THE RAMESSIDE PERIOD IN EGYPT

STUDIES INTO CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL PROCESSES

OF THE 19 TH AND 20 TH DYNASTIES
DEUTSCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT
ABTEILUNG KAIRO

SONDERSCHRIFT
41

2018
DE GRUYTER
DEUTSCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT
ABTEILUNG KAIRO

The Ramesside Period in Egypt

Studies into Cultural and Historical Processes of the
19 th and 20 th Dynasties
Proceedings of the International Symposium held in
Heidelberg, 5 th to 7 th June 2015

edited by
Sabine Kubisch and Ute Rummel

DE GRUYTER
 Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo
erscheint seit 1930

SDAIK 41, 2018 · VIII, 288 Seiten

Die Abkürzungen der ägyptologischen Literatur folgen den Regeln

des Lexikon der Ägyptologie
und dem Abkürzungsverzeichnis des DAI Kairo
in: MDAIK 56, 2000, S. 397 ff.

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, Köln

Herausgeber
Stephan J. Seidlmayer · Daniel Polz
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo
31. Sharia Abu el-Feda
11211 Kairo – Zamalek
Ägypten
www.dainst.de

Verantwortlicher Redakteur: Daniel Polz, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo

Lektorat, Redaktion: Ute Rummel, Kairo
Redaktion: Isa Böhme, Leipzig
[email protected]

Umschlag: Darstellung im Grab des Nebwenenef (TT 157) in Luxor, Theben-West

Foto: © Eva Hofmann, Ägyptologisches Institut der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

ISBN 978-3-11-055599-8
ISSN 1868-9450

Bibliografische Informationen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;

detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Produktion: NEUNPLUS1 GmbH, Berlin
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
 Contents

Acknowledgements VII
Sabine Kubisch, Introduction 1
Ute Rummel
Jan Assmann Der Platz der ramessidischen Theologie in der religiösen Evolution 3
Tamás A. Bács Tombs and their owners 15
Art and identity in late Ramesside Thebes
Camilla Di Biase-Dyson The figurative network 33
Tracking the use of metaphorical language for “hot” and “cold”
in Ramesside literary texts
Peter J. Brand Patterns of innovation in the monumental art of Ramesside Thebes 45
The example of the Great Hypostyle Hall of Karnak
Kathlyn M. Cooney The end of the New Kingdom in Egypt 63
How ancient Egyptian funerary materials can help us understand
society in crisis
Christopher Eyre The accessibility of Ramesside narrative 89
Irene Forstner-Müller Centre and periphery 103
Some remarks on the Delta and its borders during the Ramesside Period
Henning Franzmeier, The missing dead? 113
Jan Moje On the question of the burial grounds of Pi-Ramesse
Pierre Grandet The ‘chapter on hierarchy’ in Amenope’s onomasticon (# 67–125) 127
Ben Haring Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside necropolis workmen’s 139
community
Eva Hofmann Der Vorhof der Privatgräber – nur ein sakraler Ort? 149
Die Anlagen von TT 157 des Nebwenenef und TT 183 des Nebsumenu
Dan’el Kahn Ramesses III and the northern Levant 175
A reassessment of the sources
Sabine Kubisch The religious and political role of the High Priests of Amun 189
Maria Michela Luiselli The lived religion of children in Ramesside Egypt 205
Susanne Michels “Does not the potter have power over the clay?” 217
Some thoughts on the Ramesside perception of pottery
Gregor Neunert Re-/Constructing Ramesside society? 227
Arguing in favour of a network of micro-worlds
Maarten J. Raven The Saqqara necropolis in the Ramesside Period 239
Between tradition and innovation
Ute Rummel Ritual space and symbol of power 249
Monumental tomb architecture in Thebes at the end of the New Kingdom
Appendix 277
Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside
necropolis workmen’s community
By Ben Haring*

