the bearer of the name to a goddess, while the female name ^ri.t-Ra identifies the named
individual as the daughter of a male deity. The numbers of names of this type are too
small to give any clear indication of whether men or women are more likely to be filiated
with deities.
Both men and women can be “servant of” a god or “beloved of” a god, and in
personal names portraying these particular relationships, the use of both gods and
goddesses in both masculine and feminine names is relatively equitable. Men may be
named BAk-n-Imn, BAk-n-Mw.t, or BAk-n-Wrl (“Servant of The Great One”);
conversely, women may be named BAk.t-As.t, BAk.t-Wrl, BAk.t-Mn, or BAk.t-Ra.
Likewise, there are men in the sample named Mry-MAa.t, Mry-Ra and Mry-¤xm.t, and
women named Mr.t-anq.t, Mr.t-Mw.t, Mry.t-Imn, and Mry(.t)-Ra.
For other names expressing a relationship with the divine, most of the examples in
the sample are masculine. Both men and women are said to belong to a particular deity
using the name formula P(A)-n-DN or &(A)-n-DN. Male names of this type may include
gods or goddesses. Davies’s sample includes four males named P(A)-n-Imn, and one
named P(A)-n-$nmw, but also eight named P(A)-n-anq.t, three named P(A)-n-Nbw, five
named P(A)-n-Rn(n)w.t, and eleven named P(A)-n-&A-wr.t. There are too few feminine
names following this formula in the sample to say much by way of comparison, but the
sample does include one &A-As.t and two women named &A-n.t-Nbw. A similar
relationship expressed by the formula Iw=f-n-DN or Iw=s-n-DN also appears in the
sample, but there are too few examples of these to make any statements about the
comparative usage of this formula for males and females (there are only two male
examples and one fragmentary female example, in which the name of the deity is not
preserved).
12
Convention