Czére Andrea szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 102-103. (Budapest, 2005)

ZOLTÁN HORVÁTH: A unique servant statue in the Egyptian Collection

follows the item it refers to.

36 The doubling of the numeral originates from the combination of the list of offerings with the terminal formula hi m h.t nb.t nfr.t "1000 of every good thing . Col. (5). The proper name, of which the last two signs remained, could be the same as in col. 2. The practice of dividing a word by transposing sign(s) to the next column is frequently encountered on inscribed writing boards."

7 The translation "onions" relies on the preserved hd and the frequent occurrence of the word in offering lists, but otherwise it is absolutely uncertain. Closer examination revealed that the word is preceded by hi, of which the lowermost part has been preserved. Col. (6). The emendation with the dative "n" before the recipient implies a scribal error that is occasionally found in funerary formulae.

>8 REMARKS ON PALAEOGRAPHY AND DATING A dynamic and confident use of the brush characterises the ductus. The signs in general are well-shaped, elaborated, they stand upright and their height is standardised throughout the text ( (j = 0.9-1.0 cm). The spacing is even, with the columns positioned at regular intervals (0.7-0.8 cm). All these features suggest a relatively practiced hand, uncommon within the corpus of inscribed writing boards designed for model scenes.

5

'' The brevity of the text accessible today and the limited set of recurring signs impose serious restrictions on palaeographical analysis. Based on the overall appearance, the inscription is very close to the Heqanakht documents (recently proposed by Allen to have been written in Year 5-8 of Senwosret I),

r,(1 yet, as noted above, some deviancy can be detected in the shaping of complex signs and there are some minor mistakes. Nevertheless, I presume that these could be imputed to haste and diligence on the part of the scribe as much as to a lower level of competence. Little help is offered in this case by the set of criteria that are usually evoked to date the offering formulae. The palaeography suggests an early 12th Dynasty date at the latest, which is in accord with the structural properties of the text: The beginning of col. 6 shows that the recipient of the funerary wishes was introduced simply by n jmlhj, and not by the more elaborate n kí n jmihj;

6X the recipient, designated as jmlhj NN, occurs not merely at the very end of the sequence of funerary wishes, but also as an interposed element;

62 the text is characterised by a sparing of plural strokes in the case of collectives.

63