heritage

Article “Like Wringing Water from a Stone!” Information Extraction from Two Rock Graffiti in North Kharga,

Nikolaos Lazaridis

Department of History, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA; [email protected]

Abstract: In the course of the last ten years, the North –Darb Ain Amur Survey team, led by Salima Ikram (American University in ), has been exploring a network of interconnected paths in Egypt’s , known as Darb Ain Amur. These marked paths run between Kharga Oasis and , linking them to Darb el-Arbain, a notorious caravan route facilitating contacts between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa since prehistoric times. Ancient travelers using the Darb Ain Amur spent several days in the midst of the Western Desert and were thus forced to use areas around sandstone rock outcrops as makeshift stopovers or camping sites. During these much-needed breaks, ancient travelers identified accessible, inscribable surfaces on the towering sandstone massifs and left on them their personalized markings. In this essay, I examine two short rock graffiti carved by such travelers in a site north of Kharga Oasis, focusing on the types of information one may extract from such ancient epigraphic materials.

Keywords: graffiti; epigraphy; desert travel; Kharga Oasis;

  1. Introduction Citation: Lazaridis, N. “Like Daring to cross the sea of sand that filled the space between Kharga Oasis and Dakhla Wringing Water from a Stone!” Information Extraction from Two Oasis in Egypt’s Western Desert, ancient travelers had to stay on desert routes that were Rock Graffiti in North Kharga, Egypt. marked by a number of visible testimonies to earlier travelers’ usage. One of these testi- Heritage 2021, 4, 2253–2260. https:// monies was graffiti carved on sandstone massifs’ smooth surfaces. In this essay, I use a doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030127 case study out of the rich corpus of ancient Egyptian rock graffiti carved by travelers who crossed these parts of the Western Desert as an opportunity to discuss the different types Academic Editor: Nicola Masini of information one may extract from such epigraphic materials. The selected two ancient rock graffiti come from the site of a sandstone massif that the North Kharga Oasis–Darb Received: 23 August 2021 Ain Amur Survey team (henceforth NKODAAS) has christened “Hula Rock”. NKODAAS Accepted: 5 September 2021 has been exploring this area since 2005, documenting and recording different monumental Published: 7 September 2021 and non-monumental sites on the Darb Ain Amur, a network of paths connecting Kharga Oasis to Dakhla Oasis and beyond [1,2]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Hula Rock lies approximately 34 km northwest of Kharga town and its sandstone with regard to jurisdictional claims in massif runs 365 m long (Figure1). It is situated on the Darb Ain Amur, a network of marked published maps and institutional affil- desert paths that begin at Ain Lebekha and end at Ain Amur, sites in which temples were iations. built during the fourth century CE and were abandoned about a century afterwards [3]. The site was first discovered by NKODAAS in 2007 and was revisited on 22 December 2012. During the second visit, the team was able to photograph and hand-copy the two rock graffiti discussed here. Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Hula Rock includes several accessible wide surfaces inviting graffiti carving on both Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. its northwest and east faces. In addition, on the east face there is a large break in the rock, This article is an open access article which could serve as a shelter and thus, perhaps attracted travelers’ attention (Figure2). distributed under the terms and Very close to the “shelter”, NKODAAS has discovered two sets of carved one-meter-long conditions of the Creative Commons cascading lines, which are somewhat visible at the center of Figure2. These enigmatic Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// carvings, which look like hula skirts (hence the name Hula Rock), are unique and cannot be creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ linked with any certainty to a specific function or message [4]. 4.0/).

Heritage 2021, 4, 2253–2260. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030127 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 2

HeritageHeritage 20212021, ,44 FOR PEER REVIEW 22542

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Hula Rock (map courtesy of Nicholas Warner/NKODAAS).

Hula Rock includes several accessible wide surfaces inviting graffiti carving on both its northwest and east faces. In addition, on the east face there is a large break in the rock, which could serve as a shelter and thus, perhaps attracted travelers’ attention (Figure 2). Very close to the “shelter”, NKODAAS has discovered two sets of carved one-meter-long cascading lines, which are somewhat visible at the center of Figure 2. These enigmatic carvings, which look like hula skirts (hence the name Hula Rock), are unique and cannot FigureFigurebe linked 1. 1. MapMap with showing showing any certainty the the location location to aof ofspecific Hula Hula Rock Rock function (m (mapap courtesy courtesyor message of of Nicholas Nicholas [4]. Warner/NKODAAS). Warner/NKODAAS).

Hula Rock includes several accessible wide surfaces inviting graffiti carving on both its northwest and east faces. In addition, on the east face there is a large break in the rock, which could serve as a shelter and thus, perhaps attracted travelers’ attention (Figure 2). Very close to the “shelter”, NKODAAS has discovered two sets of carved one-meter-long cascading lines, which are somewhat visible at the center of Figure 2. These enigmatic carvings, which look like hula skirts (hence the name Hula Rock), are unique and cannot be linked with any certainty to a specific function or message [4].

FigureFigure 2.2. A viewview ofof HulaHula Rock’sRock’s easteast sideside showingshowing thethe “shelter”“shelter” andand thethe figuralfigural graffitograffito withwith thethe cascadingcascading lineslines (image(image courtesycourtesy ofof NKODAAS).NKODAAS).

TheThe site’ssite’s scatteredscattered surface surface ceramic ceramic evidence evidence has has been been dated dated to to the the Roman Roman era era (specifi- (spe- callycifically to the to fourththe fourth and fifthand centuriesfifth centuries CE), while CE), therewhile are there also are a few also traces a few of Newtraces Kingdom of New shardsKingdom [4]. shards The presence [4]. The ofpresence the latter of supportsthe latter thesupports assumed the assumed New Kingdom New Kingdom dates for dates both rock graffiti presented here, which have been based on paleographic parallels with papyro- logical hieratic sources (see notes 7 and 8 below). FigureIt 2. is, A finally,view of worth Hula Rock’s noting east that side Hula showing Rock wasthe “shelter” visited on and 1 Junethe figural 1916 bygraffito A. Keatc with andthe cascadingE. Graham, lines a (image visit that courtesy was recorded of NKODAAS). by two graffiti on the rock’s east face. This visit took place two months before one or more Australian mounted units (probably belonging to the EgyptianThe site’s Expeditionaryscattered surface Force) ceramic passed evidence by Ain has Amur. been dated Given to the the troublesome Roman era times(spe- cificallyof World to War the I,fourth it is doubtful and fifth that centuries these two CE), men while were there simply are havingalso a few a pleasant traces of stroll New in Kingdomthese desolate shards parts [4]. ofThe the presence Western of Desert. the latter Instead, supports like the their assumed camel-riding New Kingdom colleagues, dates they

Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3

for both rock graffiti presented here, which have been based on paleographic parallels 59 with forpapy bothrological rock graffiti hieratic presented sources (see here, notes which 7 and have 8 below). been based on paleographic parallels 60 withIt is, finally,papyrological worth noting hieratic that sources Hula (seeRock notes was visited7 and 8 on below). June 1, 1916 by A. Keatc and 61 E. Graham,It is,a vis finally,it that worth was recorded noting that by twoHula graffiti Rock was on the visited rock’s on east 1 June face. 1916 This by visit A. Keatc took and 62 placeE. two Graham, months a visitbefore that one was or recorded more Australian by two graffiti mounted on theunits rock’s (probably east face. belonging This visit to took 63 place two months before one or more Australian mounted units (probably belonging to Heritage 2021, 4 the Egyptianplace two Expeditionary months before Force) one orpassed more by Austra Ain Amur.lian mounted Given the units troublesome (probably timesbelonging of 2255 to64 Worldthe War Egyptian I, it is Expeditionarydoubtful that theseForce) two passed men by were Ain simplyAmur. Givenhaving the a pleasant troublesome stroll times in of65 theseWorld desolate War parts I, it of is the doubtful Western that Desert. these Instead, two men like were their simplycamel- ridinghaving colleagues, a pleasant they stroll in66 too werethese probably desolate partsmembers of the of Western military Desert. units using Instead, these like alternative their camel-ri desertding highways colleagues, to they 67 too were probably members of military units using these alternative desert highways to traveltoo northwards, were probably where members the British of -militaryled Egypt units Expeditionary using these Force alternative would desert be engaged highways in to68 travel northwards, where the British-led Egypt Expeditionary Force would be engaged in signiftravelicant battlesnorthwards, later that where year the [5 British-led]. Egypt Expeditionary Force would be engaged in69 significant battles later that year [5] (pp. 15–32). significant battles later that year [5] (pp. 15-32). 2. The Rock Graffiti 70 2.2. TheThe RockRock GraffitiGraffiti 2.Hula The Rock Rock 1 Graffiti(Figures 3 and 4) was carved on the rock’s northwest face, 1.81 m above 71 Hula Rock 1 (Figures3 and4) was carved on the rock’s northwest face, 1.81 m above current groundHula Rock level 1. (FiguresIt consists 3 and of a4) single was carved horizont on athel line rock’s in cursivenorthwest hieroglyphs face, 1.81 m[6 ],above 72 currentHula ground Rock level. 1 (Figures It consists 3 and of 4) a was single carved horizontal on the line rock’s in cursive northwest hieroglyphs face, 1.81 [6 m], whichabove whichcurrent measures ground 23 cm level. in leng It thconsists and 17 of in a maximum single horizontal height. H lineula Rinock cursive 1 reads: hieroglyphs [6], 73 measurescurrent ground 23 cm inlevel. length It consists and 17 in of maximum a single horizontal height. Hula line Rock in cursive 1 reads: hieroglyphs [6], which measures 23 cm in length and 17 in maximum height. Hula Rock 1 reads: 74 rwDw Hrj 75 AgentrwDw Hori Hrj. 76 Agent Hori 77

78 Figure 3. Hula Rock 1 (image courtesy of NKODAAS). 79

Figure 3. Hula Rock 1 (image courtesy of NKODAAS). 80 FigureFigure 3.3. HulaHula RockRock 11 (image(image courtesycourtesy ofof NKODAAS).NKODAAS).

HeritageHeritage 2021, 4 2021FOR, PEER4 FOR REVIEW PEER REVIEW 4 4

Figure 4. Hula Rock 10s traced copy produced by NKODAAS. 81 Figure 4. Hula Rock 1′s traced copy produced by NKODAAS. Figure 4.4. Hula Rock 1′’ss traced copy prodproduceduced by NKODAAS.NKODAAS. 82 83 Hori’sHori’s titleHori’s was title title spelled was was spelled spelledwith signswith with signsT12 signs and T12 T12 D40 and and [7] D40 D40 (p. [7] [43).7] (p. Sign 43). T12 Sign ( T12 ) (included() includedincluded a aa re- remarkablyremarkablymarkably elongated elongated string, string,string, resembling resemblingresembling its hieratic its its hieratic hieratic papyrological papyrological papyrological version version version attested attested attested in Pa- in Papyrusin Pa- pyruspyrus Ebers,Ebers, Ebers, thus thus perhapsthus perhaps perhaps suggesting suggesting suggesting a a Dynast Dynasty a Dynasty 18 18 date y 18 fordate thethe for graffitograffito the graffito (i.e.,(i.e.,1550–1292 1550–1292 (i.e., 1550–1292 BCE) [ 8] BCE) BCE)[8](volume (volume [8] (volume 2, 2, p. p. 7, 7, 2, sign sign p. 7, no. no. sign 83). 83). no. Hori’sHori’s 83). Hori’s namename wasnamewas spelledspelled was spelled withwith signs signswith G5,signsG5, M17, M17, G5, and andM17, A1. and The

A1. The upper part of sign A1 ( ) ) is not visible,visible, because the rock surface there is broken. A1. The upper part of sign A1 ( ) is not visible, because the rock surface there is broken. Hula RockHulaHula 2Rock (Figures Rock 2 (Figures 2 (Figures 5 and 56)5 and andwas 6)6 )carved was carved on the on rock’s thethe rock’srock’s northwest northwestnorthwest face, face, 170face, cm 170 170 east cm cm east east of of Hulaof HulaHulaRock Rock1Rock and 1 11.92 andand m 1.921.92 above m m above above current current current ground ground ground level. level. level.It consists It It consists consists of a ofsingle of a singlea single horizontal horizontal horizontal line line inline hieraticin in hieratic hieratic and and measures and measures measures 58 58cm cm58 in cm inlength length in length and and 17 and 17 in in 17maximum maximum in maximum height. height. height. Hula Hula HulaRock Rock Rock2 2 reads: 2 reads:reads:

zXAw an-stXzXAw an-stX ScribeScribe An-Seth An-Seth

FigureFigure 5. Hula 5. Rock Hula 2 Rock (image 2 (image courtesy courtesy of NKODAAS). of NKODAAS).

FigureFigure 6. Hula 6. Rock Hula 2 Rock′s traced 2′s tracedcopy prod copyuced prod byuced NKODAAS. by NKODAAS.

An-Seth’sAn-Seth’s title was title spelled was spelled with the with hieratic the hieratic version version of sign of Y4. sign His Y4. name His namewas spelled was spelled with thewith hieratic the hieratic versions versions of signs of D36,signs N35, D36, D6,N35, and D6, E21. and Note E21. thatNote the that hieratic the hieratic version version of of sign D6sign ( D6 ), ( which ), which commonly commonly replaced replaced the hieroglyphic the hieroglyphic spelling spelling of an withof an signs with D7signs or D7 or D8, includedD8, included an X sign an X inside sign inside the eye. the The eye. vert Theical vert lineical over line this over sign’s this sign’s eyebrow eyebrow resembles resembles hieratichieratic papyrological papyrological versions versions dated datedto Dynasty to Dynasty 18 or Dynasty18 or Dynasty 22 [8] 22(volume [8] (volume 2, p. 7, 2, sign p. 7, sign no. 83no. and 83 volume and volume 3, p. 7, 3, sign p. 7, no. sign 83). no. 83). As somewhatAs somewhat visible visible in Figure in Figure 5, Hula 5, RockHula 2Rock is preceded 2 is preceded by a 29 by cm a 29 long cm carving long carving of of the Seththe animalSeth animal (sign E21:(sign E21: ), which, ), which, based bas oned its oncarving its carving style andstyle depth, and depth, does notdoes not seem toseem have to beenhave producedbeen produced by An-Seth by An-Seth himself. himself.

Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4 HeritageHeritage 2021 2021, 4, FOR4 FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 4 4 Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4 Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4 Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4

Hori’s title was spelled with signs T12 and D40 [7]. Sign T12 ( ) included a remark- 84 Hori’sHori’s title title was was spelled spelled with with signs signs T12 T12 and and D40 D40 [7] [7] (p. (p. 43). 43). Sign Sign T12 T12 ( ( ) included ) included a a ably elongatedHori’s titlestring, was resembling spelled with its signs hieratic T12 papyrological and D40 [7]. Sign version T12 (attested) included in Papyrus a remark- 85 84 remarkablyremarkablyHori’s title elongated elongatedwas spelled string, string, with resembling resemblingsigns T12 itsand its hieratic hieraticD40 [7] papyrological papyrological(p. 43). Sign T12version version ( attested ) attestedincluded in in aPa- Pa- Ebers, thusHori’s perhaps title suggesting was spelled a Dynastywith signs 18 T12date and for D40the graffito [7] (p. 43).