Agents of Construction Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions As Tools of Site Formation and Modern Functional Parallels

Home , Amenhotep, Amenhotep (Huy), Aniba (Nubia), Buhen, Huy (Viceroy of Kush), Korosko

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211

brill.com/jeh

Agents of Construction Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions as Tools of Site Formation and Modern Functional Parallels

Marina Wilding Brown Yale University [email protected]

Abstract

This new analysis of the interaction between graffiti and their physical context examines the functionality of rock inscriptions for the ancient Egyptians and finds that the annexation and redefinition of the landscape was a key factor motivating the production of rock art and rock inscriptions spanning the Egyptian Predynastic and Dynastic Periods. Casting off the modern, negative, connotations of “graffiti,” new research comparing ancient and modern graffiti traditions—including a proper understanding of the territorial and artistic implications of modern “gang” graffiti—illuminates certain functional parallels and assists in the formulation of a new framework based on Alfred Gell’s theory on the material agency of art and subsequent critiques. In this framework graffiti simultaneously mark territorial boundaries and work actively to create and maintain territory on an ongoing basis. The application of the framework to an ancient Egyptian case study illuminates the dynamic relationship between rock inscriptions and site formation.

Keywords rock art – rock inscriptions – graffiti – gang graffiti – material agency – Alfred Gell – ancient Egypt – ancient Nubia

* This paper is a reduced treatment of the theoretical foundation from my dissertation— ‘Keeping Enemies Closer’: Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and the Projection of Presence and Power in Liminal Regions—and represents an introduc- tory treatment of material that forms the topic of my forthcoming monograph on cross-cultural traditions of rock art, rock inscription, and graffiti production. I owe many thanks to Professor John Darnell, Dr. David Klotz, and Dr. Tasha Dobbin-Bennett for their comments and guidance.

Introduction

The liminal desert regions beyond the Egyptian Nile Valley witnessed virtually continuous activity spanning the Predynastic through the Greco-Roman Periods. Nubia, in the south, and the deserts to the east and west of the Nile Valley played host to mining expeditions, military campaigns, surveillance net- works, settlements, and trade caravans. The traces of these activities remain in the form of archaeological remains, narrative texts such as autobiographies or historical annals, and rock-carved texts and images engraved along the ancient routes. While some of the rock inscriptions record longer accounts of desert expeditions, the vast majority of inscriptions are short, consisting of names and titles carved into the landscape. Within Egyptology, the rich tradition of historiography that manifests in de- tailed historical and autobiographical narratives often overshadows the rock inscription corpus, except for those longer accounts that explicitly add to the historical picture.1 However, due to the often marginal nature of these regions and their inhabitants, a consideration of the rock inscription corpus as a whole may facilitate a more complete reconstruction of the Egyptian socio-political landscape. This goal first requires the development of a framework that instru- mentalizes, as socio-historical documents, those laconic rock inscriptions that preserve only names and titles. Thus far, culture-historical approaches have proven insufficient for this purpose.2 This paper contends that a structuralist- functionalist examination of the material efficacy of modern graffiti traditions illuminates the mechanical functionality of rock inscriptions as a tool of site formation and reveals that ancient Egyptian rock inscriptions functioned as affective material agents of social construction with the perceived ability to actively define and redefine the landscape.

Background

Rock art, rock inscriptions, and graffiti proper coexist for most of the six thousand year history of ancient Egypt, a dynamic that exists in no other ancient culture.3 Due to the vast scope of this representational and textual record,

1 Espinel, “Gods in the Red Land,” 91. 2 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 41–56 for an overview of the application of culture-historical, processual, and post-processual approaches to rock art and rock inscription research. 3 In ancient Egypt, rock art, rock inscriptions and graffiti were manifestations of a single glyphic tradition, which subdivides into two groups based on type of canvas—natural or

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 155 research on these traditions tends to focus on individual corpora rather than the tradition as a whole,4 while simultaneously overlooking anthropological models.5 This approach to research is reinforced by the diversity of the record itself, which exhibits figural and textual offerings on many subjects (religious, historical), in many media (carving, ink), and on a variety of canvasses (rock cliffs, temple walls). Inscriptional content reveals that rock inscription carving was motivated by many different primary goals: they could serve as landmarks; mark boundaries; or serve a ritual function. Rock inscribed boundary stelae, such as those that delineated the city of Amarna under Akhenaten,6 or those that demarcated the southernmost point of New Kingdom Nilotic penetration at Kurgus, are

man-made. “Rock inscriptions” and “rock art” are, respectively, texts and images applied to natural surfaces while “graffiti proper” consists of text together with images applied to man- made features (Darnell, “Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti;” Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 8–12). For the earliest rock art in Egypt (el-Hosh), dating to ca. 10000–15000 BP see Huyge, “Where are the Fish?,” “L’art le plus Ancient de la Vallé du Nil,” 8–9, and “Hilltops, Silts, and Petroglyphs”; Huyge and Claes, “Art rupestre gravé paléolithique de Haute Égypte,” 26–27. For the latest hieroglyphic and demotic graffiti in Egypt (Philae), dating to AD 394 and AD 452 respectively, see Griffith, Catalogue of the Demotic Graffiti I, 124 (no. 431) and 102–103 (no. 356); ibid, II, pls. 69 (no. 431) and 55 (no. 365); Hoffmann, Ägypten: Kultur und Lebenswelt in griechisch-römischer Zeit, 240–42. 4 Espinel, “Gods in the Red Land,” 92. 5 Scholarly emphasis on the semiotics of predynastic rock art focuses scholarship on examining the links between Egyptian culture, early iconographic symbolism, and the motivating factors behind rock art production, for example, Huyge, “Cosmology, Ideology, and Personal Religious Practice,” 192–194. Conversely, scholarly prioritization of the content of rock inscriptions privileges the lengthier annalistic inscriptions, resulting in the neglect of more laconic inscriptions and the dynastic rock art filling the deserts, for example Válhala and Červíček, Katalog der Felsbilder publishes the figural inscriptions recorded by the Czech expedition but excluded from Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia. Similarly, anthropological research in its few rare treatments of the Egyptian record prioritizes figural rock art, for example Huyge, “Where are the Fish?” A survey of prominent anthropological publications on rock art reveals only four articles on the Egyptian record: Darnell, “The Narrow Doors of the Desert”; Huyge, “Grandeur in Confined Spaces”; Le Quellec and Huyge, “Rock Art Research in Egypt”; Mairs, “Egyptian ‘Inscriptions’ and Greek ‘Graffiti’.” Of these articles, only those by Darnell and Mairs deal with the inscriptional record—the indigenous, pharaonic, Egyptian record and Greco-Roman traveler’s graffiti, respectively. Similar scholarly la- cunae exists within the field of rock art research (Huyge, “Grandeur in Confined Spaces,” 59). 6 Murnane and Van Siclen, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten; Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 32–35; Thum, “When the Pharaoh Turned the Landscape into a Stela,” 69–70.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 156 Brown interpreted as serving a territorial function—to mark Egyptian land claims.7 Conversely, temple graffiti or rock inscriptions with religious motifs or content are perceived as serving a ritual function, often to perpetuate the presence of a worshipper in the company of a god.8 But to focus only on these primary mo- tivations may obscure any functional continuity that underlies the tradition as a whole. In seeking to perpetuate their presence and ritual activities at a particular spot, the worshipper claims territory and dedicates it to expressing a personal relationship with a god.9 Thus, both the Kurgus rock inscriptions and temple graffiti function, primarily or secondarily, to create and maintain space through time. In textually demarcating Egyptian territory at the Fourth Cataract, the Kurgus rock inscriptions performed a vital defensive function, similar to that of the Middle Kingdom fortress infrastructure at the Second Cataract.10 The specific mechanisms that allowed a short rock inscription to approximate a dense system of fortified infrastructure are poorly understood due to the absence of emic accounts that explicitly describe the ancient Egyptian perception of rock art and rock inscription functionality. Identifying these mechanisms may clarify the role that the rock art and rock inscriptions played in site formation. Although no other culture of the ancient world parallels the unique dynamic of the ancient Egyptian record, modern traditions of graffiti production exhibit a wide diversity of subject matter, uses, media, and canvasses alongside a strong chronological and geographic continuity with the past that may be a productive analog for the ancient Egyptian record. More than a blight upon the contemporary urban landscape, modern graffiti, like the ancient Egyptian graffiti tradition, encompasses figural and textual offerings produced in a wide range of media on both natural and man-made surfaces.11 While modern and

7 Bradbury, “The Tombos Inscription,” 1–4; Davies, “New Fieldwork at Kurgus,” 29 and “Kurgus 2000,” 46–53; c.f. infra, notes 52 and 54”. 8 Cruz-Uribe, “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts,” 111, 113, 116–17; Espinel, “Gods in the Red Land.” 9 Compare to Darnell’s interpretation of Pahu’s texts in his rock shrine (“A Pharaonic de profundis from the Western Desert.” 10 Infra, “Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions.” 11 Compare graffiti from modern contexts (Reisner, Graffiti, pls. 8, 9, 17, 19; Taçon and Chippindale, “An Archaeology of Rock-Art,” 4 fig. 1.3, 5 fig. 1.4; Lennon, “Writing with a Global Accent,” 68, Fig. 4.5) and ancient contexts (Jacquet-Gordon, The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak; Rummel, „Ramesesnacht-dauert“,” 368 Abb. 1, Tf. 39; Navrátilová, The Visitors’ Graffiti; Benefiel, “Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti,” 60, 68, fig. 9). Similarly, compare rock art/rock from modern contexts (Boykoff and Sand, Landscapes of Dissent, 109 figure; Lovata, “Marked Trees,” 92 figs 6.1–6.2, 100–03 figs 6.4–6.7;

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 157 ancient traditions may be separated chronologically, and sometimes geo- graphically, many ancient sites display a virtually unbroken chain of graffiti spanning their period of use to the present day.12 Well-established parallels in content between Egyptian graffiti, Greco-Roman graffiti, and some modern genres, find additional support among the graffiti of medieval and renaissance Europe and England,13 revealing a remarkable continuity between the ancient past and contemporary traditions. Perceived as the product of vandals or gangs making sub-cultural statements of resistance against the mainstream, modern graffiti is usually charac- terized by its illegality.14 However, it was only in 1972 that Mayor John Lindsay

Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 116 fig. 2.2) and ancient contexts (Hintze and Reineke, Felsinschriften aus dem sudanesischen Nubien II, 117). 12 At many Egyptian sites, graffiti spanning the Arab conquests to the period of French and British colonial intervention interact with the ancient Egyptian, Coptic, Greek, and Roman graffiti, which themselves are a cumulative record of diachronic interactions. See, for example, the temple of Seti I in the Wadi Kanayis. Built by Seti I during Dynasty 19, the temple and surrounding area yield graffiti and rock inscriptions spanning close to 3200 years. The corpus includes predynastic rock art; a rock inscription showing a viceroy of the early Eighteenth Dynasty; a cartouche of Amenhotep III; the foundation inscription carved under Seti I; a large cluster of Greco-Roman period texts; travelers’ graffiti dated to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; a considerable corpus of Arabic graffiti as well as some modern Western graffiti that attests to ongoing activity by more recent popula- tions. See Weigall, Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts, pl. XXVIII (1); Mairs, “Egyptian ‘Inscriptions’ and Greek ‘Graffiti’,” 153–54; PISEDE, 209 no. KN 10; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1033 EDF 65. 13 Compare the prevalence of socio-political graffiti today, such as Banksy’s airstrike mural in San Francisco with the political campaign graffiti at Pompeii (Benefiel, “Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti,” esp. 59–60). The frequently vulgar content of latrinalia (popular graffiti) found today in many bathrooms and public spaces (Reisner and Wechsler, Encyclopedia of Graffiti, 260—Route 95, Maine, 1971) finds remarkable parallel in the sexually explicit graffiti and rock inscriptions found in Egypt (Goyon, Nouvelles Inscriptions Rupestres du Wadi Hammamat, 132 no. 129, pl. 38; Hue-Arcé, “Les graffiti érotiques de la tombe 504”; Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey II, 68–71). See also Fleming, Graffiti and the Writing Arts of Early Modern England, 29–72; Daniell, “Historic Graffiti and Calliglyphs,” 208–09; Mǎndescu, “Archaeology and Graffiti Carved in the Carpathian Rock”; Plesch, “Beyond Art History.” 14 Lennon, “Writing with a Global Accent,” 59; Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 53–54 and Wallbangin’, 17; Dean, “Hardware Store Conservation,” esp. 21–22; contra Ferrell, Crimes of Style, 5. Coffield, Vandalism & Graffiti, 23, 30–31, 62–68 discusses graffiti as an activity and tool of the vandal. While he notes that the act of engraving graffiti has positive historical precedent, he goes back no further than the Roman Empire. This has also greatly influenced the common misconception that ancient rock art, rock

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 158 Brown of New York City signed the first piece of anti-graffiti legislation in the United States, forever changing the perception of the practice and of the word itself.15 In fact, gang graffiti—a subset of the modern urban graffiti tradition16— primarily functions as a glyphic tool that establishes primacy in inter-gang territorial negotiations and lends predictability to the otherwise volatile and liminal landscape of their neighborhoods.17 Crucially, ethnographic research among the producers of gang graffiti yields emic accounts that illuminate the perceived functionality and efficacy of graffiti as a tool of territorial negotia- tion that productively parallel the ancient Egyptian record. Integrating these emic accounts with contemporary social and art historical theories on material agency produces a new theoretical framework that re-conceptualizes ancient Egyptian rock art and rock inscriptions as affective material agents that actively work to create and maintain territory, establishing Egyptian primacy over neighboring nomadic desert groups, political rivals, and even over the desert itself.

inscriptions and graffiti were somehow “unofficial” or “informal,” (Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt, xxi; Cruz-Uribe, Hibis Temple Project III, 201). 15 Prior to this legislation mainstream media described urban graffiti as a modern continua- tion of a very ancient human tradition (Brackman, “Graffiti to Print,” 259). With this legislation graffiti writing became an offense punishable by substantial fines or imprisonment and as the anti-graffiti movement gained momentum, fueled by unrelated unrest in the city, it spawned similar movements in cities across the United States (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, “Graffiti in its own Words”; Gopinath, “Ornament as Armament”; Mitman, “Advertised Defiance,” 195–205). Ferrell, Crimes of Style, 115–16 and 138–45 highlights the dichotomy between how outsiders view graffiti as vandalism versus how insiders view it as a form of artistic expression. 16 The other four genres of modern graffiti are hip-hop graffiti, also called “subway art,” “New York-style graffiti,” or “graffiti art;” popular graffiti, also termed “latrinalia;” community graffiti, specific to a particular group, for example, hobo graffiti; and political graffiti or activism graffiti, which presents opinions on issues of socio-political concern (Conquergood, “Homeboys and Hoods”; Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 88–98; Ley and Cybriwsky, “Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers,” 492–98; Ferrell, “Gang and Non-Gang Graffiti,” 56–57). 17 Vigil, Barrio Gangs, 115. C.f. Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 21: “Rather, gang members’ linguistic and written tactics most powerfully represent plays of respect and disrespect within gang social systems in daily struggles for primacy.”

