This contribution offers the first description, transcription, translation and commentary of a hieratic letter, P. Turin Provv. 3581, and discusses its social context on the basis of the named individuals in the message. In addition, the delivery route of the letter and its find-spot are analysed. The document can be dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty and may have been found in or near one of the tombs from this period in the Valley of the Queens. Seemingly sent from Thebes by the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer, the letter provides new insights into the administration of Eighteenth Dynasty burials, and indicates that Ineni, the mayor of Thebes, was still involved with the construction of tombs at this time.
1. P. Turin Provv. 3581: Introduction
(KG and DS)
P. Turin Provv. 3581 consists of four fragments mounted in a double glass frame.1 Notes written in pencil on the frame indicate that the papyrus was found in a shaft (“Frammento trovato nel pozzo”) in the Valley of the Queens (“Bab-el-Harim – Tebe”). When the papyrus was framed is uncertain, but it must have arrived at Turin in the early 20th century. The database of the Turin museum mentions “Scavi Schiaparelli 1903–1906 (Valle delle Regine)” as its provenance,2 and it is likely that the papyrus came to Turin with other finds from the Valley of the Queens. According to notes by Francesco Ballerini, now held in different archives in Italy, Ernesto Schiaparelli and Ballerini himself undertook excavations here for the Turin Museum, and most of the excavated material was shipped to Turin.3 In 2014, Rob Demarée discovered the manuscript in the “Papiroteca” of the Museo Egizio and kindly brought it to our attention. The papyrus, which can be dated to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, contains a hieratic letter, which is discussed here for the first time. The letter, sent by the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer, appears to deal with preparations for a burial in the Valley of the Queens.
2. Description of P. Turin Provv. 3581
Today, the light-brown papyrus (Fig. 1) survives in four fragments, two of which are substantial while the other two are small. In the current frame, the small fragments are situated at the very top, but this placement is incorrect, as discussed below. As the letter is framed, the thickness of the material could not be measured.4
The first half of the document, fragment 1 (7.5 x 3.2 cm), is rather damaged, and bears three partially preserved lines.
The biggest piece, fragment 2 (8.0 x 8.8 cm), forms the second half of the text, which, except for a few lacunae, is well preserved. This part contains six lines, but the beginnings of the first and last lines (4 and 9, respectively) are missing. These two fragments join directly with fragment 1, which contains the beginning of the text, introducing the sender. A rectangular lacuna on the right side of the document, starting at the beginning of the second line of fragment 1 and ending at the beginning of the second line of fragment 2, as well as the orientation and colour of the fibres at the reverse of the papyrus, further support this arrangement.
Fragment 3 measures only 1.8 x 0.7 cm, and comprises one line of some (three?) hieratic signs. Its position can be reconstructed through examination of the fibres, especially on the reverse, as well as from the size of the gap between lines 2 and 4. This fragment belongs to the left end of line 3; its signs join with the preserved parts of script in line 2.
Fragment 4 is 1.5 x 0.7 cm. It has a clear-cut edge on the left and therefore belongs to the left side of the papyrus. At the top, traces of black ink survive that must belong to a previous line. As most of this fragment is blank, it should belong between two lines of script. As only the ends of lines 1 and 2 are missing, the small fragment 4 must come from this section of the papyrus and probably contains traces of the end of line 1. Therefore the height of the papyrus can be reconstructed almost entirely (Fig. 2).
Černý pointed out that “nearly all New Kingdom letters start on the side with vertical fibres.”5 Interestingly, the Turin letter is written on the technical recto, the side which shows the horizontal fibres. The scribe of P. Turin Provv. 3581 seems to have followed the practice for literary texts, which were written on the horizontal fibres.6 In total, the text on P. Turin Provv. 3581 comprises nine lines. The text is written in black ink, with red colour used to highlight
The scribe re-dipped his brush in the ink at the beginning of each line, except in line 6, where he re-dipped it at the beginning of the name Ineni. The darker zone of papyrus surface in the middle section of line 7 seems to indicate purposeful erasure, possibly due to a spelling mistake.
Fragment 2 preserves the full width of the letter (8.0 cm). This is supported by several word endings along the left margin of the manuscript as well as by the fact that the title and name of the
According to Bakir, Egyptian letters occur in three different widths,8 but the Late Ramesside Letters demonstrate that any available piece of papyrus seems to have been used for brief communications; scribes, as Janssen and Demarée say, cut off from a roll any portion they needed.9
Measuring less than 11 cm in width, P. Turin Provv. 3581 may fall into Bakir’s category 1: a papyrus about 11 cm wide cut from a quarter of the width of a roll, used for short letters.10 P. Turin Provv. 3581 was 12 cm high, based on the measurements of the rearranged fragments 1 and 2. Judging from the format of other letters from the Eighteenth Dynasty,11 it is possible that the Turin letter encompasses a quarter of the width and about a quarter of the height of a roll. These measurements would result in a height of approximately 36 cm, which was the average for Eighteenth Dynasty papyrus rolls.12
The original folding
By studying the gaps in the papyrus caused by folding and applying Krutzsch’s folding reconstruction techniques, it can be surmised that P. Turin Provv. 3581 was folded on at least two occasions. The horizontal and vertical folds (in two directions) indicate that we are dealing with a folded package.13
The document was presumably rolled first horizontally, along the horizontal fibres of the obverse with the text inside, either from top to bottom or from bottom to top,14 with about 1 cm per fold. Rolling from top to bottom creates at least 12 horizontal folds for the letter: nine for fragment 2 and three for fragment 1. This technique would explain most of the rather straight, primarily horizontal folds.15
The secondary folding
In a second phase, the papyrus seems to have been folded again in the fashion that was common from the Middle Kingdom until the early Eighteenth Dynasty, viz., it was folded inwards along two horizontal folds (4 and 8–9), each about one-third of the height from both the top and bottom.25 This explains why the document has survived in two big fragments, the layered fold 8–9 (= lacuna in-between lines 6 and 7) being a secondary fold. Subsequently, the papyrus was folded several times horizontally, which explain all other traces, until only the height of a single line for the addition of an address would have been left. As the letter had already reached its destination, an address was not necessary anymore. Finally, the roll was bent once in the middle, at vertical fold 4. The rectangular gap along the right edge could have been the result of tearing the first and outermost layer of the roll. This damage may have produced at any point in time after the message was written and after the package was opened for the first time. The papyrus must have been deposited after the second phase, i.e. in the old-fashioned way of folding a letter. The
3. Transcription, transliteration, translation, and commentary of P. Turin Provv. 3581
(KG and DS)
Transliteration and translation
The determinative (Gardiner A1) at the end of the name of Djehutynefer is a simple dot, as in the writing of the name Sihathor in line 5, but the author of the letter also used a slightly more elaborate form of this sign consisting of two strokes (lines 2, 6 and 7).
The introductory formula of the letter is brief and straightforward, seemingly comprising the name and title of the sender, the phrase
No less than 15 units of the
Commentary about the use of Late Egyptian elements (KG)
The writer used a few Late Egyptian elements in his letter. First, there is the definite article
Commentary on palaeography (DS)
4. The social context of P. Turin Provv. 3581 and the Theban necropoleis of the Eighteenth Dynasty
The sender of the letter was the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer, whose career must have spanned the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, according to the inscriptions in his two tombs at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, TT 80 and 104.78 Apart from these tomb inscriptions, few other objects have been ascribed to him, perhaps in part because his name was common during the New Kingdom. Other attestations of his person may have been overlooked because he was called Djehutymose during his earlier life.79 His most important office, overseer of the treasury, indicates that Djehutynefer was a high-ranking official in Thebes who answered directly to the vizier. His letter demonstrates that he was in charge of a servant who was tasked with the delivery of the goods that were sent to the recipient of the letter.
