|Historical Errors Of The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman|
|Written by mquran.org|
|Sunday, 19 November 2006|
Controversy has prevailed since the late 17th century CE about the historicity of a certain Haman, who according to the Qur'an, was associated with the court of Pharaoh to whom Moses was sent as a Prophet by Almighty God (Allah):
Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh.
Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an.
We propose to examine the various aspects of the controversy in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.2. Criticisms By Western Scholars
Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the Qur'an, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Qur'anic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the Qur'an to move Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.
The first writer to enter the list of critics was Ludovico Marraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent XI. Published in 1698 CE, the English rendering of critical Note 1 on page 526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Qur'an read:
George Sale in his translation of the Qur'an said:
In what has been hailed as a "classic" article by Theodor Nöldeke that was published in Encyclopædia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, the author says:
While dealing with the "wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history" in the Qur'an, Mingana says:
On the mention of Haman in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens states that it is:
Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz. Charles Torrey believed that Muhammad drew upon the rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even adapted the story of the Tower of Babel. After talking about the apparent 'confusion' generated by this cobbling together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the origin of the word 'Haman':
The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of leading Orientalists, under "Haman" says:
This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Fir`awn". It says:
Although the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an uses a mellowed down language when discussing Haman, it instead describes various possible views of who Haman was, it says:
Consequently, it is not surprising to find some people and atheists like Ibn Warraq exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most "celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among some people on the internet.
Let us first examine the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical book of Esther from which Muhammad supposedly appropriated the character Haman.
3. A Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The Qur'an
The criticisms of the non-Muslim scholars and some people are based solely on the assumptions that:
The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the Qur'an in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the Qur'anic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the Biblical story of Esther implies that any reference to a Haman must have come from the Bible. Furthermore, this assumption itself implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure that never existed outside the Bible, or that if he was historical, then he would have to be the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus, as depicted in Esther. Unsurprisingly, their assumptions obviously preclude the possibility that the Bible has its information wrong concerning Haman. Thus, only if the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, are the non-Muslims justified in making the claim the Qur'an contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic Biblical account.
THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND ITS CHARACTERS
One of the most important questions that come to mind is whether the book of Esther and the characters present in it have any historicity. This is not an issue which has been tackled by those claimants of a historical "error" in the Qur'an, even though this position leads to a circular argument. Let us now discuss the views of the Judaeo-Christian scholars concerning the historicity of the book of Esther and its characters.
That the Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the historicity of the book of Esther is something of an understatement. The people who subscribe to the historicity of the book of Esther are those whose dogmatic approach to historical and theological exegesis precludes the possibility of any historical problems arising from the Biblical narrative; included in this group are some people and apologists as well as other evangelical fundamentalist type Christians. While discussing the historical problems of the book of Esther, Professor Jon Levinson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, says:
Naturally this statement does not sit comfortably with those evangelical fundamentalist type Christians for whom each and every book contained in the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, eternal "word" of God; even more so with those who have used the book of Esther to substantiate the historical "contradiction" in the Qur'anic account of Haman. The problems with the historicity of the book of Esther have been dealt with by Michael Fox, professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who also specializes in Egyptian literature and its relationship with the Biblical literature. He has detailed the arguments for and against the book's historicity. Fox also mentions numerous inaccuracies, implausibilities and outright impossibilities in this Biblical book. After considering the arguments in detail, it is not surprising to see Fox conclude with the following negative assessment:
Similar assessments were made by Lewis Paton and Carey Moore and they both arrived at the conclusion that the story in the book of Esther is not historical.
The problems with the book of Esther would be evident as we discuss the information in various encyclopedias and commentaries. The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, under "Esther", says:
Published about one hundred years ago, The Jewish Encyclopaedia already asserted that:
The more recent JPS Bible Commentary is quite frank about the exaggeration and the lack of historicity of the story in the biblical book of Esther. It labels the story in the book of Esther as a "farce":
The Peake's Commentary On The Bible discusses the historicity of the characters and events mentioned in the book of Esther. It aptly describes the book as a novel with no historical basis. Furthermore, it deals with possible identification of Esther, Haman, Vashti and Mordecai with the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.
The authors of The New Interpreter's Bible, like the other writers that we have mentioned earlier, state that the biblical book of Esther is work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. It then lists the factual errors in this book only to conclude that the book of Esther is not a historical record.
Even the Roman Catholic scholars have not spared criticism of the book of Esther. The Jerome Biblical Commentary brands the book of Esther as a "fictitious story" and a book that was freely embellished and modified in the course of its transmissional history.
Interestingly enough, A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture correctly points out that the book is given credence only by those who believe that since the book of Esther is a biblical book, it must be true. It then goes on to wonder if there is a significance in the similarity between the names mentioned in the book of Esther and the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.
To conclude the historicity of the book of Esther, it is a:
From the foregoing material, it is clear that Judeo-Christian scholars consider this story to be a fable, and of little or no historical value. Furthermore, no scholar claimed that the characters of this story, notably Haman, actually ever existed. In fact, all characters in the Book of Esther, with the possible exception of Ahasuerus, are unknown to history even though the book itself claims that its events are "written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Esther 10:2).
Concerning the character Haman, the Encyclopaedia Judaica states:
The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible shares a similar view:
As for Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, he is usually identified with King Xerxes I, King of Persia (486-465 BCE). The Webster's Biographical Dictionary informs us that:
There exists an unhistorical Haman in the book of Esther. This unhistorical Haman is portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?), King of Persia, but the events recorded in the book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I.
