DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3721#0012
racters; thus, in many of the prenomens, we find more
hieroglyphics than usual, and yet, the original title is stflJ
traceable; this last fact enables us to discover the king, to
whom this prenomen belongs, however varied his nomen
may be; a variation, which in some seems to have known
no bounds; hence, I have been enabled to collect upwards
of thirty (10) different modes of writing the nomen of Thoth-
mes III. (11) This would, at first sight, seem to present
a great difficulty, which however is seldom the case, from
the marked distinction generally kept up in the prenomens,
to which alone we can trust; I say generally, because, even
in these, I have sometimes found a considerable change,
as in e, i, o, and others in Plate II; though this is not
often the case.
Were it not for this circumstance, the study of the names
would be very simple, but this presents some degree of
difficulty, and requires great attention, in copying them
from the temples ; it enables us however to account for the
difference, which exists in the lists of Abydus, and Thebes,
where the same king must have taken two prenomens', one
of which is introduced into the former, the other into the
latter list.
Another difficulty arises from two kings having the same
prenomen, as Osirtesen I, and the supposed Nectancbo; in
(10) I hare thought it unnecessary to insert them in the Plate, and have
chosen only the principal variations of each nomen ; and of the prenomen
whenever they occur.
(11) This king, the Adrian of Egypt in architectural whims, has not
confined his lore of variety to his uomen, but baa extended it to his prenomen,
and also to his square title.
hieroglyphics than usual, and yet, the original title is stflJ
traceable; this last fact enables us to discover the king, to
whom this prenomen belongs, however varied his nomen
may be; a variation, which in some seems to have known
no bounds; hence, I have been enabled to collect upwards
of thirty (10) different modes of writing the nomen of Thoth-
mes III. (11) This would, at first sight, seem to present
a great difficulty, which however is seldom the case, from
the marked distinction generally kept up in the prenomens,
to which alone we can trust; I say generally, because, even
in these, I have sometimes found a considerable change,
as in e, i, o, and others in Plate II; though this is not
often the case.
Were it not for this circumstance, the study of the names
would be very simple, but this presents some degree of
difficulty, and requires great attention, in copying them
from the temples ; it enables us however to account for the
difference, which exists in the lists of Abydus, and Thebes,
where the same king must have taken two prenomens', one
of which is introduced into the former, the other into the
latter list.
Another difficulty arises from two kings having the same
prenomen, as Osirtesen I, and the supposed Nectancbo; in
(10) I hare thought it unnecessary to insert them in the Plate, and have
chosen only the principal variations of each nomen ; and of the prenomen
whenever they occur.
(11) This king, the Adrian of Egypt in architectural whims, has not
confined his lore of variety to his uomen, but baa extended it to his prenomen,
and also to his square title.