The mention in the letter of a
The mayor Ineni was evidently needed for the burial in question, since the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer requested his presence. Ineni was responsible for numerous construction projects and was connected to the treasury of the temple of Amun.83 Like Djehutynefer, Ineni played an important role in the central administration of the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. On the basis of the autobiographical texts from his tomb TT 81, Ineni is generally thought to have been active under Amenhotep I and Thutmosis I, and to have retired thereafter.84 Still, it is well-known that Ineni witnessed the death of king Thutmosis II and the accession of Hatshepsut.85 Djehutynefer’s letter must therefore have been written around this time or slightly later, because he is not known to have been overseer of the treasury before the reign of Hatshepsut. The letter suggests that Ineni was still active in Western Thebes, working in close collaboration with Djehutynefer, although we do not know in exactly what capacity. During the reign of Thutmosis I, Ineni must have attained the office of overseer of all the king’s construction work, which made him responsible for the completion of the royal tomb.86 It is debated where the original sepulchre of Thutmosis I was located,87 but it may well have been in the Valley of the Queens. In this cemetery, there are several tombs that can be dated to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty,88 as opposed to the Valley of the Kings, where there is virtually no indisputable evidence for activity during the same period. Arguably, work on these tombs in the Valley of the Queens was carried out under the authority of the overseer of all the king’s construction work, Ineni. He may have had a temporary
The collaboration between Djehutynefer and Ineni is remindful of that between the better attested officials Hapuseneb and Djehuty, who were mostly active under Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III. Hapuseneb was vizier and mayor of Thebes, and also bore the title of overseer of all of the king’s construction work. In the latter capacity, he must have been tasked with building the king’s tomb,89 and conceivably other tombs in the Valley of the Kings or the Valley of the Queens as well. As pointed out by Bryan, Hapuseneb contributed to some construction projects that Djehuty, overseer of the treasury and first high priest of Amun, was also connected to: “Hapuseneb should be understood to have been principally responsible for the construction, while Djehuty was responsible for the valuable materials used.”90 A similar connection may have existed between the mayor Ineni, who had strong ties to the temple of Amun, and Djehutynefer, who controlled the treasury.91
The connection between Djehutynefer and Ineni is also reflected in the location of their tombs. Djehutynefer had two tombs constructed for himself at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna. In TT 104 he exclusively bears the title of royal scribe, while in TT 80 his higher-ranking offices are mentioned. It is therefore assumed that Djehutynefer had advanced in his career at the time when the latter tomb was decorated. He may have wanted to associate himself with a higher echelon of Theban dignitaries, and hence had his second tomb constructed directly adjacent to TT 81, which belonged indeed to the mayor Ineni.92 No sons or daughters are attested for Ineni and his wife Iahhotep,93 so one may speculate that a kind of father-son relationship existed between Ineni and the younger Djehutynefer. The latter is perhaps depicted in Ineni’s tomb TT 81 under the name of Djehutymose, the nickname recorded for him in TT 80. A scribe called Djehutymose is featured in scenes 16 and 21 in TT 81 with the caption
It is unclear for whose burial Djehutynefer was preparing. The nature of the Valley of the Queens during the Eighteenth Dynasty is unfortunately still very poorly understood, because many of the tombs were undecorated, several others were plundered, and the site as a whole is still not yet sufficiently
As will be discussed in Section 5 below, Djehutynefer’s letter may have been discovered in the vicinity of the tomb of the chief of stables Nebiry (QV 30), and there is hence a chance that this was the burial referred to in the message. The undecorated tomb QV 30 was attributed to this official on the basis of the inscriptions on four limestone canopic jars. These jars, as well as the pottery sherds from the tomb, were dated to the time of Thutmosis III.103 Ballerini’s notes on the excavation of QV 30 mention the finding of a beard that belonged to a coffin,104 which could be the
Regardless of the burial for which Djehutynefer was preparing, the letter indicates that he knew the workmen involved in the project by name. The fact that he specifically states that Sihathor was not to be given any rations suggests that Sihathor may have been reprimanded for something. Djehutynefer must thus have been well informed about the developments at the worksite to which the letter refers, which implies that there was habitual communication between the overseer of the treasury and the leader of the work at the construction site. If we are correct in situating the events of the letter in the Valley of the Queens, this construction leader may well have been the foreman of the crew of royal necropolis workmen residing at the settlement of Deir el-Medina.107 The letter may thus be illustrative of administrative practices in the royal necropoleis of Thebes in the Eighteenth Dynasty. During this period, hardly any hieratic ostraca were produced to record work at these cemeteries,108 which stands in stark contrast to the contemporary construction sites at Deir el-Bahari and Sheikh Abd el-Qurna. It is questionable if scribes were permanently present with the royal necropolis workmen, as their presence in the community of workmen has not left many clear traces in the Eighteenth Dynasty.109 Still, it may be assumed that scribes were involved in administrative processes, and perhaps P. Turin Provv. 3581 is an indication of exactly that. Indeed, two Eighteenth Dynasty individuals are attested at Deir el-Medina who bear the title of scribe of the “Great Place”, an expression which during the Eighteenth Dynasty referred to the royal necropolis of Thebes:110 they are the scribes Amenemope and Pay, documented,
5. Discussion of letter P. Turin Provv. 3581 and its possible find-spot
In addition to P. Turin Provv. 3581, the Museo Egizio holds 50 previously known letters, 30 of which date to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, as well as several fragments of so far unknown Ramesside texts. Details from addressees and senders are potent pieces of information within letters: they provide knowledge about, or hints as to, the origin and destination of a dispatch, as well as its delivery route. In order to reconstruct systems and routes of delivery, as well as identify centres of communication and meeting points, an approach combining archaeological, chronological (Sections 2 and 3), philological (Section 3), prosopographical (Section 4) and topographical information is called for.113 The present section deals with the archaeological and topographical background of P. Turin Provv. 3581.
5.1. Origin and delivery of P. Turin Provv. 3581
The sender, the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer, presumably worked in the religious and administrative centre of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty: the temple of Karnak at Thebes. As the message was written on papyrus, Karnak as a place of departure is convincing: over a shorter distance, an oral message or ostracon would have sufficed. Such dispatches, mostly on potsherds, were usually sent within a limited area, especially in the microcosms of Deir el-Medina and the Western Theban Necropolis. As the Turin letter probably had to be carried from the East to the West Bank, a small piece of papyrus served well as a medium for writing and delivery. As we have seen above (Section 2), the handwriting of P. Turin Provv. 3581 cannot be identified with that of any other known letters from the same period. The author could have been Djehutynefer himself, who was most likely literate (as can be inferred from his title), or one of his secretaries/scribes, whose name we will never know.114 The small package was easy to carry, possibly by one or a succession of officials (a scribe, administrator, guardian, policeman, inspector, etc.), any of whom may be identical with the individual referred to in line 2 as the “servant”, perhaps of the overseer of the treasury or of an institution.115 Whatever the exact circumstances, there presumably was a regular and organised exchange between East and West Thebes.116 Due to the various building activities going on in Deir el-Bahari at the time of Hatshepsut und Thutmosis III, a systematic exchange of information, goods and orders must have been in place between the residential institutions in Thebes and the ongoing projects in the West.117 It is also possible that the message in question was passed from hand to hand before arriving at destination on the West Bank; a messenger may have only brought it to the riverbank to be ferried across to Western Thebes, where it might even have been passed on to a third party working or living in the area of the Necropolis.
5.2. Destination of P. Turin Provv. 3581
Letters from or found in necropoleis are well known.118 Only few of these, however, concern tomb construction or burial preparations and indicate a clear reason why they were sent to or were found in a necropolis. Some letters come from the Djoser complex in Saqqara, which served as an administrative centre for building projects in the Old Kingdom,119 others were part of the burial assemblage, while others still are completely unrelated to their find-spot, e.g. the Heqanakht papyri.120 Under this
5.2.1. Comparison of the content of P. Turin Provv. 3581 with information from the Ramesside period: storage facilities in the Valley of the Queens
Textual information about the topography of the Valley of the Queens in the New Kingdom originates almost exclusively from the Ramesside period. To get an idea about possible features such as storage facilities in the cemetery, I will give an overview of structures from the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty before looking at the situation in the Eighteenth Dynasty in the light of the more substantial evidence from later periods.
The Deir el-Medina Database contains about 60 documents related to storehouses (
The most detailed information about storage facilities in the Valley of the Queens is provided by one of the tomb robbery papyri from the end of the Ramesside period. A passage in the famous Papyrus Abbott (P. BM EA 10221)124 describes an investigation of the coppersmith Pakharu son of Kharu, a
On the basis of the mention of the “royal children of Ramesses III (?)”, one of the following tombs could be meant: QV 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53, 54 or 55 (cf. Fig. 4).127 Possible candidates are the tombs of princes who later became kings, because their burial sites in the Valley of the Queens became unnecessary, since they would be interred in the Valley of the Kings. Therefore QV 43 planned for Setherkhepeshef (later Ramesses VIII), QV 53 for Ramesses Meryatum (later Ramesses IV) or QV 55 for Amunherkhepeshef I (who died at a young age) might be the tomb the coppersmith’s testimony refers to. These tombs were probably never used and could have been open as well as empty. Furthermore, QV 53 and 55 lay in the vicinity of QV 51, the tomb of Isis.128 One of the two tombs might have served as a storage area for the workmen and their material, maybe even as an administrative outpost in the Ramesside period, partly because they stood at one of the highest points in the wadi, from which the valley could be viewed.
There would hence have been a maximum of 80
Since the Turin letter was discovered in the Valley of the Queens, the (temporary) storehouse that is mentioned in P. Turin Provv. 3581 at line 7, and which was used for funerary equipment, may have stood in an area of tombs dating to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, probably within the early reign of Thutmosis III. Apparently this storage facility was not in use anymore, and therefore the mayor Ineni was to organise its removal. The neighbourhood of the storehouse might have served as a meeting point where the message could have been handed over to the addressee, who must have been active in the necropolis, possibly as a scribe. This spot was presumably located close to the Eighteenth Dynasty burials, in a strategic position, by which letter carriers may have passed (on an occasional or regular basis). If the addressee was indeed a scribe or administrator, he would have had access to the various parts of the necropolis.
