(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 20^th 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.

(KG)

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

Fig. 1

P. Turin Provv. 3581, recto and verso. Scan by Museo Egizio.

The first half of the document, fragment 1 (7.5 x 3.2 cm), is rather damaged, and bears three partially preserved lines.2

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).

Fig. 2

P. Turin Provv. 3581, recto: virtual reconstruction by Daniel Soliman, based on scan by Museo Egizio.

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 highlight3 the numbers in subtotals and totals. This use of red ink is unusual in letters.7

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 HA.tj-a Jnnj runs from the end of line 6 to the beginning of line 7.

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 foldingP. Turin Provv. 3581 appears to have been actually sent; the possibility that it was a model letter can be ruled out due to its material features (used condition, folding) and realistic content, as well as its find-spot.

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

Fig. 3

P. Turin Provv. 3581, recto. Scan by Museo Egizio, drawing of folds by Kathrin Gabler

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.154 Subsequently, the roll was folded once vertically, one half over the other. This big vertical fold 4 has led to several lacunae through the middle of the entire document; for this fold, and the numbering of all the folds, see Fig. 3. Such a technique is known for letters from Gurob and Amarna.16 The open ends of the doubled roll were then foldedin their turn for about 0.5 cm (which explains the vertical fold 7 along the left edge of the document, with the small lacunae) before the little package was folded over again, with the folded open ends on the inside. The technique and shape fit category FP III suggested by Krutzsch:17 a small folded package closed on all sides, measuring about 1.5 x 1.5 cm,18 which would have been rather handy for transport of the message, even concealed.19 The little package may have been tied with strings and sealed with clay/mud (possibly stamped with a scarab) or simply put into a little bag, e.g. a piece of cloth, for its carrier.20 This practice is known from a few letters that were found still intact, e.g. P. Berlin P 10463,21 and may thus be suggested for the Turin example as well.

Video 1

The original folding of the letter. Video by Kathrin Gabler, filmed and processed by Amanda Gabriel.

The secondary foldingThe horizontal folds between 9 and 11a (only visible on one of the two sides) as well as the big layered fold 8–9 cannot convincingly be explained. Rolling from bottom to top (at some point) would also explain folds 9a and 11a, but fold 8–9 is still unexplained. Judging from its layered shape and comparing it with Krutzsch’s fold categories, it must be a secondary or even tertiary fold.22 The secondary folding could have taken place at any time after the first opening of the letter. The papyrus was now apparently folded once vertically and twice horizontally, which explains the big lacuna at horizontal fold 8–9 and its layered shape, and the vertical gaps along fold 4 through the entire document. The papyrus could have been stored in this condition or put away after having been read. This folding technique indicates an individual used to a different folding practice than that of the individual who folded the letter in the first place.

Video 2

The secondary folding of the letter. Video by Kathrin Gabler, filmed and processed by Amanda Gabriel.

Folding: conclusionThe reverse of P. Turin Provv. 3581 is blank. An address was perhaps omitted here because, once the letter was folded into a tiny package, the writing surface was probably too small. Since the first line of the letter, which contains the address, is well preserved, it is likely that the message was rolled in its first phase from top to bottom (which would explain why the last line of the letter is badly preserved: it was situated at the outside of the roll). The reader would have had to open the letter completely to get to the beginning of the message; as it was a small sheet in a compact package, this could have been accomplished easily. There is an empty but damaged space at the bottom of the letter, where an address may have been added, either on the obverse or the reverse of the papyrus. Leaving free space would support the idea that the letter was folded from top to bottom, because the outside of the roll could serve as protection of the actual writing, which starts slightly later.23 The folding technique of phase 1 is the same as that used for the later Gurob and Amarna letters.24 Perhaps this is an indication that the person who folded the letter for the first time was a younger individual, while the person who did the second folding might have been elderly or used to common practice.

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 5papyrus later broke at some point precisely at these folds, probably because the letter remained folded in this manner for a longer time.

(KG and DS)

Transcription

Transliteration and translation

jmj-rA pr-HD 9Hwtj-nfr [Hr Dd/nD xr.t] n […]The overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer speaks to […]

General commentaryLine 1The reading of the end of the line is doubtful, because the papyrus is damaged along the left margin. However, it is clear that the line contains the opening of the message, which introduces the sender, the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer. He can be identified as the official who made his career under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, and owned two tombs in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, TT 80 and TT 104.