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 159

Gang Graffiti, Representation, and Ascribed Material Agency

Gang graffiti breaks down into approximately four identifiable genres:18 a “hit up” records the gang name, the clique name, the writer’s name, and the names of a few close friends;19 a “roll call” records all current, living, initiated gang members;20 an “RIP” lists and memorializes deceased gang members;21 and a “cross out,” where one gang emends a graffito of another gang,22 and anni- hilates the individual and gang. Aligned with the act of murder, a crossed out graffito remains legible to make the audience aware that one group has super- seded another. Graffiti writing belongs to the core concept of gang “representation,” which also encompasses ongoing gang warfare, specific genres of tattoos, and clothing.23 Representation is a public act that publicizes your affiliation with a community and actively creates and perpetuates that community through constant attention to the activities that define the group.24 Graffiti producers

18 Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 154–57. 19 Compare to the ancient Egyptian imy-r3 šnt Merer who left his title and name, and sometimes just his name, all over the highly visible rock shelf at Gebel Tjauti (Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I, 61–65); c.f. Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 357–63 (Sa-Amun, Nebnetjeru, and Pahemnetjer); infra, “Royal and Non-Royal Territorial Agency in the Egyptian Eastern Desert during the Eighteenth Dynasty.” 20 Compare the rock inscriptions and rock carved stelae that preserve lists of expeditionary participants (Couyat and Montet, Les Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques et Hiératiques, 34–39 (no. 12); Gardiner, et al., The Inscriptions of Sinai I, VII no. 13, VIII no. 16, XII no. 32 and The Inscriptions of Sinai II, 60–64, 70–71; Sweeney, “Self-representation in Old Kingdom Quarrying Inscriptions”); c.f. the freestanding stelae from Wadi el-Hudi (Sadek, The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi el-Hudi, I, 16–19 (WH 6), 42–43 (WH 20) with references) and Sinai (Gardiner, et al., op. cit, I, XXIII no. 85, XXVA–XXVI no. 90; ibid, II, 92–94, 97–99). Compare too the lengthy family memorials (infra, fn. 21). 21 Compare to the “address to the living” inscriptions (Gasse and Rondot, Inscriptions de Séhel, 309–12, SEH 492) and rock inscription panels that consist of a cluster of memorial inscriptions for a single family, representing ongoing interaction with the inscriptions over several generations (ibid, 276–280, 543 (SEH 434); PISEDE, 384–89 AG01–AG04); c.f. an inscription at Toshka that reads 1 sš ’IꜤḥ-ms(.w) SꜢ-wsr/2 in sꜢ=f s.Ꜥnḫ(.w) rn=f […] “1 The scribe, Ahmose Sa-user./2 It is his son who enlivens his name, […].” (Weigall, A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia, 127; Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 25, fig. 20; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1322). 22 Compare infra, “Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions.” 23 Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 154. 24 For example, the efficacy of the red bandana that identified membership in the Bloods gang lies in its evocation of the gang’s activities, and the implied participation

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 160 Brown describe a correlation between the production of a graffito, the representation of any characteristic gang feature (name, logo, color), the materialization of presence, and the perpetuation of the activities of the individual and gang simultaneously.25 Thus, graffiti stands as a spatio-temporal placeholder for the gang’s presence and all its activities, even in its absence. The primary motivating force for the production of graffiti by gang members is to establish a secure and ongoing territorial primacy. The heartland of gang territory is densely graffitied with text and images exclusive to the dominant gang. As you move outwards from the core territory toward the frontier— a contested area between two gang territories—graffiti becomes increasingly intermingled, content becomes more aggressive, and crossing out intensifies as a means to assert dominance.26 Graffiti secures territorial primacy, first, by delineating the boundary of the territory, which is defined through an opposi- tion with a defining feature of a rival gang (i.e., “red” vs. “blue”); and second, by infusing the delineated territory with the communal gang identity, which is defined by characteristic signifiers that represent gang membership and activity. In representing the gang’s active presence, graffiti then actively negotiates those delineated boundaries on behalf of the gang.

of the wearer in those activities. Vigil, Barrio Gangs, 2–3, 88, 112, 115, 119; Conquergood, “Homeboys and Hoods,” 40, 49–50, 52; Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 154–56 and Wallbangin’, 117–19; Kelly, “Yablonsky and the Violent Gang,” 279–80. Vigil, Barrio Gangs, 52 citing a cultural informant in a Chicano gang: “I used to notice older Chicanos and observed the touch characteristics they lived by. We used to write out placa- sos [personalized graffiti] on the walls and be among our camaradas, like them.” 25 Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 156, 158, 173–74, 184–89, 319 and Wallbangin’, 119–21, 134–35, 144, 251: “you usually write graffiti to let people know where you’re at. To let people know whose on the street at night. You see Clavo somebody, so and sos, you know, that person is up there all the time, you know that person.” Similarly: “Well, you see, this is a red neighborhood here. And up there, across the street, it’s blue. So how you gonna tell the difference? You have to put graffiti on the walls to let people know what color neighborhood they in … You have to make this neighborhood a red neighborhood.” C.f. Conquergood, “Homeboys and Hoods,” 40, 45, 52; Vigil, Barrio Gangs, 112; Martinez, “Bloods,” 12–13. 26 Ley and Cybriwsky, “Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers,” 496–501. Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 218 and Wallbangin’, 170: “They could have been looking around for somebody to shoot and they didn’t find nobody, so that was another way of getting to them, just crossing out their name.” C.f. Vigil, Barrio Gangs, 116; Hutchison, “Blazon Nouveau,” 161–62; Conquergood, “Homeboys and Hoods,” 43; Ferrell, “Gang and Non- Gang Graffiti,” 58; contra Phillips, The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti, 216–25 and Wallbangin’, 118, 170–77.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 161

Strategically integrated within the landscape, gang graffiti allows the gang to: demarcate the physical boundaries of their territory; contest territorial claims and negotiate disputed boundaries; infuse the delineated territory with a characteristic group identity by publishing gang membership and memori- alizing the deceased; and inform gang members and non-gang members living in gang territory of the boundaries of each individual communal territory Through graffiti, the gang acts upon the entire block to block landscape of gang interactions, delineating safe zones and routes of safe passage through that hostile landscape for both the prototypical gang and for the non-gang members of the community living within those boundaries. The ability of the graffito to manifest the gang’s presence and action though the representation of an individual name, the group name, or another characteristic of group identity, and to function actively on behalf of the gang in their absence recalls Alfred Gell’s theory that material objects possessed agency, evident through their ability to incite an audience to action in response to either real or perceived intention.27 Gell described the mechanisms by which real or perceived agency operates through material objects to influence behavior and relationships using a series of simple linear formulae, which this paper adopts with a few changes:28

[[Artist-A] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P

In this basic expression of a hierarchical agentic relationship, the square brack- ets represent the relative subordination of the participants, while the arrows and chevrons represent the flow of agency. The primary agent (Artist), in pro- ducing an object (Index), invests it with causal intention, which is transferred to the patient (Recipient) through the secondary agency of the index. In order to account for the agency of any entity represented iconically or aniconically by the Index (Prototype), the formula is expanded to distinguish between a dominant primary agent (-DomA) and subordinate primary agent (-SubA):

27 Gell, Art and Agency, 66; versus Latour, Reassembling the Social, esp. 70–74, which focuses on the agency of living non-humans and the network of associations between them that create society. In refocusing anthropology on the active nature of material culture, Gell hearkened back to Cole, “Art as a Verb in Iboland,” 34–41 who discussed the process and action of art; c.f. Layton, Anthropology of Art; Freedberg, The Power of Images, 429–40; Mitchell, “What Do Pictures “Really” Want?”. 28 For the full explanation and complement of these formulae see Gell, Art and Agency, 28–52. This paper replaces Gell’s short arrow/long arrow with a short arrow/triple chev- ron to ease the graphic distinction between the transfer of agency to the index versus the movement of agency from the index.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 162 Brown

[[[Prototype-DomA] → Artist-SubA] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P

In this formula the individual agency of the Artist is present but subordinat- ed to that of the Prototype, whose nature or essence dictates the form of the Index as well as the nature of the intention communicated to the recipient.29 Similar to the pars pro toto relationship of physical exuviae to the human whole,30 Indexes are perceived as representative extensions of the Artist or Prototype whose agency it embodies. The Index “represents” the Artist or Prototype, through the iconic or aniconic depiction of some aspect of the Artist or Prototype—specifically one that may stand in functionally for that entity.31 This “distributed personhood” permits the functional intention of a single human agent to simultaneously inhere in multiple Indexes and extends the theory to ensembles of objects,32 where each object mnemonically evokes the agency of a group of objects and their agent(s) by depicting repre- sentatively characteristic elements of the whole. In simultaneously evoking both an individual and their larger community, the functionality of these distributed personifications aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s vision of habitus, which operates in two stages:33 in the first stage, a child is inculcated with a classificatory schema that becomes internalized as an ordered pattern. The organization of multiple schemae forms a child’s cultural norms, which govern normative behavior appropriate to a range of contexts. These behaviors become characteristic of the group to which the child belongs (doxa).34 Habitus and doxa operate through representative material objects, which create a normative exterior environment that cues human

29 This relationship may become inverted when the agency of the Prototype becomes sub- ordinated to that of the Artist. This is exemplified by Dalí’s Persistence of Memory and da Vinci’s Mona Lisa where the representations of the subject are perceived as indications of the artist’s virtuosity and personal style rather than prioritizing the characteristic identity of the subject itself (Gell, Art and Agency, 55–58). 30 Frazer, The Golden Bough, 11–12, 37–45, 234–36, 244–48; Gell, Art and Agency, 55–58 on volt sorcery; Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 225 n. 1043. 31 Gombrich, Meditations on a Hobby Horse, 1–11; Bahrani, The Graven Image, 128–38. 32 Gell, Art and Agency, 103, 232. 33 Bourdieu, Equisse d’une Théorie de la Pratique, 1–9, 72, 78–95, 164–71; c.f. Miller, Material Culture and Mass Consumption, 103–04 and “Materiality: An Introduction,” 38; Calhoun, “Pierre Bourdieu.” 34 Doxa is the term coined by Bourdieu to describe the full complement of inculcated beliefs of a given contextual reality, and thus, the orientation we have to the world (Bourdieu, Equisse d’une Théorie de la Pratique, 164–71; c.f. Calhoun, “Pierre Bourdieu.”).

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 163 social behavior.35 The reproduction of these cultural behaviors when the individual transposes their classificatory schemae into a new/unfamiliar context assimilates that context into the cultural order of the individual and into the cultural order of the group. Over generations, this process perpetuates socio-cultural structures and practice. Informants from within gang culture describe graffiti produced by gang members as Indexes of gang agency. By means of the representative relationship between a single graffito, the evocation of gang membership, and the gang as a socio-political entity, the placement of multiple graffiti throughout gang territory constitutes a network of distributed personifications of gang activity: a frame that both delineates and defines the landscape in accordance with the normative behaviors of the group. The movement of agency through graffiti in gang environments is best described with the formula [[[Prototype-DomA] → Artist-SubA] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P, where the Prototype (DomA) is the gang, whose activities and identity dictate the nature of their iconic or aniconic representation in the Index (the graffito). The artist (SubA) produces the graffito and transfers the active intention of the gang—to delineate and maintain territory—to the Index. The recipient/patient is threefold: gang members and community inhabitants; rival gangs; and, crucially, the neighborhood itself, which becomes delineated, appropriated, (re)defined, and neutralized through the inscriptional act. Gell’s categorical rejection of linguistic, semiotic, and aesthetic models sparked extensive debate in anthropology, social theory, art history, and aesthetics, a full discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper.36 Relevant to the development of this study’s framework are a few nuanced changes to Gell’s work advanced by Irene Winter and Annette Kjølby, each of whom has independently concluded that Gell’s definition of agency37 does not adequate- ly distinguish between agency that is ascribed to objects by cultural participants

35 Miller’s theory of the “humility of objects” (“Materiality: An Introduction,” 5), follows the framing and context theory of Erich Gombrich, The Sense of Order, 75, 125–26, 284 and Erving Goffmann, Frame Analysis, 21–39, 560–76. 36 Pinney and Thomas, Beyond Aesthetics; Meskell, Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt and “Objects in the Mirror”; Osborne and Tanner, Art’s Agency and Art History; Kjølby, “Material Agency.” For an in-depth discussion of these critiques see Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 74–81 with references. 37 Gell, Art and Agency, 19 defines the agent as “one who has the capacity to initiate causal events in his/her vicinity which cannot be ascribed to the current state of the physical cosmos, but only to a special category of mental state; that is, intentions” and the patient as “the object that is causally affected by the agent’s action.”

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 164 Brown

(emic) versus agency that is attributed to an object by analysts (etic).38 The present paper adopts Winter’s distinction between “attributed” and “ascribed” material agency to distinguish between the etic and emic perspectives as well as to emphasize that multiple, sometimes conflicting, agencies may be attributed to a single Index, depending on the identity and context of the audience. The remainder of this paper now focuses, first, on determining whether a perception of ascribed material agency can be identified explicitly or implicitly for ancient Egyptian rock art and rock inscription production. Following this, we will apply the ascribed material agency framework to an Eighteenth Dynasty case study to determine if the framework is productive for instrumen- talizing a rock inscription corpus in the analysis of a socio-historical topic.

Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions

Several studies have considered the ascription of material agency to ancient Egyptian magical amulets and temple statuary;39 however, rock art, rock inscriptions, and graffiti have never been considered within the perspective of an agentic framework. The following consideration of the Kurgus inscriptions, the Scorpion tableau, and the corpus of desert serekhs and cartouches determines

38 Winter “Agency Marked, Agency Ascribed,” 43 terms the etic analysis of material agency “attributed agency” and the emic perception of material agency “ascribed agency.” Kjølby, “Material Agency,” 32–34 after Giddens, The Constitution of Society, 9 ff., rejects Gell’s focus on intentionality and creates four categories for understanding the different aspects of material agency where intentionality is present: “attributed” material agency is the etic perception of the analyst; “experienced” material agency is Winter’s “ascribed agency”; “material influence” is an unintended consequence resulting from an object’s production unrelated to agency; and “distributed personhood and extended mind” is the ability of the object to materialize and perpetuate the individual through time and space. 39 Most recently, see Dieleman, “The Materiality of Textual Amulets” for an examination of the dynamics between the “manifestation of institutional habitus” and the “expression of individual agency” in the production of textual amulets; c.f. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 51–55; Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 104–19. Additionally, temple statuary representing figures both human and divine, public and private, underwent ritual transformation through the Opening of the Mouth ritual, after which they were perceived as active agentive intermediaries between the mortal and divine realms, life and afterlife (Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual; Smith, The Liturgy of Opening the Mouth for Breathing; Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein; Roth, “The psš-kf and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ Ceremony,” and “Fingers, Stars, and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ ”; Lorton, “The Theology of Cult Statues”; Quack, “Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals aus Tebtynis”; c.f. Kjølby, “Material Agency”).

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 165 whether rock art, rock inscriptions, and graffiti were perceived as having agency and the ways in which this agency was marked. At the beginning of this article I noted the dual nature of temple graffiti as primarily religious or ritual in nature but possessing a secondary territori- ality in their function as spatio-temporal placeholders for the individual. In this, temple graffiti provides an important link between the material agency evident in the modern record and the ways in which we may identify material agency in the ancient record:

1 rn=f mn ty m-bꜢḥ ’Is.t wr.t 2 tꜢ nṯr.t ꜤꜢ.t Ḥryw (sꜢ) PꜢ-H̱nm 3 [t]Ꜣ wš.t [nty] ἰ.ἰr=f ἰrm nꜢy=f ẖrtw ἰrm PꜢ-H̱nm 4 (sꜢ) Wn-nfr Ꜥnḫ=f m-bꜢḥ 5 ’Is.t šꜤ nḥḥ ḥꜢ pꜢ mšꜤ40 6 pꜢ nty ἰw=f [r ft] nꜢy sẖ.w my ft [rn=f ] 7 [nḥḥ]

1 His name remains41 here before Isis the great, 2 the great goddess, Heriu (son of) Pakhnum. 3 The prayer which he made together with his children and with Pakhnum 4 (son of) Wennefer: May he live before 5 Isis, the chief of the army, forever. 6 (As for) the one who [will erase] these writings, let [his name] be erased42 7 [forever].43

40 For this new reading compare Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar, 288–89; Cruz-Uribe, “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts,” 124 (#203 DE 23, l. 4). 41 CDD M (10:1): 90–91 with references. As a verb mn has the sense of “remain,” which becomes “endurance/duration” in the nominal. This imbues the verb with a sense of “remaining in an enduring fashion,” which aligns with the stated desire for the name to exist in perpetuity. Note that all the verbs are in active tenses and thus reflect the desire to live actively, rather than to passively “be alive” in the presence of Isis. 42 Cruz-Uribe, “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts,” 116–17 (#A54) originally translated “(As for) the one who [will erase] these writings, let [his name] be cut off [forever];” however, the verb is clearly ft in both cases. Morschauser, Threat-Formulae in Ancient Egypt, 42–43, 51 reviews the terminology used to convey threats and injunctions in maledictions, noting that ft conveys the idea of “to erase/delete” while šꜤ conveys the idea of “cutting off.” 43 Cruz-Uribe, “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts,” 111, 116–17 (#A54), understanding <ἰr> pꜢ nty, the more common variant of the formula, dating from the Ramesside period (Morschauser, Threat-Formulae in Ancient Egypt, 12–13; Marciniak, Les inscriptions hiéra- tiques, 15, 104–05 nos. 50–51, 116 no. 65, 117–18 no. 67, 119 no. 68).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 166 Brown

This Demotic graffito from the temple of Isis at Aswan (#A 54)44 establishes a direct link between the creation of a perpetual human presence and the representative power of the name as an exemplar of the essence of that person, a pars pro toto relationship similar to that found in magical practice and in modern gang culture.45 The final threat-formula, echoing the modern concept of crossing out, further emphasizes the integral relationship between the name and existence, which also applied to figural representations of any aspect of the person.46 Among the hieratic inscriptions at the temple of Thutmose III

44 Cruz-Uribe, “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts,” 124 (#203 DE 23, l. 4), and compare additional examples on 111, 116–17 (A48, A54, CN1), 119–20 (DE11). 45 Frazer, The Golden Bough, 244–48. In ancient Egypt, the perception of the name as a con- stituent element of the human being contributed to its ability to perpetuate or nullify existence (Marciniak, Les inscriptions hiératiques, 15; Fleming, et al., The Egyptian Mummy: Secrets and Science, 2–3; Vernus, “Name,” 321; Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 73–79, n. 349, 225 n. 1043; Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 83–84 and Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 112; Dobbin-Bennett, Rotting in Hell, 105). The efficacy of the damnatio memoriae, practiced as early as the First Dynasty, was based in the idea that the obliteration of the name resulted in a second death—the deceased, removed from memory would cease to exist in the hereafter (Brunner-Traut, “Namenstilgung und -verfolgung,” 339–40 with references). Similar to the modern practice of crossing out, for maximum efficacy the erasure often preserved the name in some minimally legible form, thereby emphasizing its removal, for example the imperfect ef- facement of the name and figure of Hatshepsut at Karnak and Deir el-Bahari (Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari III, pls. LVII, LIX, LXI–LXIV; Nims, “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut,” 99; Björkman, Kings at Karnak, 96). Compare also to the Assyrian ṣalmu, interpreted as a “performative form of representation that enables the presence of the king” (Bahrani, The Graven Image, 121–48; Harmanşah, “Apparition on the Living Rock”). 46 Compare Jacquet-Gordon, The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak, 22 (Graffito no. 32), in which Khonsu-in-Thebes-Neferhotep is quoted as saying “I will destroy the name [of him who erases] the footprints of Nes-papka-shuty…”. Consider also the integration of name and image for the purpose of destruction, for example, CT 37, ll. 37–41 (de Buck and Gardiner, The Egyptian Coffin Texts I, 157; Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 28): “To be spoken over a figure of the foe made of wax and inscribed with the name of that foe on his breast with the bone (?) of a synodontis fish: To be put in the ground in the abode of Osiris.” Similarly, the inscription of a name upon a figure governed the material efficacy of the execration texts for which see Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 137 (compare the ritual on 209). Faulkner, The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, 43 displays the visual dissection of the snake determinative in writing the name of Apep to symbolically neutralize his power. The stele of Nefer-renpet suggests an equation between the destruction of the name and the destruction of the figure, for which see Labib, “Stela of Nefer-Ronpet,” 196, confirmed by the frequent destruction of

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 167 at Deir el-Bahari, inscription DB50 explicitly condemns graffito defacement for the purpose of asserting primacy over the original artist, accomplished through the erasure and replacement of the name:47

ἰr pꜢ.y nty ἰw=f ft rn=ἰ r rdἰ.t rn=f ἰr n=f Ptḥ ἰry-n-ꜤḥꜢ ἰw Sḫm.ṯ m-sꜢ ḥm.wt=f ἰw TꜢ-Wr.ṯ -sꜢ ẖrd.w=f

As for the one who will erase my name in order to place his name, Ptah will be an opponent to him, Sekhmet will pursue his wives, (and) Taweret will pursue his children.

These types of maledictions were not restricted to temple graffiti. Comparable threat-formulae appear in the rock inscription corpora of Gebel el-Girgawi and Hatnub, in at least one case, explicitly condemning the erasure of the name from the image.48 One Hatnub inscription (GR 12) identifies itself as a /twt/, despite the absence of any figural representation,49 revealing the notable

both the name and the pictorial representation in the damnatio memoriae (see infra, fn. 45); Kjølby, “Material Agency,” 42. 47 Marciniak, Les inscriptions hiératiques, 104 (DB50); Morschauser, Threat-Formulae in Ancient Egypt, 42–43, 70–71, 79–80. See also statue Vienna no. 34, ll. 16–17 for a similar malediction against the usurpation of the name: “Let your wrath be against anyone who may violate my statue, to […] it, to obliterate my name so as to put another in its place […] (Satzinger, “Der Leiter des Speicherwesens Si-êse,” 15–16; KRI IV, 101.11–12). Compare a similar example of such usurpation, in which the usurper appears wholly aware of the ramifications of his actions (Fay, et al., “Don’t Do What I Did!,” 33–36). 48 Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 52 (no. 24), 79–86 (nos. 56–58); Hsieh, “Discussions on the Daybook Style,” 116–19; Anthes, Die [F]elseninschriften von Hatnub, 35–58, Tf. 16 (GR 16); 70, Tf. 23 (GR 35); 72–73, Tf. 14 (GR 42), and especially 77, and especially Tf. 31 (GR 49) for the erasure of the name. 49 Anthes, (ed.), Die [F]elsinschriften von Hatnub, Tf. 15 (GR 12,17); contra Seidlmayer, “Zu Fundort und Aufstellungskontext,” 236–37 who argues that the ancient Egyptian /twt/ was also encountered outside of the context of statuary (WB V, 256.8–12)—identifying images on temple walls [See Berlin P 3056, col. 8, ll. 4–5 (Hieratische Papyrus aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, 1, pl. 33); the temple of Amun at Karnak (Piehl, “Sur l’origine des colonnes,” 205; Borchardt, Zur Baugeschichte des Amonstempels von Karnak, 40); and the outer west wall of the court of Rameses II at Luxor temple (KRI II, 174.10–175.1 c.f. TLA Dokument DZA 30.977.580)]; or combinations of textual and figural components on stelae [Abbott 2, 9–11 (Mariette, Monuments Divers, vol. 2, pl. 49; c.f. TLA Dokument DZA

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 168 Brown interchangeability of text and image within the context of iconic and aniconic representation. In this way, threat-formulae constitute an explicit expression of material agency, both in the perception that the inscribed name allows the intention and actions of the individual to endure, and in concrete statements intended to influence a recipient to perpetuate the artist’s presence and existence. Just as modern gangs equate crossing out a name with the act of kill- ing the individual—a concept paralleled in the damnatio memoriae in ancient Egypt50—the intentional destruction of the name in the graffito constitutes a dominant nullification of agency. These maledictions form a vital link to the marked expression of territorial agency in the rock inscription record. At Kurgus, the rock inscription boundary stelae of Thutmose I and Thutmose III combine a royal name, image, and malediction to establish and maintain Egyptian territorial hegemony to that point.51 The first Kurgus inscription dates to the reign of Thutmose I who commissioned it upon reaching that point with his army. The second inscription differs from the first only in substituting the name of Thutmose III for that of Thutmose I. It was commissioned following Thutmose III’s suppression of a rebellion and represents the re-consolidation of Egypt’s territorial claim. That the de facto administrative border lay well to the north at Tombos52 does

30.977.570)] and in rock inscriptions [Anthes, Die [F]elsinschriften von Hatnub, 10 n. 2, Tfs. 15 (GR 12,17), 16 (GR 16,13; GR 17,14), 18 (GR 20,22), 22 (GR 22,21), 29 (GR 32,7), 30 (GR 28,14), 31 (GR 49,10–11), 32 (GR 52,4–6)]. 50 Infra, fn. 45. 51 Arkell, “Varia Sudanica,” 36–38; Vercoutter, “New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan,” 70 (no. 7—for just the Thutmose I inscription); Bradbury, “The Tombos Inscription” and the following articles by Davies: “New Fieldwork at Kurgus,” 29, “Kurgus 2000,” 46–53, “Kurgus 2002,” 55, “Kurgus 2004,” 15–16, and “The Rock Inscriptions at Kurgus,” 153–54. 52 Archaeological evidence for Egyptian settlement south of Tombos is scarce and it has been suggested that in reality, Tombos represented the true administrative border, while Kurgus represented the southernmost point of Nilotic penetration. The attention paid to Hagar el-Merwa undoubtedly was tied to its historical indigenous significance, evident in the many Nubian rock carvings present on its surface, to its visibility within the landscape, and its relationship to the southern termini of several important desert routes, which gave access both to the Eastern Desert of Nubia and to the gold mines (Morkot, “Nubia in the New Kingdom” and The Black Pharaohs, 69–90; Edwards, The Nubian Past, 105; Osman and Edwards, The Archaeology of a Nubian Frontier, 59–87, esp. 67, 74; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 210–13 §4.4.4). On the significance of Tombos through its corpus of New Kingdom rock inscriptions detailing the actions and policies of both the Egyptian King and his agent in Nubia, the Viceroy see Davies, “The British Museum epigraphic survey at Tombos,” “Tombos and the Viceroy Inebny/Amenemnekhu,” and “Merymose and others at Tombos.”

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 169 not diminish the significance of the Kurgus inscriptions as territorial markers; rather these rock inscriptions represent one of the best examples of the mechanisms of rock inscription efficacy in the creation and maintenance of “Egyptian” sites. The malediction that expressly demarcates the point, past which no Nubian should pass, is presumably directed at Nubian travelers.53 Despite what we must assume to have been a restricted level of Egyptian language literacy among Nubians, the stelae were apparently considered functionally effec- tive. The region between the Third and Fourth Cataracts shows a relatively sparse Egyptian presence and the boundary area around the inscriptional site is under-fortified compared, for example, to the infrastructure of the Middle Kingdom Second Cataract border system.54 More than simple boundary markers, the (re-)placement of the Kurgus inscription appears to have been a key element in establishing presence in—and surveillance of—Egyptian holdings in Nubia.55 The royal name appears six times in the tableaux as do images of two lions,56 interpreted as representations of the king and his power. If we un- derstand the royal name as intensifying the efficacy of the royal iconography by manifesting the presence of two specific kings through their characteristic titularies, the functionality of the inscriptions lay less with the clear compre- hension of their content and more with the perception of the king’s motivating agency and of the Egyptian King as a present and active force. The Kurgus inscriptions represent Gellian agency put to hegemonic purpose. In directing their threat-formulae with the intention to incite action, the Kurgus inscriptions (Index) are imbued with the territorial agency of Thutmose I/III (Prototype) for the purpose of influencing the actions of a Recipient. The agentic relationships active in the Kurgus inscriptions parallel the ones that characterizes modern gang graffiti:

53 Compare the ἰr Nḥsy nb th.t(y)=f(y) … dn(=i) pattern to that used in the Gebel el-Girgawi corpus—Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 52 (no. 24), 79–86 (nos. 56–58). 54 Arkell, “Varia Sudanica,” 39 cites the presence of a large mud-brick fort approximately 1.2km from Hagar el-Merwa, and Bradbury, “The Tombos Inscription,” 2 suggests that Thutmose I maintained a garrison there to oversee the new border at Kurgus. However, recent excavation at the site has determined that the fort likely post-dates the post- Meroitic period and that other than the rock inscriptions at Hagar el-Merwa, the site of Kurgus has yet to yield any pharaonic remains, for which see Sjöström, “New Fieldwork at Kurgus,” 32–33 and “Excavations at Kurgus,” 59–60, 63; Thum, “When the Pharaoh Turned the Landscape into a Stela,” 75–76. 55 Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 59; Thum, “When the Pharaoh Turned the Landscape into a Stela,” 75–76. 56 Davies, “New Fieldwork at Kurgus,” 28–29 and “Kurgus 2000,” 47–53.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 170 Brown

Gell’s Template: [[[Prototype-DomA] → Artist-SubA] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P

Gang Graffiti: [[[Gang-DomA] → Specific Artist-SubA] → Hit-up-a] >>> Recipient-P

Kurgus Inscriptions: [[[Thutmose I/III-DomA] → Artist-SubA] → Inscriptions-a] >>> Recipient-P

Similar to the way in which modern gangs perceive their neighborhoods as animate, the ancient Egyptians conceived of the desert as a living entity,57 and while the Kurgus malediction is unquestionably directed at Nubian pastoral nomads,58 the question of literacy among both the Nubian and Egyptian popu- lations alongside the physical context of the inscriptions gives rise to the possibility that the intended recipient for the territorial agency embodied in the stelae extended beyond the groups/individuals explicitly identified in the text. The Kurgus inscriptions were carved upon a boulder called Hagar el-Merwa, a large and highly visible rock outcrop on the east bank of the Nile between the Fourth and Fifth cataracts. That Hagar el-Merwa was covered in antiquity with carved images of desert game consistent with an ongoing indigenous Nubian presence, attests to the profound significance of the site—spiritual, social, and/or political—within the Nubian lifeway.59 The placement of the Egyptian inscriptions, over top of—“crossing out”—the Nubian figural representations appropriates the landscape by redefining indigenously significant sites in accordance with Egyptian doxa.60 This act delineates the territory by imbuing

57 See most recently Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1–7; Darnell, “Homo Pictus and Painted Men.” 58 Davies, “Kurgus 2000,” 50. 59 Davies, “Kurgus 2002,” esp. 55; Edwards, “Drawings on Rocks,” esp. 58. 60 Espinel, Abriendo los caminos de Punt, 315–19 and “Gods in the Red Land,” 91–102 for some similar reuse dynamics in the Eastern Desert; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 84–85, 196–201, 210–13 with references. A similar relationship between rock carving and the annexation/appropriation of a previously culturally or socially defined landscape is also evident in the rock art records of Anatolia and Mesoamerica. Compare, the rock carving dynamics of the Hittites in the Zamanti Su Valley and the Assyrians at with respect to the Birkleyn cave system north of the Diyabakir Plain (Harmanşah, “ ‘Source of the Tigris’ ”). At these sites, the rock carvings appropriated these ritually significance sites redefining them within the context of Hittite or Assyrian ideology (Harmanşah, “ ‘Source of the Tigris’,” “Event, Place, Performance,” 147–60, and “Stone Worlds”). Similarly, following

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 171 it with the collective Egyptian identity. In so doing it influenced Nubians not only by denoting for them the point at which they would transition into a territory that is outside of the collective Nubian doxa and into the territory of the dominant Egyptians, but also by appropriating and redefining their socially significant landscape in accordance with the cosmology and ideology of the Egyptians. In this way, the Kurgus inscriptions, though explicitly directed at Nubians, simultaneously acted upon the landscape and the Egyptian people, carving out the bounds of safe territory as defined by the reach of Egyptian order (doxa). In “Egyptianizing” the physical environment, the pharaonic rock inscriptions parallel the functionality of the desert rock art of the Protodynastic Period, in its representation of the King as an exemplar of Egyptian doxa for the purpose of neutralizing liminal regions, marking land claims, and annexing territory. Spanning the Predynastic to Protodynastic Periods, rock art iconography underwent a diachronic shift concomitant with the gradual rise of com- peting polities. This transition reveals a move away from a preoccupation with cosmology and religious ideology toward a greater focus on political ideology and the alignment of this ideology with mythical precedent.61 While the shift manifested in the introduction of new topical and compositional elements, the essential function of the rock carvings remained constant. From the Early to Mid-Predynastic, desert inscriptions prioritized solar and aquatic imagery that extended a prototype of the solar order of Nilotic civilization into the marginal regions, effectively “Niloticizing” them.62 The inscriptions are free of individual identity and represent a direct response to the perceived liminality of the desert environment. The emergence of the royal victory tableaux by the Protodynastic period represents not only the alignment of political ideology with this cosmological precedent but also the introduction of an

the founding of the twin cities of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco and the formation of the Triple Alliance between Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan, the Aztec actively appropriated the landscape beyond their core territory in the central Valley of Mexico, using architecture, sculpture, and rock carving to redefine and repurpose ancient pyramid cities and sacred mountain sites (Umberger, Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History, 146–73 for an overview of the rock carvings; Townsend, “Pyramid and Sacred Mountain,” “Malinalco and the Lords of Tenochtitlan,” 111–37, and The Aztecs, 129–54; Umberger, “Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in Aztec Art,” “Aztec Presence and Material Remains,” 166–78, and “Imperial Inscriptions in the Aztec Landscape,” 193–96). C.f. Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 84–85. 61 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 4–6, 54–56, 98–100. 62 Huyge, “Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice,” 202–03; Darnell, “Iconographic Attraction,” 87–89.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 172 Brown individualized (royal) agency into the deserts as a prototypical exemplar for the concept of Nilotic order. The Scorpion tableau at Gebel Tjauti commemorates the military victory of an early Naqada III ruler (perhaps the same Scorpion named at tomb U-j at Abydos), over an unspecified enemy.63 The central content of the tableau depicts a large figure carrying a spear and leading a bound captive by a rope. To the right is a depiction of a stork holding a serpent in its beak, an image that emerged in the Middle Predynastic as a symbol for the triumph of order. To the right of the stork, below a series of other images of royal import, is the king’s name: a carving of a falcon arranged above a carving of a scorpion. In associat- ing the image of the stork with the smiting scene and the royal name the tableau equates Scorpion’s victory with cosmological precedent and transforms the king into the exemplar of a communal cosmic ideology:

[[[Cosmological Precedent-DomA] → Scorpion-SubA] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P*

* The Recipient is simultaneously the Enemy (territorial rivals), the Landscape (the annexed area), and the Supporters (Scorpion’s Egyptian followers).

The carving of the tableau into the landscape simultaneously memorial- ized the historical event and annexed the territory of the Western Desert to Scorpion’s control by demarcating the bounds of his territorial jurisdiction and imbuing the landscape with an individualized agency that also evoked the Egyptian cosmic ideal.64 The shift in the use of rock art and rock inscriptions from marking a cosmologically significant territory to demarcating socio-political boundaries suggests that the underlying functional structures of rock inscription production paralleled those of rock art production. The marking of the desert with cosmologically significant imagery neutralized the inherent chaos of the region and transformed it into an extension of the Nilotic order,

63 For the description and analysis of the tableau see Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I, 10–19 with references. 64 Compare the Wadi Magar tableau, which associates a vignette of an elephant trampling a chaos serpent with jubilee imagery (Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey II, 123, pls. 159–61). Interpreted as recording a king named Elephant-on-the-Gebel and representing him as the prototypical agent of cosmological order, the carving of the image into the living landscape simultaneously extends Egyptian order from the Nile Valley into the desert and asserts Elephant-on-the-Gebel’s individual royal hegemony, establishing territorial boundaries that mirror the cosmological boundaries.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 173 just as Scorpion neutralized the chaos inherent in his foe and annexed newly conquered territory to his emergent “state.” The First Intermediate Period inscription of General Tjauti, carved at the same site to commemorate his opening of a new desert route across gebel territory previously annexed by a rival, uses the verb ḫtm to describe the action of his inscription.65 Literally meaning “to seal; to close” and, later, “to acquire,”66 the verb ḫtm associates the act of annexing territory with the official practice of sealing, explicitly marking Tjauti’s territorial agency with respect to the ownership of the desert road. The central role of the royal name as a pars pro toto representation of the king, both as an individual presence and as an exemplar for Egyptian order, alongside the dual sense of the verb ḫtm suggests that the serekhs and cartouches along desert routes and in liminal regions may be understood as distributed personifications of royal agency that annexed an area to pharaonic jurisdiction.67 The earliest true serekhs appear on the desert routes around Dynasty 0 and persist until their replacement by the cartouche in Dynasty 4.68 The cartouche

65 Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I, 30–34 and “The Narrow Doors of the Desert,” 109–11; Mostafa, The Mastaba of ŠMꜢJ I, 200–09. While the identity of the specific rival is unknown, it appears that the various nomarchs of southern Upper Egypt controlled all the desert routes of the Western Desert between them and were constantly vying for territorial primacy, for which see Darnell and Darnell, “New Inscriptions of the Late First Intermediate Period”; Darnell, “The Narrow Doors of the Desert,” 110 and n. 10. 66 Nelson, Work in Western Thebes, pl. 101, cols 4–5; Edgerton and Wilson, Historical Records of Rameses III, 106 n. 4a; Gaballa, “Minor War Scenes of Rameses II at Karnak,” 83 and n. b, 84 (fig. 3A, col. 6); Reisner and Reisner, “Inscribed Monuments from Gebel Barkal,” 39 (l. 39); Caminos, The New Kingdom Temple of Buhen I, 51 and n. 3, pl. 61 (l. 8); Fischer, “Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein,” 49–50 and Inscriptions from the Coptite Nome, 115, note f; Darnell and Darnell, “New Inscriptions of the Late First Intermediate Period,” 245, 248. 67 After Darnell, “The Narrow Doors of the Desert,” 109 and Theban Desert Road Survey I, 20; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 5, 101–02. Darnell’s interpretation encompasses royal jubilee tableaux, Horus falcons, and serekhs carved along desert routes. 68 The earliest true serekhs are those of the last king of Dynasty 1, the Horus Qa’a, who serekhs have been found all over the Eastern and Western Deserts (Huyge, “Horus Qa-a in the Elkab Area”; Hendrickx, et al., “Late Predynastic/Early Dynastic Rock Art Scenes” correcting Ikram and Rossi, “An Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis”; Darnell, “Iconographic Attraction,” 102). These are not the first royal names in the desert. The name of the Protodynastic king Scorpion appears in his eponymous tableau at Gebel Tjauti (Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I, 19–22) and a tableau in the Wadi Magar seems to record the name of the king “Elephant-on-the-Gebel” (Darnell, “Iconographic Attraction,” 96–97 and Theban Desert Road Survey II, 125, pl. 159–61). For additional

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 174 Brown first appears along desert routes and in mining regions often in close proximity to earlier serekhs, and their use in desert regions persists throughout Egyptian history.69 The majority of serekhs and cartouches consist of little more than the royal name carved within the characteristic palace façade or oval shape, respectively. As is the case with many rock inscriptions, the identity of the Artist is obscured and only the Prototype can be identified with certainty, giving the formula:

[[[King-DomA] → (Artist-SubA)] → Cartouche/Serekh-a] >>> Recipient-P*

* The Recipient becomes simultaneously the landscape, Egyptian followers, and rival groups.

In the case of both the serekh and the cartouche, the royal agency that inheres within the rock inscription Index is unmarked, but nevertheless carries the very essence of Egyptian doxa. In representing the essence of the King and behaving as a functional substitute for the king himself, the carvings assert and maintain his geopolitical and social dominance,70 and incorporate the territory into the Egyptian cosmological prototype defined by order. This analysis reveals that the ancient Egyptians perceived rock art and rock inscriptions as having agency, i.e., the ability to perpetuate the active presence of an individual by communicating the intention of the primary agent to an

Protodynastic serekhs see Wilkinson, “A New King in the Western Desert”; Winkler, Rock- Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt I, 10, pl. XI. For Dynasty 1 serekhs see ibid, I, 10, pl. XI; Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 239–41 (A30); Válhala and Červíček, Katalog der Felsbilder I, 32 (no. 149); II, Tf. 40 (no. 149); Darnell, “Review of Válhala and Červíček, Katalog der Felsbilder,” 112. For Dynasty 2 serekhs see Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 30–31 (no. 2). 69 The earliest cartouches attested in the deserts belong to the Fourth Dynasty kings Snefru, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. Snefru and Khafre both appear in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, for which see Green “Notes on Some Inscriptions in the Etbai District,” 251 and pl. XXXIII (no. 11), pl. XXXIV (no. 19); PISEDE, 68 no. MN 22 (Khafre; = Almásy and Kiss, “Catalogue of the Inscriptions,” 177 no. E001/1), 69 no. MN 23 (Snefru; = ibid, 181 no. E013/1) with reservations about the reading; Almásy and Kiss, “Catalogue of the Inscriptions,” 182 no. E017/2 (Snefru). For discussions on the Dynasty 4 Khufu cartouches at Gebel el-Asr see Engelbach, “The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert,” pls. LV (no. 1), LVI (no. 1); Rowe, “Provisional Notes on the Old Kingdom Inscriptions,” 393–95. A cartouche of Menkaure was discovered in the Wadi Sheikh Ali (Meyer, “Archaeological Investigation,” 81). 70 Compare Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 59–65 (esp. 64).

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 175 audience. This material agency could be literally marked but was more com- monly ascribed by the audience and experienced by cultural participants interacting with the material world. The very fixedness of this perception of rock inscription functionality within Egyptian doxa suggests that this framework can be extended out of the royal sphere to analyze the territorial intentions of non-royal inscriptions as well. Indeed, General Tjauti’s inscription demon- strates that the perception of the rock inscription as sealing a territory on an ongoing basis was present outside of the royal sphere. We will now turn to an Eighteenth Dynasty case study from the Egyptian Eastern Desert to examine the dynamic interplay between royal and non-royal territorial agency in the service of Egyptian policies.

Royal and Non-Royal Territorial Agency in the Egyptian Eastern Desert during the Eighteenth Dynasty

At the end of the Second Intermediate Period, the kings of the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasties campaigned in Nubia to re-conquer previously held territories and to extend Egyptian holdings to the south. In an effort to secure a strong and lasting access to the raw mineral resources and trade items from the south, Egypt developed a new foreign civil administration in Nubia—a mirror of the Egyptian vizierate by the reign of Tutankhamun. At the head of this administration sat the Viceroy, whose duties included oversight of military campaigning;71 management of the physical infrastructure and supervision of the pharaonic building program in Nubia;72 oversight of the Nubian gold mining industry;73 and the collection and presentation of Nubian tribute to the king.74 While the duties of this new administration were focused on Nubia, its resources, and its people, texts reveal that as early as the reign of

71 Buhen Stele no. 1595 (Helck, “Ein „Feldzug“ unter Amenophis IV. gegen Nubien”; Smith, The Fortress of Buhen, 124–29, pl. 29; Gabolde, “La stèle de Thoutmosis II à Assouan,”146); Autobiography of Setau (KRI III, 93 ll. 9–12). 72 For the building program see Breasted, “Oriental Exploration Fund of the University of Chicago,” 98; Urk. IV, 89 no. 34B, 985–87, 989; Kirwan, The Oxford University Excavations at Firka, pl. 4; Vercoutter, “New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan,” 74 no. 13; Habachi, “The Graffiti and Work of the Viceroys of Kush,” pl. 1; Gasse and Rondot, Inscriptions de Séhel, 130, 478; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 734. For oversight of labor see Barsanti and Gauthier, “Stèles trouvées à Ouadi es-Sabouâ (Nubie),” pl. 4; KRI III, 95 no. JE 41403. 73 Mahfouz, “Les Directeurs des Déserts Aurifères d’Amon”; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer. 74 Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, pls. XVII, XXIII; Caminos, Shrines and Rock- Inscriptions, pls. 10, 28 (Shrine 1 and Shrine 4).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 176 Brown

Thutmose III the jurisdiction of the viceroy included the first three nomes of Upper Egypt, including the Egyptian Eastern Desert.75 The Egyptian desert east of Edfu and Kom Ombo—possibly to be identified with the Gold Lands of Amun (ḫꜢs.wt nbw n ’Imn)76—contained significant gold deposits. Relatively few records exist for the activities of the kings of the early Eighteenth Dynasty in the southeastern desert of Egypt;77 however, during the reign of Thutmose III the jurisdiction of the Nubian Viceroy was extended north to include these mining regions and exploitation of the gold mines in the Egyptian Eastern Desert intensified.78 This activity roughly co- incides with the earliest depictions of preparations for a Nubian tribute ceremony, presaging the monumental tribute festivals of later kings, during which the Viceroy oversees the presentation of Nubian tribute to the Egyptian king.79 Reconstructions of the later ceremonies80 argue that in return for their tribute, well-placed Nubians received Egyptian administrative honors, a mutual gift- ing that systematically reinforced social, political, and economic ties between Egypt and Nubia.

75 Urk. IV, 988, 11–12; Caminos, Semna-Kumma I, 62, pl. 30; c.f. Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 339–40; Klotz and Brown, “The Enigmatic Statuette of Djehutymose,” 280 and n. 69. 76 Mahfouz, “Les Directeurs des Déserts Aurifères d’Amon,” 74–77; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 351–52; contra Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 79. 77 Petrie, A Season in Egypt: 1887, pl. 15 (no. 476); Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 238–39, fig. 411 (A28) with references; PISEDE, 133 (BR20); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 992 (EDF 21). 78 Three royal cartouches of Thutmose III lie in the Wadi Dagbag and around the well at Wadi Dunqash (Eichler, “Neue Expeditionsinschriften aus der Ostwüste Oberägyptens,” 255, Taf. 31a (no. 19); PISEDE, 192 (DG05), 297–98 (DN14), 328 (DN44); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 352–55, 1020 (EDF 50), 1142 (KOM 33), 1151 (KOM 42). Additional inscriptions dateable to the reign of Thutmose III may also be found to the north in Wadi Minayh, a region that was likely part of the Gold of Coptos (Green, “Notes on some Inscriptions in the Etbai District,” pl. 32 [= Colin, “Les Paneia d’El-Buwayb et du Ouadi Minayh,” 100]; Green, op cit, pl. 34 [= PISEDE, 53 MN05; Almásy and Kiss, “Catalogue of the Inscriptions,” 185 no. G001]; Colin, op cit, 102–103 no. 4, 107–110 nos. 11–12). For the Old and Middle Kingdom gold mining see Klemm, et al., “Gold of the Pharaohs,” 647–49; Klemm, et al., “Ancient Gold Mining,” 216, and compare Figs. 1–2. For the jurisdiction of the viceroy see infra, fn. 115. 79 Compare Qasr Ibrim Shrine 1 (Nehy, r. Thutmose III) and Shrine 4 (Usersatet, r. Amenhotep II) in Caminos, Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions, pls. 10, 28; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 354–55. 80 Reconstruction based on the Semna stele of Usersatet (MFA 25.632) and Shrine 4 at Qasr Ibrim, for which see Darnell and Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies, 125–31; Darnell, “The Stela of the Viceroy Usersatet.”

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 177

While activity at the Eastern Desert gold mines increased under Thutmose III, titles reveal that the de facto management of the mining region remained in the hands of civil officials from the Egyptian administration. The title ἰmy-rꜢ ḫꜢs.wt nbw n ’Imn denoted oversight of this mining region of the southeastern Egyptian desert. Despite the Viceroy Nehy’s appearance in the relief of Nubian tribute at Qasr Ibrim, this title was held by a high-ranking civil official of the Egyptian administration named Senneferi.81 After him the title is attested for a man named Wersu on a statue from Coptos, roughly dated to the reign of Amenhotep II on stylistic grounds.82 Another rock inscription in the Eastern Desert (EDF 79) records the title for a mayor of Coptos named Hotep,83 which together with the statue of Wersu, suggests that at least at the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep II, the yields of these mines were counted as part of the “gold of Coptos.” Four rock inscriptions from the Wadi Dunqash, east of Kom Ombo, may span the transitional period between Egyptian and viceregal control. These four inscriptions record at least two stages in the career of the deputy viceroy to Usersatet, Seninefer.84 One inscription (KOM 27) accords him the title deputy viceroy (ἰdnw n sꜢ-nswt), whereas a second inscription (KOM 28) gives him the title deputy secretary (ἰdnw n sš), probably in the administration of his father Awa who held the post of deputy viceroy at the time. Usersatet’s viceregal tenure spanned approximately years three to twenty-five of Amenhotep II, and the point at which Seninefer became the deputy viceroy is uncertain.85 The transition from ἰdnw n sš to ἰdnw n sꜢ-nswt suggests that the inscriptions

81 Urk. IV, 541 e for titles; Strudwick, The Tomb of Pharaoh’s Chancellor Senneferi at Thebes (TT 99), 9–17, esp. 14 and 17. 82 Griffith, “A New Monument from Coptos.” 83 Green, “Notes on some Inscriptions in the Etbai District,” 250, pl. XXXIV (no. 10); PISEDE, SL14; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 352, 1047 (EDF 79). Although the inscription cannot be dated with certainty, that the title became part of the viceregal titulary under Amenhotep III suggests a date of Amenhotep II or earlier. 84 Rothe, et al., “New Hieroglyphic Evidence for Pharaonic Activity,” 94, figs. 27–28 (D19– D20); Goedicke, “Epigraphic Comments,” 63; Eichler, “Neue Expeditionsinschriften aus der Ostwüste Oberägyptens,” 253, Tf. 29a, c, d (nos. 5, 7, 8); PISEDE, 288 (DN05), 290 (DN07), 291 (DN08), 292 (DN09); Brown and Darnell, “Review of Rothe … Pharaonic Inscriptions,” 128; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1134 (KOM 24), 1136–38 (KOM 27–KOM 29). For the association with the viceroy Usersatet see de Morgan, et al., Catalogue des Monuments I/1, 91 (no. 106); Gasse and Rondot, Inscriptions de Séhel, 153–54, 495 (SEH 259); Darnell, “The Stela of the Viceroy Usersatet,” 273 and n. 151; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 757 (ASW 27). 85 Müller, Die Verwaltung Nubiens im Neuen Reich, 110–12.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 178 Brown span the end of the reign of Thutmose III and the reign of Amenhotep II, making them roughly contemporary with—or slightly later than—the statue of Wersu and EDF 79. A second deputy viceroy named Mahu is also attested for the tenure of Usersatet and whether Seninefer and Mahu held the office con- comitantly or in succession (and the order of any succession) further affects the dating of the Wadi Dunqash inscriptions. Regardless, the Seninefer rock inscriptions cannot be positively associated with the gold mining industry and it may be that, at this time, the gold mining industry in the Egyptian Eastern Desert remained under the control of Coptite civil officials, while the inscriptions of Seninefer were related to another activity or an initial survey of the area associated with the transfer of oversight. The landscape of Eastern Desert gold exploitation changes dramatically during the reign of Amenhotep III, during which time gold was in high de- mand. Egypt had an international reputation as the primary gold producer of the ancient world and Amenhotep III was planning for several jubilee festivals.86 Incursions by the nomads of Ibhet into the southeastern reaches of the Wadi Allaqi threatened regular gold tribute from Nubia, highlighting the vul- nerability of the resource.87 Around the same time, exploitation of the gold mines of the Eastern Desert of Egypt, increased, now under the oversight of the viceroy, Merymose, and other personnel from the viceregal administration. This intensification represents the first widespread realization of viceregal suzerainty over the southeastern Egyptian desert, a shift that is reflected in the first major change in the viceregal titulary since the reign of Amenhotep I: Merymose assumes the title ἰmy-rꜢ ḫꜢs.wt nbw n ’Imn.88 A unique cluster of

86 For the international reputation of Egypt see Amarna Letters EA 4, EA 5, EA 19, EA 20, EA 26, EA 27, and EA 29 (Moran, The Amarna Letters, 9 ll. 36–50, 11 ll. 13–33, 44–45 ll. 34–70, 48 ll. 46–59, 85 ll. 30–57, 87 ll. 19–34, 92–97; Kitchen, “Amenhotep III and Mesopotamia,” 255–60). For the three Sed-festivals see most recently Kozloff, Amenhotep III, 182–96, 213–14 with references. The reign of Amenhotep III is also marked by an intensification of solar imagery related to the king, who takes on the name “The Dazzling Sun Disk” (Berman, “Amenhotep III and his Times,” 33–35; Bryan, “Designing the Cosmos,” 73–111, esp. 110–111; Darnell and Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies, 19–24). Such a marked emphasis on the solar qualities of the king may also have influenced the perceived significance of gold at this time. 87 For the campaign inscription identifying Merymose see BM 138, ll. 3–4 (= HT VIII, pl. 20; Urk. IV, 1659, no. 564, l. 13); Topozada, “Les Deux Campagnes d’Amenhotep III en Nubie”; O’Connor, “Amenhotep III and Nubia,” 264–70; Kozloff, Amenhotep III, 70–81; 166–68. The identification of the Viceroy as Merymose occurs late in the text (Urk. IV, 1660, l. 20). 88 Mahfouz, “Les Directeurs des Déserts Aurifères d’Amon,” 75.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 179 twenty-four inscriptions within the interconnected wadis Barramiya, Kanayis, Dunqash, Dagbag, and Bezeh reveals the interplay between royal and non-royal territorial agencies in the process of geopolitical, devotional, and professional site formation related to the exploitation of these mines under Amenhotep III. The Wadi Kanayis preserves two cartouches of Amenhotep III. The first (EDF 64) consists exclusively of the royal name Nb-MꜢꜤ.t-RꜤ carved vertically and enclosed within the cartouche.89 The second of these (EDF 58/59)90 is a rare example that preserves the names of both the royal prototype and the non-royal artist (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 Cartouche of Amenhotep III (Prototype) with inscriptions of Merymose (Artist) in the Wadi Kanayis (EDF 58: top; EDF 59: bottom). © M.W. Brown, 2015.

89 PISEDE, 209 (KN10); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1032 (EDF 64). 90 Weigall, Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts, pl. XXVIII (nos. 6–7); Rohl, Followers of Horus I, 20, middle (no. 14); PISEDE, 203–04 (KN04 and KN05); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 329–31, 350–51, 1027–28 (EDF 58 and EDF 59).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 180 Brown

The inscription consists of a vertical cartouche, reading Nb-MꜢꜤ.t-RꜤ (Amenhotep III), flanked bottom and possibly top by identical horizontal lines readings ἰr(.w).n sꜢ-nswt Mr(.y)-Ms(.w), “which the King’s Son, Merymose, made.” The ἰr(.w).n N formula is the conventional means to identify personal authorship of an inscription.91 The statement ἰr(.w).n sꜢ-nswt Mr(.y)-Ms(.w) refers not to the king, as in expressions of filiation, but to the production of the graffito,92 i.e., “this seal (of Amenhotep III) was carved here by the Viceroy Merymose” (lit: “[this seal], which the Viceroy Merymose made”). Two possible agentic formulae obtain to describe the relationship between Prototype and Artist:

A: [[[Prototype-DomA] → Artist-SubA] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P [[[Amenhotep III-DomA] → Merymose-SubA] → Cartouche-a] >>> Recipient-P

B: [[[Artist-DomA] → Prototype-SubA] → Index-a] >>> Recipient-P [[[Merymose-DomA] → Amenhotep III-SubA] → Cartouche-a] >>> Recipient-P

Where the presence of the single solitary cartouche of Amenhotep III (EDF 64) instantiates the annexation of the area to the territories of the king, the addition of the artist in EDF 58/59, explicitly identified as one of the highest ranked administrators under the pharaoh, changes the dynamics of the agentic relationship to one that simultaneously manifests the hegemony of Amenhotep III and establishes the agency of the Viceroy Merymose as royal proxy.93 In explicitly taking responsibility for the cartouche, it may be that Merymose invoked

91 The conventional formula usually reads ἰr(w).n N n nb=f “which N made for his Lord;” however, the Egyptians were not above adapting the formula to assert their own primacy, for which see Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey II, 20 and n. 119, 74; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 110 and n. 255. For the function see also Grallert, Bauen-Stiften-Weihen, 79–83; Dorn, “Von Graffiti und Königsgräbern des Neuen Reiches,” 65 n. 17; Sweeney, “Sitting Happily with Amun,” 221 n. 47; Dorn, “Diachrone Veränderungen der Handschrift des Nekropolenschreibers Amunnacht,” 185–87 and “The ἰrἰ.n Personal-Name-formula,” esp. §2.1.2–2.1.4, 2.2.2. Many thanks to Dr. Dorn for sharing the latter, forthcoming, article with me. 92 Dorn, “The ἰrἰ.n Personal-Name-formula.” Dorn additionally notes that the ἰrἰ.n PN- formula may, in certain donation and dedicatory contexts, serve as a signature while simultaneously standing in as an image substitute for an individual who is not represented iconically and standing in for the dedicatory actions of that individual. 93 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 265–74; Dorn, “The ἰrἰ.n Personal-Name-formula,” §2.2.1.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 181 the royal name as a means of establishing his own primacy within the region. Given that the authority of the king is the vehicle through which Merymose achieves his position, and given that the king cosmologically was always the primary agent, here it seems likely that option A best describes the situation. Still, option B remains a possibility as Merymose’s administrative dominance is reinforced by a third inscription (KOM 08)94 that advances his primary individual agency within the landscape and emphasizes his professional authority (Fig. 2). The inscription, which reads simply sꜢ-nswt Mr.y{.y}-ms(.y) “The Viceroy, Merymos(e)” gives an agentic formula of [[Merymose-A] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P. That this is the same agentic formula embodied in the royal serekhs and cartouches suggests a parallel functionality, in which case the inscription establishes the individual agency of Merymose within the landscape and annexes it to his professional jurisdiction.95 While the scarcity of inscriptions directly naming Merymose appears to argue against any intention to establish viceregal authority in the Eastern Desert, the cursory annexation

Figure 2 Individual inscription of the Viceroy Merymose in the Wadi Bezeh. © M.W. Brown, 2015

94 PISEDE, 256; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 333, 1122 (KOM 08). 95 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 258–61, 398–01.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 182 Brown of the territory by the king, and the establishment of the individual authority of Merymose, is supported and extended through the inscriptional—and by relation, physical—activities of Merymose’s personnel. The focus of the inscriptions of Merymose’s personnel on delineating the bounds of their professional activities attests to the degree to which Amenhotep and Merymose had already defined the landscape. Three inscriptions record the name of Merymose as part of the title of the inscription owner (Figs. 3a-c). The inscriptions of Woser (EDF 31)96 and Herunefer (EDF 32)97—both taking the title sš n sꜢ-nswt Mr.y-ms.w, “scribe of the Viceroy Merymose”—and that of the šmsw n sꜢ-nswt Mr.y-ms.w, “retainer

3A 3B

Figure 3a–c Inscriptions of three functionaries of Merymose that record the name and title of Merymose as part of their own title. Inscription 3A (EDF 31) and Inscription 3B (EDF 32) are both from the Site 2 rockshelter in the Wadi Barramiya. Inscription 3C (KOM 06) is carved in the Wadi Bezeh. © M.W. Brown, 2015.

96 Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 233–34, fig. 399 (A19); PISEDE, 159–60 (BR46); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 324, 1002 (EDF 31). 97 Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 86 (no. 17); Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 233, fig. 398 (A18); PISEDE, 161 (BR47); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 324–25, 1003 (EDF 32).

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 183

of the Viceroy Merymose,” Sa-Amun (KOM 06)98 represent the subsumption of the agency of the Prototype (Merymose) by that of the Artist (inscription owner), who represents the Prototype to reinforce the strength of their own primary agency.99 Here cosmology does not dictate the unassailability of Merymose and just as Merymose derived his authority from his association with Amenhotep III, so too do User, Herunefer, and Sa-Amun derive their authority to act as scribes and retainers from their association with Merymose; however, their inscriptions primarily emphasize their own professional functions:

EDF 31: [[[User-DomA] → Merymose-SubA] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P* EDF 32: [[[Herunefer-DomA] → Merymose-SubA] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P* KOM 06: [[[Sa-Amun-DomA] → Merymose-SubA] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P*

* Landscape (professional jurisdiction; viceregal “proxy”)-P; Egyptians (doxa)-P; Foreign Groups/Individuals-P

Nevertheless, these inscriptions also constitute distributed personifications of Merymose whose fundamental integration within Egyptian doxa, through his close relationship with the Egyptian king, forms the basis for the authorita- tive power of the inscription. The distribution of Merymose’s agency via these inscriptions extended his territorial suzerainty to include the Wadi Barramiya, and from there the interconnectedness of the desert wadi systems permitted the annexation of the larger network of wadis to which the Wadi Barramiya, Wadi Kanayis, and Wadi Bezeh gave access. This effect is confirmed by the proliferation of professional inscriptions belonging to viceregal personnel throughout this network of interconnected wadis. The aforementioned User (EDF 31) left a second inscription—reading brief- ly sš Wsr, “the scribe, User”—in the Wadi Bezeh (KOM 15)100 and Sa-Amun left another eleven inscriptions scattered in clusters throughout the region (see below). In addition to User and Sa-Amun, the functionaries Mahu (sš/sš n nbw tꜢ.wy, “scribe/scribe of the gold of the Two Lands”) and Preemhab (wꜤb n Ḥr, “wab-priest of Horus”)—identified as personnel of Merymose based on

98 PISEDE, 254 (BZ07); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 332, 356, 1120 (KOM 06). 99 Gell, Art and Agency, 52–53. 100 PISEDE, 270 (BZ23); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 335, 1128 (KOM 15).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 184 Brown an inscription left by Mahu in the Wadi Allaqi that explicitly associates him with Merymose101—left one inscription (EDF 33).102 The thirteen inscriptions carved by these support personnel do not mention Merymose or Amenhotep III, rather they advance the individual agency of the inscription owner in establishing a professional jurisdiction. The inscriptions of Sa-Amun exemplify the use of rock inscriptions to delineate a professional jurisdiction (Table 1). The corpus of twelve inscriptions, are carved strategically throughout the Wadi Abu Muawad (2 inscriptions),103

Table 1 The rock inscriptions of Sa-Amun from the Egyptian Eastern Desert

ID Location Names and titles

EDF 02 Wadi Abu Muawad sš SꜢ-’Imn EDF 08 Wadi Abu Muawad sš ḥsb.w nbw SꜢ-’Imn EDF 10 Wadi Barramiya, south side sš SꜢ-’Imn EDF 15 Wadi Barramiya, south side mꜢꜢ bἰꜢ.w (?) ḫꜢs.t/ sš ḥsb.w nbw SꜢ-’Imn EDF 20 Wadi Barramiya, north side šmsw SꜢ-’Imn sꜢ Ḥr-nḫt EDF 29 Wadi Barramiya, south side sš ḥsb.w nbw SꜢ-’Imn EDF 49 Wadi Dagbag, above the well sš SꜢ-’Imn EDF 67 Wadi Mia, southeast side sš ḥsb.w nbw SꜢ-’Imn KOM 06 Wadi Bezeh, southeast ἰr.n šmsw n sꜢ-nswt Mr.y-ms.w SꜢ-’Imn rockshelter KOM 07 Wadi Bezeh, southeast sš SꜢ-’Imn rockshelter KOM 10 Wadi Bezeh, southeast ἰr.n sš SꜢ-’Imn rockshelter KOM 11 Wadi Bezeh, southeast ἰr.n SꜢ-’Imn rockshelter

101 Piotrovskii, Vadi Allaki, 51 (no. 74), 72, 153 and “The Early Dynasty Settlement,” 136, pls. XXVIII–XXIX; Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt, 94; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 599 no. ALL 67. 102 Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 232 (A17), fig. 397; PISEDE, 162–63 (BR48); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 325–26, 1004 (EDF 33). 103 PISEDE, 100 (MW04), 108 (MW12); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 318–20 (EDF 02, EDF 08), 977, 981.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 185

Wadi Barramiya (4 inscriptions),104 Wadi Dagbag (1 inscription),105 Wadi Mia (1 inscription),106 and Wadi Bezeh (4 inscriptions).107 Paleographic and ortho- graphic similarities confirm their identification with a single prolific Sa-Amun.108 Only KOM 06 identifies him with the title šmsw n sꜢ-nswṯ Mr.y-ms.w, though he appears with a variant of this title in the Wadi Allaqi.109 The remaining eleven inscriptions identify him as either a sš ḥsb.w nbw, “gold accountant,” or with the abbreviated designation sš. Inscription EDF 15 reveals that Sa-Amun’s primary duties within the Egyptian eastern Desert consisted of circulating throughout the gold mines east of Edfu “inspecting the mines of the desert” (mꜢꜢ bἰꜢ.w ḫꜢs.t).110 The distribution of the inscriptions (Fig. 4) reveals that Sa-Amun circulated between several mines, possibly those in Wadi Dagbag (Daghbag IV), Wadi Mia, Talet Gadalla, Wadi Abu Muawad, el-Hisinat, and the Bezeh and Barramiya groupings.111 That the inscriptions were used to establish a professional jurisdiction related to the mines under his supervision is evident in the agentic dynamics of the majority of Sa-Amun’s inscriptions:

[[Sa-Amun-A] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P*

* Landscape (professional jurisdiction)-P; Egyptians (doxa)-P; Foreign Groups/ Individuals-P

104 Rothe and Miller, “More Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert,” 90 and fig. 3 (B10), 92–93 and fig. 8 (B15); PISEDE, 113 (BR03), 119 (BR 09), 128–129 (BR17), 156 (BR43); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 320 (EDF 10), 322–24 (EDF 15, EDF 20, EDF 29), 983, 988, 991, 1000. 105 PISEDE, 191 (DG04); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 329 (EDF 49), 1019. 106 PISEDE, 212 (MI01); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 331 (EDF 67), 1035. 107 PISEDE, 254–55 (BZ07 and BZ 08), 260 (BZ 13), 263 (BZ16); Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 332–34 (KOM 06, KOM 07, KOM 10, KOM 11), 1120–21, 1123–24. 108 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 357–62. 109 Černý, “Graffiti at the Wādi el-Allāḳi,” pl. XI.3; Piotrovskii, Vadi Allaki, 50 (no. 64), 150; Chevereau, Prosopographie, 96 (no. 13.25) but dated incorrectly; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 362, 589 (ALL 57). 110 Rothe and Miller, “More Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert,” 92–93, fig. 8; PISEDE, 119; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 988 (EDF 15). EDF 15 is a clipped variant of the “coming to do things” genre of inscription, for which see Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Antefoker, 27–29, pls. XXXV–XXXVIIA; Spiegelberg, Ägyptische und andere Graffiti, 75–76 (no. 914); Navrátilová, The Visitors’ Graffiti, 58–61 (M.1.5.M.19.1.1), 131–34 with references. 111 Klemm and Klemm, Gold and Gold Mining, 159–203.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 186 Brown

Figure 4 Distribution of the Sa-Amun inscriptional corpus in relation to the Eastern Desert gold mines.

Even in KOM 06 where Sa-Amun identifies himself in relation to Merymose, Sa-Amun’s agency is dominant. Sa-Amun uses Merymose’s status to advance his own position of authority; therefore, the Prototype Merymose becomes the lens through which Sa-Amun’s territorial agency is magnified onto the landscape. This inscriptional corpus establishes and distributes the primacy of Sa-Amun within the landscape itself, demarcating the physical bounds of

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 187

Sa-Amun’s activities, which he has specified as inspections.112 The application of multiple rock inscriptions, often in close proximity, within a single wadi combined with the frequent clustering of an inscription with the full sš ḥsb.w nbw title alongside one or more inscription(s) with only the abbreviated sš title suggests successive visits, each of which received a new notation.113 This may align with quarterly or seasonal inspections of the mines. The inscriptions examined thus far reveal the interplay of royal and non- royal agencies in the process of site formation. The royal cartouches in the Wadi Kanayis establish the territorial hegemony of the Egyptian king and the authority of Merymose to act as his proxy. The inscriptions of Merymose, and those of his personnel that name him, distribute Merymose’s authority through the wadi systems, while simultaneously establishing the professional jurisdiction of the inscription owner as accountants of yields from the gold mines. The location of these inscriptions, with their peculiar hegemonic agencies, in Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III is probative. Although the deserts of Edfu and Kom Ombo lie within Egypt proper, from the reign of Thutmose III the region was subject to the Viceroy of Nubia.114 The rock inscriptions functioned to redefine the Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian landscape as “Egyptian Nubia,” annexing the territory on behalf of the Egyptian King and placing it under the authority of the chief Nubian administrator. This redefinition of the desert landscape was reinforced by the participation of three Nubian individuals in the mining expeditions. Three Nubians from the district of Miam left six inscriptions in the Wadi Barramiya and Wadi Bezeh. Four of these inscriptions record the well-known Chief of Miam, Heqanefer. EDF 41 (Fig. 5) depicts a man, facing right with hands raised in a gesture of adoration, enclosed within a stele. The lunette is framed at the top by a winged sun-disc and bears the text wr ḤḳꜢ-nfr, “the Chief, Heqanefer.” EDF 42 (Fig. 6) records two horizontal lines of hieroglyphic text,

112 Compare to the role of the rock inscriptional records of Ahmose Turo, Nebnetjeru son of Hori, and Pahemnetjer son of Huy in creating personal/professional jurisdictions, for which see Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 258–65, 360–61. 113 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 361–62. 114 The investiture of Nehy (r. Thutmose III), recorded on the temple of Senwosret III at Semna, describes his jurisdiction as extending “[to the southern part] of this land beginning in Nekhen,” marking Hierakonpolis as the northern extent of viceregal jurisdiction by that time (Urk. IV, 988, ll. 11–12; Caminos, Semna-Kumma I, 62, pl. 30). The investiture of Huy, recorded in his tomb (Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 10, pl. VI) reveals that the southern extremity of the viceregal jurisdiction was variously identified as Nesuttaway (Gebel Barkal) and Karoy (the Abu Hamed reach).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 188 Brown oriented right-to-left, reading wr n MἰꜤm ἰmy-rꜢ ṯb.w ḤḳꜢ-nfr ꜤꜢ WꜢwꜢ.t, “The Chief of Miam, Overseer of Sandalmakers, Heqanefer, Magnate of Wawat.” A Nubian chief and functionary in the administration of Nubia under Tutankhamun,115 EDF 42 reveals that he was already a high-ranking functionary within the administration of Nubia under Amenhotep III.116

Figure 5 Rock inscription of Heqanefer in the Wadi Barramiya (EDF 41). © M.W. Brown, 2015

115 Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 2, 26–27; Darnell and Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies, 133–34; Török, Between Two Worlds, 271–72; Brown, “Shawabti of the Prince of Miam Heqanefer.” 116 Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 27; Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 227–28 (A5), fig. 382; PISEDE, 175 (BR59); Brown and Darnell, “Review of Rothe … Pharaonic Inscriptions,” 133–34, fig. 7; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 328–29, 1013 (EDF 42); c.f. Žába, “Un Nouveau Fragment,” 513–14 (for a discussion of promotion).

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 189

Inscription KOM 03 (Fig. 7) shows a large, well carved image of a falcon. In front of the image a single horizontal line of hieroglyphic text, oriented right- to-left, reads wr ḤḳꜢ-nfr n nb=f, “the Chief, Heqanefer, for his Lord,” probably an abbreviation of the common Egyptian dedicatory formula [ἰr(w).n] wr ḤḳꜢ- nfr n nb=f, [votive of Horus], “which the Chief, Heqanefer, made for his Lord.” Finally, KOM 13 (Fig. 8) preserves a single horizontal line of text, oriented right- to-left and consisting of three hieroglyphic signs reading wr ḤḳꜢ-nfr, “the Chief, Heqanefer.” These four inscriptions of Heqanefer in the Egyptian Eastern Desert lie in close proximity to those of Merymose and his support personnel:117 EDF 41 and 42 are in the inscribed rock shelter in the Wadi Barramiya and KOM 03 and 13 are in the Wadi Bezeh.

Figure 6 Rock inscription of Heqanefer in the Wadi Barramiya (EDF 42). © M.W. Brown, 2015

117 For the Heqanefer graffiti in the Wadi Barramiya see Žába, Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 227–28 (A5 and A6). Add to this two hitherto unknown Heqanefer rock inscriptions nearby in the Wadi Bezeh (mistranslated and thus not recognized in the original publication), for pictures of which see PISEDE, 252 (BZ04), 264 (BZ17). For the corrected readings and reanalysis of their significance see Brown and Darnell, “Review of Rothe … Pharaonic Inscriptions,” 133–35; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 327–29 (EDF 41, EDF 42), 331–32 (KOM 03), 334–35 (KOM 13), 363–66, 1012–13, 1118, 1126. Beyond the inscriptions under consideration for this particular case study, a fifth graffito of Heqanefer lies in the Wadi Hamid in the Nubian Eastern desert (Sadr, et al., Interim Report on the Easter Desert Research Centre, fig. 8.2.4; Damiano-Appia, “Inscriptions along the

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 190 Brown

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 191

Heqanefer loyalist name and tomb reliefs, describing his youth at the Egyptian palace, reflect an Egyptianized identity.118 All four rock inscriptions further reflect this Egyptianization, displaying a flawless grasp of Egyptian language, hieroglyphic script, ritual convention and scribal template. EDF 41 takes the form of a stela with the characteristic winged sun-disk framing the upper curve of the lunette. Heqanefer depicts himself kneeling with arms raised in an Egyptian pose of adoration. KOM 03 not only uses an Egyptian template for a dedicatory ritual—ἰr(.w).n N n nb=f—but the carving of the falcon probably indicates that Heqanefer was invoking the Egyptian god Horus. The placement of KOM 03 in the deserts east of Edfu suggests a familiarity with the cult of Horus and its traditional religious centers.119 However, in content, Heqanefer’s inscriptions emphasize not his Egyptian upbringing but his Nubian titles and position within the administration of Nubia—wr n MἰꜤm, ꜤꜢ WꜢwꜢ.t, “Chief of Miam, Magnate of Wawat”—and his invocation of Horus evokes a secondary connection between these deserts and the Nubian district of Miam, of which Horus of Miam was the patron deity. Two final inscriptions are undated; however, they lie in close proximity to Sa-Amun’s mining inspection inscription (EDF 15) and probably date to the same set of events. They are most certainly of a Dynasty 18 date. These inscriptions record two additional Nubians from Miam. EDF 13 (Fig. 9) shows two horizontal lines of lapidary hieratic text, oriented right-to-left, reading sš spꜢ.t Ḏḥwty-ms(.w) n MἰꜤm, “The scribe of the district of Miam, Djehutymose.”120 EDF 14 (Fig. 10) preserves a single horizontal line of well-carved lapidary hieratic, oriented right-to-left, reading wr RꜤ-ḥtp.w n MἰꜤm, “The chief of Miam, Rahetepu.”121 Rahetepu should probably be identified with the wr n MἰꜤm RꜤ-ḥtp named in a graffito found in close association with the Heqanefer rock inscription

tracks of Kubban, Buhen and Kumma,” 513–17 no. 1, 540 fig. 1; Castiglioni and Castiglioni, “Pharaonic Inscriptions along the Eastern Desert Routes in Sudan,” 50–51). 118 Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 27; Smith, Wretched Kush, 173; Darnell and Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies, 134 with notes 163–64; Török, Between Two Worlds, 271–72; Brown, “Shawabti of the Prince of Miam Heqanefer.” 119 See Espinel, “Gods in the Red Land,” 98–101, esp. 101 for graffiti connected with falcons in the desert. 120 Rothe and Miller, “More Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert,” 91 (B13), fig. 6; PISEDE, 117 (BR07). 121 Rothe and Miller “More Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert,” 93 (B16), fig. 9; PISEDE, 118 (BR08) with reservations about the published reading; Brown and Darnell, “Review of Rothe … Pharaonic Inscriptions,” 132–33; Davies, “The Korosko Road Project,” 37 n. 28; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 321–22 (EDF 13, EDF 14) and n. 24, 986, 987.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 192 Brown

corpus at Toshka.122 William Kelly Simpson has argued that the Rahotep recorded at Toshka predated Heqanefer’s tenure as the wr n MἰꜤm, based on the distribution of the graffiti.123 That Rahotep and Heqanefer, both bearing the title wr n MἰꜤm, appear in close proximity in the Egyptian Eastern Desert further supports Simpson’s argument. It is possible that the co-occurrence of graffiti of both chiefs in the Egyptian Eastern Desert (perhaps from two expeditions closely related in time and space) reflect the transition between their respective tenures, sometime during the reign of Amenhotep III. Like the inscriptions of Heqanefer, EDF 13 and EDF 14 exhibit a quintessen- tial Egyptian character: both Djehutymose and Rahetepu display the same fa- cility with the Egyptian language and scribal conventions—in particular the

122 Davies “The Korosko Road Project,” 37; Müller, Die Verwaltung Nubiens in Neuen Reich, 53, 246 no. 6; Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 25, fig. 20, 27; Steindorff, Aniba II, 250 no. 72; Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 87 no. 30. 123 Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 27.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 193 use of the lapidary hieratic script—and identify themselves with well-attested Egyptian names.124 Nevertheless, contrasting the Egyptianization evident in both their inscriptions, and paralleling the emphasis seen in the inscriptions of Heqanefer, Djehutymose, and Rahetepu emphasize their roles within the administrative structures of Nubia, and, perhaps even more significantly, the Nubian district of Miam.125 By the reign of Amenhotep III the Egyptian administration in Nubia was coming to closely parallel the Egyptian domestic vizierate. Directly under the viceroy of Nubia, the office of deputy viceroy—previously only attested as a single office—became divided into two offices: the ἰdnw n WꜢwꜢ.t, “deputy viceroy of Wawat,” and the ἰdnw n KꜢš, “deputy viceroy of Kush.”126 The seats of these two officials have not been identified with certainty; however two ἰdnw of Tutankhamun are depicted in the tomb of Huy, welcoming the new Viceroy to Nubia;127 a rock inscription from Ellesija identifies an ἰdnw n KꜢš, with particular connections to Miam, as Amenemipet; and a stele from Sinn el-Kaddab records an ἰdnw n WꜢwꜢ.t Penniut with a close connection to Faras.128 Additionally, the cemeteries at Miam and Soleb yielded burials of ἰdnw and a settlement at Amara West preserved the names of two ἰdnw of the Ramesside

124 Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen I, 219.15, 408.5. 125 Such an emphasis on “localitiness” is frequent among the inscriptions of Nubian leaders and their personnel during the New Kingdom. Consider for example the inscriptions of Hekanefer both within and outside of Nubia (infra; Simpson, Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material, 24–27); the inscriptions of the Chiefs of Tekhet (Säve-Söderbergh and Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites II, 186 ff.); the inscriptions at Gerf Hussein (Jacquet-Gordon, “Graffiti from the Region of Gerf Hussein,” 228–29 nos. I–II); and the inscriptions on the Korosko road (Davies, “The Korosko Road Project,” 31–33 KRP5, 32 KRP8 and fig. 3). During the Old Kingdom, such emphasis on place of origin has been interpreted as an important component to the formation of identity (Espinel, “Minima epigraphica,” 12). 126 See most recently Klotz and Brown, “The Enigmatic Statuette of Djehutymose,” 296–97. Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 16–17. The reign of Amenhotep III yields the earliest evidence for the division of Nubia into two administrative territories, each of which was governed by a deputy viceroy. An enigmatic statuette from Semna identifies its subject as the idnw n WꜢwꜢ.t Ḏḥwty-ms.w. This Djehutymose is probably to be identified with the idnw Ḏḥwty-ms.w that appears in a rock inscription in the Wadi Allaqi alongside the Viceroy Merymose, probably dating to the campaign in Ibhet. It is likely that the idnw n WꜢwꜢ.t Djehutymose went on to become the Viceroy Djehutymose attested under Akhenaten. 127 Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 17. 128 Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt, 92 and n. 201 (= Urk. IV, 1935 (no. 725); Darnell, “A Stela of the Reign of Tutankhamun,” 79; Curto, Lo Speos di Ellesija, 98; Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 1217 (QAT 04).

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 194 Brown period.129 Tutankhamun’s particular focus on the site of Faras has led to the conclusion that Faras was the seat of the viceregal administration, while the ἰdnw were stationed at Miam and Soleb.130 However, the extant material evidence is sparse and spans several hundred years. Two recent studies on the content and distribution of earlier viceregal material, have argued that Semna was the viceregal seat spanning Amenhotep I to Amenhotep III.131 These rock inscriptions of Heqanefer, Rahetepu, and Djehutymose reveal the importance of Miam already during the reign of Amenhotep III and if it was not the actual seat of the Deputy of Wawat who oversaw the district, the inscriptions, none- theless, seemed to evoke the very essence of that region. As with the inscriptions of Sa-Amun and the other personnel of Merymose, the ascribed material agencies of the Nubian inscriptions reflect the embodiment within the landscape of an individual agency related to either personal experience or professional jurisdiction:

[[Heqanefer-A] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P* [[Djehutymose-A] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P* [[Redpure-A] → Rock Inscription-a] >>> Recipient-P*

* Landscape (personal experience/professional jurisdiction)-P; Egyptians (doxa)-P; Foreign Groups/Individuals-P

In content, two of Heqanefer’s inscriptions reflect a devotional interaction with the landscape while the third “represents” his professional identity. The inscriptions of Rahetepu and Djehutymose “represent” their professional duties related to the Egyptian administration. The Egyptian character of the inscriptions serves to reinforce Egyptian doxa; however, the foreign origin of Heqanefer, Djehutymose, and Rahetepu—a Nubian origin that is empha- sized within the inscriptions—counters Egyptian doxa, representing their Nubianness as well. If the inscriptions of Amenhotep III and Merymose define the region and its mineral resources as “Egyptian Nubia,” newly conquered and integrated into the Egyptian state through the authority and oversight of

129 Fairman, “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Amarah West,” 9, pls. V.1, VI.4; Spencer, Amara West I, pls. 149–67; Morkot, “From Conquered to Conqueror,” 936; Müller, Die Verwaltung Nubiens in Neuen Reich, 418 (30.42, 30.46), 418–419 (47.6, 47.8). 130 Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 7, 17; Morkot, “From Conquered to Conqueror,” 936. 131 Brown, Keeping Enemies Closer, 265–74; Klotz and Brown, “The Enigmatic Statuette of Djehutymose.”

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 195 the Viceroy Merymose, and the inscriptions of the Egyptian personnel reinforce Egyptian doxa thereby Egyptianizing the (now Nubian) landscape by bringing it under the order of the Egyptian world view, the inscriptions of the Nubian expeditionary members reinforce the redefinition of the landscape as “Egyptian Nubia” by materializing the physical land of Nubia—through the emphasis on their respective Nubian districts—alongside the Egyptianized Nubian identities of Nubian personnel from the Egyptian administration within the landscape. Altogether, this inscriptional corpus presents an interesting case study of the interplay of territorial agencies, inherent in rock inscriptions, in defining and redefining geopolitical, devotional, and professional space within the eastern desert of Egypt. While the inscriptions certainly act upon Egyptian and foreign groups alike, it was the landscape that was perceived as the primary recipient of the inscriptional material agencies, which materialize a new Egypto-Nubian identity within the fluctuating liminality of the living desert.132 In transforming the landscape of the Egyptian Eastern Desert into a mirror of the south, the agentic dynamics of the inscriptional corpus simultaneously redefined the gold of the Egyptian Eastern Desert as an Egyptianized Nubian product, which in turn allowed it to function in the correct capacity within the context of the Nubian tribute ceremony for which it was destined. Within the context of these transformative events, the Nubians became tools of Egyp tian hegemony, as the material agencies of the inscriptional corpus “represented” a microcosmic recreation of the ideal state of Egypto-Nubian relations, which the tribute ceremonies also sought to establish and maintain.

Conclusion

This study has presented an overview of the development and application of a new theoretical framework for understanding the role that ancient Egyptian rock art and rock inscriptions play in site formation. Understanding rock art and rock inscriptions as elements of material culture that instantiate the physical traces of human interaction with their environment and landscape, they represent a materialization of the relationships between humans and their environment, including those existing with other groups sharing that environment.

132 For a similar use of graffiti to appropriate parts of the Eastern Desert and associated Egyptian provinces during the Old Kingdom see Espinel, “Edfu and the Eastern Desert” and “Minima epigraphica,” 7–12 (no. 1) for an alternate analysis of the material.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 196 Brown

As iconic and aniconic representations of an artist or prototype, mechani- cally, rock art and rock inscriptions constitute material indexes that act as secondary social agents, mediating the transfer of agency from a primary agent (Artist or Prototype) to the intended audience (Recipient). Ancient Egyptian rock art and rock inscriptions established and perpetuated the active presence of the artist and/or prototype, continuing to act on their behalf in their absence by annexing territory and influencing those interacting with it. Each inscription bearing the name of an artist and/or prototype is a distributed per- sonification of their individual action and intention; however, the affiliation of the artist or prototype with Nilotic Egypt sews an Egyptianized group identity into the landscape—an embodiment or materialization of Egyptian doxa— implicitly annexing the demarcated territory. Over time, the behavior becomes involuntary, and Egyptian graffiti activity in liminal regions become a part of the environment that cues behavior. The ancient Egyptian rock inscription record exhibits a clear relationship between the creation of a rock inscription/graffito, the instantiation of identity, the definition/redefinition of space, and the annexation of territory. This material agency may be marked or ascribed to a carving by the recipients who experience an agentic response to the object. Depending on the social and physical context of the audience, the cognitive perception of agency may be highly variable over space and time. In examining these dynamics, primary focus must be on the agentic dynamics of the inscription itself—Prototype to Artist to Index to Recipient—and subsequently on what behavioral responses to the inscription suggest about that recipient’s cognitive response. The examination of a corpus of New Kingdom rock inscriptions in the Egyptian Eastern Desert, dating to the reign of Amenhotep III, within the framework of agency theory, illuminates the relationship between the distribution of the inscriptions, their content, and their historical context, revealing that the landscape was the primary recipient of the agency inhering in these inscriptions. Rock inscriptions recreated a microcosmic ideal of Egyptian hegemony in Nubia; the supervisory role of Nubian officials vis-à-vis the preparation of Nubian tribute combined with their production of hybrid Egypto-Nubian rock inscriptions reinforced Egyptian hegemony in desert regions by transforming the Nubians into agents of the Pharaonic state.

Abbreviations

AAAG Annals of the Association of American Geographers AJA American Journal of Archaeology

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 197

AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures ASAÉ Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypt ASLiRA Bulletin de l’Association Scientifique Liégeoise pour la recherché archéologique BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental BMRAH Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire BO Bibliotheca Orientalis DE Discussions in Egyptology ÉNiM Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne GM Göttinger Miszellen HT VIII Edwards, I.E.S., ed. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, Etc. Vol. VIII. London: Harrison and Sons, 1939. I.N.O.R.A. International Newsletter on Rock Art JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JLA Journal of Linguistic Anthropology JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies KRI Kitchen, K.A. Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical. 8 vols. Oxford: B.H. Blackwell Ltd., 1969–1990. LdÄ E. Otto, W. Westendorf, and W. Helck, eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–1992. MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo NEA Near Eastern Archaeology OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica PISEDE Rothe, R.D., W.K. Miller, and G. Rapp. Pharaonic Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. PM I.12 Porter, B. and R.L.B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. I: The Theban Necropolis, Part I: Private Tombs. Second edition. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1960. PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology RdÉ Revue d’Égyptologie SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Understanding Lovata, T. and E. Olton, eds., Understanding Graffiti: Multidisciplinary Graffiti Studies from Prehistory to the Present. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc., 2015. Urk. IV Sethe, K. and W. Helck, eds. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. 4 Bd., Heft 1–22. Leipzig: J.C. Hinris’sche Buchhandlung, 1903–1958; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984. ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 198 Brown

Bibliography

Almásy, A. and E. Kiss. “Catalogue of the Inscriptions.” In Bi’r Minayh. Report on the Survey 1998–2004, U. Luft, ed., 173–193. Studia Aegyptiaca, Series Maior III. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány, 2010. Anthes, R. Die Elseninschriften [sic] von Hatnub. UGAÄ 9. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964. Arkell, A.J. “Varia Sudanica.” JEA 36 (1950): 24–40. Assmann, J. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Translated by D. Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Assmann, J. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. 1st English-language ed., with revi- sions and additions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Bahrani, Z. The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Archaeology, Culture, and Society. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Barsanti, A. and H. Gauthier. “Stèles trouvées à Ouadi es-Sabouâ (Nubie).” ASAÉ 11 (1911): 64–86. Benefiel, R.R. “Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti in the House of Maius Castricius in Pompeii.” AJA 114, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 59–101. Berman, L.M. “Amenhotep III and His Times.” In Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, B.M Bryan, A.P. Kozloff, and L.M. Berman, eds., 33–66. Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992. Björkman, G. Kings at Karnak: A Study of the Treatment of the Monuments of Royal Predecessors in the Early New Kingdom. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Boreas 2. Uppsala/Stockholm: Universität; Stockholm/Almqvist:Wiksell, 1971. Borchardt, L. Zur Baugeschichte des Amonstempels von Karnak. UGAÄ 5/1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905. Bourdieu, P. Equisse d’une Théorie de la Pratique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Boykoff, J., and K. Sand. Landscapes of Dissent: Guerrilla Poetry & Public Space. Long Beach: Palm Press, 2006. Brackman, J. “Graffiti to Print.” New York Times, February 12, 1967, 259. Bradbury, L. “The Tombos Inscription: A New Interpretation.” Serapis 8 (1985): 1–20. Breasted, J.H. “Oriental Exploration Fund of the University of Chicago. Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedition.” AJSL 25, no. 1 (1908): 1–110. Brown, M.W. ‘Keeping Enemies Closer:’ Ascribed Material Agency in Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and the Projection of Presence and Power in Liminal Regions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University, 2015. Brown, M.W. “Shawabti of the Prince of Miam Heqanefer.” Echoes of Egypt: Conjuring the Land of the Pharaohs, 2013. http://echoesofegypt.peabody.yale.edu/overview/ shawabti-inscribed-chief-miam-heqanefer.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 199

Brown, M.W. and J.C. Darnell. “Review of Rothe, R.D., with W.K. Miller and G. Rapp, Pharaonic Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008).” JNES 72, no. 1 (2013): 125–137. Brunner-Traut, E. “Namenstilgung und -verfolgung.” In LdÄ IV: 338–341. Bryan, B.M. “Designing the Cosmos: Temples and Temple Decoration.” In Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, B.M Bryan, A.P. Kozloff, and L.M. Berman, eds., 73–115. Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992. Buck, A. de and A.H. Gardiner, eds. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. Vol. I. OIP 34. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. Calhoun, C. “Pierre Bourdieu.” In The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, G. Ritzer, ed., 274–309. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. Caminos, R.A. The New-Kingdom Temples of Buhen. ASE 33. London: EES, 1974. Caminos, R.A. Semna-Kumma. Vol. I: The Temple of Semna. ASE 37. London: EES, 1998. Caminos, R.A. The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim. ASE 32. London: EES, 1968. Castiglioni, A. and A. Castiglioni. “Pharaonic Inscriptions along the Eastern Desert Routes in Sudan.” Sudan & Nubia 7 (2003): 47–51. Černý, J. “Graffiti at the Wādi El-’Allāḳi.” JEA 33 (1947): 52–57. Chevereau, P-M. Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Éditions Cybèle, 1994. Coffield, F. Vandalism & Graffiti: The State of the Art. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1991. Cole, H.M. “Art as a Verb in Iboland.” African Arts 3, no. 1 (1969): 34–88. Colin, F. “Les Paneia d’El-Buwayb et du Ouadi Minayh sur la Piste de Bérénice à Coptos: Inscriptions égyptiennes.” BIFAO 98 (1998): 89–125. Conquergood, D. “Homeboys and Hoods: Gang Communication and Cultural Space.” In Group Communication in Context: Studies of Natural Groups, L.R. Frey, ed., 23–55. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Couyat, J. and P. Montet. Les Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques et Hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât. MIFAO 34. Cairo: IFAO, 1912. Cruz-Uribe, E. Hibis Temple Project. Vol. III: The Graffiti from the Temple. San Antonio: Tambopata Partners & Van Siclen Books, 2008. Cruz-Uribe, E. “Hieroglyphic and Demotic Texts (Nos 180–296).” In Syene I: The Figural and Textual Graffiti from the Temple of Isis at Aswan, J.H.F. Dijkstra, ed., 111–152. BBf 18. Darmstadt/Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2012. Curto, S. Lo Speos Di Ellesija: Un Tempio della Nubia Salvato dalle Acque del Lago Nasser. Firenze: Scala, 2010. Damiano-Appia, M. “Inscriptions along the Tracks from Kubban, Buhen and Kumma to ‘Berenice Panchrysos’ and to the South.” In Studien zum Antiken Sudan: Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagung für Meroitische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 200 Brown

in Gosen/ bei Berlin, S. Wenig, ed., 511–542. Meroitica 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Daniell, C. “Historic Graffiti and Calliglyphs on Two Military Establishments in England.” In Understanding Graffiti, 207–217. Darnell, J.C. “Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti.” In The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology, I. Shaw and J.P. Allen, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press. Darnell, J.C. “Homo Pictus and Painted Men: Depictions and Intimations of Humans in the Rock Art of the Theban Western Desert.” In Whatever Happened to the People? Humans and Anthopomorphs in the Rock Art of Northern Africa. Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences and the Royal Museums of Art and History, forthcoming. Darnell, J.C. “Iconographic Attraction, Iconographic Syntax, and Tableaux of Royal Ritual Power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert.” Archéo-Nil 19 (2009): pp. 83–107. Darnell, J.C. “The Narrow Doors of the Desert. Ancient Egyptian Roads in the Theban Western Desert.” In Inscribed Landscapes. Marking and Making Place., B. David and M. Wilson, eds., 104–121. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002. Darnell, J.C. “A Pharaonic de Profundis from the Western Desert Hinterland of Naqada.” In Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense: Studien zum Pharaonischen, Griechisch-Römischen und Spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen, H. Knuf, C. Leitz, and D. von Recklinghausen, eds., 39–47. OLA 194. Leuven/Walpole: Peeters, 2010. Darnell, J.C. “Review of Válhala and Červíček, Katalog der Felsbilder aus der Tschechoslowakischen Konzession in Nubien.” BO 60, nos. 1–2 (2003): 109–115. Darnell, J.C. “A Stela of the Reign of Tutankhamun from the Region of Kurkur Oasis.” SAK 31 (2003): 73–91. Darnell, J.C. “The Stela of the Viceroy Usersatet (Boston MFA 25.632), His Shrine at Qasr Ibrim, and the Festival of Nubian Tribute under Amenhotep II.” ENiM 7 (2014): 239–276. Darnell, J.C. Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert. Vol. 1. OIP 119. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2002. Darnell, J.C. Theban Desert Road Survey II: The Rock Shrine of Pahu, Gebel Akhenaton, and Other Rock Inscriptonis from the Western Hinterland of Qamula. Yale Egyptological Studies. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 2013. Darnell, J.C. and D. Darnell. “New Inscriptions of the Late First Intermediate Period from the Theban Western Desert and the Beginnings of the Northern Expansion of the Eleventh Dynasty.” JNES 56, no. 4 (1997): 241–258. Darnell, J.C. and C.M. Manassa. Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest during Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. Davies, N. de Garis and A.H. Gardiner. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife Senet (no. 60). TTS 2. London: EES, 1920.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 201

Davies, N. de Garis and A.H. Gardiner. The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tut’ankhamūn (no. 40). TTS 4, EES-SP 11. London: EES, 1926. Davies, W.V. “The British Museum Epigraphic Survey at Tombos: The Stele of Usersatet and Hekaemsasen.” Sudan & Nubia 13 (2009): 21–29. Davies, W.V. “The Korosko Road Project: Recording Egyptian Inscriptions in the Eastern Desert and Elsewhere.” Sudan & Nubia 18 (2014): 30–46. Davies, W.V. “Kurgus 2000: The Egyptian Inscriptions.” Sudan & Nubia 5 (2001): 46–58. Davies, W.V. “Kurgus 2002: The Inscriptions and Rock Drawings.” Sudan & Nubia 7 (2003): 55–57. Davies, W.V. “Kurgus 2004: The Epigraphic Results.” Kush 19 (2008): 15–19. Davies, W.V. “Merymose and Others at Tombos.” Sudan & Nubia 16 (2012): 29–36. Davies, W.V. “New Fieldwork at Kurgus. The Pharaonic Inscriptions.” Sudan & Nubia 2 (1998): 26–30. Davies, W.V. “The Rock Inscriptions at Kurgus in the Sudan.” In Séhel. Entre Égypte et Nubie. Inscriptions Rupestres et Graffiti de l’Époque Pharaonique., A. Gasse and V. Rondot, eds., 149–160. OrMonsp 14. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 2003. Davies, W.V. “Tombos and the Viceroy Inebny/ Amenemnekhu.” In BMSAES 10 (2008): 39–63. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_10/ davies_10.aspx. Dean, J.C. “Hardware Store Conservation: Why This Week’s ‘Best Buy’ May Not Be Such A Bargain.” In Images Past, Images Present: The Conservation and Preservation of Rock Art, J.C. Dean, ed., 21–26. IRAC Proceedings 2. Tuscon: American Rock Art Research Association, 1999. Dieleman, J. “The Materiality of Textual Amulets in Ancient Egypt.” In The Materiality of Magic, D. Boschung and J.N. Bremmer, eds., 23–58. Morphomata 20. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2015. Dobbin-Bennett, T. Rotting in Hell: Ancient Egyptian Conceptions of Decomposition and Putrefaction. Ph.D Dissertation. Yale University, 2014. Dorn, A. “Diachrone Veränderungen der Handschrift des Nekropolenschreibers Amunnacht, Sohn des Ipui.” In Ägyptologische „Binsen“ - Weisheiten I-II: Neue Forschungen und Methoden der Hieratistik. Akten zweier Tagungen im Mainz im April 2011 und März 2013, ed. U. Verhoeven, 175–218. AAWLM 14. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlab GMBH, 2015. Dorn, A. “Von Graffiti und Königsgräbern des Neuen Reiches.” In The Workman’s Progress: Studies in the Village of Deir El-Medina and Other Documents from Western Thebes in Honour of Rob Demarée, B.J.J. Haring, O.E. Kaper, and R. van Walsem, eds., 57–71. EgUit 28. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten; Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 202 Brown

Dorn, A. “The iri.n Personal-Name-Formula in non royal texts of the New Kingdom. A simple donation mark or a means of self-presentation?” In (Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt, T.J. Gillen, ed. Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 10. Lüttich, forthcoming. Edgerton, W.F. and J.A. Wilson. Historical Records of Rameses III: The Texts in Medinet Habu Volumes I and II. SAOC 12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Edwards, D.N. “Drawings on Rocks, the Most Enduring Monuments of Middle Nubia.” Sudan & Nubia 10 (2006): 55–63. Edwards, D.N. The Nubian Past. London: New York: Routledge, 2004. Ehrlich, D. and G. Ehrlich. “Graffiti in Its Own Words.” New York 39 no. 24 (2006): 48–54, 124. Eichler, E. “Neue Expeditionsinschriften aus der Ostwüste Oberägyptens. Teil II: Die Inschriften.” MDAIK 54 (1998): 250–266, pls. 28–34. Engelbach, R. “The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert and the Ancient Road to Tushka.” ASAÉ 38 (1938): 369–390. Erichsen, W. Demotisches Glossar. Kopenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1954. Espinel, A.D. Abriendo los caminos de Punt. Contactos entre Egipto y el ámbito afroárabe durante la Edad del Bronce (ca. 3000 a.C.-1065 a.C.). Barcelona: Bellaterra, 2011. Espinel, A.D. “Edfu and the Eastern Desert: Žába’s Rock Inscriptions No. A22 reconsid- ered,” Archiv Orientální 68 (2000): 579–586. Espinel, A.D. “Gods in the Red Land: development of cults and religious activities in the Eastern Desert.” In The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert, H. Barnard and K. Duistermaat, eds., 91–102. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 73. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2012. Espinel, A.D. “Minima epigraphica.” DE 59 (2004): 7–20. Fairman, H.W. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Amarah West, Anglo- Egyptian Sudan, 1947–48.” JEA 34 (1948): 3–11. Faulkner, R.O. The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts: Spells 1–1185 & Indexes. Oxford: Aris & Phillips Ltd., 2004. Faulkner, R.O. The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (British Museum No. 10188). Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 3. Brussels: Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1933. Fay, B., K. Jansen-Winkeln, and R.B. Parkinson, “Don’t Do What I Did! An Early Middle Kingdom Block Statue with an Inscription Added Later for “The God’s Father…, the Royal Scribe and Prophet of Osiris, … Seniu (šnw-jww).” ZÄS 141/1 (2015): 33–44. Ferrell, J. Crimes of Style. Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 2. New York/London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993. Ferrell, J. “Gang and Non-Gang Graffiti.” In Encyclopedia of Gangs, L. Kontos and D.C. Brotherton, eds., 56–59. Westport/London: Greenwood Press, 2008. Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. Die Vision von der Statue im Stein: Studien zum altägyptisch- en Mundöffnungsritual. Schriften der Philosphisch-historischen Klasse der

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 203

Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 5. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998. Fischer, H.G. Inscriptions from the Coptite Nome. Dynasties VI–XI. AnOr 40. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1964. Fischer, H.G. “The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period.” Kush 9 (1961): 44–80. Fleming, J. Graffiti and the Writing Arts of Early Modern England. London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2001. Fleming, S., B. Fishman, D. O’Connor, and D.P. Silverman. The Egyptian Mummy: Secrets and Science. University Museum Handbook 1. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1980. Frazer, Sir J.G. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940. Freedberg, D. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Gaballa, G.A. “Minor War Scenes of Ramesses II at Karnak.” JEA 55 (1969): 82–88. Gabolde, L. “La Stèle de Thoutmosis II à Assouan, Témoin Historique et Archétype Littéraire.” In Séhel. Entre Égypte et Nubie: Inscriptions Rupestres et Graffiti de l’Époque Pharaonique, A. Gasse and V. Rondot, eds., 129–148. OrMonsp 14. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 2003. Gardiner, A.H., T.E. Peet, and J. Černý. The Inscriptions of Sinai. 2 vols. EEF, Memoirs 36 and 45. London: EEF, 1917. Gasse, A. and V. Rondot. Les Inscriptions de Séhel. MIFAO 126. Cairo: IFAO, 2007. Gell, A. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Goedicke, H. “Epigraphic Comments on Inscriptions from the Eastern Desert.” GM 159 (1997): 61–64. Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Gombrich, E.H. Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art. 4th ed. Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1985. Gombrich, E.H. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984. Gopinath, G. “Ornament as Armament: Playing Defense in Wildstyle Graffiti.” In Understanding Graffiti, 117–128. Goyon, G. Nouvelles Inscriptions Rupestres du Wadi Hammamat. Paris: Adrien- Maisonneuve, 1957.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 204 Brown

Grallert, S. Bauen-Stiften-Weihen. Ägyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschrfiten von den Anfängen bis zur 30. Dynastie: Text. ADAIK 18/1. Berlin: Achet Verlag, Dr. Norbert Dürring, 2001. Green, F.W. “Notes on Some Inscriptions in the Etbai District.” PSBA 31 (June 1909): 247–254, pls. XXXII–XXXVI. Griffith, F.L. Catalogue of the Demotic Graffiti of the Dodecaschoenus. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press, 1935. Griffith, F.L. “A New Monument from Coptos.” JEA 2, no. 1 (1915): 5–7. Habachi, L. “The Graffiti and Work of the Viceroys of Kush in the Region of Aswan.” Kush 5 (1957): 13–36. Harmanşah, Ö. “Apparition on the Living Rock: Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments in the Near East.” In A Companion to the Art of the Ancient Near East, A. Gunter, ed., Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2014. Harmanşah, Ö. “Event, Place, Performance: Rock Reliefs and Spring Monuments in Anatolia.” In Of Rocks and Water: Towards and Archaeology of Place, Ö Harmanşah, ed., 140–168. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, volume in press. Harmanşah, Ö. “Stone Worlds: Technologies of Rock-Carving and Place-Making in Anatolian Landscapes.” In Cambridge Handbook of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, A.B. Knapp and P. van Dommelen, eds., 379–394. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Harmanşah, Ö. “ ‘Source of the Tigris.’ Event, Place and Performance in the Assyrian Landscapes of the Early Iron Age.” Archaeological Dialogues 14, no. 2 (2007): 179–204. Helck, W. “Ein „Feldzug“ Unter Amenophis IV. gegen Nubien.” SAK 8 (1980): 117–126. Hendrickx, S., H. Reimer, F. Förster, and J.C. Darnell. “Late Predynastic/Early Dynastic Rock Art Scenes of Barbary Sheep Hunting in Egypt’s Western Desert: From Capturing Wild Animals to the Women of the ‘Acacia House.’ ” In Desert Animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, Economic Significance, and Cultural Reflection in Antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop Held at the University of Cologne, December 14–15, 2007, H. Riemer, F. Förster, M. Herb, and N. Pöllath, eds., 189–244. Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut e.V., 2009. Hieratische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Vol. II: Hymnen an verschie- dene Götter, Zusatzkapitel zum Totenbuch. Konigliche Museen . Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905. Hintze, F. and W.F. Reineke. Felsinschriften aus dem sudanesischen Nubien. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989. Hoffmann, F. Ägypten: Kultur und Lebenswelt in griechisch-römischer Zeit, eine Darstellung nach den demotischen Quellen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000. Hsieh, J. “Discussions on the Daybook Style and the Formulae of Malediction and Benediction Stemming from Five Middle Kingdom Rock-Cut Stelae from Gebel El-Girgawi.” ZÄS 139 (2012): 116–135.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 205

