DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0101
Dariusz Niedziôlka
decorated and erected by Hatshepsut on the fes-
tival court in front of the IV pylon at Karnak
(GABOLDE, A propos de deux obélisques de
Thoutmosis II, dédiés à son père Thoutmosis I
et érigés sous le règne d’Hatshepsout-pharaon
à TOuest du IVe pylône, Cahiers de Karnak
VIII, Paris 1987, p. 149 and n. 9; IDEM, re-
view of DORMAN’s work [op. cit.], BiOrAl
(1990), col. 640). It seems, however, that this
interpretation is hard to defend. Firstly, the
graffito of Senenmut should most probably be
dated just before Hatshepsut’s enthronement (see
below pp. 100-104), ie it was executed, and
consequenüy the obelisks mentioned in its text, when
Thutmose II was already dead. Secondly, if the
obelisks mentioned by Senenmut had anything to
do with this king, he should have been mentioned
one way or another in this text. Thus, the commonly
accepted attribution of this inscription to Hatshepsut’s
obelisks erected in the eastem part of the temple of
Amon-Re at Kamak should be maintained.
j.InBREASTED’sopinion (op. cit., p. 151 n.e
and p. 139 n. h) it should be the name of the jubi-
lee or the royal feast. HAB ACHI was of a similar
opinion (op. cit, p. 95), admitting the expression
hh.w rnp.wtto be the name of feast, and in his
other work (Obelisks ofEgypt, p. 68) he sug-
gested, that the feast of “Millions of Years” could
be the feast of coronation. In MEYER’s opinion
(op. cit., p. 130) they were obelisks “von Millionen
(von Jahren)” (one should notice, thatbracketing
rnp.wt, would suggest an emendation of the text
by MEYER [cf. the transliteration without rnp.wt
given by her, op. cit., pp. 132 and 133], is not
necessary, as the sign mp. t was placed on the head
of the hh sign). A similar opinion was also ex-
pressed by BURKHARDT (op. cit., p. 51).
MEYER then suggested explicitly (pp. 132-33),
that one should not relate the obelisks to any feast.
Most probably, the phrase hh.w rnp.wt intro-
duced by the genitive linker n. w should be recog-
nised as the second adjectival attribute to thn.wj
and thus one should rather translate as “two great
everlasting obelisks”. This by no means contra-
dicts the opinion that the obelisks were somehow
related to any feast. As their decoration (see Ch.
KUENTZ, Obélisques, CGC, Le Caire 1932,
pp. 22-24 and pls. VII-IX; see also NIE-
DZIÔLKA, Pyramidia of Queen Hatshepsut’s
Eastem Obelisks at Kamak and their Attribution
to Particular Bases, GM175 (2000), pp. 40-41;
there also the earlier bibliography regarding these
obelisks, p. 40 footnote 3) seems to imply they
were related exactly to the coronation and en-
thronement of the queen, as HAB ACHI already
suggested (JNES 16, p. 96). It seems however,
following MEYER, that there is no solid support
to recognise the expression hh.w rnp.wt as the
name of this feast.
k. The contingent sdm.jn=f form refers to
preterital events, whose occurrence was directly
dependent on the situation described in the pre-
ceding context or unmentioned but evident; thus
the form expresses the time dependency but it was
used in main clauses (see L. DEPUYDT, The
ContingentTenses of Egyptian, Or 58 (1989), pp.
24-25; IDEM, Conjunction, Contiguity, Con-
tingency. On Relationships between Events in
the Egyptian and Coptic Verbal Systems, New
York-Oxford 1993, pp. 247-48; T. RITTER, Das
Verbalsystem der königlichen und privaten
lnschriften. XVIII. Dynastie bis einschließlich
Amenophis III., GOF IV.30, Wiesbaden 1995,
pp. 69-70, 102-05 and LOPRIENO, op. cit.,
pp. 78-79 (there also the previous bibliography
regai'ding this form); MALAISE, WINAND,
GREC, p. 267 § 449 and p. 390 § 626). One
should notice that the subject of this clause cannot
be represented by the adverbial phrase mj wdd. t,
which is neither a nominal nor nominalised verbal
phrase, that could occur in such a function (see
GARDINER, EG\ p. 397 § 486 Obs. 1; H.J.