New research on the necropolis Kingdom it became part of a visual code that was
w o r k m e n ’s m a r k s clearly a semi-literate alternative to writing, a pseu-
do-script.
The Leiden research project significantly ex-
During the past sixteen years the marking system tended the corpus of relevant source material. Be-
used by the royal necropolis workmen of the New fore its start in 2011, the main basis of research was
Kingdom has been a topic of research at Leiden Uni- a group of less than 300 ostraca. By 2014, however,
versity1. The research project ‘Symbolizing Identity’, a corpus of over 1000 ostraca had been assembled4.
carried out in Leiden since 20112, has proved to be a Although ostraca formed the main type of source
major step forward in the understanding of this mark- material, other sources, mainly pottery and graffiti,
ing system. Its aims were to reconstruct as much of were studied as well. As a result, a detailed overview
the system as possible, and to explain its workings of the marking system is now available for the period
by looking carefully at the historical background, at from Thutmosis III to Ramesses XI. Some important
comparable marking systems in Ancient Egypt and new insights will be briefly presented below, with a
worldwide, and at modern theories of visual commu- focus on the Ramesside Period5.
nication and semiotics.
Marks were used by the workmen’s community
of Deir el-Medina for the expression of ownership on
their belongings (especially pottery), for self-presen- The Nineteenth Dynasty
tation in graffiti and votive inscriptions, and for the
creation of administrative records on ostraca (see From its earliest stages, the research into the marks
figs. 1–3). Whereas marking property and self-pre- used by the workmen of the royal necropolis pro-
sentation are well-known functions of marking sys- ceeded from two main clusters of ostraca found at
tems in other periods and cultures, the frequent and Deir el-Medina and in the Valley of the Kings. One
long-term use of marks in administrative records as cluster can be dated to the period from Thutmosis
practised in the royal necropolis during the Egyptian III to Amenhotep III, another from Ramesses III to IV.
New Kingdom is unique. The system probably found The former group can be dated mainly because of its
its origin in the team markings of earlier monumen- archaeological context (association with the tombs
tal building projects3, but in the course of the New of Amenhotep II and III)6; the latter because of its

* I wish to thank Helen Richardson-Hewitt for correcting my Eng­ Humanities of Leiden University at the time of writing this contri-
lish. bution. The promoter was Olaf Kaper. The project has benefited
1 See e.g. Haring 2000, 2009a and b, 2014. The same marking immensely from the advice of Robert Demarée. Publications that
system is the subject of Aston 2009; Dorn 2011a, 139–141, have so far resulted from the project are Haring 2015; Haring/So-
369–382; Dorn 2015; Killen/Weiss 2009; Fronczak/Rzepka liman 2014; Moezel 2015; Soliman 2013 and 2015.
2009; Rzepka 2015. Since 2006 Leiden research has benefited es- 3 See Andrássy 2009; Moezel 2015; Haring in press.
pecially from discussions with colleagues at Humboldt University, 4 Approximately 600 of which are unpublished pieces kept in the
Berlin, and Warsaw University. It has also benefited from unpub- IFAO. I am grateful to the former director of the institute, Beatrice
lished images and manuscripts generously shared by many insti- Midant-Reynes, for her permission to study the ostraca, and to the
tutions and colleagues. keeper of the IFAO archive, Nadine Cherpion, for her help.
2 The project was conducted from May 2011 to September 2015, su- 5 For details, the reader is referred to the publications mentioned
pervised by the author of this paper, and fully funded by the Neth- in the bibliography, as well as to the future publications of the
erlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Much of the dissertation manuscripts by Kyra van der Moezel and Daniel
research was done by Kyra van der Moezel and Daniel Soliman, Soliman, and the project synthesis by the author.
whose resulting PhD manuscripts were submitted to the Faculty of 6 Haring 2009a, 152–154.

