8/13/2019 4132233

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4132233 1/4

Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben by Mohammed Sherif Ali

Review by: Colleen ManassaJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 124, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 363-365Published 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 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 of 

the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

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

8/13/2019 4132233

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4132233 2/4

Reviews of Books 363

Hieratische Ritzinschriften aus Theben. By MOHAMMED HERIFALl. G6ttingerOrientforschungen, V.

Reihe, vol. 34. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZERLAG,002. Pp. xiv + 154, tables. E86 (paper).

The omission of rock inscriptions from majorpaleographies of cursive Egyptian scripts, such as

GeorgMiller's HieratischePaliiographie,has relegated he studyof incised hieraticto thebackground,despite publications such as ZybnekZaba's RockInscriptionsof LowerNubia that have made the first

steps towardimprovingour understandingof hieraticpaleographyoutside of papyrussources. Fortu-

nately, for hieraticrock inscriptionsin the immediate vicinity of the majorThebannecropoleis (pub-lished prior to 1996), Ali's comprehensivevolume representsanothergreat step in this direction.

A numberof scholarshave recognizedthatrockinscriptions,especially those atquarrysites, exhibita mixtureof hieratic andhieroglyphic forms.1Few, however, have explicitly described the featuresofthese texts,2and?2.2 of the workunderreview is anexcellent contribution o the understandingof this

phenomenon. While the complete paleography at the end of the volume focuses on New KingdomThebaninscriptions, chapter2 provides a useful overview of the paleographiccharacters of the textsfrom majorquarryandrock inscriptionsites.3 The primaryfeatures of the hybridtexts areelucidated

and small reproductionsof a few examples of the texts in question make the discussion extremelyuseful as an introduction to the paleography of rock inscriptions. Ali distinguishes two categorieswithin the hybridtexts-those that contain hieratic signs and hieroglyphic signs and those in whichindividual signs display a "hybridductus";often both categories occur within a single text.

However, Ali's discussion of the defining featuresof rock inscription paleographyomits one im-

portantcharacteristic: he fluidityof the relative size of signs in rock inscriptions. For example, evenin nicely carvedhieroglyphictexts, signs that n monumental exts appearquitesmall, such as the t-loaf,can assume the size of much largersigns, such as the r-mouth.4 The alterationof relative size is an-other indication of greater familiarity with hieratic-the frequency of ligatures in Middle Kingdomhieraticwould have made it difficultfor an ancient Egyptian scribe to determinethe "correct" ize ofthe hieroglyphs, without a working knowledge of monumentalsign forms.

One of the most significant contributions of the present work is the first quantitative proof that

hybridforms are more common in Middle Kingdom texts than in those of the New Kingdom-bothat individual sites and as an average of all sites (?2.2.4, pp. 24-27).5 Numerous charts clearly dem-

onstratethe change in percentages,but some of the diagrams areperhapstoo simplistic in their divi-sions-the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom are treated as monolithic categories, without anytransition. While it is often difficult to date rock inscriptions more precisely, future research couldmake furthercontributions 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

paleographyof rock inscriptionsbetween the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties or if any features are

specific to the Second IntermediatePeriod.

After presenting the quantitativeanalysis, Ali briefly discusses the possible origin of the hybridductus so prevalentin Middle Kingdomtexts. A surprisingnumber of the sign forms in rock inscrip-

tions find theirclosest parallelsin archaichieraticscriptandthe "cursive"hieroglyphscommonly used

1. Zaba,Rock nscriptionsfLowerNubia,259-64.2. For recentandnotable xceptions, ee J. C. Darnell,ThebanDesertRoadSurvey : Rock nscriptionsf

GebelTjauti art andRock nscriptionsfthe Wadi l-Hol Chicago, 002),8, and hedetailed ommentaryothe

paleographyf each nscription;ndH.VanderkerckhovendR.Miiller-Wollermann,lkabVI:DieFelsinschriftendes WadiHilal (Turnhout,001),347-79, which ncludesa paleographyf OldKingdom ock nscriptionsromElkabanda discussion f lapidary ieratic.