(i.e., Sign 1550 T12–1292 ( BCE) ) included [8]. 86 a ablypyrus elongated Ebers, thusstring, perhaps resembling suggesting its hieratic a Dynast papyrologicaly 18 date for version the graffito attested (i.e., in Papyrus1550–1292 85 remarkablypyrusremarkably Ebers, elongated elongated thus perhaps string, string, suggestingresembling resembling aits Dynast itshieratic hieraticy 18papyrological papyrologicaldate for the version graffito version attested (i.e., attested 1550–1292 in inPa- Pa- Ebers,BCE) thus [8] (volumeperhaps suggesting2, p. 7, sign a no. Dynasty 83). Hori’s 18 date name for thewas graffito spelled (i.e., with 1550 signs–1292 G5, BCE) M17, [8] and. 86 Hori’spyrusBCE)pyrus name Ebers, [8] Ebers, was(volume thus spelledthus perhaps 2, perhaps p.with 7, suggestingsign signs suggesting no. G5, 83). M17, a Hori’s Dynasta Dynastand name yA1. 18y The18date was date upper forspelled for the partthe graffito with graffitoof signsigns (i.e., A1(i.e., G5, 1550–1292 ( 1550–1292M17,) is and 87 notBCE) visible, [8] because(volume the2, p. rock 7, sign surface no. there83). Hori’s is broken. name was spelled with signs G5, M17, and 88 Hori’sA1.BCE)A1. The The [8]name upper (volumeupper was part part spelled 2, of ofp. sign sign7, with sign A1 A1 ( signsno. ( )83). is )G5, is not Hori’snot M17, visi visible, andnameble, because A1.because was The spelled the upperthe rock rock with partsurface surface signsof sign there thereG5, A1 isM17, is(broken. broken. )and is 87 89 A1.not The visible,Hula upperHula Rockbecause Rock part 2 of2(Figures (Figuresthesign rock A1 5 ( surface5and and ) 6)is 6) notwasthere was visi carved iscarvedble, broken. because on on the the rock’s the rock’s rock northwest northwest surface there face, face, is170 170broken. cm cm east east 88 HulaA1. The Rock upper 2 (Figures part of 5sign and A1 6) ( was ) carvedis not visi onble, the because rock’s northwest the rock surface face, 170 there cm is east broken. 90 89 ofof Hula Hula Rock Rock 21 1(Figuresand and 1.92 1.92 5m andm above above 6) was current current carved ground ground on the level. level.rock’s It It consistsnorthwest consists of of face,a asingle single 170 horizontal cm horizontal east of Hula RockHula 1 Rockand 1.2 92(Figures m above 5 and current 6) was ground carved level on .the It consistsrock’s northwest of a singl eface, horizontal 170 cm east 91 Heritage 2021, 4 of lineHulaline Hulain inRock hieratic hieratic Rock 1 and and2 and(Figures 1.92 measures measures m above5 and 58 58current6 cm) cmwas in in carvedlengthground length andon andlevel. the 17 17 rock’sItin in consistsmaximum maximum northwest of aheight. singleheight. face, Hulahorizontal170 Hula cm Rock Rock east2256 2 2 90 line inof hieraticHula Rock and 1 measures and 1.92 m58 abovecm in currentlength andground 17 in level. maximum It consists height. of a H singleula R ockhorizontal 2 92 lineofreads:reads: Hulain hieratic Rock and1 and measures 1.92 m above 58 cm current in length ground and 17level in .maximum It consists height.of a singl Hulae horizontal Rock 2 91 reads:line in hieratic and measures 58 cm in length and 17 in maximum height. Hula Rock 93 2 reads:line in hieratic and measures 58 cm in length and 17 in maximum height. Hula Rock 2 92 reads: 94 reads:zXAw zXAw an-stX an-stX 93 zXAw an-stX 95 zXAw ScribeScribe an-stX An-Seth An-Seth 94 ScribezXAw An- an-stXSeth 96 ScribezXAw An-Sethan-stX 95 ScribeScribe An An-Seth-Seth 97 96 97

