Schrift und Sprache der 4. Dynastie.

• Author: Lieven, Alexandra Von

Schrift und Sprache der 4. Dynastie. By SIMON D. SCHWEITZER. MENES: Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der agyptischen Fruzeit und des Alten Reiches, vol. 3. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 2005. Pp. xi + 650. [euro]128.

While studies on all aspects of Middle Egyptian grammar are legion and often become quite redundant, other phases of Egyptian language, including Old Egyptian, are less well represented. Even sparser are studies on texts from a particular well-defined time frame. After all, one must take into account that the phase commonly labeled as Old Egyptian comprises a period of at least half a millennium, even if the language of the first three dynasties is set aside under its own heading of Early Egyptian.

The book under review is the first attempt at a monographic study of the language and writing system of a single dynasty, namely the fourth (approximately 2575-2467 B.C.E.). It is the published version of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed in 2003 in Munster. In fact, the book is mainly concerned with the writing system. Of the 650 pages, only pages 99-194, 197-99 and 605-35, i.e., less than 130 pages, deal with grammar, while the rest of the book is devoted to lengthy discussions of hieroglyphs and their use. More than two-thirds of the book consists of appendices listing every attested hieroglyph in every attested usage. For example, the list of words containing m runs over five pages. There may eventually be a use for this. But is it really such a surprise that it occurs in nine different titles all beginning with imi-r' "overseer of ..."?

One of the underlying theoretical problems is the question of how written and spoken language are related to one another. In this, the author follows Kammerzell, who has proposed differentiating two distinct sets, namely Graphemsprache and Phonemsprache. This model he calls "Humboldtian," while the traditional view that the writings have a direct link to the linguistic reality behind it is called "Aristotelian."

While in theoretical issues the author tries to be innovative, in other fields he clings to traditional concepts. For U23 he partially accepts the new reading mhr but nevertheless still wants to retain the traditional reading mr as well (pp. 74, 437-38). However, that both should be right seems extremely unlikely. As evidence, Schweitzer adduces two divine names where there is supposedly an interchange between U23 and another two-consonantal mr, as well...