POLOTSKY, “Les transpositions du verbe en
égyptien classique”, IOS 6 (1976), pp. 22-23,
who, it seems, without reason, suggested the tran-
sitive meaning for the verb hpr and consequently
the impersonal meaning of the constmction). Thus,
one should rather assume that the subject “if’, re-
suming the events described previously, ie the
quarrying of obelisks, was omitted under relevance
(regai'ding the omission under relevance, see also
M. COLLIER, hpr and the ‘raising’ paradigm in
Middle Egyptian, Wepwawet 3 (1987), pp. 1-
10; IDEM, JEA 77 (1991), p. 36-38). As far as
theproblemofthe subjectomission in this clause
did not cause serious problems to the authors
98
decorated and erected by Hatshepsut on the fes-
tival court in front of the IV pylon at Karnak
(GABOLDE, A propos de deux obélisques de
Thoutmosis II, dédiés à son père Thoutmosis I
et érigés sous le règne d’Hatshepsout-pharaon
à TOuest du IVe pylône, Cahiers de Karnak
VIII, Paris 1987, p. 149 and n. 9; IDEM, re-
view of DORMAN’s work [op. cit.], BiOrAl
(1990), col. 640). It seems, however, that this
interpretation is hard to defend. Firstly, the
graffito of Senenmut should most probably be
dated just before Hatshepsut’s enthronement (see
below pp. 100-104), ie it was executed, and
consequenüy the obelisks mentioned in its text, when
Thutmose II was already dead. Secondly, if the
obelisks mentioned by Senenmut had anything to
do with this king, he should have been mentioned
one way or another in this text. Thus, the commonly
accepted attribution of this inscription to Hatshepsut’s
obelisks erected in the eastem part of the temple of
Amon-Re at Kamak should be maintained.
j.InBREASTED’sopinion (op. cit., p. 151 n.e
and p. 139 n. h) it should be the name of the jubi-
lee or the royal feast. HAB ACHI was of a similar
opinion (op. cit, p. 95), admitting the expression
hh.w rnp.wtto be the name of feast, and in his
other work (Obelisks ofEgypt, p. 68) he sug-
gested, that the feast of “Millions of Years” could
be the feast of coronation. In MEYER’s opinion
(op. cit., p. 130) they were obelisks “von Millionen
(von Jahren)” (one should notice, thatbracketing
rnp.wt, would suggest an emendation of the text
by MEYER [cf. the transliteration without rnp.wt
given by her, op. cit., pp. 132 and 133], is not
necessary, as the sign mp. t was placed on the head
of the hh sign). A similar opinion was also ex-
pressed by BURKHARDT (op. cit., p. 51).
MEYER then suggested explicitly (pp. 132-33),
that one should not relate the obelisks to any feast.
Most probably, the phrase hh.w rnp.wt intro-
duced by the genitive linker n. w should be recog-
nised as the second adjectival attribute to thn.wj
and thus one should rather translate as “two great
everlasting obelisks”. This by no means contra-
dicts the opinion that the obelisks were somehow
related to any feast. As their decoration (see Ch.
KUENTZ, Obélisques, CGC, Le Caire 1932,
pp. 22-24 and pls. VII-IX; see also NIE-
DZIÔLKA, Pyramidia of Queen Hatshepsut’s
Eastem Obelisks at Kamak and their Attribution
to Particular Bases, GM175 (2000), pp. 40-41;
there also the earlier bibliography regarding these
obelisks, p. 40 footnote 3) seems to imply they
were related exactly to the coronation and en-
thronement of the queen, as HAB ACHI already
suggested (JNES 16, p. 96). It seems however,
following MEYER, that there is no solid support
to recognise the expression hh.w rnp.wt as the
name of this feast.
k. The contingent sdm.jn=f form refers to
preterital events, whose occurrence was directly
dependent on the situation described in the pre-
ceding context or unmentioned but evident; thus
the form expresses the time dependency but it was
used in main clauses (see L. DEPUYDT, The
ContingentTenses of Egyptian, Or 58 (1989), pp.
24-25; IDEM, Conjunction, Contiguity, Con-
tingency. On Relationships between Events in
the Egyptian and Coptic Verbal Systems, New
York-Oxford 1993, pp. 247-48; T. RITTER, Das
Verbalsystem der königlichen und privaten
lnschriften. XVIII. Dynastie bis einschließlich
Amenophis III., GOF IV.30, Wiesbaden 1995,
pp. 69-70, 102-05 and LOPRIENO, op. cit.,
pp. 78-79 (there also the previous bibliography
regai'ding this form); MALAISE, WINAND,
GREC, p. 267 § 449 and p. 390 § 626). One
should notice that the subject of this clause cannot
be represented by the adverbial phrase mj wdd. t,
which is neither a nominal nor nominalised verbal
phrase, that could occur in such a function (see
GARDINER, EG\ p. 397 § 486 Obs. 1; H.J.
POLOTSKY, “Les transpositions du verbe en
égyptien classique”, IOS 6 (1976), pp. 22-23,
who, it seems, without reason, suggested the tran-
sitive meaning for the verb hpr and consequently
the impersonal meaning of the constmction). Thus,
one should rather assume that the subject “if’, re-
suming the events described previously, ie the
quarrying of obelisks, was omitted under relevance
(regai'ding the omission under relevance, see also
M. COLLIER, hpr and the ‘raising’ paradigm in
Middle Egyptian, Wepwawet 3 (1987), pp. 1-
10; IDEM, JEA 77 (1991), p. 36-38). As far as
theproblemofthe subjectomission in this clause
did not cause serious problems to the authors
98