98 FigureFigureFigure 5.5 .5. HulaHula Hula RockRoc Rockk 22 2(image(image (image courtesycourtesy courtesy ofof of NKODAAS). NKODAAS). 99 98 Figure 5. Hula Rock 2 (image courtesy of NKODAAS). 100 FigureFigureFigure 5.5. HulaHula 5. Hula RockRock Roc 22 (image(imagek 2 (image courtesycourtesy courtesy ofof NKODAAS).NKODAAS). of NKODAAS). 99 100

101 Figure 6. Hula Rock 2’s traced copy produced by NKODAAS. 102 101 103 FigureFigureFigure 6. 6. Hula Hula 6. Hula Rock Rock Roc 2 0′s2 ′ktraced s 2’straced traced copy copy copyprod produced prod ucedproduceduced by by NKODAAS. NKODAAS.by NKODAAS. 102 An-Seth’s title was spelled with the hieratic version of sign Y4. His name was spelled 104 Figure 6. Hula Rock 2′s traced copy produced by NKODAAS. 103 Figure 6. Hula Rock 2′s traced copy produced by NKODAAS. with the hieraticAnAn-Seth’sAn-Seth’s-Seth’s versions title title title was was wasof spelledsigns spelled spelled D36, with with with N35, the thethe the D6, hieratic hieratichieratic hieratic and versionE21.version version Note ofof of signthatsign sign the Y4.Y4. Y4. hieratic His His His name name name version was was was spelled spelled of spelled 105 104 signwith withD6with ( the the the hieratic), hieratic hieraticwhich versions versionscommonly versions of of signs replaced signs D36, D36, the N35, N35, hieroglyphic D6, D6, and and E21. E21.spelling Note Note Note that thatof that an the the with the hieratic hieratic hieratic signs version D7 version or of 106 of 105 withAn-Seth’s theAn-Seth’s hieratic title title versionswas was spelled spelled of signs with with D36, the the hieratic N35, hieratic D6, version andversion E21. of ofsign Note sign Y4. that Y4. His theHis name hieratic name was was version spelled spelled of D8, insignsigncludedsign D6 D6 D6 ( ( an ( X),), sign which ), which which inside commonly commonly commonly the eye. replaced replacedThe replaced vertical the the the hieroglyphic hieroglyphicline hieroglyphic over this spelling sign’s spelling eyebrow of of an an withwith withresembles signs signs signs D7 D7 D7 or or 107 or 106 withsignwith the D6 the hieratic ( hieratic ), versionswhich versions commonly of ofsigns signs D36, replaced D36, N35, N35, theD6, D6, hieroglyphic and and E21. E21. Note Note spelling that that the ofthe hieratic an hieratic with version signs version D7 of orof hieraticD8,D8,D8, inpapyrological included includedcluded an an an X X Xsignversions sign sign inside inside inside dated the the the eye. eye.to eye. Dynasty The The The vertical vertical vert 18 orical line lineDynasty line over over over this22 this this [9] sign’s sign’s .sign’s an eyebrow eyebrow eyebrow resembles resembles resembles 108 107 signD8,sign D6 included D6 ( ( ), which an ), which X sign commonly commonly inside the replaced replacedeye. The the vertthe hieroglyphic hieroglyphicical line over spelling spellingthis sign’s of of eyebrow anwith with signs signs resembles D7 D7 or or hieratichieraticAshieratic somewhat papyrological papyrological papyrological visible in versions versionsFigure dated5, dated Hula to Rockto DynastyDynasty Dynasty 2 is preceded1818 18 oror or DynastyDynasty Dynasty by a 222922 22 [cm[9]8 ][8]- (volume. long (volume carving 2, 2, p. p. 7,of 7, sign sign 109 108 D8,hieraticD8, included included papyrological an anX signX sign inside versions inside the the eye.dated eye. The to The Dynastyvert verticalical line 18 line or over Dynastyover this this sign’s 22 sign’s [8] eyebrow (volume eyebrow resembles 2, resembles p. 7, sign no.no. 83As 83 and somewhatand volume volume visible 3, 3, p. p. 7, 7,in sign signFigure no. no. 83).5 83)., Hula Rock 2 is preceded by a 29 cm-long carving of 109 thehieratic Sethno.hieratic 83animal papyrological and papyrological volume (sign E21: 3, versions p. versions 7, sign), datedwhich, no. dated 83). to based Dynastyto Dynasty on 18its 18orcarving orDynasty Dynasty style 22 22and[8] [8] (volume depth, (volume does2, p.2, 7,p.not sign7, sign 110 AsAs somewhat somewhat visible visible in in Figure Figure5 ,5, Hula Hula Rock Rock 2 2 is is precededpreceded byby aa 2929 cmcm long carving of seemno.theno. to83 Seth have 83andAs and somewhat animalvolumebeen volume produced (sign 3, visiblep.3, 7,p.E21: sign 7,by insign An Figureno. -),no.Seth 83). which, 83). 5, himself. Hula based Rock on 2 isits preceded carving styleby a 29and cm depth, long carving does not of111 110 seemofthethe theAs Seth AstoSeth somewhat Seth have somewhatanimal animal animal been (signvisible (signproduced (signvisible E21: E21:in E21: inFigure byFigure An ), ), 5,which, - which,which, SethHula5, Hula himself. Rockbas basedbas Rockeded 2 on is on2on precededisits its itspreceded carving carvingcarving by styleby style astyle 29 a 29cm and and cm long depth, longdepth, carving carving does does of notnot notof 111 3. Discussionseemseem to to have have been been produced produced by by An-Seth An-Seth himself. himself. 112 theseemthe Seth Seth to animal have animal been (sign (sign produced E21: E21: by ), which, ),An-Seth which, bas himself. based edon on its itscarving carving style style and and depth, depth, does does not not 3.At Discussion first glance, the two pharaonic rock graffiti examined here might seem too brief to 113 112 seem3.seem Discussion to tohave have been been produced produced by by An-Seth An-Seth himself. himself. contribute At to first NKODAAS’s glance, the twoinvestigation pharaonic of rock the graffiti desert examinedroutes in Northhere might Kharga: seem they, too briefes- to 114 113 At first glance, the two pharaonic rock graffiti examined here might seem too brief sentially,contribute record to the NKODAAS’s fleeting presence investigation of two male of the Egyptian desert routestravelers in ofNorth notable Kharga: social they, sta- es- 115 114 to contribute to NKODAAS’s investigation of the desert routes in North Kharga: they, tus, sentially,with no reference record the to fleetingparticular presence travel circumstances of two male Egyptian or to the travelers graffiti’ Sitzof notable im Leben social. So, sta- 116 115 essentially, record the fleeting presence of two male Egyptian travelers of notable social whattus, information with no reference can one topossibly particular deduce travel from circumstances such laconic or travel to the records? graffiti’ Sitz im Leben. So, 117 116 status, with no reference to particular travel circumstances or to the graffiti’s Sitz im Leben. what information can one possibly deduce from such laconic travel records? 117 Thus, what information can one possibly deduce from such laconic travel records? NKODAAS’s approach to interpreting ancient Egyptian rock graffiti revolves around the idea that the graffiti were carved at a specific time and on a specific rock surface in order

to communicate one or more messages that given their unrestrained exposure to the eyes of

passers-by, transcended the sociocultural context of meaning in which their carver operated, generating multiple interpretations. In other words, although an epigrapher’s undying wish is to lay hands on the originally intended message of such a communication effort, NKODAAS’s publication of such epigraphic materials attempts to offer various interpretive options whose variability depends on the ancient audience’s potential reception of them. In the case of the two Hula Rock graffiti, this means that they could have potentially been considered as texts, as pictorial symbols, and/or as travel markers. Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 5

