Graffiti Senenmuta z Asuanu

Abstrakt

W pobliżu Asuanu, pomiędzy południowymi obrzeżami miasta a miejscowością Mahatta, na wysokości wyspy Elefantyna,1 znajduje się graffiti Senenmuta. Jest ono znane już od czasów wyprawy do Egiptu i Nubii zorganizowanej przez niemieckiego uczonego Karla Richarda Lepsiusa,2 który jako pierwszy opublikował je w formie przerysu. Zostało ono ponownie opublikowane przez francuskiego egiptologa Jacques'a de Morgana,3 także jako przerys. Pierwsze tłumaczenie tej inskrypcji przedstawił amerykański egiptolog James Henry Breasted,4 opierając się na publikacjach Lepsiusa i de Morgana. Kolejna publikacja, tym razem jedynie hieroglificznej inskrypcji tego graffiti, była dziełem niemieckiego badacza Kurta Sethego.5 Najnowsza edycja tej inskrypcji autorstwa egipskiego egiptologa Labiba Habachiego, w postaci przerysu, zawiera jednocześnie nowe tłumaczenie tego tekstu.6 Kolejne tłumaczenia tej inskrypcji były dziełem badaczek niemieckich Christine Meyer7 i Adelheid Burkhardt.8 W międzyczasie graffiti to było wielokrotnie cytowane i komentowane przy okazji omawiania wielu zagadnień natury historycznej oraz związanych z administracją i historią budowy świątyni Amona w Karnaku.<br>SOME REMARKS ON THE GRAFFITO OF SENENMUT AT ASWAN. The graffito has been carved on the eastern bank of the Nile at Aswan, opposite the Elephantine Island (and not on Sehel as it is sometimes suggested). This important historical record has been known since the expedition of Lepsius who published it for the first time in a form of a quasi fascimile in the forties of the last century; then, De Morgan republished it. Breasted submitted the first translation of the text of the graffito in 1906. At the same time, Sethe published a revised version of its hieroglyphic text in the form of an autography. The latest publication of the complete graffito by Habachi, in the form of quasi fasimile, was accompanied with a translation and commentary and appeared in 1957. Subsequent translations of the text were submitted by Meyer (1982) and Burkhardt (1984), the former richly annotated. Concurrently, the graffito has been referred to and commented on many times especially in publications concerning the history of the 18th dynasty, administration of Egypt in that period and the building history of the temple of Amon-Re at Karnak. It seems, however, that many problems concerning this graffito still remain unsolved. Firstly, there are some doubts concerning the lecture of some particular hieroglyphic signs in the text. Consequently, several ofits passages have been interpreted differently by particular authors, for instance the epithet dj.<t>.n n=s R# nzy.t in columns 1-2 of the uppermost part of the inscription. 32 Co do wieku Hatszepsut w tym momencie patrz M. L. Bierbrier, How Old was Hatshepsut ?, GM 144, 1995, p. 15-19 The same however, concerns some well preserved and carefully incised parts of the text e.g. the string of words m3# hrjb nj psd.t ntr.w, in the second column of the just mentioned legend to queen Hatshepsut. Similarly, some difficulties of the linguistic nature occur in the latest horizontal line of the inscription, as one can easily observe examining all the existing translations. The second, and much more important problem is connected with allegedly recarved epithet(s) of Hatshepsut in the fourth column of the uppermost part ofthe text, as this would imply far-reaching consequences of the historical nature. Moreover, of the same nature are also the differences in interpretation of the string of text mentioned above: dj.<t>.n n=s R# nzy.t m3# hrjb nj psd.t ntr.w and of the phrases hpr.n n b3.w hm.t=s or thn.wj wr.wj n.w hh.(w) rnp.wt as well. Even the identification of the obelisks mentioned by Senenmut in this graffito with the pair of monuments erected by the queen in the eastern part of the temple of Amon-Re at Karnak, whitch seemed to have been certain for eighty years, since the publication of Sethe's Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, recently has been questioned by Gabolde. Summing up, all the mentioned above problems seem to justify an attempt to undertake a new analysis of the graffito, even before the publication of the actual fascimile of this important historical record of the early 18th dynasty.