R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> The children depicted are those of Seneb,
I have no doubt they are.
> and are
> honorary names to his regents.
> This is not a
> female Khufu (pharaoh).
I did not say it was, or not, and am noting their names are Djedefre and Khufu with the latter being female which seems odd to me, at the least, to name one's daughter after a male pharaoh. Do you know of other examples where females are named after male pharaohs?
> Also note there are
> actually 3 names written.
> It is thought the third
> child is not depicted in relief because of being
> stillborn, but this is speculation on why the
> child is not there. See Veronique Dasen "Dwarfs
> in Ancient Egypt and Greece", p.127.
Yes, the "companion of Radjedef". A daughter.
Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece.
I bring this up as it relates to co-regents and am just raising the possibility Khufu may have been a woman. Obviously it is idle speculation, but for several reasons I think it is an open possibility though it may very well not be the case as well.
> You wrote:"the lines in the circle are
> obviously not meant to represent the "kh" in
> "Khufu" and could not be one and the same as a
> sieve despite appearances. No other pharaoh
> required this not even KHafre"
> The lines themselves are not the 'kh' phone, per
> se, rather the complete glyph Aa1 is. Whether in
> actuality a sieve or placenta is depicted is still
> inconclusive (note Gardiner's '?', Egyptian
> Grammar p.539) but we can be fairly sure of the
> phonetic value (review ibid p.583-586).
Right which is basically what I am saying is that the lines in the sieve have no bearing on the KH which is the point then as to why they are there at all as well as being unique to Khufu within a cartouche. They must mean something as would including them or not including them.
As to the lines which may represent the placenta, this is why I phrase it as "have been said to" and not "are". Given the sole uniqueness of the lines to Khufu, therefore "if true" could it be because Khufu was a woman. Personally, I do not think these lines represent a placenta, however.
> For your
> interest, Aa1 has an associative phone of 'sh'
> through F32 (animal belly) as the latter is seen
> substituted for N37 (pool). We can therefore
> appreciate how Khufu might have ended up as Shufu
> / Suphis.
Thanks, but it would still be the same to the AE who wrote it would it not? Why would it be written with F32 instead of N37 or Vyse versa? I am not sure how this matters though as it relates to the two separate cartouches.
> As regards Khafre, his name is not written with
> Aa1, rather N28 'Kha' ('rising sun' glyph), so not
> comparable with Khufu.
I see that, but why? "Why" as in I have no idea what I am talking about so, "why"?