DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0105
Dariusz Niedziôlka
VANDERSLEYEN, because she might have
considered herself a king since the time when
Thutmose I had promised her the kingship.
However, the fragment of the inscription on
Senenmut’s statue in Berlin, referred to by VAN-
DERSLEYEN, is not unequivocal. It has been
many times discussed in scholarly debate, and
even the most recent comments on it are contra-
dictory one to another, both on the linguistic as
well as historical level.23
jw=j m ßpn hr wd=f dr hpr.tmnj tp-c.wj
(Urk. IV, p. 405, 7-8)
“I was in this land under his (Hatshepsut’s?) com-
mand before the death (of Thutmose II?) oc-
curred, inthepast.”
Most probably, however, the event in the cir-
cumstantial clause introduced by dr occurred
when Senenmut had already been under some-
one’s command.24 Thus, any argument against
the dating of Senenmut’s graffito into the reign of
Thutmose II would apparently be missing. It
seems, however, there are internal criteria in
Senenmut’s graffito itself, excluding such an early
dating of is inscription, contrary to VANDERS-
LEYEN’s opinion.
Firstly, as has been already mentioned,25 it
seems hard to imagine that the royal title nzw
bjtj would be placed before Hatshepsut’s birth-
name, and moreover, even the alleged recarving
of this pait of inscription is highly doubtful. If such
a change in the text actually occurred, one could
ascertain at most, that the original version of the
inscription had been fashioned before Hatshepsut
proclaimed herself a king, which seems anyhow
evident, and still nothing would give permission
23 See R. ANTHES, Zur Übersetzung der Präpositionen
und Konjunktionen m und dr, in: Studies in Honorof
JohnA. Wilson, September 12, 1969, SAOC 35, Chi-
cago 1969, pp. 6 and 10-11 ; R. KRAUSS, Tilgungen
und Korrekturen auf Senenmuts Denkmalem Berlin
2066 und 2096, JARCE 31 (1994), pp. 52-53;
L. ZONHOVEN, Studies on \htsdm.t=jNerb Form in
Classical Egyptian, I: The construction dr sdm.t=f
BiOr 53 (1996), col. 636-37; in these publications the
previous bibliography concerning the interpretation
of this sentence has been given.
24 See KRAUSS, JARCE 31, pp. 52-53; ZONHOVEN,
BiOr 53, cols. 636-37. As regards the meaning of the
dr sdm.t=f'construction see also DEPUYDT, Events
to conclude that the inscription was engraved
already in the reign of Thutmose II.
The next VANDERSLEYEN’s argument, that
Hatshepsut, taking the decision to quarry ob-
elisks, might have considered herself a king as
her father had promised her the kingship, is not
acceptable as well. In such a case, she would
have appeared in the inscription as a king from
the very beginning, and there would have been
royal epithets included without the necessity to
make alterations in the text. Moreover, there is
no evidence, that Thutmose I had already as-
signed his daughter to fulfil the royal duties. On
the contrary, it seems highly probable, if not cer-
tain, that the idea of her investiture with the king-
ship by her father Thutmose I, after the previous
decision of Amon, was worked out several years
after her actual enthronement. Since the statue
of Senenmut in Berlin was fashioned after the
queen became a king, the texts carved on it
should represent the “modified” version of the
historical events relating to the succession to the
throne of Egypt. Thus, even if one assumed that
the clause introduced by dr would be a circum-
stantial clause of time with the anterior text rela-
tion to the preceding main clause, and the ex-
pression tp-c.wj would be the nominal phrase tpj-
c-wj=f“his predecessor”, as suggested by
VANDERSLEYEN,26 and not an adverbial
phrase, as pertinently remarked by KRAUSS
and ZONHOVEN,27 it would seem more prob-
able to recognise the allegedly mentioned queen’s
predecessor in Thutmose I and not in Thutmose
II, as the reign of the latter was rather ignored in
the “modified” sequence of historical events. Such
Engaged in the Grammatical Tango of Contiguity:
The Case of the Preposition t/r, JARCE 35 (1998), pp.
86-87 and ZONHO VEN, Studies on the sdm. t=/Verb
Form in Classical Egyptian, VII: Introduction and in-
dex of text citations. Appendix: Critique, the critic
and the criticized: the case of dr and drsdm.t=f GM
172 (1999), pp. 104-10.
25 See above, pp. 93-94, note j. of the commentary.
26 And previously SETHE, Das Hatschepsut-Problem.
Noch einmal untersucht, APAW Phil.-hist. Klasse 4,
Berlin 1932, p. 90; MEYER, op. cit., p. 165; BUR-
KHARDT, op. cit., p. 55; DORMAN, op. cit., p. 123.
27 See ANTHES, op. cit.,p. 11 n. 40; KRAUSS,X4/?C£
31, pp. 52-53; ZONHOVEN, BiOr 53, col. 636 n. 110.