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 Hr Dd n, and the name and perhaps the title of the addressee, immediately followed by the message proper. Admittedly, the reading Hr Dd n is doubtful because the word Hr is usually omitted in similar salutations,26 and because the tail of (Gardiner I10) seems to have been lost. Still, the traces suggest a reading as Hr Dd n rather than as the greeting Hr nD xr.t n,27 which occurs in contemporary letters such as P. BM EA 10102, P. BM EA 10103 and P. BM EA 10107.28 As a little fold at the end of line 1 overlaps some sign traces and the rest of the line is missing, the addressee remains unknown. Considering the width of the papyrus, a space of about 2 cm must have been used for a personal name, or a short title such as “scribe” followed by a shorter personal name, e.g. Pay, Dedu, Mahu or 6Hori. The addressee is likely to have been someone who was active in Thebes, considering the provenance of the papyrus, as well as the fact that the treasury controlled by Djehutynefer was located in Thebes. Fragment 4 belongs between lines 1 and 2, and the traces of ink on this fragment may be part of the name of the addressee.

Line 2After the sDm.n=f, a passive subjunctive is used to convey the message proper, whereby the sender refers to past events. Djehutynefer explains that something had been sent, presumably to the recipient of the letter. The sender is probably not referring to a previous letter, as acknowledgments of receipts and replies as a rule are omitted in Eighteenth Dynasty letters.29 The items were transported by a servant (sDm-aS), a title which became frequent after the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty.30 After the phrase sDm-aS n, the institution or person by whom the servant was employed may have followed as part of a genitive construction, although the n could also be a dative. According to the attestations collected by Bogoslovski, a genitival construction such as “sDm-aS n Jmn / n pr-HD / n jmj-rA NN”, is more likely,31 suggesting the man worked for the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer. P. Turin Provv. 3581 is the earliest known papyrus and one of the earliest administrative documents, in which the term sDm-aS is attested.

Line 3The line is badly damaged and barely legible, but it probably describes commodities and items that were sent with the servant, perhaps to the recipient of the letter. The reading of the numeral 25 is clear. The following sign is perhaps (Gardiner M34) for bd.t, although its appearance is not typical.32 The reading of “emmer” is supported by the fact that during the Ramesside Period it is mostly written in black ink, whereas “spelt” would have been written in red ink.33 This type of grain was mostly used for the production of bread.34 Before the numeral 25, one sign may be (Gardiner T14), perhaps used in a word for a foreign region or commodity or even a personal name. Further down the same line, the upper part of a sign may be the numeral 20. Fragment 3 belongs to the left end of the letter in line 3. Some signs are visible, one of which may be (Gardiner T12), but the reading is unclear.

Line 4The beginning of this line is lost and the reading of the first signs is difficult. The vertical stroke after the first damaged sign could be for Gardiner Z1, but it is most likely the sign (Gardiner Z7). For the group , compare O. DeB No. 482, l. 2,35 and O. MMA Field no. 23.001.108, obv., l. 6.36 The next sign group gives the name of an object that is also mentioned in the next line, but its reading is very problematic. The first sign is probably (Gardiner X4 or X5),37 generally used as a determinative, but here apparently as a phonogram, perhaps for sn. It is followed by the sign of the vessel (Gardiner W24), which could be either the phonetic complement nw or the determinative of a word designating a container. A reading of aqw “bread” or “ration”, occasionally written ,38 is improbable because of the presence of the jar. Reading the sign as a phonetic complement, it may designate a snw-offering-loaf,39 although the habitual spelling of that word is different. Normally, snw is written with as a determinative, and with phonetic complements such as and preceding it.40 Interpreting the jar as a determinative, the group could be an otherwise unattested spelling of the word snw, designating a jar used as a container for liquid or solid goods.41 4nw-jars were distributed among workmen involved in the construction of the tombs of Senenmut.42 Still, none of these suggestions is entirely satisfactory. We therefore leave the word untranslated and refer to it as the snw-object. The vertical stroke after the snw-object is the numeral 1, indicating the quantity. It may be surmised that other quantities of such loaves or jars were mentioned in the part of the papyrus that is lost, to reach the total of 35 mentioned at the end of the line. The snw-objects are said to be aA “here”,43 and as the sender does not specify where this location is, the recipient was privy to this information. Since the letter was presumably sent to the Valley of the Queens, “here” must refer to another location controlled by Djehutynefer, possibly one of the storerooms of the treasury in East Thebes.44 The passage dmD 35 ntj aA is written in red ink to highlight its importance to the writer. It is not clear what the snw-objects were7 used for in the context of the letter, but they may have been given as a special type of ration to workmen, two of whom appear to be named in the next line.

