The papyrus is made up of five directly adjoining fragments (Fig. 1). The larger fragment on the left side of the recto bears the inventory number Cat. 1883, while the four smaller ones on the right side of the recto are inventoried as Cat. 2095.11 The bottom left corner of the larger fragment (Cat. 1883) is not correctly joined to the rest of the papyrus (darker green in Fig. 2). Thus, some of the signs are partially covered or not aligned properly. This becomes clear when looking at the verso, where the long horizontal sign that runs through line 8 drastically changes direction. In its current state, the whole document measures 235 mm in height and 410 mm in length. Two sheet joins are visible, the first one 145 mm, the second 385 mm from the right edge of the papyrus (recto side). Both are around 20 mm wide (21 mm for the left join, 18 mm for the right one), and the right101-104 sheet overlaps the left one (Fig. 2).12 The sheet joins belong to Type IIIA in the classification established by Krutzsch. The short distance between them and the fact that they are sloppily done suggest that the scribe himself joined the sheets.13

Fig. 1

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso. The fragments inventoried under number Cat. 1883 are coloured in green, those under inventory number Cat. 2095 in purple. Digital drawing by Martina Landrino.

It is uncertain when the fragments were joined and placed in a single frame. In 1926, Černý transcribed the larger fragment (Fig. 3).14 At a subsequent time, he added a red note to the transcription reading: “=Cat. 1883 (+ 2095) see new copy NB 23.55”. The new copy15 (Figs. 4, 5) is the transcription of the whole document, as clearly indicated by the measurements given at the top of the page: “now 22 ¼ x 40 ½ cent.”. Particularly interesting is the use of the word “now”, meaning that the second time Černý saw the text the four smaller fragments had been added to the larger one. Although Černý does not give the exact date on which he worked on the document, a note written some six pages earlier in the same notebook (page 49), mentions the date “19.7.1961”.16 It would seem likely that his notes on P. Turin Cat. 1883 date from a similar point in time, providing a rough terminus ante quem. Thus, the papyrus fragments were most likely joined between 1926 and 1961.

Fig. 3

Černý, MSS 3.350. ©Griffith Institute, Oxford.

Fig. 4

Černý, NB 23.56. ©Griffith Institute, Oxford.

Fig. 5

Černý, NB 23.56. ©Griffith Institute, Oxford.

Today, the recto17 (Fig. 6, 7) preserves three columns of text. The first column is composed of four lines, the first of which, with a preserved width of 210 mm, runs across the papyrus, extending above columns 2 and 3. Only the left uppermost part of the first column is preserved to a width of 65 mm; both the second column (63 mm wide) and the third column (224 mm wide) contain twelve lines, of which the bottom parts are only partially preserved. A 5 mm gap divides the first and the second column, while the second and the third are separated by a margin that measures 48 mm. The verso (Figs. 8, 9), written with the same orientation as the recto (meaning the papyrus was flipped over horizontally and not vertically to write on the other side), preserves one column of text with a width of 195 mm, containing nine lines, the first of which is indented by 75 mm. Traces of palimpsest texts are visible on both the recto and verso. An analysis conducted both with the bare eye and the image enhancement software DStretch did not allow for the identification of any specific signs.

Fig. 6

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, recto, as currently mounted. Scan by Museo Egizio, Turin. Digital processing by Martina Landrino.

Fig. 7

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, recto, facsimile. Digital drawing by Martina Landrino.

Fig. 8

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso, as currently mounted. Scan by Museo Egizio, Turin. Digital processing by Martina Landrino.

Fig. 9

Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso, facsimile. Digital drawing by Martina Landrino.

In the Ramesside period, the average height of a papyrus sheet was about 420 mm. If this is also true of the document at hand, then only its upper part is preserved. However, scribes often cut papyrus sheets in half or even into quarters for more convenient use.18 Since neither the text on the recto nor that on the verso can indicate whether this was a standard or half-height roll, it is impossible to reconstruct the exact dimensions of the papyrus.

(l. 1) n nswt (Wsr-MAa.t-Ra 4tp.n-Ra) sA Ra nb xa(.w) ({Ra}Jt-Jmn)

(l. 2) rnp.t-sp 8 Abd 4 Smw sw 25 hrw pn Hn nA Hmtj.w {n}

(l. 3) jn nA Hwtj.w {n} nA rwDw.w n pA xr sS pr-HD 1rj n

(l. 4) tA Hw.t <r>-xt pA Hm-nTr {n} tpy n Jmn

(l. 5) aA n js.t Nxw-m-Mw.t

(l. 6) aA n js.t 1rj-ms pA (sic)

(l. 7) tA rj.t wnmj m Dr.t aA n js.t Nxw-<m-Mw.t>

(l. 8) Hmty dbn 280 jri n xnr 40 [wa] ⸢nb⸣ dbn 7 […]

(l. 9) mDA.t (?) (Hr)-a sS pr-HD […]

(l. 1) Of the King Usermaatra Setepenra, son of Re, Lord of Crowns, Itamun.

(l. 2) Regnal year 8, 4th month of shemu, day 25, this day: commissioning the coppersmiths

(l. 3) By the captains and the rwDw-agents of The Tomb, and the treasury scribe, Hori, of

(l. 4) The temple, <under> the authority of the high priest of Amun,

(l. 5) The chief workman, Nekhemmut,

(l. 6) (And) the chief workman, Harmose, the (sic)

(l. 7) the right side, from the chief workman, Nekhe<mmut>:

(l. 8) Copper, deben 280; making spikes, 40; each [one], deben 7; […]

(l. 9) Chisel (?), in the charge of the scribe of the treasury […]

Line 1

Its position indented by 75 mm in respect to the other lines clarifies that this is an addition to line 2, to be inserted after the date.71

In his notes, Černý described the document as “sehr schlecht geschrieben”.72 This applies particularly to the royal titulary, where the reading of some signs is still doubtful. For the convenience of the reader, the previous transcriptions are listed below in chronological order:

1- Černý (1^st):73

2 - Černý (2^nd):74

3 - Eyre:75

4 - Kitchen:76

The first four signs can be read clearly; however, scholars differ on the transcription of the following112 signs. With the exception of Černý (1^st), the bottom part of the cartouche’s opening has been rendered invariably as a simple dot. Possibly, this dot is a simplified writing77 of the sun disk (Gardiner N5), a fundamental part of the praenomen which would otherwise be missing. The rest of the signs inscribed in the cartouche complete the name of the pharaoh Wsr-MAa.t-Ra 4tp.n-Ra, ending with the divine standard (G7).78

Fig. 10

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso: detail of line 1.

The hieratic signs that follow (Fig. 10) are more difficult to explain. Černý (1^st) transcribed them as the closing of the cartouche and the epithet “Son of Re” with an ideogram stroke behind it . In his second transcription he did not transcribe them at all, leaving the signs in their hieratic form. Eyre, followed by Kitchen, saw a defective writing of the name Mry-Jmn in this sign group. Hitherto these interpretations have been per se plausible; however, a papyrus stored in the same papyrus collection at Museo Egizio sheds new light on the matter. This document, P. Turin Cat. 1891,79 contains an example of a better-preserved royal titulary written by the same scribe, as visible in Fig. 11.80 After the praenomen of Ramesses IV, 1qA-MAa.t-Ra 4tp.n-Jmn, again ending with the divine standard, the same problematic signs appear. Seeing as the name is complete here, the two vertical strokes can hardly be anything else than the closing of the cartouche. These signs and the group following are paleographically very similar to the ones discussed above in P. Turin Cat. 1883 and occupy the same position in the text. Therefore, I consider the reading “Son of Re” preferable to the solution that argues for a defective writing of the name Mry-Jmn, which seems impossible in this latter case.

Fig. 11

P. Turin Cat. 1891, recto: detail of line 1.

Turin Cat. 1891 is also relevant for the interpretation of the next hieratic group. Černý and Eyre presented two different transcriptions. The first recognized the signs as a badly executed writing of “Lord of Crowns”, the second as “Lord of the Two Lands”. The same group, at the end of line 1 of P. Turin Cat. 1891, has been read invariably as “Lord of Crowns”. This interpretation is proved true by two considerations: the title “Lords of the Two Lands” already appears earlier in the line, and the title “Lord of Crowns”, in combination with “Son of Re”, is expected as an introduction for the second cartouche.81

When Černý saw the papyrus for the first time in 1926, the document had not yet been joined together. He could only work on the larger fragment. His first transcription ends with the opening of the second cartouche. Indeed, after the praenomen of the Pharaoh one would normally expect the nomen. This hypothesis was strengthened by the presence of the epithets that normally introduce the second cartouche, i.e., “Son of Re” and “Lord of Crowns”. The second time he worked on the document, however, when the papyrus had been joined with the other fragments, Černý was confronted with a blank space instead of the expected cartouche.82 He consequently modified his first transcription, choosing not to read the title “Son of Re” and converting the opening of the cartouche into a simple oblique stroke followed by “sic” (Fig. 5).

Among the editors who worked on this text, Černý was the only one who saw the original document.83 All other transcriptions are based on his notes. With the help of DStretch,84 it has been possible to obtain an image with enhanced details, revealing traces of ink that are difficult to see with the naked eye. In particular, this investigation has revealed the second cartouche with the nomen of Ramesses VII113 (Fig. 12). The addition of the sun disk right after the opening of the cartouche, although not necessary, is a well-known phenomenon that occurs both on ostraca and in papyri.85 The signs that follow are interfered with by some heavy traces of palimpsest.