As if the woes of the lack of historicity of the story in Esther are not enough, there also exist some serious problems about the canonicity of the book of Esther.
THE CANONICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER
The book of Esther, which is now regarded by Jews and Christians as canonical, had a history of dispute even until the times of the Protestant Reformation. Its canonicity was hotly contested by members of both the religions and their sub-sects. The book of Esther was evidently not used by the Jewish community in Qumran. More importantly, according to the Talmud, as late as 3rd or 4th century CE, some Jews still did not regard Esther as canonical. If the Jews could not reach unanimity about the canonical status of Esther, neither could the Christians. Figure 1 depicts the canonical status of Esther in the early Christian churches.
Figure 1: Map showing the canonical status of Esther in the early Christian Church. Notice that the book of Esther was considered non-canonical in Constantinople, Sardis, Iconium, Nazianzus, Mopsuestia and Alexandria. On the other hand, Esther was considered canonical in Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Damascus, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Constanti and Constantinople. There appears to be two views of the books canonicity at Constantinople.
From the above figure, it can be seen that in the West Esther was nearly always canonical, while in the East very often it was not. Among the Christians in the East, especially those in the area of Anatolia (in modern day Turkey) and Syria, the book of Esther was often denied canonical status. This is confirmed by studying the list of canonical books by Melito of Sardis (c. 170 CE), Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390 CE), Junilius (c. 550 CE) and Nicephorus (d. 828 CE). While denying the canonical status of Esther, Athanasius (c. 367 CE) did include it with the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit for catechetical reading. Amphilochius (d. 394 CE) observed that it was accepted only by some. However, as has been noted, in the West, Esther was almost always regarded as canonical. It was accepted by Hilary (c. 360 CE), Augustine (c. 395 CE), Innocent I (c. 405 CE), Rufinus (d. 410 CE), Decree of Gelasius (c. 500 CE), Cassiodorus (c. 560 CE) and Isidorus (d. 636 CE). Esther was also present in the list of Cheltenham canon (c. 360 CE) and codex Claromontanus (c. 350 CE). This book was also endorsed as canonical in the council of Carthage (c. 397 CE).
During the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal decree or by the action of Church councils. Martin Luther (1483 – 1546 CE), one of the Protestant reformers, said concerning the book of Esther:
Luther's position appeared to have been wavering concerning the book of Esther. Andres Bodenstein von Karlstadt (c. 1480 – 1541 CE), an early friend and fellow professor of Luther at the University of Wittenberg, included the book of Esther in his third and lowest class of Biblical books which he termed tertius ordo canonis. Despite what Luther had claimed concerning the book of Esther, he included it in his translation of the Bible. Such a polarization of views was characteristic of the book of Esther almost from its beginnings, which spilled over to the period of the Reformation.
CAN WE USE THE BOOK OF ESTHER AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE QUR'AN?
The answer to this question is clearly no. A few conclusions can now be drawn from our discussion:
It is worthwhile mentioning that the "inspired book" of Esther does not even mention God! The absence of the name of God led to religiously motivated additions of over 100 verses to the Greek version of the book. These additions do not appear in the "original" Hebrew text but are accepted as canonical in Roman Catholic Bibles; Protestant Bibles reject them as "apocrypha".
It is clear that the book of Esther can't, in anyway, be used as evidence against the Qur'an; evidence that is used to show how the Qur'an contradicts both secular knowledge and the earlier, more "reliable" Biblical account. Yet we find some people using the book of Esther, proclaiming it to be a "reliable" historical record, in a vain attempt to prove that the Qur'an contains a contradiction! An example that is often parroted is reproduced below:
What is strange is that there is a complete absence of analysis of either the historicity or the canonicity of the book of Esther in the Christian apologetical literature. Both the historicity and the canonicity of Esther are assumed and then the arguments are made. It is notoriously difficult to offer an apology given such unsettling facts.
4. Pharaoh & Haman In The Qur'an
Let us now examine the passages in the Qur'an concerning the Pharaoh and Haman in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.
The Qur'anic verses concerning Pharaoh and Haman provide us the following information:
Let us now investigate these statements in the light of Egyptology and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Bible does not provide any information regarding the above mentioned statements; nor, as far as we are aware, does any secular literature from the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
THE PHARAOH AS GOD
For all kings, the Bible uses the term "Pharaoh" to address the rulers of Egypt. The Qur'an however differs from the Bible: the sovereign of Egypt who was a contemporary of Joseph is called the "King" (Arabic, malik); he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an repeatedly calls him "Pharaoh" (Arabic, Fir'awn). These differences in detail between the Biblical and Qur'anic narrations appear to have great significance and are discussed in the article Qur'anic Accuracy vs. Biblical Error: The Kings and Pharaohs of Egypt.
