How does graffiti provide an alternative voice in history?

 

 

By Keenan Thornton ©

 

 

“… There is a sense in cutting ones own name upon imperishable rock without defacing it. Some may come afterward, and seeing it, feel as if meeting an old friend.”

-         Carter Henry Harrison[1]

 

 

Today, the word graffiti tends to refer to any graphics applied to a surface in a manner that constitutes vandalism[2]. But the word graffiti was first used to describe inscriptions, carvings and figure drawings that were found upon the walls of ancient ruins or monuments, created without explicit permission of the original creators[3]. Graffiti from ancient times has lent itself as evidence to archaeologists and historians, but it is often overlooked as a usable historical source thanks to the modern perception that the word graffiti implies it is van-dalism and does not contain useful historical narrative. By looking at traveller’s graffiti[4] from the past, the work of Roger O. De Keersmaecker, G. Maspero and J. Derrida give insight into arguments of historical antiquity versus evidence that have surrounded graffiti, how it can constitute a narrative and how ‘voices’ come through from the past. “The historian studies the past textually”[5] and this causes them to rely mostly on the dominant voices of history, negating the potential use or value an alternative form of information could have as a source. Keith Windshuttle’s “The Killing of History”, like Derrida, helps to examine who these dominant voices are. Alongside Jim Sharpe’s “History From Below” alternative voices are brought to light, how the historian is able to study them, and finally how graffiti provides an alternative voice in history.

 

Because “the historian studies the past textually”⁵, graffiti is often overlooked as a usable historical source, not just because it is often pictorial but because of the modern perception that the word graffiti implies it is vandalism. But there is graffiti from past times that has been looked at historically, specifically what is known as traveller’s graffiti. Upon the pyramids are thousands upon thousands of scribbled names and initials, and all across the monuments of the Nile and inside the remains of tombs, from Egypt to Sudan, travellers have left their names and effigies from across the eras. The ‘travellers’ who have left their marks were all people on a journey and the inscriptions that can be found from the 1700’s to early 1900’s have been the most scrutinised and made the most famous historical inquiry. An expert in this particular field, Roger O. De Keersmaecker[6] writes about his interests in the lives and stories of people and of the multitude of travellers whose journey’s can be traced through their graffiti. Keersmaecker’s documentation⁶ expresses the importance of studying traveller’s graffiti; the appearances of key historical figures in Egypt in the past, tales of unknown Napoleonic soldiers, discoveries of who was first to enter a tomb and the amazing stories that without the “defacing”[7] of monuments would otherwise be lost to history. He says that “graffiti brings the travellers closer”[8], and what is “interesting”⁸ is finding a famous European individuals name from the past stretched across different temples and monuments of the Nile and researching and discovering more about them through books, photographs, paintings, and diary entries⁸.

 

Over time there have been many different opinions about traveller’s graffiti. Even in the nineteenth century there were those who considered it vandalism and early in the twentieth century there were already those who saw an importance in treating graffito’s as a form of antiquity. However there is never one side taken in considerations of graffiti, whether it is vandalism or if it has historical value. As Keersmaecker’s research brings to light, rather in the past it seemed one’s consideration of an individual graffito was a biased personal and cultural product of their age. As he points out from his study of travel accounts in the 1800’s “when it [the account] was written by an English traveller they would note that most of the graffiti they saw was from the French, and when it was written by a French traveller they noted that most of the graffiti they saw was from English travellers”[9].

 

One traveller from the 1850’s, George Melly, commented in his published travel accounts on the “disgraceful practice which has grown up among traveller’s in the east, of defacing the temples and other monuments of antiquity… Pompey’s pillar has not escaped this irruption… and is emblazoned with names. I am sorry to add, that they are British ones”[10]. George Melly appeared to greatly criticise the vandalism on such a monument, but later in his account while visiting the “temples of Semna” he found “among the sculptures… the names of Wilkinson, Holroyd - Hyde…” and others “of European celebrity”¹⁰. Suddenly here “in such good company”¹⁰ Melly was proud to inscribe his own name. It was simply common for a traveller in Egypt to leave their own name somewhere in the course of their travels, and a traveller like Melly’s consideration of the difference between vandalism and antiquity is slightly hypocritical; it is dependant on who created it, when and where. The names of key travellers before him are worthy to be remembered in stone while bias is shown to the majority of travellers in his own era who, according to him, are simply adding to the destruction of venerable monuments.

 

“Persons of taste are irritated when they come across them”7, states G. Maspero. In his article “New Light on Ancient Egypt” Maspero makes light of the ironies of perceptions of vandalism versus antiquity that arise over traveller’s graffiti. Written in 1909 he discusses the effects of tourism in Egypt and how it is the shared opinion of curators that “tourists are gradually spoiling the monuments of Egypt by writing their names on them”¹¹. Tourists is simply a twentieth century term for Travellers, and Maspero emphasises that “yes” it is the duty of directors of antiquities, archaeologists and historians alike to disapprove greatly of the tourists of their time defacing monuments with graffiti, however he reflects that there is an irony to their constitution of vandalism to them, wondering; how can we “blame the European tourists who disfigure the walls when we copy and study with such tender care the slightest scribblings of their predecessors”⁷, not just travellers from the 1800’s but any graffito right back to ancient times. In Maspero’s day, graffiti dated just after the 1880’s “neighbourhood”¹¹ would have been considered part of the contemporary era, and he muses that “they are too near us to seem anything [but vandalism], but let 100 years pass by”[11] and they will fall to antiquity. So it appears that each era of historians has a perception of a date just some decades distant to the contemporary era where the historical value of graffiti ceases and vandalism begins, like Keersmaecker who believes “beyond 1900”[12] it all becomes vandalism.

 

The work of Keersmaecker emphasises the nature of graffiti in shedding light on the stories of people in the past. When looked at from this particular perspective graffiti becomes a form of narrative for the common traveller or person. Maspero’s rather romantic detailing of the graffiti left by French soldiers - “names, dates - protestations of affection for their native land” and “contempt for grammar”¹¹ - highlights this same perspective. That graffiti serves a function for the common man not only to leave a trace of himself in history, but also to leave a narrative of his present, vibrates like a Derridean[13] critique.

 

The issue that historians usually have with graffiti is that because “they study the past textually”[14] - they rely on sources that constitute written information. Even though a graffito may be in written form and express something that needs to be read, often that isn’t enough to imply it has an historical narrative. Also, because the historian is placed within their age and personal context, they may perceive that graffiti is still an aspect of vandalism, even if it has value as a form of antiquity, scribbled during the time of an ancient society studied today. So, how can graffiti constitute an historical narrative if it’s not writing?

 

As Jacques Derrida argues, when opposing the western view that if it is “without writing it is without history”[15]^,[16], is that “writing designates the broadest of phenomena, [and is] everything that gives rise to inscription… any kind of markings - hieroglyphic - cuneiform, from the distant past to the present”, both “pictographic and ideographic”¹⁶. As Derrida states “writing can be articulated in graphic substances, wood, wax, skin - stone, metal” and that it is “aural as well as visual… the pictorial and the sculptural”¹⁶. With this argument in mind, writing then is any kind of “markings” and “images” that presents meaning and “exceeds speech”¹⁵, and so graffiti in any form in any era is writing. Therefore, since graffiti gives light to the stories and comments of people in the past that would otherwise be lost in the darkness, as the writings of Maspero and the work of Keersmaecker stresses[17], then it has a function as historical narrative. In this way, just like the writings of institutional historians from the past, ancient, objective or enlightenment thinkers, and even like the accounts of travellers in Egypt and Sudan, graffiti is a written expressive form in which ‘voices’ come through.

 

The dominant written texts of the past are heavily relied on as the voice of the past, because historians look to a specific kind of historical narrative. So what are the dominant voices? As Keith Windshuttle describes in “The Killing of History” they are found within the “biggest single source of evidence” that historians rely on; “the working records of the institutions18 of the past”[18]. They remain dominant not because of who the individuals who established their voice in that time were, but from where these individuals recorded their voice. From what perspective these past historians were able to position themselves from the subject they were recording. By being a part of the “institution”[19], or by being above or outside of the social structure and subject that their work was enquiring about, their voice to future historians appears more reliable. Firstly, of course, because it is written, and secondly because it provides itself as an “explanation” that can be “analysed for authenticity and significance”¹⁸. The dominant voices provide information that is positioned and created in the way historians prefer, history that can be sifted through because it was created for the sake of posterity. This is the kind of historical narrative that is preferred, the kind that Windshuttle remarks were meant for “consumption”¹⁸.

 

Graffiti is often overlooked against this kind of evidence. Although graffiti clearly represents a kind of narrative, because it can be perceived as vandalism it appears to most historians that it does not provide a clear and purposeful narrative. This of course does not stop it dead; historians have used graffiti as evidence many times in the past to help in their study of societies. There is a wealth of graffiti from ancient Roman societies, such as at Pompeii, which have given “insight into ancient Roman street life”[20]. Carved into the building remains and preserved perfectly by Vesuvius’ eruption[21], Roman citizens and immigrants to the city wrote curses in Latin and foreign languages, markings that would direct one to a prostitute, declarations of love, political slogans and even literary quotes^20,21,[22] and for historians it has all been extremely helpful in understanding the political workings that occurred in Roman streets²⁰, and about the common Roman’s understanding within their social context²². Of course this graffiti shows more than that; it also reveals when considering traveller’s graffiti as well that the nature of people has been the same in any era. The common people have always felt a need to make a mark of their presence in time or leave a social comment. However, not everyone can be as privileged as those whose education and career allows them to record and comment on society for the sake of posterity. From the time of ancient societies containing lower plebeian²² orders, graffiti has been the only outlet for the common person to leave an historical narrative - to write their own history[23] – however inaccurate, flawed or inappropriate the form it takes may be, as one person living in Pompeii felt obliged to leave in history, a drawing of a Phallus accompanied by the text Mansueta Tane: “handle with care”²⁰.

 

Graffiti like this has been used extensively not just in the study of ancient western societies, but all ancient societies, because it falls to antiquity. What needs to be clear about graffiti is that whatever era it is created in, it is never fully intended for future posterity. Like the works of the ancient historians, it was always created for “contemporary consumption”¹⁸, with not much or any consideration for who may look back on it centuries into the future, and how they may be socially challenged to perceive it. However, it would be remiss of historians to ignore such evidence simply because it doesn’t align with traditional views of written history.

 

Historians study ancient graffiti from places such as Egypt, ancient Roman cities, the remnants of western to eastern civilisations, Arabian and African, all as extra evidence. Through graffiti historians are given a glimpse into the lives and the social workings of lower orders of societies. However, because a graffito constitutes an aspect of vandalism and was not intended for “consumption”[24], the historian who relies on texts finds it hard to perceive a clear and purposeful narrative, and so it is overlooked against the dominant voices, which do provide that narrative.

 

“Given that this historical narrative is one way of viewing the world”, as Roland Barthes asked, “how [can it convince] its readers that it is the only way?[25]” Windshuttles’s “The Killing of History” explains that the most relied on “historical narrative takes the form of documents that remain from the past”24, which are the dominant voices. As has been discussed it has everything going for it, which is why historians prefer it. Like Barthes questions, it’s obvious that there are other “alternative”24 ways to view history. The alternative voices in history were recognised – thanks to the Marxist approach to history26 – as the common people, those from below27, the working class. When trying to find these alternative views historians of course mostly go in search of the texts written by lower-order historians. Even in this case historians still prefer to go in search of a particular form of narrative.

 

In order to perceive alternative forms of evidence historians need to take the Derridean approach to evidence; that anything is writing and so therefore all forms of antiquity created by anyone have historical narrative. Historians often come across evidence “they had not anticipated… [and] this unexpected evidence will suggest alternative arguments [and] interpretations… to pursue”24. Graffiti, although it most often constitutes vandalism, contains historical narrative and is created by different individuals, and as Sharpe’s “History From Below” helps to understand, graffiti helps to “establish the identity of the lower orders”27 and as a form of alternative evidence of past societies, from Egypt to Rome, has been used to “criticise, redefine and strengthen the historical mainstream”27 because it is evidence from a totally different perspective. Those who deface walls and scribble slander and inappropriateness in human history, are “those writing history from below”, providing an alternative to the dominant voices. In this way graffiti is a written expressive form of historical narrative in which alternative voices “come to light”[27], and can provide a distinctly different perspective for the construction of history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Bibliography

 

 

 

Bradley, Pamela                                  “Cities of Vesuvius; Pompeii and Herculaneum” Cambridge University Press, Melbourne 2005

 

Curthoys, Ann and Docker, John       “Is History Fiction?” University of NSW Press, Sydney 2006 Ch. 7 “The Linguistic Turn” p. 139, 140, 146, 147-8, 151

 -        Roland Barthes quote sourced

 -        Derrida’s “Of Grammatology” sourced

 

De Keersmaecker, Roger O.               Interview on traveller’s graffiti conducted via email

19    - 31 May 2010

                                                             - Harrison, Carter Henry’s In Defence of graffiti quote                                                                  “A race with the sun” New York, 1889 p. 295

                              - G. Maspero “New Light on Ancient Egypt” New York, 1909

    p. 150, 156

 

De Keersmaecker, Roger O.                “Traveller’s Graffiti from Egypt and the Sudan” Graffiti-Graffito 2001 Bercham - Antwerp - Belgium Volume I p.10 - 16 Volume II p.11 - 13, 28 - 29

 

Manko, Tristan                                    “Street Logo’s” Thames and Hudson, London, UK 2004

  p. 7 - 9, 11, 43

 

Seaford, Richard                                 “Pompeii” Cooperativa Lavarator: Officine Grafiche Firenze, Florence 1978

 

Sharpe, Jim                                          “History from Below” from “New perspectives on historical writing” (ed. Peter Burke), Polity Press 1991

 

Windshuttle, Keith                            “The Killing of History” Macleay 1994

 

www.StreetsofDublin.com/graffiti/1_ancient_graffiti         first accessed December 2009

 

 www.egypt-sudan-graffiti.be                                               first accessed May 2010

 

www.Religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/200_alexamenos_graffito   first accessed June 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Evaluation

 

 

1. De Keersmacker, Roger O.               Interview on traveller’s graffiti conducted via email

19    - 31 May 2010

 

Keersmaecker as a source became integral to this projects research. After researching his background contact was made via email, as he lives across the other side of the world in Europe, and he responded with interest in this projects focus on graffiti. Keersmaecker agreed to conduct an interview over email and was also happy to send copies of his published articles for free, plus sources on graffiti that were exactly what this project needed. His interview was very reliable in providing some highly interesting insights into the use and historical contributions of traveller’s graffiti, emphasising how the lives of people and “stories” were brought to light and his own passion and interest in the graffiti. By including very useful articles by earlier individuals like himself in the email correspondence, including G. Maspero’s “New Light on Egypt” and C. H. Harrison’s “A race with the sun” his opinion that certain graffito’s should be treated as historical evidence was strengthened; plus interesting information about arguments of vandalism versus antiquity were provided from these articles. At times Keersmaecker’s grammar and English was difficult to understand and possibly effected interpretations of his information, and quotes had to be roughly rephrased in the essay. Keersmaecker is no historian or professor which he clearly states himself, and his work and personal opinions provided in the interview reveal that his passion for graffiti is in extensive documentation and discovering the stories of people in the past that graffiti creates. His emphasis on narratives was not about historical or alternative perspectives in history as this project’s focus is, and so his information had to be interpreted to suit the essay. Keersmaecker, overall, as a contemporary source was reliable in establishing that graffiti provides an historical narrative, and helped the projects investigation in discovering that by “voices” the question could mean narratives.

 

2. Curthoys, Ann and Docker, John      “Is History fiction?” University of NSW Press, Sydney       2006   Ch. 7 “The Linguistic Turn”

 

“Is History Fiction?” came later into the research and at the beginning of writing the essay. However, its information on J. Derrida’s “Of Grammatology” created interest in the text. After thorough analysis of chapter 7 “The Linguistic Turn”, it proved invaluable in providing a large body of historians and different opinions on historical narrative to be interpreted and integrated into the essay’s focus on graffiti. After the analysis of vandalism versus antiquity and the narrative of graffiti through the research of traveller’s graffiti, the historians and interpretations provided in the text helped to assess what constitutes historical narrative. J. Derrida’s quote on what is writing integrated perfectly with the essay’s focus on narrative and how graffiti can be used as evidence, as well as the quotes from R. Barthes which helped to strengthen the essay’s identification of the dominant historical narratives or “voices”. The text proved reliable in providing more sources of historians and information for the project at a point where Keersmaecker was being heavily relied upon, especially the quote “the historian studies the past textually” which proved highly useful in examining why the dominant voices are relied upon. The text was not written to discuss graffiti and the sources had to be interpreted differently to link them to specific ideas of graffiti and narrative that the essay’s first part on traveller’s graffiti had already addressed. The text proved useful in helping to build the essay’s argument on the arguments of previous historians, even though they discussing the construction of history not alternative evidence or graffiti.

 

 

 

 

3. Windshuttle, Keith                            “The Killing of History” Macleay 1994

 

This source had been a part of the project’s initial research, but not until it was decided to integrate quotes and information from “Is History Fiction?” was it considered to do the same with “The Killing of History”. The source is not about graffiti at all, and was the only source used within the essay that included terms such as “alternative” providing quotes which could be related specifically to the question, especially when Windshuttle discusses that “unexpected evidence will suggest alternative arguments and interpretations”. Windshuttle’s argument was very reliable in that it used strong terms that discussed evidence such as “institutional evidence” and history created for “contemporary consumption” and even suggestions of “alternative arguments and interpretations” within different forms of evidence which were used to strengthen the project’s proposed concepts of dominant and alternative voices. All the quotes used from the text were heavily re-ordered to suit the project’s grammatical flow and conceptual intentions, possibly misinterpreting Windshuttle’s arguments in order to relate them to graffiti.

 

 

 

Keenan Thornton ©

 

Moree Secondary College

New South Wales 2400

Moree

 Australia

 

saucygorgonzola@hotmail.com