Fig. 12

P. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso: detail of line 1. Dstretch(lbk) manipulation by Martina Landrino.

Line 2

The verb Hn is followed by the determinative of the “legs” (D54). This determinative is usually applied to the verb Hn when it means “to hurry” or “to go”.86 In this case, however, the content of the text indicates that the translation “to commission”,87 normally followed by the determinative of the “papyrus roll” (Y1), is to be preferred.

The line ends with some faded, yet legible, signs. These are the determinatives for the word Hmtj.w, i.e. “coppersmiths”: the “striking man” (A24), the “seated man” (A1), and two horizontal lines below. While the presence of neither man is surprising, the double horizontal lines are an unusual feature in this case. The same group of determinatives appears in the next line, used in the words “captains” and “agents”. Here, the first horizontal line stands for the three vertical strokes (Z2), marking the plural. The second line represents the preposition n that expresses the indirect genitive. I chose to apply the same reading to the hieroglyphs at the end of line 2, although grammatically nothing is needed between the noun and the preposition jn at the beginning of line 3.88

Line 3

The word “captains” occurs with two different spellings: Hwtj.w, and Hntj.w. The peculiar form used here, with an intrusive n, is an indication that the text was composed after the middle of the 20th Dynasty.89

Line 4

The scribe omitted the r in writing the preposition (r-)xt, “under the authority”.90 Gardiner notes that this preposition is used to introduce a person of higher rank.91

The scribe also inserted a superfluous horizontal stroke underneath the “seated man” (A1). Either the stroke represents the “water ripples” (N35) and should be read as n, or it stands for the three vertical strokes of the plural. Both readings however do not fit well with the translation. In the first case, a preposition or a genitive n would divide the noun and the adjective, which would be grammatically incorrect. In the second case, the three vertical strokes would make the noun plural, even though explicitly marked as singular by the article pA.

Line 5

The chief workman of the right side, Nekhemmut (vi),92 is a well-known character. His name is spelt here in a unique way. After the ligature n+x, the scribe inserted a “striking man” (A24), usually not present, followed by two oblique strokes and another “striking man”. The same spelling is used in line 7. This could be a writing specific to this scribe, since it also appears in another text by him.93

Line 6

The name Harmose is composed of two parts. The first, a “falcon” (G5) followed by a “reed leaf” (M17) which is still preserved, the second, an “oblique stroke” (Z5) on top of a “seated man” (A1), the latter sign being damaged. The reading is complicated by the modern assemblage of the fragments. As already pointed out above, the two adjoining fragments are imperfectly joined.94 Thus, the upper sign merges with the lower one.

The last two signs – aligned differently because of the misplacement of the papyrus fragments – are possibly what remains of the second part of Harmose’s title, the complete form of which is “chief workman of the Tomb”. While the first part is written before the personal name, the second one (pA 2r) usually appears usually after it. In this instance, the scribe wrote pA and for some obscure reason left out 2r.95

Line 7

The spelling of the name Nekhemmut is similar to the one analyzed in line 5. The first part is written114 with the same peculiar spelling, while the second part is left out. However, the title preceding the name allows the latter to be restored in its complete form.96

Line 8

I translate the word xnr as “spike”, following Janssen’s interpretation.97

Line 9

This line is rather damaged and the reading proposed here is far from certain.

The word at the beginning of the line, , has been read as mn “remaining”, mnx “chisel”, Hsmn “bronze”, or simply left out.98 The combination is indeed problematic and none of these suggestions fits perfectly. The “pestle” (U32), with the meaning “remaining”,99 which is often used alone in administrative texts, in this case is combined with the sign N34. If we interpret the word as “bronze”, the “pestle” (U32) would be followed by the combination of determinatives generally used to classify minerals (N33+N34), which for example appears in line 8 in combination with the word “copper”.100 Furthermore, a comparison of existing transcriptions101 with the original shows that an “owl” (G17), whose upper part is broken, precedes the “pestle” (Fig. 13). Thus, the readings “remaining” and “bronze” are less likely.

Fig. 13

Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095, verso: detail of beginning of line 9.