Concerning Pharaoh, the Qur'an says:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that the term "Pharaoh" originally referred to the royal residence, and was later applied to the king during the New Kingdom period (1539-1292 BC), and, that the Pharaoh was indeed considered a god in ancient Egypt
Concerning Pharaoh, Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says:
However, it was claimed by F. S. Coplestone that the alleged source of Pharaoh claiming divinity, as mentioned in the Qur'an, was Midrash Exodus Rabbah. This midrash says:
There are a number of problems, one of them quite serious, concerning Midrash Exodus Rabbah being the source of the Qur'anic verses. Firstly, Midrash Exodus Rabbah has been dated several centuries after the advent of Islam. Midrash Exodus Rabbah is composed of two different parts. The first part (ExodR I) comprises parashiyot 1-14 and is an exegetical midrash on Exodus 1-10 (11 is not treated in Exodus Rabbah). The Pharaoh claiming divinity comes from ExodR I part of the midrash. The second part (ExodR II) with parashiyot 15-52 is a homiletic midrash on Exodus 12-40, which belongs to the genre of the Tanhuma Yelammedenu midrash. Leopold Zunz, who does not divide the work, dated this whole midrash to the 11th or the 12th century CE. Herr, on the other hand, considers the ExodR II to be older than ExodR I, which in his opinion used the lost beginning of the homiletic midrash on Exodus as a source. For the dating of ExodR I, he conducts a linguistic analysis and judges this part to be no earlier than the 10th century CE. Similarly, Shinan opines that the origin of ExodR I is from the 10th century CE. Contrary to the eisegesis of Coplestone, it is impossible (not to mention absurd) that the Qur'an used a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years later! Secondly, the midrash simply interprets the verse from the book of Ezekiel and claims that the verse implies Pharaoh claiming divinity. The Qur'an, on the other hand, explicitly states that the Pharaoh proclaimed himself to be the god.
THE MAKING OF BURNT BRICKS IN ANCIENT EGYPT
In the Qur'an, the Pharaoh in a boastful and mocking manner, asks his associate Haman to build a lofty tower:
The command of Pharaoh was but a boast, but a question now arises: Were Burnt Bricks Used In Ancient Egypt In The Time of Moses?
The use of burnt brick in Egypt did not become common until the Roman Period. However, there is enough evidence to show that burnt brick was known in Egypt from a very early date. Long bars of baked clay were employed in the Predynastic grain-kilns at Abydos and Mahasna, and, while these cannot be called bricks, they show knowledge of the effect of baking on ordinary mud. It is impossible that early Egyptians were unaware of the fact that mud-bricks could be hardened by burning, since they could have observed this process in any building which, by accident or design, was gutted by fire. There are several examples of accidental production of burnt brick. They occur in the 1st Dynasty tombs at Saqqara, due to their having been burnt by plunderers; similar cases must have been fairly common. There is no evidence, as yet, that Egyptians deliberately prepared burnt bricks for use in buildings during the Predynastic Period or the Old Kingdom. However, there are examples of glazed tiles, appearing in a highly developed technique in both the 1st and 3rd Dynasties. This proves that the Egyptians during the advent of Old Kingdom Period were well aware of glazing as a method of decoration and protection. The earliest example of the use of burnt brick comes from the Middle Kingdom fortresses in Nubia, in which they were used as paving-slabs measuring 30 x 30 x 5 cm. The next instance of the burnt brick is recorded in the New Kingdom Period, when they occur in conjunction with funerary cones in the superstructures of the tombs at Thebes. Burnt brick as a constructional material also appears at Nebesheh and Defenneh dated to Ramesside times. From the extensive study of brick architecture in Egypt, Spencer concludes that:
As for the less extensive use of burnt bricks in early Egypt, this is more due to the issue of economics than a lack of knowledge. Barry Kemp says:
A factor inhibiting the use of burnt brick could presumably be the cost of fuel needed for firing.
Since the burnt brick architecture was known in ancient Egypt in all periods, one can firmly conclude that it was also known in the time of Moses.
THE DESIRE OF THE PHARAOH TO ASCEND TO THE SKY TO SPEAK TO THE GODS
The desire to ascend to the gods in the sky was an article of the ancient Egyptian religion. The idea of the Pharaoh climbing a tower or staircase to reach the God of Moses is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh, asks the gods (or men) to construct a staircase or a tower in order to climb and converse with the gods.
The desire of the Pharaoh to ascend to the sky has no connection with the biblical story of the "Tower of Babel." The use of the "Tower of Babel" by Orientalists and Christian apologists appears to be a convenient device to attack the Qur'an and laziness on their part in undertaking a scholarly historical investigation. In particular, we can observe an almost complete lack of familiarity with the ancient Egyptian historical record and a startling absence of reference to any direct Egyptological evidence, hieroglyphic or otherwise.
We have seen earlier that the Pharaoh, a god of ancient Egypt, would address other gods by climbing up a staircase or a high building. What happened when the ruler of Egypt died? How did he meet with other gods? Did he ascend to them? If yes, what was the instrument of his ascension? To understand this let us turn our attention to some interesting evidence from ancient Egypt dealing with the pyramids and the royal tombs.
There is a copious amount of evidence from ancient Egypt concerning the desire of the dead king to ascend to the gods and it comes in the form of the Pyramid Texts. These texts are a collection of funerary rituals and spells first inscribed on the sacrophagi and the subterranean walls of nine Old Kingdom pyramids.
What was the function of the pyramid? The primary function of the pyramid in ancient Egypt was to house the body of a dead King, his ka or spirit, and his funerary equipment for use in the next world. It was a royal burial site. The pyramid tomb served as a place on earth where food and drink could be brought regularly to supply the need of the ka. The word "pyramid" probably derived from Greek pyramis. The Egyptians themselves used the word "M(e)r" to describe pyramids, and it has tentatively been translated as a "place of ascension". Concerning the word "pyramid", Verner says:
Similarly, Lehner points out that:
Not surprisingly, the Egyptian word "M(e)r" has the determinative showing a triangle with a base to represent the pyramid (Figs. 2 and 3).
