PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE MONUMENT

The second possibility is that graffitists had knowledge of the monument and its builder before they visited the site, perhaps choosing to visit because of this, either out of historical interest or to show personal devotion to a royal individual. If this was the case, then one is left with the question of where this knowledge originally came from. There are two probable explanations: firstly, that knowledge of royal ancestors was gained from the existence of royal memorial cults, in particular those who held positions within cults may have developed a devotion to a specific individual; secondly, that an interest in the monuments as historical attractions led people to visit them and learn more about them, possibly from local guides.

The first possibility focuses on the existence of memorial cults of deceased kings.119 There is little evidence of cults of deceased Old Kingdom kings being active in the Eighteenth Dynasty but this does not mean they were not. Objects inscribed with the name of Sneferu suggest that a cult relating to this king was active at least as late as the Twelfth Dynasty. One example is a stela dating to the Middle Kingdom on which an offering formula is written to ‘the Great God, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sneferu’ (Fakhry 1961: 79),120 and which mentions of the ‘chief Xry-Hb of Sneferu’ (Fakhry 1961: 83).121

A further stela fragment appears to have been written by the head of a phyle of priests in the temple of Sneferu.122 A phyle relating to the memorial cult of Sneferu is also mentioned on an offering table in the memorial temple of the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur, which is signed by ‘the regulator of the phyle of Sneferu’

119

Royal memorial cults are discussed in more detail in ch. 4. 120

‘nTr aA nsw-bit %nfrw’. 121

‘Xry-Hb tpy %nfrw’. 122

Fakhry (1961: 87) writes that ‘the owner of the monument was a chief of a phyle of priests in Sneferu’s temple’; this is supported by the fragment of the stela which includes the phrase ‘phyle of Snefer[u]’ (‘sA m %nfr[w]’).

80

(Fakhry 1959: fig. 52).123 The texts themselves suggest a personal devotion to Sneferu by the authors. From this, and from other similar texts,124 it is clear that the cult of Sneferu was still active in the late Middle Kingdom although there is no such evidence activity in the

Eighteenth Dynasty.

The cult of Sekhmet of Sahura which was found in the memorial temple of Sahura at Abusir, in contrast, was active in the Eighteenth Dynasty from at least the reign of Thutmose III (Sadek 1987: 29-34).125 This cult was not only celebrated at Abusir but may also have had festivals as far afield as Deir el-Medina;126 it is likely, therefore, that the memory of Sahura was retained in connection with this cult beyond the Memphite area. It is quite possible that the graffiti dedicated to Sahura were linked to this cult, either because the graffitists were connected with it or because the existence of the cult encouraged interest in, and knowledge of, the monument and its builder.127 It should, however, be noted that none of the three surviving Eighteenth Dynasty texts in this study explicitly mention Sekhmet or her cult, but

123

The full text reads, ‘a) An offering which the king gives [to] Ptah and Sneferu, Horus Nebmaat,

b) for the kA of Sneferu-Seneb, a thousand of bread [and] beer; for the kA of the regulator of the phyle of Sneferu, a food offering; for the wab, Sneferu-sheri, the sweet breath of life; for the kA of the chief wab, Sneferu, true of voice, a thousand of oxen and fowl’. a) Htp-di- nsw ptH %nfrw@r Nb-MAat. b) n kA n %nfrw-snb xA t Hnqt n kA n mty n sA %nfrw Htpt-Df[A] n kA n wab %nfrw-Sri Taw nDm n anx n kA n wab aA %nfrw mAa-xrw HA [n] kA Apdw. Although the copy made by Fakhry (1959: fig. 52) begins with the word @r, this is so that the eight columns of text are placed in the correct order; the text around the lip of the stand would have been read beginning with ‘Htp-di-nsw’ (see also Fakhry (1959: 86)). See also Jones (2000: 452[1694]) for references relating to the title mty n sA, and Gaber (2003: 12-13).

124

See, for example, Gaber (2003: 12-13), Fakhry (1959: 63ff). 125

Sadek (1987: 29-30) notes a broken cartouche of Amenhotep III as well as votives which are dated to the reigns of Tutankhamun, Aye and Horemheb in the late Eighteenth Dynasty while the graffiti dates from the reign of Thutmose III onwards.

126

Gaber (2003: 19) suggests that there were two festivals each year at Deir el-Medina (16 peret 1 and 11 peret 4) which related to the cult of Sekhmet of Sahura. Wildung (1969: 60-61) also notes a statue of Sahura in the Karnak Cachette, which was erected by Senwosret I for ‘his father Sahura’; this supports the theory that there was cultic activity relating to this king at Karnak even as early as the Middle Kingdom.

127

Borchardt (1908: 29) discusses the connection between Sekhmet and Sahura in this cult, questioning whether ‘Ob irgend ein Wandgemälde, das die Sechmet mit dem Könige zusammen zeigte ... oder ob vielleicht das irrtümlich gedeutete Vorkommen des Wortes für die Doppelkrone ‘Sekmet’ in der Architravinschrift des Säulenhofes dazu geführt hat, oder ob gar der uns unbekannte Name der Königin hierzu Veranlassung war, entzieht sich unserer Beurteilung’ (‘if any mural that showed Sekhmet together with the king ... or if the word Sekhmet for the double crown was misinterpreted as ‘Sekhmet’ in the texts on the architrave of the court, or if an unknown name of the queen cased [this cult]’).

81

this does not preclude there having been a link between the existence of the cult and the interest of individuals in visiting the site.128

Evidence for the existence of cults of the other kings whose monuments appear in this corpus is more difficult to find although this does not preclude those cults having been active.129 As already noted, the graffiti in the Djoser complex have a lower level of approximately half a metre above floor level, which demonstrates that the buildings were standing in the New Kingdom, and implies that they had not yet filled with desert sand (see Philips (1997: 7)). This may point to their still being in use in this period.130 Some of the texts, however, reach more than two metres above floor level (Philips 1997: 8-10); such heights would have been difficult to reach unless the floor level was raised, possibly by incoming sand. This would support the assumption that the building was left uncared for at some points leading to graffiti at high levels, and then cleared in times of renewed interest allowing graffiti at lower

heights.131

Furthermore, the existence of cults relating to specific kings was not the only possible form in which deceased kings could enjoy some form of cultic activity; the kinglist of Tjuneroy from

128

See Navrátilová (2007: 45-47) for discussion of the cult of Sekhmet as a factor in the existence of the graffiti; she, too, notes the lack of mention of Sekhmet in the texts but suggests that the existence of the cult may have been a factor in the presence of visitors to the site who then left graffiti.

129

Firth and Gunn (1926: 223), for example, record an offering table which includes the name of Teti clearly visible in a cartouche. Jequier suggests, with regards to a potential cult of Shepseskhaf at Saqqara in the Middle Kingdom, that it may have survived due to the support of a local group, who saw it as an opportunity to exploit the desire of the local people to gain the protection of a ancient king; he writes (Jéquier 1928: 32) that ‘Il faut donc qu'à un moment donné quelqu'un ait repris la chose en main, et de façon non officielle, car tel qu'il est constitué, la sacerdoce a tout l'air d'une entreprise particulière destinée à exploiter la dévotion des gens pays en leur donnant la possibilité de se mettre dans l'autre monde sous la protection d'un ancien pharaon, dont le crédit auprès des dieux devait être d'autant plus grand que son monument funéraire était plus imposant’.

130

See also Wildung (1969: 59-60 [Dok. XVI.20]) who discusses, for example, a statue dedicated to Djoser by Senwosret II; this statue shows that remembrance of past kings was evident in the Middle Kingdom, and may support the theory that cults to these kings were also active, at least at certain points after the Old Kingdom. 131

See Philips (1997: fig. 4) for evidence of a build-up of sand in the earlier part of the New Kingdom, that was then cleared between the reigns of Thutmose III and Tutankhamun.

82

the Nineteenth Dynasty132 demonstrates the existence of a cult of collective royal ancestors, in which past kings were remembered and rituals were carried out on their behalf as a group. Although dating from the Nineteenth Dynasty, this shows that such cults existed in the New Kingdom and may possibly have been a source for knowledge of the builders of the

Memphite monuments. It is possible, therefore, that activity relating to these cults allowed at least some people access to knowledge of past kings and helped to nurture an interest in their monuments.

The second possibility, as noted above, is that some visitors had an interest in the monuments as historical sites and gained knowledge of them through guides akin to tourist guides of the present day.133 Herodotus’ writings imply that he may have been guided at sites by Egyptians, with references to what he was told (for example Herodotus The Histories II. 3, 130 (see de Sélincourt 2003)).134 If such guides led visitors around sites in later periods, then it is feasible that similar practices also occurred earlier, although this should not be assumed given the chronological gap between the two periods.

Negm (1998: 115) suggests that there was a ‘great sense and admiration of the middle and higher educated classes towards their country’s long history and attractive monuments’; if this were the case then this sense of, and interest in, the history of the monuments was likely to have been a factor in encouraging visits to the sites.135 The apparent practice of visiting tomb

132

This kinglist, found at Saqqara, lists the Egyptian kings from the First Dynasty to Ramesses II with some exceptions (Martin 1991: 123). Tjuneroy has been identified as being a chief lector of deified rulers and includes offering formulae relating to his position in the kinglist (D. Redford 1986: 21-22).

133

Helck (1952: 44) suggests that tombs became tourist destinations in the New Kingdom, but writes that their appeal was linked to them being places of beauty (as recorded in graffiti that use the word ‘beautiful’). 134

Casson (2001: 68) blames any inaccuracies in Herodotus’ information about the pyramids at Giza on guides who showed him the site, which emphasises the possibility of incorrect information being passed to visitors by those who offer to show them the sights.

135

Negm (1998: 122) notes, for example, a graffito from the reign of Ramesses II in the tomb of Ptahshepses at Saqqara which was written on behalf of a scribe and his father and states that they intended to visit this tomb as

83

TT60 at Thebes to view a depiction of Senwosret I inside of it may be seen as another example of this; this idea is supported by an Eighteenth Dynasty graffito in the tomb which states that the tomb is ‘of the time of Kheperkara (Senwosret I)’.136 This shows that the link between the king and the tomb was recognised by visitors and may imply prior knowledge of it.137 Ragazzoli (2013: 23), furthermore, draws a link between the literary ideas of the time, as found in texts such as the Teaching of Amenemhat, and an interest in Senwosret I; here, a wider cultural context may be implicated in the choice of king commemorated.

Texts written on behalf of groups should also be noted, such as one signed by:

the royal herald Amu[n]edjeh ... , the brewers [and] the assistants [...]mpet,

Amenhotep, the scribe Mentuhotep, the scribe Djehutyem[hat, Humesh ...] scribe [...] (G05M06).

These texts may have been written by groups who were being shown around the monument. Again, this supports the idea that these sites were viewed as suitable places to undertake cultural pursuits, and it is quite possible that locals acted as guides to the monuments for such groups, although no explicit evidence for this is forthcoming.138 Another text, found at the Sun Temple of Userkhaf, writes that the author:

well as the pyramids at Abusir and the chapel of Sekhmet in the Memorial temple of Sahura (see Navrátilová (2007: 58-61)). See also Fischer-Elfert (2003: 132) and Wildung (1969: 69-72) who discuss the importance of the monuments as pilgrimage sites rather than tourist ones.

136

G00T39. 137

Additionally, the wrong designation of TT60 to a Middle Kingdom Queen, Sobekneferu, by some graffitists can be explained by a misreading of the texts in the tomb, but it may also suggest that some visitors came to the tomb with a prior, albeit incorrect, knowledge of its owner (Philips 1997: 5).Fischer-Elfert (2003: 132), however, suggests that the visits should not be understood as demonstrating a tourist’s interest in the sites, but a ‘pious’ desire to link oneself to a revered king and to profit from this relationship. See chs. 2.3.4 and 2.4.2 for discussion of graffiti that appeal to the royal ancestor.

138

As noted above, in this section, Herodotus’ writing suggest that there may have been individuals at certain sites that passed their knowledge of it on to visitors (see de Sélincourt (2003: 130)).

84

came to amuse [himself/themselves] upon the desert of Memphis (G00M31).139

Here the text explicitly states that the aim of the visit was enjoyment, again supporting the hypothesis that recreation was a factor in the decision to visit these sites. Further evidence for the existence of early tourism at royal memorial sites is found at Deir el-Bahri; when the memorial temple of Hatshepsut was built, it risked blocking the entrance to the tomb of an Eleventh Dynasty princess, Neferu (TT319, PM I.I: 391-392). To solve this problem, a new ‘tourist’ entrance was created to the tomb in which the names of Eighteenth Dynasty visitors have been recorded (see Peden (2001: 71-72)). Here, the importance of a tomb as a ‘tourist’ destination, possibly due to its architecture, is recognised by state officials, and its entrance is kept viable (Peden 2001: 72).140

Additionally, the use of these historical sites for educational purposes is implied in a graffito in the North Chapel of Djoser which states that it was written by

the scribe and teacher, [Seth]emhab, and by the scribe Ah<mose> (G05M08).

This suggests that the graffito was written by a teacher and his student, and so it is possible that the visit was undertaken for educational purposes.

It should be noted that the identification of monuments was not always correct, which suggests either that the author had come to the site with incorrect knowledge or that he was

139

A similar graffito can be found in TT504 at Thebes which reads ’coming of the wab and scribe of the temple of Aakheperkara, Nebwa(w), to see this place to take recreation to his limit within it’ (‘iwt pw ir.n wab sS Hwt n aA-xpr-kA-ra nb-waw r mAA st tn r sDA Dr.f im.s’).

140

85

misinformed. G05M06, for example, incorrectly identifies the monument as a ‘pyramid’ when in fact it is the Sun Temple of Userkhaf:141 It seems unlikely that the visitor would not know the difference between a pyramid and a temple, in contrast to the knowledge displayed in other graffiti, such as another text also found in the Sun Temple of Userkhaf which reads:

Coming of the scribe Teti [to see] the two temples of [...] the builder (G00M27).

This text notes the two separate parts of the temple, the upper and the lower (Navrátilová 2007: 35); this suggests that the author had a good knowledge of the building’s architecture, perhaps because he had previous experience of such monuments or perhaps learned from a guide, if such individuals were active at the site. As such, it is in stark contrast to the lack of knowledge shown by the author of G05M06. Peden (2001: 59) suggests that G05M06 is referring to the granite obelisk added to the structure by Neferirkara and this may offer a suitable solution to the problem. If this were the case then the author of the graffito incorrectly identified the obelisk rather than the temple; perhaps he was uncertain of how to refer to the obelisk and so called it a ‘pyramid’. Peden (2001: 59) goes on to suggest that the author may also have mistaken the sun temple for the pyramid of Userkhaf at Saqqara, which could again be his own error or that of a guide. Such mistakes show that not everyone had a good

understanding of the sites that they were visiting, or felt that the use of correct terminology was important. It should also be noted that G05M06 is written on behalf of a group of men and the majority of the text is dedicated either to naming these individuals or to the activities of the current king. This lends weight to the theory that the men who wrote this graffito were visiting the site as tourists, perhaps whilst on official duties for the king or for one of his

141 _{The author uses the word mr which is clearly intended to denote a pyramid. See below, ch. 2.3.3., for more} information on the identification of monuments as a specific architectural structure.

86

institutions. As such this visit could be understood as a group day out, where the focus was on enjoyment as opposed the acquiring of knowledge. This suggests a lack of interest in the monument itself and may explain the incorrect designation of the site.

It is, therefore, difficult to be certain where the knowledge of the builder of a monument came from; it could be linked to the memorial cults of deceased kings or to a historical interest in the site, or it could be gleaned from men who offered their services as guides in the

necropolis. It is likely, however, that the monuments, as memorials to specific royal ancestors, acted as sites of memory for this knowledge; both the monuments themselves and the graffiti within them helped to promulgate the memory of the king for whom the monument was built. Regardless of the source of information, the inclusion of royal names in the graffiti shows an interest by graffitists in the history of the monument and the royal ancestor who was

responsible for it; one could argue that the meaning of the monument was found in knowing its history and being able to invoke its creator. Furthermore, it was important not only to know the builder of the monument, but to be seen to know it; graffiti allowed the scribe to demonstrate his knowledge of, and devotion to, a specific royal ancestor in the eyes of all who followed him to the same place.