Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben by Mohammed Sherif Ali Review by: Colleen Manassa Journal of the American Oriental

Society, Vol. 124, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 363-365 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132233 . Accessed: 28/12/2012 19:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:04:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

363

Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben. By MOHAMMED SHERIFALl. G6ttingerOrientforschungen, IV.

2002. Pp. xiv + 154, tables. E86 (paper). Reihe, vol. 34. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG,

The omission of rock inscriptions from major paleographies of cursive Egyptian scripts, such as Georg Miller's Hieratische Paliiographie,has relegatedthe study of incised hieraticto the background, despite publications such as Zybnek Zaba's Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia that have made the first steps toward improving our understandingof hieratic paleography outside of papyrus sources. Fortunately, for hieratic rock inscriptions in the immediate vicinity of the major Theban necropoleis (published prior to 1996), Ali's comprehensive volume represents another great step in this direction. A numberof scholarshave recognized that rock inscriptions,especially those at quarrysites, exhibit a mixture of hieratic and hieroglyphic forms.1 Few, however, have explicitly described the features of these texts,2 and ?2.2 of the work underreview is an excellent contributionto the understandingof this phenomenon. While the complete paleography at the end of the volume focuses on New Kingdom Theban inscriptions, chapter 2 provides a useful overview of the paleographic charactersof the texts from major quarryand rock inscription sites.3 The primaryfeatures of the hybrid texts are elucidated and small reproductionsof a few examples of the texts in question make the discussion extremely useful as an introduction to the paleography of rock inscriptions. Ali distinguishes two categories within the hybrid texts-those that contain hieratic signs and hieroglyphic signs and those in which individual signs display a "hybridductus";often both categories occur within a single text. However, Ali's discussion of the defining features of rock inscription paleography omits one importantcharacteristic:the fluidity of the relative size of signs in rock inscriptions. For example, even in nicely carved hieroglyphictexts, signs thatin monumentaltexts appearquite small, such as the t-loaf, can assume the size of much larger signs, such as the r-mouth.4 The alteration of relative size is another indication of greater familiarity with hieratic-the frequency of ligatures in Middle Kingdom hieratic would have made it difficult for an ancient Egyptian scribe to determine the "correct"size of the hieroglyphs, without a working knowledge of monumental sign forms. One of the most significant contributions of the present work is the first quantitative proof that hybrid forms are more common in Middle Kingdom texts than in those of the New Kingdom-both at individual sites and as an average of all sites (?2.2.4, pp. 24-27).5 Numerous charts clearly demonstrate the change in percentages, but some of the diagrams are perhaps too simplistic in their divisions-the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom are treated as monolithic categories, without any transition. While it is often difficult to date rock inscriptions more precisely, future research could make further contributions by dividing the inscriptions by dynasties (as much as possible by nonpaleographical evidence) in order, for example, to determine if there is a visible change in the paleography of rock inscriptions between the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties or if any features are specific to the Second IntermediatePeriod. After presenting the quantitative analysis, Ali briefly discusses the possible origin of the hybrid ductus so prevalent in Middle Kingdom texts. A surprisingnumber of the sign forms in rock inscriptions find their closest parallels in archaichieratic script and the "cursive"hieroglyphs commonly used 1. Zaba,RockInscriptions Nubia,259-64. of Lower 2. For recentandnotableexceptions, see J. C. Darnell,Theban DesertRoadSurveyI: RockInscriptions of GebelTjauti PartI andRockInscriptions el-Hol(Chicago, to the 2002),8, andthedetailed of the Wadi commentary of eachinscription; andH. Vanderkerckhove andR. Miiller-Wollermann, ElkabVI:Die Felsinschriften paleography des Wadi Hilal (Turnhout, of Old Kingdom rockinscriptions from 2001), 347-79, whichincludesa paleography Elkabanda discussion of lapidary hieratic. 3. Itis unfortunate, thatAli limitshimselfto onlythoseNubian though, inscriptions published by Zabain Rock Nubiaandtheinscriptions fromtheWadiAllaqi,whichrepresent of the availof Lower Inscriptions onlya sample ableevidence(fora moreextensive sites for the Middlethrough New Kingdoms, see A. listingof Nubian graffiti J. Peden,TheGraffiti 2001], 39-45, 50-51, 56-57, 87-94, 113-18, 130-33). of Pharaonic Egypt[Leiden, 4. Forone of themanyexamples fromWadi see WH 12,wherethehtp-sign, el-Hudi, t-loaf, p-socle,andjackal on shrine the samesize (A. I. Sadek,Wadi areall nearly el-Hudi[Warminster, 1980],vol. 2, pl. vi). 5. Fulfillingthe statement madeby Zaba,RockInscriptions detailswill be of LowerNubia,264: "Further whenmorematerial is available." method, gainedby the use of the statistical

