Of Aspelta, king of Kush (6th century B. C. E.)

        Varia                                                               MittSAG 23

108

ter to the office of high-priestess.»

29

 In this scenario 

the king himself is not only the director but also the 

main performer of the action.

Contrasting the interpretation of Blackman with 

that of Pierce and Török, one should keep in mind 

that the chronicler, describing the arrival at the 

Sanam temple of the Kushite king’s officials (given 

with their names and titles), and minutely registering, 

also with their names and titles, fifteen local priests 

in their capacity of witnesses, does not say a word 

about the presence there of king Aspelta or any of 

the three royal ladies. It might even be assumed from 

this that the whole action took place in absentio of 

the royal persons.

It could be argued that the relief in the lunette 

shows Aspelta, accompanied by his three kinswo-

men, making offering to Amun-Re in the latter’s 

Sanam hypostasis (Bull of the Land of the Three-

Curved Bow), which could be taken as implying the 

king’s attendance at the temple on the day in questi-

on. However, the scene hardly proves the presence of 

the royals. As a matter of fact, such representations 

on the official monuments in Kush (and in Egypt, 

wherefrom this tradition was once borrowed) quite 

often, if not always, are to be taken as metaphoric, 

or even allegoric, rather than realistic illustrations to 

the text which they accompany.

30

 

The answer to the question of who was the subject 

of the scene under discussion should most likely be 

looked for in the main text of the stele rather than in 

the pictorial supplement in the lunette. Yet the passa-

ge in question is very difficult to interpret for it seems 

to have a number of philological «irregularities»,

31

 

29  A. M. Blackman, ‘On the Position of Women in the Anci-

ent Egyptian Hierarchy’, JEA, Vol. VII (1921), p. 28.

30  The closest analogy (both as regards chronology and 

subject) could be the rock relief in Wadi Gasus (V. Viken-

tiev, ‘Les Divines Adoratrices de Wadi Gasus’, ASAE, T. 

LII (1954), pp. 150-59, pl. II; cf. G. Schweinfurth, Alte 

Baureste und hieroglyphische Inschriften im Uadi Gasūs 

<…> (Berlin, 1885), Taf. II) showing Psammetichus I 

in the company of his daughter Neitiqert (Nitocris) and 

Shepenupet II, «God’s Wife» of Amun at Thebes, making 

oblations to Amun-Re and Min. The scene evidently refers 

to the induction of Neitiqert into the priesthood by way of 

her adoption by Shepenupet, arranged by Psammetichus 

as a diplomatic move in order to gain control of Upper 

Egypt. According to the Nitocris Stele (R.A. Caminos, 

‘The Nitocris Adoption Stela’, JEA, Vol. 50 (1964), pp. 

71-100), the princess was sent to Thebes by river and 

departed «from the king’s private apartments» (line 7), 

which means that the king did not take part in the ceremo-

ny. Thus the scene in Wadi Gasus, representing the three 

persons together, most likely should be treated as merely 

symbolic.

31  Quite remarkably, the text of the Dedication Stele for 

some reason (perhaps as not representative ?) was included 

and it is regrettable that none of the aforementioned 

scholars explained his rendering, except Schäfer, who 

expressed his perplexity.

The main difficulty lies in the interpretation of 

lines 8 and 9: 

 (9) 

  <…>,  where several words are multi-

valued and where the problem hinges on «coordina-

ting» their renderings. Most confusing is the fact that 

there are two words - 

 xr and 

 jn - that theore-

tically could be used «to introduce the agent», i.e. 

indicate the person(s) who performed the action in 

question.

32

 Their presence could mean that here we 

have a passive construction sDm=f 

33

 after the intro-

ductory word jw.

34

 By curious coincidence the same 

two words (taking 

 as an irregular, yet identifiab-

le writing - in the context of the Dedication Stele

35

 

- of the preposition n) could be used to express 

dative. Thus the following readings are theoretically 

possible: 

1) «said BY (xr) the Majesty of the Pharaoh TO 

({j}n) the God’s servants and God’s fathers», 

which looks similar to the rendering suggested 

by Blackman.

2) «said TO (xr) the Majesty of the Pharaoh BY 

(jn) the God’s servants and God’s fathers», which 

is probably what Budge meant.

As we see, only two parties - king and priests - are 

taking part in the «council» in both cases. The third 

party, the grandees, seem to be ignored, although 

they are thoroughly enumerated at the beginning of 

the text and it is by their (rather than the king’s) visit 

to the Amun temple of Sanam that the day of the 

«council» is dated. This oddity makes both translati-

ons rather suspect. Moreover, they can at best be con-

sidered hypothetical, because the phrase in question 

just cannot be taken as passive construction since it 

neither in the article of K.-H. Priese (‘Zur Sprache der 

ägyptischen Inschriften der Könige von Kusch’, ZÄS, Bd. 

98 (1972), SS. 99-124) nor in the monograph of C. Peust 

(Das Napatanische), two principal generalising studies of 

the language of the Kushite monuments in Egyptian, in 

which the roots of the native «Meroitic» language seem 

gradually to appear.

32

 Wb. I, 89,1-4; III, 315, 13.

33  A.H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (3rd ed.; London, 

1957), § 39; J.P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction 

to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (Cambridge, 

2000), §§ 14.4.1, 18.6, 21.9.

34 Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.11.

35  Note the same «pleonastic» writing of the preposition n 

in line 6 and the writing 

 (I)kS for the place name KS 

in line 10.

---