NKODAAS’s approach to interpreting ancient Egyptian rock graffiti revolves around 118 the idea that the graffiti were carved at a specific time and on a specific rock surface in 119 order to communicate one or more messages that given their unrestrained exposure to the 120 eyes of passers-by, transcended the sociocultural context of meaning in which their carver 121 operated, generating multiple interpretations. In other words, although an epigrapher’s 122 undying wish is to lay hands on the originally intended message of such an communicate 123 Heritage 2021, 4 2257 effort, NKODAAS’s publication of such epigraphic materials attempts to offers various 124 interpretive options whose variability depends on the ancient audience’s potential recep- 125 tion of them. In the case of the two Hula Rock graffiti, this means that they could have 126 potentially been consideredAs as texts, as these pictorial rock symbols, graffiti publicized and/or as travel the two markers. carvers’ position/occupation 127 and As texts, these rockpersonal graffiti names.publicize Hori’sd the two title carvers’ is conventionally position/occupation translated and as “agent” per- 128 or “emissary”. Its sonal names. Hori’s titletranslation is conventionally is debatable translated and the as attestations “agent” or of “emissary”. this term point Its trans- toward 129 a generic meaning, lation is debatable andused the attestations for positions of inthis a varietyterm point of administrative toward a generic contexts, meaning, such used asthe 130 royal palace or the for positions in a varietyroyal of administrative harem [7] (p. 43),contexts, [9] (p. such 464), as [10 the] (p. royal 114). palace In the or casethe royal of Egypt’s 131 Western Desert, harem [10]. In the casethis of Egypt’s title might Western have Desert, had specific this title connotations: might have apart had specific from being con- a standard 132 member of notations: apart from beingpharaonic a standard expeditionary member teams, of pharaonic such an expeditionary agent was probably teams, responsiblesuch 133 for supervising an agent was probably frontierresponsible lands for and supervising maintaining frontier the lands borders and ormaintaining managing the temple bor- estates 134 that were far ders or managing templefrom estates the temples that were themselves far from [the11] temples (p. 337), themselves [12] (p. 107). [11]. If If one one contrasts 135 the example contrasts the example from Parrenefer’sParrenefer’s New Kingdom stela from Abydos, in which his comparable 136 title read comparable title read rwDw m pr wsjr m wHAt rsyt “agent“agent of of the the domain domain of of O Osirissiris in in the Southern 137 Oasis” [13] Southern Oasis” [12], one(p. 4),may one notice may ho noticew Hori’s how reference Hori’s reference is much is vague muchr vaguerand more and suc- more succinct.138 cinct. Why did Hori, following the example of many other pharaonic 139 carvers who also Why did Hori, followingomitted detailsthe example such as of their many positions’ other pharaonic institutional carvers or geographical who also affiliations, 140 not specify omitted details such ashis their occupational positions’ institutional affiliations? or One geographical can only speculate affiliations, that not such spec- details 141 were not required ify his occupational affiliations?in informal One texts can such only as thesespeculate rock that graffiti, such that details their were carvers not did re- not 142 have the luxury of quired in informal textstime like and these space rock to graffiti, carve longer that their texts carvers that included did not morehave information,the luxury or143 that their carvers of time and space to carveassumed longer their texts intended that included immediate more information, audiences would or that have their been carv- able 144 to guess or would ers assumed their intendedhave immediate not cared about audiences such information.would have been Hori’s able decision to guess to or imitate would the example 145 of previous have not cared about suchtravelers information. who carved Hori’s textual decision messages to imitate on thesethe example desert routes of previous was an important 146 testimony travelers who carved textualto his wishmessages to be on part these of desert desert travelers’ routes was micro-culture, an important a testimony membership 147 that to some extent to his wish to be part offacilitated desert travelers’ the communication micro-culture, of a his membership graffito’s message. that to some extent 148 facilitated the communicationIn anyof his case, graffito’s Hori’s titlemessage. was usually connected to an institution and 149 thus, his visit was In any case, Hori’sprobably title was partusually of an connected official mission, to an institution a piece of and historical thus, his information visit was that 150 suggests local or probably part of an officialnational mission, institutions, a piece suchof historical as the temple information of Seth that in nearby suggests Dakhla local Oasisor 151 or State authorities, national institutions, suchwere as active the temple in this of region Seth in of nearby the Western Dakhla Desert. Oasis Ifor NKODAAS’s State authori- assumptions 152 that Hori ties, were active in thisprobably region of visited the Western Hula Rock Desert. during If NKODAAS’s New Kingdom’s assumptions Dynasty 18 that are correct, 153 then one may Hori probably visited Hulacorrelate Rock his during presence New with Kingdom’s other evidence Dynasty from 18 are Kharga correct, Oasis then attesting one to154 especially Theban may correlate his presenceinterest with in other this areaevidence [14], from [12] (p. Kharga 107). Oasis This provesattesting how to especially crucial the dating155 of such rock Theban interest in this graffitiarea [13 is]. forThis historically proves how contextualizing crucial the dating and understandingof such rock graffiti their is messages, 156 as well as for for historically contextualizingallowing and NKODAAS understanding to identify their the messages, historical as usage well ofas Darbfor allowing Ain Amur’s 157 network of desert NKODAAS to identifyroutes the historical [15]. usage of Darb Ain Amur’s network of desert routes 158 [14]. Like Hori, An-Seth, too, omitted any details about his occupation 159 as a scribe. His title Like Hori, An-Seth,was too, extremely omitted commonany details in about desert his graffiti, occupation since scribesas a scribe. were His usually title members 160 of traveling was extremely commonteams in desert and asgraffiti, teams’ since literati, scribes were were the usually best candidates members for of writingtraveling out (and 161 reading out for teams and as teams’ literati,everyone) were [the16] b (p.est 7) candidates such textual for messages.writing out In (and fact, reading our team, out alongfor with162 other scholars everyone) [15] such textualwho have messages examined. In fact, Egyptian our team, scribes’ along status, with have other toyed scholars with the who idea that 163 this was perhaps have examined Egyptiannot scribes’ an actual status, title, referringhave toyed to awith specific the idea official that position, this was but perhaps an informal 164 indication of the carver’s literacy, which in the context of a society with low literacy rates, probably marked not an actual title, referring to a specific official position, but an informal indication of the 165 a high status [17,18]. carver’s literacy, which in the context of a society with low literacy rates, probably marked 166 In addition to occupational titles, both pharaonic travelers, as was the case with a high status [16]. 167 approximately 90% of the textual rock graffiti from North Kharga, publicized their personal In addition to occupational titles, both pharaonic travelers, as was the case with ap- 168 names: in the case of the Hula Rock graffiti, “Hori”, which meant “s/he who belongs proximately 90% of the textual rock graffiti from North Kharga, publicized their personal 169 to Horus”, and “An-Seth”, which can be translated “Seth is beautiful”. Hori’s name has names: in the case of the Hula Rock graffiti, “Hori”, which meant “s/he who belongs to 170 been attested for both women and men in sources dating from the Middle Kingdom (i.e., Horus”, and “An-Seth”, which can be translated “Seth is beautiful”. Hori’s name has been 171 roughly 2030–1650 BCE) onwards, being especially common during the New Kingdom (i.e., 1550–1077 BCE) [19] (p. 251.8). An-Seth’s name, on the other hand, has not been attested so far elsewhere. There were, however, similar New Kingdom and Late Period compound names referring to female deities, such as Bastet and Mut [19] (p. 61,11 and p. 61.8), but none mentioning male deities, such as Seth. Theophoric names such as Hori and An-Seth’s could have hinted at a family’s religious orientations or geographical affiliations, although one cannot be certain about such direct correlations [20]. After all, An-Seth decided to associate his textual graffito with a pictorial Heritage 2021, 4 2258

