Database of
Early Dynastic inscriptions
By Ilona
Regulski
The current database
assembles all available Early Dynastic inscriptions, covering the first
attestations of writing discovered in tomb U-j (Naqada IIIA1, ca. 3250 BC) until the earliest
known continuous written text in the reign of Netjerikhet–more commonly known
as Djoser (ca. 2700 BC).[1]
The database originated as a computerized Access document containing the
collection of sources on which the author’s publication “A Palaeographic
Study of Early Writing in Egypt” was based.[2]
The latter was kindly reformed into a web compatible application by Prof.
Erhart Graefe, former head of the Department of Egyptology and Coptology at the Westfalische-Wilhelms Universität, Münster, Germany, which hosts the database. I wish
to express my sincere gratitude to him. Additional information on bibliography, reading and interpretation of
signs and whereabouts of the inscriptions have kindly been provided
by: Eva-Maria Engel, Annelies Bleeker, Catherine Jones, Kathryn
Piquette, the students of the third MA semester 2012-2013 from the FU
Berlin (Stephanie Bruck, Dominik Ceballos Contreras, Viktoria Fink,
Stephan Hartlepp, Ingo Küchler, Soukaina Najjarane, Niklas Schneeweiß,
Melanie Schreiber, Dina Serova, Elisabeth Wegner).[3]
The database contains more then 4500 inscriptions and
is constantly updated. Each
inscription was assigned a source number. The source list, published by J. Kahl in Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, 171-417, was the point of
departure.[4]
The sequence of the Kahl list is chronological but this could not be followed
when new sources were added as they were found. About 700 sources could be
added to his collection starting
with number 4000. Multiple impressions from the same cylinder seal were
incorporated as one source since they are copies of one inscription.
The upper left button SEARCH will give you access to the three forms, which contain all
the information collected in the database:
1.
The main
search table (left): contains detailed information regarding the date (cfr.
Infra), provenance, type of inscription, dating criterion, and some bibliographical
references. Some of these metadata will be explained in more detail further
down. This table will also give you the source number of the objects, which
facilitates the search in the 2 sub-forms.
2.
The
depository sub-form (upper right): contains information regarding the present
depository of the object.
3.
The sign
sub-form (lower right): contains all the signs labelled with the Gardiner or
the Kahl sigla and placed between round brackets: for example (E1). The
database does not include hieroglyphs.
The upper left button INDEX will help you with finding the used spelling for royal names,
sites, etc.:
-
Date / Period
-
Date / King
-
Site
-
Region
-
Locality
-
Depository
Date
The date is indicated by period –for example “Dyn. 1”–
and/or by the reign of the king when this is known. The starting point of the
palaeographic survey was tomb U-j at Umm el-Qa‘ab since it contained the
earliest known attestations of writing in Egypt.[5]
The duration of the period in between, occasionally referred to as “Dynasty 0”[6]
and corresponding to Hendrickx’s Naqada IIIA-B period, cannot yet be assessed
with any degree of accuracy. It seems, therefore, more feasible and appropriate
to restrict the term “dynasty” to the First and Second Dynasties when rulers
can be identified with more certainty, and when a certain degree of historical
and political continuity can be observed. Before the reign of Narmer, the more
specific Naqada phases are therefore used. We follow the relative Naqada
chronology of Hendrickx and Kahl’s System
der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift regarding the succession of kings:[7]
Naqada IIIA1-A2
Naqada IIIB / Iri-Hor
Naqada IIIB /
Sekhen/Ka
Naqada IIIB /
Scorpion[8]
Naqada IIIC1 /Dyn.
1 / Narmer[9]
Dyn. 1 / Aha
Dyn. 1 / Djer
Dyn. 1 / Djet
Dyn. 1 / Meretneith
Dyn. 1 / Den
Dyn. 1 / Adjib
Dyn. 1 / Semerkhet
Dyn. 1 / Qaa
Dyn. 1 / ‘bird’?
Dyn.
