DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0103
Dariusz Niedziôlka
person qualified as “majesty”) is some times at-
tested in inscriptions of the 18th dynasty (Urk.
IV, pp. 141, 6; 776, 11; 889, 4). The clause is
a model example of the so-called nominalised
or topical sdm.n=f form (see POLOTSKY, op.
cit., pp. 18-23 - and especially p. 22, where
a fragment of the inscription of Thutmose II in
Aswan containing a clause similar to the pres-
ently discussed one has been quoted, however
not quite correctly interpreted; the issue has
been recently discussed by RITTER, op. cit.,
pp. 80-94). In such a case, the verbal phrase
(here: hpr.n=0) represents the theme or topic,
and the following adverbial phrase (here: n blw
hm. t=s) fulfils the rhematic function in the clause.
All the scholars who have so far been working
on the graffito, even those who were translat-
ing this text in the latest decades, ignored the
thematic function of the sdm. n=fform occur-
ring here, and thus the change of the salience
hierarchy of particular phrases of the clause as
regards their informational force. As regards this
clause in the other inscriptions of the 18th dy-
nasty, only D. LORTON (The Aswan/Philae
Inscription of Thutmosis II, in: S. I. GROLL
(ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to
Miriam Lichtheim, Jerusalem 1990, vol. 2,
p. 674 and n. 33) has pertinently translated and
interpreted this clause in the inscription of
Thutmose II as Aswan, and the best interpre-
tation on the linguistic level has been given by
RITTER (op. cit., p. 297) in the index of ver-
bal forms occumng in the inscriptions of the 18 th
dynasty. It is also important that the phrase
n bl.w hm “because of the power of the maj-
esty of’ was always related to the actually reign-
ing kings: Thutmose II in the inscription at As-
wan (Urk. IV, p. 141,6) and Thutmose III in
one of the inscriptions in Akhmenu (Urk. IV,
p. 776,11) and in the stela in Sinai dated to his
25th regnal year (Urk. IV, p. 889,4). The case
u JNES 16, p. 96.
12 Op. cit., p. 131.
13 As regards the inscriptions on the pyramidion of one
of these obelisks, now before the entrance to the Egyp-
tian Museum in Cairo, see Ch. KUENTZ, Obélisques,
CGC, Le Caire 1932, pp. 22-24 and pls. VH-IX.
14 The opinion has been then followed by Ch.F. NIMS,
The Eastern Temple at Karnak, BeiträgeBf. 12,
of the graffito of Senenmut is an exception in
this respect.
* * *
From the contents of this inscription of
Senenmut, it seems certain that the graffito was
executed during the regency of Hatshepsut, as
she is qualified with titles and epithets entitled
to the principal royal wife, but not long before
she became a king. Such a date of the text has
not been questioned until some recent publica-
tions.
HABACHI11 suggested, that Senenmut had
already been sent to Aswan before Hatshepsut
assumed the royal protocol, but the obelisks
were erected just on the occasion of her coro-
nation and enthronement.
In the opinion of MEYER,12 the inscription
was carved in the latest months before corona-
tion of Hatshepsut, as her protocol, inscribed on
the obelisks to which the works mentioned by
Senenmut in the discussed inscription are related,
is of evidently royal nature.13 Concurrently,
MEYER accepted HAB ACHI’s opinion, that the
monuments were erected on the occasion of
Hatshepsut’s enthronement.14
Attempting to date the inscription of
Senenmut at Aswan, DORMAN15 noticed the
already discussed epithet dj.(t).n n=s Rcnzy. t
- “one, to whom Re has given the kingship”.16
This epithet, in DORMAN’s opinion, besides
the very decision to execute obelisks, should
be considered the decisive criterion against dat-
ing of the inscription of Senenmut to the reign
of Thutmose II. Concurrently he suggested, that
if Hatshepsut’s decision to fashion obelisks at-
tests her royal claims in the area of building ac-
tivity, then some years may have passed from
quarrying of the obelisks to their erection.17 One
cannot agree, however, with his suggestion, that
Wiesbaden 1971, p. 110; RATIÉ, op. cit., p. 190,
TEFNIN, op. cit., p. 53; KARKOWSKI, in:
Geheimnisvolle Königin Hatschepsut, p. 24;
NIEDZIÖEKA, ibidem, p. 32 and LABOURY, op. cit.,
pp. 554-55 and 603.
