DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0106
Some Remarks on the Graffito of Senenmut at Aswan
an interpretation of the inscription on Senenmut’s
statue in Berlin would support VANDERS-
LEYEN’s suggestion conceming the possibility
of Senenmut’s graffito execution in the reign of
Thutmose II, provided there were data support-
ing Hatshepsut’s designation to kingship already
during her father’s reign, or if the “modification”
of historical events had been worked out before
her actual enthronement, ie before the execution
of Senenmut’s graffito. Since there is no irrefuta-
ble argument for Hatshepsut’s designation by her
father as well as for the disregarding of Thutmose
II’s reign during Hatshepsut’s regency, concur-
rently there is no support for assuming the ex-
ecution of Senenmut’s Aswan graffito in the reign
of Hatshepsut’s husband.
Another argument against the possibility sug-
gested by VANDERSLEYEN mightbe deduced
from the fact that Nefrure, Hatshepsut’s and
Thutmose II’s daughter, was already an owner
of an estate when Senenmut’s graffito was fash-
ioned. Such an ownership seems rather impos-
sible during her father’s reign, as she could not
attain the age of three years at the moment of her
father’sdeath.28
A very good argument against the dating of
this inscription to the reign of Thutmose II has
been given by VANDERSLEYEN himself, sug-
gesting that the graffito might testify to the great
intimacy between the queen and her courtier. In
his opinion, such an interpretation might be im-
plied by the same scale of representations of
28 Assuming circa three years reign for Thutmose II,
which is at present accepted by the majority of schol-
ars (particularly convincing arguments have been
presented by GABOLDE, La chronologie du règne
de Thoutmosis II, ses conséquences sur la datation
des momies royales et leurs répercussions sur
l’histoire du développement de la Vallée des Rois,
SAK14 (1987), pp. 61-81; see also KRAUSS, Sothis-
und Monddaten. Studien zur astronomischen und
technischen Chronologie Altägyptens, HÄB 20,
Hildesheim 1985, pp. 119-21; IDEM, Das Kalendarium
des Papyrus Ebers und seine chronologische Ver-
wertbarkeit, Ä&L 3 (1992), pp. 86-90; HELCK, Was
kann die Ägyptologie wirklich zum Problem der
absoluten Chronologie in der Bronzezeit beitragen?,
in: High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International
Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the
these persons and by epithets of Senenmut in
the text. Putting aside the nature of this intimacy,
it seems impossible that it could manifest itself in
omission of any mention of Thutmose II in the
graffito, besides the titles sn. t nzw and hm. t nzw
in the protocol of the queen, if this king, Hat-
shepsut’s husband was still alive. The more so,
because the graffito could not have been carved
secretly, as it would be hard to imagine that
Senenmut in person executed this work unno-
ticed, knowing its relative high quality of work-
manship and the location of the graffito on a rock
well visible from the Nile and the Elephantine
Island as well.29
Thus, one should rather accept the traditional
dating of this graffito to the period just before
the assumption of kingship by Hatshepsut, as it
has been already suggested by HABACHI,
NIMS, RATIÉ, TEFNIN, MEYER, KAR-
KOWSKI, NIEDZIÖLKA and LABOURY.30
It seems that there are several pieces of evidence
which might support such an interpretation. The
first and most important is Hatshepsut’s decision
to quarry obelisks, then erected, probably on the
occasion of her enthronement. The occurrence
of the epithet dj. (t). n n=s Rcnzy. C‘one, to whom
Re has given the kingship” and the circumstantial
phrase m3c hr jb psd. t ntr. w qualifying the in-
vestiture of Hatshepsut with kingship as right-
eous in the opinion of the divine Ennead, seems
to be significant as well. As it has been men-
tioned above,31 this epithet is attested in relation
University of Gothenburg 20,h-22nd August 1987,
SIMA 56, Gothenburg 1987, pp. 24 and 26; VAN-
DERSLEYEN, op. cit., pp. 270 and 663), and not thir-
teen years, as still suggested by J. von BECKERATH
relying mainly on Manethonian tradition (see: Noch-
mals zur Regiemng Tuthmosis’ II, SAK17 (1990), pp.
65-74; Chronologie des dgyptischen Neuen Reiches,
HÄB 39, Hildesheim 1994, pp. 111-12 and
Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeit-
bestimmung der dgyptischen Geschichte von der
Vorzeitbis 332 v. Chr, MÄS 46, Mainz 1997, pp. 120-
21). Regarding the age of Nefrure in Hatshepsut’s
regency period, see also M. COZI, Neferourê et son
époque, GM 169 (1999), p. 22.
29 See above, p. 85, footnote 1.
30 See above, p. 100 and footnote 14.
31 See above, p. 88.
103
an interpretation of the inscription on Senenmut’s
statue in Berlin would support VANDERS-
LEYEN’s suggestion conceming the possibility
of Senenmut’s graffito execution in the reign of
Thutmose II, provided there were data support-
ing Hatshepsut’s designation to kingship already
during her father’s reign, or if the “modification”
of historical events had been worked out before
her actual enthronement, ie before the execution
of Senenmut’s graffito. Since there is no irrefuta-
ble argument for Hatshepsut’s designation by her
father as well as for the disregarding of Thutmose
II’s reign during Hatshepsut’s regency, concur-
rently there is no support for assuming the ex-
ecution of Senenmut’s Aswan graffito in the reign
of Hatshepsut’s husband.
Another argument against the possibility sug-
gested by VANDERSLEYEN mightbe deduced
from the fact that Nefrure, Hatshepsut’s and
Thutmose II’s daughter, was already an owner
of an estate when Senenmut’s graffito was fash-
ioned. Such an ownership seems rather impos-
sible during her father’s reign, as she could not
attain the age of three years at the moment of her
father’sdeath.28
A very good argument against the dating of
this inscription to the reign of Thutmose II has
been given by VANDERSLEYEN himself, sug-
gesting that the graffito might testify to the great
intimacy between the queen and her courtier. In
his opinion, such an interpretation might be im-
plied by the same scale of representations of
28 Assuming circa three years reign for Thutmose II,
which is at present accepted by the majority of schol-
ars (particularly convincing arguments have been
presented by GABOLDE, La chronologie du règne
de Thoutmosis II, ses conséquences sur la datation
des momies royales et leurs répercussions sur
l’histoire du développement de la Vallée des Rois,
SAK14 (1987), pp. 61-81; see also KRAUSS, Sothis-
und Monddaten. Studien zur astronomischen und
technischen Chronologie Altägyptens, HÄB 20,
Hildesheim 1985, pp. 119-21; IDEM, Das Kalendarium
des Papyrus Ebers und seine chronologische Ver-
wertbarkeit, Ä&L 3 (1992), pp. 86-90; HELCK, Was
kann die Ägyptologie wirklich zum Problem der
absoluten Chronologie in der Bronzezeit beitragen?,
in: High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International
Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the
these persons and by epithets of Senenmut in
the text. Putting aside the nature of this intimacy,
it seems impossible that it could manifest itself in
omission of any mention of Thutmose II in the
graffito, besides the titles sn. t nzw and hm. t nzw
in the protocol of the queen, if this king, Hat-
shepsut’s husband was still alive. The more so,
because the graffito could not have been carved
secretly, as it would be hard to imagine that
Senenmut in person executed this work unno-
ticed, knowing its relative high quality of work-
manship and the location of the graffito on a rock
well visible from the Nile and the Elephantine
Island as well.29
Thus, one should rather accept the traditional
dating of this graffito to the period just before
the assumption of kingship by Hatshepsut, as it
has been already suggested by HABACHI,
NIMS, RATIÉ, TEFNIN, MEYER, KAR-
KOWSKI, NIEDZIÖLKA and LABOURY.30
It seems that there are several pieces of evidence
which might support such an interpretation. The
first and most important is Hatshepsut’s decision
to quarry obelisks, then erected, probably on the
occasion of her enthronement. The occurrence
of the epithet dj. (t). n n=s Rcnzy. C‘one, to whom
Re has given the kingship” and the circumstantial
phrase m3c hr jb psd. t ntr. w qualifying the in-
vestiture of Hatshepsut with kingship as right-
eous in the opinion of the divine Ennead, seems
to be significant as well. As it has been men-
tioned above,31 this epithet is attested in relation
University of Gothenburg 20,h-22nd August 1987,
SIMA 56, Gothenburg 1987, pp. 24 and 26; VAN-
DERSLEYEN, op. cit., pp. 270 and 663), and not thir-
teen years, as still suggested by J. von BECKERATH
relying mainly on Manethonian tradition (see: Noch-
mals zur Regiemng Tuthmosis’ II, SAK17 (1990), pp.
65-74; Chronologie des dgyptischen Neuen Reiches,
HÄB 39, Hildesheim 1994, pp. 111-12 and
Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeit-
bestimmung der dgyptischen Geschichte von der
Vorzeitbis 332 v. Chr, MÄS 46, Mainz 1997, pp. 120-
21). Regarding the age of Nefrure in Hatshepsut’s
regency period, see also M. COZI, Neferourê et son
époque, GM 169 (1999), p. 22.
29 See above, p. 85, footnote 1.
30 See above, p. 100 and footnote 14.
31 See above, p. 88.
103