Hue-Arcé, C. “Les graffiti érotiques de la tombe 504 de Deir el-Bahari revisités.” BIFAO 113 (2013): 193–202. Hutchison. R. “Blazon Nouveau: Gang Graffiti in the Barrios of Los Angeles and Chicago.” In Gangs: The Origins and Impact of Contemporary Youth Gangs in the United States, S. Cummings and D.J. Monti, eds., 137–172. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993. Huyge, D. “L’art le plus Ancient de la Vallé du Nil: Les Pêcheurs d’El-Hosh.” I.N.O.R.A. 32 (2002): 8–9. Huyge, D. “Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art.” In Egypt and Nubia—Gifts of the Desert, R. Friedman, ed., 192–206. London: British Museum, 2002. Huyge, D. “Grandeur in Confined Spaces: Current Rock Art Research in Egypt.” In Rock Art Studies. News of the World 2: Developments in Rock Art Research 1995–1999, P.G. Bahn and A. Fossati, eds., 59–73. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. Huyge, D. “Hilltops, Silts, and Petroglyphs: The Fish Hunters of El-Hosh (Upper Egypt).” BMRAH 69 (1998): 97–113. Huyge, D. “Horus Qa-a in the Elkab Area, Upper Egypt.” OLP 15 (1984): 5–9. Huyge, D. “ ‘Where Are the Fish?’: Piscatorial Representations in Central Saharan and Egyptian Rock Art.” Rock Art Research 15 (1998): 135–139. Huyge, D. and W. Claes. “Art rupestre gravé paléolithique de Haute Égypte: El-Hosh et Qurta, ASLiRA 28 (2015): 21–39. Ikram, S. and C. Rossi. “An Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis.” JEA 90 (2004): 211–215. Jacquet-Gordon, H. The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak: A Manifestation of Personal Piety. The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 3. OIP 123. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2003. Jacquet-Gordon, H. “Graffiti from the Region of Gerf Hussein.” MDAIK 37 (1981): 227–240. Kelly, R. “Yablonsky and The Violent Gang.” In Encyclopedia of Gangs, L. Kontos and D.C. Brotherton, eds., 279–282. Westport/London: Greenwood Press, 2008. Kemp, B.J. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and Its People. New Aspects of Antiquity. London: Thames & Hudson, 2012. Kirwan, L.P. The Oxford University Excavations at Firka. London: Oxford University Press, 1939. Kitchen, K.A. “Amenhotep III and Mesopotamia.” In Amenhotep III. Perspectives on His Reign, D. O’Connor and E.H. Cline, eds., 250–261. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Kjølby, A. “Material Agency, Attribution and Experience of Agency in Ancient Egypt. The Case of New Kingdom Private Temple Statues.” In “Being in Ancient Egypt.” Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition. Proceedings of the Seminar Held

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 206 Brown

in Copenhagen, September 29–30, 2006., R. Nyord and A. Kjølby, eds., 31–46. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2009. Klemm, D.D. and R. Klemm. Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia: Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts. Translated by P. Larsen. Berlin/Heidlberg: Springer-Verlag, 2013. Klemm, D.D., R. Klemm, and A. Murr. “Ancient Gold Mining in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and the Nubian Desert of Sudan.” In Egypt and Nubia—Gifts of the Desert, R. Friedman, ed., 215–231. London: British Museum Press, 2002. Klemm, D.D., R. Klemm, and A. Murr. “Gold of the Pharaohs—6000 Years of Gold Mining in Egypt and Nubia.” African Earth Sciences 33 (2001): 643–659. Klotz, D. and M.W. Brown. “The Enigmatic Statuette of Djehutymose (MFA 24.743): Deputy of Wawat at Semna.” JARCE 52 (2016): 269–302. Kozloff, A.P. Amenhotep III: Egypt’s Radiant Pharaoh. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Labib, P.C. “The Stela of Nefer-Ronpet.” ASAÉ 36 (1936): 194–196. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Layton, R. The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Lennon, J. “Writing with a Global Accent: Cairo and the Roots/Routes of Conflict Graffiti.” In Understanding Graffiti, 59–72. Le Quellec, J.-L. and D. Huyge. “Rock Art Research in Egypt, 2000–2004.” In Rock Art Studies, News of the World III, P. Bahn, N. Franklin, and M. Strecker, eds., 89–96. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008. Ley, D. and R. Cybriwsky. “Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers.” AAAG 64, no. 4 (1974): 491–505. Liverani, M. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. HANE, Studies 1. Padova: Sargon srl, 1990. Lorton, D. “The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt.” In Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, M.B. Dick, ed., 123–210. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Lovata, T. “Marked Trees: Exploring the Context of Southern Rocky Mountain Arborglyphs.” In Understanding Graffiti, 91–104. Mahfouz, E-S. “Les Directeurs Des Déserts Aurifères d’Amon.” RdÉ 56 (2005): 55–78. Mairs, R. “Egyptian ‘Inscriptions’ and Greek ‘Graffiti’ at El Kanais in the Egyptian Eastern Desert.” In Ancient Graffiti in Context, J.A. Baird and C. Taylor, eds., 153–164. New York/London: Routledge, 2011. Mǎndescu, D. “Archaeology and Graffiti Carved in Carpathian Rock: The Thracian Horseman, or an Early Medieval Image of Power and Authority?” In Understanding Graffiti, 77–89.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 207

Marciniak, M. Les Inscriptions Hiératiques du Temple de Thoutmosis III. Deir El-Bahari 1. Warsaw: PWN-Éditions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1974. Mariette, A. Monuments Divers Recueillis en Égypte et en Nubie. Paris: Librairie A. Franck, 1872. Martinez, J.F.E. “Bloods.” In Encyclopedia of Gangs, L. Kontos and D.C. Brotherton, eds., 12–15. Westport/London: Greenwood Press, 2008. Meskell, L. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present. Materializing Culture. Oxford/New York: Berg, 2004. Meskell, L. “Objects in the Mirror Appear Closer than They Are.” In Materiality, D. Miller, ed., 51–71. Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2005. Meyer, M.W. “Archaeological Investigation of the Wadi Sheikh Ali, December 1980.” GM 64/4 (1983): 77–82. Miller, D. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. New York: Wiley, 1987. Miller, D. “Materiality: An Introduction.” In Materiality, D. Miller, ed., 1–50. Durham/ London: Duke University Press, 2005. Mitchell, W.J.T. “What Do Pictures ‘Really’ Want?” October 77 (1996): 71–82. Mitman, T. “Advertised Defiance: How New York City Graffiti Went from ‘Getting Up’ to ‘Getting Over.’ ” In Understanding Graffiti, 195–205. Morgan, J. de, U. Bouriant, G. Legrain, G. Jéquier, and A. Barsanti. Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de l’Égypte Antique. Vol. I/1. Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen, 1894. Moran, W.L., ed. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Morkot, R. The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers. London: The Rubicon Press, 2000. Morkot, R. “From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia in the New Kingdom and the Kushite Administration of Egypt.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration, J.C. Moreno García, ed., 911–963. HdO I/104. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Morkot, R. “Nubia in the New Kingdom: The Limits of Egyptian Control.” In Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, W.V. Davies, ed., 294–301. London: British Museum Press and EES, 1991. Morschauser, S. Threat-Formulae in Ancient Egypt: A Study of the History, Structure, and Use of Threats and Curses in Ancient Egypt. Baltimore: Halgo, 1991. Mostafa, M.F. The Mastaba of ŠMꜢJ at Nag’ Kom El-Koffar, Qift. Vol. I: Autobiographies and Related Scenes and Texts. Cairo: Ministry of Antiquities and Heritage, 2014. Müller, I. Die Verwaltung Nubiens im Neuen Reich. Meroitica 18 (118). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Murnane, W.J. and C.C. Van Siclen III. The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. New York: KPI, 1993.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 208 Brown

Naville, E. The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir El-Bahari. Vol. III. EEF, Memoirs 32. London: EES, 1913. Navrátilová, H. The Visitors’ Graffiti of Dynasties XVIII and XIX in Abusir and Northern Saqqara. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Set Out, 2007. Nelson, H.H. Work in Western Thebes, 1931–1933. OIC 18. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934. Nims, C.F. “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut.” ZÄS 93 (1966): 97–100. O’Connor, D. “Amenhotep III and Nubia.” In Amenhotep III. Perspectives on His Reign, D. O’Connor and E.H. Cline, eds., 261–270. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998. O’Connor, D. “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography, E.H. Cline and D. O’Connor, eds., 1–38. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Osborne, R. and J. Tanner, eds. Art’s Agency and Art History. New Interventions in Art History. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. Osman, A. and D.N. Edwards. The Archaeology of a Nubian Frontier: Survey on the Nile Third Cataract, Sudan. Mauhaus Publishing, 2012. Otto, E. Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual. Vol. II: Kommentar. ÄA 3. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1960. Peden, A.J. The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3100– 332 B.C.). PdÄ 17. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2001. Petrie, W.M.F. A Season in Egypt: 1887. London: Field & Tuer, 1888. Phillips, S.A. The Politics of Los Angeles Gang Graffiti. PhD Dissertation. UCLA, 1998. Phillips, S.A. Wallbangin’: Graffiti and Gangs in L.A. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Piehl, K. “Sur l’Origine des Colonnes de la Salle des Caryatides du Grand Temple de Karnak.” In Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, tenu en 1883 à Leide, 201–219. International Congress of Orientalists 4, Section 3: Africaine. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1885. Pinch, G. Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 2006. Pinney, C., and N. Thomas, eds. Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment. Oxford/New York: Berg, 2001. Piotrovskii, B.B. “The Early Dynasty Settlement of Khor-Daoud and Wadi-Allaki. The Ancient Route of the Gold Mines.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963): Campagne Internationale de l’UNESCO pour la Sauvegarde des Monuments de la Nubie, 2, 127–240, pls. XXIII–XXXIV. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1967. Piotrovskii, B.B. Vadi Allaki—Put’ k zolotym rudnikam Nubii. Translated by D.L. Willey. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka,” 1983. Plesch, V. “Beyond Art History: Graffiti on Frescoes.” In Understanding Graffiti, 47–57.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 209

Quack, J.F. “Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals aus Tebtynis.” In Hieratic Texts from the Collection, K.S.B. Ryholt, ed., 67–150. The Carlsberg Papyri 7. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, 2006. Ranke, H. Die Ägyptischen Personennamen. Vol. I. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935. Reisner, G.A. “The Viceroys of Ethiopia.” JEA 6, no. 2 (1920): 73–88. Reisner, G.A., and M.B. Reisner. “Inscribed Monuments from Gebel Barkal.” ZÄS 69 (1933): 24–39. Reisner, R. Graffiti: Two Thousand Years of Wall Writing. New York/Toronto: Cowles Book Company, Inc., 1971. Reisner, R.G. and L. Wechsler. Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York: Macmillan, 1974. Ritner, R.A. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. SAOC 54. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993. Rohl, D., ed. Followers of Horus. Eastern Desert Survey Report. Volume 1. Abingdon: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000. Roth, A.M. “Fingers, Stars, and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’: The Nature and Function of the nṯrwj-Blades.” JEA 79 (1993): 57–79. Roth, A.M. “The pšš-kf and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ Ceremony: A Ritual of Birth and Rebirth.” JEA 78 (1992): 113–147. Rothe, R.D. and W.K. Miller. “More Inscriptions from the Southern Eastern Desert.” JARCE 36 (1999): 87–101. Rothe, R.D., G. Rapp, and W.K. Miller. “New Hieroglyphic Evidence for Pharaonic Activity in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” JARCE 33 (1996): 77–104. Rowe, A. “Provisional Notes on the Old Kingdom Inscriptions from the Diorite Quarries.” ASAÉ 38 (1938): 391–396, 678–688. Rummel, U. “„Ramesesnacht-Dauert“—Die Beziehung zwischen Namenspatron und Namensträger am Beispiel einer Besucherinschrift aus Dra’ Abu El-Naga.” In Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag, N. Kloth, K. Martin, and E. Pardey, eds., 367–377, Tf. 39. SAK, Beihefte 9. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 2003. Sadek, A.I. The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi El-Hudi. 2 vols. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd., 1985. Sadr, K., A. Castiglioni, and A. Castiglioni. Interim Report on the Easter Desert Research Centre’s (CeRDO) Archaeological Activities 1989/93. Varese: CeRDO, 1993. Satzinger, H. “Der Leiter des Speicherwesens Si-Êse Sohn des Qeni und seine wiener Statue.” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlung Wien 74 (1978): 7–28. Säve-Söderbergh, T. and L. Troy. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. Vol. II: The Finds and the Sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 5. Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1991. Seidlmayer, S.J. “Zu Fundort und Aufstellungskontext der großen Semna-Stele Sesostris’ III.” SAK 28 (2000): 233–242.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access 210 Brown

Simpson, W.K. Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University, 1963. Sjöström, I.W. “Excavations at Kurgus: The 2000 Season Results.” Sudan & Nubia 5 (2001): 59–63. Sjöström, I.W. “New Fieldwork at Kurgus: The Cemetery and the Fort.” Sudan & Nubia 2 (1998): 30–34. Smith, H.S. The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions. Excavations at Buhen. London: EES, 1976. Smith, M. The Liturgy of Opening the Mouth for Breathing. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1993. Smith, S.T. Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire. London/New York: Routledge, 2003. Spencer, P. Amara West. Vol. I: The Architectural Report. EES Excavation Memoir 63. London: EES, 1997. Spiegelberg, W. Ägyptische und andere Graffiti (Inschriften und Zeichnungen aus der thebanischen Nekropolis. Heidelberg: C. Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1921. Steindorff, G. Aniba II. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte Mission Archéologique de Nibie 1929–1934. 2 vols. Glückstadt/Hamburg/New York: J.J. Augustin, 1937. Strudwick, N. The Tomb of Pharaoh’s Chancellor Senneferi at Thebes (TT 99). Oxford/ Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2016. Sweeney, D. “Self-representation in Old Kingdom Quarrying Inscriptions at Wadi Hammamat.” JEA 100 (2014): 275–291. Sweeney, D. “Sitting Happily with Amun.” In The Workman’s Progress: Studies in the Village of Deir El-Medina and Other Documents from Western Thebes in Honour of Rob Demarée, B.J.J. Haring, O.E. Kaper, and R. van Walsem, eds., 217–236. EgUit 28. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten; Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Taçon, P.S.C. and C. Chippindale. “An Archaeology of Rock-Art through Informed Methods and Formal Methods.” In The Archaeology of Rock Art, C. Chippindale and P.S.C. Taçon, eds., 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Thum, J. “When the Pharaoh Turned the Landscape into a Stela.” NEA 79/2 (2015): 68–77. Topozada, Z. “Les Deux Campagnes d’Amenhotep III en Nubie.” BIFAO 88 (1988): 153–164. Török, L. Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC—AD 500. PdÄ 29. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Townsend, R.F. The Aztecs. Ancient Peoples and Places 107. London: Thames & Hudson, 1992. Townsend, R.F. “Malinalco and the Lords of Tenochtitlan.” In The Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico: A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks, October 22nd

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 10 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 153–211 06:22:16AM via free access Agents of Construction 211

and 23rd, 1977, E.H Boone, ed., 111–140. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, 1982. Townsend, R.F. “Pyramid and Sacred Mountain.” In Ethnoastronomy and Archaeo astronomy in the American Tropics, A.F. Aveni and G. Urton, eds., 37–62. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 385. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1982. Umberger, E. “Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in Aztec Art.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 13 (1987): 62–105. Umberger, E. “Aztec Presence and Material Remains in the Outer Provinces.” In Aztec Imperial Strategies, F.F. Berdan, R.E. Blanton, E.H Boone, M.G. Hodge, M.E. Smith, and E. Umberger, eds., 151–179. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1996. Umberger, E. Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, 1981. Umberger, E. “Imperial Inscriptions in the Aztec Landscape.” In Inscribed Landscapes. Marking and Making Place., B. David and M. Wilson, eds., 187–199. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002. Válhala, F., and P. Červíček. Katalog der Felsbilder aus der Tschechoslowakischen Konzession in Nubien. 2 vols. Prague: Verlag Karolinum, 1999. Vercoutter, J. “New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan.” Kush 4 (1956): 66–82. Vernus, P. “Name.” In LdÄ IV: 320–326. Vigil, J.D. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. CMAS Mexican American Monograph 12. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1988. Weigall, A.E.P. A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (the First Cataract to the Sudan Frontier) and Their Condition in 1906–7. Oxford: H. Hart, 1907. Weigall, A.E.P. Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts. Edinburgh/London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1913. Wilkinson, T. “A New King in the Western Desert.” JEA 81 (1995): 205–210. Winkler, H.A. Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt. 2 vols. ASE 26–27. London: EES, 1938. Winter, I.J. “Agency Marked, Agency Ascribed: The Affective Object in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Art’s Agency and Art History, R. Osborne and J. Tanner, eds., 42–69. New Interventions in Art History. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. Žába, Z. The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia (Czechoslovak Concession). Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology in Prague and in Cairo, Publications 1. Prague: Universita Karlova, 1974. Žába, Z. “Un Nouveau Fragment du Sarcophage de Merymôsé.” ASAÉ 50 (1950): 509–514.

Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017) 153–211 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:22:16AM via free access