1 / Seneferka?[10]
Dyn. 2 /
Hetepsekhemwy
Dyn. 2 /
Raneb/Weneg[11]
Dyn. 2 / Ninetjer
Nebunefer?[12]
Sened?
Dyn. 2 /
Peribsen/Sekhemib[13]
Dyn. 2 /
Khasekhemwy
Dyn. 3 /
Netjerikhet[14]
The date entry also gives a first indication regarding
the reliability of the date of the inscription. When the king’s name is placed
between brackets, the inscription does not mention a royal name. Dating Early Dynastic inscriptions without a royal
name reference within this chronological time frame is a matter of caution
since only a small number of them have been found in their original
archaeological context. The following other criteria have therefore been used
in this work:
1.
association
with a royal name
2.
typological
comparison
3.
the
appearance of personal names
4.
the
appearance of well-dated institutions
5.
inscriptions
for which exact parallels have been found in better dated contexts
6.
archaeological
context, when no other is applicable
Inscriptions which could not be dated on
the basis of these criteria are not used at the outset but some of them have
been reconsidered and re-evaluated based on the established chronology of
palaeographic development.
Provenance
Information about
provenance can be narrowed down by “region”, “site” or “locality”. Contrary to later periods, the
bulk of the Early Dynastic inscriptions are concentrated around two sites. From the first rulers onwards, the dynastic
elite had two large cemeteries; the royal tombs of Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos in the
south, and another elite cemetery at Saqqara, in the vicinity of the state
capital at Memphis.[15]
If we consider the quantity of inscriptions on other Early Dynastic cemeteries,
a marked contrast in number becomes apparent. The Abydos and Saqqara tombs provide more than three quarters of the inscribed
material. Less than a quarter comes from sites other than Abydos and Saqqara.
This uneven distribution is a reflection of the highly centralized
administration during the period under discussion.
Site |
Region |
Abadiya |
Upper Egypt |
Abu Roasch |
Memphite region |
Abu Umuri |
Upper Egypt |
Abusir |
Memphite region |
Abusir el-Meleq |
Memphite region |
Abydos |
Upper Egypt |
Adaima |
Upper Egypt |
Alamat Tal Road |
Upper Egypt |
Amra |
Upper Egypt |
Armant |
Upper Egypt |
Badari |
Upper Egypt |
Batn el-Baqara |
Memphite region |
Beit Khallaf |
Upper Egypt |
Buto |
Delta |
Coptos |
Upper Egypt |
Elephantine |
Upper Egypt |
el-Hosh |
Upper Egypt |
Elkab |
Upper Egypt |
el-Kubanieh-South |
Upper Egypt |
Ezbet el-Tell |
Delta |
Gebelein |
Upper Egypt |
Giza |
Memphite region |
Heliopolis |
Memphite region |
Helwan |
Memphite region |
Hermopolis |
Middle Egypt |
Hierakonpolis |
Upper Egypt |
Kom el-Hisn |
Delta |
Mahasna |
Upper Egypt |
Mamariya |
Upper Egypt |
Memphis |
Memphite region |
Minshat Abu Omar |
Delta |
Minshat Ezzat |
Delta |
Naga ed-Deir
|
Upper Egypt |
Naqada |
Upper Egypt |
Near East |
Near East |
Nubia |
Nubia |
Qaw el-Kebir |
Upper Egypt |
Saqqara |
Memphite region |
Sedment |
Middle Egypt |
Sibaiya |
Upper Egypt |
Sinai |
Sinai |
Tarkhan |
Memphite region |
Tell el-Farkha |
Delta |
Tell Hassan Dawud |
Delta |
Tell Ibrahim Awad |
Delta |
Tell Iswid |
Delta |
Tura |
Memphite region |
Tura el-Ismant |
Memphite region |
unknown |
Unknown |
Wadi Abbad |
Upper Egypt |
Wadi Abu Madawi |
Upper Egypt |
Wadi el-Qash |
Upper Egypt |
Wadi Umm Balad |
Upper Egypt |
Zawiyet el-Aryan |
Memphite region |
Type of inscription,
background material and writing technique
No selection on the basis of material or type of
inscription was made; every single text within the above-mentioned time frame
was considered. The material of the
object on which the texts were applied and the writing technique used is
specified. The main types are:
·
Inscription on vessel (with specification of
the vessel type)
No less than half of the Early Dynastic
inscriptions were applied to vessels, mostly made of pottery or hard stone. Vessels were also
frequently manufactured in soft stone, bone, or copper. Inscriptions are incised, written in ink, or executed in
relief.
·
Inscription on label
The various written
bone and wooden tags of the First Dynasty indicate that bone- and woodworking
were highly developed. Many of the bone labels could be identified as ivory.
Strictly speaking, the term “ivory” designates the dentine of elephant tusks
alone; but a somewhat looser definition encompasses the dentine of other large
mammals, such as hippopotamus.[16] Hippopotamus tusk
and bone are both available in Egypt, while elephant tusk had to be acquired
abroad.[17] Wood is a
relatively scarce natural resource in Egypt but it was used in the construction
of tombs and in domestic and religious architecture. For labels, ebony is often
used, a harder wood that was imported in small quantities from Ethiopia.[18]
·
Seal (cylinder or impression)
The earliest cylinder
seals
found in Egypt (Naqada IIC/D)l[19] are not included
because their relation to the
early writing system is obscure.[20]
The numerous surviving inscriptions are the result of impressing an inscribed
cylinder on the wet clay. Most of the surviving cylinders are made of black
steatite or wood, mainly ebony.[21]
A few were executed in pottery, bone and limestone.
·
Inscription on stela
Four major groups
can be distinguished within this corpus.
1. The royal
stelae, executed in soft stone–mostly limestone–or in hard stone such as granite or
quartzite from the end of the First Dynasty onwards.
2. By far the
largest group in this category is the small private stelae that marked the
graves of male and female courtiers, dwarfs and pet dogs from subsidiary tombs
around the royal tombs at Umm el-Qa‘ab. Apart from Abydos, some similar
contexts were discovered by Quibell in Saqqara and a few stelae were found in
Abu Roash. They were mostly made of limestone and originally often colourfully
painted.
3. The third group of stelae are the so-called “slab
stelae” from Helwan, Saqqara and Abusir.
4. At the beginning
of the Third Dynasty, a different and more elaborate type of inscribed slabs
was introduced. These large panels could be executed in raised relief or made
of wood decorating tomb walls.
·
Other
(always as ‘inscription on x’ in the database)
- Inscriptions on
walls are rare in the Early Dynastic period.
- Sculpture in the
round is represented by only a few large-scale monuments antedating the reign
of Netjerikhet.
- Rock inscriptions
from the eastern and western deserts and the Sinai provide valuable information
about the extent of Early Dynastic activity in Egypt’s peripheral regions and
the ability of the court to organise expeditions outside the Nile valley.
- Slate palettes
and mace heads belong to the group of Predynastic prestige objects that
survived into the Early Dynastic period.
- Chisels, knives,
adzes and axes are occasionally provided with an inscription.
- Exceptionally,
jewellery, combs, spoons, marbles and spindle whorls, two pieces of faience, a
game board and a gaming piece, an incense burner, a jar stand are inscribed.
Bibliography
The bibliographical entry
does not give an extensive list of all publications regarding the inscribed
object but is limited to the first or main publication of the source.
The Sub forms
A first, “Depository”
(upper right), gives information on the present location of the inscribed
object (museum, catalogue number, state of preservation). The way in which the
original was handled and studied with regard to the palaeographic study is
specified in the field “illustration”. The database was initially constructed on the basis of
existing publications. However, publications of hieroglyphic inscriptions are
sometimes erroneous or insufficiently detailed. For the initial palaeographic
study, originals were therefore used as much as possible.[22]
With regard to seal
impressions, the different surviving impressions are listed when these are
legible and identifiable. Because sealings were mobile, copies of the same seal could be scattered
over different sites. In addition, they could have ended up in different
collections. The type of sealing is also
included.[23]
A second sub-form “Signs”
(lower left) contains references to the hieroglyphs appearing in the particular
inscription. In the Early
Dynastic period, the hieroglyphic script drew on an inventory of more than 900
different signs.[24] The
compilation of early hieroglyphs thus provides a set of signs that is larger
than in the Old Kingdom. Many of the early signs fit neatly into the existing
“classical” corpus of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Others present new and sometimes
puzzling images that appear to have dropped out of the repertoire after the
Early Dynastic period.[25]
The latter have consequently not been included in the
sign-list of Gardiner’s Egyptian Grammar, but have been
incorporated by lower-case letters in Kahl’s Das System der ägyptischen
Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, 171-417. Because the
latter can thus be considered the most extensive one available for the period
under discussion, the letter and number prefixed to the individual hieroglyphs
of this sign-list will be followed.
Drawings and photographs
are not (yet) incorporated as this would have seriously delayed the online
publication. The palaeography is published in the OLA series: I. Regulski, A
Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt (OLA 195). Leuven - Paris -
Walpole MA, 2010.
The aim of this database is to provide an updated
corpus of all available Early Dynastic inscriptions. As a result the database
will be under constant development.
Many of the entries are still empty because the information is not (yet)
available. For example, the present depository and register number could not be
checked for every source. It is hoped that such additional information can be
added in the future. Your help, corrections or remarks are welcome!
Ilona Regulski
ilona.regulski@gmail.com
[1] See I. Regulski, Online Database of Early
Dynastic inscriptions, GM 219 (2008), 79-87,
for a more extended version of this text. The database works best in Mozilla
Firefox. More practical guidelines will follow at the end of this introduction.
[2] I. Regulski, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt (OLA 195).
Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA, 2010.
[3] A work of this kind, which has involved
the study of many inscribed objects excavated over a century ago and now housed
in museums all over the world, depends greatly upon the cooperation and
goodwill of the staff in those museums. I have met with unfailing courtesy and
professional assistance in all the institutions I visited, and I extend my
deepest gratitude to their members of staff:
The Royal Museums for Art and History in
Brussels.
The National Museums and Galleries on
Merseyside, Liverpool.
The Museum of the School of Archaeology and Oriental Studies (SACOS) in Liverpool.
The Museum and Art Gallery in Bolton.
The Petrie Museum
in London.
The British
Museum in London.
The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.
The
Ägyptisches Museum und
Papyrussammlung in Berlin.
The Rijksmuseum voor
Oudheden in Leiden.
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
The Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
A special thanks should also go to Dr. Günther Dreyer from the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo and Dr. Luc Limme, head of the Department of Egypt and the Ancient Near East at the Royal Museums for Art and History in Brussels for allowing me to use a large amount of unpublished material.
[4] J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen
Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie (GOF IV. Reihe Ägypten
29), Wiesbaden, 1994: 171-417. His sources dated to the later part of the
Third Dynasty were left out since they were not part of the initial Ph.D.
study.
[5] G. Dreyer,
Umm el-Qa‘ab I, Das prädynastische
Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse (ÄV 86), Mainz, 1998. Dated to stage IIIA1 (ca. 3250 BC) of
Hendrickx’s system, S. Hendrickx, The relative Chronology
of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities, in A.J. Spencer, Aspects of Early Egypt, London, 1996: 59.
[6] J.E. Quibell
& W.M.F. Petrie, Hierakonpolis
I, 5; W. Kaiser, MDAIK 41 (1985), 71. A “Dynasty 00” has been introduced by E.C.M. van den Brink, The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th.
- 3rd. Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in
Cairo, 21.-24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and
Arabic Studies, Jerusalem, 1992: vi, n.1, to designate a period preceding
Dynasty 0 but also partly overlapping it. This term has not been generally
accepted because its significance cannot yet be clearly defined; T.A.H. Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt. Chronology and Society (BAR
International Series 651; Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 40),
Oxford, 1996: 11; S. Hendrickx, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 88-90.