Figure 2: Hieroglyph entry for "mr" which means a pyramid. Notice the determinative which is in the shape of a triangle representing the pyramid (line 4).
Figure 3: Hieroglyph entry for "Pyramid". Again notice the determinative for pyramid shown as a triangle.
After death, the king would pass from the earth to the heaven, to take his place amongst the gods and to join the retinue of the sun-god. However, he needed a way to reach the sky from the earth, a bridge slung between this world and the next, a "Place of Ascension". Thus, the pyramid served as a place of ascension for the dead king. The Pyramid Texts inscribed on the sacrophagi and the subterranean walls served as "instructions" for the dead king's ascension to heavens.
Let us conclude this section with a quote from the famous Egyptologist I. E. S. Edwards:
THE MYSTERY OF THE NAME HAMAN
Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an: Surah 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; Surah 29, verse 39; and Surah 40, verses 24 and 36. The above ayahs portray Haman as someone close to Pharaoh, who was also in charge of building projects, otherwise the Pharaoh would have directed someone else. So, who is Haman? It appears that no commentator of the Qur'an has dealt with this question on a thorough hieroglyphic basis. As previously mentioned, many authors have suggested that "Haman" in the Qur'an is reference to Haman, a counsellor of Ahasuerus who was an enemy of the Jews. Meanwhile others have been searching for consonances with the name of the Egyptian god "Amun."
One of the earliest scholars to deal with the name "Haman" in the Qur'an from the point of view of Egyptology was Dr. Maurice Bucaille. He surmised that since "Haman" was mentioned in the Qur'an during the time of Moses in Egypt, the best course of action was to ask an expert in the old Egyptian language, i.e., hieroglyphs, regarding the name. Bucaille narrates an interesting discussion he had with a prominent French Egyptologist:
He went on to say:
While discussing this name, Hermann Ranke in his Die Ägyptischen Personennamen was unsure what the last letter "h" in the name hmn-h represented. Therefore, he designated the entry as "hmn-h(?)" as if suggesting "h" was not actually part of the name.
In order to understand how the hieroglyphs are written and interpreted, let us take a look at the salient features of this form of writing. The Egyptian hieroglyphs are one of the oldest writing systems in the world. In 391 CE when the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I closed all pagan temples throughout Egypt, it resulted in the termination of a four thousand year old tradition. The message of the ancient Egyptian language was lost for 1500 years and not until the discovery of the Rosetta stone and the work of Jean-Francois Champollion (1790-1832) that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs awoke from their long slumber as a dead language. The Egyptian hieroglyphic writing consists of an inventory of signs and is divided into three major categories, namely logograms, signs that write out morphemes; phonograms, signs that represent one or more sounds; and determinatives, signs that denote neither morpheme nor sound but help with the meaning of a group of signs that precede them. It is usually a picture of an object which helps the reader to understand the object and the context. The Egyptian hieroglyphs disregard the vowels. In other words, with this system one arrives at words that are connected by vowels. For example, let us take the word "beautiful". Its transcription in the Egyptian hieroglyphics is nfr. To ease the pronunciation of these three consonants, they are bound together with "e-sounds", which leads to nefer. This pronunciation bears no relation with the original pronunciation of the Egyptian language. It is solely a convention to enable communication among the modern scholars or even commonfolk interested in ancient Egyptians hieroglyphs. It is not surprising that the scholarly pronunciation of Egyptian hieroglyphs (even consonants!) also differs.
The hieroglyph in our case is hmn-h(?) with a doubtful last letter. If we drop the last letter which is doubtful, the name can be rendered as "hemen" or "haman" depending upon the vowel which is inserted to ensure an effective pronunciation of the hieroglyph. It is interesting to note that the profession of this person hmn-h(?) in German reads Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter - "The chief / overseer of the workers in the stone-quarries" (Fig. 4) . This name is listed as masculine (Fig. 5) and it is from the New Kingdom Period (Fig. 4). The generally accepted theory appears to be that Moses lived during the reign of kings Rameses II or his successor Merenptah in the New Kingdom Period. The Qur'an suggests that Haman was a master of construction and this name appears to fit very well in almost all respects.
However, an objection can be raised regarding the contents in the hieroglyph and the Qur'an. The Qur'an uses ه (/h/) instead of ح (/h/) for the name "Haman". The hieroglyph from the K.K. Hof Museum in Vienna above uses ح (/h/) instead of ه (/h/) in hmn. This objection can be tackled in two ways. Firstly, when the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs were discovered by Jean-Francois Champollion, it was already a dead language. The phonology of the hieroglyphs were not known and even today, albeit with considerable amount of progress in Egyptian phonology, there remain uncertainties concerning the exact pronunciation of a word in ancient Egyptian. For example, in the case of /h/ and /h/, Carsten Peust says:
Secondly, in Roman Demotic and contemporary hieroglyphic texts, a graphical confusion arises between /h/ and /h/, suggesting a phonetic merger had taken place. Both sounds conflate into ϩ (i.e., hori) /h/ in all Coptic dialects. It appears that /h/ and /h/ are not distinguished in Arabic loanwords from Coptic. As to how far back this merger in Egyptian history goes back is not very clear. There are early examples of a merger between /h/ and /h/ from the New Kingdom Period mentioned by Jürgen Osing.
The question now arises as to whether the Haman mentioned in the hieroglyph from the K.K. Hof Museum is the Haman mentioned in the Qur'an. Maybe. Although there are a lot of interesting similarities between the Haman's mentioned in the Qur'an and in the hieroglyph, it is currently not possible to determine with a great degree of certainty whether this hieroglyph refers to the Qur'anic Haman. What we do know, however, is that the name Haman is attested in ancient Egypt, it is a masculine name, and it dates to the New Kingdom period, the period of history in which Moses is principally associated.
It is also interesting to note that there also existed a similar sounding name called Hemon (or Hemiunu / Hemionu as he is also known as), a vizier to King Khnum-Khufu who is widely considered to be the architect of Khnum-Khufu's the Great Pyramid at Giza. He lived in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom Period (c. 2700 - 2190 BCE).
He is said to have been buried in a large and splendid tomb at Saqqara in the royal necropolis. There is an extant statue of Hemiunu / Hemon, which resides in the Hildesheim Museum [Fig. 6(a)]. Although the name Hemiunu / Hemon is quite similar to Haman, they are written differently [compare the hieroglyphs in Fig. 6(b) with Fig. (4)] and perhaps also pronounced differently. The writing of Hemiunu employs Gardiner signs U36 O28. This is different from what we have seen for hmn which employs V28 Y5 N35.
Marraccio's identification of the Qur'anic Haman as having been appropriated from the Hebrew Bible and Jewish mythology was subsequently adopted by Protestant scholars and missionaries. Adam Clarke's assessment of Marraccio's translation indicates that the Protestants unabashedly adopted this Roman Catholic pronouncement. One must note with a sense of alarm the ability of this 'critical note' to endure for over 300 years without anyone seemingly taking the opportunity to evaluate the veracity of Marraccio's untested assumptions. Concerning the name Haman, such illustrious entries in the Encyclopaedia Of Islam and the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an make no attempt to engage with the Egyptological historical record.
Marraccio's assumption of the historicity and authenticity of the biblical narrative has been shown by contemporary Judaeo-Christian scholars to be misplaced. As we have observed, that the book of Esther lacks historicity is not too unexpected. This unhistorical Haman is portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus, King of Persia. The plot of the unhistorical Haman to annihilate the Jews in the Persian Empire in retaliation for Mordecai's refusal to bow to him, seems to be the corrupt version of the original event when Haman had a hand in suggesting and executing the second massacre of the Israelites newborn males, to demoralise the Israelites and discourage them from following Moses. Athanasius whose famous Epistola Festalis of 367 CE settled the limits of the New Testament canon at the twenty-seven books accepted as canonical by Protestants today, unceremoniously rejected Esther from his exclusive list of 'divinely-inspired' Old Testament books. Even the Jews had difficulty deciding on the canonicity of Esther.
Wreszinski's Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien published in 1906 CE noted a hieroglyph engraved on a stela kept at the K.K. Hof Museum in Vienna, Austria, contained the letters hmn-h. About thirty years later while discussing this name, Ranke in his Die Ägyptischen Personennamen was unsure what the last letter "h" in the name hmn-h represented. Therefore, he designated the entry as "hmn-h(?)" suggesting as if "h" was not in actuality part of the name. If we drop the doubtful last letter, the name can be rendered as "hemen" or "haman" depending upon the vowel which is inserted to ensure an effective pronunciation of the hieroglyph. It is interesting to note that the profession of this person hmn-h(?) in German reads Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter - "The chief / overseer of the workers in the stone-quarries" (Fig. 4). This name is listed as masculine (Fig. 5) and it is from the New Kingdom Period (Fig. 4). The generally accepted theory appears to be that Moses lived during the reign of King Rameses II or his successor Merenptah in the New Kingdom Period. The Qur'an suggests that Haman was a master of construction and this name appears to fit very well in almost all respects. However, it is unclear whether Haman mentioned in the hieroglyphs is actually the Hamam mentioned in the Qur'an. More research would throw some light on this issue.
The historicity of the name Haman provides yet another sharp reminder to those that adhere to the precarious theory that parts of the Qur'an were allegedly copied from the Bible. If Egyptian hieroglyphs were long dead and the Book of Esther a work of fiction, then from where did the Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The Qur'an answers:
It is interesting to note that the meaning of the word ayah, usually translated as 'verse' in the Qur'an, also means a sign and a proof. The reference to Haman and other facts concerning ancient Egypt in the Qur'an suggests a special reflection.
And Allah knows best!
References & Notes
 Ludoviico Marraccio, Alcorani Textus Universus Ex Correctioribus Arabum Exemplaribus Summa Fide, Atque Pulcherrimis Characteribus Descriptus, 1698, Ex Typographia Seminarii: Patavii (Italy), p. 526. The original text says:
This translation of the Qur'an by the Luccan monk and his associated commentary was well received in Protestant missionary circles. Prominent Methodist missionary Adam Clarke (1760/1762 – 1832 CE), an executive member of the colonial-missionary organisation the British And Foreign Bible Society, described the translation as:
See A. Clarke, The Bibliographical Miscellany; Or, Supplement To The Bibliographical Dictionary, 1806, Volume I, W. Baynes, Paternoster-Row: London, p. 286.
This statement should be understood in the context of Clarke's working environment. Armed with the intention of specifically targeting Muslims, he was employed by the British And Foreign Bible Society in the preparation of their Arabic Bible and played a pivotal role in introducing the Arabic Bible to the African continent. See C. J. S. Teignmouth, Memoir Of The Life And Correspondence Of John Lord Teignmouth, 1843, Hatchard and Son: London, Chapters XVI, XVII & XVIII; also see P. Mirrlees, "John Hill And The Early Attempt To Study A West African Language", in S. Batalden, K. Cann & J. Dean (Eds.), Sowing The Word: The Cultural Impact Of The British And Foreign Bible Society 1804-2004, 2004, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield (UK), pp. 98–120.
 G. Sale, The Koran Commonly Called Alcoran Of Mohammed Translated Into English Immediately From The Original Arabic With Explanatory Notes Taken From The Most Approved Commentators To Which Is Prefixed A Preliminary Discourse , 1825, Volume II, London, p. 239, footnote 'h'.
 Th. Noldeke, "The Koran", Encyclopædia Britannica, 1893, Volume 16, Adam And Charles Black: Edinburgh, p. 600. This article was reprinted many times with slight modifications. T. Nöldeke (J. S. Black [Trans.]), Sketches From Eastern History, 1892, Adam and Charles Black: London & Edinburgh, p. 30. This article was reprinted and edited by N. A. Newman, The Qur'an: An Introductory Essay By Theodor Nöldeke, 1992, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 9; Also see Th. Nöldeke, "The Koran" in Ibn Warraq, The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998, Prometheus Books, p. 43; Also see Th. Nöldeke, "The Koran" in C. Turner (Ed.), The Koran: Critical Concepts In Islamic Studies, 2004, Volume I (Provenance and Transmission), RoutledgeCurzon: London & New York, p. 77.
 Rev. A. Mingana & A. S. Lewis (eds.), Leaves From Three Ancient Qur'âns Possibly Pre-`Othmânic With A List Of Their Variants, 1914, Cambridge: At The University Press, p. xiv. Also reprint in A. Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans" in Ibn Warraq, The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998, op. cit., p. 79.
 H. Lammens (Translated from French by Sir E. Denison Ross), Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, 1929, Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, p. 39.
 J. Horovitz, Koranische Untersuchungen, 1926, Walter De Gruyter: Berlin & Leipzig, p. 149.
 C. C. Torrey, Jewish Foundation of Islam, 1933, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.: New York, See pages 117 and 119.
 A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, 1938, Oriental Institute: Baroda, pp. 284.
 G. Vajda, "Haman" in B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1971, Volume III, E. J. Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co. (London), p. 110.
 A. J. Wensinck [G. Vajda], "Fir`awn" in B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1965, Volume II, E. J. Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co. (London), p. 917.
 A. H. Jones, "Haman", in J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an, 2002, Volume II, Brill: Leiden, p. 399.
 See for example Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 209; R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 142; `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), pp. 35-36 and p. 88; N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 380; W. E. Phipps, Muhammad And Jesus: A Comparison Of The Prophets And Their Teachings, 1996, Continuum Publishing Company: New York (NY), p. 90; D. Richardson, Secrets Of The Koran: Revealing Insights Into Islam's Holy Book, 1999, Regal Books From Gospel Light: Ventura (CA), p. 34; S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle, UK, p. 86; E. M. Caner & E. F. Caner, Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look At Muslim Life And Beliefs, 2002, Kregal Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 89; Abdullah Al-Araby, Islam Unveiled, 2002 (10th Edition), The Pen Vs. The Sword: Los Angeles (CA), p. 42 and p. 44; M. Elass, Understanding the Koran: A Quick Christian Guide To The Muslim Holy Book, 2004, Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 181, note 3.
A gentle, sensitive but inadequate treatment is done by John Kaltner concerning the issue of Haman in the Bible and the Qur'an. See J. Kaltner, Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction To The Qur'an For Bible Readers, 1999, The Liturgical Press: Collegeville (Minnesota), pp. 134-135; Also see J. Jomier (Trans. Z. Hersov), The Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, SCM Press Limited: London, p. 78.
 Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, 1995, Prometheus Books: Amherst (NY), p. 159.
 J. D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, 1997, SCM Press Limited, p. 23.
 M. V. Fox, Character And Ideology In The Book Of Esther, 1991, University of South Carolina Press: Columbia (SC), pp. 131-139.
 ibid., p. 131.
 L. B. Paton, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Book Of Esther, 1992 (reprinted), T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh (UK), pp. 64-77. After discussing the arguments for and against the book's historicity, Paton says:
 C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company Inc.: Garden City (NY), pp. xxxiv-xlvi; For a similar assessment see C. A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1975, Volume 38, pp. 62-79.
 "Esther", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia Inc.: New York, p. 170.
 "Esther", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company: London & New York, pp. 235-236.
 A. Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther, 2001, The Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, pp. xxvii-xxviii.
 M. Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.: London & New York, p. 381.
 L. E. Keck et al. (Eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible: General Articles & Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections For Each Book Of The Bible, Including The Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books, 1994, Volume III, Abingdon Press: Nashville (TN), p. 859.
