Al-Fustat: Its Foundation and Early Urban Development

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Research Center inEgypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:08:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions JARCE XXVI (1989)this, I am not wholly convinced. The closing comparison is of the Egyptian fivefold titulary with the epithets accorded the messianic figure in Isaiah 9:5, 6. However, it is hard to see what meaning so recondite a comparison would hold for the prophet's Hebrew audience; rn wr is specifically the titulary in Egyptian, but "great name" in Hebrew is not -it merely means "fame," "renown," as contexts show clearly; there is Semitic background for Isaiah; see Kitchen, Ancient Orient b Old Testament, 1966, pp. 106-11. Thus, this supposed Egypto-Biblical parallel should be treated with some skepticism.Of the utility of Noms as it stands there can be no doubt; but what of Rois? The basic idea, to produce a new, full, accurate repertoire of royal titularies for a given period of Egyptian history, is to be accorded the warmest of welcomes. And Bonheme's second work in its first part fulfills these desiderata, being a work of immense labor. But is also fills this reviewer with dismay. In Gauthier (III, 232-40), Herihor needed just 9 pages, complete with family. In Bonheme's hands, this has ballooned into 138 pages, using virtually the same repertoire of monuments! This scale of treatment is, surely, wildly excessive. What she in fact has done has been to give every available example of even the most mundane titles of Herihor, even though the spelling, grouping, etc., may be absolutely identical, time after time after time. What purpose can possibly be served, by giving exactly the same orthography of hm-ntr tpy n Imn, Hr-hr SdImn, more than 70 times over? Even the limited variations in use with nb-tjwy, nb-hcw, and nsw-bit, sd-Rc, cannot justify this, and still less the inclusion of sundry formal epithets that are not part of the titulary proper. Surely, the more sensible solution would be to give all the variations of cartouches, with the varying range of titles, and in conjunction with the rest of the titular similarly -but to the typeexample in each case, simply add the bibliographical references for identical examples. Where only a handful of examples exist of, say, the Nebty-name, then all should be given; but not all 75 cases of identical cartouches. This merely makes it harder to find the less-usual examples. If 138 pages are needed for Herihor, what will be the result for the rest of the epoch? (I shudder to think what monster volume would be generated, if we treated Ramesses II on this basis.)However, the work has been done well, leaving aside ...