Line 5A new sentence, written again in black, begins with a negated imperative, expressing a direct order to the recipient. The position of the m is remarkably low, but there are no traces of an additional sign above it. The recipient is specifically instructed not to give one unit – expressed by the numeral stroke “one” – of what must be the snw-object of line 4 to a man named Sihathor, whose role is not further specified but who was known to sender and recipient alike. Despite the popularity of the goddess Hathor during the New Kingdom, the name Sihathor is not common after the Second Intermediate Period.45 Nevertheless, the name is attested for an Eighteenth Dynasty king’s son on a relief from the shrine of Hathor in Deir el-Bahari.46

No less than 15 units of the snw-object are destined for a man whose name should perhaps be read as Remny, although this is not without difficulties. The proposed reading of (Gardiner D41) is unconventionally executed with an additional vertical tick at the top, but a similarly shaped sign is used for the word grH in Senenmut Ostraca 63 and 64.47 The sign below it must the j, which is written in the same manner as in ntj in line 8,48 and the sign after that must be (Gardiner A1), which is an abbreviated form of the sign used in lines 2, 6 and 7.49 The name Remny is rare and to our knowledge not securely attested in the New Kingdom,50 but perhaps it is related to the masculine name Rmn-j or Rmn-jA, which is not known to occur in that period.51

Line 6The next line contains a new sentence with the subtotal 50 written in red ink, the sum of the 35 units in line 4 and the 15 in line 5. The grand total is recorded as aHa.w,52 a term that also occurs throughout P. Louvre E. 3226. The reading of the numeral 100 is questionable. It is not as elongated as one would expect and the sign rather looks like (Gardiner Z7), which would mean that the actual numeral was omitted. In the following sentence, a Hna ntk sDm construction is used to introduce a further order to the recipient to bring the official Ineni.53 In letters, this is a transition formula introducing a new topic, not necessarily related to previous content.54 The writing of Ineni’s name continues in line 6; this kind of scriptio continua is typical for Egyptian letters,55 but this is its only occurrence in the present letter. Ineni is, in all likelihood, the mayor of Thebes who was active during the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty and who owned tomb TT 81 (see Section 4). Since the sender Djehutynefer does not order to send Ineni to himself, it seems that the addressee was to bring Ineni to the location the letter refers to, probably somewhere in the Valley of the Queens where the letter was apparently delivered. Djehutynefer presumably sent the letter from an office on the East Bank to the Valley of the Queens, and therefore one may expect Ineni to have been somewhere in Western Thebes or in its vicinity at the moment the letter was written, within closer reach of the recipient (see Section 5).

