerous bA-statues that have been found in the Meroitic cemeteries in Nubia.34 In this

case, the Nubian artists refashioned the iconographic aspect of the Egyptian bA-bird by representing it in an almost completely human form, with the wings as the only trace of the original avian form. In the mental processes bound to the visualisation of concepts and ideas, the ancient Egyptians were inspired by the surrounding natural environment. They were practical and concrete, careful in observing everything around them, skilful in drawing images to be attributed to everything and every concept. Thus, the lack of an iconography of the bA before the 18th Dynasty is absolutely inexplicable. A few scholars have proposed some interpretations about how the bA could have been represented or imagined before the mid-18th Dynasty, however, a comprehensive study of this aspect is lacking. The hypothesis of Sourouzian, Dodson and Ikram, according to whom the rishi [#   have represented the bA of the deceased, is noteworthy.35 The feathered pattern enveloping the lid [   [# $'       $  `  ]  #     '[  bA and the new one of the human-headed bird. The rishi[#$'^ ]`  [  new, emerging iconography of the bA imagined as a winged human being. A small group of mummy masks of the last years of the 17th Dynasty and early years of the 18th Dynasty shows apparent features that, according to Dodson, would represent the transformation of the mummy into a bA-bird, as suggested by the tiny human face melded into the body and wings of a bird.36 ‘ '^ ' $ + '# small number of these rare ‘micro-faced’ masks. In favour of the rishi pattern as a candidate for the visual rendering of the bA, it is noteworthy that the non-royal rishi [#            [   , OLA 204, Leuven.

DODSON, A. and IKRAM, S. 1998

The Mummy in Ancient Egypt. Equipping the Dead for Eternity, London.

ESCHWEILER, P. 1994

Sein Ba möge fortdauern bei Gott, SAK 20, 1–15.

ASSMANN, J. 1979

2005

Bildzauber im alten Ägypten: die Verwendung von j    [&~  & 0 ;& 0  /6       @ 0, OBO 137, Fribourg.

FAULKNER, R.O. 1973

/0* {&>5 !ˆ/6::5U`^]Y, Warminster.

223

The bA over Time 1977

/0* {&>5 !ˆ/6::5^]]` \‚\, Warminster.

MINIACI, G. 2011

FRANCIGNY, V. 2010

La statue-BA, 259`261, in: M. BAUD (ed.), Méroé: un empire sur le Nil, Paris.

@ 0 !ˆ0ƒ  > ! mediate Period Egypt, GHPE 17, London.

NOBLECOURT, C.D., DUC, M., EGGEBRECHT, E., HASSANEIN, F., KURZ, M. and NELSON M.

GARDINER, A.

1985

19573 {&>5 [  j &  0> !;  &>50, Oxford.

NUZZOLO, M.

GEE, J.

2011

2003

BA Sending and Its Implications, 230`237, in: Z. HAWASS (ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First  >+‹  &!0{ &0  gress of Egyptologists,  ?___, Vol. 2, Cairo.

HARRINGTON, N. 2013

| &} 00‡* " 0 5  > Ritual in Ancient Egypt, Oxford. Tod und Seele in Alten Ägypten, 88`102, in: G. BINDER and B. EFFE (eds.), Tod und Jenseits im Altertum, Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 6, Trier.

1982

The Death of the Democratisation of the Afterlife, 115` 130, in: N. STRUDWICK and H. STRUDWICK (eds.), Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archae&>?\]_`?U]_j, Oxford.

2007

Life and Death in Ancient Egypt. Scenes from Private Tombs in New Kingdom Thebes, New York.

2012

*} 5  !00; } Kingdom Egyptian Tomb Scenes, Oxford.

PICARDO, N.S. 2007

JANÁK, J. 2011

L’Enseignement du Ba a l’Homme désillusioné: Une Praxis en Rapport avec le Sens de la Vie, 1437`1441, in: J.-C. GOYON and C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the  0  & !{&>5& , Vol. 2, OLA 150, Leuven.

PADGHAM, J.

HODEL-HOENES, S. 2000

Denkmäler der Oase Dachla aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry, ArchVer 28, Mainz.

OUELLET, B.

HAYS, H. 2011

The ‘Reserve Heads’: Some Remarks on their Function and Meaning, 200`216, in: N. STRUDWICK and H. STRUDWICK (eds.), Old Kingdom, New Perspectives. {&>5  *   * 0&> ?\]_`?U]_ j, Oxford.

OSING, J., MOURSI, M., ARNOLD, Do., NEUGEBAUER O., PARKER, R. A., PINGREE, D. and NUR-EL DIN, M.A.

HASENFRATZ, H.P. 1991

Sennefer. Die Grabkammer des Bürgermeisters von Theben, Mainz.

A Question of Size: a Remark on Early Attestations of the ba Hieroglyph, SAK 40, 143`153.

‘Semantic Homicide’ and the So-called Reserve Heads: The Theme of Decapitation in Egyptian Funerary Religion and Some Implications for the Old Kingdom, JARCE 43, 221`252.

JUNKER, H.

QUIRKE, S.

1944

[  ‡  $0   "! 0!: Vol. I, Vienna/Leipzig.

2013

1955

[0‰ •!&[Q  0  j`, Vienna.

KAMPP, F. 1996

‡ 0 0 5+"[ &           ‡> , Theben 13, Mainz.

RITNER, R.K. 1993

@   5 : /  û *+ /  :@:; 5  es, Oxford.

KOCH, R. 1990

Die Erzählung des Sinuhe, BiAeg 17, Brussels.

LACAU, P. 1906

Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire, / , CGC, È?‚_‚\`?‚U?€, Cairo.

LICHTHEIM, M. 1973

Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings, Vol. +/0$ % &, Los Angeles.

1992

Maat in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies, OBO 120, Fribourg.

The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54, Chicago.

RZEPKA, S. 1996

KITCHEN, K.A. 2000

Going out in Daylight, prt m hrw, the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead: Translation, Sources, Meanings, GHPE 20, London.

The Pseudo-groups of the Old Kingdom – a New Interpretation, SAK 23, 335`347.

SEELE, K.C. 1959

/0/!/=! /0, OIP 86, Chicago.

SOUROUZIAN, H. 1984

Rischi-Sarg, 267`269, in: LÄ V, Wiesbaden.

TAYLOR, J. 2001

Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, London.

TÖRÖK, L. 2009

j} /} " + /0 ƒ    @&  j} *  {&>5:^\__j`*‡]__, ProblÄg 29, Leiden/Boston.

WILLIAMS, R.J.  @  ! 0 { > ƒ     j  #‚]‚Q\Y]j', The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 3, Toronto.

2017

HABACHI, L. 1972

The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the ;> @ 0 5 , ADAIK 8, Glückstadt.

HARRINGTON N. 2007

Children and the Dead in in New Kingdom Egypt, 52–65, in: R. MAIRS and A. STEVENSON (eds.), Current @ 0 {&>5&>?__]‹  &!0 60 Annual Symposium which took place at the University ! &:€Q‚?__], Oxford.

HEINZ, S.C. 2001

2008

Warlike Women in Ancient Egypt. @‹{| 27, 49–57.

JANZEN, M.D. 2013

/0 & 50> ! ;   + /0 ‡5    Treatment of Bound Foreigners in New Kingdom Egypt, Dissertation Memphis.

JAROŠ-DECKERT, B. 1984

‡[ 5 * chitecture, UZK 25, Vienna.

OSBORNE, R. 2008

Introduction: for Tradition as an Analytical Category, " * 0 40.3, 281–294.

PARKINSON, R.B. 2008

*  {&>5  |    + /0 $    Kingdom, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

MARTIN, G.T.

 ;+{   ;  @ !@, OIP 8, Chicago.

O’CONNOR, D.

LAURETIS, T. DE 1987

259

Boasting about Hardness: Constructions of Middle Kingdom Masculinity, 115–142, in: C. GRAVES-BROWN (ed.), 6  [   *  {&>5+ Ÿ‡ >  } &! =>!0 H, Swansea.

PAWLICKI, F. 1997

Polnische Arbeiten im Tempel der Königin Hatschepsut in Deir el-Bahari, 45–56, in: I. WOLNIAK (ed.), [0    %” &  ;05 &>5 0%U]5 0  %:Š0:  " 0, Warsaw.

260

†‡‚

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1898

Deshasheh, MEES 15, London.

QUACK, J.F. 1992

Studien zur Lehre für Merikare, GOF IV 23, Wiesbaden.

R ENZETTI, C.M. 2004

Feminist Theories of Violent Behaviour, 131–143, in: M. A. ZAHN, H. H. BROWNSTEIN and S. L. JACKSON (eds.), Violence: From Theory to Research, Cincinnati.

SCHNEIDER, T. 2010

Foreigners in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence and Cultural Context, 143–163, in: W. WENDRICH (ed.), Egyptian Archaeology, Oxford.

SPALINGER, A. 1977/78 A Canaanite Ritual found in Egyptian Reliefs, JSSEA VIII, 47–60. SPIVAK, G.C. 1995

SWEENEY, D. and YASUR-LANDAU, A. 1999

Is Androcentric Archaeology really about Men?, Ar0& + <  ! 0 "  * 0&  Congress 7.1, 56–74.

SCHUKRAFT, B. 2007

Homosexualität im Alten Ägypten, SAK 36, 297–331.

Following the Path of the Sea Persons: The Women in the Medinet Habu Reliefs, Tel Aviv 26.1, 116–145.

VANDKILDE, H. 2012

SKOGSTRAND, L. 2010

Can the Subaltern Speak?, 66–111, in: B. ASHCROFT, G. GRIFFITHS and H. TIFFIN (eds.), The Post-colonial Studies Reader, London/New York.

Warfare in Northern European Bronze Age Societies: Twentieth-Century Presentations and Recent Archaeological Research Inquiries, 37–62, in: S. RALPH (ed.) /0 * 0&> !  +    5  > *5proaches, New York.

WRESZINSKI, W. 1935

Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil II, Leipzig.

THE EVOLUTION OF LIBYANS’ IDENTITY MARKERS IN EGYPTIAN ICONOGRAPHY >?>&?+8 * Elena Panaite1 Abstract: This paper presents some insights into the diachronic evolution of the Libyan’s identity markers, focusing $ ' # ]'     'tian iconography. The starting points are the reliefs from the OK funerary temples which show Libyans wearing different  # $   „+]  ] Libyan tribes threatened the Egyptian border several times. Therefore, the NK war reliefs display different types of Lib-

yans, some of them having old markers mixed together with new garments and hairstyles. Whereas in the NK the term §Hnw must refer to inhabitants of Libya in a geographical sense, without regard to their ethnic identity, the Tjehenu attributes are still pictured. Crossbands, belts and phallus sheaths are also worn by the new Libyans, but the OK Tjehenu ]  # '$`   

  some precise kinds of scenes.

INTRODUCTION

about the topos and mimesis, the conventional vs. the profane image.5 The research subject of this paper   ƒ ^ '      [#    + dealing with the Libyan topos in terms of physical   ^    # takes a close look at the various attributes of the earliest Libyans pictured in the Egyptian sources, mainly on wall reliefs. The second section highlights the trend changes which have occurred in the NK. Fi

'+      #  ‘ attributes employed in this period. The main purpose of this paper is an attempt to examine whether or not, or to what extent, the identity markers contribute to a better understanding of the historical events, underlying the ideological conceptions.

The three main traditional enemies of Ancient Egypt, Libyans, Nubians and Asiatics, can throughout Egyptian history be well-distinguished by clothing and appearance. The iconographical sources ] 

 [  $ ]  #  + ] $`     #   '     term ‘Libyans’, still used today lato sensu, in fact includes several nomadic tribes encountered west of the Nile. The Egyptian language points out different designations: §Hnw, §mHw, Rbw, MSwS, for the most known. Among these, the Tjehenu are the    #

'   ~' people, known from Predynastic times.2 Since indigenous archaeology is undocumented,3 all that can be known about their physical aspects comes from the Egyptians’ sources, both textual and iconographic.4 Spalinger recently discussed the concept of alterity and icons in the Egyptian NK war reliefs, providing a visual parallel to Loprieno’s work

*

1

2

3



This work has been supported by the Labex ARCHIMEDE under the program “Investissement d’Avenir” ANR-11LABX-0032-01. Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes, UMR5140, Univ. Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, CNRS, F-34000 Montpellier (France), PhD student, [email protected].  #$ [     $

^' cylinder of Horus ‘Narmer’, Ashmolean Mus. E 3915. They  #  ` ] +[KAPLONY   !*0   Lisht, MMAEE 20, New York.

GRIMAL, N.-C. 1981

| 50‹ #* 0'†› , MIFAO 105, Cairo.

Libyer und Ägypter, ÄgForsch 4, Glückstadt.

HOPE, C.A.

CHAMPOLLION, J.-F. 1835

/0   > /5 ! @  {6   !  ;^, OIP 54, Chicago.

Egypt and ‘Libya’ to the End of the Old Kingdom: A View from Dakhleh Oasis, 399–415, in: Z.A. HAWASS and J. RICHARDS (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of An  {&>5+ {>  ;  ! ‡  j $H : CASAE 36, Cairo.

HORNUNG, E. 1980

Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits, AegHelv 8, Geneva.

JANZEN, M.D. 2013

/0 & 50> ! ;   + /0 ‡5    Treatment of Bound Foreigners in New Kingdom Egypt, PhD Dissertation, Memphis.

JÉQUIER, G. 1938

|!›  ‹›5>:  Le temple, Cairo.

1940

|!›  ‹›5>:  Les approches du temple, Cairo.

KAPLONY, P. 1963

‡  0 !   ~&>5 0 ƒ Š0 : ÄgAbh 8, Wiesbaden.

KEIMER, L. 1948

Remarques sur le tatouage dans l’Égypte ancienne, Cairo.

KEES, H. and VON BISSING, F.W. 1923

‡@Q;  &%” &Q" Q@, Leipzig.

LABROUSSE, A. 1977

| 5 0  56 !›      $, BdE 73, Cairo.

LABROUSSE, A. and LAUER, J.-P. 2000 |56!›  H$ !›! 0›pès, 2 Vols., BdE 130, Cairo.

FISCHER, H.G.

LEAHY, A.

1961

1990

The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period, Kush 9, 44–80.

HALL, E.S. 1983

A Continuation of the Smiting Scene, 75–79, in: H. DE MEULENAERE and L. LIMME (eds.), Artibus Aegypti,   ; j   j0 , Brussels.

HAYES, W.C. 1937

Glazed Tiles ! ‹!@% :The Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers 3, New York.

HEINZ, S.C. 2001

Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches, UZK 17, Vienna.

HÖLSCHER, U. 1930

{   ;  @ !@, Vol. I., OIP 8, Chicago.

1939

/0/5!0{ &00‡>>{6  !  ;?, OIP 41, Chicago.

| >{&>5:U^__`\]_j, London.

LECLANT, J. 1980

La ‘famille libyenne’ au temple haut de Pépy Ier, 49– 54, in: J. VERCOUTTER (ed.), Livre du centenaire, MIFAO 104, Cairo.

LEE MCCARTHY, H. 2003

The Function of ‘Emblematic’ Scenes of the King’s Domination of Foreign Enemies and Narrative Battle Scenes in Rameses II’s Nubian Temples, JSSEA 30, 59–90.

LOPRIENO, A. 1988

Topos und Mimesis, ÄgAbh 48, Wiesbaden.

MACADAM, L.M.F. 1949

The Temples of Kawa , Oxford.

MAROCHETTI, E.F. 2010

The Reliefs of the Chapel of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Gebelein, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 39, Leiden/Boston.

The Evolution of Libyans’ Identity Markers in Egyptian Iconography  $  

SHAW, I.

2014

2000

Invaders of Just Herders? Libyans in Egypt in the Third and Second Millennia BCE, " * 0&> 46/4, 610–623.

MÜLLER, H.W. 1964

Ägyptische Kunstwerke, Kleinfunde und Glas in der &{%˜ `/  & | , Berlin.

NAVILLE, E. and HALL, H.R. 1913

2003

SPALINGER, A.

1980

Historical Observations on Military Reliefs of Abu Simbel and Other Ramesside Temples in Nubia, JEA 66, 83–99.

1982

Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, New Haven/London.

2011

Re–Reading Egyptian Military Reliefs, 475–491, in: S. SNAPE and M. COLLIER (eds.), Ramesside Studies in ; !%*% 0, Bolton.

The nature of Tjemhu (Libyan) Society in the Later New Kingdom, 29–113, in: A. LEAHY (ed.), Libya and {&>5:U^__`\]_j, London.

2011

!‹} , Prague.

Egypt’s Views of ‘Others’, 155–185, in: J. TAIT (ed.), Ÿ   ; 0 |  $ H+ {&>5H  } !  Past, London.

1996

j ;. ‹ , London. /0/!%0 !:/0/UX?, OIP 102, Chicago.

O’CONNOR, D. 1990

2003

PARKINSON, R.B. and SCHOLFIELD, L. 1993

Akhenaten’s Army?, EgArch 3, 34–35.

PETRIE, W.M.F. 1887

Racial Photographs from the Egyptian Monuments, Princeton.

PIANKOFF, A. 1954

/0 / ! @ :  ?: ‹ !  ! ‹, Bollingen.

STOCKFISCH, D.

A Review of Tattooing in Ancient Egypt, BACE 17, 123–136.

RICKE, H., HUGHES, R. and WENTE, E.F. 1967

/0j Q" /5!@, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Vol. 1, Chicago.

RITNER, R. 2008

2009

| >  0{&>5 , 305–314, in: S.E. THOMPSON and P. DER MANUELIAN (eds.), Egypt and j>+{>‹ | ;| :5 0 @ ! 0"  0 !{&>5&> j }   >: *0 5&    ! [ j   ! UX€X, London.

UPHILL, E. 1965/66 The Nine Bows, JEOL 19, 393–420. VALBELLE, D. 1990

Les Neufs Arcs: l’égyptien et les étrangers de la préhis À„ÇH*6 , Paris.

VERCOUTTER, J. 1956

L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique: étude cri „ ›&>5 #›À ˆ‡> ', BdE 22, Cairo.

VERNUS, P. 1995

{        H;    H{&>5 pharaonique, Paris.

VITTMAN, G. 2003

ROMION, J. 2011

Bemerkungen zur sog. ‘libyschen Familie’, 315–325, in: M. SCHADE–BUSCH (ed.), "&”!!ƒ0 !!Š  @![0€][ &, ÄAT 35, Wiesbaden.

SWAN HALL, E.

POON, K.W.C. and QUICKENDEN, T.I. 2006

The Emergence of Libya in the Horizon of Egypt, 93– 106 in: D. O’CONNOR and S. QUIRKE (eds.), Mysterious Lands, London. Some Notes on the Libyans of the Old Kingdom and ~ \ € { ƒ +> 5  ‡  Qj0  ‹  , MEES 32, London.

NIMS, C.F. et al. 1980

/0$6! ;  >!* {&>5, Oxford.

SNAPE, S.

1979

NEWBERRY, P.E. 1893

273

Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97, Mainz.

WACHSMANN, S. 1987

Aegeans in the Theban Tombs, OLA 20, Leuven.

WAINWRIGHT, G.A. 1962

The Meshwesh, JEA 48, 89–99.

274

Elena Panaite

WRESZINSKI, W. 1935

Atlas Zur Altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, Leipzig.

YOYOTTE, J. 2012

Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie libyenne, RAPH 34, Cairo.

ANCIENT AUTHORS DIODORUS SICULUS ‡     , translated by C.H. Oldfather, London 1967.

BREAKING THE ‘RULES’? 7  qX [ 3 #   1 Abstract: This study explores the question of innovation and new pictorial resources in New Kingdom art, especially in the 18th and 19th Dynasty private Theban tombs, which seem to have been a more convenient context for artists’ innovations, where they explored new possibilities. A good example may be the transgression of some Egyptian ‘rules’ of display which artists have followed over centuries, such as the attempts to create depth and perspective in the composition. Frontal images are also an example of the emancipation from Egyptian ‘rules’ of  '+  $#  $    focussed on innovation, I have paid special attention to the frontal poses of animals, such as the cats represented under the seats of their owners in tomb scenes, or the frontal dogs shown in the popular desert hunt scenes. These hunting dogs shown en face+$ $  ^ ]  + { ¨ `‘[  movement of animals, being attested in several private Theban

tombs. I believe this type of animal frontal poses could have worked as ‘visual hooks’, calling the attention of the viewer to    [# '[  ^  just a self-developed process within the Theban workshops, or [ '    [[  {  – $  in mind that it was a period of intense contact with the world abroad, when foreign objects displaying new motifs and poses arrived to Egypt, and were appreciated by the elite. In fact, frontal poses in animal depictions are also attested in wooden boxes of NK date or even in objects from the royal sphere, such as pieces from the funerary equipment of the tomb of Tutankha$+$'  {   

¨  ' ‘[  14th century BC, in which iconographic elements and idioms passed between Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. The most skilled artists could be inspired by foreign iconography and poses when decorating the NK private Theban tombs.

INTRODUCTION

visitors to come to their tombs.3 I think these tomb scenes should be considered as artworks that were created to be viewed, admired and appreciated by ancient Egyptians, in some way those scenes were   '  [   # ¨  ‘}  will try to show, the NK private tombs seem to have been a more convenient context for artists’ innovations, where they explored new possibilities.

The private tombs built into the Theban necropolis during the NK have been known for decades, and much attention has been paid to the wall paintings and reliefs which decorated them, although many still remain unpublished. In the present article, I will explore the question of innovation and new pictorial resources in NK art, focusing on the 18th and 19th Dynasty tombs in Thebes. The choice of private tomb-chapels is due to several reasons. First of all, NK royal tombs usually show a program which basically relies on funerary and religious contents and it is also a means for displaying royal ‘propaganda’. In addition, the artists who decorated royal tombs seem to have followed the Egyptian artistic conventions more closely. Besides, the number of NK private Theban tombs is high: approx. 210 tombs dated to the 18th Dynasty have survived, offering diverse evidence for exploring innovations.2 These private tombs were in fact funerary chapels, comprising the function of resting place and memorial cult place, as they were visited by relatives and friends on special occasions. Moreover, the tomb owners wanted

1

2

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid (Spain), [email protected]. KAMPP 1996, 144–146.

TRANSGRESSION OF SOME EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONAL RULES: ATTEMPTS AT PERSPECTIVE Before examining the examples of innovative scenes, a brief remark must be made regarding the ‘rules’ of representation in ancient Egyptian Art, especially on two-dimensional art. Several scholars have analysed the topic focusing on what may be labelled ‘canonical art’. In particular the pioneer work by Heinrich Schäfer is of interest, revealing the complexity and variety of representations.4 Ancient Egyptian images found in paintings or reliefs combine all the important aspects that are really necessary to understand them, but they are not an exact copy of their natural archetype. According to

3

4

BRYAN 2009, 22; for the private Theban tombs and their social dimension, see also ENGELMANN-VON CARNAP 1995; FITZENREITER 1995. E.g. SCHÄFER 1986; DAVIS 1989; ROBINS 1994; BAINES 2007.

276

Inmaculada Vivas Sáinz

 +[ ƒ$  $#  

'   ]  + [ # + but with just one eye and the torso, both in frontal view, so the resulting image does not correspond directly with reality.5 A similar convention applies to animal representation, as for instance bulls, cats or dogs are usually shown with their body and their    # +   '   [ ^ ]6 It must also be stressed that ancient Egyptian art does not follow the linear perspective (contrary to modern Western art), and artists were not much concerned with giving an illusion of depth. But we can some$  # ¨   ‘ ]      [#   +[     indicated by placing similar items of equal size in several levels, without a differentiation in the scale, '^   $$ #  7 Several examples of innovation in NK Egyptian two-dimensional art may be considered, which show the transgression of some Egyptian representational ‘rules’ that have been followed over centuries by Egyptian artists. The tomb scenes were traditionally organised in registers, producing compositions with ‘fragmented details’ of landscape or nature, with an absence of linear perspective. However, some NK tombs show innovative scenes which try to create a sense of perspective and depth, for instance we could mention the well-known tomb of Nakht, TT 52. In the east wall of the transverse hall of this tomb we see an agricultural scene, composed of two sub-registers divided by an undulating line.8 The hu$#    ] Š      ed bigger than the ones in the upper sub-register, trying to create the effect of a more distant position [ $

#  }  '     be found in TT 57, where we also see an undulating line in the agricultural scene,9 which was maybe copied from the tomb of Nakht. A similar treatment of the composition could be found in the agriculture scene in the transverse hall of TT 17,10 dated to Thutmose III/Amenhotep II, where the different siz [ #  '  $   ^ +   in the depiction of some men counting the grain.

5 6 7 8 9 10

SCHÄFER 1986, 277–309; ROBINS 1994, 13–20. SCHÄFER 1986, 214–217. ROBINS 1994, 6–11. DAVIES 1917a, pl. 18; LABOURY 1997, 55–56. LABOURY 1997, 56. SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH 1957, pl. XXII. Further scenes with attempts at perspective could be found for instance in TT 96A and TT 145, see EL-SHAHAWY 2010, 194–195, 200–201.

In a very subtle way, the Egyptian artists are trying to create some perspective in the composition, by   [[[    [ #  + combining what they could see in reality with the representational ‘rules’ of Egyptian art. Also worth mentioning is the scene with cattle in the tomb of a man named Nebamun, dated to the reigns of Thutmose IV to Amenhotep III, whose lively style could be appreciated in a facsimile in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.11 The artist tries to show depth by placing one row of big-sized cattle in the lower position, some of them superimposing each other, and another row of small-sized cattle above (probably young calves), but trying to create the effect of a distant position. This innovative detail is placed in the middle of the composition in the lower register, probably calling   [ ^ ]  #  [  ^  remind of the vivid style of the animals, attested in the wall paintings of the palatial complex of Malqata dated to Amenhotep III, with calves running in the marshes.12 The hunt in the desert scene in the transverse hall of the well-known tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100),13 shows another interesting way of creating depth: the usual register lines have disappeared and were transformed into undulating lines, suggesting depth in the composition, where animals, depicted in {'  

+   [[       ist probably intends to render the landscape of the desert hills with these undulating register lines, contributing to create the effect of chaos that the desert animals symbolise. The scene is unique in NK painting, and in some way recalls the representation of nature and animals in Aegean paintings.14 To sum up, this type of innovations reveal that Egyptian artists were exploring new ways of rendering traditional themes, creating images that were closer to reality, as if they were trying to represent what they could see. It seems that the attempts to show a realistic image were not fully achieved, as the weight of the Egyptian representational rules was very important. It is necessary to remark that

11

12

13 14

Facsimile belonging to TT 90, see WILKINSON and HILL 5, Oxford.

MORGAN 2004, 293–295.

Breaking the ‘Rules’? DAVIES, N.M. 1936 1962

/ 0H‹ j6:Oxford.

DAVIS, W. 1989

The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art, New York.

DEN DONCKER, A. ;! *     6 ! {&>5 *  ‹  & ! 0    !  00!ƒ * :j5:U^–U]> ?_U_, Budapest. ENGELMANN-VON CARNAP, B. 1995

Soziale Stellung und Grabanlage: zur Struktur des Friedhofs der ersten Hälfte der 18. Dynastie in Scheich Abd el-Qurna und Chocha, 107–128, in: J. ASSMANN (ed.), Thebanische Beamtemnekropolen, SAGA 12, Heidelberg.

FITZENREITER, M. 1995

egyptienne anciene. Un monde de signes a preser  : *  „      j 6: MonAeg 7, Serie Imago 1, Brussels.

Ancient Egyptian Paintings, 3 Vols., Chicago.

DAVIES, N.M. and GARDINER, A.H.

Totenverehrung und soziale Repräsentation im thebanischen Beamtengrab der 18. Dynastie, SAK 22, 95–130.

MALEK, J. 1993

/ 0› + › 5  ‡  H *ìHQ&+ |@
#?]]': ‹0> #  U€':   H* #  UX':   H*QQ  #?\\':MIFAO 57.4, Cairo.

HARI, R. 1985

Le tombe Thébaine du pére divin Neferhotep #//]_': Geneva.

The Cat in Ancient Egypt, London.

MANNICHE, L. 1987

City of the Dead: Thebes in Egypt, London.

1988 Lost Tombs: A Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monuments in the Theban Necropolis, London. 2003 The so-called Scenes of Daily Life in the Private Tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty: An Overview, 42–45, in: N. STRUDWICK and J. TAYLOR (eds.), The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, London. MARINATOS, N. and MORGAN, L. 2005

The Dog Pursuit Scenes from Tell el Dab‘a and Kea, 119–122, in: L. MORGAN (ed.), *&"‹  &+ A Tribute to Mark Cameron, British School at Athens Studies 13, London.

MARTIN, G.T. 1991

/0; /!50 , London.

MORGAN, L. 2004

Feline Hunters in the Tell el Dab‘a Paintings: Iconography and Dating, Ä&L XIV, 285–298.

2006

Art and International Relations: the Hunt Frieze at Tell el Dab‘a, 249–258, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines: Studies

; !! j  :OLA 149, Vol. II, Leuven.

FOUCART, G. 1935

ROBINS, G. 1994

Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, London.

REEVES, K. 2005

/0 /   ! |6   0 > ! 0 % &, Cairo.

HARTWIG, M.K.

SAKURAI, K., KONDO, J. and YOSHIMURA, S.

2003

1988

2004

Style and Visual Rhetoric in Theban Tomb Painting, 298–307, in: Z. HAWASS and L. PINCH BROOK (eds.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. ‹  & ! 0 { &00    &  ! Egyptologists,  ?___, Vol. 2, Cairo. / ‹  &   > *  /0: UYUX– U^\?j{:Turnhout.

KAMPP, F. 1996

‡ 0 0 5+•"[ &     ‡> , Mainz.

Comparative Studies of Noble Tombs in Theban Necropolis, Tokyo.

SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T. 1957

Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, Oxford.

SCHÄFER, H. 1986

Principles of Egyptian Art, Oxford.

EL-SHAHAWY, A.

2010

Recherches sur le décoration de les tombes Thébaines du Nouvel Empire, London.

KOZLOFF, A.P.

SMITH, W.S.

2001

1952

2005

The Decorative and Funerary Arts during the Reign of Amenhotep III, 95–105, in: D. O’CONNOR and E.H. CLINE (eds.), *05+‹ 5 0 @ &, Ann Arbor. The Artistic Production of the Reign of Thutmose III, 292–324, in: E.H. CLINE and D. O’CONNOR, (eds.) Thut+*}j & 50>, Ann Arbor.

LABOURY, D. 1997

Une relecture de la tombe de Nakht (Cheikh ‘Abd el-Gourna, TT 52), 49–81, in: R. TEFNIN, La peinture

289

An Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian Toilet Box, BMFA 50, 74–79.

STRANDBERG, Å. 2009

/0[ * {&>5 * +&ing, Uppsala.

TAVIER, H. 2012

Pour une approche experimentale de la peinture thebaine, 209–215, in: K.A. KOTHAY (ed.), Art and So > *     6 ! {&>5  *  ‹  & ! 0    !  0 

290

Inmaculada Vivas Sáinz 0!ƒ * :j5:U^–U]>?_U_, Budapest.

TIRADRITTI, F. 2008

{&>5 "‹  &, New York/London.

VOLOKHINE, Y. 2000

La frontalité dans l’iconographie de l’Egypte ancienne, Geneva.

2013

Dessins atypiques: entorses aux proportions classiques et frontalité, 58–65, in: G. ANDREU-LANOË (ed.), L’art du contour. Le dessin dans l’Egypte ancienne, Paris.

VANDIER D’ABBADIE, J. 1937

& ˆ& ›‡ › 0, Vol. II, Cairo.

1966

Les singes familiers dans l’ancienne Égypte, RdE XVIII, 143–201.

WILKINSON, C.K. and HILL, M. 1983

{&>5  " ‹  &+/0  5 H Collection of Facsimiles, New York.

ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS approx. c. cat. no. cf. col. coll. ed./eds. e.g. esp. etc. ex. fasc. # §#  fr./frs. i.e. inv. lin. Mus. n./nn. no./nos. p./pp. pl./pls. ro. s.p. s.v.

approximately circa catalogue number confer (consult, compare) Columna Collection editor/editors for example Especially et cetera Exemplum Fascicula #  §#   fragment/fragments id est inventory linea Museum note/notes number/numbers page/pages plate/plates recto sine pagination sub vide

tab./tabs. Vol./Vols. vo. vs.

table/tables Volume/Volumes verso versus

ACE BD BM CG EA FIP JE KUB KV MK MMA NK OK P PT SIP TIP TT

Australian Centre for Egyptology Book of the Dead British Museum Catalogue Général el-Amarna tablet First Intermediate Period Journal d’Entrée Keilschrift-Urkunden aus Boghazköi King’s Valley Middle Kingdom Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York New Kingdom Old Kingdom Papyrus Pyramid Texts Spell Second Intermediate Period Third Intermediate Period Theban tomb

LIST OF ABBREVIATED JOURNALS AND SERIES AAALiv

Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Liverpool (Liverpool).

ÄAT

Ägypten und Altes Testament (Wiesbaden).

AAWB

Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin).

AAWMainz

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Kl. (Wiesbaden).

AAWMun

Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. (Munich).

ACE Reports

Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports (Oxford).

AcOr

Acta Orientalia (Leiden).

ADAIK

Abhandlungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo (Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York).

Ä&L

Ägypten und Levante. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie und ihre Nachbargebiete (Vienna).

ÄgAbh

Ägyptologische baden).

ÄgForsch

Ägyptologische Forschungen (Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York).

AIHS

Archives internationales d’histoire sciences (Paris, Wiesbaden).

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology. Archaeol. Inst. of Amer. (New York, Baltimore, Norwood).

ANM

Archéologie du Nil Moyen. Assoc. pour la prom. de l’archéol. nilotique (Lille).

AnOr

Analecta orientalia (Rome).

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forsch. (Berlin, New York).

Abhandlungen

(Wies-

des

AegHelv

Aegyptiaca helvetica (Genf).

AegLeod

Aegyptiaca Leodiensia (Liège).

Antiquity

AfO

Archiv für Orientforschung. Internat. Zeitschr. für die Wiss. vom Vorderen Orient (Berlin, Graz).

Antiquity. Quarterly Revenue of Archaeology (Newberry, Cambridge).

AOAT

Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn).

292

Abbreviations

APAW

Abhandlungen der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin).

BME

British Museum Expeditions to Middle Egypt (London).

ARA

Annual Review of Anthropology (Palo Alto).

BMFA

ARCE

American Research Center in Egypt (Cairo).

Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston).

ArchDelt

Archaiologicon Deltion. Serv. des antiq. (Athens).

BMHBA

Bulletin du Musée hongrois des beaux-arts (Budapest).

Archeo-Nil

Archéo-Nil. Bulletin de la Société pour l’étude des cultures prépharaoniques de la vallée du Nil (Paris).

BMSAES

British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan (London).

BSAA

ArchVer

Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. Deutsches archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo (Berlin, Mainz).

Bulletin de la Société d’Alexandrie (Alexandria).

BSAE

British School of Archaeology in Egypt (and Egyptian Research Account) (London).

BSAK

Beihefte: Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg).

archéologique

ArOr

Archiv orientální. Quart. Journ. of African and Asian Stud. Inst. orient. in Prague (Prague).

BSEG

ARWAW

Abhandlungen der rheinisch-westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Opladen).

Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie de Genève (Geneva).

BSFE

ASAE

Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Cairo).

Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie (Paris).

CahKarn

ASAW

Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse (Stuttgart, Leipzig).

Cahiers de Karnak. Centre franco-égyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak (CFEETK), @         #Œ  (Paris).

ASEg

Archaeological Survey of Egypt (London).

CASAE

Cahiers, ASAE Supplement (Cairo).

BACE

Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology. Macquarie University (Sydney).

CCÉ

Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne. Institut français d’archéologie oriental (Cairo).

BAR

British Archaeological Reports (London).

CCEM

BASOR-Suppl

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies (New Haven, Conneticut).

Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean (Vienna).

CCE(S)

Cahiers caribéens d’égyptologie. Université des Antilles (Martinique), Université de Yaounde I (Cameroon), Université de Barcelone (Spain).

CdÉ

Chronique d’Égypte. Fonds égyptologique Reine Élisabeth (Brussels).

CENiM

Cahiers Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne (Montpellier).

CGC

Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire (Cairo).

CIAHA

Collection de l’Institut d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’Antiquité. Univ. Lumière-Lyon 2 (Lyon).

BASP

Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. Columbia University (NewYork).

BCE

Bulletin de liaison du Groupe international d’étude de la céramique égyptienne. Institut français d’archéologie oriental (Cairo).

BCH

Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (Paris).

BdE

Bibliothèque d’Étude, IFAO (Cairo).

BEFAR

Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (Rome, Paris).

BEHE

Bibliothèque de l’École pratique des hautes études (Paris, Leuven).

CICNRS

BeitrÄg

Beiträge zur Ägyptologie. Inst. für Afrikan. und Ägyptol. der Univ. Wien (Vienna).

Colloques internationaux du Centre National   €    #Œ  

CNIP

Berytus

Berytus. Archaeol. Stud. Mus. d’archéol., Univ. amér. de Beyrouth (Beirut).

The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near East Studies, Publications (Copenhagen).

CRAIBL

BES

Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. Egyptological Seminar (New York).

Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris).

CRIPEL

BEStud

Brown Egyptological Studies (Providence).

BiAeg

Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca (Brussels).

Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et égyptologie de Lille. Université de Lille (Lille).

BIFAO

Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo).

CSSH

Comparative Studies in Society and History. University of Cambridge (Den Haag).

BiOr

Bibliotheca orientalis. Nederlands Inst. voor het Nabije Oosten (Leiden).

CurrAnthr

Current Anthropology (Chicago).

DAWW

Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. (Vienna).

BJRL

Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester (Manchester).

293

Abbreviations DFIFAO

Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo).

JANER

Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions (Cologne, Leiden, Boston).

DiscEg

Discussions in Egyptology (Oxford).

JAOS

DÖAWW

Denkschriften der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien (Vienna).

Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven).

JAR

DVSM

Kongelike Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs, Š#    @   

Journal of Archaeological Research (London, New York).

JARCE

EEF

Egypt Exploration Fund (London).

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (Boston, New York).

EES

Egypt Exploration Society (London).

JAS

EgArch

Egyptian Archaeology. The Bull. of the Egypt Explor. Soc. (London).

Journal of Archaeological Science (London, New York).

JEA

Egypte

Egypte. Afrique et Orient. Centre vauclusien d’égyptologie (Avignon, Paris).

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Egyptian Exploration Society (London).

JEgH

Journal of Egyptian History (Leiden).

ENiM

Égypte nilotique (Montpellier).

JEOL

Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden).

EPRO

Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain (Leiden).

JCunStud

Journal of Cuneiform Studies (Ann Arbor, New Haven).

EQA

Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie (Münster).

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies. Counc. of the Soc. for the Prom. of Hell.

ERA

Egyptian Research Account (London).

ESAP

Egyptian Studies Association Publication (Oxford).

EtudPap

Études de papyrologie (Cairo).

EtudTrav

et

méditerranéenne

Stud. (London). JLSP

Janua Linguarum. Series Practica, Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicatae (The Hague, Paris).

Études et travaux. Trav. du Centre d’archéol. méditerr. de l’Acad. des sc. polon. (Warsaw).

JMA

Journal of  [#  

EVO

Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Rivista della sezione orient. Istituto di storia antica, Universiá de Pise (Pisa).

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Dept. of Near Eastern Lang. and Civilis.,

ExcMem

Excavation Memoirs (London).

JournSav

FIFAO

Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo).

Journal des savants l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. (Paris).

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies (London).

ForschBer

Forschungen und Berichte. Staatliche Museen (Berlin).

JSSEA

Journal of the Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto).

GHPE

Golden House Publishing Egyptology (London).

Klio

Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Berlin).

GOF

Göttinger Orientforschungen (Wiesbaden).

Kush

Kush. Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service (Khartoum).

GöttMisz

Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion (Göttingen).

LCL

Loeb Classical Library (London).

HÄB

Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge (Hildesheim).

LingAeg

Lingua aegyptia. Journal of Egyptian Studies. Seminar für Ägyptololgie und Koptologie (Göttingen).

HbOr

Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden, Cologne).

LIT

Linguistik, Impulse & Tendenzen (Berlin).

MAIBL

Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris).

MAPS

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society (Baltimore).

HSK

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (Berlin, New York).

Mediterranean

Archaeology

Univ. of Chicago (Chicago).

IFAO

Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo).

MÄS

Münchner Ägyptologische Studien (Berlin, Munich).

JAA

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Univ. du Michigan (Ann Arbor, Mich.)

MÄU

JAC

Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum (Münster).

Münchner ägyptologische Untersuchungen. Philos. Fak. für Altertumskunde und Kulturwiss. (Munich).

MDAIK

JACF

Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. Inst. for the Stud. of Interdiscipl. Sc. (Orpington, Kent, London).

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (Wiesbaden).

Méditerranées

Méditerranées. Revue de l’Association Méditerranées (Paris).

294 MEEF

Abbreviations Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (London).

MEES

Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society (London).

Menes

Menes. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches (Wiesbaden).

MET

Mond Excavation at Thebes (London).

MFhS

Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft (Munich).

OrSuec

Orientalia suecana (Uppsala, Stockholm).

PAM

Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean. Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeol. University of Warsaw (Warsaw).

PBSEA

Publications of the British School of Egyptian Archaeology (London).

Philippika

Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen (Wiesbaden).

P.L.Bat

Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava (Leiden).

PMMA

Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum (New York).

MIFAO

Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo).

MIO

Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin).

PPYE

Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt (New Haven, Conneticut, Philadelphia).

MMAEE

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition. Metropolitan Museum (New York).

ProblÄg

Probleme der Ägyptologie (Leiden).

PSBA

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London).

PTT

Private Tombs at Thebes (Oxford).

RAPH

Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire. Inst. franç. d’archéol.

RdE

Revue d’égyptologie. Societé d’égyptologie (Paris, Leuven).

RealEnc

PAULY, A. and WISSOWA, G., Real- Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1893-1980 (Stuttgart, Munich).

RevArch

Revue archéologique (Paris).

MMAF

Mémoires Publiés par les Membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire (Cairo).

MMJ

Metropolitan Museum Journal, Metropolitan Museum (New York).

MonAeg

Monumenta aegyptiaca (Brussels).

orient. (Cairo). français

MonÄS

Monographien zur Ägyptischen Sprache (Göttingen).

NAWG

Nachrichten von der Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. (Göttingen).

NES

Near Eastern Studies, University of California Publications (Berkeley, London, Los Angeles).

RevEg

Revue égyptologique (Paris).

NGWG

Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.- hist. Klasse, Fachgruppe I: Altertumswissenschaften (Göttingen).

RIA NS

Rivista del Istituto nazionale di archeologia e storia dell’arte, Nova Series (Rome).

RIDA

Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité (Brussels).

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Fribourg Germany, Göttingen).

RSO

Rivista degli studi orientali. Scuola orient., univ. de Rome (Rome).

Oikumene (B)

Oikumene. Stud. Ad hist. antiquam class. et orient. spectantia. Akademie Kiadó (Budapest).

RT

Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes (Paris).

Oikumene (F)

Oikumene. Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte. VerlagAntike (Frankfort).

RVV

Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten (Berlin).

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications. University of Chicago (Chicago).

SAC

Studies in Ancient Chronology. Univ. College (London).

OIS

Oriental Institute Seminars. University of Chicago (Chicago).

SAGA

Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens (Heidelberg).

OLA

Orientalia lovaniensia analecta. Departement Oriëntalistiek, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Leuven).

SAK

Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg).

SAOC

OLZ

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (Berlin).

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations (Chicago).

OMRO

Oudheidkundige Mededelingen vit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (Leiden).

SAWW

OpAth

Opuscula atheniensia. Institutum atheniense Regni Sueciae (Lund/Sweden).

Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. (Vienna).

SCBO

  

  @$$  # Instituti biblici (Rome).

Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca oxoniensis (Oxford).

SDAIK

OrMonsp

Orientalia Monspeliensia (Montpellier).

Sonderschrift des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (Mainz).

295

Abbreviations SEH

Social Evolution & History. Studies in the Evolution of Human Societies (Russia).

Tel Aviv

Tel Aviv, Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology (Tel Aviv).

SEAP

Studi di Egittologia e di antichità Puniche (Bologna, Pisa).

TLA

Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (Berlin).

Serapis

Serapis. Amer. Journ. of Egyptol. (Chicago).

SHR

Studies in the History of Religion. Suppl. to Numen (Leiden).

SicGym

Siculorum Gymnasium. Rassegna della Fa        # # 

Ԡ^    Catania (Catania/Italy).

SMSR

Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni (Rome).

Transeuphraténe Transeuphratène. Recherches pluridisc. sur une province de l’Empire achéménide (Paris). TTS

Theban Tombs Series (London).

Tyche

Tyche. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Papyrolologie und Epigraphik (Vienna).

UGAÄ

Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens (Leipzig).

UMissS

University of Missouri Studies (Columbia).

UPAC

University of California Publications in Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology, University of California (Berkeley/California).

USE

Uppsala Studies in Egyptology. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University (Uppsala).

UZK

Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes (Vienna).

Sokar

Sokar. Die Welt der Pyramiden (Berlin).

SÖKK

Schriften des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts Kairo, Arch.-Hist. Abteilung (Cairo).

SPAW

Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin).

SSEAP

The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publication (Toronto).

SSHAW

Supplemente zu den Schriften der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.hist. Kl. (Heidelberg).

VDI

Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, Revue d’histoire ancienne. Institut d’histoire universelle (Moskow, St. Petersburg).

SSLL

Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics (Leiden).

VT

Vetus Testamentum (Leiden).

WorldArch

StudDem

Studia demotica (Leuven).

World Archaeology, University College (London).

StudEgypt

Studies in Egyptology (London).

WVDOG

StudHell

Studia hellenistica (Leiden, Leuven).

StudPohl

Studia Pohl (Rome).

Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Pelizaeus-Museums zu Hildesheim (Hildesheim).

StudTest

Studi e testi (Rome).

WZKM

SudNub

Sudan & Nubia. Sudan Archaeological Research Society (London).

Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Verb. der wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Österreichs (Vienna)

YES

Yale Egyptological Studies (New Haven).

Syria

Syria. Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie (Paris).

ZÄS

Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Leipzig, Berlin).

TAVO

Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswiss.), n° 1, (Wiesbaden).

ZDMG

Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig, Wiesbaden).

TDSA

Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’Antichità (Milan, Varèse).

ZPE

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (Bonn).

KRI

KITCHEN, K.A., @   5  Vol. I– VII, Oxford 1968–1970.

LÄ

HELCK, W., OTTO, E. and WESTENDORF, W. (eds.), |6  &>5&  Vol. I–VII, Wiesbaden 1975–1992.

LD

LEPSIUS, K.R., Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, 12 Vols., Berlin, 1849–1958, Leipzig, 1913.

MH

The Epigraphic Survey,   ; Vol. I– IX, OIP 8, 9, 23, 51, 83, 84, 93, 94, 136, Chicago 1930–2009.

PM

PORTER, B. and MOSS, R.L.B, Topographical j  & 50> !*  {&>5  ;  &>50 

LIST OF ABBREVIATED MONOGRAPHIES CMS

MATZ, F. (ed.), Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, Berlin 1964–2005.

CT

DE

HDT.

Herodotus, The Persian Wars, with an English translation by A. D. Godley, Vol. II, Books IIIIV, Vol. III, Books V-VII, Vol. IV, Books VII-IX, The Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge, MA 1920.

Karnak

BUCK, A., /0{&>5 !ˆ/6, 7 Vols., Chicago 1935–1961.

The Epigraphic Survey, @ ! 5  at Karnak Vol. I–IV, OIP 25, 35, 74, 107, Chicago 1936–1986.

296

Abbreviations IV, 17–22: HELCK, W., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Berlin 1955–1961. V, 1–3: GRAPOW, H., Religiöse Urkunden, Leipzig 1915–1917. VI, 1–2: SCHOTT, S., Urkunden mythologischen Inhalts, Leipzig 1923–1939. VII, 1: SETHE, K., Historisch-biographische Urkunden des Mittleren Reiches, Leipzig 1935. VIII, 1: SETHE, K., Thebanische Tempelinschriften aus der griechisch-römischen Zeit, Berlin 1957.

/6: @ !  ‹  & Vol. I-VII, Oxford 1927–1952. PT

SETHE, K., ‡  ~&>5 0 ‹>  6 nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums, 4 Vols., Leipzig 1908– 1922.

Urk.

Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums, I, 1–4: SETHE, K., Urkunden des Alten Reiches, Leipzig 1933². II, 1–3: SETHE, K., Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit, Leipzig 1904. III, 1–2: SCHÄFER, H., Urkunden der älteren Äthiopienkönige, Leipzig 1905. IV, 1–16: SETHE, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Berlin/Graz 1961².

Wb.

ERMAN, A. and GRAPOW, H. (eds.), "”  0 der ägyptischen Sprache Vol. I–VI, Berlin/Leipzig 1926–1963.

INDEX

KEYWORDS Alter ego 215, 216, 219, 220 Ältere Komposita 11, 159, 161–176, 178 Amarna correspondence 160, 174 Amarna Period 11, 105–107, 110–113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 175, 236, 264 Amduat 202, 229–231 Analogy (analogical) 34, 38, 40, 92, 124, 127, 129, 133, 165, 169–172, 174–177 Anubieion 89 Archaic Period 132 Archer 263, 264 Art of speech (Hmw.t-rA) 168 Ba (bA) 12, 155, 169–172, 211, 215–222, 232, 236, 238 Basalt 61, 63, 65–67 Beer jar 10, 20–22, 26, 31–42, 138 Book of gates 172, 265 Book of Hours 170 Book of the dead (BD) 11, 176, 197, 198, 200–204, 208, 211, 216–220, 230, 236–238 Book of Thoth 160, 169, 170 Boundary stela 253 Breccia 66 Bronze 10, 45, 47–50, 52–58, 263, 283 Bubasteion 89 Burial equipment 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 32, 40, 41, 61 C14 46, 54 Cairo linen text 170 Canal (aw-mw) 166 Casting material 45–47, 51, 52 mould 11, 45, 46, 48–58 Cat 275, 276, 284–287 Cenotaph 212, 231, 233 Chiefdom 123–127, 129, 130, 133 @ #