UCLA UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology Title Traditional Egyptian II (Ptolemaic, Roman) Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8g73w3gp Journal UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 1(1) Author Engsheden, Ake Publication Date 2016-03-15 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California TRADITIONAL EGYPTIAN II (PTOLEMAIC, ROMAN) اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ (ﺧﻼل اﻟﻌﺼﺮ اﻟﺒﻄﻠﻤﻲ واﻟﺮوﻣﺎﻧﻲ) Åke Engsheden EDITORS WILLEKE WENDRICH Editor-in-Chief University of California, Los Angeles JACCO DIELEMAN Editor University of California, Los Angeles ELIZABETH FROOD Editor University of Oxford JOHN BAINES Senior Editorial Consultant University of Oxford JULIE STAUDER-PORCHET, ANDRÉAS STAUDER Area Editors Language, Text and Writing Swiss National Science Foundation & University of Basel, EPHE Paris Short Citation: Engsheden, 2016, Traditional Egyptian II (Ptolemaic, Roman). UEE. Full Citation: Engsheden, Åke, 2016, Traditional Egyptian II (Ptolemaic, Roman). In Julie Stauder-Porchet, Andréas Stauder and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k6stb 15561 Version 1, March 2016 http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k6stb TRADITIONAL EGYPTIAN II (PTOLEMAIC, ROMAN) اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ (ﺧﻼل اﻟﻌﺼﺮ اﻟﺒﻄﻠﻤﻲ واﻟﺮوﻣﺎﻧﻲ) Åke Engsheden Neo-Mittelägyptisch/Spätmittelägyptisch (ptolemäische und römische Zeit) Égyptien de tradition (époques ptolémaïque et romaine) From 404 BCE - 394 CE hieroglyphic texts were in general composed in the high-status language variety termed Traditional Egyptian. This was used exclusively in religious and sacerdotal contexts and is as such opposed to Demotic, which served both as a spoken and as a written language. Traditional Egyptian is a reflex of how the late scribes perceived the classical language. The result is a morphologically impoverished Egyptian (in comparison with the classical language), in combination with a phonology that corresponds largely to Demotic. Traditional Egyptian served as a vehicle for many new compositions, in particular religious inscriptions in temples and on papyri, but also funerary, historical, and autobiographical texts. Meanwhile, older texts in the classical language continued to be copied: as long as there are no reliable means of dating texts according to linguistic criteria, it remains difficult to establish the exact corpus of texts written in Traditional Egyptian. ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﮭﯿﺮوﻏﻠﯿﻔﯿﺔ ﺑﻮﺟﮫ ﻋﺎم ﺧﻼل اﻟﻔﺘﺮة ﻣﻦ 404 ق.م : 394م ﺗﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ذات ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ رﻓﯿﻌﺔ وﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﯿﺮاث اﻟﻤﺼﺮى. وﻗﺪ اﺳﺘﺨﺪم ھﺬا ﺣﺼﺮﯾﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﯿﺎﻗﺎت اﻟﺪﯾﻨﯿﺔ واﻟﻜﮭﻨﻮﺗﯿﺔ وھﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬا اﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺘﻌﺎرض ﻣﻊ اﻟﺪﯾﻤﻮطﯿﻘﯿﺔ ، اﻟﺘﻰ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺳﻮاء ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻮﻗﺔ وﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ. (اﻟﻠﻐﺔ) اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ ھﻰ اﻧﻌﻜﺎس ﻹدراك وﻓﮭﻢ ﻛﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﺼﻮر اﻟﻤﺘﺄﺧﺮة ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻜﻼﺳﯿﻜﯿﺔ (اﻟﻔﺼﺤﻰ). واﻟﻨﺘﯿﺠﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻓﻘﯿﺮة ﻓﻰ اﻟﺘﻜﻮﯾﻦ (ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻔﺼﺤﻰ)، وﺑﺎﻟﻤﺰج ﻣﻊ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮات ﻓﺎﻧﮭﺎ ﻣﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﯿﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺪﯾﻤﻮطﯿﻘﯿﺔ. (اﻟﻠﻐﺔ) اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ وﺳﯿﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﺪﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺮاﻛﯿﺐ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة، وﺑﺎﻷﺧﺺ اﻟﻨﻘﻮش اﻟﺪﯾﻨﯿﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﺑﺪ وﻋﻠﻰ أوراق اﻟﺒﺮدي، وأﯾﻀﺎ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﺠﻨﺎﺋﺰﯾﺔ، واﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺨﯿﺔ، وﻧﺼﻮص اﻟﺴﯿﺮة اﻟﺬاﺗﯿﺔ. وﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﮫ اﺳﺘﻤﺮ ﻧﺴﺦ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻘﺪﯾﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻜﻼﺳﯿﻜﯿﺔ (اﻟﻔﺼﺤﻰ): طﺎﻟﻤﺎ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ ھﻨﺎك وﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ اﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺗﺄرﯾﺦ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﯾﯿﺮ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺔ، إﻻ أﻧﮫ ﻻ ﯾﺰال ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ دﻗﯿﻖ ﻟﻠﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ. he term Traditional Egyptian terminology, see Vernus (2016); the division refers to the high-status language does not correspond to any major grammatical T used by the priestly elite for writing differences between the two periods and has mainly in hieroglyphs. It stands in opposition been introduced here for practical reasons to Demotic, which was the vernacular form of only. Grammar, orthography, and layout of Egyptian, both spoken and written, during the hieroglyphic texts first follow Saite models period. This article treats only Traditional closely, then evolve gradually away from these. Egyptian after the First Persian Period until the Traditional