version of the Seth animal, a further hint at his effort to invoke his deity of preference, who was a well-known protector of Egypt’s oases and desert areas [21] (pp. 105–106). As images, such rock graffiti could also appeal to audiences who were illiterate or semi-literate in the hieroglyphic and hieratic scripts. Such travelers could have recognized specific signs, especially those whose cursive version was not very far from the hieroglyphic rendering—e.g., the falcon sign (G5) in Hula Rock 1 or the eye sign (D6) in Hula Rock 2. Such signs were sometimes targeted by image-focused visitors, either positively, as they attempted to replicate them in their own hands or negatively, as they tried to destroy them. In fact, NKODAAS has discovered at the site of Amun Rock a conspicuous example of the latter type of treatment: in the case of the rock graffito Amun Rock 9, subsequent visitors tried to destroy its eye hieroglyph [22]. Interestingly, as noted above, An-Seth’s graffito was carved right next to a figural graffito depicting the hybrid animal that represented the god Seth, although there were plenty of other free spots on that rock surface to choose from. One cannot be sure which of the graffiti were carved first at Hula Rock. If An-Seth carved Hula Rock 2 after that figural graffito, then one may presume that An-Seth deliberately tried to notionally connect his message to Seth’s invocation, suggesting that he, too, wanted to contribute to the figural graffito’s effort to communicate with that desert deity, or that An-Seth tried to make his graffito more visible or attractive by positioning it next to a conspicuous and perhaps appealing picture. After all, Hula Rock is located relatively close to Seth Rock, a site that included several invocations of the god Seth, possibly serving as his vernacular shrine [21]. Alternatively, if the figural graffito was carved after Hula Rock 2, then one could assume that the figural graffito’s carver wanted to make his graffito more visible and attractive, associating it with a well-executed text that incidentally included the picture of a Seth animal [23]. Finally, ancient or more recent travelers, regardless of their levels of literacy in the Egyptian language or of their understanding of such rock graffiti’s textual meaning or pictorial symbolism, could have interpreted them as sheer markers of other travelers’ fleeting presence. As such, these rock graffiti assured those who spotted them on the massifs that they were on a path that has been trodden earlier. They functioned, in other words, as desert alamat “signposts” [24], helping future travelers navigate these parts of Egypt’s Western Desert. The manners in which such rock graffiti have probably been received and preserved in the course of time are also delicately connected to issues of political power or cultural heritage. In the context of Darb Ain Amur’s network of paths that have been used in the past by both Egyptian and non-Egyptian travelers, such graffiti indirectly propagated and confirmed Egyptian State’s presence and control over these desert regions, as much as Roman authorities advertised their local presence through the establishment of forts and other monumental sites [25]. Later audiences possibly have also perceived such ancient graffiti as artifacts of ancient Egyptian heritage and thus, their treatment depended on these audiences’ views of Egypt’s earlier history and culture. In that respect, it is very possible that Mr. Graham and Mr. Keatc added their own graffiti on Hula Rock, at least 3100 years after Hori’s visit, because they were attracted by the very presence of ancient Egyptian graffiti there and wished to associate themselves with an ancient heritage they knew about and appreciated.

4. Conclusions Overall, communicating as texts, images, or signposts, rock graffiti like Hula Rock 1 and 2 added their voices to the muted interactions of all desert travelers who chose to carve messages on such rocks. In this way, they much resemble modern graffiti that, as defined by the art historian Franco Speroni, can be considered as expressions of connected individualities [26]. By imitating earlier desert travelers’ textual and pictorial conventions, Hori and An-Seth participated in a “public forum” in which one traveler’s personal identity and status was compared to, and associated with, another member of this travelers’ micro- Heritage 2021, 4 2259

culture. The sustained flow of information between carved messages probably created a safety net that eased desert travelers’ discomfort by making them feel as important contributors to the ongoing efforts to make Western Desert’s terrain more hospitable and more navigable. The NKODAAS team continues its work toward publishing the rock graffiti discovered north of Kharga Oasis, expanding, thus, the corpus of recorded ancient travelers’ graffiti. Among other things, NKODAAS’s forthcoming publication will include discussions about rock graffiti’s relationships with informal and formal inscriptions from Egypt and about the manners in which the ancient carvers of these graffiti constructed their public identities.

