A Vizier of Ramses Iii Visits an Oracle of Amun and Deir El-Medina
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A VIZIER OF RAMSES III VISITS AN ORACLE OF AMUN AND DEIR EL-MEDINA BY CARLES WOLTERMAN V. Tuyll van Serooskerkenweg 18-II 1076 JL AMSTERDAM The limestone ostracon Florence 2619, inscribed on both sides, is complete “except for a few chips" according to the publishers of both a hieratic facsimile and a hieroglyphic transcription of it, J. Cerny and A.H.Gardiner1. The recto and part of the verso (ll.1-3) are occupied by a literary sby.t-text, an advice given to a pupil by a scribe, displaying black (sic) verse-points. This instruction has already been transcribed and translated2. Cerny and Gardiner have called the contents of verso, 4-13 “a business text of the utmost obscurity, dated in Year 15”. Apparently, they had not been able to improve on the efforts of A. Erman, who gave only a fragmentary transcription of this part of the text in 1880, and delivered the same verdict: “Aber der Sinn des Ganzen bleibt mir völlig dunkel”3. This judgement by the eminent scholars may well have been one of the reasons why the ‘business’-text received virtually no attention in the Egyptological literature. As far as I am aware, only M. Gutgesell and D. Valbelle shortly referred to it recently without even mentioning the most conspicious personage of the short report, viz. a vizier, let alone the fact that an oracle is involved4. Our text does not, contrary to the sby.t, seem to show any verse-points5. Moreover, the handwriting of verso, 4-13 seems to have been done in darker ink and differs markedly 1 J. Cerny and A.H. Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca, Volume I, 1957, pl. XXXIX, 2 and p. 12. J. Cerny, Notebook Nr.17 (unp.), p. 58 delivered another, but less reliable transcription not used here. A copy of the latter was very kindly brought over to me from the Griffith Institute at Oxford by Mr. Ben Haring from Leiden. I herewith thank the authorities of the Institute as well. As for the verso of O Florence 2619, apart from insignificant chips broken off in the end of ll.4 and 6 and in the beginning of 6, some signs or words are certainly missing in ll. 7, 8, 9 and 13 and only perhaps in the beginning of 10, corresponding with clear ruptures in recto, 8, 9 and 10. 2 By A. Erman, ZÄS 18 (1880), p. 96; translation also in id., Die Literatur der Aegypter, 1923, p. 247 (with n.5)-248. 3 A. Erman, ZÄS 18 (1880), p. 97 4 M. Gutgesell, Die Datierung der Ostraka und Papyri aus Deir el-Medineh und ihre ökonomische Interpretation,Teil I: Die 20. Dynastie, Band I (HÄB 18), 1983, p. 97; D. Valbelle, Les Ouvriers de la Tombe. Deir el-Médineh à l’époque ramesside (BdE 96), 1985, p. 344, Liste V. 5 Why Cerny and Gardiner noted a black verse-point above the line after nfr in vs. 7 of their hieroglyphic version is not transparent; no such dot is visible in the facsimile, nor is it given in the transcriptions of Erman and Cerny, Notebook. Even if we would assume that a verse-point and the end of the downward stroke of the hieratic sign for =k in n=k of vs.6 have coalesced, the question of the absence of the rest of the dots would remain. RdE 47 (1996) 148 C. WOLTERMAN from that used for both recto and verso, 1-36. Apart from these features, the even more sig- nificant occurrence of a precise date that agrees well with the known floruit of three Deir el-Medina officials mentioned in the text, leaves little doubt that the text represents a real administrative document. Apparently the two texts on this ostracon were written down by two different scribes or pupils and if our treatment of verso, 5 can be accepted, we may by cheer chance even know the name of the original author, though never, of course, that of the copyist. If, however, verso, 4-13 were an original administrative document, the blank spaces of which were only later filled in by a sby.t, the first line containing the date should have been placed at a top right corner of the ostracon as was customary, not three lines further down.Thus, we believe the text to be only a copy of an original administrative document. Cerny and Gardiner further added a note to the facsimile: “Transcribed carefully in front of the original, but the hieratic traced many years ago