5.2.2. The archaeological context of P. Turin Provv. 3581 and possible meeting points to exchange letters
According to the museum’s notes, P. Turin Provv. 3581 originates from a shaft in the Valley of the Queens. The main valley contains about 60 tombs
One would expect that the discovery of the letter, even as a small folded package, would have been recorded by the early twentieth century excavators, as it would have been a rare find. However, no mention of the papyrus has been found so far in the excavation records. The notes left by Schiaparelli and Ballerini do not always provide enough information about which finds originated from which tomb.134 In their time, the QV-numbering system had not yet been implemented, which makes it challenging to correlate the tombs with the descriptions in their notebooks.135 Furthermore, provisional (Provv.) numbers were assigned to objects in the Museo Egizio whose (original) inventory number was lost. Therefore, is also possible that Schiaparelli’s workmen excavated in other areas from which we do not (or at least no longer) possess any written data. If the letter comes from such an area, a reconstruction of the find-spot is not possible anymore.
According to Leblanc, Schiaparelli’s team worked between 1903 and 1905 in at least 13 tombs in the Valley of the Queens, of which seven are generically dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty; according to the ongoing study of the archival material by Del Vesco, Schiaparelli’s team excavated at least 55 tombs in the main and side valleys of which 39 date to the Eighteenth Dynasty. But only five or six owners of these tombs have been identified so far: QV 30 (ascribed to the chief of stables Nebiry, reign of Thutmosis III), QV 46 (ascribed to the vizier Imhotep, reign of Thutmosis I), QV 76 (ascribed to the princess Merytra, Eighteenth Dynasty), QV 87 (anonymous, Eighteenth Dynasty), QV 88 (ascribed to the prince Ahmes, early Eighteenth Dynasty), QV 92 (anonymous, Eighteenth Dynasty), QV 93 (anonymous, Eighteenth Dynasty) and QV 97 (anonymous, Eighteenth Dynasty) and maybe QV 8 (ascribed to the prince Hori, an anonymous princess and Amenwesekhet, Eighteenth Dynasty) and QV 82 (ascribed to the prince Minemhat Amenhotep, Eighteenth Dynasty) (cf. Fig. 4).136
However, some of these attributions are questionable: QV 87, an anonymous, unfinished shaft tomb from the Eighteenth Dynasty mentioned by Leblanc, is unlikely to have been the provenance of the letter, as there is a break into it from the Ramesside tomb QV 34. If Schiaparelli’s workmen had explored QV 87, they would also have discovered QV 34. Yet QV 34 was found by the French team in the 1990s, and still contained many objects. It is therefore unlikely that the Italian mission entered either QV 87 or QV 34, and so these tombs can be ruled out as the possible find-spot of P. Turin Provv. 3581.137 Judging from the current records and information, only QV 30 can be securely dated to the period of Thutmosis III, and its date is in better agreement with that of the letter. However, as discussed in Section 4, Nebiry was still active during the reign of Amenhotep II; thus, P. Turin Provv. 3581 presumably comes from another shaft.
QV 92, 93 and 97 are located in the Valley of the Rope.138 Except for a fragment of an alabaster vase discovered in QV 97, the three tombs have yielded no other material evidence.139 QV 89, 90 or 91, all situated in the Valley of the Three Pits, can be excluded as the possible find-spot of P. Turin Provv. 3581, because the Italian Mission worked only in the Valley of the Rope.140 In any case, the tombs in the side valleys lay in the proximity of several ancient watch posts.141 Such an observation post would provide an ideal destination for messengers, as guards should
6. Summary – P. Turin Provv. 3581 in context
(KG and DS)
Around the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, probably in the early reign of Thutmosis III, the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer wrote letter P. Turin Provv. 3581 in East Thebes, possibly in Karnak. The message was transported to the West Bank and delivered to the recipient, most probably in the Valley of the Queens. The messenger may have been one of the servants or administrators of Djehutynefer, who carried the document to Western Thebes, perhaps together with the goods recorded in the letter. These goods were destined for men who were presumably involved in preparations for a burial in the Valley of the Queens. The letter may have been delivered at a meeting or observation post, where it was handed over to the addressee. This recipient evidently stood in close contact with the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer and the mayor Ineni.
In the letter, Djehutynefer instructs the addressee about the distribution of specific commodities to the men Sihathor and Remny, and orders the recipient to bring the mayor Ineni to demolish a storehouse that probably stood in the Valley of the Queens, and to guard a coffin which was stored therein. It stands to reason that the careers of Djehutynefer and Ineni overlapped during the early reign of Thutmosis III, when the letter must have been written. At this time, the two officials controlled important institutions such as the storerooms of the temple of Amun at Thebes, and their collaboration in the Valley of the Queens does not come as a surprise. The letter thus demonstrates that Ineni may have been in office for a longer time than previously assumed.
As the letter seems to concern individuals and events in the Valley of the Queens, the addressee may have been a scribe who monitored tomb construction in this cemetery. After reading the message, he possibly refolded the letter and disposed of it in the debris of a nearby shaft, which may have belonged to the tomb used for the burial of which the letter speaks. The small package was then presumably discovered here by Schiaparelli’s workmen between 1903 and 1905. P. Turin Provv. 3581 sheds some light on the administration of the royal necropoleis in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, for which only little information is otherwise available.
Allen, James P., The Heqanakht Papyri (PMMA 27), New York 2002.
Andreu, Guillemette (ed.), Les artistes de pharaon: Deir el-Médineh et la Vallée des Rois, Paris 2002.
Aston, David, Pottery Recovered near the Tombs of Seti I (KV 17) and Siptah (KV 47) in the Valley of the Kings (AH 24), Basel 2014.
Auenmüller, Johannes S.G., “Die Territorialität der Ägyptischen Elite(n) des Neuen Reiches. Eine Studie zu Raum und räumlichen Relationen im textlichen Diskurs, anhand prosopografischer Daten und im archäologischen Record” (Dissertation, FU Berlin), Berlin 2013.
Ballerini, Francesco, Notizia sommaria degli scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto, Anno 1903, Torino 1903.
Bakir, Abd el-Mohsen, Egyptian Epistolography: From the Eighteenth to the Twenty-First Dynasty (BdE 48), Cairo 1970.
Bierbrier, Morris L., “Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Mêdina”, JEA 66 (1980), pp. 100–07.
Bogoslovski, Evgeni S., “Die Wortverbindung
Bogoslovski, Evgeni S., “Slugi” Faraonov, Bogov I Chastnykh Lits (K sotsial’noy istorii Egipta XVI–XIV vv do n.e.), Moskva 1979.
Borchardt, Ludwig, Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen) im Museum von Kairo, I, Nos. 1295–1808 (CGC 97), Berlin 1937.
Brose, Marc, Grammatik der dokumentarischen Texte des Mittleren Reiches (LingAeg Studia Monographica 13), Hamburg 2014.
Bruyère, Bernard, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1934–1935), II, La nécropole de l’Est (FIFAO 15), Le Caire 1937.
Bryan, Betsy, “Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III”, in: Eric H. Cline and David O’Connor (eds.), Thutmose III: A New Biography, Ann Arbor 2006, pp. 69–122.
Buchberger, Hannes, “
Caminos, Ricardo A., “Papyrus Berlin 10463”, JEA 49 (1963), pp. 29–37.
Černý, Jaroslav, A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period (BdE 50), Cairo 20012.
Černý, Jaroslav, Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques non littéraires de Deir el Médineh, I, Nos 1 à 113 (DFIFAO 3), Le Caire 1935.
Černý, Jaroslav, Late Ramesside Letters (BAe 9), Bruxelles 1939.
Černý, Jaroslav, Ostraca hiératiques, I, Nos. 25501–25538 (CGC 87), Le Caire 1930.
Černý, Jaroslav, Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt, London 1952.
Černý, Jaroslav, Sarah I. Groll and Christopher Eyre, A Late Egyptian Grammar (StudPohl 4), Rome 19753.
Cherpion, Nadine, Deux tombes de la XVIIIe Dynastie à Deir el-Medina: Nos 340 (Amenemhat) et 354 (anonyme) (MIFAO 114), Le Caire 1999.
Consonni, Anna, Tommaso Quirino and Angelo Sesana (eds.), L’Egitto di Francesco Ballerini. Un egittologo comasco agli inizi del Novecento: Atti della giornata di studi, lettere, fotografie, Como 2012.
Cooney, Kathlyn M., The Cost of Death: The Social and Economic Value of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art in the Ramesside Period (EU 22), Leiden 2007.
Côte, Philippe, Xavier Derobert, Christian Leblanc and Angelo Sesana, “Prospection géophysique et archéologique dans la ‘Vallée de la Corde’, Rapport Préliminaire – Campagnes 1993–1994–1995”, Memnonia 7 (1996), pp. 141–56.
Daressy, Georges, Ostraca Nos. 25001–25385 (CGC 1), Le Caire 1901.
Davies, Benedict G., Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina: A Prosopographic Study of the Royal Workmen’s Community (EU 13), Leiden 1999.
Del Vesco, Paolo, “De Italiaanse missie”, in: Olaf E. Kaper (ed.), Koninginnen van de Nijl. Macht en schoonheid in het Nieuwe Rijk (1539–1077 v. Chr.), Leiden 2016, pp. 123–28.
Del Vesco, Paolo, “Sat-Re, Meritamon, Tyti, Toeya, Nefertari”, in: Olaf E. Kaper (ed.), Koninginnen van de Nijl: Macht en schoonheid in het Nieuwe Rijk (1539–1077 v. Chr.), Leiden 2016, pp. 93–100.
