Similar to the discussion of Memphite graffiti, this study will look first at texts which purport to identify the owner of the tomb. Two graffiti at Thebes do this; one in TT60 names Queen Sobekneferu of the Twelfth Dynasty:
209
See map 1 for the location of the sites. 210 G00T01 and G00T02. 211 G00T39. 212 G00T25. 213 G14T23, G14T24. 214
109
Coming of the scribe [... to see?] this tomb [...] of Sobeknefer[u]. He found it like heaven in its interior. (G00T01).215
The second graffito, in KV43, states that:
His majesty, life, prosperity, health, commanded to cause the fanbearer on the right hand of the king … Maya … to repeat the burial of King Menkheperura, true of voice, in the noble house on western Thebes (G14T23).
The graffito in TT60 is particularly interesting as its allocation of the tomb to Queen
Sobekneferu is wrong.216 This tomb, in fact, belongs to the vizier of Senwosret I, Antefoker and his mother Senet (Davies 1920).217 It is possible that the scribe mistook the name of Antefoker’s wife, Satsasobek, for that of the Middle Kingdom queen (Peden 2001: 68), which would mean that the inclusion of the queen’s name was simply a result of misreading,
possibly linked with the dominant position of Antefoker’s mother Senet in the tomb.218 Yet if this was the case then one is left with the question of how the graffitist knew the name of
215
It is possible that the text originally referred to the tomb as being from ‘the time of’ Sobekneferu, but the lacuna makes it difficult to confirm this (see app. 1). As this is uncertain, the graffito has been included under the category of naming the tomb’s owner rather than as allocating the tomb to a specific date. Furthermore, even if the text did include the phrase ‘of the time of’, it still implies and ownership of the tomb by Sobekneferu. 216
A second graffito in the same tomb states the tomb is ‘of the time of Sobekneferu’ (G00T02); it is likely that this graffito was written at the same time as the one which attributes the tomb to the queen as the two are written next to each other on the north wall of the monument, and may be suggesting the same ownership of the monument.
217
It is notable that several graffiti do record the name of Antefoker (seeDavies et al. (1920: 28-29[6, 31, 33, 36])). Note that where ‘Davies’ is referenced to in this study it refers to Norman de Garis Davies. When his wife is referenced, she will be referred to as ‘Nina Davies’ (or ‘N. Davies’) to differentiate.
218
Ragazzoli (2013: 3) has, in fact, given Antefoker a secondary importance in the tomb, placing Senet as the primary owner. This idea has been supported by Den Donker (2012: 32, n. 34) who writes that ‘the scribes probably mixed up the name of the queen and Antefoker’s wife while under the influence of the predominance of Senet’s figures in the decorative programme of the chapel and of the royal kiosk scene near the entrance’.
110
Sobekneferu.219 He certainly did not copy it from the tomb itself as it is not there. One is left, therefore, with the conclusion that the scribe knew of Queen Sobekneferu before he visited the tomb and incorrectly identified her with it.
There are no confirmed monuments of Sobekneferu at Thebes220 (although this does not preclude there having been such constructions) and the main source of knowledge of her in modern Egyptology comes from the temple of Amenemhat III at Hawara, where there may have been a shrine dedicated to her.221 Sobekneferu was a successor of Amenemhat III who had strongly advocated the importance of Sobek as a god linked with kingship, particularly the ‘theme of the legitimacy of the royal power by the divine world’ (Zecchi 2010: 42-43); evidence of this cult has been found throughout the Fayyum222 and so it is possible that the cult of Sobek of Shedet and its link to the ideology of kingship was recorded at other sites in Egypt. Sobekneferu furthered the supremacy of Sobek of Shedet during her reign, and her name with the epithet ‘beloved of Sobek of Shedet’ is included alongside that of Amenemhat III on several monuments (Zecchi 2010: 84-88). It is, therefore, quite possible that Egyptians who had visited the Fayyum area would have been aware of Sobekneferu and would have linked her with the important crocodile god of the Middle Kingdom, possibly even
recognising the aforementioned connection between Sobek of Shedet and kingship.
Furthermore, certain New Kingdom royal figures also adopted the epithet ‘beloved of Sobek of Shedet’; notable examples are Thutmose III and Teye (Zecchi 2010: 109), which would
219
Presuming that it was not simply copied from G00T02, although the same question would then apply to this text. It is likely that the two graffiti were written together, and so the question of how either scribe knew the name is relevant.
220
It should be noted, however, that her name is included in the Karnak kinglist of Thutmose III (see, for example, Prisse d’Avennes (1847: pl. i), D. Redford (1986: 29-34)).