3. It s unfortunate,hough,hatAli limitshimself oonlythoseNubiannscriptions ublished yZaban RockInscriptionsfLowerNubiaand he nscriptionsrom heWadiAllaqi,whichrepresent nlya sample f theavail-ableevidence fora moreextensiveistingof Nubian raffiti itesfor the Middle hroughNewKingdoms,ee A.J.Peden,TheGraffitif PharaonicEgypt Leiden, 001],39-45, 50-51, 56-57,87-94, 113-18, 130-33).

4. Foroneof themany xamplesromWadi l-Hudi, ee WH12,where hehtp-sign,-loaf,p-socle,and ackalon shrine reallnearlyhesamesize(A.I. Sadek,Wadi l-Hudi Warminster,980],vol. 2, pl. vi).5. Fulfilling he statementmadeby Zaba,RockInscriptions f LowerNubia,264: "Further etails will be

gainedbytheuseof the statisticalmethod,whenmorematerials available."

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

8/13/2019 4132233

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4132233 3/4

364 Journalof the AmericanOrientalSociety 124.2 (2004)

in religious texts.6 This resemblanceis probablynot the result of direct influence, as Ali admits, and

may not even relate to similar environments n which the two scripttypes were created,as he suggests

(p. 33). Rather,the cursive hieroglyphic scriptwas a conscious archaismon the partof well-educated

scribes, while rock inscriptionsign forms are normallycreations of scribes knowledgeable in hieratic

attemptingto producehieroglyphic signs appropriate o the stone medium. Despite the divergent ori-gins, both cursivehieroglyphsandlapidary orms areessentially carefullymade hieraticforms with theaddition of a few extrastrokes-for example, birdsigns in these systems typically have a line each forthe front and back of theirbodies, 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 producemonumentalhieroglyphic texts.

The remainingsections of chapter2 describe the locations of the Theban rock inscriptionsand the

numberingsystem employed by the original publications.7Small-scale reproductionsof the maps with

labeled sectors andchartscorrelating nscriptionnumberswith locations contributegreatlyto the utilityof Ali's investigation. Before the paleography,Ali addresses the specific features of the Theban in-

scriptions.Threesamples fromthe limited corpusof "mixed"New Kingdominscriptionsareanalyzed

(pp. 56-57)-these texts utilize hieratic formsnext to hieroglyphic forms, with little or no evidence ofthe hybridductus common in earlierinscriptions.8Particularly nterestingare 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 predominantlyrightwardorientationof the signs areexhibited on pp. 62-65, including a retrograde nscription,an elaborate in-

scriptionusing both orientations,and even one example of a name written in hieratic where the signshave been reversedin order to read left to right.

The finalthree-quartersf Ali's investigationof the hieraticinscriptionsfrom Thebesconsists of anextensive paleography,precededby notes to individual signs in the inscriptions9and commentaryon

sign forms.10This commentary(?4.1) contains several importantdiscussions, especially of the form

of the seated man (Al). The frequencyof this sign enables Ali to identify five sub-groupsof this signand 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," nhieratic inscriptionsis also important,since thatsign is only attestedonce 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 comparisonis limited by the numberof individualsknown from both sources, but does

enable a close examination of how New Kingdomscribes altered theirwritingto suit the medium. The

writingsof the prolific Qenhirkhopeshefprovidethe most thoroughcomparison-his inscriptions,like

those of the TwentiethDynasty scribes AmennakhtandNeferhotep,have pronouncedelongated forms

and avoid abbreviations n sign shape; as Ali notes, Qenhirkhopeshef s signatureon the rock face ismorelegible than that on papyrus p. 132). The elongationof the signs is probably heresult 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 rushpen.The handwritingof the late TwentiethDynasty scribes Djehutymose and Butehiamun on papyrus is

6. Paleographicxaminationsf Book of theDeadmanuscriptsre availablen thecontinuingeriesedited

by U. Rossler-KohlerandH.-J. Thissen, Handschriftendes AltiigyptischenTotenbuches Wiesbaden, 1995-2000).7. Foranother etailed verview f Thebannscriptions,eePeden,Graffiti f PharaonicEgypt,134ff.8. Thepercentagef hybridnscriptionsistedonp.59 is unfortunatelyotbroken own nto nscriptionshat

mixhieroglyphicndhieratic ignsand hose hatdisplayhybrid igns.9. Theremoval f thenotes rom hepaleographytself,though,s a slight nconvenienceor the reader.

