Seite 32 [32]
As the categorization of the two words shows in the comparative tables above, a certain
regularity regarding the writing forms of both wb3 and wdpw can be discerned. However,
to determine the correct reading of the particular occurrence of the words with certainty,
it is not enough to draw a conclusion based exclusively on the writing form, since the
textual context also has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, there are exceptions and
complicated cases where other aspects should be considered besides these two criteria.
Such an instance is the occurrence of the title ‘royal wb3’/‘royal wdpw’ in the onomasti¬
con of Amenemope. Gardiner notes* that in one of the manuscripts, on a leather strip
(British Museum, EA 10379), the incorrect form + Te ee of wb3 was used which is
perhaps corrupted from the form 3 Be = À, the shorter version of the word, and
barely from the writing of wdpw D 5. In the other manuscript, which also preserved
this section of the onomasticon, Papyrus Hood (British Museum, EA 10202, another
corrupted form of the same title occurs as À 2 Je … M. It seems almost certain to
Gardiner that the emendation of the word must have been +. Î ]5 … M. He transcribes
both sign groups as wb3 in the relevant section of the text, however, with a question mark.
At the same time, Gardiner also notes that ‘this important title would otherwise be passed
over in silence. " In this particular case, the date of the original work, as well as that of
the manuscripts, must be considered.” Amenemope, whom the onomasticon is attrib¬
uted to, is supposed to have lived at the very end of the 20" dynasty, and the original
work was presumably written not earlier than the reign of Ramesses IX. The available
manuscripts, eight in number, based on their features, are associated with the 21* and
22" dynasties, the relevant leather strip is dated to the 21“ dynasty, and Papyrus Hood is
from the early 21“ dynasty.** The last attestation of the title wb3 nswt ‘royal wb?’ from the
New Kingdom in the present corpus is from the reign of Ramesses IX, and that of the
title wdpw nswt ‘royal wdpw’ is from the reign of Ramesses XI. Based on these facts, the
rare usage of the title during the Second Intermediate Period, text corruption or scribal
errors made during copying originating from the similar function and usage of the two
titles also have to be considered as possible explanations for the occurrences of the cor¬
rupted writing forms. According to the distribution of the writing forms of the two words
demonstrated above, it seems to be reasonable to suppose that — contrary to Gardiner’s
suggestion — the written form + oe still derives from the word wapw ST 6,
>
5 Gardiner, 1947, 43*.
46 Gardiner, 1947, 437.
47 Gardiner, 1947, 24-25.
® Gardiner, 1947, 24-26, 30-31.
+