Although, the presence of the m would appear to confirm the reading mnx, two main issues make this reading problematic. Firstly, the mnx-chisel is usually determined by the “mortise chisel” (U22) or the “chisel” (U23).102 Secondly, this would be the only attestation of this word in the Deir el-Medina corpus. Possibly, in Deir el-Medina the chisels were referred to as mDA.t.103 For this reason, I chose to read the word as mDA.t rather than mnx. This interpretation is also questionable, since it implies that the scribe confused the “fire-drill” (U28) with the “pestle” (U32).104

The following signs, a long horizontal line and a vertical stroke crossed by a small horizonal stroke, have been invariably transcribed by the scholars who studied the papyrus as an “arm” (D36) followed by an “ideogram stroke” (Z1).105 The identification of the vertical stroke as an “ideogram stroke” is not prevented by the presence of a horizontal line going across it.106 The scholars who studied the papyrus translated the word a as “in the hands of/with”, taking it to be a defective writing of the preposition m-a or (Hr)-a(.wy), or the word “item”.107 As the Wörterbuch states, a meaning “item” is used in connection with numerable nouns and it precedes the numbers.108 Hence, in this text the stroke following the “arm” would have to be interpreted as the number one rather than an “ideogram stroke”, resulting in the translation “item, 1”. This translation is per se plausible, but it would leave the following title without a preposition or an article introducing it. For this reason, I chose to interpret the word a as a defective writing of a preposition, namely (Hr)-a(.wy) “in charge of”/“in the hands of”. The absence of the m and the presence of the ideogram stroke make the reading m-a less likely. The first part of the preposition (Hr)-a(.wy) can indeed be left out.109

Little can be said on how the line continued. Most likely, the title was followed by a name. Perhaps another attestation of the scribe of the temple treasury, Hori.

The workforce of Deir el-Medina was equipped daily with state-owned tools for their tomb-construction work. The administration of the “Tomb” was responsible for the manufacturing, delivery, and collection of these tools. Once they were worn out, they were handed over to coppersmiths to be recast into new tools.110 This last activity is described on the verso of Pap. Turin Cat. 1883 + Cat. 2095. Different authorities were present to oversee it: the captains and the rwDw-agents of the Tomb, the treasury scribe of the temple, and the two chief workmen of the left and right sides. The mention of the captains followed by the two chief workmen is peculiar, since the captains consist of the two chiefs themselves and the senior scribe of the Tomb. Furthermore, to whom exactly the title “rwDw-agents of the Tomb” refers is still115 under debate. They could either be the very same people acknowledged as “captains of the Tomb” or “external agents acting as representatives of the vizier”.111 The presence of a scribe of the temple treasury during this kind of activity is also attested elsewhere.112 Among the myriads of scribes named Hori,113 it is difficult to understand which one exactly is mentioned here. The unusual title assigned to him, sS pr-HD n tA Hw.t, makes the identification even more problematic.114 Whether this official was part of the smd.t-personnel of the temple or not is still a debated question.115 On the other hand, the identification of the other two people mentioned is certain. Both chief workmen, that of the “right side”, Nekhemmut (vi), and that of the “left side”, Harmose (ii), are well known.116

As for the amount of deben indicated in the text, do they represent the price or the weight of the spikes? The examination of different written sources relative to metal objects and tools led Janssen to the conclusion that the answer can vary depending on the text, some texts mentioning the price and others the weight. It should also be taken into account that in the case of simple tools such as spikes there may be a small difference between price and weight.117 Due to their rather high weight, Janssen thought that the word xnr could refer to tools such as those that Petrie called “round bar chisels”.118 In 1905, during Museo Egizio excavations at Deir el-Medina, archaeologists found some specimens of these, for instance Turin Suppl. 7514 (Fig. 14) and Turin Suppl. 7517 (Fig. 15), both made out of bronze and weighing respectively 499.3 g and 502 g.119 Their weights fit well with those of the spikes described by Valbelle in her Catalogue des poids, where she pointed out that the average weight of these tools is 500 g, thus allowing one to identify them as “ciseaux au burin”.120 Even though the items mentioned in P. Turin Cat. 1883 are slightly heavier, the interpretation proposed by Haring – i.e. it is the weight that is intended ̶ seems most reasonable due to the context and wording.121 It is clearly stated that 40 spikes will be made out of the 280 deben of copper, 7 deben (about 637 g) of copper each.122

Fig. 14

Turin Suppl. 7514. ©Museo Egizio Torino.

Fig. 15

Turin Suppl. 7517. ©Museo Egizio Torino.

The copper is handed over by the “chief workman of the right side”. His colleague, the “chief workman116 of the left side”, despite being present, is not mentioned as an active part of the exchange. Perhaps the lost part of the document contained the commissioning of the coppersmith for the left side of the gang. Or perhaps, as suggested by Gabler, Nekhemmut was in charge of both sides of the gang. In that case, the number of spikes mentioned is to be referred to the entire gang, resulting in 20 spikes per side. This hypothesis is strengthened as other sources mention the reception of 20 spikes for each side of the workforce.123 A final question needs to be addressed, regarding the place in which the commission took place. Following Gabler, there are two main options, namely the Valley of the Kings or the xtm n pA xr.124 The information preserved in the text does not allow us to narrow down the possibilities to a single option.