SDAIK 41, 2018

140 Ben Haring

relation with documentation in hieratic script. The a new start or a reorganization of the royal necropolis
datable Ramesses III–IV material mainly consisted of workforce, but some workmen may have been there
series of marks combined with calendar dates, which all along. Nakhy, who was ‘servant in the place of
reflect the roster of day duties that is so well-known truth to the West of the horizon of Aten’ according to
from hieratic ostraca and papyri. The comparison of an inscription on a stone seat, was still ‘servant in the
hieratic data and marks made it possible to identify place of truth to the West of Thebes’ after the reign of
the owners of many specific marks7. Moreover, os- Akhenaten, as becomes clear from a stela erected by
traca with marks excavated by the Swiss expedition him for Osiris and Anubis10.
in the Valley of the Kings come from workmen’s huts, Many of the earliest known workmen of the
and are datable, thanks to the hieratic material also Nineteenth Dynasty had titles connecting them to
found there, to the reigns of Ramesses IV–VII8. the Amun temples, or their fathers had such titles,
The period of almost two centuries between and so it is possible that much of the royal necrop-
Amenhotep III and the later years of Ramesses III olis workforce was newly introduced from a temple
remained problematic since it presented neither background. On the basis of written sources alone, it
precise archaeological data on material with a sub- is conceivable that the workmen of the royal necrop-
stantial number of marks, nor precise hieratic par- olis and their administration did not develop into a
allels for any series of marks appearing on ostraca. permanent institution before the early Nineteenth
Therefore, what exactly had happened to the mark- Dynasty, and that any earlier workforce should not
ing system during and after the Amarna Period, and to be considered separately from those involved in
during the Nineteenth Dynasty remained obscure. It the construction of temples and of private tombs11.
was also not known if or how long the marking sys- Although inscriptions from the pre-Amarna Period
tem remained in use after the middle of the Twentieth feature titles of workmen and administrators ‘of the
Dynasty. These questions can now be addressed with great place’, the workmen did not necessarily live
the help of much more data, and some aspects of the and work in the royal necropolis exclusively and per-
underlying historical processes are emerging from manently.
obscurity. That there was a defined workforce in the royal
What exactly happened to the Theban royal ne- necropolis before the Amarna Period is suggested by
cropolis and the gang of workmen during the reign a repertoire of workmen’s marks on pottery vessels
of Akhenaten and the years immediately following and on ostraca. Marks appeared and disappeared
it has long been a matter of conjecture. The Amarna together with the workmen, while some continued
Period left little archaeological and written material to be used, and so the repertoire slowly and partly
in the Theban necropolis that can be related to the changed from the reign of Thutmosis III to that of
workmen, and the remains of the workmen’s settle- Amenhotep III. From the latter’s reign there is a
ment near the royal tomb at El-Amarna tell us little complete limestone ostracon from Deir el-Medina
about the identity of its inhabitants. The question of inscribed with forty-two different marks, and also an
whether necropolis workmen moved from Thebes to almost complete pottery dish with thirty-nine marks,
Akhetaten in Akhenaten’s reign, therefore, remains both strongly suggestive of the full extent of the
an open one. Inscriptions on some objects from Deir gang of workmen at the time12. These numbers are
el-Medina include references to the cult of the Aten, close to the number of workmen under Ramesses II,
but these do not necessarily imply that workmen but there is no clear indication yet of the division in
or their families had moved, or even moved back, a right and left side of the gang, which was common
from Akhetaten to Thebes9. The reign of Horemheb in the Ramesside Period. The dish has the sequence
saw the reburial of the mummy of Thutmosis IV by of marks starting with , a sign also attested on nu-
the treasury overseer Maya and the ‘steward of The- merous items of the burial equipment of Kha (TT 8),
bes’, and the assignment of ‘places’ to the necropolis ‘overseer of construction in the great place’.
workforce at Deir el-Medina by the same steward of No workmen’s marks can be dated with any
Thebes. These events are thought to be connected to certainty to the Amarna Period or to the years

7 Haring 2000 and 2009a, 147–152. 10 The stone seat is now lost, Černý 1973, 51. Stela Turin CG 50010,
8 Dorn 2011a, 139–141, 369–382. I am grateful to Andreas Dorn Tosi/Roccati 1972, 43–44, 265.
for providing me with images of the ostraca prior to their publica- 11 See Dorn 2011b, 35–41.
tion, and for stimulating discussions of the material. 12 Ostracon IFAO ONL6788 (Bruyère 1953, pl. XVIII top left) and
9 As was suggested by Černý 1973, 51–52. See now e.g. Laboury dish IFAO 6289 (unpublished).
2010, 151; Haring in press.

SDAIK 41, 2018

 Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside necropolis workmen’s community 141

immediately following. The earliest datable marks of marks on some of the Schaden ostraca is (here
that come next are from about the regnal year 40 from right to left):       .
of Ramesses II, when the repertoire had changed The marks of Siwadjet () and Nebimentet ()
drastically. Out of forty marks that can be ascribed are clearly related to the names of these workmen,
to workmen active at that time, no more than eight more precisely to the elements, wAD and imn.t.t. Per-
have morphological parallels in the reign of Amenho- haps  for Pendua was inspiredH1by (dwA) or its hier-
tep III. Of course, the death of the latter and year 40 atic equivalent. For Harnefer, Haremwia,
H2 Amennakht
of Ramesses II were separated by more than a hun- and Wadjmose no relation between the marks and
dred years, a period long enough to expect quite a names is apparent. Observations made on the histor-
few changes in the repertoire of marks. But the pe- ical development of the marking system suggest the
riod separating the first years of Thutmosis III as sole following possibilities for these marks: (1) they may
ruler and the death of Amenhotep III was approxi- have been inspired by names of the workmen’s an-
mately as long, and no less than fifteen marks from cestors (that is, they were possibly passed on within
the earlier reign seem to have survived for a century. workmen’s families); (2) they may have been taken
What is more, the total set of marks under Thutmosis over from colleagues who had previously held the
III was probably smaller than under Amenhotep III, same positions in the right side of the gang; (3) they
and so the differences between the two sets may be referred to these very positions instead of names; (4)
due to a large extent to an increase in the number of they had some other relation to the workmen per-
workmen13. The almost entirely different set under sonally (e.g. reputation or nicknames).
Ramesses II, then, is probably due to an even greater It is clear from at least one Nineteenth Dynasty
number of new workmen. The evidence presented example that a mark could reflect a man’s position
by the marks thus suggests a great change, if not a in the formal hierarchy. One ostracon found in the
break, in the history of the royal necropolis work- Valley of the Kings by an Egyptian expedition under
force during or shortly after the Amarna Period. the supervision of Zahi Hawass16 is closely related
The core group of ostraca with marks that can be to the Schaden material, and shows fourteen marks
dated to the time around year 40 of Ramesses II was arranged in two rows, the last mark being a variant
found by an expedition from the University of Mem- of , the sign for ‘(senior) scribe’. The mark is well-
phis under the direction of the late Otto Schaden, attested in the Twentieth Dynasty, in hieratic and
concentrating on the area near KV 10 (Amenmesse). pseudo-hieroglyphic forms. Ordered lists of marks
The ostraca with marks were found together with hi- from the reigns of Ramesses IV and his successors
eratic ones, one of which is dated to the regnal year often start with the mark of the foreman of the right
38 and also bears some of the marks in question14. or left side, which are  and  respectively (see
The ostraca, which are still unpublished, show rows fig. 1)17. The precise motivation for these marks,
of marks with additional information in the form of which probably referred to positions rather than to
dots, strokes and other signs, sometimes in tabular individual persons, is unclear. The ‘bee’ may have
format. Very probably they reflect deliveries of com- been borrowed from royal imagery as a reference to
modities, the presence or absence of workmen, and the high local status of the foreman of the right side;
perhaps even a duty roster similar to the system we what is expressed by the shape of  is unclear but it
know from the later Ramesside Period. The marks may have been used more generally as a reference
appear in a more or less fixed order, and can there- to the left side (see below). The deputy of the fore-
fore fruitfully be compared with lists of names in hi- man, who was referred to by his personal mark, ap-
eratic sources of the same years, such as the famous pears in the third position, the second position being
absence ostracon BM EA 563415, and ostracon DeM reserved for the scribe , very probably Amennakht
706. On both ostraca, the sequence of workmen on for both the right and left sides. By the middle of the
the right side starts with Pendua, Harnefer, Siwadjet, Twentieth Dynasty, the use of this mark was already
Haremwia, Amennakht (also called Nakhy), Wadj- a century old, as is shown by the Hawass ostracon.
mose and Nebimentet. The corresponding sequence At the time that this ostracon was made, the scribe

13 The total number of different marks datable to Thutmosis III is 15 Ostracon BM EA 5634: Demarée 2002, 18, pl. 25–28; oDeM 706,
22; that of Amenhotep III 46, D. Soliman, Of Marks and Men (PhD Grandet 2000, 1–3, 11, 105–106.
manuscript). 16 Not published in print, but see https://www.youtube.com/
14 Provisional number oSchaden 96 (unpublished). I wish to thank watch?v=OSTMyBuinPc (checked 27.02.2017).
The University of Memphis expedition for sharing images of the 17 E.g. oBM EA 50716 (Demarée 2002, 32, pl. 109), oPrague 3836
ostraca with the Leiden project team. (unpublished), oTurin CGT 57534 (López 1984, pl. 173a).

SDAIK 41, 2018

142 Ben Haring

Fig. 1 Ostracon Turin CGT 57534 (after López 1984, pl. 173a)

in question was probably the famous senior scribe, duty roster is documented by several years in both
Qenhirkhopshef. directions, beyond the period for which there is suffi-
cient hieratic documentation19. We know now, for in-
stance, that prior to year 24 of Ramesses III there was
an eighteen-day roster instead of the nineteen-day
T h e Tw e n t i e t h D y n a s t y one that is reflected on hieratic ostraca. Thanks to
the marks, we also know a little bit more about the
Ostraca, both hieratic and with marks, from the late duty roster after year 2 of Ramesses IV. Several os-
years of Ramesses III and from the short reigns of his traca from the reign of Ramesses V with sequences
successors are relatively plentiful. It is the rich data of marks and calendar dates together suggest a ros-
found in both types of ostraca that enable us to iden- ter that is much longer than the 30 days known from
tify the owners of individual marks, and to say some- years 1–2 of his predecessor; a roster not explicitly
thing about the purpose of the marking system as a attested in hieratic texts20. The latter remain largely
whole. The most important sources for this analysis silent on the roster of day duties in the later part of
are rosters of day duties and ordered name lists, both the Twentieth Dynasty.
of which have already been mentioned in the previ- It is mainly the ostraca with marks, duty rosters
ous section. and deliveries that confront us with a phenomenon
The duty rosters, in particular, often allow precise we may call ‘pseudo-writing’. It combines marks,
dating, and many matches exist between hieratic os- numbers, hieratic or hieroglyphic characters and
traca and ostraca with marks that record the same other iconic signs, so as to form one single sign sys-
days and what happened on them. These matches tem. This system even includes syntagmatic rules
even make it possible to understand some of the that go beyond simple relations like e.g. object –
ostraca with marks sign by sign, such as oLeiden number. Line 2 on the Leiden ostracon has two occur-
F.2000/1.5, which records information for II Ax.t rences of the sign . One follows immediately after
10–12 in the regnal year 1 of Ramesses IV, and whose the day number ‘10’ and is the mark of a workman
entries have almost precise duplicates in hieratic named Mose; the other is the last sign in the line, fol-
oDeM 41 (see fig. 2)18. The ostraca with marks even lowing after a delivery (‘600 units of firewood’) and
make it possible to extend the period for which the the sign . The line corresponds with lines 11–12 of

18 Haring/Soliman 2014, 86–89. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/nino/dmd/dmd.html (retrieved Janu-

19 For the duty roster of this period as reconstructed on the basis ary 5th, 2017).
of hieratic sources, see R. J. Demarée, The Turnus Lists, in: K. 20 For the duty roster before year 24 of Ramesses III and after year 2
Donker van Heel et al., The Deir el-Medina Database, URL: of Ramesses IV, see Haring/Soliman 2014, 74–80.

SDAIK 41, 2018

 Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside necropolis workmen’s community 143

Fig. 2 Photo and line drawing of oLeiden F.2000/1.5 (photo Kyra van der Moezel, line drawing Daniel Soliman; courtesy of
the National Museum of Antiquities [RMO], Leiden)

hieratic oDeM 41. There, we read about Mose’s day were marked with a variant of  wnmy, as is also illus-
duty on day 10 and about two deliveries of firewood: trated by the Leiden ostracon (line 1), and by several
300 units by a person called Ptahmose, and another others.
300 units by one Amenhotep. We know these two It is not certain how widely used this pseu-
persons to have been woodcutters and members do-script was within the workmen’s community.
of the supporting workforce (smd.t) of the royal ne- Whereas the marking system itself had been used
cropolis. It is clear that the two deliveries of 300 units for centuries and by different members of the work-
were added together as 600 in oLeiden F.2000/1.5, men’s community, including trained scribes as well
and that the signs  (a stylized version of the Htp as semi-literates, the particular code we see in the
hieroglyph) and  refer to Amenhotep and Ptahmose ostraca with marks and duty rosters from the reigns
respectively21. This means that  referring to the of Ramesses III and his successors may have been the
workman Mose and  for the woodcutter Ptahmose work of a very limited group of persons. The hand-
are two different signs, according to their positions writing of these ostraca remains to be studied more
in the line: directly after the day number or after a closely, but shows much uniformity. Given the scope
wood delivery. Only the first of these two signs can of the texts (deliveries of dates, firewood, fish and
be called a mark, since we know that the necropolis other commodities), the so-called ‘scribes of the
workmen used their personal signs as such, for mark- smd.t ’ are likely to have produced them22, and the
ing property and in graffiti. The signs used for the similarity of the administrative practice reflected by
smd.t workforce, however, are probably not marks the ostraca with marks to hieratic ostraca suggests
(there being no evidence for their use outside the ad- close cooperation with other scribes of the royal ne-
ministrative records), but merely abbreviations used cropolis.
by the ‘scribe’ in his pseudo-written record. In the previous section, reference has already
Yet another illustration, along the same lines of been made to ordered lists of marks from the reign
meaning depending on its position is , which we of Ramesses IV and later, which are headed by the
have come to know already as the mark of the chief marks of the chief workmen, their deputies, and
workman of the left side. The sign does not have pre- the scribe. The marks of the chief workmen and the
cisely the same meaning here, but it is written over scribe seem to be references to positions rather than
a triangular sign that stands for a delivery of dates. names. Unlike the smd.t signs, however, they were
Indeed, ‘one unit of dates, left side’ is what we read in ‘real’ marks in the sense that they also occurred indi-
line 12 of hieratic oDeM 41. By this it becomes clear vidually, as property marks and in graffiti. The same
that, when added above the sign for dates,  does is true for the scorpion charmer (xrp-%ro.t), actually
not stand for ‘chief workman of the left side’ but for a necropolis workman whose additional task it was
‘left side’ only. Similar deliveries for the right side to remedy the effects of scorpion stings. His mark

21 Haring/Soliman 2014, 88. 22 For these scribes, see Davies 1999, 123–142 and 283–284.

SDAIK 41, 2018

144 Ben Haring

food and its delivery to the workmen, and he acted

as their messenger24. Unsurprisingly, the sign is not
attested outside the ostraca, and may therefore not
have been a real mark, but rather a designation em-
ployed by the users of the pseudo-script like the signs
for smd.t workforce. We know of at least one door-
keeper, however, who climbed up a step on the social
ladder: Qaydjoret, who is known from the reigns of
Ramesses IX–XI. Qaydjoret became a guardian (sAw),
and as such he was responsible for the safekeeping of
precious materials, such as tools and paint. As a door-
keeper, he may still have been referred to by the door
sign, but in his new capacity he used a mark of his
own, which was clearly inspired by the first element
of his name: . The mark is known from late Twenti-
eth Dynasty ostraca, where it usually occurs near the
bottom of columns of marks25, but it also frequently
occurs as graffiti.
Qaydjoret’s sign is also found on the latest Ra-
messide ostraca inscribed with workmen’s marks.
These are unpublished limestone ostraca found in
the grand puits, which are now part of the collection
kept in the IFAO, and bear regnal years 16–20 of a
king who can be none other than Ramesses XI26. They
are difficult to interpret, but essentially give us calen-
dar dates, workmen’s marks, numbers and additional
signs possibly referring to commodities and adminis-
trative notions. The information they provide there-
fore seems to be similar to the duty rosters of the
earlier Twentieth Dynasty, and they employ a similar
(but not quite the same) pseudo-script. Their date
and find-spot suggest that ostraca were still being
Fig. 3 Ostracon Cairo CG 25317 (Daressy 1901, pl. LIX) produced and discarded at Deir el-Medina by the
twentieth regnal year of Ramesses XI, and therefore
cast doubt on the commonly voiced theory that the
was the scorpion ( or ), which we see among the workmen had settled at Medinet Habu by that time.
workmen’s marks on ostraca from the middle of the As I have pointed out earlier, there is no compelling
Twentieth Dynasty (see fig. 3, right column)23, as well evidence for this theory27. It is only from the Late
as individually on pottery vessels and in graffiti. H1 Ramesside Letters that a glimpse of the actual situa-
Among the workmen’s marks on ostraca may also tion can be had: in one of these, the necropolis scribe
figure a sign for the doorkeeper (ir.y-aA), a door H2 Thutmose writes that he is dwelling in ‘the temple’
(see fig. 3, left column). It is usually near the bottom (i.e. Medinet Habu), while the men of the necropo-
of the list, just like the title ir.y-aA in hieratic texts: the lis are in Thebes (i.e. on the east bank)28. The letter is
doorkeeper was of lowly status, close to (but not part thought to date from wHm-ms.w.t year 2, i.e. regnal
of) the smd.t; he was responsible for the storage of year 21 of Ramesses XI29. Had the workmen still been

23 E.g. oCairo CG 25317 (Daressy 1901, 82, pl. LIX), oARTP 99–027 26 The group includes oIFAO ONL 6178–6185 and several more.
(http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Collec- Possibly related published ostraca are oCairo CG 25316 (Daressy
tions&id=102, fig. 27). 1901, 82, pl. LIX) and oLouvre N. 699 (Koenig 1991, 116).
24 Janssen/Frood/Goecke-Bauer 2003, 138–140. 27 Haring 2006, 111–112.
25 E.g. oCairo CG 25315 (Daressy 1901, 81), JE 96647 (unpub- 28 Papyrus Berlin 10494, Černý 1939, 23–24; Wente 1967, 44–45.
lished). Traces of the mark can be seen on oCairo CG 25317 (see 29 After year 19 of Ramesses XI, the extant hieratic documents use
fig. 3 here, right column, beneath ). wHm ms.w.t datings only; this practice was apparently not fol-
lowed by the ostraca with marks.

SDAIK 41, 2018

 Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside necropolis workmen’s community 145

living at Deir el-Medina the year before? We know individual workmen used the signs as property marks
that they were still working in the necropolis in later and graffiti. Clearly, the marking system employed
years under the supervision of Thutmose’s son Buteh­­ by the royal necropolis workmen of the New King-
amun. Hieratic ostraca from the Valley of the Kings dom was a commonly shared, multi-purpose visual
and especially from Deir el-Bahari tell us about their code that assumed many characteristics of linguis-
activities, which did not include the construction and tic writing, thrived in an exceptionally literate com-
decoration of royal tombs – that of Ramesses XI was munity, but despite this remained a code in itself for
never finished – but they probably did include the centuries.
emptying of existing tombs and the reburial of their
owners30. The ostraca with marks do not shed any
light on this last stage of activity in the royal necrop-
olis, as none of them can be dated later than year 20 Bibliography
of Ramesses XI.
Andrássy2009
P. Andrássy, Die Teammarken der Bauleute des ägyp-
tischen Alten und Mittleren Reiches, in: B. Haring/O.
The marking system through Kaper (eds.), Pictograms or Pseudo Script? Non-Tex-
time tual Identity Marks in Practical Use in Ancient Egypt and
Elsewhere, EU 25, Leiden/Leuven 2009, 5–48.
Aston2009
In this paper I have given a very brief historical over- D. Aston, Theban Potmarks – Nothing Other Than
view of the marking system used by the Deir el-Me- Funny Signs? Potmarks from Deir el-Medineh and the
dina workmen, focusing on the mid-Nineteenth and Valley of the Kings, in: B. Haring/O. Kaper (eds.), Pic-
the mid- to late Twentieth Dynasties. The system tograms or Pseudo Script? Non-Textual Identity Marks
was demonstrably in use from the reign of Thutmo- in Practical Use in Ancient Egypt and Elsewhere, EU 25,
sis III to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, or some Leiden/Leuven 2009, 49–65.
350 years. It seems to have started as a collection of Bruyère 1953
individual workmen’s marks that came to be noted B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh
together on ostraca for administrative purposes. This (années 1948 à 1951), FIFAO 26, Le Caire 1953.
was the first step in the development of a visual code Černý 1939
that was an alternative to local administrative writ- J. Černý, Late Ramesside Letters, BAe 9, Brussels 1939.
ing, and which assumed the form of a pseudo-script Černý 1973
with its own characteristic set of signs, and syntag- J. Černý, A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ra-
matic rules for their use. We see this pseudo-script messide Period, BdE 50, Le Caire 1973.
most clearly, in slightly different forms, in the middle Daressy 1901
of the Nineteenth Dynasty (the Schaden ostraca and G. Daressy, Catalogue général des antiquités égypti-
related pieces), the middle of the Twentieth Dynasty ennes du Musée du Caire. Nos 25001–25385. Ostraca,
(the duty rosters and name lists from the late years of Le Caire 1901.
Ramesses III to the reign of Ramesses IX) and the end Demarée 2002
of that dynasty (the ‘grand puits group’). This pseu- R. Demarée, Ramesside Ostraca, London 2002.
do-script, in its different stages, is probably the work Demarée 2003
of semi-literate administrators, who were inspired by R. Demarée, Quelques textes de la fin de la XXe et du
the administrative hieratic documents produced by début de la XXIe dynastie, in: G. Andreu (ed.), Deir el-
scribes, and who used the system to create similar re- Médineh et la Vallée des Rois. La vie en Égypte au temps
cords. The individual signs of this ‘script’ include imi- des pharaons du Nouvel Empire. Actes du colloque or-
tations of hieratic characters, but their style betrays ganisé par le musée du Louvre les 3 et 4 mai 2002, Paris
the hands of less or untrained ‘scribes’. Fully trained 2003, 235–251.
scribes, however, also used the marks on ostraca that
show a perfect hieratic ductus31. At the same time,