102
VANDERSLEYEN, because she might have
considered herself a king since the time when
Thutmose I had promised her the kingship.
However, the fragment of the inscription on
Senenmut’s statue in Berlin, referred to by VAN-
DERSLEYEN, is not unequivocal. It has been
many times discussed in scholarly debate, and
even the most recent comments on it are contra-
dictory one to another, both on the linguistic as
well as historical level.23
jw=j m ßpn hr wd=f dr hpr.tmnj tp-c.wj
(Urk. IV, p. 405, 7-8)
“I was in this land under his (Hatshepsut’s?) com-
mand before the death (of Thutmose II?) oc-
curred, inthepast.”
Most probably, however, the event in the cir-
cumstantial clause introduced by dr occurred
when Senenmut had already been under some-
one’s command.24 Thus, any argument against
the dating of Senenmut’s graffito into the reign of
Thutmose II would apparently be missing. It
seems, however, there are internal criteria in
Senenmut’s graffito itself, excluding such an early
dating of is inscription, contrary to VANDERS-
LEYEN’s opinion.
Firstly, as has been already mentioned,25 it
seems hard to imagine that the royal title nzw
bjtj would be placed before Hatshepsut’s birth-
name, and moreover, even the alleged recarving
of this pait of inscription is highly doubtful. If such
a change in the text actually occurred, one could
ascertain at most, that the original version of the
inscription had been fashioned before Hatshepsut
proclaimed herself a king, which seems anyhow
evident, and still nothing would give permission
23 See R. ANTHES, Zur Übersetzung der Präpositionen
und Konjunktionen m und dr, in: Studies in Honorof
JohnA. Wilson, September 12, 1969, SAOC 35, Chi-
cago 1969, pp. 6 and 10-11 ; R. KRAUSS, Tilgungen
und Korrekturen auf Senenmuts Denkmalem Berlin
2066 und 2096, JARCE 31 (1994), pp. 52-53;
L. ZONHOVEN, Studies on \htsdm.t=jNerb Form in
Classical Egyptian, I: The construction dr sdm.t=f
BiOr 53 (1996), col. 636-37; in these publications the
previous bibliography concerning the interpretation
of this sentence has been given.
24 See KRAUSS, JARCE 31, pp. 52-53; ZONHOVEN,
BiOr 53, cols. 636-37. As regards the meaning of the
dr sdm.t=f'construction see also DEPUYDT, Events
to conclude that the inscription was engraved
already in the reign of Thutmose II.
The next VANDERSLEYEN’s argument, that
Hatshepsut, taking the decision to quarry ob-
elisks, might have considered herself a king as
her father had promised her the kingship, is not
acceptable as well. In such a case, she would
have appeared in the inscription as a king from
the very beginning, and there would have been
royal epithets included without the necessity to
make alterations in the text. Moreover, there is
no evidence, that Thutmose I had already as-
signed his daughter to fulfil the royal duties. On
the contrary, it seems highly probable, if not cer-
tain, that the idea of her investiture with the king-
ship by her father Thutmose I, after the previous
decision of Amon, was worked out several years
after her actual enthronement. Since the statue
of Senenmut in Berlin was fashioned after the
queen became a king, the texts carved on it
should represent the “modified” version of the
historical events relating to the succession to the
throne of Egypt. Thus, even if one assumed that
the clause introduced by dr would be a circum-
stantial clause of time with the anterior text rela-
tion to the preceding main clause, and the ex-
pression tp-c.wj would be the nominal phrase tpj-
c-wj=f“his predecessor”, as suggested by
VANDERSLEYEN,26 and not an adverbial
phrase, as pertinently remarked by KRAUSS
and ZONHOVEN,27 it would seem more prob-
able to recognise the allegedly mentioned queen’s
predecessor in Thutmose I and not in Thutmose
II, as the reign of the latter was rather ignored in
the “modified” sequence of historical events. Such
Engaged in the Grammatical Tango of Contiguity:
The Case of the Preposition t/r, JARCE 35 (1998), pp.
86-87 and ZONHO VEN, Studies on the sdm. t=/Verb
Form in Classical Egyptian, VII: Introduction and in-
dex of text citations. Appendix: Critique, the critic
and the criticized: the case of dr and drsdm.t=f GM
172 (1999), pp. 104-10.
25 See above, pp. 93-94, note j. of the commentary.
26 And previously SETHE, Das Hatschepsut-Problem.
Noch einmal untersucht, APAW Phil.-hist. Klasse 4,
Berlin 1932, p. 90; MEYER, op. cit., p. 165; BUR-
KHARDT, op. cit., p. 55; DORMAN, op. cit., p. 123.
27 See ANTHES, op. cit.,p. 11 n. 40; KRAUSS,X4/?C£
31, pp. 52-53; ZONHOVEN, BiOr 53, col. 636 n. 110.
102