DOI Artikel:
Laskowski, Piotr: A note on Thutmose III's Building Activity at Buhen
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18950#0045
coregency, most probably at the very beginning of this period.6 * * Hatshepsut
seems to have honoured her husband Thutmose II only for a very short period
after her coronation and tended to neglect him and promote Thutmose I to
legitimise her power. Thus, sińce Thutmose II appears on the column at Buhen,
it may be deduced that the colonnade was decorated shortly after year 7.
However, the dating of the colonnade poses yet another problem. On the
column numbered 30 erected at the facade of the tempie the dedication
formula appears with the names of Thutmose III. The text goes:
[III] m mnw=f n jt=f Hr nb Bhn jrt n-f wsht-hbjt
... as bis foundation for bis father Horus, Lord of Buhen, [namely] making for him
a festival court.
Laboury suggested that ‘Tinscription datee de 1'an 23 et celle mentionnant
la construction de \'wsh.t-hb(y).t apparaissent sur des supports qui font partie
d'une meme unitę architecturale (pilier 16 et colonne 30).”s Laboury is not
precise in this matter. Architecturally column 30 belongs to the facade of the
main building and might have been erected long before the open court was
added to the tempie. It should be noted that column 28 at the facade was
inscribed for Thutmose II, which would indicate the beginning of the
coregency as a datę of execution.9 On the other hand Laboury correctly points
that the inscription on the column indicates that functionally it belonged to
the open court, not to the colonnade around the tempie described as jwnw
in the dedication formula on column 40.10 Therefore one may suppose that
the open court of Thutmose III was considerably rebuilt and the text on
column 30 refers to the court in its earlier form.
The text of Nehy on pillar number 16 is dated to the year 23 and it seems
it is contemporaneous with the rebuilding of the court (although the king says
(Urk. IV 807.9-10): kd=jpr-f hws(j)-j mnw=f— I built his house, constructed
his mnw). Contrary to what Laboury claimed the text of the stela clearly refers
to the battle of Megiddo.11 In the text a subtle allusion is madę to the ‘war
council at Yehem’ where Thutmose III himself chose the road to Aruna
without listening to the opinion of his officers (Urk. IY808.15):
nsw ds=f ssp=f wlt
The king himself took the road
6 Cf. very obscure stela cat. no. 1579 in: H.S. Smith, The Fortress of Buhen. The Inscriptions,
London 1976, p. 122, pl. 27 (5). Probably Smith is accurate in his interpretation of this piece,
and thus it should be dated to the regency period.
Caminos, op. cit., vol. I, pl. 79.
s Laboury, op. cit., p. 36, cat. no. 210.
9 Caminos, op. cit., vol. I, pl. 77.
10 Ibid., vol. I, pl. 95 (4).
11 Cf. Laboury, op. cit., p. 36, n. 210.
43
seems to have honoured her husband Thutmose II only for a very short period
after her coronation and tended to neglect him and promote Thutmose I to
legitimise her power. Thus, sińce Thutmose II appears on the column at Buhen,
it may be deduced that the colonnade was decorated shortly after year 7.
However, the dating of the colonnade poses yet another problem. On the
column numbered 30 erected at the facade of the tempie the dedication
formula appears with the names of Thutmose III. The text goes:
[III] m mnw=f n jt=f Hr nb Bhn jrt n-f wsht-hbjt
... as bis foundation for bis father Horus, Lord of Buhen, [namely] making for him
a festival court.
Laboury suggested that ‘Tinscription datee de 1'an 23 et celle mentionnant
la construction de \'wsh.t-hb(y).t apparaissent sur des supports qui font partie
d'une meme unitę architecturale (pilier 16 et colonne 30).”s Laboury is not
precise in this matter. Architecturally column 30 belongs to the facade of the
main building and might have been erected long before the open court was
added to the tempie. It should be noted that column 28 at the facade was
inscribed for Thutmose II, which would indicate the beginning of the
coregency as a datę of execution.9 On the other hand Laboury correctly points
that the inscription on the column indicates that functionally it belonged to
the open court, not to the colonnade around the tempie described as jwnw
in the dedication formula on column 40.10 Therefore one may suppose that
the open court of Thutmose III was considerably rebuilt and the text on
column 30 refers to the court in its earlier form.
The text of Nehy on pillar number 16 is dated to the year 23 and it seems
it is contemporaneous with the rebuilding of the court (although the king says
(Urk. IV 807.9-10): kd=jpr-f hws(j)-j mnw=f— I built his house, constructed
his mnw). Contrary to what Laboury claimed the text of the stela clearly refers
to the battle of Megiddo.11 In the text a subtle allusion is madę to the ‘war
council at Yehem’ where Thutmose III himself chose the road to Aruna
without listening to the opinion of his officers (Urk. IY808.15):
nsw ds=f ssp=f wlt
The king himself took the road
6 Cf. very obscure stela cat. no. 1579 in: H.S. Smith, The Fortress of Buhen. The Inscriptions,
London 1976, p. 122, pl. 27 (5). Probably Smith is accurate in his interpretation of this piece,
and thus it should be dated to the regency period.
Caminos, op. cit., vol. I, pl. 79.
s Laboury, op. cit., p. 36, cat. no. 210.
9 Caminos, op. cit., vol. I, pl. 77.
10 Ibid., vol. I, pl. 95 (4).
11 Cf. Laboury, op. cit., p. 36, n. 210.
43