30 Demarée 2003, 248–250.

31 Haring 2009b, 132 with fig. 8.

SDAIK 41, 2018

146 Ben Haring

Dorn 2011a Haring 2014

A. Dorn, Arbeiterhütten im Tal der Könige. Ein Bei­ B. Haring, Workmen’s Marks and the Early History of
trag zur altägyptischen Sozialgeschichte aufgrund von the Theban Royal Necropolis, in: J. Toivari-Viitala/T.
neuem Quellenmaterial aus der Mitte der 20. Dynastie Vartiainen/S. Uvanto (eds.), Deir el-Medina Studies.
(ca. 1150 v. Chr.), AH 23, Basel 2011. Helsinki, June 24–26, 2009. Proceedings, The Finnish
Dorn 2011b Egyptological Society – Occasional Publications 2, Hel-
A. Dorn, Ostraka aus der Regierungszeit Sethos’ I. aus sinki 2014, 87–100.
Deir el-Medineh und dem Tal der Könige. Zur Mann- Haring 2015
schaft und zur Struktur des Arbeiterdorfes vor dem Bau B. Haring, Between Administrative Writing and Work
des Ramesseums, in: MDAIK 67, 2011, 31–52. Practice. Marks Ostraca and the Roster of Day Duties of
Dorn 2015 the Royal Necropolis Workmen in the New Kingdom, in:
A. Dorn, Für jeden Arbeiter ein Namenszeichen?, in: J. J. Budka/F. Kammerzell/S. Rzepka (eds.), Non-Tex-
Budka/F. Kammerzell/S. Rzepka (eds.), Non-Textual tual Marking Systems in Ancient Egypt (and Elsewhere),
Marking Systems in Ancient Egypt (and Elsewhere), Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 16, Hamburg
Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 16, Hamburg 2015, 133–142.
2015, 143–158. Haring in press
Fronczak/Rzepka 2009 B. Haring, Popular, but Unique? The Early History of
M. Fronczak/S. Rzepka, “Funny Signs” in Theban the Royal Necropolis Workmen’s Marks, in: A. Dorn/S.
Rock Graffiti, in: P. Andrássy/J. Budka/F. Kammer- Polis (eds.), Deir el-Medina and the Theban Necropolis
zell (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and in Contact (acts of a symposium at the Université de
Pseudo Script from Prehistory to Modern Times, Lingua Liège, 27–29 October 2014).
Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 8, Göttingen 2009, Haring/Soliman 2014
159–178. B. Haring/D. Soliman, Reading Twentieth Dynasty Os-
Janssen/Frood/Goecke-Bauer 2003 traca with Workmen’s Marks, in: B. Haring/O. Kaper/R.
J. Janssen/E. Frood/M. Goecke-Bauer, Woodcutters, van Walsem (eds.), The Workman’s Progress. Studies
Potters and Doorkeepers. Service Personnel of the Deir in the Village of Deir el-Medina and Other Documents
el-Medina Workmen, EU 17, Leiden 2003. from Western Thebes in Honour of Rob Demarée, EU 28,
Grandet 2000 Leiden/Leuven 2014, 73–93.
P. Grandet, Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques non lit- Killen/Weiss 2009
téraires de Deîr el-Médînéh VIII, DFIFAO 39, Le Caire G. Killen/L. Weiss, Markings on Objects of Daily Use
2000. from Deir el-Medina. Ownership Marks or Administra-
Haring 2000 tive Aids?, in: P. Andrássy/J. Budka/F. Kammerzell
B. Haring, Towards Decoding the Necropolis Work- (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and
men’s Funny Signs, in: GM 178, 2000, 45–58. Pseudo Script from Prehistory to Modern Times, Lingua
Haring 2006 Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 8, Göttingen 2009,
B. Haring, Scribes and Scribal Activity at Deir el-Me- 137–158.
dina, in: A. Dorn/T. Hofmann (eds.), Living and Writ- Koenig 1991
ing in Deir el-Medine. Socio-historical Embodiment of Y. Koenig, Les ostraca hiératiques du Musée du Louvre,
Deir el-Medine Texts, AH 19, Basel 2006, 107–112. in: RdE 42, 1991, 95–116.
Haring 2009a Laboury 2010
B. Haring, Workmen’s Marks on Ostraca from the The- D. Laboury, Akhénaton. Les grands pharaons, Paris
ban Necropolis. A Progress Report, in: B. Haring/O. 2010.
Kaper (eds.), Pictograms or Pseudo Script? Non-Tex- López 1984
tual Identity Marks in Practical Use in Ancient Egypt and J. López, Ostraca ieratici N. 57450–57568, tabelle
Elsewhere, EU 25, Leiden/Leuven 2009, 143–167. lignee N. 58001–58007, Catalogo del Museo Egizio di
Haring 2009b Torino Serie seconda – Collezioni III/4, Milan 1984.
B. Haring, On the Nature of Workmen’s Marks of the Moezel 2015
Royal Necropolis Administration in the New Kingdom, K. van der Moezel, Signification in Ancient Egyptian
in: P. Andrássy/J. Budka/F. Kammerzell (eds.), Builders’ Marks, in: J Budka/F. Kammerzell/S. Rzepka
Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and Pseudo (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems in Ancient Egypt
Script from Prehistory to Modern Times, Lingua Aegyp- (and Elsewhere), Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monograph-
tia. Studia Monographica 8, Göttingen 2009, 123–135. ica 16, Hamburg 2015, 9–30.

SDAIK 41, 2018

 Writing, marks and pseudo-script in the Ramesside necropolis workmen’s community 147

Rzepka 2015 Soliman 2015

S. Rzepka, “Funny Signs” Graffiti vs. Textual Graffiti. D. Soliman, Workmen’s Marks in Pre-Amarna Tombs at
Contemporary or not?, in: J. Budka/F. Kammerzell/S. Deir el-Medina, in: J. Budka/F. Kammerzell/S. Rzepka
Rzepka (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems in Ancient (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems in Ancient Egypt
Egypt (and Elsewhere), Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Mono- (and Elsewhere), Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monograph-
graphica 16, Hamburg 2015, 159–184. ica 16, Hamburg 2015, 109–132.
Soliman 2013 Tosi/Roccati 1972
D. Soliman, The Functional Context of 18th Dynasty M. Tosi/A. Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el
Marks Ostraca from the Theban Necropolis, in: C. Medina, Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino Serie sec-
Graves et al. (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology onda – Collezioni I, Turin 1972.
2012. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium, Wente 1967
University of Birmingham 2012, Oxford 2014, 157–170. E. Wente, Late Ramesside Letters, SAOC 33, Chicago
1967.

SDAIK 41, 2018