This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:04:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

364

Journal of the American Oriental Society 124.2 (2004)

in religious texts.6 This resemblance is probably not the result of direct influence, as Ali admits, and may not even relate to similar environmentsin which the two script types were created, as he suggests (p. 33). Rather,the cursive hieroglyphic script was a conscious archaism on the part of well-educated scribes, while rock inscription sign forms are normally creations of scribes knowledgeable in hieratic attemptingto produce hieroglyphic signs appropriateto the stone medium. Despite the divergent origins, both cursive hieroglyphs and lapidaryforms are essentially carefully made hieraticforms with the addition of a few extra strokes-for example, bird signs in these systems typically have a line each for the front and back of their bodies, while only the back line is shown in hieratic. As Ali also concludes, the mixed forms in rock inscriptions enabled the scribes to mimic the "prestige"of hieroglyphic inscriptions without possessing the technical skill needed to produce monumental hieroglyphic texts. The remaining sections of chapter2 describe the locations of the Theban rock inscriptions and the numberingsystem employed by the original publications.7Small-scale reproductionsof the maps with labeled sectors and chartscorrelatinginscriptionnumberswith locations contributegreatly to the utility of Ali's investigation. Before the paleography, Ali addresses the specific features of the Theban inscriptions.Three samples from the limited corpus of "mixed"New Kingdom inscriptions are analyzed (pp. 56-57)-these texts utilize hieratic forms next to hieroglyphic forms, with little or no evidence of the hybrid ductus common in earlier inscriptions.8Particularlyinteresting are Gr. 1224 (p. 57, fig. 36) and Gr. 505 (p. 61, fig. 41), in which the name and title of an individual are written twice-once hieroglyphically and again using hieratic sign forms. The exceptions to the predominantlyrightward orientationof the signs are exhibited on pp. 62-65, including a retrogradeinscription, an elaborate inscription using both orientations, and even one example of a name written in hieratic where the signs have been reversed in order to read left to right. The final three-quarters of Ali's investigation of the hieratic inscriptionsfrom Thebes consists of an extensive paleography,preceded by notes to individual signs in the inscriptions9 and commentary on sign forms. 10This commentary (?4.1) contains several importantdiscussions, especially of the form of the seated man (Al). The frequency of this sign enables Ali to identify five sub-groupsof this sign and the existence of one seemingly "archaic"(i.e., Middle Kingdom) form of the seated man (Al) in New Kingdom inscriptions.II Ali's recognition (p. 101) of the sign A52, the kneeling "nobleman,"in hieratic inscriptions is also important,since that sign is only attested once in Miller's paleography.'2 A final section (?4.2) before the paleography proper compares the sign forms of known scribes from the Deir el-Medina community whose hands are attested both on papyri and rock inscriptions. This ingenious comparison is limited by the numberof individuals known from both sources, but does enable a close examinationof how New Kingdom scribes alteredtheir writing to suit the medium. The writings of the prolific Qenhirkhopeshefprovide the most thoroughcomparison-his inscriptions, like those of the TwentiethDynasty scribes Amennakhtand Neferhotep, have pronouncedelongated forms and avoid abbreviationsin sign shape; as Ali notes, Qenhirkhopeshef's signature on the rock face is more legible thanthaton papyrus(p. 132). The elongation of the signs is probablythe resultof the flints used to carve the lines-once the scribe created the requisite force to begin the line, it was difficult to stop immediately, so each sign is slightly longer than those made with an easily controllable rush pen. The handwritingof the late Twentieth Dynasty scribes Djehutymose and Butehiamun on papyrus is

in the continuing 6. Paleographic examinations of Book of the Deadmanuscripts areavailable seriesedited

by U. Rossler-Kohlerand H.-J. Thissen, Handschriftendes Altiigyptischen Totenbuches(Wiesbaden, 1995-2000).

