28

SEMI-LITERACY IN EGYPT:
SOME ERASURES FROM THE AMARNA PERIOD
PETER DER MANUELIAN
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Few Egyptologists have done as much to unlock the writings and thought processes of the ancient Egyptians
as the scholar honored in this volume. His many contributions include years devoted to the Epigraphic Survey's
distinguished projects, grammatical essays, and unsurpassed translations. Less tangible, yet equally impressive,
is the number of students he has enlightened on all stages of the Egyptian language. They bear testimony to his
unique combination of academic astuteness and kind encouragement. May this note on a topic and era he knows
far better than I be of some interest and amusement to him.1
In a recent article on texts and images in Egyptian art, Betsy M. Bryan (1995, pp. 28-29; 1996) explored
how discrete portions of a scene or image might speak to different audiences or segments of the ancient Egyp-
tian population. This raises in a new form the question of literacy in ancient Egypt and, more specifically, levels
or degrees of literacy. For example, the impression conveyed to an ancient viewer by the image alone of a
seated-pair statue might differ significantly from that conveyed by the image combined with all of its identifying
inscriptions and prayers. The key variable is the perception of the viewer in question, and whether the viewer
could appreciate the two human figures by themselves, the figures and the simple ~tp dl nsw formula provided
for the viewer, or both of these plus a long and perhaps complicated text with administrative titles, family gene-
alogy, and biographical narrative. In each of these instances, the viewer would walk away with a different per-
ception of the object in question. In the case of monumental works of art, such as propagandistic battle reliefs on
temple walls, the state could reach a multitude of individuals on a multitude of levels (Bryan 1996; Simpson
1982; idem 1996). In short, not all Egyptian monuments spoke to their audiences with the same voice; the vary-
ing potential meanings were in the "mind's eye" of the ancient beholder.
Assessing the literacy rate of an ancient people is a formidable task. In the Egyptian case, estimates cur-
rently run at less than five percent of the population (Baines 1983, pp. 584- 86; Baines and Eyre 1983, pp. 65-
96; Lesko 1990, pp. 656-67; Bryan 1996, n. 14). How much more difficult must it be to assess the various levels
of ancient literacy?2 John Baines summarized several possible levels, which I have condensed and portrayed in
the chart in fig. 28.1.
Modem text-critical analyses of Egyptian inscriptions have long been contributing to our understanding of
the competence of the literate Egyptian, noting dependence on tradition, both oral and written, and examples of
scribal errors, such as dittographies, auditory mistakes, etc. Most of these analyses focus on an elite class of
Egyptians already so well schooled as to be able to compose texts and in some cases even research and repro-
duce earlier stages of the language (Manuelian 1994). But what about further "down" the literacy ladder? It
may be possible to gain a brief glimpse into some of these levels with a look, not at what the Egyptians in-
scribed on a wall, but, ironically, what they scratched out. In other words, erasures of portions of an Egyptian in-
scription might tell us more about Egyptian literacy levels than the writings themselves.
Usurpations, recarvings, and willful destruction of inscribed materials have long histories and multiple
causes (LA 6 "Usurpator" and "Usurpierung," cols. 904-06). Redirecting the mortuary benefits of another, alter-

1. For their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper I (new edition in preparation by H.-W. Fischer-EIfert); E.
am indebted to John Baines and Christian E. Loeben. Otto 1956, pp. 41-48. On schoolboy education, see now
2. The subject receives relatively little attention in LA I Janssen and Janssen 1990, pp. 67-89 (for this reference I
"Ausbildung," esp. cols. 572-74; compare also Brunner 1957 thank Christian E. Loeben).

285
Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente
Edited by Emily Teeter and John A. Larson
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 58
Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1999
©The University of Chicago. All Rights Reserved
286 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

Lowest Carving of signs with limited reading ability,

literacy probably the condition of many relief sculptors

1
Highest Reading and the full ability to compose texts
literacy

Figure 28.1. Chart of Potential Egyptian Literacy Levels (after Baines 1983, p. 584)

ing the historical record, attacking personal enemies, censuring a religious element, all of these are potential mo-
tives for the "mark of the second hand" on Egyptian inscriptions (Fischer 1977, pp. 113-42, esp. p. 119). As far
as ancient literacy is concerned, an erasure primarily represents a directed and highly focused attack on some as-
pect of the scene, which in tum presupposes a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the attacker, or at least
of his superior. That level of knowledge is economical, practical, and even necessary; otherwise entire texts,
statues, or tomb or temple walls would have to be destroyed to achieve the desired effect of damnatio memoriae.
The following paragraphs touch on a few erasures, primarily from the Amama period at Thebes, as a
glimpse at part of the semi-literate classes during the Egyptian New Kingdom. It is no secret that Akhenaten
went on the offensive against certain texts and scenes in the traditional artistic repertoire. Almost every schol-
arly treatise on the king's reign mentions the iconoclastic program, but few seem to delve into the subject in any
systematic detail.3 What is not so clear is how his commands were given, and exactly who carried out his icono-
clastic orders on the monuments themselves.4 One author has even suggested that the haphazard nature of some
erasures implies Akhenaten's absence from the decision-making process:
... la mission de martelage semble avoir ete assez imprecise, et les ouvriers charges de ce travail ont, pour Ie
moins, fait preuve de beaucoup de negligence. On peut des lors se demander si cette mission etait
formellement ordonnee par Akhenaton, ou si l'on n'a pas Iii Ie temoignage d'exces (sans doute toleres par Ie
pouvoir royal), aUribuables ii des thuriferaires fanatiques, couverte par l'autorite de quelque haut
fonctionnaire de la cour (Hari 1984, p. 1040).

We examine below three discrete categories of textual erasures attributed to the Atenists: the treatment of
the name of the god Amun elmn), the various forms of the word for deity (nfr), and various meanings of mwt.
The caveat should be noted that much trust is placed in the facsimile drawings of a number oftomb publications.
Additional collation of individual drawings with their monuments might do much to confirm or revise some of
the examples discussed below.

DESTRUCTION OF AMUN

The name of the chief state deity of the Eighteenth Dynasty probably ranked first on Akhenaten's list of
"expugnables," to judge by the overwhelming number of erasures of~:= )Imn throughout Egypt and Nubia.
Only when we consider the mutually threatening nature, as Jan Assmann describes it, of an iconic versus
aniconic cultic perspective can we begin to understand the dimensions of Akhenaten's campaign of deface-
ment.5 Perhaps internal chronologies for the Amama period could be aided by analysis of the erasure of Amun

3. Hornung 1971, pp. 43, 249; Saad 1972; Hari 1984, pp.
1039-41; Hornung 1995, pp. 97-99.
4. There are no indexed entries for erasure in either Redford
1984 or Aldred 1988, nor have I been able to locate entries
in the Lexikon der Agyptologie specifically devoted to the
subject of erasures. For the situation in the Twenty-sixth Dy-
nasty, see Yoyotte 1951, pp. 215-39. Schulman (1964, p. 67)
argues that Akhenaten's "campaign" could not have taken
place without the full support of the military (for bringing
this reference to my attention, I thank John Baines). See
Norman Davies 1923a, pp. 132-52, in general on Akhen-
aten's activity in the Theban area. For Amarna period bibliog-
raphy, see Martin 1991. Discussions of Amarna texts and
grammar include Behnk 1930; Silverman 1991; Murnane
1995; Silverman 1999.
5. Personal communication. I am grateful to Professor
Assmann for sharing his unpublished work on this topic (con-
cerning Moses in particular) with me in manuscript form.
 SEMI-L/TERACY IN EGYPT 287

occurring within the cartouches of Amenhotep III, because with royal names Akhenaten's agents seem on occa-
sion to have shown restraint. Such restraint is not evident in fig. 28.2, a peridotite standing statue of Amenhotep
III from Gebel Barkal (originally from Soleb?), now in Boston (MFA 23.734),6 on which Akhenaten erased his
father's prenomen as well as every other occurrence of Amun's name on the statue. Whether the causes of this
censorship campaign lay in a political attack by the monarchy against a growing theocracy, a cult-inspired de-
sire to eliminate everything "hidden" (lmn), beyond visible nature, or some other (combination of) factors, is
not our focus here. Rather, the name of the deity as the subject of erasure reveals some interesting evidence for
the (il)literacy of the agents who carried out the king's orders.
Many Theban tombs bear the "standard" erasures of Amun's name.? We may mention instead a few cases
where Akhenaten's adherents have apparently misread the texts. Countless Egyptian words are, of course, com-
posed with the same biliteral L"':"J and phonetic complement _ used in the writing of Amun; these were ap-

Figure 28.2. Peridotite Standing Statue of Amenhotep III from Gebel Barkal (MFA 23.734);
Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

6. See Dunham 1970, pp. 17 (with bibliography), 19, fig. 5, pI.
5; MUller 1988, pp. iv-6, pI. la---d; Kozloff and Bryan 1992,
p. 465. It is interesting to note the post-Amarna history of
this piece because the cartouches once containing the nomen
of Amenhotep III have been partially restored with the
king's prenomen Nb-mJ<t-R<. For other monuments treated
similarly, see Griffith 1926, p. 2; and the pedestal of the
granite falcon statue of Amenhotep III (originally from
Soleb?), also found at Gebel Barkal (MFA 23.1470), Dun-
ham 1970, pp. 25, 27, fig. 20, pI. 25d.
7. Among them Ramose (TT 55), Userhat (TT 56), Djehuty
(TT 110), Puyemre (TT 39), Amenemhat (TT 82), Rekh-
288 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

parently mistaken for the god's name on several occasions (Hari 1984, p. 1041). In the tomb of Amenemhat
(TT 82), which bears many examples of the "correctly" erased group ~:= )Imn, the following excerpted text
occurs on the south wall of the passage (see fig. 28.3).8

(1) irtqrst nfrt n ss !}sb it ['Imn]-m-!}It (2) m-lJt [mni] wcj.1I' fJ.rt-n£dms (3) ss ['lmn]-m-!}JtmJ< lJrw I' imnt(t)
nfrt sms (4)!}ry mrwt n ['Imn )Imn]-m-!}It I' wU ...
(1) Performing a good burial for the scribe who counts the grain [Amen]emhat, (2) after [passing away]. Pro-
ceeding to the necropolis, accompanying (3) the scribe [Amen]emhet, justified, to the beautiful west. Accom-
panying (4) the chief of the weavers of [Amun, Am]enemhat, to the barque ...

If we can trust the drawing reproduced in the tomb publication, the verb erased in line 2 must be mnl
["'""""")~~n,erased for the L"':"J mn- and - n-signs by the same agents charged with erasing )Imn in the rest of
the text. Even the ceiling texts contain erasures in this tomb, but in one instance, the Atenists have chiseled out
the verb mn "be established":9

cj.d mdw imy-r !}sb wnnwt ss [)Imn]-m-!}It mI<-lJrw

cj.drn" k m fJ.nw !}wt" k twtw" k m itrwt.sn bl" k <nlJbIt" k [mn.ti] m is" k n fJ.rt-n£r
[rn"k mn] wI!} m rI msw"k cj.t
Recitation: 0 steward who counts that which exists, scribe [Amen]emhet, justified. May your name endure in-
side your mansion, may your images be in their chapels; may your ba be living, your corpse [established] in your
tomb of the necropolis, [your name being established] and lasting in the mouth( s) of your children forever.

Two examples here of misreading the := mn of~:= )Imn combination, occurring in the same text beside
actual erasures of~:= :>Imn,would seem to confirm a logographic approach to the work of defacement on be-
half of Akhenaten. A more competent reading knowledge of Egyptian would not have confused )Imn "Amun"
with mnl "to perish" or with mn "be established."
The tomb of Puyemre (TT 39) shows erasure of the word :=;;6 mn(t "nurse." In Puyemre's biographical
text stela on the tomb's facade, the deceased is identified as " ... born of the judge Puya," ms n mn(t wrt Nfr-l(~
ml (t-brw "born of the chief nurse Nofret-yoh, justified." (The text was restored after the Amama period.) In an

5 4 3 2 1

Figure 28.3. Scene from Tomb of Amenemhat (TT 82) (after Norman Davies and Gardiner 1915, pI. 7)

mire (TT 100), Kheruef (TT 192), User (TT 21), Amen- 66), Nakht (IT 52), and Nebamun and Ipuky (IT 181). Ref-
hotep(?) (TT 73), Nebamun (TT 17), Amenemhat Surer erences may be found in PM 1/1, passim.
(TT 48), Amenhotep-sa-se (TT 75), Kenamun (TT 93), 8. Norman Davies and Gardiner 1915, p. 53, nos. 1-2, pI. 10.
Kenamun (TT 162), Djeserkareseneb (TT 38), Hepu (TT 9. Norman Davies and Gardiner 1915, p. 101, nos. 5-6, pI. 27.
 SEMI-L/TERACY IN EGYPT 289

example of post-Am am a semi-literacy (or perhaps merely scribal error or confusion resulting from hieratic?),
the name of Amun has been incorrectly restored in line 47 to read ~~. The mn and n combination have been
erased in a number of words in this tomb (Norman Davies 1923b, pp. 21, 94, n. 2).
An interesting erasure occurs in the tomb of Userhat (TT 56). The wall to the right of the entrance bears the
inscription reproduced in fig. 28.4, with erasures of both the name of )Imn nb t5wy "Amun, Lord of the Two
Lands" (fig. 28.4, line 2) and !Jnty lmntyw "foremost of the westerners" (fig. 28.4, line 4).10 Why would the
phrase !Jnty lmntyw attract the attention of Akhenaten's adherents? The epithet's relation to Osiris is no expla-
nation because in the preceding line the god's name remains intact. I I One of two possibilities seems likely: the
word lmntyw was spelled with one of its rare variants employing the group ~::=.
According to the Worterbuch,
this is primarily an Old Kingdom spelling of the word; 12 its usage here is perhaps made even more unlikely ow-
ing to the complementary scene to the left of the entrance, which uses the standard ~~ (Beinlich-Seeber and
Shedid 1987, p. 43, text 4, line 2, p. 44, fig. 9, pIs. 3, 30d). The second possibility involves an auditory error, but
it is dubious that one of the iconoclasts read the text aloud and confused the pronunciation of lmn of lmntyw with
the god )/mn since the vocalization of the two words was not all that similar.13 Perhaps this is an example of the
agents' preference for overkill to an error of omission. Others have noted this practice as well:

An einigen Stellen ist die Zeichengruppe Amun-Ra stehengeblieben, an anderen Stellen dagegen sind so
unsystematisch Zeilen mit unverfiinglich scheinenden Worten bzw. Wortreste zerstOrt, daB man den Eindruck
gewinnt, die Tilgungen seien de facto von jemandem ausgefiihrt worden, der nicht lesen konnte und daher
benachbarte Zeilen "sicherheitshalber" gleich mitausgehackt hat (Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, p. 18).

Whatever the correct explanation is here, we can at least eliminate mere sloppiness, that is, the erasure of
!Jnty lmntyw due to its proximity to )Imn since the fully intact text of column 3 separates the two erasures.
The final example may appear to betray a higher level of literacy at hand, in this case taking the form of
caution. The female "form" of the god Amun, ~~ :>Imn.t, is left intact two or three times in the small texts on
the side wall of the passage of the tomb of Kenamun (TT 162; Nina Davies 1963, pI. 19).14 Either the agents
failed to read the name correctly and realize Amunet's association with her male counterpart, or they actually
could distinguish between the male and female forms, the one ()Imn) on the proscribed list, the other ()Imn.t) to
be left untouched.

MONOTHEISM VERSUS POLYTHEISM: ERASURE OF NTRW

Apart from selected deities, there was never an attempt to efface from memory the names of every god
other than the Aten. Should one refrain from labeling Akhenaten's religion truly monotheist in the modem sense
of the term? And yet, some element of "the many," the concept of deific plurality, versus "the one," certainly
conflicted with his religious and political agenda (Hornung 1971, pp. 42-43, 248-49; Hornung 1995, esp. pp.

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 28.4. Text from Tomb of User hat (TT 56) (after Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, p. 50, fig. 17)

10. Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, p. 50, fig. 17, text 10, line 12. Wh. 1.86:20; Faulkner (1962, p. 21) cites a New Kingdom
4, pI. 2, and, for a summary of the erasures in this tomb, see spelling with the group ~P~~f~~::::~~c> from
pp.17-18. Naville 1901, pI. 115.
13. On the likelihood that the Egyptians read most, if not all, of
11. Osiris's name was apparently, however, the occasional ob- their texts by reciting them aloud, see Baines 1983, pp. 581
ject of erasure by the Atenists; compare the tomb of Hepu with esp. n. 21, and 595, n. 27.
(IT 66; Nina Davies 1963, p. 12 [pI. 13]). 14. On this deity, see LA I "Amaunet," col. 183.
290 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

97-104). Fischer's comment (1977, p. 119, n. 32), echoed by Hari (1984, p. 1041), that nfrw suffered attack be-
cause of its relation to Amun's frequent epithet nswt nfrw, "king of the gods," does not seem to go far enough in
explaining the situation.I5 Nfrw was hacked in numerous contexts where Amun's name and epithets are absent,
leading us to return to the polytheistic nature of the term as the reason for its removal. Eventually, if not right
from the start of the censorship campaign, Akhenaten placed the hieroglyphs for "gods," nfrw, on the list of
words to be expunged (Aldred 1975a, p. 62).
Examples abound for the erasure of the !-sign throughout the Theban necropolis and, of course, elsewhere
along the Nile as well.16 What is important for this study is how these examples reflect the level of reading com-
petence of the king' s agents. How difficult was it to handle singulars and plurals in ancient Egypt and, to go one
step further, to handle their potential variant spellings? Akhenaten's agents were instructed to deface a plural;
in the form of three nfr-signs, this would have been easy enough to recognize, assuming a modicum of scribal
education on their part.n For convenience, we call the writing of III
the "long form" of the plural nfrw. Appar-
ently, the "short form," written nn~,caused the agents some difficulties. Could the three strokes replacing three
nfr-signs have proven a challenge to the agents' reading skills? Or was it simply easier for the eye to gloss over
the short form of nfrw, with its single, less conspicuous tall sign? One could imagine that the agents were skim-
ming the wall texts quickly, looking for three !-signs, and simply missed the variants with three strokes. But so
many examples of the survival of unTI - on so many different monuments - are preserved as to suggest a more
fundamental cause for this oversight. I would suggest difficulty with reading plurals not spelled out clearly.
In the tomb of the vizier Rekhmire (IT 100), on the upper section of the east half of the north wall in the
passage, the tomb owner returns from successful confirmation in office to be greeted by his son,
Menkheperraseneb (see fig. 28.5). The son's text reads n kl.k sty s]w prt m-b1~ nb [nfrw )Imn] p]wty-Uwy ...
"For your ka, the scent of flowers which came forth from the presence of the lord of the [gods, Amun], the pri-
meval one of the Two Lands .... " Here the long form of nfrw, III,
has been hacked out (and, according to
Norman Davies [1943, p. 65, n. 65], subsequently clumsily restored after the Amama period). Further to the left,
however, in (Davies's) columns 16-17, Rekhmire's vigilance is praised concerning mnw nb m pr-[)Imn] r.w-
prw nw nfrw Sm(w M~w "all (kinds of) monuments in the temple of [Amun] and the chapels of the gods of
Upper and Lower Egypt " Here, the name of Amun is erased - certifying Atenist attention paid to this part
of the tomb - but in the very next column the plural nfrw, written D~~, is left untouched.
In the tomb of the vizier Ramose (TT 55), the word for the ennead gon~ has escaped destruction (Norman
I
Davies 1941, p. 4, n. 1, pIs. 28, 40). Either the single sign masked the concept of plurality, or Akhenaten's
agents were actually reading the word psq.t, against which they had no quarrel. One text shows the very rare
erasure of both the long III
and short no~ forms of nfrw (ibid., pI. 6), but the Atenist who noted both plural vari-
ants here was perhaps not so skilled in discerning the various usages of the mwt-vulture (see below).
In the tomb of Djehuty (TT 110), evidence of Atenist activity is present in the erasures of the name of
Amun and the long form of nfrw (Norman Davies 1932, pp. 279-90). But nfrw, written in the short form, sur-
vives intact in several instances. The most notable example occurs on the north-wall stela (fig. 28.6), where
)Imn is hacked out at least six times, but the phrase nswt nfrw survives twice in the short form no~, right next to
[)Imn] (ibid., pI. 42). In the lunettes of the north- and south-wall stelae, nswt nfrw survives two more times in
the same phrase with [Amun]-Ra.18 To remind us that the word for "gods" definitely was on Akhenaten's list
here, the long form of nfrw III
is erased in the main texts on both of these stelae (ibid., pIs. 36, 39, 37,40),
and on the west wall (ibid., pI. 41).
Another example of the survival of the short form of nfrw in close proximity to an erased )Imn occurs on the
above-mentioned statue of Amenhotep III from Gebel Barkal (fig. 28.2). The Amun of Amenhotep's cartouche
is expunged in all four of its occurrences, including the tiny belt inscription. On the back pillar, the second half

15. On this emblem in general, see Newberry 1947, p. 90;
Hornung 1971, chapter 2, pp. 33-65.
16. Examples include the tombs of Kheruef (IT 192), User (IT
21), Amenernhat (IT 82), Ramose (IT 55), Kenamun (IT
93), Nakht (IT 52), Puyemre (IT 39), Nebamun and Ipuky
(IT 181), and Senenmut (IT 71; Dorman 1991, p. 47, text 13,
note f; fig. 10, pIs. 12a, 25d); additional references in PM 1/1.
17. Note the curious detail in the tomb of Puyemre (TT 39),
wherein Norman Davies (1923b, pp. 68-69, pIs. 23, 25a)
suggests that the Atenists erased a leatherworker's products
shown above his figure due to their resemblance to the n{r-
sign. The erasures, however, to judge from pI. 25a, seem too
slight and fail to bear any traces to support his interpretation.
18. Norman Davies 1932, pI. 38b-c. Note that, curiously, the
name of 'Imn in the nomen of Hatshepsut survives; Norman
Davies 1932, p. 288, n. 3.
 -------~= --- ._--

SEMI-LITERACY IN EGYPT 291

Figure 28.5. Text from Tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100) (after Norman Davies 1943, pI. 70)

of the titulary reads ... Nb-m?<t-R< s? R< n bt.f mr.f [Nb-m?<t-R<] mry [)Imn]-R< nswt nfrw dl <no cjt ...
"Nebmaatre, bodily son ofRa, whom he loves, [Nebmaatre (restored)] beloved of [Amun]-Ra, king ofthe gods,
given life forever." While Amun's name was carefully removed - with only minimal damage to the name of
Ra immediately below - the following nfr-sign, with its three plural strokes, was left untouched (Dunham
1970, p. 19, fig. 5).
A similar situation may be found in shrine 14 at Gebel es-Silsila (Caminos and James 1963, p. 40, pI. 32).
The lintel shows the erasure of Amun nfr.t nfr[t] M?<t-k?-R< [mr]y.t [)Imn-R< nb nswt Uwy] on one side of the
mirror-imaged text centered on an <no-sign, but the survival in the very same line of the short form of oo~ (nb nfr
nfr Mn-opr-R< mry Nwn It nfrw.

MOTHERS, GODDESSES, AND VULTURES: THE VULTURE HIEROGLYPH

As the consort of Amun, the goddess Mut also came under frequent attack during the Amama period. In this
case, we are dealing not with a word composed of three signs ()Imn), nor with the Egyptians' reading of plural
groups, but with a single hieroglyph, the mwt-vulture ~. Consequently, the Atenist erasures take on different
characteristics. In addition to the erasure of the goddess' name, we find attacks on the vulture hieroglyph in a
multitude of contexts unrelated to the Theban triad. We should hardly be surprised at the erasure of personal
names containing the vulture hieroglyph because to the Atenist mind the goddess's name was just as potent or
heretical in a personal name such as Senenmut (Dorman 1991, p. 67) as it was standing alone and referring to
the goddess herself directly. Hence, in the tomb of Userhat (TT 56), there are several erasures of the deceased
wife's name, Mwt-nfrt, and Mwt-twy's(?) name is erased in the tomb of Kenamun (IT 162).19
Additionally, however, the vulture hieroglyph has not always escaped destruction in those cases where it
bears little or no direct relation to the goddess Mut. In the tomb of Amenemhat (TT 82), Gardiner noted on the
upper half of the south wall, "The sign for 'mother' has everywhere on this wall been erased by the Akhenaton-
worshippers, the same hieroglyph (the vulture) being employed to write the name of the Theban goddess Mut
... " (Norman Davies and Gardiner 1915, p. 35, n. 6, pI. 7). Similarly, the mother of Senenmut suffered the era-

19. On Userhat (IT 56), see Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, 30, text 18, line 13); on Kenamun (TT 162), see Nina
p. 49, fig. 15, text 8; p. 50, fig. 17, text 10, line 11; p. 73, fig. Davies 1963, p. 15, pI. 16.
292 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

Figure 28.6. North Wall Stela Text from Tomb of Djehuty (TT 110) (after Norman Davies 1932, pI. 42)

sure of her identifying caption in the upper portion of her son's tomb (TT 71): [mwt].f mr ... "his beloved
[mother] ... " (Dorman 1991, p. 44, text 11, line 5, pI. 11b, fig. 9).
Even further afield from the goddess Mut than the word for "mother" are examples of erasures in purely
secular words. In the tomb of Ramose (TT 55; see fig. 28.7), several words have come under attack on the south
half of the east wall, above the seated couple May and Werel. We find Amun's name erased in lines 1 ( prrt
m-bJ~ [)Imn] ... "which come forth from the presence of [Amun] ... ") and 12-13 ( ... lmy-r nw n [)Imn] " ...
the overseer of hunters of [Amun] ... "), but the words mnb :=! (line 5) and mn ~ (line 6) survive, indicating
a certain discriminatory literacy on the part of Akhenaten's agents. (They missed an opportunity to deface the
long form of the plural nfrw, however, in column 12.) In column 9, the goddess Mut's name is erased ([Mwt] nbt
 SEMI-L/TERACY IN EGYPT 293

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 28.7. East Wall Detail from Tomb of Ramose (TT 55) (after Norman Davies 1941, pI. 8)

)/Srw ... ), but in column 2, the vulture hieroglyph is also effaced in the title \n~O~ -~~ lmy-r
ss[mwt] n nb Uwy "overseer of horses of the lord of the Two Lands" (on the title, see Faulkner 1953, p. 43).
Thus, in one case the agents distinguished the name of Amun from words spelled similarly, but erased the vul-
ture sign in all instances, either out of an inability to recognize the word ssmwt, or a desire to eliminate the vul-
ture sign in any context whatsoever. In another scene on the east wall (north half), the caption accompanying
the figure of a lwn-mwtj-priest also shows a damaged mwt-vulture (Norman Davies 1941, pI. 21). And in the
tomb of Nebamun and Ipuky (TT 181), we find a vulture sign erased in the name of one of the four sons of
Horus, DwJ-mwtj (Norman Davies 1925, pI. 15). Needless to say, none of the other sons of Horus suffered any
damage.
We have seen the mwt-vulture erased in the name of the goddess Mut, in compound personal names em-
ploying mwt, in the word for mother, and in words requiring the phonetic combination m + w + t but otherwise
bearing no cultic significance whatsoever. Were Akhenaten's agents simply handed an ostracon with a vulture
on it and told to erase its every occurrence? The evidence might suggest so, but illiterate "picture-matching"
seems less likely when taken in context with the erasures of )Imn and nfrw outlined above. Were then, on the
294 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

other hand, more discerning eyes involved? And for the Atenists was the word "mother" more "directly related"
to the cult of Mut than the secular word ssmwt "horses"? 20