221
Zecchi (2010: 85) notes that Sobeknerefu’s cartouches appear frequently at Hawara; see, for example, Petrie et al. (1890: pl. 11[11]) which is a block found at Hawara that includes the name of Sobekneferu (see also. Pignattari (2008: 73)). Pignattari (2008: 88) also notes some statue fragments which bear her name at Tell el- Daba.
222
111
have again kept this deity in the consciousness of some Egyptian people, for example through its inclusion in temple inscriptions. Although not explicitly naming Sobekneferu, therefore, it is possible that her memory was retained through her link with the god Sobek.
This graffito demonstrates that there was knowledge of royal ancestors at Thebes, even ones who did not have monumental memorial structures in the vicinity, and that there was a desire by individuals to demonstrate this knowledge. Perhaps the lack of graffiti on monumental memorial structures at Thebes, therefore, is more due to a lack of accessibility than a lack of interest; the memorial monuments at Thebes were overwhelmingly linked to kings of the recent past (i.e. the Eighteenth Dynasty)223 whose memorial cults were in all likelihood fully functioning, thus preventing their being easily visited by people outside of temple cult personnel. This contrasts with the more accessible royal monuments in the Memphite area.224 Later graffiti by temple personnel in the Theban area, such as the graffiti on the Khonsu temple roof at Karnak,225 demonstrate that those who worked in memorial cults did leave their marks, but examples have not been found dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty in the area;
perhaps, then, the marking of functioning memorial temples was discouraged in the period, leaving only private tombs at Thebes as potential tableaux.
There are many examples of written or pictorial graffiti dating to the early-mid Eighteenth Dynasty in TT60 (Peden 2001: 68).226 It would appear, therefore, that the age of the tomb encouraged visitors to it, some of whom even used its artistic motifs as inspiration for
223
With the exception of the Eleventh Dynasty Temples at Deir el-Bahri (See PM I: 381-401). 224
See below, ch. 2.5, for more discussion of this. 225
See Jacquet-Gordon (2003); the Khonsu Temple roof graffiti are discussed in more detail below. 226
112
depictions in their own tombs.227 Yet TT60 is a rock cut tomb and, although it arguably had impressive decoration it was of no more aesthetic value than most Theban tombs, and certainly was not visually impressive on the scale of the Theban memorial monuments. This would imply that visiting this tomb was not simply a reaction to its grandiose appearance; the perceived link to Sobekneferu, or to Senwosret I,228 may therefore have served as motivation to visit this tomb over others in the area.
Yet despite the modest scale of this tomb, two of the relevant graffiti found there, G00T01229 and G00T02, still included the phrase, well known from the Memphite graffiti, ‘like heaven in its interior’. These are the only two graffiti in the tomb which include this phrase.230 That it is found in several examples from royal memorial complexes at Memphis231 as well as in the two graffiti which attribute this tomb to Sobekneferu suggests that it may have been used primarily to describe monuments which belonged to (or were believed to belong to) royal figures.232 This lends weight to the theory that the texts described the monuments as they were supposed to appear rather than how they appeared.233 It is also possible that the authors of these two graffiti at Thebes had, in fact, visited the Memphite region and seen the graffiti on monuments there, choosing, therefore, to copy phrases that they had seen. Although it is not possible to confirm this in the context of these specific texts, the movement of Egyptian
227
Peden (2001: 68-69) notes the example of Amenemhat, who owned TT82, and who appears to have used scenes from TT60 as models for scenes in his own tomb.
228
The link to this king is discussed below, see ch. 2.4.4. 229
This graffito is discussed in more detail below, see ch. 2.4.4. 230
Of course the damage to many of the graffiti makes it difficult to say for certain that this is the case but it seems likely that this phrase was not common among the other texts.
231
This has been discussed above, ch. 2.3.3. 232
Verhoeven’s discussion of tomb N13.1 at Asyut may provide some contradiction to this; this tomb is not royal but includes the stock phrases discussed in this study. It did, however, belong to a local nomarch, who had was likely viewed as being ‘royal’ to those who lived in the same region, and appears to have become a place of homage (Verhoeven 2012).
233
113
officials and tradesmen through Egypt make it likely that the same people visited monuments in more than one area. The Memphite graffito G05M11, for example, includes the phrase:
coming of the scribe, child of the southern city, Baki (G05M11).
This clearly shows a graffitist in the Memphite region who originated from Thebes,234 and it is possible that more individuals also came from Thebes to Memphis and vice-versa, thus allowing for the migration of phrases such as the one discussed above.
As noted above, the second graffito which identifies the owner of the tomb is found in KV43. It was written by Maya, who was employed to restore the burial of Thutmose IV. Little can be added to the discussion from this graffito; Maya’s knowledge of the owner of the tomb is easily explained by the fact that he was employed to restore this specific burial. It does, however, support the idea that graffitists chose to include the name of the owner of a royal monument when it was known to them.235