7. Foranother of Theban detailed overview see Peden,Graffiti of Pharaonic inscriptions, Egypt,134ff. 8. Thepercentage of hybrid listedon p. 59 is unfortunately notbroken downintoinscriptions that inscriptions mix hieroglyphic andhieratic signs. signsandthosethatdisplayhybrid of thenotesfromthe paleography 9. Theremoval is a slightinconvenience forthe reader. itself,though, behind 10. Theauthor doesnotexplain thepurpose sectionwhich redundantly listingsignsin thecommentary do not actually receivecommentary. 11. Fora possible hieratic see H.-W. of archaizing documents fromElephantine, "HierFischer-Elfert, example et al., "Stadt MDAIK atischeSchriftzeugnisse," in G. Dreyer undTempel von Elephantine," 58 (2002):214-18. 12. Forthe kneeling"nobleman" with flail in contemporaneous historical TheGreat texts, see C. Manassa,

Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century B.c. (New Haven, 2003), 26 n. 136.

This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:04:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

365

only known from letters, and the sign forms in their letters and graffiti are remarkably similar, possibly because they got so much practice carving on the Theban cliffs! The paleography itself is well organized and provides the Gardinersign numberin addition to the numbersused in M6ller, Hieratische Paliiographie. The additional pages including inscriptions from Nubia (i.e., Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia), Sinai, Wadi Hammamat, and Middle Kingdom Thebes, although very limited in scope, are a useful compilation. Hopefully, this valuable monographwill be the firstof many futurepublicationsexamining the long neglected paleographyof inscriptionsleft by the ancient Egyptians on the desert cliffs surroundingthe lush Nile Valley. COLLEEN MANASSA NEWHAVEN

The Wars in Syria and Palestine of ThutmoseIII. By DONALD B. REDFORD. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 16. Leiden: BRILL, 2003. Pp. xvi + 272, plates. $103. It is always a pleasure to receive a work that is nicely published, excellently written, well argued, informative, and above all original in thought and outlook. This is one of them. The importance of Redford's volume cannot be overstated. After many years of Egyptological research, the author has returned to his earliestphase of scholarship-namely the political history of mid-DynastyXVIII. In this of ThutmoseIII's wars is balancedby a maturityof outlook that case, however, his deep understanding could only have been achieved over a lifetime of scholarship. Redford presents a significant new perspective on the ancient Egyptian war machine, and where he revisits familiar history, for example, Thutmose's Megiddo campaign, he brings up fresh ideas about matters that have hitherto been neglected or overlooked. With attention to detail, he provides both photographsand a helpful facsimile of the main inscription at Karnak.This reviewer, in the midst of writing a study on New Kingdom warfare,immediately appreciatedthe author's grasp of the logistical nature of warfare, with its problems of planning and timing and the challenge of maintaining large armies. With the exception of Kenneth A. Kitchen's equally importantcommentary on the battle of Kadesh in his second volume of Ramesside Inscriptions (Oxford, 1996) there has been little investigation into the daily activities involved in runningPharaoniccampaigns. In all fairness, it can be stated that Kitchen and Redford have simultaneously become interested in crucial questions of military preparedness and their implications for the Egyptian empire in Asia, a field that Breasted opened many decades earlier in his studies on the Battles of Megiddo and Kadesh. Redford's point of view allows the readerto advance step by step with the Pharaoh's army and to consider the possibilities of division size and army personnel. One might quibble with some of Redford's mathematical calculations, and his figure of about ten thousand Egyptian troops can be questioned. Yet it remains the case that the writer's knowledge is superb, not just of the official war report (the "Annals")but of the real war. There will always remainuncertaintyas to the date of the battle. Redford, like all previous scholars, has to hypothesize why there is a "missing"day twenty in the war narrative.Whilst accepting Richard A. Parker'sanalysis of the calendricalimplications of the event, but rejecting the famous emendation, Redfordhas faced up to the difficultyin reconstructingthe events surrounding the day before the battle. I might argue that on day twenty, the Egyptian army, now ready at the Qina Brook, waited for the enemy to assemble their chariots.The Egyptians had gone out of their way to arrivethroughthe Aruna Pass, thereby isolating the city and its support troops-the main sector of military opposition-from assistance either to the north or to the south. Yet the enemies met on relatively flat terrain,quite suitable for the movement of chariots. When the two armies faced one another, their war vehicles in front and footsoldiers to the rear, it was evident to both commanders that the chariots would have to meet first. (I am not referring to

This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:04:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions