DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49271#0041
Excavations at Nuri
19
The names marked with a star are those previously known. Unfortunately, the
correct transliteration of the names is beyond our present knowledge. I have consulted
Prof. Griffith, who has kindly made a transliteration on the basis of his knowledge of the
Meroitic, but it is clear that the analogy with the Meroitic applies only to the later
names, possibly only to the later names of group d. The first name Thrq (Taharqa?) is
transcribed Tirhaqa HpHin in Hebrew, Tar-qu-u in Assyrian, and Teapicav, Tap/cos and
Tapa/afc in Greek. The second name, ’imn-tnwt, corresponds historically to the name
given in Assyrian as Ur-da-ma-ni-e, the reading of which as Tan-da-ma-ni-e appears to
be incorrect.2 The system by which the names are written on the Nuri monuments is that
already known from the names, partly Egyptian and partly local, given by the Barkal
inscriptions (see especially the Aspalta stelae). In the above list only no. 19 is clearly
Egyptian, while no. 17 seems to be partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian(?). Attention
must be called, however, to one peculiarity of the writing of the names which seem to be
Ethiopian (or whatever the language is) in character. That peculiarity consists in the
use of what appear to be ideograms in writing certain elements,— as for example,
male ( = “good” ?, according to Prof. Griffith),3 with the variant Q (see nos.
5 and 9), krk = Egyptian grg, and variant The
first of these (male) occurs in nos. 8 and 15 and in the names of at least three queens,
written with the following variants: Other ele-
ments in these names have been pointed out by Prof. Schaefer4 and identified with
certain modern Nubian words. But the material is far too scanty to permit any
reliable conclusion even as to the language, and none of the languages which might come
in question is sufficiently well-known in its ancient form to lend us material assistance in
the vocalization of the names. In view of the importance of the historical results, the
present publication can not wait on the work of producing a scientific transliteration.
I have therefore merely endeavored to find forms which were at the same time pronounc-
able and identifiable with the hieroglyphic originals.
The evidences on which the historical conclusions of the above list are based, are
derived from: —
(1) The inscriptions and other material found at Gebel Barkal and in Egypt.
(2) The forms and the types of construction used in the pyramids.
2 H. Ranke, ‘Keilschriftliches Material zur altagyptischen Vokalization ’, (Kon.-preuss. Akad. Wissensch.
Abhandl. philos.-histor. Class. Anhang. Abhandl. 2, Berlin, 1910), p. 36.
3 See F. LI. Griffith, Karandg. The Meroitic inscriptions of Shablul and Karandg, Philadelphia, 1911, p. 41,
note 1.
4H. Schafer, ‘Die aethiopische Konigsinschrift des Louvre’ (Zeitsch. f. iigypt. Sprache, vol. 33, pt. 2, 1896,
p. 101 sqq.) p. 112 sq.
19
The names marked with a star are those previously known. Unfortunately, the
correct transliteration of the names is beyond our present knowledge. I have consulted
Prof. Griffith, who has kindly made a transliteration on the basis of his knowledge of the
Meroitic, but it is clear that the analogy with the Meroitic applies only to the later
names, possibly only to the later names of group d. The first name Thrq (Taharqa?) is
transcribed Tirhaqa HpHin in Hebrew, Tar-qu-u in Assyrian, and Teapicav, Tap/cos and
Tapa/afc in Greek. The second name, ’imn-tnwt, corresponds historically to the name
given in Assyrian as Ur-da-ma-ni-e, the reading of which as Tan-da-ma-ni-e appears to
be incorrect.2 The system by which the names are written on the Nuri monuments is that
already known from the names, partly Egyptian and partly local, given by the Barkal
inscriptions (see especially the Aspalta stelae). In the above list only no. 19 is clearly
Egyptian, while no. 17 seems to be partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian(?). Attention
must be called, however, to one peculiarity of the writing of the names which seem to be
Ethiopian (or whatever the language is) in character. That peculiarity consists in the
use of what appear to be ideograms in writing certain elements,— as for example,
male ( = “good” ?, according to Prof. Griffith),3 with the variant Q (see nos.
5 and 9), krk = Egyptian grg, and variant The
first of these (male) occurs in nos. 8 and 15 and in the names of at least three queens,
written with the following variants: Other ele-
ments in these names have been pointed out by Prof. Schaefer4 and identified with
certain modern Nubian words. But the material is far too scanty to permit any
reliable conclusion even as to the language, and none of the languages which might come
in question is sufficiently well-known in its ancient form to lend us material assistance in
the vocalization of the names. In view of the importance of the historical results, the
present publication can not wait on the work of producing a scientific transliteration.
I have therefore merely endeavored to find forms which were at the same time pronounc-
able and identifiable with the hieroglyphic originals.
The evidences on which the historical conclusions of the above list are based, are
derived from: —
(1) The inscriptions and other material found at Gebel Barkal and in Egypt.
(2) The forms and the types of construction used in the pyramids.
2 H. Ranke, ‘Keilschriftliches Material zur altagyptischen Vokalization ’, (Kon.-preuss. Akad. Wissensch.
Abhandl. philos.-histor. Class. Anhang. Abhandl. 2, Berlin, 1910), p. 36.
3 See F. LI. Griffith, Karandg. The Meroitic inscriptions of Shablul and Karandg, Philadelphia, 1911, p. 41,
note 1.
4H. Schafer, ‘Die aethiopische Konigsinschrift des Louvre’ (Zeitsch. f. iigypt. Sprache, vol. 33, pt. 2, 1896,
p. 101 sqq.) p. 112 sq.