10. Theauthor oes notexplainhepurpose ehind edundantlyistingsigns nthecommentaryectionwhichdo notactually eceivecommentary.

11. Forapossible xample f archaizingieratic ocumentsromElephantine,ee H.-W.Fischer-Elfert,Hier-atischeSchriftzeugnisse,"n G.Dreyer t al.,"Stadt ndTempel onElephantine,"DAIK8 (2002):214-18.12. Forthekneeling"nobleman"ith flailin contemporaneousistoricalexts,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 on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:04:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/13/2019 4132233

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4132233 4/4

Reviews of Books 365

only known from letters, and the sign forms in their letters and graffitiare remarkablysimilar, pos-sibly because they got so much practice carving on the Theban cliffs

The paleographyitself is well organized and provides the Gardinersign number n additionto thenumbersused in M6ller, Hieratische Paliiographie. The additionalpages including inscriptions from

Nubia (i.e., Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia), Sinai, Wadi Hammamat, and Middle KingdomThebes, although very limited in scope, are a useful compilation.

Hopefully,this valuablemonographwill be the first of many futurepublicationsexaminingthe longneglectedpaleographyof inscriptions eft by the ancientEgyptianson the desert cliffs surrounding helush Nile Valley.

COLLEEN ANASSANEWHAVEN

The Wars in Syria and Palestine of ThutmoseIII. By DONALD . REDFORD.ultureand History ofthe Ancient Near East, vol. 16. Leiden: BRILL, 003. Pp. xvi + 272, plates. $103.

It is always a pleasureto 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 importanceofRedford's volume cannot be overstated.After many years of Egyptological research, the author hasreturned o his earliestphaseof scholarship-namely the political historyof mid-DynastyXVIII. In this

case, however,his deep understanding f Thutmose III's wars is balancedby a maturityof outlook thatcould only have been achieved over a lifetime of scholarship.

Redfordpresentsa significantnew perspectiveon the ancientEgyptianwarmachine, and where herevisits familiar history,for example, Thutmose's Megiddo campaign, he brings up fresh ideas about

mattersthat have hithertobeen neglected or overlooked. With attention to detail, he provides both

photographsand a helpful facsimile of the main inscriptionat Karnak.This reviewer, in the midst of

writinga studyon New Kingdomwarfare, mmediately appreciated he author'sgraspof the logisticalnatureof warfare,with its problems of planning and timing and the challenge of maintaining largearmies. With the exception of KennethA. Kitchen's equally importantcommentaryon the battle of

Kadeshin his second volume of Ramesside Inscriptions (Oxford, 1996) there has been little investi-

gationinto the daily activities involved in runningPharaoniccampaigns.In all fairness, it can be statedthatKitchen and Redford have simultaneouslybecome interestedin crucial questions of militarypre-

paredness and their implications for the Egyptian empire in Asia, a field that Breasted openedmany decades earlier in his studies on the Battles of Megiddo and Kadesh.

Redford'spoint of view allows the reader to advance step by step with the Pharaoh'sarmyand to

consider the possibilities of division size and army personnel. One might quibble with some of Red-ford's mathematicalcalculations, and his figure of about ten thousandEgyptian troops can be ques-tioned. Yet it remainsthe case thatthe writer's knowledge is superb,notjust of the official warreport(the "Annals")but of the real war.

There will always remainuncertaintyas to the date of thebattle.Redford,like all previousscholars,has to hypothesize why thereis a "missing"day twenty in the war narrative.Whilst acceptingRichardA. Parker'sanalysis of the calendrical mplications of the event, butrejectingthe famousemendation,Redfordhas faced up to the difficulty n reconstructing he events surroundinghe day beforethe battle.I might argue that on day twenty, the Egyptian army,now ready at the Qina Brook, waited for the

enemy to assemble theirchariots.The Egyptianshadgone out of theirway to arrivethroughthe Aruna

Pass, therebyisolating the city and its support troops-the main sector of military opposition-fromassistance 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 commandersthat the chariots would have to meet first. (I am not referringto

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