UNDERSTANDING ANCIENT GRAFFIT

As already noted, is important to remember that the term ‘graffiti’ should not be construed in the same way in antiquity as in the modern world. Baird and Taylor (2011: 1)note that graffiti

22

It should be noted that the majority of graffiti occurs in public areas of monuments, as is to be expected given the nature of the graffiti as texts left by visitors to the sites. However, graffiti in private areas of monuments are not unheard of, for example the texts of the restorers of monuments such as those of Maya and Djehutymose in KV43 (G14T23, G14T24). Pictorial graffiti are also found in the subterranean chambers of the pyramid complex of Senwosret III; Arnold (2002: 42) notes these examples, dismissing the hypothesis that they were left by the builders of the monuments and suggesting, instead, that they were left by intruders who entered the chambers at a later date. Pictorial graffiti will not, however, be discussed in this chapter.

23

In the corpus relating to this study all of the graffiti are, in fact, inked. 24

One is the pictorial graffiti found in TT504 in which several erotic scenes can be seen (see Romer (1982: 157- 160), Wente (1984: 51-54) for discussion of these graffiti which are thought to depict Hatshepsut and

Senenmut). A small number of pictorial graffiti have also been identified in the memorial complex of Sneferu; Griffith (1892: 40-41) dates some of the graffiti, which consist of three birds (two clearly hawks with a sun disk on the head) to the reign of Thutmose III and another to the Eighteenth Dynasty, but does not give any reason for this dating.

25

The term ‘original decoration’ should be taken to include any additions that were made to the monuments either by official request or because of the usurping of a tomb at a later date.

26

The ‘owner’ should be taken as meaning the person who commissioned the work or a person acting on his/her behalf. An example of graffiti being created by a person who was employed by the owner of the monument can be found in KV43 where two graffiti have been left by the men who were employed to restore the tomb after damage by tomb robbers (G14T23, G14T24).

58

are often used as evidence of less educated or even subversive elements in ancient societies. However, studies of graffiti in several locations have suggested a very different

understanding, and it would seem that the line between graffiti and other, more formal, texts is often somewhat undefined (Baird and Taylor 2011: 6). Of course, that is not to say that some graffiti were not subversive or dissenting (such as some of the Roman graffiti discussed by Zadorojnyi (2011: 125)),27 but that the term ‘graffiti’ must not be taken as implying this until the context is known. Furthermore, in some situations graffiti may be seen not only as non-subversive, but as being created by the state; Baird (2011: 56-58), for example, discusses graffiti found all over the city of Dura-Europos including on gates, walls, houses and temples, and argues that they were used by the military to ‘take possession of particular spaces’. She suggests that examples on the gates and other military structures were inscribed by soldiers on duty. These soldiers were not dissenting citizens but were representatives of the authorities; the fact that they clearly identify themselves and took time to prepare the walls and write the inscriptions suggests that the practice was sanctioned by the authorities (Baird 2011: 58).28 Much of the Egyptian graffiti included in this study is signed by the writer;29 perhaps, then, it should be understood in the same way, as a state acknowledged, or even sponsored, practice. Zadorojnyi (2011: 100), however, disagrees, arguing that ‘graffiti represent a trajectory of dissent even if their overall message is not overly politicised; to sabotage the established

27

He discusses (2011: 124), for example, the writings of Plutarch, who notes that ‘those who desired the revolution viewed him [Brutus] as their only or their best hope. They did not dare to talk to him openly, but at night they left messages all over the rostra and the seat on which he conducted his duties as praetor’. Most of these said, ‘You’re asleep Brutus!’ and ‘You are no Brutus’ (see Zadorojnyi (2011: 125) who notes the work of Dio Cassius, Roman History: 44.12.43 (see Cary 1916).

28

Compare, for example, to Jacquet-Gordon’s discussion of the graffiti on the roof of the Khonsu Temple at Karnak; she notes that, far from being the work of subversive or transient groups, these graffiti were created by the men who held ritual positions within the temple, with over ninety being recorded as wab, and thirty-five having the title of God’s Father of Khonsu or Amun, as well as prophets and scribes of the two gods and other titles which relate to ritual positions within the Khonsu Temple (Jacquet-Gordon 2003: 3-5). She writes that these men were of humble origins and could not afford to have statues placed in the temple precinct as was the practice among the elite, and so they ‘seized the opportunity of leaving their names on the roof slabs in lieu of statues, and added their footprints as a kind of substitute for themselves so that they would remain forever ... in the presence of their god and under his protection’ (Jacquet-Gordon 2003: 5). The idea of protection will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter.

29

59

ownership of a space is a political enterprise already’. Admittedly, there is no explicit

evidence that ancient states encouraged the practice, and graffiti does subtly alter the sense of ownership of the monument by adding another element to it. Would this have been

encouraged by the state? Perhaps, but it cannot be known for certain. It is, therefore,

important to approach ancient graffiti with an open mind; the key to understanding it lies in its context as well as in its content, and so both must be acknowledged.