Line 7The letter continues with another order, but due to the lacuna in the middle of the papyrus the sense of the instruction is lost. This lacuna is the result of secondary horizontal fold 8–9. The recipient was to ensure that something was done to a wDA-storehouse. Between ntk and rdj.t, a short horizontal stroke is visible, which appears to be a remainder of a sign that was purposefully erased. This is also evident from the faint smudges in this line. The word after the infinitive rdj.t is damaged, and could be either a noun or a verb. Since the noun wDA with the definite Late Egyptian article pA follows at the end of the line, the syntax rdj.t “to cause” + verb/subjunctive + noun/object is likely. The sign after the damaged word is (Gardiner U7), below which traces of a short horizontal stroke can be seen. The stroke seems too small to be a phonetic complement to sign U7, and is hence better explained as a remnant of the erased inscription. Sign U7 must thus be a determinative to the preceding sign group, together with what appears to be (Gardiner D36), probably for (Gardiner D40). These determinatives suggest that the lacuna contained a verb with a meaning in the semantic field of “building” or “hacking away”, both8 of which are possible because the object of the subjunctive is a storehouse. The verb aD “to hack” would make sense in this context, but the traces do not allow a reading of . We must admit the possibility that we are dealing here with a hapax legomenon. The third person singular likely refers to Ineni, who seems to have been responsible for activities involving the storehouse. Once more, the sender and the recipient are well acquainted with the subject matter of the letter, and neither location nor the nature of the wDA-storehouse56 are thus specified. The word wDA “storehouse” may refer to (large) storehouses attached to (mortuary) temples, institutions and treasuries,57 but may also designate smaller structures, which could be owned by individuals such as royal necropolis workmen of the Ramesside period (see Section 5).58 It may be assumed that the storehouse referred to in the letter was a temporary structure that needed to be demolished. The storehouse was apparently controlled by the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer and the mayor Ineni, and since the latter was apparently brought to the Valley of the Queens, this was presumably also the location of the storehouse.59

Line 8The sender continues with a further order to the recipient, but damage to the papyrus hampers the reading of this line. The sign after ntk appears to be a strangely executed (Gardiner A47) for sAw, for which there are no direct parallels. The scribe may initially have omitted the determinative, because (Gardiner A24) runs through (Gardiner X1). He did, however, write a more elaborate (Gardiner Z4), composed of two individual strokes, in wt and ntj, as opposed to the more cursive forms used in lines 8 and 9. The recipient is told to guard the wt-coffin, a type of anthropoid wooden coffin that was often decorated.60 The definite article pA is used, indicating that a specific coffin was intended. The coffin is said to be “there” (jm), probably referring to the storehouse mentioned in the previous line, which as we have seen was presumably situated in the Valley of the Queens. The wt-coffin was possibly kept there while waiting for it to be decorated, or used for an imminent burial. Such practices are indeed recorded for the Ramesside period. In O. Cairo CG 25260, a document from the reign of Ramesses IV, a wt-coffin is taken out of an a.t-hut belonging to a necropolis workman, which was possibly located in the Valley of the Kings.61 One of the tomb robbery papyri attests to the fact that during the Twentieth Dynasty cultic objects meant for the royal burial, such as a portable naos, were kept in wDA-storehouses,62 and in O. Cairo CG 25504 a scribe of the sculptor workshop comes up to the Valley of the Kings to work for two days on the wooden wt-coffin of Merenptah to make it ready for the king’s burial.63 If our interpretation of the previous line is correct, and the storehouse was indeed to be demolished, the wt-coffin would no longer be protected, which explains why it had to be guarded.

Line 9The beginning of the line is lost. The sender seems to be requesting specific goods, including incense, presumably for the burial for which Djehutynefer appears to be preparing. The letter then ends abruptly, omitting the closing formula found in most Eighteenth Dynasty letters.64

Commentary about the use of Late Egyptian elements (KG)The letter is written in the style of other documents dating to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The writer used mostly Middle Egyptian grammar, but the text already shows some Late Egyptian features. The introductory formula consisting of the pseudo-verbal construction Hr Dd/nD xr.t already appears in messages from the Middle Kingdom.65 The sDm.n=f-form in line 2 indicates that the servant has already been sent, as the bringer of certain goods or even as the carrier of the letter. It is a typical Middle Egyptian feature, where the verbal form is usually introduced by a particle. A short particle, e.g. jw, could indeed have been written in the same line. In any case, a sDm.n=f-form may appear without a particle at the beginning of speeches or introductions.66 For the Turin letter, it is likely that the actual content of the message started from this point and therefore no particle was needed. The sDm.n=f-form was still used in the Eighteenth Dynasty to indicate the perfect tense, and occasionally still appears in Late Egyptian.67 9The negated imperative m in line 5 seems to be combined with an infinitive (rdj.t) instead of the usual form of the second person, sometimes indicated by a w-ending.68 In line 6, 7 and 8, the infinitives (jnj.t, rdj.t, sAw.t) should be understood as imperatives expressing three new orders: to bring the mayor Ineni, to cause something to happen, and to guard a coffin.69