Del Vesco, Paolo, Christian Greco and Angelo Sesana, “La Valle delle Regine e Francesco Ballerini”, in: Paolo Del Vesco and Beppe Moiso (eds.), Missione Egitto 1903–1920: L’avventura archeologica M.A.I. raccontata, Modena 2017, pp. 241–55.
Demarée, Robert J., “A House is Not a Home – What Exactly Is a Hut?”, in: Andreas Dorn and Tobias Hofmann (eds.), Living and Writing in Deir el-Medine: Socio-Historical Embodiment of Deir el-Medine Texts (AH 19), Basel 2006, pp. 57–66.
Demarée, Robert J., “A Letter of Reproach”, in: Emily Teeter and John A. Larson (eds.), Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (SAOC 58), Chicago 1999, pp. 75–82.
Demarée, Robert J., with contributions by Bridget Leach and Patricia Usick, The Bankes Late Ramesside Papyri (British Museum Research Publication 155), London 2006.
Demas, Martha and Neville Agnew (eds.), Project Report: Valley of the Queens Assessment Report, I, Conservation and Management Planning: A Collaborative Project of the Getty Conservation Institute and the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt, Los Angeles 2012, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/qv_vol1.pdf.
Demas, Martha and Neville Agnew (eds.), Project Report: Valley of the Queens Assessment Report, II, Assessment of 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasty Tombs: A Collaborative Project of the Getty Conservation Institute and the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt, Los Angeles 2016, https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/qv_vol2.pdf.
Dolzani, Claudia, Vasi canopi, N. 19001–19153 (CMT. Serie Seconda – Collezioni 4), Milano 1982.
Dorn, Andreas, “Ostraka aus der Regierungszeit Sethos’ I. aus Deir el-Medineh und dem Tal der Könige: Zur Mannschaft und zur Struktur des Arbeiterdorfes vor dem Bau des Ramesseums”, MDAIK 67 (2011), pp. 31–52.
Dorn, Andreas, “Hatschepsuts Jenseitsarchitektur im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innovation und Legitimation”, in: Susanne Bickel (ed.), Vergangenheit und Zukunft: Studien zum Historischen Bewusstsein in der Thutmosidenzeit (AH 22), Basel 2013, pp. 29–47.
Dziobek, Eberhard, Das Grab des Ineni, Theben Nr. 81 (AV 68), Mainz am Rhein 1992.
Eichler, Selke Susan, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” in der 18. Dyn. (SAK Beihefte 7), Hamburg 2000.
Elleithy, Hisham and Christian Leblanc, Répertoire documentaire des tombes thébaines : Nécropoles royales, I, Vallée des Reines (CEDAE), Le Caire 2017.
Erman, Adolf, Ein Fall abgekürzter Justiz in Aegypten, Berlin 1913.
Fekri, Magdi M., “Une nouvelle enquête sur les tombes civiles et anonymes de la Vallée des Rois”, in: Zahi Hawass (ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists I, Cairo 2000.
Fekri, Magdi M. and Anne-Marie Loyrette, “Vallée des Reines: la tombe VdR 34 d’une reine inconnue et les puits VdR 87”, Memnonia 9 (1998), pp. 121–38.
Gabler, Kathrin, “Die
Gabler, Kathrin, Who’s Who Around Deir el-Medina: Untersuchungen zur Organisation, Prosopographie und Entwicklung des Versorgungspersonals für die Arbeitersiedlung und das Tal der Könige (EU 31), Leiden and Leuven 2018.
Gardiner, Alan H., “An Egyptian Split Infinitive and the Origin of the Coptic Conjunctive Tense”, JEA 14 (1928), pp. 86–96.
Glanville, Stephen R.K., “The Letters of Aaḥmōse of Peniati”, JEA 14 (1928), pp. 294–312.
Grandet, Pierre, Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques non littéraires de Deîr el-Médînéh, IX, Nos 831–1000 (DFIFAO 41), Le Caire 2003.
Haring, Ben J.J., Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes (EU 12), Leiden 1997.
Haring, Ben J.J., “Workmen’s Marks and the Early History of the Theban Royal Necropolis”, in: Jaana Toivari-Viitala, Turo Vartiainen and Saara Uvanto (eds.), Deir el-Medina Studies: Helsinki June 24–26, 2009 Proceedings (The Finnish Egyptological Society – Occasional Publications 2), Vantaa 2014, pp. 87–100.
Haring, Ben J.J., “Workmen’s Marks on Ostraca from the Theban Necropolis: A Progress Report”, in: Ben J.J. Haring and Olaf E. Kaper (eds.), Pictograms or Pseudo Script? Non-Textual Identity Marks in Practical Use in Ancient Egypt and Elsewhere: Proceedings of a Conference in Leiden, 19–20 December 2006 (EU 25), Leiden and Leuven 2009, pp. 143–67.
Hassan, Khaled, “Some 18th Dynasty Hieratic Ostraca from Deir el-Bahri”, BIFAO 115 (2015), pp. 179–229.
Hayes, William, C., “A Selection of Tuthmoside Ostraca from Dēr El-Baḥri”, JEA 46 (1960), pp. 29–52.
Hayes, William, C., Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-Mūt (No. 71) at Thebes (PMMA Egyptian Expedition 15), New York 1942.
Hayes, William, C., “Varia from the Time of Hatshepsut”, MDAIK 15 (1957), pp. 78–90.
Helck, Wolfgang, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Teil V), III, Eigentum und Besitz an verschiedenen Dingen des täglichen Lebens: Kapitel AI – AL (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 4), Mainz 1965.
HTBM VII = Hall, Henry R., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae etc. in the British Museum, VII, London 1925.
James, Thomas G. H., Pharaoh’s People: Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt, London 1984.
Janssen, Jacobus J., Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period: An Economic Study of the Village of Necropolis Workmen at Thebes, Leiden 1975.
Janssen, Jac. J., Late Ramesside Letters and Communications (HPBM VI), London 1991.
Janssen, Jacobus J., Village Varia: Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir el-Medina (EU 11), Leiden 1997.
Jenni, Hanna, Lehrbuch der klassisch-ägyptischen Sprache, Basel 2010.
Junge, Friedrich, Late Egyptian Grammar: An Introduction, Oxford 2005.
KRI VI = Kitchen, Kenneth A., Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, VI, Oxford 1983.
Koenig, Yvan, “Nouveaux textes hiératiques de la Vallée des Reines”, BIFAO 88 (1988), pp. 113–29.
Krutzsch, Myriam, “Der Sennefer Brief, Berlin P 10463 – die ‘Lesung’ des Papyrusmaterials”, in: Eszter Bechtold, Andras Gulyas and Andrea Hasznos (eds.), From Illahun to Djeme: Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, Oxford 2011, pp. 137–41.
Krutzsch, Myriam, “Einzelblatt und Rolle: Zur Anatomie von Papyrushandschriften”, in: Frank Feder, Gunnar Sperveslage and Florian Steinborn (eds.), Ägypten begreifen: Erika Endesfelder in memoriam (IBAES 19), Berlin and London 2017, pp. 213–22.
Krutzsch, Myriam, “Falttechniken an altägyptischen Handschriften”, in: Jörg Graf and Myriam Krutzsch (eds.), Ägypten lesbar machen – die klassische Konservierung/Restaurierung von Papyri und neuere Verfahren: Beiträge des 1. Internationalen Workshops der Papyrusrestauratoren, Leipzig 7.–9. September 2006, Berlin 2008, pp. 71–83.
Krutzsch, Myriam, “Falttechniken an Handschriften aus dem alten Ägypten”, in: Burkhard Backes, Irmtraut Munro and Simone Stöhr (eds.), Totenbuch-Forschungen: Gesammelte Beiträge des 2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums Bonn, 25. bis 29. September 2005 (SAT 11), Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 167–80.
Krutzsch, Myriam, “Reading Papyrus as Writing Material”, BMSAES 23 (2016), pp. 57–69, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20190801110625/http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Krutzsch_23.pdf.
Lakomy, Konstantin C., “Der Löwe auf dem Schlachtfeld”. Das Grab KV 36 und die Bestattung des Maiherperi im Tal der Könige, Wiesbaden 2016.
Leblanc, Christian, “Architecture et évolution chronologique des tombes de la Vallée des Reines”, BIFAO 89 (1989), pp. 227–47.
Leblanc, Christian, Ta Set Neferou. Une necropole de Thebes-Ouest et son histoire, I, Geographie – Toponymie, historique de l’exploration scientifique du site, Le Caire 1989.
Leblanc, Christian, “The Valley of the Queens and Royal Children: History and Resurrection of an Archaeological Site”, in: Miguel Angel Corzo and Mahasti Afshar (eds.), Art and Eternity: The Nefertari Wall Paintings Conservation Project 1986–1992. A Joint Project of the Getty Conservation Institute and the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, Singapore 1993, pp. 19–30.
López, Jesús, Ostraca ieratici. N. 57093–57319 (CMT. Serie Seconda – Collezioni 3/2), Milano 1980.
McDowell, Andrea G., Hieratic Ostraca in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow (the Colin Campbell Ostraca), Oxford 1993.
Megally, Mounir, Le papyrus hiératique comptable E. 3226 du Louvre (BdE 53), Le Caire 1971.
Megally, Mounir, Notions de comptabilité, à propos du papyrus E. 3226 du Musée du Louvre (BdE 72), Le Caire 1977.
Möller, Georg, Hieratische Paläographie: Die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der fünften Dynastie bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit, II, Leipzig 1927.
Müller, Matthias, “Ägyptische Briefe aus der Zeit der 18. Dyn.”, in: Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm (eds.), Briefe (TUAT Neue Folge 3), München 2006, pp. 314–39.
Peet, Thomas E., The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty: Being a Critical Study, with Translations and Commentaries, of the Papyri in Which These Are Recorded, Oxford 1930.
Peet, Thomas E., “Two Eighteenth Dynasty Letters: Papyrus Louvre 3230”, JEA 12 (1926), pp. 70–74.
PM I/1 = Porter, Bertha and Rosalind L. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings: Theban Necropolis. Private Tombs, Oxford 1927.
PM I/2 = Porter, Bertha and Rosalind L. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings: Theban Necropolis. Royal Tombs & Smaller Cemeteries, Oxford 1927.
PM II = Porter, Bertha and Rosalind L. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings: Theban Temples, Oxford 1929.
PN = Ranke, Hermann, Die ägyptischen Personennamen, I: Verzeichnis der Namen, Glückstadt 1935.
Polz, Daniel, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (SDAIK 31), Berlin and New York 2007.
Roehrig, Catharine, “The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal Nurse (
Russo, Barbara, Kha (TT 8) and His Colleagues: The Gifts in His Funerary Equipment and Related Artefacts from Western Thebes (GHP Egyptology 18), London 2012.
Rzepka, Sławomir, Who, Where and Why: The Rock Graffiti of Members of the Deir el-Medina Community, Warsaw 2014.
Schiaparelli, Ernesto, Relazione sui lavori della Missione archeologica italiana in Egitto, anni 1903–1920, I: Esplorazione della “Valle delle Regine” nella necropoli di Tebe, Torino 1924.
Shedid, Abdel Ghaffar, Stil der Grabmalereien in der Zeit Amenophis’ II., untersucht an den thebanischen Gräbern Nr. 104 und Nr. 80 (AV 66), Mainz am Rhein 1988.
Soliman, Daniel, “Ostraca with Identity Marks and the Organisation of the Royal Necropolis Workmen of the 18th Dynasty”, BIFAO 118 (forthcoming).
Soliman, Daniel, “The Functional Context of 18th Dynasty Marks Ostraca from the Theban Necropolis”, in: Carl Graves, Gabrielle Heffernan, Luke McGarrity, Emily Millward, and Marsia Sfakianou Bealby (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology 2012: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium, University of Birmingham 2012, Oxford 2013, pp. 157–70.
Tosi, Mario and Alessandro Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el Medina: N. 50001–N. 50262 (CMT. Serie Seconda – Collezioni 1), Torino 1972.
Thomas, Elizabeth, The Royal Necropoleis of Thebes, Princeton 1966.
Urk. IV = Sethe, Kurt, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urkunden des Ägyptischen Altertums IV), Berlin 1927–1930.
Van Siclen, Charles C., “The Mayor of This Amenhotep and His Father Nebiry”, BES 7 (1985/6), pp. 87–91.
Wb = Erman, Adolf and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptische Sprache, I–VII, Leipzig 1926–1931.
Wente, Edward, Letters from Ancient Egypt (Writing from the Ancient World 1), Atlanta 1990.
Willems, Harco, Dayr al-Barsha, I: The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3) (OLA 155), Leuven, Paris and Dudley, MA 2007.
The British Museum Collection online, http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx
CEFB, Centro di Egittologia Francesco Ballerini, https://www.cefb.it/
DMD = The Deir el-Medina Database, http://dmd.wepwawet.nl/, compiled by Koen Donker van Heel; Robert J. Demarée; Ben J. J. Haring; Jaana Toivari-Viitala, Leiden 1998–2006.
Ramses Online: An Annotated Corpus of Late Egyptian, http://ramses.ulg.ac.be/, 2015–.
TLA, Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften Altägyptisches Wörterbuch, Berlin, 2004–.
- For the possibility to publish the papyrus, and for their readiness to provide assistance and information, the authors would like to thank S. Töpfer, F. Poole and P. Del Vesco. For a discussion of the text, we are very grateful to R. Demarée and M. Müller. Finally, we are much indebted to J. Cromwell for improving the English of this text.↑
- Information kindly provided by S. Töpfer and P. Del Vesco, who have drawn our attention to the fact that Schiaparelli actually excavated between 1903 and 1905. In 1914, the Italian mission carried out a photographic campaign in the tomb of Nefertari.↑
- We are grateful to the staff of the Turin Museum, especially P. Del Vesco, as well as to C. Gamma and E. Casini for information about this archive material. A new assessment of all the archival data available for Schiaparelli’s exploration of the Valley of the Queens is ongoing since 2015 by P. Del Vesco, cf. Del Vesco, in Kaper (ed.), <i>Koninginnen</i>, 2016, pp. 93–100, 123–28; Del Vesco et al., in Del Vesco and Moiso (eds.), <i>Missione Egitto</i>, 2017, pp. 241–55 and forthcoming. For Ballerini’s personal correspondence, as well as his photos, see CEFB, <i>Centro di Egittologia Francesco Ballerini</i> <a href=" https://www.cefb.it/"> https://www.cefb.it/</a> (28.09.2017) and Consonni et al. (eds.), <i>L’Egitto di Francesco Ballerini</i>, 2012. It is also possible that the papyrus surfaced during the excavations in the Valley of the Queens led by Giulio Farina in 1935–1937, but since very little material from this excavation reached Turin, it is more likely that P. Turin Provv. 3581 was found at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century.↑
- The papyrus was studied in Turin in August 2016 and collated in March 2018.↑
- Černý, <i>Paper and Books</i>, 1952, pp. 17, 22. Letter P. BM EA 10375 from the late Ramesside Period is probably of a similar composition, cf. Černý, <i>Ramesside Letters</i>, 1939, p. XX and <i>The British Museum Collection Online</i> <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=35268001&objectid=116292">http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=35268001&objectid=116292</a> (30.09.2017).↑
- Černý, <i>Paper and Books</i>, 1952, p. 17.↑
- Examples include letters O. Berlin P 12376, O. DeM 590 and O. Prague unnumbered 1 = O. Naprstek Museum P 3805, which are written entirely in red; the obverse of O. Berlin P 14250, which is also entirely written in red ink, and P. Turin Cat. 2014, in which only the plural articles on the reverse are marked in red. For all these documents, see the <i>DMD</i>.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 21–22.↑
- Janssen, <i>Ramesside Letters and Communication</i>, 1991, pp. 48–49; Demarée, <i>Bankes Papyri</i>, 2006, p. 25, introduction to P. BM EA 75023. Krutzsch, <i>BMSAES</i> 23 (2016), p. 59.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 21–22. Variation in size and format within the three different widths is possible, even within a group of letters written by the same individual; cf. Černý, <i>Ramesside Letters</i> , 1939, pp. VII–XV. This topic is part of the author’s ongoing project about letters from the New Kingdom, see Section 5.↑
- For an overview of letters from the Eighteenth Dynasty, see Müller, in Janowski and Wilhelm (eds.), <i>Briefe</i>, 2006, pp. 314–39 including bibliography.↑
- Černý, <i>Paper and Books</i>, 1952, p. 16, has shown that the height of New Kingdom papyri varied between 36 and 45 cm. If the 12 cm height of P. Turin Provv. 3581 was one quarter of an original roll, this complete roll must have been 48 cm high although, if it was one third of a roll, it would fit the lower end of Černý’s range at 36 cm. Krutzsch, in Feder et al. (eds.), <i>Ägypten begreifen</i>, 2017, p. 216, referred to Möller and stated that the format varied between 37 to 42 x 40 to 46 cm for papyri of the same period.↑
- Krutzsch, in Graf and Krutzsch (eds.), <i>Ägypten lesbar machen</i>, 2008, pp. 74–75; Krutzsch, in Backes et al. (eds.), <i>Totenbuch-Forschungen</i>, 2006, pp. 168–77, especially table 6 and 9.↑
- According to Krutzsch, in Backes et al. (eds.), <i>Totenbuch-Forschungen</i>, 2006, p. 170, it is hard to determine in which direction a papyrus was rolled up/folded (top to bottom or vice versa).↑
- Krutzsch, in Graf and Krutzsch (eds.), <i>Ägypten lesbar machen</i>, 2008, pp. 73–74.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 24–25.↑
- Krutzsch, in Graf and Krutzsch (eds.), <i>Ägypten lesbar machen</i>, 2008, p. 76 and p. 83, table 2. One simple fold, i.e. doubling up the letter and tying it on its left side, would not explain the seven vertical folds of the document.↑
- Krutzsch, in Bechtold et al. (eds.), <i>From Illahun to Djeme</i>, 2001, p. 137. In comparison, the size of P. Berlin P 10463, which was found as a folded package, was about 1.7 x 9 x 0.5 cm. The letter P. Leiden F 1996/1.1 measured about 8.0 x 1.8 cm before unrolling, see Demarée, in Teeter and Larson (eds.), <i>Gold of Praise</i>, 1999, pp. 75–76. Both texts date to the Eighteenth Dynasty and the folding method is different.↑
- This aspect should be kept in mind, as letters often appear in a similar format and layout as magical texts, and are similarly folded; see Krutzsch, in Backes et al. (eds.), <i>Totenbuch-Forschungen</i>, 2006, pp. 177–79, table 14. The content of both groups of texts was important and needed to be protected. The information in letters was only destined for the addressee, so the sender closed the message, similarly to a magical document. To further investigate this similarity, the present author will further develop her study of how messages were folded into packages for the corpus of <i>Late Ramesside Letters</i>, see Section 5.↑
- Krutzsch, in Backes et al. (eds.), <i>Totenbuch-Forschungen</i>, 2006, tables 9 and 13. The three papyri P. Berlin P 10487–10489 were tied together in a piece of cloth that was sealed, see Černý, <i>Ramesside Letters</i> , 1939, pp. XIX–XX; Erman, <i>Justiz</i>, 1913, p. 15. From the palace of Amenhotep III in Malqata about 1100 mud sealings from papyrus letters seem to have been preserved, of which none have survived, see James, <i>Pharaoh’s People</i>, 1984, p. 164.↑
- Krutzsch, in Bechtold et al. (eds.), <i>From Illahun to Djeme</i>, 2001, pp. 137–41.↑
- Krutzsch, in Graf and Krutzsch (eds.), <i>Ägypten lesbar machen</i>, 2008, pp. 74–75; Krutzsch, in Backes et al. (eds.), <i>Totenbuch-Forschungen</i>, 2006, pp. 168–77.↑
- See Černý, <i>Paper and Books</i>, 1952, p. 19 and <i>Ramesside Letters</i>, 1939, pp. XVIII–XIX.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 26–27.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 26–27.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, p. 97, C I, 1. M. Müller kindly points out that the greeting with <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">Hr Dd n</named-content> also occurs in the nearly contemporary letter written on ceramic jar Munich ÄS 4313; see Buchberger, <i>SAK</i> 18 (1991), pp. 53–54, 58. Instances of the phrase without <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">Hr</named-content> in Eighteenth Dynasty letters are found in P. Berlin P 10463 (see Caminos, <i>JEA</i> 49 , p. 31, pls. VI–VIa), P. Leiden F 1996/1.1 (see Demarée, in Teeter and Larson [eds.], <i>Gold of Praise</i>, 1999, pp. 76, 78), and O. Glasgow D 1925.87 (see McDowell, <i>Hieratic Ostraca</i>, 1993, p. 28, pls. XXX–XXXa).↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, p. 41, II.b.2, pp. 46–47.↑
- Glanville, <i>JEA</i> 14 (1928), pp. 294–312.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, p. 75.↑
- Černý, <i>Community</i>, 2001, pp. 43, 45, 48, 49–50, 51; Bogoslovski, <i>ZÄS</i> 101 (1974), pp. 81–89.↑
- Bogoslovski, <i>ZÄS</i> 101 (1974), pp. 81–89; Bogoslovski, <i>“Slugi” faraonov</i>, 1979, pp. 195–201; <i>Wb</i> IV, 1930, pp. 389–90.↑
- Möller, <i>Hieratische Paläographie</i> II, 1927, 26, 293.↑
- Černý, <i>Paper and Books</i>, 1952, p. 24.↑
- Helck, <i>Materialien</i> III, 1965, p. 370.↑
- Hassan, <i>BIFAO</i> 115 (2015), pl. 7, fig. 25.↑
- Hayes, <i>JEA</i> 46 (1960), pl. xiii .↑
- For the shape of this sign, compare P. MMA 27.3.560 rto., l. 2 (see Hayes, <i>MDAIK</i> 15 , pl. XIII ) and P. BM EA 10102 rto., l. 2 (see Glanville, <i>JEA</i> 14 , pl. XXXI).↑
- E.g. in the Senenmut ostraca, see Hayes, <i>Ostraka</i>, 1942, pl. XVIII, 91, l. 1–2, pl. XIX, 94, l. 3, 96, l. 2. It also occurs in contemporary ostraca DeB 404, l. 2, 3; DeB 448 rev., l. 10; DeB 486 rev., l. 2, see Hassan, <i>BIFAO</i> 115 (2015), pl. 5, fig. 17, pl. 6, fig. 20, pl. 8, fig. 28.↑
- Janssen, <i>Commodity Prices</i>, 1975, p. 104.↑
- Cf. orthography recorded in the <i>Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae</i> (lemma no. 136340), <i>Wb</i> IV, 1930, p. 155 and <i>Ramses Online</i>.↑
- <i>Wb</i> IV, 1930, p. 155, 5. The volume of <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">snw</named-content>-jars is not known; see Janssen, <i>Commodity Prices</i>, 1975, p. 528.↑
- Hayes, <i>Ostraka</i>, 1942, p. 24, pl. XVIII, Ostracon 91.↑
- Although the Middle Egyptian word <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">aA</named-content> ‘here’ was replaced by <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">dy</named-content> <img src="https://rivista.museoegizio.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/H0031-note.jpg" class="_inline_graphic"> in Ramesside Late Egyptian (see <i>Wb</i> I, p. 164, 7–9; Černý and Groll, <i>Grammar</i>, 1975, pp. 131–34), it was still in use during the Eighteenth Dynasty; see e.g. P. Louvre E. 3230 vso., l.7.↑
- Gabler, <i>Versorgungspersonal</i>, 2018, pp. 518–25; Dorn, in Bickel (ed.), <i>Vergangenheit und Zukunft</i>, 2013, pp. 29–47. Before the Amarna Period, provisions for the workmen and projects at the West Bank would have come from the East, probably from the temples of Karnak.↑
- <i>PN</i> I, 1935, p. 283, 20.↑
- BM EA 776, see <i>PM</i> II, p. 380; <i>The British Museum Collection Online</i> <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA776">https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA776</a> (24.10.2017). The relief depicts the prince as a boy standing in front of a goddess. The provenance and style of the relief date it firmly in the Eighteenth Dynasty, but the prince seems to be otherwise unattested, and his family ties are unknown.↑
- Hayes, <i>Ostraka</i>, 1942, pl. XIII, p. 63, obv. l. 8, 64, obv. l. 7.↑
- Cf. O. DeB 482, l. 2, <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">ntj</named-content>; see Hassan, BIFAO 155 (2015), pl. 7, fig. 25.↑
- Compare Möller, <i>Paläographie</i> II, 3. The use of Gardiner A1 consisting of two strokes alongside the abbreviated form of the same sign within a single document occurs also in O. DeB 486 obv., l. 2; see Hassan, <i>BIFAO</i> 115 (2015), pl. 8, fig. 27.↑
- <i>PN</i> I, 1935, p. 222, 15, refers to an attestation of the name in the New Kingdom, but the limestone relief from Abydos it occurs on actually dates to the Middle Kingdom; see Borchardt, <i>Denkmäler</i> I, 1937, p. 230.↑
- <i>PN</i> I, 1935, p. 222, 17.↑
- Megally, <i>Papyrus E. 3226 du Musée du Louvre</i>, 1977, pp. 56–59.↑
- For this construction, see Gardiner, <i>JEA</i> 14 (1928), pp. 86–96. The construction <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">Hna ntk</named-content> + infinitive seems to be the forerunner of the later conjunctive, as kindly pointed out by M. Müller.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 83–85, 99. The transition formula is frequently used in narratives and in letters of the Eighteenth Dynasty and early Nineteenth Dynasty, e.g. in the tale of Astarte (cf. P. BN 202 + P. Amherst 9), and letters P. Northumberland 1, P. BM EA 10102, P. Berlin P 10463, P. Cairo 58054, 58055 and 58060.↑
- Müller, in Janowski and Wilhelm (eds.), <i>Briefe</i>, 2006, pp. 315–16.↑
- For <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">wDA</named-content> ‘storehouse’, see Janssen, <i>Commodity Prices</i>, 1975, pp. 457–58 and Section 5.↑
- Haring, <i>Divine Households</i>, 1997, pp. 84–85.↑
- E.g. recorded in O. DeM 112; see Černý, <i>Ostraca de Deir el Médineh</i>, I, 1935, pls. 62–62A.↑
- See Section 5 for the possible location of the storehouse.↑
- Cooney, <i>The Cost of Death</i>, pp. 18–21.↑
- Daressy, <i>Ostraca</i>, 67; Demarée, in Dorn and Hofmann (eds.), <i>Living and Writing</i>, 2006, p. 60; Cooney, <i>The Cost of Death</i>, 2007, pp. 153, 317.↑
- P. BM EA 10403, vso. col. III, 28, see K<i>RI</i> VI, 1983, p. 833.↑
- Černý, <i>Ostraca hiératiques</i> I, 1930, pp. 2–3, pl. II; Janssen, <i>Village Varia</i>, 1997, pp. 147–51.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, p. 69.↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 47–50; Brose, <i>Grammatik</i>, 2014, pp. 457–58, § 409.↑
- Jenni, <i>Lehrbuch</i>, 2010, pp. 141–48; Brose, <i>Grammatik</i>, 2014, pp. 207–15, especially pp. 212, 9 and 213, 8.↑
- Černý and Groll, <i>Grammar</i>, 1975, pp. 209–11; Junge, <i>Late Egyptian</i>, 2005, p. 154. ↑
- Jenni, <i>Lehrbuch</i>, 2010, pp. 244–46; Brose, <i>Grammatik</i>, 2014, pp. 283–85.↑
- Černý and Groll, <i>Grammar</i>, 1975, pp. 182–89, 356–65, especially pp. 188 and 358. For discussing these elements we are grateful to J. Paksi.↑
- Černý and Groll, <i>Grammar</i>, 1975, pp. 45–55, 496–99.↑
- Černý and Groll, <i>Grammar</i>, 1975, pp. 45–55, 496–99; Brose, <i>Grammatik</i>, 2014, pp. 391–93. This use of the relative converter is possible in lists and accounts, indicating that more goods were recorded in the lost passages of the papyrus.↑
- For P. BM EA 10102, see Glanville, <i>JEA</i> 14 (1928), pp. 294–302, pls. XXXI, XXXII.2, XXXV; for P. MMA 27.3.560, see Hayes, <i>MDAIK</i> 15 (1957), pp. 89–90, pl. XIII.2, fig. 1 [O]; for O. Glasgow D.1925.87, see McDowell, <i>Hieratic Ostraca</i>, 1993, pp. 27–29, pls. XXX–XXXa.↑
- For P. BM EA 10104, see Glanville, <i>JEA</i> 14 (1928), pp. 307–309, pls. XXXIV–XXXV; for P. Berlin P 10463, see Caminos, <i>JEA</i> 49 (1963), pp. 29–37.↑
- Megally, <i>Papyrus hiératique comptable</i>, 1971, <i>passim</i>.↑
- Caminos, <i>JEA</i> 49 (1963), p. 30.↑
- For accounts relative to the construction of the tomb of Senenmut, see Hayes, <i>Ostraka</i>, 1942; for accounts relative to temple construction at Deir el-Bahari, see Hassan, <i>BIFAO</i> 115 (2015), pp. 179–229.↑
- This study was conducted as part of the research project "The Economy and Infrastructure of Tomb Construction in the Egyptian New Kingdom" at the University of Copenhagen, directed by F. Hagen, and funded by the Velux Foundation.↑
- Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, p. 162.↑
- Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, p. 145, text 80: <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">[jmj-rA pr-HD n] nb tA.wj 9Hwtj-ms Dd n=f 9Hwtj-nfr</named-content>. Other (possible) attestations of Djehutynefer are discussed by Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, pp. 167–71.↑
- This can be inferred from the presence of ceramic fragments from the fill of QV 34, which bear individual identity marks of Eighteenth Dynasty workmen, see Fekri and Loyrette, <i>Memnonia</i> 9 (1998), fig. 4.1–5. A limestone ostracon inscribed with identity marks found during Schiaparelli’s excavations of 1905 may also have come from the Valley of the Queens, see López, <i>Ostraca</i>, 1980, p. 72, CGT 57310, where its provenance is suggested to have been Deir el-Medina. The ostracon can be roughly dated to the reign of Amenhotep III; see Soliman, <i>BIFAO</i> 118 (forthcoming).↑
- For an overview, see Soliman, <i>BIFAO</i> 118 (forthcoming).↑
- There is, moreover, nothing to unequivocally connect the names of Sihathor or Remny with one of the Eighteenth Dynasty workmen’s marks. For example, nothing indicates that the duck-shaped mark, mostly attested in the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty (see e.g. Haring, in Haring and Kaper [eds.], <i>Pictograms or Pseudoscript?</i>, 2009, p. 159) referred, to the first element in the name <i>Si</i>hathor.↑
- For the autobiographical texts from Ineni’s tomb, see Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992. For Ineni’s career and the range of his activities, see also Auenmüller, <i>Die Territorialität</i>, 2013, pp. 722–23.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 123–24. Compare Auenmüller, <i>Die Territorialität</i>, 2013, p. 723.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 44–54. Auenmüller, <i>Die Territorialität</i>, 2013, pp. 723, 903, dates Ineni’s activity into the reign of Thutmosis III as well.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 123, 135, 138.↑
- See e.g. Polz, <i>Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches</i>, 2007, pp. 211–21; Aston, <i>Valley of the Kings</i>, 2014, pp. 85–86.↑
- The tombs of prince Ahmose (probably QV 88), princess Neferhat (QV 72), and the vizier Iyemhotep (QV 46). Tracing the tomb of Thutmosis I to the Valley of the Queens would also explain why the site of Deir el-Medina was chosen for the settlement of the royal necropolis workmen, because it is located closer to the Valley of the Queens than to the Valley of the Kings, as pointed out by Dorn, in Bickel (ed.), <i>Vergangenheit und Zukunft</i>, 2013, p. 35.↑
- Russo, <i>Kha</i>, 2012, pp. 40–41. Support for the idea that Hapuseneb was involved in the construction of tombs in the Theban valleys is provided in the form of a scarab inscribed for him, found at Deir el-Medina; see Bruyère, <i>Rapport (1934–1935)</i>, 1937, p. 8.↑
- Bryan, in Cline and O’Connor (eds.), <i>Thutmose III</i>, 2006, p. 107.↑
- Compare Auenmüller, <i>Die Territorialität</i>, 2013, p. 713.↑
- Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, pp. 17, 138; Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, p. 19, fig. 1.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, p. 143.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 69, 87.↑
- For the use of <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">sn</named-content> to indicate kin relationships, see e.g. Bierbrier, <i>JEA</i> 66 (1980), pp. 104–07.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 67, 87.↑
- Cairo CG 921, Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, pp. 167–68, pl. 76.↑
- For an overview, see Thomas, <i>Necropoleis</i>, 1966, pp. 208–77; Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989, pp. 53–55; Lakomy, <i>“Der Löwe”</i>, 2016, pp. 40–41; Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, I, 2012, pp. 25–29; Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, II, 2016, pp. 11–140.↑
- For the finds from the re-excavation of TT 81, see Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 109–16; for the finds from the re-excavation of TT 80 and TT 104, see Shedid, <i>Stil der Grabmalereien</i>, 1988, pp. 171–89.↑
- Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, p. 142. The mayor Ineni was perhaps also connected to the royal court through a <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">sn</named-content> “brother” called Iuny, who was a “child of the <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">kAp</named-content>”. Both men are attested on a pyramid-shaped stela datable to the Eighteenth Dynasty, BM EA 308, for which see <i>HTBM</i> VII, 1925, p. 7, pl. 11. Iuny is not recorded in TT 81, so it remains uncertain if this is the same man as the mayor Ineni.↑
- Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989, p. 18; Roehrig, <i>The Eighteenth Dynasty</i>, 2000, p. 37; Fekri, in Hawass, <i>Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century</i>, 2000, <i>passim</i>.↑
- Polz, <i>Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches</i>, 2007, p. 250. On a stela from the north wall of the traverse hall in Ineni’s tomb TT 81, the tomb owner is recorded pleading for a burial in the necropolis: <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">jab.t<w> [X.t=j] m-xt mnj m js=j n Xr.t-nTr</named-content>, “May my body be buried after death in my tomb of the necropolis,” see Dziobek, <i>Das Grab des Ineni</i>, 1992, pp. 57–58, pl. 51, but the word <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">js</named-content> refers to a generic word for ‘grave’ rather than a particular type of tomb, see <i>Wb</i> I, 1926, p. 126.18–24.↑
- Schiaparelli, <i>Valle delle Regine</i>, 1924, pp. 35–39; Dolzani, <i>Vasi Canopi</i>, 1982, pp. 17–18, N. 19003–19006.↑
- This detail was kindly brought to our attention by P. Del Vesco. It is worth noting, however, that Ballerini’s notes indicate that several more coffins and coffin fragments were found, e.g. in QV 39, see n. 140.↑
- Nebenkemet (see <i>Urk</i>. IV, p. 997, 6); Menkheperreseneb, described as “one whose youth happened at the place where the god is” (see <i>Urk</i>. IV, p. 993, 16); Qenamun, described as “one great of praise in the <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">kAp</named-content>” (see <i>Urk</i>. IV, pp. 1906–1958, 1390, 2).↑
- For attestations of this Nebiry and his son, see Van Siclen, <i>BES</i> 7 (1985/6), pp. 87–91.↑
- For evidence of the chief of royal necropolis workmen Kha during the reign of Amenhotep III in the ostraca inscribed with identity marks, see Soliman, <i>BIFAO</i> 118 (forthcoming).↑
- Hieratic ostraca from the Eighteenth Dynasty most likely are not lost, because several ostraca inscribed with workmen’s marks from the same period are known from the Valley of the Kings, Deir el-Medina, and probably also at the Valley of the Queens; see Soliman, in Graves et al. (eds.), <i>Current Research in Egyptology 2012</i>, 2013, pp. 157–70; Haring, in Toivari-Viitala et al. (eds.), <i>Deir el-Medina Studies</i>, 2014, pp. 87–100.↑