Egyptian refers to a linguistic demise of hieroglyphic writing, from 404 BCE phenomenon whereas Ptolemaic (Kurth 2007, - 394 CE. For the preceding periods and Traditional Egyptian II (Ptolemaic, Roman), Engsheden, UEE 2016 1 2008; Leitz 2009), with which the term is reflects Traditional Egyptian grammar strained sometimes used interchangeably, is better to its limits. The best preserved of these is the reserved for the new orthographical style Canopus Decree (238 BCE), the best known is characteristic of temple inscriptions, in which the Memphis Decree (196 BCE), represented new phonetic values developed for the by the Rosetta Stone (Quirke and Andrews hieroglyphic signs. Indeed, Traditional 1989). Egyptian in Ptolemaic temple inscriptions does Next to this state-sanctioned production not display a break in grammar with Traditional of texts, private inscriptions abound on funerary Egyptian from the preceding period, nor are equipment and private statuary. Original systematic grammatical differences to autobiographies are, however, comparatively rare contemporary hieroglyphic texts known. It is (list in Rössler-Köhler 1991: 256-359), but are therefore ill-advised in language classification through their historical anchorage prime to use a term, which focuses solely on the examples of newly composed texts and, Greek Period and on a single body of texts consequently, of Traditional Egyptian (cf. such as the temple inscriptions. In addition, Quack 2013: 49). Autobiographies are found “Ptolemaic” also means much more, namely on statuary and on funerary stelae, the study of the interrelationships of text, exceptionally also inscribed on the tomb wall image, and temple architecture, the so-called as in Petosiris’ tomb in Tuna el-Gebel “temple grammar” (Kurth 2007: 7, 2011: 75- (Lefebvre 1923-1924). The writing of 76), thus vastly transcending the domain of autobiographies came to a standstill in the early language study itself. Roman Period with one notable exception from the reign of Hadrian (Scharff 1927). Corpus Inventive inscriptions are also found on Temple inscriptions make up the bulk of obelisks (Erman 1896; Meyer 1994). Later hieroglyphic texts preserved from the period. inscriptions, such as the late stelae of the These come from the Ptolemaic and Roman Buchis bull (Goldbrunner 2004: 75-77), are temples of Dendara, Edfu, Esna, Kom Ombo, more formulaic in their language. and Philae, to name but the most significant In addition, there is a large number of (overview of text editions in Leitz 2009: 2-5). religious papyri written in cursive hieroglyphs or Several different text types are attested hieratic. Some of these, such as the Book of the showing a varying degree of grammatical Dead, have a long history of transmission and complexity (in increasing order): captions, are largely reproductive, while others are new ritual texts, hymns, litanies, cult-topographical compositions, including mortuary texts such as texts, and mythological ones. It is obvious that the Book of Traversing Eternity (Herbin 1994) or the temples incorporate much older material, the Letter for Breathing which Isis Made for her as has often been pointed out (Sauneron 1974: Brother Osiris (Coenen and Quaegebeur 1995). 151-152; Quack 2008, 2010c: 80-82), but the As with religious texts in general, it is difficult embedding of the texts into the architecture to determine to what extent such documents speaks for a date of (final) redaction close to are copies of older religious texts. The the time when the buildings were erected (e.g., conclusion that newly composed texts received the Myth of Horus in Edfu according to Kurth a Demotic structure whereas older texts with 2011: 69). Historical stelae are comparatively an overall Middle Egyptian structure are old rare, fewer than a dozen in total. The last compositions (von Lieven 2007, 2010: 421) monolingual text of this kind, the Mendes Stela seems unwarranted (Jansen-Winkeln 2011). (Sethe 1904: 28-54), is dated to Ptolemy II For instance, it has been claimed on the basis Philadelphus (264 BCE). Not altogether of a grammatical analysis that Papyrus dissimilar in purport are the sacerdotal decrees Jumilhac, a well-preserved cult-topographical from the mid-Ptolemaic Period. These were set text of late Ptolemaic date (Vandier 1961), up, in the ideal case, in three versions: reproduces now lost texts that would have hieroglyphic, Demotic, and Greek (Clarysse originated between the Middle Kingdom and 2000), whereby the hieroglyphic version Traditional Egyptian II (Ptolemaic, Roman), Engsheden, UEE 2016 2 the Saite Period (Quack 2008). However, Late sentences both in temple inscriptions (Kurth Egyptian features, which have been cited in 2008: 610) and in private ones (Fairman 1934; order to anchor one section of Papyrus el-Sayed 1980: 243). Jumilhac to the 19th Dynasty (Quack 2008: 214- Differences with respect to the classical 215; jw as converter, sequential jw=f Hr sdm, language should not be seen as failed Middle =sn alongside =w for the 3rd person plural Egyptian. Rather, the norm is different. A case pronoun), are likewise found in the Canopus in point is the loss of -t on the infinitive of Decree showing that one still had command of weak verbs, except before suffix pronouns, these forms in the third century BCE (for the which is exactly the pattern found in later sequential jw=f Hr sdm, Engsheden 2003: 243- Egyptian. This suggests that the norm in 250). As for other religious texts without Traditional Egyptian followed