The writer used a few Late Egyptian elements in his letter. First, there is the definite article pA for wDA in line 7 and wt in line 8. The seemingly feminine .t-ending in the masculine expression wDA does not indicate the word’s gender (anymore), because by now this distinctive function has already been taken over by the article. Both the use of articles and the writing of redundant .t-endings are, of course, common features in texts of the Ramesside period. In line 8, the relative converter ntj follows after the determined (pA) antecedent wt, which is also typical for Late Egyptian constructions.70 At the same time, the writer of the letter employs ntj after the numeral in line 8, according to Middle Egyptian practice.71 This amalgamation of Middle Egyptian grammar with Late Egyptian elements is consistent with the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty date proposed here on the basis of the letter’s other features, viz., its content, palaeography (see below), prosopographical context (see Section 4) and archaeological context (see Section 5).

Commentary on palaeography (DS) Some of the signs and sign groups in P. Turin Provv. 3581 are executed in similar ways in other Eighteenth Dynasty letters (see Table 1).72 However, as remarked above, the scribe of P. Turin Provv. 3581 used more simplified signs and ligatures than, for example, the almost contemporary scribe of the Ahmose letters and P. BM EA 10102, 10103, 10104, and 10107, and to some extent also the scribes of P. MMA 27.3.560, P. Berlin P 10463 and O. Glasgow D.1925.87+O. Berlin P. 10616 (see Table 2).73 These other scribes employed more elaborate variants of particular hieratic signs, and sign groups are less often ligatured. Better parallels for the hand of P. Turin Provv. 3581 are found in the administrative accounts of P. Louvre E. 3226, from the time of Thutmosis III,74 and in letter P. Berlin P 10463, dated to the reign of Amenhotep II.75 Presumably, the latter document was, like P. Turin Provv. 3581, written by, or on behalf of, a high Theban official. The style of the hieratic of these documents is similar (see Table 3). They are written in a very legible hand but, in contrast to the letters in Table 2, they contain ligatures for groups such as jmj-rA, nfr and rdj.t. P. Louvre E. 3226 and P. Berlin P 10463 provide similar examples of the pA-bird with the two wings detached from10-11 the body, and of the jnj-sign in which the right leg is longer than the left leg. The hand of the writer of the letter of Djehutynefer also resembles the hands found on documentary ostraca relative to construction projects at Deir el-Bahari during the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III (see Table 4).76 These documents are written in a clear business hand as well, with ligatures for groups such as nfr and rdj.t, and the forms for the determinative , the numeral 50 and the pA-bird are similar to those in P. Turin Provv. 3581.

Table 1

Similar signs and sign groups in P. Turin Provv. 3581, P. BM EA 10102, P. MMA 27.3.560 and O. Glasgow D. 1925.87

Table 2

Differences between signs and sign groups in P. Turin Provv. 3581, P. BM EA 10102, P. BM EA 10104, P. MMA 27.3.560, P. Berlin P 10463 and O. Glasgow D. 1925.87

Table 3

Similar signs and sign groups in P. Turin Provv. 3581, P.Louvre E. 3226 and P. Berlin P 10463.

Table 4

Similar signs and sign groups in P. Turin Provv. 3581 and documentary texts on ostraca from Deir el-Bahari

(DS)77

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 wt-coffin and of incense suggests that the subject is the preparation of a burial in the Valley of the Queens, where the papyrus was reportedly discovered. The events described in the message therefore seem to involve the royal necropolis workmen who were housed at Deir el-Medina. Indeed, royal necropolis workmen of the Eighteenth Dynasty are attested in the Valley of the Queens,80 and a few Eighteenth Dynasty individuals are known from Deir el-Medina.81 The men Sihathor and Remny, mentioned in relation to the distribution of what appear to be rations, were probably two of these necropolis workmen, although to our knowledge no workmen by these names are attested at Deir el-Medina.82 Such an identification is nevertheless supported by the fact that the men were involved in the preparation of a burial coordinated by two prominent Theban officials. The men received wages from the overseer of the treasury Djehutynefer, and thus worked under his authority. Whether this means that all royal necropolis workmen of the Eighteenth Dynasty were supplied by one or more Theban officials is unclear, because almost nothing is known about the external organisation of the crew during this period. It would, however, not contradict our current understanding of the situation, namely, that it was a Theban high official (during12 the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, this was the mayor of Thebes Ineni) and not the vizier who was responsible for tomb construction in the royal valleys of Thebes.