on a photograph, and not com- pleted”. This immediately raises the problem of where exactly the original hieratic was not traced in the facsimile. It is doubtless in verso, 11 of our text that six hieratic signs were either omitted or only partly traced, but these signs are transcribed in the hieroglyphic plate and have most probably been seen by the publishers themselves on the original manuscript. Five of these belong to a personal name that continues in verso, 12 and already occurs in verso, 4 and 8, so that an indisputable restoration of these signs would have been possible anyhow. More complicated are matters for verso, 12 which starts off with the final signs of above mentioned personal name, then shows a conspicious blank in the facsimile, another group of three hieratic signs not transcribed in hieroglyphs (determinatives?) and further another blank, finally followed by verso, 13 in which a trace of the first (?) sign has been drawn in the facsimile, but is lacking in the corresponding plate, followed by a blank. Now, wherever the original hieratic may actually show its blanks, the second text on the verso of O Florence 2619 as published, seems yet to make more sense than its publishers thought it would. Without laying claim to a definite translation, I had merely wished to draw atten- tion to this intriguing and much neglected little text. In my translation the sigla A till H are used in superscript in order to distinguish the persons referred to. 6 Erman, ZÄS 18 (1880), p.97 remarked, alluding to verso, 4-13: “Auf den noch freien Raum der Rückseite ist dann später mit dunklerer Tinte die folgende Notiz geschrieben“. As for the two scribes, note e.g. the differences between the vertical -k- in vs. 6 and the rather horizontal forms in rt. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 11; the definite article in vs. 5 and the forms in rt. 2, 5, 6, 8 and in vs. 1; the forms of mí (in smí),vs. 5 and 7 and their counterparts rt. 4 ; 5 and in rt. 13. Finally, the forms of the converter íw in vs. 6, 8 and 10 show the -w- more elongated and consistently placed higher up unto the sign of the ‘reed plume’ as distinct from that in the íw- forms of rt.9 and 12 and vs. 2 and 3: RdE 47 (1996) RdE 47 (1996) vs. 4. 5. A VIZIER OF RAMSES III VISITS AN ORACLE 149 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Fig. 1. From J. Cerny and A.H. Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca Volume I, 1957. pl. XXXIX,2. 150 C. WOLTERMAN Fig. 2. Text. RdE 47 (1996) A VIZIER OF RAMSES III VISITS AN ORACLE 151 The text vs., 4. Ì.t-sp 15 bd 1 pr.t sw 10 nty íy írí Î(r)wr-n=f <n> 5. Însw r mÌ=í Ìr írí smí p rÌ cnw 6. íw=f <Ìr> sÌ∂ <n> t ís.t íw=f m ∂d.t n=k írí.w=s 7. smí=í dí=í Pr-c c.<w.s.> pw nb nfr dí=í n=f †[t<y>] 8. pw Î(r)wr-n=f íw c<-n->ís.t NÌw[-m-Mw.t] 9. [c<-n->]ís.t Îy ss Wnn-nfr t ís.t..[…] 10. [.?.] ∂d=f dí.w=í n=f }Imn c.w.s.íw=f nb t 11. s<t Ìr> smt †t<y> pw Î(r)wr- 12. -n=f ….(dets.?)….. 13. …. vs., 4. 15th Regnal year, 1st month of the sprouting season, 10th day <on> which a) Hewernef A has come <to> b) 5. Khonsu B in order to trust/charge c) me B d) with the carrying out/ read- ing aloud e) of what X the beautiful f) cult statue C g) had proclaimed.h) 6. He B instructed i) the j) gang D: “It X k) is as what X has been said to l) you A :”That it X may be carried out m)/ read aloud e) 7. what X I C have proclaimed n): “As I C have appointed o) this p) Pharaoh E, l., <p., h.!>, the good Lord E, so I C have appointed o) for him E this p) viz[ier] q) 8. Hewernef A !“” And the chief <of> the gang Nakh[emmut (the Older)] F r), 9. [the chief <of>] the gang Hay G s), the scribe Wenennefer H (and) the j) gang D t)..[…..] 10. [.?.] He A said u):“I A was appointed v) for him C, — Amun C w), l., p., h.! —, for he C is the Lord C of the land x)!“11. He A y) went away, this p) vizier Hewer- 12. -nef A ……(?) z)…13. ….. a) A. Erman, ZÄS 18 (1880), p.97 commented:” “Im Jahre 15, den kommenden 10-ten Tybi”, wie man ja auch Koptisch etnyu ( )für “zukünftig” gebraucht“, thus giving an incorrect etymology. nty íy is certainly not the direct forerunner of Coptic etnyu. Although nyu is the qualitative of ei “to come”, it is originally the qualitative of the verb nou “to go, be going to“, mostly used with futural sense7.