The Phonetic Value of Gardiner's Sign U 23 (𓍋) in Earlier Egyptian

0. The sign 𓍋 possesses two distinct phonetic values. While the reading ꜣb is not subject to debate, the second phonetic value has been the subject of scientific discourse for some time. The prevailing perspective, as articulated by Gardiner (1957: 518), is that the phonetic value is mr. Quack (2003) posited that an alternative reading, mḥr, should be employed. He cites late spellings with ḥ and a pun from the Pyramid Texts. This assertion is countered by the works of Regulski (2010: 196) and Schweitzer (2011). Evidence from the Early Dynastic Period is cited, and it is asserted that this evidence can only be explained by the phonetic value mr. This question has been addressed in another article by Quack (2022). In addition, he presents a series of arguments that are intended to support his hypothesis. He also endeavors to invalidate the evidence cited by Regulski and Schweitzer. A thorough review of this article was conducted by Fante (2023). She has demonstrated with a high degree of conviction that the evidence from the Early Dynastic Period unequivocally validates the phonetic value mr. Moreover, she has substantiated that Quack's interpretations of the Early Dynastic Period evidence are not valid, and that all the evidence from the Old and Middle Kingdom that Quack lists for mḥr, including the attempt of Collombert (2010) equating the different terms for “pyramid” 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓉴 and 𓁷𓂋𓉴,¹ is untenable. Additionally, she proposes an explanatory model for the late spellings with ḥ. The sign has undergone a process of reinterpretation, a phenomenon that has also been observed in 𓋉 or 𓏤𓏤𓏤𓏤𓏤𓏤𓏤𓏤.² This finding serves to substantiate the phonetic value of mr as valid for the duration of the Early Dynastic Period. However, it is noteworthy that the sign could be interpreted as mḥr during the first millennium. This contribution poses the following question: what was the phonetic value in the Old and Middle Kingdom? It offers four indications that lend support to mr.

1. In 1943 Hermann Junker published the mastaba of Kꜣ-ḥ(w)j=f. On the west wall there are figures with offerings.³ The fourth person has the following inscription: 𓂘𓍛𓅓𓂋𓅱𓇋𓂧𓅱. As Junker already suspected, the name 𓅓𓂋𓅱𓇋𓂧𓅱 is present. Ranke (1935: 162.9) lists this name as mrw jdw, thus interpreting a name consisting of two elements. The second element contains the word jd.w, which can be used as epiclesis⁴ in Old Kingdom names. Scheele-Schweitzer (2014) knows the following examples: Jni̯-jtj=f-jd.w #328, Mr.w-jd.w #1282, Ḥtp-Ptḥ-jd.w #2567, Ḥtp-Sbk-jd.w #2609.

There is additional evidence of this name in the Old Kingdom. On the eastern wall of the mastaba of Uhemka⁵ it is written: 𓍋𓅓𓅱𓂧𓅱. Ranke (1935: 421.20) still understood the first bird hieroglyph as 𓄿. However, Kayser's (1964: 68) reading of 𓅱 in his publication of the Mastaba was concurred with by Scheele-Schweitzer (2014: #1273). The photographic evidence presented herein serves to reinforce the accuracy of Kayser's interpretation.⁶

The two occurrences of the name are written differently, once with 𓍋 and once without 𓍋. This results in the correspondence 𓅓𓂋𓅱 = 𓍋𓅓𓅱, which can only be meaningfully understood with the phonetic value mr for 𓍋.

2. The Abydos stela CG 20554 was published by Lange and Schäfer (1902: pl. 44) in their monumental edition of the stelae of the Middle Kingdom. The name of the owner of the stela is visible in the first line of the object and has been transcribed by Lange and Schäfer (1908: 184–185) as 𓊪𓈖𓋴𓈇𓀙. Ranke (1935: 113.13) lists this name with a question mark as pns-wr and refers to Wb I, 510. The term “pns,” which stands for “earth,” is also spelled with a 𓈇 as a determinative. It is frequently utilized in a medical context.⁷ The question mark employed by Ranke is indeed warranted. The appellation “great earth” is highly atypical in the context of Egyptian names. Ilin-Tomich (2025) offers an alternative interpretation of the name, reading it as 𓊪𓈖𓋴𓈘𓀙.⁸ The interpretation of the penultimate sign is within the realm of possibility. A 𓈘 is frequently not significantly wider than tall, as evidenced by the tokens in the Thot Sign List.⁹ With the reading 𓈘, Ilin-Tomich also proposes an alternative transliteration: Therefore, the 𓊪𓈖 is not pn, but rather the possessive prefix pꜣ-n. For the name type consisting of a possessive prefix and noun, there are 24 attestations in the Middle Kingdom.¹⁰ The 𓀙 is then no longer a logogram for wr, but rather a determinative for an official, a usage that is well attested. The phonographic rendering of the official's title is 𓋴𓈘, although it is more commonly written as 𓋴𓍋. Therefore, the equation 𓈘 = 𓍋 is evident in this context. The name of the stela's owner serves as additional evidence for the phonetic value mr.

3. In the mastaba of Nesunefer from the Old Kingdom, a person depicted has the name inscription 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓎡𓇋𓇋.¹¹ This name is known in two variants from the Middle Kingdom. An individual belonging to the naos of Ḥrj¹² is designated as 𓅓𓌸𓎡𓇋.¹³ A stela currently housed in Marseille¹⁴ bears the name 𓎡𓇋𓍋.¹⁵ A connection between these names has already been considered by Satzinger and Stefanovic (2011: 243). Moreover, they present two spellings of the name from Papyrus Boulaq 18. However, according to Scharff (1922: 22**) these spellings should be understood as 𓌸𓂋𓂋𓇋𓀁 instead of 𓌸𓂋𓎡𓇋𓀁. Consequently, the following conclusions can be drawn: The following equation is true: 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓎡𓇋𓇋 = 𓅓𓌸𓎡𓇋 ~ 𓎡𓇋𓍋. An examination of the name inscribed on the stela from Marseille reveals that the name components are in reverse order. Such transpositions are commonplace in Egyptian names,¹⁶ thereby establishing a potential connection between 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓎡𓇋𓇋 and 𓎡𓇋𓍋. The Egyptian word ky, meaning “other,” manifests in a variety of spellings within Egyptian names. Spellings with 𓇋𓇋 are most common, but spellings with 𓇋 are also attested.¹⁷ Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the equivalence of 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓎡𓇋𓇋 and 𓅓𓌸𓎡𓇋, providing further evidence for the interchangeability of 𓍋 and 𓌸.

4. In addition to onomastics, another area that can contribute to the question of phonetic value, albeit one that has not yet been considered by either Quack or Schweitzer, is the inflection of verbs. Inflection is known to depend on the verbal class. Verbs comprising two radicals can be prefixed under certain conditions; however, verbs with three radicals do not possess this ability. The verb 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓅪 contains two radicals if the phonetic value of 𓍋 is mr. However, if Quack's approach is accurate, it contains three radicals. The presence of a prefixed verbal form of this verb clearly indicates the phonetic value of mr. In Allen (1984), the inflection of the verb 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓅪 can be elicited with a high degree of success. Allen has noted a prefixed Old Perfective of 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓅪 in Pyr § 1202d, albeit with a question mark. The relevant passage is oraec164-21¹⁸: … jr wt ḏbꜥ pw jm n.j Wsjr 𓊄𓇋𓍋𓅓𓂋 Allen (2005: 160) translates: “[…] to wrap with it the finger of Osiris that has gone painful”. What does the 𓇋 belong to here? Sethe assigns it to the preceding word. Sethe (1962: 101) writes: “𓊄𓇋 Part. perf. wegen des pw und nicht Pseudop., das Verbum wohl als Hilfsverbum zu verstehen (wie 𓃹𓈖 od. 𓆣𓂋), dem das eigentl. Verbum in der Form des Pseudopartizips folgt”. But the case is not that clear! The singular attributive participle of this verb is mostly written without ending in the Pyramid texts: Pyr §§ 17a, 62a, 693d, 826a, 832a, 1431a, 1595b, 1605b. In Pyr § 1431a, only the text witness P has the ending 𓇋. In Pyr § 1193b, all text witnesses have an ending: P and M have 𓇋, while N has 𓇌. Pyr § 316b writes 𓊄𓇌. Allen (1984: § 614) discusses the inflection of the participle forms of the verbs secundae infirmae. He takes the forms without endings as perfective. For the forms with endings he discusses the possibility that they are imperfective. Allen (1984: § 38) points out that the participles with endings in § 316b and 1193b parallel the participle of jyi̯, which also writes an ending here. According to semantics, we have to assume with Sethe that there is a perfective in § 1202d, as Allen translates it. In this respect a form without endings makes sense. However, this would have the consequence that the 𓇋 would have to be drawn to the following 𓍋𓅓𓂋𓅪. A prefixed form can only be explained if the phonetic value is mr.

5. The four pieces of evidence listed suggest that, as in the Early Dynastic Period, mr is the phonetic value of 𓍋 for the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom. There is no evidence for a reinterpretation as mḥr, as is evident in the Greco-Roman period. In Earlier Egyptian texts, 𓍋 should be transliterated as mr.