Alongside its wider context, graffiti must, however, also be understood as commemorative of a specific moment in the life of the author. Ragazzoli (2013: 21) writes that these texts commemorate ‘acts of coming, socialising and visiting’, and this aspect of graffiti should not be forgotten.260 The texts were left by an individual, or group of individuals, to memorialise a visit to a monument. They held a private and individual importance. But, over time, the graffiti became a part of cultural memory, passing on a specific idea of the place in which they were written.261 This can be seen most clearly in tomb TT60 at Thebes, where graffiti helped to create a belief that the tomb belonged to Antefoker rather than to Senet (Ragazzoli 2013: 23). Here, a clear memory relating to the tomb was developed and transmitted via the texts added to the walls of the monument.262
Furthermore, C. Taylor (2011: 98) suggests that clusters of graffiti can be understood as being sites of social memory, as places which ‘become important for the formation, negotiation and contestation of individual as well as group identities’. As such, one must view the graffiti not only as marking sites of memory, but as important sites of memory in and of themselves. Graffiti can act as a ‘memory trace’, bridging the gap between the past and the present; one can be aware of the past simply ‘by virtue of a trace in the present’ (Keegan 2011: 170), the material markers of cultural memory. Keegan (2011: 184) goes on to suggest that ‘graffiti traces produce a coherent narrative sense of a personal past’ and that they, therefore, are not the product of an isolated individual memory which have been constructed after the event, but are in fact their source, ‘the instruments used in acts of recall’. It is here that one finds the
260
See Ragazzoli (2013: 21) for discussion of the ‘grammar of memorialisation’. 261
Ragazzoli (2013: 23) notes that the adding of individual graffiti over a period of time, thus creating a kind of ‘time line’, causes the texts to ‘move from individual memories to social memories’.
262
124
‘social frameworks of memory’ of Halbwachs (Keegan 2011: 184). While important for the study of ancient Egypt, this idea relates to the wider study of graffiti across ancient, and more modern, societies.
It is important to look at the audience of graffiti to understand more fully the message and even tactics of the graffitist. While graffiti in some ancient societies could be seen as
furtive,263 the majority of graffiti in Egyptian memorial contexts was not. The same is true of graffiti in other ancient cultures, for example the texts noted from Dura-Europos and
Pompeii.264 In each of these cases, they were written in highly visible places at sites which were open to visitors. Furthermore, the graffitists usually signed their work and so anonymity was not desired.265 Therefore, these visitors’ graffiti must be seen as an attempt by the scribe to make a public statement visible both to private individuals and the state. Perhaps this is why it followed such recognisable norms and formulae.
Far from being subversive, the creation of graffiti was a social event, a collective moment.266 Two graffiti at Memphis and one group at Thebes clearly state that they have been inscribed by, or on behalf of, more than one individual,267 for example one graffito that names five men (and may have originally included more):
263
See Zadorojnyi discussion on secretly written graffiti in the Roman world (Zadorojnyi 2011: 125). 264
See, for example, Baird (2011) and Benefiel (2011), although it should not be assumed that dissenting ancient graffiti was absent from these sites.
265
See app. 3 for a record of which graffiti included the name of the graffitist. 266
Rather than being something that marks a site, graffiti-writing should itself be seen as an event, suggesting that ‘if writing is an event which becomes an object, the interpretation of graffiti turns the object into an event again’ (Baird and Taylor 2011: 6). For more discussion, see Harris (1995: 39).
267
125
The coming of the] royal herald Amu[n]edjeh to see this pyramid, the brewers [and] the assistants [...]mpet, Amenhotep, scribe Mentuhotep, scribe Djehutyem[hat, Humesh ...] scribe [...] (G05M06).268
The importance of the graffiti was not simply in the text itself but in the act of writing it, and the audience was not only those who read it in later years but those who were present at its creation. Graffiti created a sense of community ownership of the site to which any visitor could add himself; the use of the term ‘scribe’ for many of the graffitists supports this hypothesis.269 Mairs (2011: 153-154) suggests that a king ordering the creation of
monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions on temple walls was expressing similar concerns as a private individual writing his name on a monument or rock surface. The act of creating royal inscriptions declared the king’s ownership of the site, and so perhaps these ‘private’ graffiti should not be seen as so very different to the state inscriptions that are found alongside them.270
Graffiti should not be seen as static markings but as dynamic processes by which the marks were made at one point and then interacted with all those who viewed them, thus linking the viewer with the graffitist (C. Taylor 2011: 98).271 It is probable that people were encouraged to leave graffiti at certain sites simply by the existence of other similar texts. This can be seen
268
A second suggests an educational visit as it is written by a teacher and a scribe (G05M08), while the third group is that of KV43, which is written by a master and his apprentice (G14T23, G14T24).
