| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:30 pm Post subject: King Lists |
 |
|
Well, I just discovered why my comparisons of the Karnak offering-list with published sources weren't making any sense. There are at least two different numbering schemes out there.
The diagram I was referring to had the corrected (Lepsius 1853) numbering system, where the cartouches are numbered from the outside in to the center, first on the left side (and down) and then on the right. The source I was trying to compare them with had Lepsius's original 1842 numbering, beginning in the center and working out, first on the left and then on the right (and down). (Some details at https://pharaoh.se/karnak-king-list ).
Oy.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are two entries on the Karnak "Table" I'm puzzling over, since they are interpreted differently in different images... wonder if anyone can confirm what's actually there:
Lepsius-1853 #39 (-1842 #32) - center wall, top register, just right of center facing right:
k3 = ...ka[re]? after Lepsius, 1842/1853
or
k3w = ...kaw[re]? after d'Avennes, Wikipedia image
Lepsius-1853 #48 (-1842 #54) - right wall, third register from top, end of row facing right:
sXm-r' w3h-X'w = sekhemre-wahkhaw ? after Lepsius, 1842/1853
or
w3h-x'w-r' = wah-khaw-re ? after Burton, 1825, Wikipedia image
or
w3D-x'w-r' = wadj-khaw-re ? after d'Avennes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks... but on a closer look, that's the d'Avennes version I noted above. (Better quality image than I'd had, though.)
Anyone in Paris care to nip over to the Louvre and see if they're legible?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Montuhotep88 wrote: | Lepsius-1853 #39 (-1842 #32) - center wall, top register, just right of center facing right:
k3 = ...ka[re]? after Lepsius, 1842/1853
or
k3w = ...kaw[re]? after d'Avennes, Wikipedia image |
I located a photo of the actual item in the Louvre that appears to settle this one in favor of d'Avennes (surprising, I was leaning toward Lepsius).
The other case is still unsettled; the accompanying photo of the right wall isn't detailed enough to be legible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Montuhotep88 wrote: | Thanks... but on a closer look, that's the d'Avennes version I noted above. (Better quality image than I'd had, though.)
Anyone in Paris care to nip over to the Louvre and see if they're legible?
|
This page from the Karnak-Project is made by the French Karnak Mission, working for decades in this temple. Among other things, they also had the plaster casts of the originals in the Louvre produced, and then had them reapplied at the chamber in the Achmenu. I would imagine that the text was revised on this occasion? At least that's what I would do ...
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| True, and the support of the d'Avennes image I observed does bear that out. I'll spend some more time on the site; thank you for the tip! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kurt Sethe : Urkunden der 18. Dynastie - 2. Historisch-biographische Urkunden. - Leipzig : Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1906. - Page 607 - 610 :
According to headline Sethe has used all important templates: Burton, Young, Lepsius and Prisse (which he considers the best version). And, Benedite has collated the text on the original in France...
Greetinngs, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ausgezeichnet... my conclusion from looking at the photo is supported by entry V.8. in that material.
What is the notation above VII.1.? It looks like "so". Is that for siehe oben? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Montuhotep88 wrote: | | ... What is the notation above VII.1.? It looks like "so". Is that for siehe oben? |
No idea. Elsewhere in the book (for example in the headline / title on page 607, behind "zu Karnak" and enclosed in parantheses) he uses the abbreviation "s.ob." for "siehe oben" (see above) and "s.u." for "siehe unten (see below) ...
Maybe as a statement (?) : "it's like that", "it looks like that" (?).
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | | Montuhotep88 wrote: | | ... What is the notation above VII.1.? It looks like "so". Is that for siehe oben? |
No idea. ... |
But Michael Tilgner (  ) has ... 
| Quote: | Zur Diskussion in "Egyptian Dreams" über "so" in VII.1 (Urk. IV, 610):
"so" bzw. Lateinisch "sic" wird verwendet, wenn eine ungewöhnliche Schreibung vorliegt. VII.1 ist Pharao Rahotep, 2. König der 17. Dyn. nach von Beckerath, oder 1. nach Ryholt. Lesung des Thronnamens: sxm-Ra wAH-xa.w. In dieser Königsliste fehlt S 42, das Sechem-Zepter; das sieht man an den Tafeln bei Prisse d'Avennes und Lepsius (rechts, 2. Reihe von unten, 1. König rechts). Sethe hat S 42 ergänzt (schraffiert) und ein "so" daran geschrieben. |
| Quote: | For discussion in "Egyptian Dreams" about "so" in VII.1 (Urk IV, 610):
"so" or Latin "sic" is used when there is an unusual spelling. VII.1 is Pharaoh Rahotep, 2nd king of the 17th dynasty after von Beckerath, or 1st after Ryholt. Reading of the throne name: sxm-Ra wAH-xa.w. In this list of kings, S 42, the Sechem scepter, lacks; this can be seen in the plates by Prisse d'Avennes and Lepsius (right, 2nd row from below, 1st king right). Sethe added (hatched) S 42 and wrote a "so" on it. |
Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So it looks as if Sethe considered it doubtful? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4070
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. It means that Sethe characterizes the writing without this sign as extraordinary ("an unusual spelling"), and complements the sign on the basis of all other previously known spellings he knows.
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay... that makes sense.
I'm still concerned that Sethe has w3H and d'Avennes appears to have written w3D:
Sethe: sxm-r' w3H-k3w --> Sekhemre Wahkau (implies Rehotep)
d'Avennes: sxm-r' w3D-k3w --> Sekhemre Wadjkau (implies Sobekemsaf II)
which are unfortunately both plausible.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montuhotep88
Priest
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wait--- no, strike that--- those darn conflicting Lepsius numbers are tripping me up again.  One of them is 48 and the other is 54 under the first system, and then they flip under the revised numbering, and Sekhemre Wadjkau is already depicted.
Ergo: as per Sethe, the other must be Sekhemre Wahkau-- because the alternative would be the same prenomen repeated, which would appear to be more unlikely.
Got it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