[7] S. Hendrickx, in Aspects of Early Egypt, 36-69 and more
recently in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 55-93; J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 7.
[8] This is a chronological position
rather than a genealogical one. More recently, J. Kahl, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 95ff, interprets Scorpion as another ruler opposed to the Thinite
rulers and Sekhen/Ka should be seen as the predecessor of Narmer.
[9] The generally accepted sequence of
First Dynasty kings from Narmer onwards is confirmed by seal impressions
discovered by the German expedition at Umm el-Qa‘ab mentioning the Horus names
of all First Dynasty kings in this order (sources 1553 and 4048); G. Dreyer et al., MDAIK 43
(1987), 36, figs. 2-3; W. Kaiser,
MDAIK 43 (1987), 115-119, fig. 2; G. Dreyer et al., MDAIK 52
(1996), 72, fig. 26, pl. 4b-c; S. Roth, Die Königsmütter des Alten Ägypten von der
Frühzeit bis zum Ende der 12. Dynastie (Ägypten
und Altes Testament 46), Wiesbaden, 2001: 11, 14, 18, 20; M.L. Bierbrier, Genealogy and Chronology, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss & D. Warburton
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(HdO 83), Leiden
- Boston, 2006: 39; J. Kahl, in Ancient
Egyptian Chronology, 96-98.
[10] W.B. Emery, Tombs of the First Dynasty III, 31 saw
Seneferka as a successor of Qaa. Lacau and Lauer, by contrast, suggested that
Seneferka might be identical with Qaa, who would then have changed his Horus
name at some point in his reign; PD IV/1, 15; PD IV/2, 40. This interpretation
is followed cautiously by T.A.H. Wilkinson,
Early Dynastic Egypt, London, 1999: 82, while that of Emery is
followed by P. Kaplony, ZÄS 88 (1963), 12; idem, MDAIK 20 (1965), 3; idem, Steingefässe mit
Inschriften der Frühzeit und das Alten Reiches (MA
1), Bruxelles, 1968: 33; N. Swelim, Horus Seneferka, An Essay on the fall of the First Dynasty, Archaeological
and Historical Studies 5 (1974): 67-77; J.
Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 305. For a recent summary of the different
possibilities, see J. Kahl, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 99; K. Ryholt,
JEH 1.1
(2008): 159-173; cfr. also S. Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom. The Evolution of a System of social
Organization (SAOC 48), Chicago, 1991: 155; D. Gould, A Study of
the Relationship between the different dynastic Factions of the Early Dynastic
Period and the Evidence for internal political Disruptions, in S. Bickel & A. Loprieno (eds.), Basel
Egyptology Prize 1 (Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17). Basel,
2003: 38.
[11] J. Kahl, Ra is my Lord, Searching for the Rise of the Sun God at the Dawn
of Egyptian History, (MENES 1).
Wiesbaden, 2007: 7-27.
[12] J. Kahl, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 104; J. von Beckerath, Königsnamen, 43, interprets Nebunefer as the nsw-bit name of Raneb but given the new
reading by Kahl (see previous footnote), this can be excluded.
[13] W. Kaiser, GM 122
(1991), 54 (n.16); J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 7; T.A.H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic
Egypt, 90; see J. Kahl,
in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 105 for a
summary. Other scholars have suggested that
Sekhemib is a separate king, to be placed between Peribsen and Khasekhemwy; W. Helck, Thinitenzeit, 103-104; G. Dreyer,
MDAIK 59 (2003), 115. The recent
discovery of numerous seal impressions bearing the name of Sekhemib to the
north of the tomb of Peribsen forces a reevaluation of this idea.