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 wDA-storehouse erected on site at that time, which would clarify why Djehutynefer needed Ineni to have it taken down.

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 sn “brother”;94 the term does not necessarily imply blood relation, and may thus very well refer to Djehutymose’s closeness to Ineni.95 Both scenes also mention a man called Paiynuna, once depicted as a wab-priest.96 Perhaps he is the same man as Paiyn, who may have been the father of Djehutynefer, in whose honour the latter apparently ordered a statue.97

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 sufficiently13 published. Apart from the burials of members of the royal family, tombs of the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty identified at the cemetery belong to private individuals (no tombs dug for animals having been discovered there so far).98 Djehutynefer’s letter does not, however, allow us to specify what kind of burial is being referred to. Since Djehutynefer and Ineni were themselves important dignitaries of their time, it is possible that the burial was intended for them or one of their close family members. Both are of course known to have had tombs erected for them, but there is no possibility of knowing who was actually interred at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, and at this location no bodies or coffins have been identified that can unequivocally be linked to these men or their family members.99 Ineni’s family, in particular, could have been a candidate for burial in a cemetery for members of the royal family, since Ineni’s mother Sit-Djehuty bore the title of Xkr.t-nswt.100 During the Eighteenth Dynasty, this epithet was connected to the upbringing of royal youths, and in several cases it appears to have granted its holders a burial close to the tomb of the king.101 Still, Ineni was probably interred in TT 81, as four canopic jars inscribed for him and his wife were recovered in the neighbouring tomb TT 85.102

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 wt-coffin referred to in the letter; since the mummified remains of a man were discovered in the tomb, we may expect Nebiry to have been interred in the burial chamber, presumably in a coffin. Nebiry’s burial in the Valley of the Queens should probably be understood in the light of his close connection to the royal court, and perhaps his involvement in the upbringing of the crown prince. It could well be that Nebiry, like the three other attested Eighteenth Dynasty chiefs of stables,105 was raised in the institution of the kAp. Additionally, Nebiry may be identified as the like-named deputy of Min, mayor of This. The latter official was also the tutor of crown prince Amenhotep, son of Thutmosis III, as well as of Nebiry’s son, also called Amenhotep.106 If these two men called Nebiry are indeed one and the same individual, then he must have known Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II personally. This would also mean that the burial mentioned in the letter cannot be Nebiry’s, as the letter must have been written before his demise. It is, however, theoretically possible that a family member of Nebiry’s was buried in the tomb prepared for him in the Valley of the Queens.

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,14 respectively, by a stela111 and a scribal palette.112 Djehutynefer may have addressed his letter to one of these scribes. Amenemope’s stela is dedicated to Thutmosis III, during whose reign he must have been active. This date would approximate the date of the letter; however, the phrase “scribe Pay” would fit better in the limited space at the end of line 1 (see Section 2). These scribes were to some degree attached to the crew of royal necropolis workmen, and must have occasionally monitored the progress of the construction of the various tombs in the Theban valleys. This area apparently included the Valley of the Queens, but possibly also the Valley of the Kings and the Wadi Sikket Taqa el-Saida, where the tomb of the foreign wives of Thutmosis III was constructed. Indeed, the mobility of the addressee of the letter is highlighted by the fact that he was to fetch the mayor Ineni from elsewhere in Western Thebes (see below).

(KG)

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.

(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 sDmw aS in der ägyptischen Sprache während der 18. Dynastie”, ZÄS 101 (1974), pp. 81–89.

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, “1tp an Ipw-rs.ti – Der Brief auf dem Gefäß München ÄS 4313”, SAK 18 (1991), pp. 49–87.

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 XVIII^e 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 mDAj.w – dein Lieferant und Helfer. Untersuchungen zu den Medja von Deir el-Medine anhand von Ostraka und Papyri” (unpublizierte Magisterarbeit, LMU München), München 2009.

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 (mnat nswt), Royal Tutor (mna nswt), and Foster Brother/Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/snt mna nb tAwy)” (unpublished Dissertation, University of California), Ann Arbor 2000.

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–.