DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0104
Some Remarks on the Graffito of Senenmut at Aswan
the protocol of Hatshepsut in Senenmut’s
graffito at Aswan - and thus, the above men-
tioned epithet- is not more untypical than quali-
fications of the queen occurring in the famous
inscription in the tomb of Ineni.18 The fragment
of this inscription19 referred to by DORMAN
describes the situation after the death of
Thutmose II and this text, as DORMAN perti-
nently states,20 must be dated prior to
Hatshepsut’s enthronement.
pr.(w) mpt
hnm.n-f m ntr.w
zj=fchc.(w) m s.t=f m nzw tl.wj
hkh n=f hr ns. tn.t wtt sw
sn. t=f hm. t ntr ffl. t-sps. wt hr jr. t
ß.wj hr shr.w=s
blk=tw n=s
Km.t m wSh-tp
pr. t ntr Sh. tpr. t hn. t=f
hSt. t n. t Smcw mnj. t rsj. w
phwy.t pw mnh.t TS Mhw
nb.t wd mdw mnh.t shr.w=s
hrr. tjdb.wj hft mdw=s
“He went forth to heaven
and united himself with gods.
His son arose in his place as the king
of the Two Lands
and he mled on the throne of whom begot him,
mhr. w ß while his sister, god’s wife Hatshepsut
govemed the land,
the Two Lands were under her governance,
one worked for her,
and Egypt bowed the head.
It is a glorious seed of the god from
whom it went forth,
a bow-warp of the Nile Valley, a mooring-post
of the South,
a splendid stem-warp of the Delta,
mistress of commands, whose govemance is efficient,
with whose utterances the Two Banks are content.”
Contrary to DORMAN’s opinion, however, only
the actual exercise of power over Egypt by
Hatshepsut is referred to in this text. And it is
just Thutmose III, not mentioned by name, who
has been given with royal epithets, and not the
queen. This clearly distinguishes the text on the
stela of Ineni from that of Senenmut’s graffito,
where she has been endowed with the epithet
“one, to whom Re has given the kingship”. Thus,
the inscription of Senenmut seems to be later than
the inscription in the tomb of Ineni, because in
the former one the epithet of very important ideo-
logical significance is already included.
In VANDERSLEYEN’s opinion,21 there is no
indication in Senenmut’s graffito at Aswan itself,
which might date the text more precisely. Ad-
mittedly, VANDERSLEYEN dates the graffito
18 Ibidem, p. 115.
19 Urk. IV, pp. 59,13 - 60,11; see also E. DZIOBEK, Das
Grab des Ineni. Theben Nr. 81, AV 68, Mainz 1992,
pp. 52 and 54.
to the period of Hatshepsut’s regency. He bases
such a dating, however, on a fragment of
Senenmut’s inscription on the statue of this offi-
cial in Berlin,22 suggesting that “il n ’ aurait été sous
les ordres d’Hatshepsout qu’à la mort de son
prédécesseur”. In VANDERSLEYEN’s opinion,
without this mention on the Berlin statue, one
could not ascertain if the graffito at Aswan was
already executed in the reign of Thutmose II or
that of Thutmose III before Hatshepsut’s en-
thronement. In his opinion, several arguments
might support the dating to the former king. One
of them, would be erasure of one of the queenly
epithets of Hatshepsut, then replaced by the
purely royal title nzw bjtj. Even the fact of the
decision to quarry obelisks (which was the royal
prerogative) does not interfere, in the opinion of
20 Op. cit., p. 38.
21 Op. cit., pp. 290-91.
22 Ägyptisches Museum zu Berlin, inv. No 2296.
101
the protocol of Hatshepsut in Senenmut’s
graffito at Aswan - and thus, the above men-
tioned epithet- is not more untypical than quali-
fications of the queen occurring in the famous
inscription in the tomb of Ineni.18 The fragment
of this inscription19 referred to by DORMAN
describes the situation after the death of
Thutmose II and this text, as DORMAN perti-
nently states,20 must be dated prior to
Hatshepsut’s enthronement.
pr.(w) mpt
hnm.n-f m ntr.w
zj=fchc.(w) m s.t=f m nzw tl.wj
hkh n=f hr ns. tn.t wtt sw
sn. t=f hm. t ntr ffl. t-sps. wt hr jr. t
ß.wj hr shr.w=s
blk=tw n=s
Km.t m wSh-tp
pr. t ntr Sh. tpr. t hn. t=f
hSt. t n. t Smcw mnj. t rsj. w
phwy.t pw mnh.t TS Mhw
nb.t wd mdw mnh.t shr.w=s
hrr. tjdb.wj hft mdw=s
“He went forth to heaven
and united himself with gods.
His son arose in his place as the king
of the Two Lands
and he mled on the throne of whom begot him,
mhr. w ß while his sister, god’s wife Hatshepsut
govemed the land,
the Two Lands were under her governance,
one worked for her,
and Egypt bowed the head.
It is a glorious seed of the god from
whom it went forth,
a bow-warp of the Nile Valley, a mooring-post
of the South,
a splendid stem-warp of the Delta,
mistress of commands, whose govemance is efficient,
with whose utterances the Two Banks are content.”
Contrary to DORMAN’s opinion, however, only
the actual exercise of power over Egypt by
Hatshepsut is referred to in this text. And it is
just Thutmose III, not mentioned by name, who
has been given with royal epithets, and not the
queen. This clearly distinguishes the text on the
stela of Ineni from that of Senenmut’s graffito,
where she has been endowed with the epithet
“one, to whom Re has given the kingship”. Thus,
the inscription of Senenmut seems to be later than
the inscription in the tomb of Ineni, because in
the former one the epithet of very important ideo-
logical significance is already included.
In VANDERSLEYEN’s opinion,21 there is no
indication in Senenmut’s graffito at Aswan itself,
which might date the text more precisely. Ad-
mittedly, VANDERSLEYEN dates the graffito
18 Ibidem, p. 115.
19 Urk. IV, pp. 59,13 - 60,11; see also E. DZIOBEK, Das
Grab des Ineni. Theben Nr. 81, AV 68, Mainz 1992,
pp. 52 and 54.
to the period of Hatshepsut’s regency. He bases
such a dating, however, on a fragment of
Senenmut’s inscription on the statue of this offi-
cial in Berlin,22 suggesting that “il n ’ aurait été sous
les ordres d’Hatshepsout qu’à la mort de son
prédécesseur”. In VANDERSLEYEN’s opinion,
without this mention on the Berlin statue, one
could not ascertain if the graffito at Aswan was
already executed in the reign of Thutmose II or
that of Thutmose III before Hatshepsut’s en-
thronement. In his opinion, several arguments
might support the dating to the former king. One
of them, would be erasure of one of the queenly
epithets of Hatshepsut, then replaced by the
purely royal title nzw bjtj. Even the fact of the
decision to quarry obelisks (which was the royal
prerogative) does not interfere, in the opinion of
20 Op. cit., p. 38.
21 Op. cit., pp. 290-91.
22 Ägyptisches Museum zu Berlin, inv. No 2296.
101