[14] Sealings of Netjerikhet found in
the tomb of Khasekhemwy in Abydos (RT II, pl. XXIV.211; IÄF III, figs. 768, 798;
G. Dreyer, MDAIK 54
(1998a), 164-167, Tf. 15b) and further examples from the Shunet ez-Zebib (P.E. Newberry, LAAA 2 (1909), pl.
XXIII; IÄF III, figs. 800-801) suggest that Netjerikhet, as son and heir,
oversaw the burial of Khasekhemwy. This
leaves no doubt that Netjerikhet must have been Khasekhemwy’s successor; G. Dreyer, Der erste König der 3. Dynastie, in H. Guksch
& D. Polz (eds.), Stationen. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte
Ägyptens Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, Mainz, 1998: 31-34; J. Kahl, in Ancient Egyptian
Chronology, 106; S.J. Seidlmayer,
The relative
Chronology of Dynasty 3, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss & D. Warburton
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO 83), Leiden -
Boston, 2006: 116-123.
[15] This is the general consensus at
present; recently summarized by E.M. Engel,
Tombs of the Ist Dynasty at Abydos and Saqqara: Different Types or
Variations on a Theme?, in J. Popielska-Grybowska (ed.), Proceedings
of the Second Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists. Egypt 2001:
Prospectives of Research. (Warsaw 2001), Warsaw, 2003: 41-49; cfr. D. Wengrow, The
Archaeology of early Egypt. Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000
to 2650 BC. Cambridge, 2006: 227ff and note 10
with further references. Arguments in favor of Saqqara as a royal burial place
have recently been gathered by F. Morris,
On the Ownership of the Saqqara Mastabas and the Allotment of Political and
Ideological Power at the Dawn of the State, in Hawass, Z.A. & Richards, J.
(eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in Honor of David
B. O'Connor, I (CASAE 36), Cairo, 2007: 171-190.
[16] P.T. Nicholson & I. Shaw, Ancient
Egyptian Materials, 320.
[17] R. Friedman, Elephants at Hierakonpolis, in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Cialowicz
& M. Chlodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of
Barbara Adams. (OLA 138), Leuven, 2004: 157.
[18] R. Gale et al., in P.T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge, 2000: 338.
[19] U. Hartung, SAK 26 (1998), 46-50; J.A. Hill, Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic
Egypt and Neighboring Regions, 1-3, contra P.V. Podzorski, JNES 47
(1988), 259.
[20] I. Regulski, The Origin of Writing in relation to the Emergence
of the Egyptian State, in Midant-Reynes B. & Tristan Y. (eds.); Rowland J.
& Hendrickx S. (col.), Egypt at its
Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”,
Toulouse (France), 5th-8th September 2005 (OLA
172), Leuven, 2008: 983-1008.
[21] For a technical description, see
J.A. Gwinnett & L. Gorelick, JARCE
30 (1993), 128.
[22] See footnote 2. Recent excavations by the German
Archaeological Institute in Cairo (DAIK) at Umm el-Qa‘ab and Saqqara, led by
Günter Dreyer, have yielded copious amounts of new data concerning areas
previously thought fully investigated; Cfr. Preliminary reports in MDAIK since 1982 onwards. A study season in Abydos in March
2005 yielded almost 200 new sources and many more different versions of known
sealings. Since the beginning of 2007, I am involved in the study and publication
of the inscribed material from the royal tomb of Ninetjer at Saqqara under the
auspices of the DAIK.; I.
Regulski & J. Kahl, MDAIK
64 (2009), in press. However,
this material is currently still under investigation and therefore not yet
fully accessible.
[23] Based on the typology of E.M. Engel & V. Müller, GM 178
(2000), 31-44.
[24] J. Kahl, Entwicklung der frühen
Hieroglyphenschrift, in W. Seipel
(eds.), Der Turmbau zu Babel, Ursprung
und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift IIIA: Schrift. Museum Catalogue Graz
(5/04-5/10 2003), Graz, 2003: 129.
[25] Cfr. L.D. Morenz, Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen. Die
Herausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens (OBO 205), Göttingen, 2004: 220ff.