15 Op. cit., p. 115.
16 See above, pp. 87-88, n. d.
17 Op. cit., p. 116.
100
person qualified as “majesty”) is some times at-
tested in inscriptions of the 18th dynasty (Urk.
IV, pp. 141, 6; 776, 11; 889, 4). The clause is
a model example of the so-called nominalised
or topical sdm.n=f form (see POLOTSKY, op.
cit., pp. 18-23 - and especially p. 22, where
a fragment of the inscription of Thutmose II in
Aswan containing a clause similar to the pres-
ently discussed one has been quoted, however
not quite correctly interpreted; the issue has
been recently discussed by RITTER, op. cit.,
pp. 80-94). In such a case, the verbal phrase
(here: hpr.n=0) represents the theme or topic,
and the following adverbial phrase (here: n blw
hm. t=s) fulfils the rhematic function in the clause.
All the scholars who have so far been working
on the graffito, even those who were translat-
ing this text in the latest decades, ignored the
thematic function of the sdm. n=fform occur-
ring here, and thus the change of the salience
hierarchy of particular phrases of the clause as
regards their informational force. As regards this
clause in the other inscriptions of the 18th dy-
nasty, only D. LORTON (The Aswan/Philae
Inscription of Thutmosis II, in: S. I. GROLL
(ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to
Miriam Lichtheim, Jerusalem 1990, vol. 2,
p. 674 and n. 33) has pertinently translated and
interpreted this clause in the inscription of
Thutmose II as Aswan, and the best interpre-
tation on the linguistic level has been given by
RITTER (op. cit., p. 297) in the index of ver-
bal forms occumng in the inscriptions of the 18 th
dynasty. It is also important that the phrase
n bl.w hm “because of the power of the maj-
esty of’ was always related to the actually reign-
ing kings: Thutmose II in the inscription at As-
wan (Urk. IV, p. 141,6) and Thutmose III in
one of the inscriptions in Akhmenu (Urk. IV,
p. 776,11) and in the stela in Sinai dated to his
25th regnal year (Urk. IV, p. 889,4). The case
u JNES 16, p. 96.
12 Op. cit., p. 131.
13 As regards the inscriptions on the pyramidion of one
of these obelisks, now before the entrance to the Egyp-
tian Museum in Cairo, see Ch. KUENTZ, Obélisques,
CGC, Le Caire 1932, pp. 22-24 and pls. VH-IX.
14 The opinion has been then followed by Ch.F. NIMS,
The Eastern Temple at Karnak, BeiträgeBf. 12,
of the graffito of Senenmut is an exception in
this respect.
* * *
From the contents of this inscription of
Senenmut, it seems certain that the graffito was
executed during the regency of Hatshepsut, as
she is qualified with titles and epithets entitled
to the principal royal wife, but not long before
she became a king. Such a date of the text has
not been questioned until some recent publica-
tions.
HABACHI11 suggested, that Senenmut had
already been sent to Aswan before Hatshepsut
assumed the royal protocol, but the obelisks
were erected just on the occasion of her coro-
nation and enthronement.
In the opinion of MEYER,12 the inscription
was carved in the latest months before corona-
tion of Hatshepsut, as her protocol, inscribed on
the obelisks to which the works mentioned by
Senenmut in the discussed inscription are related,
is of evidently royal nature.13 Concurrently,
MEYER accepted HAB ACHI’s opinion, that the
monuments were erected on the occasion of
Hatshepsut’s enthronement.14
Attempting to date the inscription of
Senenmut at Aswan, DORMAN15 noticed the
already discussed epithet dj.(t).n n=s Rcnzy. t
- “one, to whom Re has given the kingship”.16
This epithet, in DORMAN’s opinion, besides
the very decision to execute obelisks, should
be considered the decisive criterion against dat-
ing of the inscription of Senenmut to the reign
of Thutmose II. Concurrently he suggested, that
if Hatshepsut’s decision to fashion obelisks at-
tests her royal claims in the area of building ac-
tivity, then some years may have passed from
quarrying of the obelisks to their erection.17 One
cannot agree, however, with his suggestion, that
Wiesbaden 1971, p. 110; RATIÉ, op. cit., p. 190,
TEFNIN, op. cit., p. 53; KARKOWSKI, in:
Geheimnisvolle Königin Hatschepsut, p. 24;
NIEDZIÖEKA, ibidem, p. 32 and LABOURY, op. cit.,
pp. 554-55 and 603.
15 Op. cit., p. 115.
16 See above, pp. 87-88, n. d.
17 Op. cit., p. 116.
100