Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben by Mohammed Sherif AliReview by: Colleen ManassaJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 124, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 363-365Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132233 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 13:33

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:33:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 363

Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben. By MOHAMMED SHERIF ALl. G6ttinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe, vol. 34. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 2002. Pp. xiv + 154, tables. E86 (paper).

The omission of rock inscriptions from major paleographies of cursive Egyptian scripts, such as Georg Miller's Hieratische Paliiographie, has relegated the study of incised hieratic to the background, despite publications such as Zybnek Zaba's Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia that have made the first steps toward improving our understanding of hieratic paleography outside of papyrus sources. Fortu- nately, for hieratic rock inscriptions in the immediate vicinity of the major Theban necropoleis (pub- lished prior to 1996), Ali's comprehensive volume represents another great step in this direction.

A number of scholars have recognized that rock inscriptions, especially those at quarry sites, 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 under review is an excellent contribution to the understanding of 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 characters of the texts from major quarry and rock inscription sites.3 The primary features of the hybrid texts are elucidated and small reproductions of 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 "hybrid ductus"; often both categories occur within a single text.

However, Ali's discussion of the defining features of rock inscription paleography omits one im- portant characteristic: the fluidity of the relative size of signs in rock inscriptions. For example, even in nicely carved hieroglyphic texts, signs that in monumental texts appear quite 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 an- other 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 dem- onstrate the change in percentages, but some of the diagrams are perhaps too simplistic in their divi- sions-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 non- paleographical 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 Intermediate Period.

After presenting the quantitative analysis, Ali briefly discusses the possible origin of the hybrid ductus so prevalent in Middle Kingdom texts. A surprising number of the sign forms in rock inscrip- tions find their closest parallels in archaic hieratic script and the "cursive" hieroglyphs commonly used

1. Zaba, Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 259-64. 2. For recent and notable exceptions, see J. C. Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I: Rock Inscriptions of

Gebel Tjauti Part I and Rock Inscriptions of the Wadi el-Hol (Chicago, 2002), 8, and the detailed commentary to the paleography of each inscription; and H. Vanderkerckhove and R. Miiller-Wollermann, Elkab VI: Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilal (Turnhout, 2001), 347-79, which includes a paleography of Old Kingdom rock inscriptions from Elkab and a discussion of lapidary hieratic.

3. It is unfortunate, though, that Ali limits himself to only those Nubian inscriptions published by Zaba in Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia and the inscriptions from the Wadi Allaqi, which represent only a sample of the avail- able evidence (for a more extensive listing of Nubian graffiti sites for the Middle through New Kingdoms, see A. J. Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt [Leiden, 2001], 39-45, 50-51, 56-57, 87-94, 113-18, 130-33).

4. For one of the many examples from Wadi el-Hudi, see WH 12, where the htp-sign, t-loaf, p-socle, and jackal on shrine are all nearly the same size (A. I. Sadek, Wadi el-Hudi [Warminster, 1980], vol. 2, pl. vi).

5. Fulfilling the statement made by Zaba, Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, 264: "Further details will be gained by the use of the statistical method, when more material is available."

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:33:49 PMAll 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 environments in 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 attempting to produce hieroglyphic signs appropriate to the stone medium. Despite the divergent ori- gins, both cursive hieroglyphs and lapidary forms are essentially carefully made hieratic forms 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 in- scriptions without possessing the technical skill needed to produce monumental hieroglyphic texts.

The remaining sections of chapter 2 describe the locations of the Theban rock inscriptions and the numbering system employed by the original publications.7 Small-scale reproductions of the maps with labeled sectors and charts correlating inscription numbers with locations contribute greatly to the utility of Ali's investigation. Before the paleography, Ali addresses the specific features of the Theban in- scriptions. 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.8 Particularly interesting 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 predominantly rightward orientation of the signs are exhibited on pp. 62-65, including a retrograde inscription, an elaborate in- scription 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 inscriptions from Thebes consists of an extensive paleography, preceded by notes to individual signs in the inscriptions9 and commentary on sign forms. 10 This commentary (?4.1) contains several important discussions, especially of the form of the seated man (Al). The frequency of this sign enables Ali to identify five sub-groups of this sign and the existence of one seemingly "archaic" (i.e., Middle Kingdom) form of the seated man (Al) in New Kingdom inscriptions. I I 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 number of individuals known from both sources, but does enable a close examination of how New Kingdom scribes altered their writing to suit the medium. The writings of the prolific Qenhirkhopeshef provide the most thorough comparison-his inscriptions, like those of the Twentieth Dynasty scribes Amennakht and Neferhotep, have pronounced elongated forms and avoid abbreviations in sign shape; as Ali notes, Qenhirkhopeshef 's signature on the rock face is more legible than that on papyrus (p. 132). The elongation of the signs is probably the result of 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 handwriting of the late Twentieth Dynasty scribes Djehutymose and Butehiamun on papyrus is

6. Paleographic examinations of Book of the Dead manuscripts are available in the continuing series edited by U. Rossler-Kohler and H.-J. Thissen, Handschriften des Altiigyptischen Totenbuches (Wiesbaden, 1995-2000).

7. For another detailed overview of Theban inscriptions, see Peden, Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt, 134ff. 8. The percentage of hybrid inscriptions listed on p. 59 is unfortunately not broken down into inscriptions that

mix hieroglyphic and hieratic signs and those that display hybrid signs. 9. The removal of the notes from the paleography itself, though, is a slight inconvenience for the reader.

10. The author does not explain the purpose behind redundantly listing signs in the commentary section which do not actually receive commentary.

11. For a possible example of archaizing hieratic documents from Elephantine, see H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, "Hier- atische Schriftzeugnisse," in G. Dreyer et al., "Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine," MDAIK 58 (2002): 214-18.

12. For the kneeling "nobleman" with flail in contemporaneous historical texts, see C. Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century B.c. (New Haven, 2003), 26 n. 136.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:33:49 PMAll 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, pos- sibly because they got so much practice carving on the Theban cliffs!

The paleography itself is well organized and provides the Gardiner sign number in addition to the numbers used 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 monograph will be the first of many future publications examining the long neglected paleography of inscriptions left by the ancient Egyptians on the desert cliffs surrounding the lush Nile Valley.

COLLEEN MANASSA NEW HAVEN

The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. 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 earliest phase of scholarship-namely the political history of mid-Dynasty XVIII. In this case, however, his deep understanding of Thutmose III's wars is balanced by a maturity of outlook that 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 photographs and a helpful facsimile of the main inscription at Karnak. This reviewer, in the midst of writing a study on New Kingdom warfare, immediately appreciated the 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 important commentary on the battle of Kadesh in his second volume of Ramesside Inscriptions (Oxford, 1996) there has been little investi- gation into the daily activities involved in running Pharaonic campaigns. In all fairness, it can be stated that Kitchen and Redford have simultaneously become interested in crucial questions of military pre- paredness 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 reader to 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 Red- ford's mathematical calculations, and his figure of about ten thousand Egyptian troops can be ques- tioned. 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 remain uncertainty as 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's analysis of the calendrical implications of the event, but rejecting the famous emendation, Redford has faced up to the difficulty in reconstructing the 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 arrive through the 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 suit- able 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 from 185.2.32.21 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:33:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions