Oldal 32 [32]
OCR
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 onomasticon 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 attributed 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 corrupted 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. +
