IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR

Of the thirty-three Memphite graffiti, twenty clearly state the name of the author74 while a further seven75 include phrases which suggest that the name of the owner may have originally been part of the text.76 This supports the earlier premise that Egyptian graffiti should not be understood as being necessarily subversive but that it was a recognised form of expression, at the very least allowed by the state and possibly even encouraged by it. If it were not, it is unlikely that graffitists would have identified themselves in their writing. One Memphite text, G08M16, gives the name of the graffitist and also that of his father;77 this shows that the scribe saw his family genealogy as an important as a way of identifying himself,78 but it also shows that graffiti were deemed important enough to warrant such detail and care. Surely graffitists would not take such pains to identify themselves correctly, and in the case of G08M16 to give his lineage, if these texts were not perceived as having some importance. Graffiti were intended to last for eternity alongside the monument on which they were written and, as such, to act as a memorial to each individual who recorded his name. They were, therefore, deserving of care and attention. It was also important to ensure that the name was

74 G02M03, G03M04, G04M05, G05M06, G05M08, G05M09, G05M11, G05M12, G05M13, G06M14, G07M15, G08M16, G09M18, G12M21, G00M26, G00M27, G00M29, G00M34, G00M36, G00M37. See also app. 3. 75 G05M07, G05M10, G10M20, G00M30, G00M31, G00M33, G00M35. 76

As with all of the graffiti, it is highly possible that other texts may have also included this information but have become too damaged for it to be read. These figures, however, serve to demonstrate that the identification of the graffitist in the text was common.

77 _{Line 2 of this text reads ‘iwt pw ir.n sS Imn-m-Hat [...]an-ti-mn-ti’ (‘Coming of the scribe, Amenemhat, [son of} the scribe(?)] Antimenti’) (see app. 1 for details of this line, and for the understanding of the lacuna).

78

The practice of identifying oneself through one’s ancestors can be seen even in the highest levels of society, with kinglists like that of Thutmose III at Karnak (Prisse d'Avennes 1847: pl. i), thus emphasising his links with his predecessors. In private spheres a similar practice sometimes led to the inclusion of parents and even grandparents on monuments (for example, the block statue of Teti which dates to the reign of Thutmose III, British Museum EA888). Furthermore, a study of texts left by the nomarch Djehutinakht in tombs at Deir el- Bersha and Sheik Said notes that he recorded his renewal of the tombs of several important individuals, none of whom are known to have been his direct ancestors, and referred to them as his ‘fathers’ (de Meyer 2005); this suggests that one of the roles of such genealogical texts was to legitimise the writer, regardless of whether or not the ‘ancestors’ recorded were actually related to the individual.

69

recorded in such a way as to identify the correct individual and to prevent his being confused with anyone else.

Twenty-five graffiti also note the profession79 of the graffitist(s). In total ten different professions are recorded in the Memphite graffiti:80

- atx (brewer) - sS (scribe)81 - wab (wab) - Hm-nTr (hem-netjer)82 - Xry-a (assistant) - Xry-Hb (hery-heb) - ‘Priest’83 - wHm nswt (royal herald) - sbA (teacher)

- nbyw n Imn (goldsmith of Amun) - sHD imww (inspector of craftsmen)

The most commonly attested profession is ‘scribe’ which is found 23 times,84

usually following the pattern, ‘Coming of the scribe Amenemhat, [son of the scribe] Antimenti’

79

By ‘profession’ it is meant any title held by the graffitist which relates to a specific job or role. This chapter makes no distinction between honorary and practical titles (see ch. 4 for more discussion of this distinction). 80

See app. 4 for details of how many instances are recorded of each profession at Memphis and at Thebes. 81 _{The majority of these individuals are referred to simply as ‘scribe’, but one includes more detail; ‘sS n xAy’} (‘scribe of measuring’).

82

The occurrence of this title is not certain (see G00M36). 83

This title is found in Černý’s translation of G00M35. As there is no copy of the original text remaining it is not possible to identify which type of ‘priest’ Černý was referring to and so this has been included as a separate category.

70

(G08M16). The phrasing of a further four suggests that the graffitist identified himself as a scribe even if the word has since been destroyed.85

Apart from ‘scribe’ each profession is only included by one individual,86

which suggests that the labelling of oneself as something other than a scribe was not particularly common. There are, however, some comments that should be made on this subject.

The first is to note that the majority of graffiti which include an alternative title do so alongside that of ‘scribe’,87

although most felt no need to include another profession. G05M08, for example, is written on behalf of two individuals; one is identified just as a ‘scribe’, while the primary author calls himself both a ‘scribe’ and a ‘teacher’. Here there is a clear emphasis on the scribal title, despite the inclusion of ‘teacher’ alongside it. Exceptions can be found, however; G05M06 includes the title of ‘scribe’ for some individuals but also identifies others as ‘brewers’, ‘assistants’ and ‘royal herald’. Here, therefore, although the title ‘scribe’ is included in the text it is not connected with every individual. The use of the scribal title is not, therefore, all encompassing, but it is generally given prominence over other titles. It is possible that the nature of the task, that of writing the graffiti, encouraged the authors to emphasise titles which emphasised this skill. This may have led to the common usage of ‘scribe’.

84

G02M03, G03M04, G04M05, G05M06 (three separate individuals), G05M08 (twice), G05M11, G05M12 (‘scribe of measuring’), G05M13, G06M14, G07M15, G08M16, G09M18, G10M20, G12M21, G00M27, G00M29, G00M33, G00M34, G00M35, G00M37. There is a possible twenty-fourth occurrence in G00M30, as discussed below. Philips (1997: 4) also notes the high percentage of examples in which the writer is identified as a ‘scribe’.

85

See, for example, G05M07, and in particular Megally (1981: 222, 224-225), Navrátilová (2007: 49). Further note should be made of G00M30 for which the reading is uncertain: Helck (1965: 120) reads it as while Navrátilová (2007: 37) remains undecided between this and .

86

Other professions are recorded, for example, in G05M06, G05M08, G05M10, G00M26 and G00M30. 87

71

But one should not assume that ‘scribe’ denotes a paid profession. Ragazzoli (2013: 11) suggests that it simply demonstrates the writer’s inclusion within the community of graffitists; it shows how these individuals ‘negotiate their belonging to a community, albeit the one created by the graffiti and the appropriated space’. As such, the title ‘scribe’ forms an important part of each person’s individual identity within the context of the community; the graffiti are not only representative of a community, they create it and help its members to develop a sense of individual identity within that community. If this were the case then it is only the instances in which a role other than that of ‘scribe’ is recorded that actually give the profession of the author. While those who define themselves as ‘scribes’ may have been employed as such, the inclusion of this title within the graffiti is not indicative of the fact but should be understood as a statement of identity in the cultural context of the graffiti-writers’ community.

There are five main themes in the graffiti at Memphis.88 First are texts which identify the monument. Identification can include attributing the structure to a specific pharaoh or simply identifying the type of monument (such as a pyramid or temple). The second are texts which describe the monument in question beyond simply identifying it. The third are those which include a prayer or offering formula. The fourth are those in which the scribe portrays

negative feelings, while the fifth are texts in which the writer focuses on the living king. Each category will now be looked at in turn.

88

72