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the above examples raise interesting questions about the literacy level of the Atenist iconoclasts,
as well as the symbolic and representative nature of individual hieroglyphs. Was a hieroglyphic sign, once
deemed threatening and blasphemous to a particular cult, always deemed so regardless of context or usage? I
have hardly scratched the surface of the corpus of erasures available for study: both in terms of their numbers
and their widespread locations all over Egypt and Nubia. I might also mention here a category completely ig-
nored above, namely, non-textual erasures such as the defacement of Amun's sacred smn-goose21 and his ram-
headed measuring cords,22 or the chiseling out of countless figures of s(t)m-priests wearing their animal skins.23
A catalog of the various aspects of defacement, from the types of chisels used to the subjects attacked, would
help untangle the often complex history of Egyptian monuments subsequent to their construction. An "erasure
catalog" would also shed further light on such topics as diverse literacy levels among the Egyptian population.
Erasures - and in some cases restorations and even modem graffiti - can tell us much about the subse-
quent history of a tomb, contributing to the reconstruction of its "internal chronology." Beyond providing the ob-
vious terminus ante quem for monuments whose precise dating may be difficult, the diagnostic usefulness of era-
sures becomes most clear at a site like Gebel Barkal, where statuary fragments predating Akhenaten's reign
bear Amama period erasures, while those heaped together with them in the same findspots but dating later, of
course, do not (Dunham 1970, pp. 17-37).
A range of literacy levels may be represented by the small corpus above, from misreadings, through diffi-
culties in recognizing plurals, to examples of overkill and "erasure by association." Some of the examples focus
our attention on the conditions under which the agents were working (see below). We might need to imagine
different literacy levels for Akhenaten's many agents. One scenario involves completely illiterate individuals
"armed" with ostraca bearing the names and words, to them merely the "graphic forms," to be expunged. In this
case, a mwt-vulture or a nfr-sign would perhaps differ little from the image of a smn-goose. They did their best
in the matching of signs but were often misled by combinations, such as mn :=,
similar to those they were or-
dered to destroy. Another scenario grants them limited reading ability, but not enough experience as to avoid
mistaking )Imn for mnl, mn, or mn(t, etc. Rather than attempting pictorial matches of signs and words on the
walls to the types provided on their ostraca, they - or their supervisor( s) - would actually have read, or at
least sounded out, the texts on the walls. If auditory errors were the cause of some erasures, such as lmntyw for
)Imn, then we are indeed perhaps dealing with a more literate group reading and comprehending the texts on
some level. What is difficult to determine is in what cases the adherents were accompanied by more literate su-
pervisors, whether different levels of literacy can be established in different tombs, and if and when the list of
words or images to be destroyed evolved and changed over the course of Akhenaten's reign. But it can at least
be concluded with certainty from the corpus above, and perhaps not surprisingly, that the king's best-educated
administrators were hardly directly involved in the defacement process.
Another issue that must have affected the nature and results of the Atenists' handiwork was the conditions
under which they labored. What were the socio-religious aspects of defacing the monuments of the prevailing
cults of the time? Did the Atenists have to show any sensitivity to the reactions of Theban citizens to the deface-
ment of their ancestors' sepulchres? Were the attacks carried out under cover of darkness, "no one seeing, no
one hearing," or did the agents march into the necropolis in broad daylight, perhaps even with the support of the
military? If the agents had to work without adequate time, light, or equipment (e.g., ladders), this might explain

20. For the potentially separate origins of the cult of the goddess
Mut and the word mwt "mother," see LA 4 "Mut," coL 246
with nos. 9-10; and more generally, te Ve1de 1989, pp. 395-
403.
21. Examples of the erasure of the smn-goose may be found in
the tombs of Kenamun (IT 93), Kenamun (IT 162), Nakht
(TT 52), and Rekhmire (IT 100), among others.
22. See, for example, the tomb of Djeserkareseneb (IT 38) in the
east wall of the hall, top register (Nina Davies 1963, pI. 2).
23. Examples occur in the tombs of Userhat (TT 56; Beinlich-
Seeber and Shedid 1987, p. 18 with n. 60), Ramose (IT 55;
Norman Davies 1941, pis. 23, 25), User (TT 21),
Amenemhat Surer (TT 48), Amenhotep-sa-se (TT 75),
Djeserkareseneb (TT 38), Puyemre (IT 39), and Nebamun
and Ipuky (IT 181), among others.
 SEMI-L/TERACY IN EGYPT 295

some of the missed examples and inconsistencies.24 Additional study might establish a correlation between a
given word or name's location within the tomb's chambers, and its chances for surviving intact.
In determining internal chronology and later history, erasures can tell us when a particular tomb was acces-
sible and for how long, and whether additional elements, such as niche statues, were still in place at the time of
attack. I mention here, for example, the stelophorous statue of Nakht, whose textual erasures demonstrate that it
was still in situ in a niche above the tomb's entrance forty or fifty years after its emplacement, when
Akhenaten's adherents were active.25
Even the internal chronology of Akhenaten' s iconoclastic program itself needs clarification because there is
evidence to suggest that not all items were "blacklisted" simultaneously.26 Perhaps at the time the agents dam-
aged the statue of Amenhotep III from Gebel Barkal (discussed above; see fig. 28.2), the order had not yet been
given to deface the word 111
"gods." If Akhenaten had added nfrw to his list sometime after :>Imn, that could
explain the pattern found on many monuments where III
nfrw survives in immediate proximity to an erased
~:= )Imn. Similarly, there is inconsistency in the erasure of the nomen of Amenhotep III; this might be
mapped out better chronologically. While )Imn-~tp is defaced on the Gebel Barkal statue mentioned above and
at Thebes (for example, in portions of the throne scene in the tomb of Amenemhat Surer [TT 48]; Save-
S6derbergh 1957, pI. 30), it remains untouched in the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192: KherueJ, pis. 8,9,24,26).
I conclude by citing one final example that indicates the difficult nature of the subject in question in all of
its religious, chronological, economical, and practical aspects. Figure 28.8 shows an offering scene from the

Figure 28.8. Northeast Wall Detail from Theban Tomb 73 (after Save-Soderbergh 1957, pI. 8)

24. In the tomb of Ramose (IT 55), Amun's name, erased other-
wise so many times, survives as the last word in the text ssp
Jw m brt-hrw prrt m-bJb 'Imn (Norman Davies 1941, pI. 11).
In the same tomb, the agents also missed the god's name in a
small inscription (ibid., pI. 15): c!d!w(b n kJ n 'Imn nswt tJwy
m-tjrt [Jty R(-ms mJ(-!Jrw. Additionally, a single inscription
(ibid., pI. 40) shows n[rw in the long form both erased (line 9)
and intact (line 11), the erasure of >Imn (line 12), and the sur-
vival of pstjt (line 12). In the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192;
Kheruef, pI. 78), the wooden door into the first columned hall
opened to the north, hiding a text bearing the long form of
n[rw, which thus escaped erasure by the Atenists.
25. The statue was discovered by Davies in the debris of the
burial shaft; Norman Davies 1917, pp. 36-39, fig. 6, pI. 28;
Shedid and Seidel 1991, pp. 18-19, figs. 7-8. It was subse-
quently lost at sea in 1915.
26. Kheruef, p. 14, citing Aldred's claim that the erasures oc-
curred in the last third of Akhenaten's reign, primarily since
Queen Tiye was still alive: Aldred 1975a, p. 62; Aldred
1975b, text accompanying pIs. 103-05.
296 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

northeast wall of the anonymous tomb TT 73 (perhaps Amenhotep?). The text reads §lw ntj,m sty pr [m-bl~] nb
nfrw )Imn nb nswt t1wy "flowers, sweet of scent which came forth [from the presence] of the lord of the gods,
Amun, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands." Regarding the erasure of m-b5~, the editor of the tomb publication
suggested it was due to the agents' expectation of the word Amun preceding the epithet nb nfrw.27 But this inter-
pretation presents an interesting image of the Amama period agents carefully reading the text and, based on
their knowledge of parallel inscriptions, erasing the phrase m-bl~, ignoring the rest of the sentence, and moving
on. There are several problems with this interpretation. First of all, any Amama adherent capable of reading the
text, even to the point of calling parallel inscriptions to mind, would hardly have confused the writing of ~ 7
m-b5~ with ~:= )Imn. Secondly, such a literate individual would probably not have failed to notice the two
very prominent candidates for erasure directly following: ~:=
(Amun' s name) and 111
(the long form of the
plural for nfrw). We are forced to wonder if Atentist agents were ever in the tomb in the first place; unfortu-
nately, there is only a single half-decorated chamber to be studied. Amun's name survives in three fairly large-
scale inscriptions (Save-Soderbergh 1957, pIs. 1,5,8), and also in a smaller one (Save-Soderbergh 1957, pI. 1).
There is thus reason to argue that the tomb escaped Amama period erasures altogether, perhaps by virtue of its
damaged nature or incomplete decoration. Returning then to our fig. 28.8 and the erasure of ~ m-bl~, one 7
wonders if this example might not be better explained by a much later Coptic desire to censor the scene and
eliminate the phallus hieroglyph (or perhaps the full-faced owl, that is, the evil eye?) from the wall.28 A Coptic
erasure would represent a very different aspect of the literacy issue, and an unpharaonic approach to deface-
ment by a group concerned not with Akhenaten's long-gone monotheistic agenda, but with an entirely new one
of their own.

References
Aldred, C. Behnk, F.
1975a "Egypt: The Amarna Period and End of the Eigh- 1930 Grammatik der Texte aus El Amarna. Paris: Geuthner.
teenth Dynasty." In The Cambridge Ancient History Beinlich-Seeber, C., and A. G. Shedid
2/2, pp. 49-97. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
1987 Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56). Archaologische
University Press.
Ver6ffentlichungen 50. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von
1975b Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt: A New Study. London:
Zabern.
Thames and Hudson.
Brunner, H.
1988 Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London: Thames and
Hudson. 1957 Altiigyptische Erziehung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-
sowitz.
Assmann, J.
Bryan, B. M.
1995 Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re,
Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism. Translated by 1995 "The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian Art."
A. Alcock. London: Kegan Paul. In Abstracts of Papers (Seventh International Con-
1996 "Preservation and Presentation of Self in Ancient gress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September
1995), edited by C. Eyre, pp. 28-29. Oxford: Oxbow
Egyptian Portraiture." In Studies in Honor of William
Books.
Kelly Simpson, edited by P. D. Manuelian, pp. 55-81.
1996 "The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian
Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
Art." In Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson,
Baines, J. Volume 1, edited by P. D. Manuelian, pp. 161-68.
1983 "Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society." Man, n.s., Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
18: 584-86.
Caminos, R. A., and T. G. H. James
Baines, J., and C. Eyre
1963 Gebel es-Silsilah 1: The Shrines. London: Egypt Ex-
1983 "Four Notes on Literacy." Gottinger Miszellen 61: 65-
plora tion Society.
96.

27. "This word has been erased, because the agent of the Atenists here" (Save-Soderbergh 1957, p. 9, n. 5). In the case of tomb
expected' Amun' before 'Lord of the Gods,' and for once of Rekhmire, the author is probably referring to the text cited
missed the actual occurrence of the name. The reading prt of above in our fig. 28.5; see Norman Davies 1943, pI. 70.
the parallel text in the tomb of Rekhmire is out of the question 28. See Fischer 1974, p. 119, citing Petrie 1896, pIs. 6 (6), 9,22.
 SEMI-LITERACY IN EGYPT 297

Davies, Nina de G. Hornung, E.

1963 Private Tombs at Thebes 4. Oxford: Griffith Institute. 1971 Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the
Many. Translated by J. Baines. Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
Davies, Norman de G.
versity Press.
1913 Five Theban Tombs. London: Egypt Exploration Soci-
1995 Echnaton: Die Religion des Lichtes. Zurich: Artemis
ety.
and Winkler.
1917 The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes. New York: Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art. Janssen, R. M., and 1. J. Janssen
1923a "Akhenaten at Thebes." Journal of Egyptian Archae- 1990 Growing Up in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon Press.
ology 9: 132-52. Kozloff, A. P., and B. M. Bryan
1923b The Tomb of Puyemre at Thebes. 2 volumes. New 1992 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World.
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art.
1925 The Tomb of Two Sculptors at Thebes. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Lesko, L. H.
1932 Teuti: Owner of Tomb 110 at Thebes." In Studies Pre- 1990 "Some Comments on Ancient Egyptian Literacy and
sented to F. Ll. Griffith, edited by S. R. K. Glanville, Literati." In Studies in Egyptology Presented to
pp. 279-90. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Miriam Lichtheim, Volume 2, edited by S. 1. Groll, pp.
1941 The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose. Mond Excavations at 656-67. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Thebes 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Manuelian, P. D.
1943 The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re( at Thebes. Publications of 1994 Living in the Past: Studies in Archaism of the Egyptian
Metropolitan Museum of Art 11. New York: Plantin Twenty-sixth Dynasty. London: Kegan PauL
Press.
Martin, G. T.
Davies, Norman de G., and A. H. Gardiner, eds. 1991 A Bibliography of the Amarna Period and Its After-
1915 The Tomb of Amenemhet (no. 82). Theban Tombs Se- math. London: Kegan Paul.
ries 1. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
Muller, M.
Dorman, P. F. 1988 Die Kunst Amenophis' Ill. und Echnatons. Basel:
1991 The Tombs of Senenmut: The Architecture and Deco- Verlag fUr Agyptologie.
ration of Tombs 71 and 353. Publications of Metro- Murnane, W. M.
politan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 24. New 1995 Textsfrom the Amarna Period in Egypt. Writings from
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. the Ancient World 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Dunham, D. Naville, E.
1970 The Barkal Temples. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. 1901 The Temple of DeiI' el Bahari 4. London: Egypt Explo-
ration Fund.
Dziobek, E.
1994 Die Graber des Vezirs User-Amun: Theben Nr. 61 und Newberry, P. E.
131. Archaologische Veroffentlichungen 84. Mainz 1947 "The Cult of the i-Pole." Journal of Egyptian Archae-
am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ology 33: 90-91.

Otto, E.
Faulkner, R. O.
1956 "Bildung und Ausbildung im allen Agypten." Zeit-
1953 "Egyptian Military Organization." Journal of Egyp-
schrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 81:
tian Archaeology 39: 43.
41-48.
1962 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford:
Griffith Institute. Petrie, W. M. F.
1896 Koptos. London: B. Quaritch.
Fischer, H. G.
1977 "The Mark of the Second Hand on Egyptian Antiqui- Redford, D. B.
ties." In Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum 1984 Akhenaten: The Heretic King. Princeton: Princeton
Journal, pp. 113-42 (= Metropolitan Museum Journal University Press.
9, pp. 5-34). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Saad, R.
1972 Les martelages de la xviii.e dynastie dans Ie temple
Griffith, F. Ll.
d'Amon-Re ii Karnak. Ph.D. dissertation, Lyon.
1926 "Stela in Honour of Amenophis III and Taya, from
Tell el-(Amarnah." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Save-SOderbergh, T.
12: 1-2. 1957 Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs. Private Tombs at
Thebes 1. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Hari, R.
1984 "La religion amarnienne et la tradition polytheiste." Schulman, A. R.
In Studien zu Sprache und Religion A.gyptens zu Ehren 1964 "Some Observations on the Military Background of
von Wolfhart Westendorf 2: Religion, edited by F. the Amarna Period." Journal of the American Re-
Junge, pp. 1039-55. Gottingen: Hubert. search Center in Egypt 3: 51-69.
298 PETER DER MANUEL/AN

Shedid, A. G., and M. Seidel 1996 "Belles Lettres and Propaganda." In Ancient Egyptian
1991 Das Grab des Nakht: Kunst und Geschichte eines Literature: History and Forms, edited by A. Loprieno,
Beamtengrabes der 18. Dynastie in Theben-West. pp. 435-43. Probleme der A.gyptologie 10. Leiden:
Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. E. J. Brill.
Silverman, D. P. te Velde, H.
1991 "Texts from the Amarna Period and Their Position in 1989 "Mut, the Eye of Re." In Akten des vierten Inter-
the Development of Ancient Egyptian." Lingua nationalen Agyptologen Kongresses Miinchen 1985,
Aegyptia 1: 301-14. edited by S. Schoske, pp. 395-403. Hamburg: Helmut
1999 "The Spoken and Written Word." In Pharaohs of the Buske Verlag.
Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen, edited by Yoyotte, J.
R. E. Freed, Y. J. Markowitz, and S. H. d'Auria, pp.
1951 "Le martelage des noms royaux ethiopiens par
151-55. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
Psammetique 11."Revue d' egyptologie 8: 215-39.
Simpson, W. K.
1982 "Egyptian Sculpture and Two-Dimensional Represen-
tation as Propaganda." Journal of Egyptian Archaeol-
ogy 68: 266-72.