 R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, Volume I (The Old Testament), Geoffrey Chapman: London (UK), pp. 628-629.
 Rev. R. C. Fuller, Rev. L. Johnston, Very Rev. C. Kearns (Eds.), A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, 1969, Thomas Nelson & Sons, pp. 408-409.
 "Esther", The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. S. Black (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary Of The Literary, Political And Religious History, The Archaeology, Geography And Natural History Of The Bible, 1901, Volume II, The Macmillan Company: New York, Columns 1401-1402.
 "Haman", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 7, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, The Macmillan Company, p. 1222.
 "Haman", in G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, 1962 (1996 Print), Volume 2, Abingdon Press: Nashville, p. 516.
 "Ahasuerus", Webster's Biographical Dictionary, 1972, G. & C. Merriam Co.: Springfield, USA, p. 17.
 "Dead Sea Scrolls" in B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (Ed.), Oxford Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press: Oxford & New York, p. 159.
 C. A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1975, op. cit., p. 63.
 The map is taken from C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible, op. cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii. For a good overview of place of Esther in the Christian canon see B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of The Book Of Esther In The Christian Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, Volume 30, pp. 32-43.
 M. Luther, Table Talk, 1995, Fount: An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublisher: London (UK), XXIV, p. 14.
 Dr. Martin Luther, Biblia, 1538, Wolff K: Strassburg; Also see Luther's introduction to the book of Esther in E. T. Bachmann (Ed.) & H. L. Lehmann (Gen. Ed.), Luther's Works, 1960, Volume 35, Muhlenberg Press: Philadelphia, pp. 353-354.
 The absence of mention of the God in the book of Esther has baffled many scholars. Many of them have given various reasons for such an omission. For a general overview on this topic, please see: "Esther", The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. S. Black (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary Of The Literary, Political And Religious History, The Archaeology, Geography And Natural History Of The Bible, 1901, Volume II, op. cit., col. 1403; "Esther", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, op. cit., p. 236; "Esther", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, op. cit., p. 170; B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of The Book Of Esther In The Christian Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, op. cit., p. 32; M. Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962, op. cit., p. 381; R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, Volume I (The Old Testament), op. cit., p. 629; C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible, op. cit., p. xxxii-xxxiii; C. M. Laymon (Ed.), The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary On The Bible Including All The Books Of The Old And New Testaments And The Apocrypha, Together With Forty-Three General Articles, 1972, Collins: London & Glasgow, p. 233; W. A. Elwell (Ed.), The Marshall Pickering Commentary On The NIV, 1989, Baker Book House Company, p. 327.
 A survey of the four most popular encyclopedias of Bible "difficulties" reveal no trace of a discussion on the historicity or the canonicity of Esther. See N. L. Geisler & R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 2001, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); N. Geisler & T. Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties, 2004 (7th Printing), Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); G. L. Archer Jr., New International Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties, 1982, Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI).
 "Pharaoh" in Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD, © 1994 – 2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
 "Pharaoh" in H. Lockyer, Sr. (General Editor), F.F. Bruce et al., (Consulting Editors), Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 828.
 F. S. Coplestone (Updated & Expanded by J. C. Trehern), Jesus Christ Or Mohammed? A Guide To Islam And Christianity That Helps Explain The Differences, 2001, Christian Focus Publications: Ross-shire (Scotland), p. 80; For a similar claim also see J. W. Sweetman, Islam And Christian Theology: A Study Of The Interpretation Of Theological Ideas In The Two Religions, 1945, Volume I, Part 1 (Preparatory History Survey of the Early Period), Lutterworth Press: London & Redhill, p. 11.
 Rabbi Dr. S. M. Lehrman (Trans.), Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon (Eds.), Midrash Rabbah: Exodus, 1939, Soncino Press: London (UK), VIII.2, pp. 116-117.
 L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden: Historisch Entwickelt, 1892, Verlag von J. Kauffmann: Frankfurt, pp. 269. Full discussion in pp. 268-270; Also see "Midrash Exodus (Shemoth Rabbah)", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1969, Volume 7, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.: New York, p. 539; Similar views are mentioned by Brannon Wheeler in Moses In The Quran And Islamic Exegesis, 2002, RoutledgeCurzon: London, pp. 39-40.
 M. D. Herr, "Exodus Rabbah", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 6, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, cols. 1067-1068;
 A. Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabbah, Chapters I-XIV: A Critical Edition Based On A Jerusalem Manuscript, With Variants, Commentary And Introduction, 1984, Tel Aviv, p. 19.
 A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, Aris & Phillips Ltd.: UK, p. 140; P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And Technology, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), p. 79.
 W. M. F. Petrie, Abydos: Part II, 1903, Egyptian Exploration Fund & Trübner & Co: London, p. 25 and p. 48. Petrie comments on the importance of these discoveries by saying (p. 48):
 G. A. Reisner, N. F. Wheeler & D. Dunham, Uronarti Shalfak Mirgissa, 1967, Second Cataract Forts: Volume II, Museum Of Fine Arts: Boston (USA), pp. 118-119 and Plate XLIX B; Also see A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, op. cit., p. 140.
 L. Borchardt, O. Königsberger & H. Ricke, "Friesziegel in Grabbauten", Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, Volume 70, pp. 25-35; A brief discussion of these bricks at Thebes is also available in A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, op. cit., p. 140.
 A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, op. cit., p. 141.
 P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And Technology, op. cit., p. 79; A similar observation was also made by Baldwin Smith. See E. B. Smith, Egyptian Architecture As Cultural Expression, 1938, D. Appleton-Century Company: New York & London, p. 7.
 C. Jacq (Trans. J. M. Davis), Egyptian Magic, 1985, Aris & Phillips Ltd. & Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers: Chicago, p. 11.
 J. P. Allen, "Pyramid Texts", in D. B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2001, Volume III, Oxford University Press, pp. 95-97.
 M. Verner, "Pyramid", in D. B. Redford (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2001, Volume III, op. cit., p. 88.
 M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, Thames And Hudson: London, p. 34; I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids Of Egypt, 1985, Viking, p. 302; Y. Abou-Hadid, Why Pyramids, 1979, Vantage Press: New York, p. 46; For a slightly different view see J. C. Deaton, "The Old Kingdom Evidence For The Function Of Pyramids", Varia Aegyptiaca, 1988, Volume 4, No. 3, p. 193-200.
 A. Erman & H. Grapow, Wörterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, 1928, Volume II, J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, p. 94, 14-16.
 R. Hannig, Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch - Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), 2000, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 999; Also see the older edition of the same book by R. Hannig, Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch - Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), 1995, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 344.
 Jacques Jomier asks in The Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, op. cit., p. 78:
The answer to this question is not certain. The Egyptian pyramids were indeed tall structures. If the Pharaoh did ask for a pyramid to be built then it was as if he was asking Haman to build his tomb! Alternatively, if it was indeed a pyramid the Pharaoh asked for, then the Pharaoh has proven himself to be a mortal to be buried in a tomb and not the God, as he had claimed to be. Also there exist examples of several mud-brick pyramids from the Middle Kingdom Period. The pyramid tombs of Senwosret II (at Hawara), Senwosret III (at Dahshur), Amenemhet II (at Dahshur) and Amenemhet III (at Hawara) are the best known examples of mud-brick constructions. See M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, op. cit., pp. 175-183.
 I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids Of Egypt, 1985, op. cit., p. 302; Also see Sir F. Petrie, Religious Life In Ancient Egypt, 1924, Constable & Company Limited: London, pp. 208-209. It is a slightly out-of-date reference. Nevertheless, it provides a brief background to ancient Egyptian beliefs of ascension to gods.
 Syed suggests that "Haman" is a title of a person not his name, just as Pharaoh was a title and not a proper personal name. Syed proposes that the title "Haman" referred to the "high priest of Amun". Amun is also known as "Hammon" and both are normal pronunciations of the same name. Syed's identification of Haman as "the high priest of Amun" may be probable. See S. M. Syed, "Historicity Of Haman As Mentioned In The Qur'an", The Islamic Quarterly, 1980, Volume 24, No. 1 and 2, pp. 52-53; Also see a slightly modified article by him published four years later: S. M. Syed, "Haman In The Light Of The Qur'an", Hamdard Islamicus, 1984, Volume 7, No. 4, pp. 86-87.
 M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh: The Hebrews In Egypt, 1995, NTT Mediascope Inc.: Tokyo, p. 192.
 M. Talbi and M. Bucaille, Réflexions sur le Coran, 1989, Seghers: Paris.
 M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh: The Hebrews In Egypt, 1995, op. cit. pp. 192-193.
 W. Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien, 1906, J. C. Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, I 34, p. 130.
 ibid., p. 196.
 H. Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume I (Verzeichnis der Namen), Verlag Von J. J. Augustin in Glückstadt, p. 240.
 C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead Language, 1999, Monographien Zur Ägyptischen Sprache: Band 2, Peust & Gutschmidt Verlag GbR mit Haftungsbeschränkung: Göttingen, pp. 54-55.
 ibid., pp. 52-53.
 ibid., p. 98.
 ibid., p. 99 and Appendix 8 on p. 323.
 J. Osing, Die Nominalbildung Des Ägyptischen: Anmerkungen Und Indices, 1976, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut: Abteilung Kairo, Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Mainz / Rhein, Note 47, pp. 367-368.
 P. A. Clayton, Chronicle Of The Pharaohs: The Reign-By-Reign Record of The Rulers And Dynasties Of Ancient Egypt, 1994, Thames and Hudson: London, p. 47.
 "Hemionu" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 1999, Routledge: London and New York, p. 63.
 The restored statue was compared with fragments of relief of Hemiunu. For this interesting study see G. Steindorff, "Ein Reliefbildnis Des Prinzen Hemiun", Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, 1937, Volume 70, pp. 120-121.
 H. Junker, Giza I. Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wein auf Gemeinsame Kosten mit Dr. Wilhelm Pelizaeus unternommenen. Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Giza, 1929, Volume I (Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof), Holder-Pichler-Tempsky A.-G.: Wein and Leipzig, pp. 132-162 for the complete description of Hemon's mastaba. The name and title of Hemon are discussed in pp. 148-151. For the hieroglyphs inscribed at the footstool of the statue of Hemon representing the titles see Plate XXIII; For a good discussion of reliefs of Hemon / Hemiunu, see W. S. Smith, "The Origin Of Some Unidentified Old Kingdom Reliefs", American Journal Of Archaeology, 1942, Volume 46, pp. 520-530.
M S M Saifullah, Elias Karim, `Abdullah David & Qasim Iqbal
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.