| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SidneyF
Banned
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: Bodily Son of the Sun |
 |
|
Does anyone happen to know how common this phrase "sA ra n XAt-f, mr=f" or "bodily son of the sun, beloved of him" was? Tutankhamun used it, below, but I can't now recall where else I have seen it. This is a separate issue from just plain "sA ra".
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
neseret
Vizier
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Bodily Son of the Sun |
|
|
| SidneyF wrote: | Does anyone happen to know how common this phrase "sA ra n XAt-f, mr=f" or "bodily son of the sun, beloved of him" was? Tutankhamun used it, below, but I can't now recall where else I have seen it. This is a separate issue from just plain "sA ra".
|
Baude in the late 1990's, as well as Ward and Troy in the late 1980's, proposed that a title of a royal child that ended with /n XAt-f mr=f/,"of the [king's] own body, beloved/chosen by him" was a means of providing hierarchy amongst the royal children, such that a son or daughter with such a title was likely the eldest child of the lot, and took precedence among any other royal children.
However, this was not to mean that such a son, for example, was always the heir-prince, according to Ward, who cited a number of examples where sons with the /n XAt-f mr=f/ was not always the suceeding king.
References:
Baud, M. 1999. Famille royale et pouvir sous l'Ancien Empire égyptien. (2 Vols.) Bibliothèque d'Étude 126. Cairo: IFAO.
Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis
Ward, W. A. 1986. Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects. Beirut: American University of Beirut.
HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SidneyF
Banned
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Bodily Son of the Sun |
|
|
| neseret wrote: | | Baude in the late 1990's, as well as Ward and Troy in the late 1980's, proposed that a title of a royal child that ended with /n XAt-f mr=f/,"of the [king's] own body, beloved/chosen by him" was a means of providing hierarchy amongst the royal children, such that a son or daughter with such a title was likely the eldest child of the lot, and took precedence among any other royal children. |
You are clearly referring to the phrase "sA nsw n XAt=f mr=f" [of the king's own body] but that is not on the image I provided. What is there is "sA ra n XAt=f mr=f" and my question was about that--the claim to being the actual bodily son of the sun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even just another German Egyptologist... 
Rainer Hannig : Ägyptisches Wörterbuch / 2 - Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit. - [Hannig-Lexica 5 - Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 112]. - Mainz : von Zabern, 2006. - ISBN : 3-8053-3690-X ; 978-3-8053-3690-1. - LI, pp. 1 - 1616 (Vol. 1) ; pp. 1617 - 3274 (Vol. 2)
from page 2069 the supporting documents for the Middle Kingdom:
[img]http://www.aegyptologie.com/forum/attachments/archiv/Members/Lutz/Dok_2/sA_ra_n_XAt=f_Hannig_5_2006_2069.jpg[/img]
and from page 1971 from the Second Intermedate Period:
[img]http://www.aegyptologie.com/forum/attachments/archiv/Members/Lutz/Dok_2/sA_ra_n_XAt=f_Hannig_5_2006_1971.jpg[/img]
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SidneyF
Banned
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks, Lutz. That's quite a lot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SidneyF wrote: | | ... That's quite a lot! |
And those are just the one from the Middle Kingdom.
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sothis
Priest
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wondered why everyone transliterates the word for "bodily" as "XAt.f" instead of "Xt.f"?
The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sothis wrote: | | ... The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
As you still say, the "udder and tail" sign (F32) is not only phonogram, it is also an ideogram. And I would say as such it is used herein that?
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SidneyF
Banned
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sothis wrote: | I wondered why everyone transliterates the word for "bodily" as "XAt.f" instead of "Xt.f"?
The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
I think you're right. I think it's only M12 that's syllabic XA. My mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sothis
Priest
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | | Sothis wrote: | | ... The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
As you still say, the "udder and tail" sign (F32) is not only phonogram, it is also an ideogram. And I would say as such it is used herein that?
Greetings, Lutz. |
I am not sure if the following phonetic t-sign would allow for the interpretation as ideogram.
I was just curious because sometimes certain signs are read differently e.g. wsjr (Osiris) is now read by some Asjr.
But apparently F32 still has the phonetic value X.
Thanks anyway
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sothis
Priest
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | | Sothis wrote: | | ... The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
As you still say, the "udder and tail" sign (F32) is not only phonogram, it is also an ideogram. And I would say as such it is used herein that?
Greetings, Lutz. |
I am not sure if the following phonetic t-sign would allow for the interpretation as ideogram.
I was just curious because sometimes certain signs are read differently e.g. wsjr (Osiris) is now read by some Asjr.
But apparently F32 still has the phonetic value X.
Thanks anyway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sothis wrote: | | Lutz wrote: | | Sothis wrote: | | ... The belly-sign F 32 is only a one-lit. sign denoting X or (as per Allen`s) ideogram in the word Xt. |
As you still say, the "udder and tail" sign (F32) is not only phonogram, it is also an ideogram. And I would say as such it is used herein that? |
I am not sure if the following phonetic t-sign would allow for the interpretation as ideogram. ... |
It is a phonetic complement, not mandatory but quite common. A well / better - known example you see in the name of the god Amun (waterline, "n", at the end).
Look at the picture in the first post in this thread with the titulary of Tutanchamun. You can see a small line to the left of the "t" sign, under the "udder and tail" sign (F32). This stroke - sign identifies the F32 - sign in the text for the reader as ideogram.
| Sothis wrote: | | ... I was just curious because sometimes certain signs are read differently e.g. wsjr (Osiris) is now read by some Asjr. ... |
I would not attach too much importance on that. As we know, it is not really known how the words sounded. The reason is probably simply different schools of thought of different scientists.
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgotten ... see for that
Mark Collier / Bill Manley : How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs - A step-by-step guide to teach yourself. - London : British Museum Press, 2008. - ISBN : 978-0-7141-1910-6. - ix, 179 p.,
page 17 - 18, "§13 Ideograms: sound-meaning signs".
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
