DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0108
Dariusz Niedziolka
sin hm=j kit r=s “My Majesty has ordained works concerning it
(= obelisks),
m rnp. tzp 15 ibd 2 pr. t sww 1 beginning on the regnal year 15,2nd month
of the peret-season, first day,
nfy. t r rnp. tzp 16 Ibd 4 smw crky sww ending with regnal year 16,4th month
of the shemu-season, last day,
jr. n=0 Ibd 7 m si t m dw while (this)8 has made seven months as those ordained in
the mountain (= quarries).”
Thus, one cannot identify those obelisks with
the monoliths mentioned in Senenmuf s graffito at
Aswan. This also implies that the text might con-
cern the pair in the eastern Karnak, or obelisks in
the festival court of Thutmose II.
In Luc GABOLDE’s opinion, Senenmuf s graffito
was a reference to the pair in the festival court.9 It
seems, however, that such an attribution mainly re-
sults from GABOLDE’s a priori assumption of a re-
lation between each of Hatshepsut’s officials involved
in execution and decoration of her obelisks - that is
Senenmut, Djehuti and Amenhotep - and a different
pair of monuments. Such an assumption is not firmly
founded since both Amenhotep and Djehuti were
beyond any doubt concerned with the obelisks
erected in the hall between the IVth and the Vth py-
lon at Karnak. Amenhotep’s relation to that pair has
8 There is an evident subject omission under relevance in
this clause, as regards this issue see M. COLLIER, The
Relative Clause and the Verb in Middle Egyptian, JEA 77
(1991), pp. 36-37; A. LOPRIENO, Ancient Egyptian.
A linguistic introduction, Cambridge 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as: Ancient Egyptian), p. 161. The omitted
pronoun =5 should most probably be identified with the
duration of the works referred to in the preceding clause.
9 See GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de Thoutmosis D, p. 149
footnote 9.
10 See HAB ACHI, Two Graffiti at Sehel from the Reign of
Queen Hatshepsut, JNES 16 (1957), p. 99 and IDEM, Ob-
elisks, pp. 69-70; W. HELCK, Zur Verwaltung des
Mittleren undNeuen Reichs, Leiden, Koln 1958 (herein-
after referred to as: Verwaltung), p. 364 and IDEM,
Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches
I, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen
Klasse, Jahrgang 1960, Nr. 10, Wiesbaden 1961 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as: Materialien), p. 807; HAYES, CAHII,
pp. 22-23; SEIPEL, LA II, col. 1050 footnote 37; MARTIN,
Garantsymbol, p. 153 with footnote 4; RATIE,
Hatchepsout, p. 266; GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de
Thoutmosis II, p. 149 footnote 9; GOLVIN, Les Dossiers
d’Archeologie 187 (1993), p. 38. MEYER, who identi-
fies the obelisks mentioned by Amenhotep with the
found almost universal acceptance,10 but Djehuti was
connected with the eastern pair by some scholars,11
and with the one erected in wadjit by others.12 There
are three important factors, however, which attest
the identification of obelisks mentioned in the North-
ampton stela of Djehuti with those erected in the
wadjit hall. They are: firstly - an almost perfect agree-
ment in the height of 108 cubits, mentioned by Djehuti,
with the double height of the still standing obelisk;
secondly - the covering of the upper halves of these
monoliths, at minimum, with an electrum foil, attested
both in Djehuti’s and Hatshepsut's inscriptions and
by archaeological data as well. The third factor would
be the position of the obelisks in the chronologically
arranged list of monuments referred to in the Djehuti’s
stela. This position implies a relatively late date of the
monoliths mentioned in the Northampton stela, which
Hatshepsut’s eastern pair, is the single exception in this
respect, see her Senenmut, p. 138.
11 See R LAC AU, L’ or dans 1’ architecture egyptienne, ASAE
53/2 (1956), p. 247; HAB AC HI, JNES 16 (1957), p. 99;
HAYES, CAH II, p. 21; MARTIN, Garantsymbol, p. 153;
GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de Thoutmosis II, p. 149
footnote 9; and Cl. VANDERSLEYEN, L’Egypte et la
vallee du Nil. II. De la fin de VAncien Empire a la fin du
Nouvel Empire, Paris 1995 (hereinafter referred to as:
Egypte et la vallee du Nil 2), p. 293 footnote 1.
12 See W. SPIEGELBERG, Die Northampton Stele,
RecTrav 22 (1900), pp. 123-124. His opinion has been
followed by J.H. BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt
II, Chicago 1906 (hereinafter referred to as: AR II),
p. 156 footnote h; HELCK, Verwaltung, p. 398 foot-
note 9 and IDEM, Materialien, p. 807; P. BARGUET,
Le temple d’Amon-Re a Karnak: Essai d’exegese,
RAPH 21, Le Caire 1962 (hereinafter referred to as:
Temple d’Amon-Re), p. 100 footnote 1; RATIE,
Hatchepsout, p. 271 footnote 49; MEYER, Senenmut,
p. 136 and NIEDZIOLKA, On the Obelisks Mentioned
in the Northampton Stela of Djehuti, in: Eight Interna-
tional Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 28 March-
3 April 2000, Late Abstracts, Cairo 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as: 8"' ICE Late Abstracts), pp. 9-10 and the
102
sin hm=j kit r=s “My Majesty has ordained works concerning it
(= obelisks),
m rnp. tzp 15 ibd 2 pr. t sww 1 beginning on the regnal year 15,2nd month
of the peret-season, first day,
nfy. t r rnp. tzp 16 Ibd 4 smw crky sww ending with regnal year 16,4th month
of the shemu-season, last day,
jr. n=0 Ibd 7 m si t m dw while (this)8 has made seven months as those ordained in
the mountain (= quarries).”
Thus, one cannot identify those obelisks with
the monoliths mentioned in Senenmuf s graffito at
Aswan. This also implies that the text might con-
cern the pair in the eastern Karnak, or obelisks in
the festival court of Thutmose II.
In Luc GABOLDE’s opinion, Senenmuf s graffito
was a reference to the pair in the festival court.9 It
seems, however, that such an attribution mainly re-
sults from GABOLDE’s a priori assumption of a re-
lation between each of Hatshepsut’s officials involved
in execution and decoration of her obelisks - that is
Senenmut, Djehuti and Amenhotep - and a different
pair of monuments. Such an assumption is not firmly
founded since both Amenhotep and Djehuti were
beyond any doubt concerned with the obelisks
erected in the hall between the IVth and the Vth py-
lon at Karnak. Amenhotep’s relation to that pair has
8 There is an evident subject omission under relevance in
this clause, as regards this issue see M. COLLIER, The
Relative Clause and the Verb in Middle Egyptian, JEA 77
(1991), pp. 36-37; A. LOPRIENO, Ancient Egyptian.
A linguistic introduction, Cambridge 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as: Ancient Egyptian), p. 161. The omitted
pronoun =5 should most probably be identified with the
duration of the works referred to in the preceding clause.
9 See GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de Thoutmosis D, p. 149
footnote 9.
10 See HAB ACHI, Two Graffiti at Sehel from the Reign of
Queen Hatshepsut, JNES 16 (1957), p. 99 and IDEM, Ob-
elisks, pp. 69-70; W. HELCK, Zur Verwaltung des
Mittleren undNeuen Reichs, Leiden, Koln 1958 (herein-
after referred to as: Verwaltung), p. 364 and IDEM,
Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches
I, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen
Klasse, Jahrgang 1960, Nr. 10, Wiesbaden 1961 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as: Materialien), p. 807; HAYES, CAHII,
pp. 22-23; SEIPEL, LA II, col. 1050 footnote 37; MARTIN,
Garantsymbol, p. 153 with footnote 4; RATIE,
Hatchepsout, p. 266; GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de
Thoutmosis II, p. 149 footnote 9; GOLVIN, Les Dossiers
d’Archeologie 187 (1993), p. 38. MEYER, who identi-
fies the obelisks mentioned by Amenhotep with the
found almost universal acceptance,10 but Djehuti was
connected with the eastern pair by some scholars,11
and with the one erected in wadjit by others.12 There
are three important factors, however, which attest
the identification of obelisks mentioned in the North-
ampton stela of Djehuti with those erected in the
wadjit hall. They are: firstly - an almost perfect agree-
ment in the height of 108 cubits, mentioned by Djehuti,
with the double height of the still standing obelisk;
secondly - the covering of the upper halves of these
monoliths, at minimum, with an electrum foil, attested
both in Djehuti’s and Hatshepsut's inscriptions and
by archaeological data as well. The third factor would
be the position of the obelisks in the chronologically
arranged list of monuments referred to in the Djehuti’s
stela. This position implies a relatively late date of the
monoliths mentioned in the Northampton stela, which
Hatshepsut’s eastern pair, is the single exception in this
respect, see her Senenmut, p. 138.
11 See R LAC AU, L’ or dans 1’ architecture egyptienne, ASAE
53/2 (1956), p. 247; HAB AC HI, JNES 16 (1957), p. 99;
HAYES, CAH II, p. 21; MARTIN, Garantsymbol, p. 153;
GABOLDE, Deux obelisques de Thoutmosis II, p. 149
footnote 9; and Cl. VANDERSLEYEN, L’Egypte et la
vallee du Nil. II. De la fin de VAncien Empire a la fin du
Nouvel Empire, Paris 1995 (hereinafter referred to as:
Egypte et la vallee du Nil 2), p. 293 footnote 1.
12 See W. SPIEGELBERG, Die Northampton Stele,
RecTrav 22 (1900), pp. 123-124. His opinion has been
followed by J.H. BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt
II, Chicago 1906 (hereinafter referred to as: AR II),
p. 156 footnote h; HELCK, Verwaltung, p. 398 foot-
note 9 and IDEM, Materialien, p. 807; P. BARGUET,
Le temple d’Amon-Re a Karnak: Essai d’exegese,
RAPH 21, Le Caire 1962 (hereinafter referred to as:
Temple d’Amon-Re), p. 100 footnote 1; RATIE,
Hatchepsout, p. 271 footnote 49; MEYER, Senenmut,
p. 136 and NIEDZIOLKA, On the Obelisks Mentioned
in the Northampton Stela of Djehuti, in: Eight Interna-
tional Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 28 March-
3 April 2000, Late Abstracts, Cairo 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as: 8"' ICE Late Abstracts), pp. 9-10 and the
102