> Hi Avry.
> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > The children depicted are those of Seneb,
> I have no doubt they are.
Got it. I see I've stated that in a way perhaps taken as telling you something you didn't know. Apologies, and I clarify it was meant as note for other readers, in case it was missed.
> > and are
> > honorary names to his regents.
> I'm sure.
> > 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?
Not off hand, no, so is it odd? Yes. Agreed. :)
> > Also note there are
> > actually 3 names written.
> > It is thought the third
> > child is not depicted in relief because of
> > stillborn, but this is speculation on why the
> > child is not there. See Veronique Dasen
> > 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.
Doesn't hurt to investigate.
> > 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,
> > se, rather the complete glyph Aa1 is. Whether
> > actuality a sieve or placenta is depicted is
> > 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.
I wouldn't say so. It's just a different glyph, i.e I don't see a meaning to their inclusion/exclusion. Doesn't mean there might be one. :)
> 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.
My jury's out on it's true provenance. Still, the placenta/female connection is more obvious than a placenta/male one, and may (loosely offered) be a support for Khufu being female. What about the marriage and children? Can you also determine 'her' consorts were male?
> > For your
> > interest, Aa1 has an associative phone of 'sh'
> > through F32 (animal belly) as the latter is
> > substituted for N37 (pool). We can therefore
> > appreciate how Khufu might have ended up as
> > / 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.
It was an aside. :) Relates to how Manetho, et al, did not (or may not have) record(ed) the 'pure' phonetic value of 'kh'. (ps, LOL, I saw it)
> > As regards Khafre, his name is not written with
> > Aa1, rather N28 'Kha' ('rising sun' glyph), so
> > comparable with Khufu.
> I see that, but why? "Why" as in I have no idea
> what I am talking about so, "why"?
Oh, ok, sorry.
There really isn't a 'why', more a matter of that's just the glyphs they used to spell the name. Let's look at them how they literally line up in the cartouchii (forgive my MdeC here):
Khufu is Aa1 (lined circle, 'Kh') G43 (chick, 'u') I9 (horned viper, 'f') G43 (chick, 'u')
Khafre is N5 (sun disc, 'ra') N28 (rising sun, 'kha') I9 (horned viper, 'f')
Direct transposition would have us think the 'lined circle' is related to the 'sun disc'. After much ado in my own research it became obvious it didn't really matter if the 'kh' in Khufu is a sun disc with wisps of clouds in front of it. I mean, it was a stepping-stone investigation in my hieroglyph 'career', but in the end I felt it was a sub-step point of contention. Still, I am curious why the Aa1 (lined circle) is unequivocally an N5 (sun disc) in the Seti King List. Not the best pic, but I am a bit rushed, there should be one out there:
If anything, we could speculate there is a solar annotation for Khufu. Khnum is par excellence the god associated with birth, and where he is the ba of Re, a 'placental' designation for Aa1 may contextualize the solar aspect. Comes full (lined?) circle, as I see it. Open for discussion, though. :)
Not related to this thread on Khufu, but I after many years am still at odds with the phonetic positional naming convention in cartouches (reading glyphs out of order.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Jun-16 06:23 by R Avry Wilson.