Funding: This research has received funding from the National Endowment for Humanities’ 2014 Scholarly Editions and Translations award, Sacramento State’s Research and Creative Activity awards, the American Research Center in Egypt’s Antiquities Endowment Fund, the Boyer Family, and Far Horizons. Acknowledgments: I dedicate this short article to Ioannis Liritzis who has contributed significantly to the spread of Egyptological interest in Greece. NKODAAS is grateful to the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and the Kharga Inspectorate for the cooperation, help, and support. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References 1. Ikram, S. The North Kharga Oasis Darb Ain Amur Survey: Past research and future questions. In The Oasis Paper 9: A Tribute to Anthony J. Mills; Bowen, G.B., Hope, C.A., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1–8. 2. Ikram, S. The North Kharga Oasis Darb Ain Amur Survey: Surveying the tracks between the two oases. In The Great Oasis of Egypt: The Kharga and Dakhla Oases in Antiquity; Bagnall, R.S., Tallet, G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 135–151. 3. Rossi, C.; Ikram, S. North Kharga Oasis Survey 2007–Preliminary report: Ain Lebekha and Ain Amur. MDAIK 2010, 66, 237. 4. Ikram, S. Interpreting enigmatic images: The curious case of the cascading lines. In 50 Years of : Essays in Honor of Barbara Barich; Lucarini, G., Hamdan, M., Turjman, M., Eds.; SOR New Series: Rome, Italy, Forthcoming. 5. Woodward, D.R. Hell in Holy Land: World War I in the Middle East; Kentucky U.P.: Lexington, KY, USA, 2006. 6. Lazaridis, N. Carving the desert: Ancient travellers’ epigraphic uses of Kharga Oasis rock surfaces. In En détail–Philologie und Archäologie im Diskurs. Festschrift für Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Band 1; Brose, M., Dils, P., Naether, F., Popko, L., Raue, D., Eds.; Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde–Beihefte 7; DeGruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 587–600. 7. Erman, A.; Grapow, H. (Eds.) Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, Volume 1; Akademie Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1971. 8. Möller, G. Hieratische Paläographie: Die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der Fünften Dynastie bis zur Römischen Kaiserzeit; Otto Zeller: Osnabrück, Germany, 1965. 9. Hannig, R. Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch; Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64; Philipp von Zabern: Mainz, Germany, 2001. 10. Quirke, S. The regular titles of the late Middle Kingdom. RdE 1986, 37, 107–130. [CrossRef] 11. Brown Wilding, M. ‘Keeping enemies closer.’ Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and the Projection of Presence and Power in Liminal Regions. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2015. 12. Long, R. Administrative control of Egypt’s western oases during the New Kingdom: A tale of two cities. In in Australia and New Zealand 2009: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Melbourne, September 4th–6th; Knoblauch, C.M., Gill, J.C., Eds.; BAR International Series 2355; British Archaeological Reports: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 105–113. 13. Darnell, J.C.; Klotz, D.; Manassa, C. Gods on the road: The pantheon of Thebes at Qasr el-Ghueita. In Documents et Théologies Thébaines Tardives II; Thiers, C., Ed.; Cahiers «Égypte Nilotique et Méditeranéenne» 8; Égypte Nilotique et Méditerannéenne and Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéenne: Montpellier, France, 2013; pp. 1–31. 14. Rossi, C.; Ikram, S. New Kingdom activities in the Kharga Oasis: The scribe Userhat travels westwards. JEA 2014, 100, 11–12. [CrossRef] 15. Rossi, C.; Ikram, S. Evidence of desert routes across northern Kharga (Egypt’s Western Desert). In Desert Road Archaeology; Kuper, R., Ed.; Africa Praehistorica 27; Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln: Köln, Germany, 2013; pp. 265–282. 16. McDonald, M. Ancient Arabia and the written word. In The Development of Arabic as a Written Language; Macdonald, M.C.A., Ed.; Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 5–28. 17. Pinarello, M.S. An Archaeological Discussion of Writing Practice. Deconstruction of the Ancient Egyptian Scribe; GHP Egyptology 23; Golden House Press: London, UK, 2016. 18. Ragazzoli, C. Weak hands and soft mouths: Elements of a scribal identity in the New Kingdom. ZÄS 2010, 137, 157–170. [CrossRef] 19. Ranke, H. Die Ägyptischen Personnennamen, Band 1; J.J. Augustin: Glückstadt, Germany, 1935. Heritage 2021, 4 2260

20. Zecchi, M. Theophoric and basilophoric personal names in the Fayum in the Middle and New Kingdoms. In Le Fayoum. Archéologie–Histoire–Religion: Actes du Sixième Colloque International, Montpellier, 26–28 Octobre 2016; Chaufray, M.-P., Guermeur, I., Lippert, S., Rondot, V., Eds.; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 17–43. 21. Ikram, S. Rock art and the transformation of landscape in Kharga Oasis. In Epigraphy through Five Millennia: Texts and Images in Context; Dirksen, S.C., Krastel, L.S., Eds.; O. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2020; pp. 105–112. 22. Lazaridis, N. Crossing the Egyptian desert: Epigraphic work at Kharga Oasis. Maarav J. Northwest Semit. Lang. Lit. 2012, 19, 117–129. 23. Lazaridis, N. Rock communications: The interaction of textual and figural graffiti in North Kharga. In Stone Canvas: Towards a Better Integration of “Rock Art” and “Graffiti” Studies in Egypt and ; Palkowski, P., Ed.; Institut Français D’archéologie Orientale: Cairo, Egypt, Forthcoming. 24. Riemer, H. Lessons in landscape learning: The dawn of long-distance travel and navigation in Egypt’s Western Desert from prehistoric to Old Kingdom times. In Desert Road Archaeology; Kuper, R., Ed.; Africa Praehistorica 27; Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln: Köln, Germany, 2013; pp. 77–106. 25. Rossi, C. Controlling the borders of the empire: The distribution of Late Roman “forts” in the Kharga Oasis. In The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhla Oasis Project; Bagnall, R., Davoli, P., Hope, C.A., Eds.; Dakhla Oasis Project Monographs 15; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 331–336. 26. Ragazzoli, C.; Harma¸sah,Ö.; Salvador, C. Introduction. In Scribbling through History: Graffiti, Places and People from Antiquity to Modernity; Ragazzoli, C., Harma¸sah,Ö., Salvador, C., Frood, E., Eds.; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2018; pp. 8–9.