269
The use of the term ‘scribe’ is discussed in more detail above, see ch. 2.3.1. 270
This is, perhaps, clearest in graffiti which express ritual acts that were undertaken by private individuals in state contexts; as shown these graffiti can be found on Egyptian monuments, but they also occur in other cultures such as in sanctuaries at Dura-Europos (Baird 2011). More comparison needs to be done with ancient graffiti in other contexts, however, such as the often bawdy texts from the Roman world (Zadorojnyi 2011); can similar motivations still be found, relating to ownership of the space and the communication of group identity and beliefs?
271
Livingstone (2011: 27) discusses role of inscribed epigram in classical Athens; he writes that through reading the texts, visitors take part in a ‘re-enactment of elements’ of the burial rituals. This act endows the person who is being commemorated with a place in the cultural memory of the community. These texts invite visitors to interact with them, although he does question how often this would have happened in actuality (Livingstone 2011: 31-34).
126
both in Egyptian contexts and in other cultures, for example the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (see Benefiel (2011)). C. Taylor (2011: 95) suggests that making one’s mark ‘situates the individual within a place at a moment in time, but also situates them within a group of people or a community’, and that the marks that are made over a period of time imply a ‘process of legitimation’ by the group (C. Taylor 2011: 97).272 As such, graffiti do not only represent the individual but the community as a whole. They are a collective addition to the memory of the site. Ragazzoli (2013: 22) writes that visitors’ graffiti can be understood as ‘commemorative artefacts that build shared memories for the community’, and the act of inscribing graffiti on the walls of the monument serves to ‘claim’ the monument for the community (Ragazzoli 2013: 25).273 As such graffiti played an important role for the graffitist both as an individual memory and a marker of communal identity. As will be discussed throughout this study, royal memorial sites played an important role in developing this sense of group identity which, in turn, acted as a legitimising force for the state. Furthermore, graffiti reaffirmed these ideas continually, for all of those who might visit the site in the future.
272
One may also see graffiti as ‘the result of a desire to ... add one’s own contribution and to join in the conversation’ (Benefiel 2011: 32). Therefore, copying other graffiti or adding phrases to one’s own to ensure a degree of ‘one-upmanship’ cannot be discounted.
273
127
CHAPTER 3. MEMORY AND IMAGE
The graffiti discussed in the previous chapter demonstrate written memory of royal ancestors; they are remembered in a somewhat abstract form, as a set of symbols within a cartouche, perhaps as the holder of specific epithets or the doer of certain deeds. But they are not
recognisable as people, as tangible human figures. The depictions discussed in this chapter fill this void. They are memories based on the image of individuals; the focus is on the
representation of a royal ancestor.1 In a place where levels of literacy were low2 memory cannot rely solely on texts but must be supported by imagery which is accessible to literate and illiterate alike.3 Schäfer writes that ‘art is one of religion’s most important means of communication’; despite the use of the word ‘religion’, the importance of art in
communicating ideas and values cannot be denied.4 This chapter will look at how tomb depictions of deceased royal figures acted as lieux de mémoire within the community, retaining and communicating the memory of such individuals, and supporting a cultural memory based around them.
1
Luiselli (2011), for example, notes the importance of analysing the processes by which cultural memory may be developed through visual sources as a compliment to previous studies on written sources.
2
Baines and Eyre (1983: 90) suggest that there were approximately twenty people at Deir el-Medina who were fully literate; it is likely that the literacy at Deir el-Medina was higher than in many other places as it was populated by skilled workmen and artisans. Janssen (1992: 82) disagrees, however, stating that a larger number of people were either literate or ‘semi-literate’ (a person who could read simple texts but was not competent in writing). This was discussed further in the previous chapter, see ch. 2.1.4.1).
3
The level to which art was accessible to different people in society is discussed in more detail below. At this point it is sufficient to acknowledge that art is more universally accessible than writing, although, as noted in the previous chapter, texts are not necessarily entirely inaccessible to the illiterate (see ch. 2.1.4.1).
4
He later refers the importance of art more directly to royal power, writing that ‘Egyptian kings understood early the power of art to propagate their fame and act as a symbol of their stable power’ (Schäfer 1986: 61).
128