- Haring, in Toivari-Viitala et al. (eds.), <i>Deir el-Medina Studies</i>, 2014, pp. 87–100; Soliman, <i>BIFAO</i> 118 (forthcoming).↑
- Černý, <i>Community</i>, 2001, pp. 69, 72–75.↑
- Turin CG 50004, see Tosi and Roccati, <i>Stele</i>, 1972, pp. 35–36, fig. on p. 263.↑
- Louvre N 3023, see Andreu (ed.), <i>Les Artistes</i>, 2002, p. 226, no. 179.↑
- Besides the content, language, grammar and structure of these texts, they can also be approached from a socio-historical perspective, focusing on their protagonists, role, messengers and transport. The materiality and layout of the letters deserve attention, as do their possible reuse and find-spot. These and other aspects will be discussed in the author’s current project about letters as a means of communication.↑
- Wente, <i>Letters</i>, 1990, pp. 6–7.↑
- Bogoslovski, <i>“Slugi” faraonov</i>, 1979, pp. 195–201, emphasises that the term <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">sDm-aS</named-content> combined with an institution first appears for the temple of Amun in Thebes in the time of Thutmosis III. It was not a “socio-economic term”, because such “listeners to the call” could belong to various social strata, ranging from overseers and scribes to any servant in the service of a household or estate. ↑
- Bakir, <i>Epistolography</i>, 1970, pp. 29–32; Wente, <i>Letters</i>, 1990, pp. 10–11; Demarée, in Teeter and Larson (eds.), <i>Gold of Praise</i>, 1999, p. 81; Gabler, <i>Medja</i>, 2009, pp. 45–46, 53–54, 121 (particularly about the function of Hadnakht).↑
- Hayes, <i>Ostraka</i>, 1942; Gabler, <i>Versorgungspersonal</i>, 2018, pp. 520–23; M. Römer is preparing a publication of the ostraca from the early Eighteenth Dynasty from Thebes.↑
- E.g. Wente, <i>Letters</i>, 1990, p. 3: nos. 40, 64, 66, 131, 133–35 from Saqqara, nos. 68–72, 79–83, 11 from Western Thebes, nos. 41–43 from Nag ed-Deir and nos. 123–24 from a tomb at Tell el-Amarna.↑
- Wente, <i>Letters</i>, 1990, 3, nos. 40 and 66.↑
- Allen, <i>Heqanakht Papyri</i>, 2002.↑
- <i>DMD Leiden, The Deir el-Medina Database Leiden, </i><a href="http://dmd.wepwawet.nl/">http://dmd.wepwawet.nl</a>. N. Reeves discovered a structure in the area between KV 9 and KV 56, large enough to store a coffin or sarcophagus (private communication with N. Reeves and the Amarna Royal Tombs Project; the structure came to light in Area A, Operation 1, in 1998–2000). See also Demarée, in Dorn and Hofmann (eds.), <i>Living and Writing</i>, 2006, pp. 57–66; Willems, <i>Dayr el-Barsha</i> I, 2007, pp. 93–94 (references to <named-content content-type="traslitterazione">a.t</named-content>-structures from the Middle Kingdom).↑
- Both texts deal with Tameket (ii) and Tasaket (i), the daughters of the foreman of the right side Nekhemmut (i), for whom see Davies, <i>Who’s Who</i>, 1999, chart 7; Grandet, <i>Ostraca</i> IX, 2003, pp. 5–8.↑
- Demarée, in Dorn and Hofmann (eds.), <i>Living and Writing</i>, 2006, pp. 57–66.↑
- Rto. IV, 13 to V, 11, Peet, <i>The Great Tomb-Robberies</i>, 1930, pp. 33–40.↑
- Peet, <i>The Great Tomb-Robberies</i>, 1930, pl. III, V, 3, correctly transcribes “<named-content content-type="traslitterazione">nA ms.w nswt n nswt Wsr-MAa.t-Ra-stp.n-Ra</named-content>”. The line refers to the royal children of Ramesses II, but his sons were buried in KV 5 in the Valley of the Kings and the tombs of the queens and princesses of Ramesses II – QV 60 (princess Nebettauy), QV 68 (princess Merytamun), QV 71 (princess Bentanat), QV 73 (Henuttauy), QV 74 (princess Duautipet/tentipet), QV 75 (Henutmire) – were used for burials and not left open, especially at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. As the passage on P. Abbott mainly deals with aspects related to Ramesses III, whose name also starts with “<named-content content-type="traslitterazione">Wsr-MAa.t-Ra</named-content>”, the scribe might have made a mistake, writing Ramesses II, but meaning Ramesses III. QV 36 (unknown princess) from the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty presumably was also not left open and unused in the reign of Ramesses IX, as recorded in P. Abbott; see Elleithy and Leblanc, <i>Répertoire documentaire</i>, 2017, pp. 29–37.↑
- Davies, <i>Who’s Who</i>, 1999, pp. 213–14, chart 4; Gabler, <i>Versorgungspersonal</i>, 2018, p. 379. This Deir el-Medina workman from the left side may be identified with Amenemone (ii or iii) son of Huy (iii/vi/vii or ix), dating from the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty to the middle of the Twentieth Dynasty.↑
- Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989, fig. 9; Elleithy and Leblanc, <i>Répertoire documentaire</i>, 2017.↑
- Further candidates are the unfinished tombs QV 56 and 57. These tombs can be dated to the Nineteenth Dynasty, cf. Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, II, 2016, pp. 368–69. Leblanc, in Corzo and Afshar (eds.), <i>Art and Eternity</i>, 1993, pp. 24–25, refers to a cluster of workmen huts of the Ramesside period in the surroundings of QV 51, 52 and 55. This archaeological evidence supports the identification of one of these tombs as being mentioned by the coppersmith.↑
- It is also possible that during the early Eighteenth Dynasty, princes who later became kings and/or kings in general, received a burial in the Valley of the Queens. This would fit the theory that Thutmosis I (and maybe Thutmosis II) may have been originally buried in the Valley of the Queens, see Section 4. Around the tomb of Nefertari, Schiaparelli’s mission discovered some structures which might point to storage facilities from the Eighteenth Dynasty. P. Del Vesco kindly shared with us that his ongoing research indicates that these structures were covered by debris from the excavation of several Nineteenth Dynasty tombs.↑
- The main wadi contains 57 tombs and the side valleys 20 tombs, cf. Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, I, 2012, p. 21.↑
- Leblanc, <i>BIFAO</i> 89 (1989), pp. 227–47.↑
- Schiaparelli, <i>Valle delle Regine</i>, 1924.↑
- The photographic record of the work indicates that the mission started higher up in the wadi, see photos in Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989 and Del Vesco, in Kaper (ed.), <i>Koninginnen</i>, 2016, pp. 124–25 and forthcoming.↑
- Information kindly provided by P. Del Vesco.↑
- See Section 2 and Côte et al., <i>Memnonia</i> 7 (1996), pp. 141–56. We are most thankful to P. Del Vesco and E. Casini for sharing with us information from their ongoing studies on the Valley of the Queens. Del Vesco’s study is based on still unpublished archival material held in the State Archive of Turin.↑
- Elleithy and Leblanc, <i>Répertoire documentaire</i>, 2017, pp. 260–61; Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989, pp. 39–45, especially 43; PM I/1, p. 49; Thomas, <i>Necropoleis</i>, 1966, p. 186; Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, I, 2012, p. 26; Del Vesco, <i>La Valle delle Regine</i>, 2017, p. 243. Leblanc refers also to QV 87 which was probably not excavated by the Italian mission. Details will be presented by P. Del Vesco, forthcoming. Theoretically, the letter could also have been found in a shaft from the Ramesside period, where it may have ended up in more modern times.↑
- Leblanc, <i>Ta Set Neferou</i>, 1989, pp. 39–45, especially 43; Fekri and Loyrette, <i>Memnonia</i> 9 (1998), pp. 121–38; Elleithy and Leblanc, <i>Répertoire documentaire</i>, 2017, pp. 23–28. P. Del Vesco has confirmed that Schiaparelli’s team did not investigate QV 87.↑
- Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, I, 2012, pp. 21–22; Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, II, 2016, pp. 128–32.↑
- Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, II, 2016, p. 132.↑
- Côte et al., <i>Memnonia</i> 7 (1996), p. 153 (4); Del Vesco et al., in Del Vesco and Moiso (eds.), <i>Missione Egitto</i>, p. 243. QV 89 raises some interest, because it lies closest to an observation point and possible meeting place. Besides, Ballerini, <i>Notizia</i>, 1903, p. 35, mentioned that a painted fragment was found in a tomb (possibly QV 89), which he ascribed to wall decoration or a coffin. As the Eighteenth Dynasty tombs in the Valley of the Queens are undecorated, the fragment could have belonged to a coffin. On the other hand, P. Del Vesco has kindly informed us that Ballerini mentions several complete coffins and other coffin fragments throughout his notes.↑
- Demas and Agnew (eds.), <i>Project Report</i>, I, 2012, p. 16. Two of the three observations posts are dated to the Ramesside period, but may have forerunners from earlier times. The third can be only identified as ancient watch post.↑
Aggiungi un commento: