Turin king list: Contents

Dating the papyrus

There is no preserved date written on the papyrus roll, neither on the tax-register (recto), nor on the king-list (verso). The recto mentions an “Inspector of the wells of Ramesses Meryamun,” an official during the reign of Ramesses II, indicating that the tax-register was created either during his reign, or possibly shortly afterward, as the office could have persisted for a few years during the remaining Nineteenth Dynasty. It cannot be determined whether the content of the king list was updated to include any of the New Kingdom kings, or simply was a copy of an even older list. The king-list comes to an end in the section that records the kings of the Late Second Intermediate Period (SIP), the last fully preserved name is Sekhemra Shedwaset, “the Might of Ra which rescues Thebes,” an otherwise unattested Theban king, ruling late in the SIP.

Orthographically, the hieratic text also suggests a Nineteenth Dynasty origin, but until carbon dating of the papyrus is performed, we can only estimate a date of creation to sometime during the reign of Ramesses II (c. 1279—1213 BC), making the papyrus more than 3200 years old.

Following the death of Queen Neferusobek (died 1802 BC), the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty, the chronology for the next several centuries is sparse, chaotic and confusing, which is why the period is dubbed the SIP. The lack of contemporary records make any specific theory as to the cause highly speculative, but the number of competing dynasties support a weakening of the central government. The records from Manetho show that his records too were a corrupted mess.

This is a clear indication that not even the Egyptians themselves had a clear picture of the events that took place during these troubled times. The records that survived were not always complete, nor fully preserved, making it all but impossible to get a clear picture, which is understandable as the timespan is not mere decades but centuries. Furthermore, Manetho is also susceptible to translation and transcription errors by the non-native epitomists, that could not be expected to correctly interpret the strange and foreign names. The Turin king list preserve a total of 138 kings2 after the Twelfth Dynasty, but we are left in the dark as to where it ended.

The hieratic

The paleography indicates that the signs are similar to those found in other documents from the late Nineteenth or early Twentieth Dynasties, and it is evident that the papyrus was not produced by a single hand, but rather by a number of copyists. An indispensable source for transcribing hieratic is the Hieratiche Paläographie,12 especially volume 2 which concentrates on the hieratic of the New Kingdom. The transcription of the hieratic script is obviously best left to experienced palaeologists who can distinguish and interpret the smallest traces and nuances in the script. Gardiner’s transcription is, as expected, correct, with emendations and clarifications by Ryholt.13 The orthography of the names is mostly correct, but a few names were damaged or erroneously copied. The transcription made by Gardiner is as expected, very good, only a few very minor corrections have been suggested by later studies.

The hieratic text consists of 24–31 horizontal lines written in eleven columns, from right to left. The columns are 8–17 cm wide; with a line spacing of about 5 mm, but in columns 2 and 11, it is almost zero.14 The first 2½ columns list gods, demigods, and spirits; the remaining 8½, the historical kings.

Roman numerals have been used ever since the facsimiles by Lepsius, but to avoid confusion with the new reconstructions, plain numbers are used. To distinguish text in the papyrus, each column and row of the papyrus is numbered and put in parenthesis, except when used in a table. For example, (4.7) refers to column 4, row 7, which was written as IV 7 in older works.

The historical kings begin with Meni (3.10) and occupy the rest of the papyrus. The number of lines increases as the papyrus nears the end, as the scribe needed to compact the writing to be able to fit all the remaining kings onto the papyrus. The list of kings ends in column 11 with partial names of unidentifiable late Second Intermediate Period kings.

It can be safely assumed that the king list was preceded with some sort of introduction describing the nature of its content, probably including the date and name of the scribe, but unfortunately, the first column is almost entirely lost. The structural similarity (gods ⇒ spirits ⇒ mortal kings) with the king lists of Manetho was noted already by Champollion and attempts to reconcile the two has been attempted ever since.

Headings and summations

There are six headings and ten summations in the king list, which divide it into five sections. The first four summations suggest that different sources were used to gather the data, rather than any historical division by the Egyptians themselves. To them the line of kings was uninterrupted. However, the dynastic divisions were likely invented during the Ptolemaic Dynasty a millennia later, as Manetho divided the periods covered in the papyrus into nineteen dynasties. Furthermore, the two Intermediate Periods are modern definitions of the breakdown of the Old and the Middle Kingdoms.

The dynasties of Egypt as we know them were clearly not defined by the time of the New Kingdom, it seems to be a later invention during the Ptolemaic Period. The headings and summations divide the papyrus into sections similar to the dynasties of Manetho, however, there are only eleven clear divisions, or dynasties, not nineteen as would be expected. By the time of Manetho, the list of kings had evolved and been divided into better defined periods.

Most numbers found in the king list, follow after the name of a specific king, detailing the length of his reign. Numbers are also found in summations, but not in headings. The numbers in summations specify the number of kings, the length that particular group of kings reigned, and totals calculated where multiple groupings are summed up. The reliability of the totals in the summations is impossible to assess, as no section of the papyrus preserves all the individual reign-lengths.

The papyrus is arranged into two parts: mythological and historical kings. The mythological part can further be divided into three sections: gods, demigods, and spirits, as per Manetho. The historical part is a sequence of kings that are arranged chronologically, with headings and summations at irregular intervals. The headings provide the name of the founder, after which each king is listed, followed by a summation that calculates the number of kings and the duration of their reigns.

The headings and summations divide the papyrus into sections similar to the dynasties of Manetho, however, there are only eleven clear divisions or dynasties, not nineteen as would be expected.

The historical king list can be divided into six sections, each starting with a heading, naming the founder and from where the kings ruled. Following this is a sequential list of kings and their reign length, one per line, and lastly, a summation of the section, where the duration and the number of kings are calculated. There are only six headings, but ten summations, some of which obviously have no corresponding heading, effectively yielding ten distinct periods (see Table 5.)

It is tempting to equate those ten periods with the dynasties of Manetho, and while there are general similarities, dynasties 1–10 appears as one heading and four summations in the papyrus. However, better-defined dynasties had likely appeared in the tradition by the time of Manetho, a millennium later.

Details about the kings

Only a few fragments remain of the mythological section of the papyrus, presumably detailing gods, demigods, and spirits. The mythological kings mentioned by Manetho25 were likely present at the beginning of the papyrus, as the names of Gods are found in the first column, probably describing the Great Ennead. Most of this section is sadly almost entirely lost.

The historical kings begin with Meni of the First Dynasty, and continue to the end of the Second Intermediate Period, where the papyrus is in tatters, and only a few small fragments survive. While there are no information about the gender in the king list, Manetho explicitly refers to several female rulers, meaning there must have existed some sort of traditional lists where the gender was included. Only one female ruler has been identified in the king list, Sobekneferu (7.2), but with no indication of gender.

On each line, the title nsw-bit (the Dual King, or The King of Upper and Lower Egypt) precedes the king’s prenomen enclosed in a cartouche, followed by the divine determinative,26 indicating their divinity. It remains unknown why the recorded names in the New Kingdom king lists are not always the expected prenomen. The early dynasties use of the nebty name is understandable, as the kings of that period did not use prenomina, as is the scribe adding the nomen into the cartouche of kings with the same prenomen, presumably to distinguish them from each other. This inconsistency is also present in Manetho, where most recorded names use the Greek form of the prenomen, but a few use the nomen instead. There is evidence of hypercorrection of the royal names over time, that is, by adding the ubiquitous divine -ra to their name. The variations of the recorded names in the king list can be found in Table 7.

The recording of the names of the kings is inconsistent throughout the papyrus, likely due to gathering information from multiple sources (see 0). There is no mention of concurrent dynasties, coregency, ethnicity, gender, reputation, or any other secondary criterion. The only exceptions are two kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty that include the names of their fathers.27

The G7-sign “Horus/falcon on a standard”, is a determinative/logogram for ’king’ or ’god,’ and often placed within the cartouche to emphasize a royal name, but also immediately adjacent behind the cartouche.

Table 7: Variations of the kings name

	Prenomen in a cartouche Passim
	Nomen in a cartouche 5.10, 5.21, 7.2, 7.7, 7.9, 7.15-16, 9.1, 9.10, 9.13-15, 11.5-6
	Prenomen and nomen in the same cartouche 7.19, 7.20, 7.23-25, 7.28, 8.2, 8.5-6
	Prenomen and nomen in their own cartouches 5.23, 8.7-8
	Prenomen in a cartouche, nomen no cartouche 5.7-8, 7.21-22, 8.22-23, 9.25?, 9.26-28

The king’s name was followed by a formula indicating the reign length.

ir.n=i m nsw.yt
“he acted in kingship”

This formula followed immediately after a kings name, followed by the length of reign, near the end of each row, like a spreadsheet. These numbers were arranged in columns, leaving empty space between the king’s name and the reign. Despite the lack of ditto-marks, this is a clear indication that the formula was implied, but not written.

Number of kings

Determining the number of kings found on the papyrus, we first find the total number of lines in columns 3–11, which is 250 (see Table 8.) Discarding the ten rows of the spirits in 3.1–9, and the empty 3.14, 240 lines remain. The headings and summations of the dynasties account for another 18 lines, subtracting these, the total number of remaining lines, or kings, is 223. The names of 97 kings are lost or consist only of a single sign or traces, leaving 73 partial names, and only 53 complete names.

There are 76 kings listed before the eight of the Twelfth Dynasty, followed by 139 of the Second Intermediate Period, totalling 223 kings, not accounting for names that were lost in lacuna notations.

Accounting for the 61 rows that does not concern the dynastic kings, we have the rows of column 1 (25) and 2 (26), plus the first nine of column 3. The blank 3.14 that is a long row from column 2 still needs to be counted here, bringing the number of excluded rows to 61. Adding the 241 rows of table 8 above, we arrive at 302—the total number of rows.

Length of reign and age at death

The length of reign is recorded in two ways: years, months, and days, or round years alone. The variation is due to the sources used to collect the information. In the modern studies, the cursive hieratic has been read as these variants: , probably due to the cursive nature of hieratic, or a careless scribe.
To be consistent, the ligature is presumed to be  rnpt-ḥsb (regnal years).28 The older interpretations ḥꜢt-sp and rnpt-sp are no longer regarded as correct, but the matter is not entirely settled.

The ages of the early kings (3.11–4.5) are recorded after their reign lengths, by the formula:

This formula was likely derived from Source A, detailing kings of the first two dynasties only. There are no indications that the other sources held this information. However, the ages should be viewed with due scepticism, as they seem uncommonly high for the times.

Reign lengths and totals

As can be expected, it is impossible to assess the credibility of the reigns attributed in the papyrus. The quality of the sources used to compile the reigns are unknown, and as a result, the reliability of the numbers is impossible to quantify. The uncertainty of the reign-lengths of even well-attested kings makes assessing the numbers an impossible task. A mathematical error produced at any time during the multiple sources, and their copies, could have remained undetected, and impossible to correct.

Most figures found in the king list, follow after the name of a specific king, detailing the length of his reign. Numbers are also found in summations, but not in headings. The numbers in summations specify the number of kings, the length that particular group of kings reigned, and totals calculated where multiple groupings are summed up. The reliability of the totals in the summations is impossible to assess, as no section of the papyrus preserves all the individual reign-lengths. The total for the individual reign-lengths is calculated in Table 10 below.

Long lines

Several times the scribe miscalculated the length of entries so that they encroached the next column he would write. This forced the starting point of the particular line to move to the left compared to the rest of the column. To separate the entries, he drew lines around the text that infringed upon the new column, and then continued the writing of the new column. This is evident in at least four places (2.16/3.14, 5.16/6.15, 7.3/8.4, and 8.3/9.4,) and possibly also on framents 4 and 147.29

Damage and human error

The inconsistent details provided about the individual kings are more apparent in the older parts of the document. This is hardly surprising since the ancient sources used must have survived conflicts, fire, flooding, and other hardships for up to a thousand years. The accuracy of records from such a remote time would naturally be circumspect, and not entirely reliable. Over the millennia, sporadic copying errors would undoubtedly have occurred, which would have permutated the original texts, causing some kings and information about their reigns to be lost. Each subsequent copy also compounded the errors, and ultimately resulted in a somewhat inaccurate duplicate of a duplicate etc.

The age of Kakau (3.21) was left blank, perhaps by simple omission. The cartouche open is missing from the records of Sneferka (3.25), Nebka (4.4), and Snoferu (4.9). The summation of Dynasty XVI (11.15) preserve the number of kings as 5, while there are 15 entries (10.31 to 11.14), probably due to a scribal error.

Corrupted names

The kings of the Archaic Period did not use a nomen or prenomen, which caused problems in later periods. The solution was to assign new names to these ancient kings. The other New Kingdom king lists contain the same names, suggesting canonization at an earlier date, however, none of these names is orthographically correct according to contemporary attestations. The changes range from slight to unrecognizable. Toward the end of the Archaic Period kings, a lacuna is preserved in the name Hudjefa.32 The scarce remains of the papyrus make in unclear to what extent corrupted names occurred, especially in the older parts.

Some signs were simply misread or erroneously copied by the scribe, resulting in a slightly corrupted name, as can be seen in several places. For example, an O29-sign was incorrectly copied as a V30-sign in (9.27), resulting in the name Nebnati, which is a mistake for Anati. It is unsurprising and quite expected that there would be several errors in such a long text. The scribe was rather careless at times; several names have the sun-disc added after the cartouche open. This was likely done automatically as he wrote the nsw-bit title, and failed to notice his error.33

There is evidence to suggest that kings were interchanged on at least one and possibly two occasions. The highest attested year of Pepi I (mry-rꜤ) is 25, and the highest year of Nemtyemsaf I (mr.n-rꜤ) is 5. The names in (5.3) and (5.4) are lost, but the years are recorded as 20 and 44 respectively, suggesting that the rows were interchanged. Both names use the signs mr and rꜤ, and the kings were probably simply interchanged by the scribe.

Sobkhotep I (7.19) and Wegaf (7.5) would have been recorded more or less across from each other in adjacent columns in Vorlage E. Their names share the elements ḥw, tꜢwy and rꜤ, suggesting that the similar names may have been interchanged by the scribe.

There is no evidence suggesting that any kings were deliberately omitted from the king list. Prehistoric kings might have been included among the "spirits" preceding the historical kings, but since no names are preserved, it will remain unknown. Though there are no imaginary kings, Mentuhotep I (6.12) did not adopt royal titles during his lifetime, these were awarded posthumously by his successors. Part of his (severely damaged) name is preserved in the Karnak Canon (12), alongside the Horus name tpy-Ꜥ.34 Neferkasokar (4.1) is unlikely to be historical, as there are no contemporary attestations of his name. Whether the name is fictious, or a false etymology of an unidentifiable name remain unknown.35

As can be expected, it is impossible to assess the credibility of the reigns attributed in the papyrus. The quality of the sources used to compile the reigns are unknown, and as a result, the reliability of the numbers is impossible to quantify. The uncertainty of the reign-lengths of even well-attested kings makes assessing the numbers an impossible task. A mathematical error produced at any time during the multiple sources, and their copies, could have remained undetected, and impossible to correct.

A twelfth column?

Ryholt suggested that a twelfth column was removed in ancient times; presumably to reuse the blank recto side.36 This is further corroborated by the fact that sheet 1 is less than half the width of the other papyrus sheets. However, as discussed earlier above, the outer sheet of the papyrus roll was likely trimmed before being reused for the king list. It is uncertain whether the king list was a direct copy of the information on an older papyrus that needed to be preserved or an updated version that included later kings not present in the original.

The cut-off part, as per Ryholt, would presumably have held the names of the kings of the Seventeenth through Nineteenth dynasties. The exact number is uncertain, probably about 25 (see Table 15, it is obviously unknown how many would have been present in a twelfth column.). Some kings of the proposed Abydos Dynasty might also have been present, depending on the number of NK kings, and how elaborate the headings and summations were. Adding these kings, or perhaps only some of them, the complete papyrus would have included some 330 rows with close to 250 kings.

The estimated number of rulers between the late Second Intermediate Period, from the Seventeenth through the New Kingdom is somewhat uncertain, as we do not know the exact number of rulers. The number of kings depends on the Egyptologist consulted, ranging from 8 to 15 for the Seventeenth Dynasty alone. Furthermore, the exact succession of the Late Amarna Period is still unclear, the exact number of rulers and their positions remain uncertain.

Current state of the papyrus

Apart from the piece cut off in antiquity, the papyrus was presumably intact upon its discovery and only subsequently fell to pieces owing to the rough handling. It now consists of more than 300 fragments. Seyffarth pasted the fragments onto papier végétal in 1826, but this was removed and remounted/reconstructed in 1930 by Hugo Ibscher and Farina also handled the fragments in the subsequent years.37 However, the papyrus suffered evident damage during this process, as can be seen when comparing it to the facsimiles of Lepsius and Wilkinson; the photographs shows that numerous fragments were damaged along the edges and that many signs along the edges were lost in the process. This makes the facsimiles that more important as they preserve signs that are lost today.

There are still a number of important fragments whose exact position has not been established, and numerous smaller fragments, mostly very small, have never been published at all. Among the unpublished fragments are parts of royal names of both historical rulers and gods, figures relating to reigns of kings, and parts of headings and summations.38

In September 2019, the Museo Egizio made high-quality photographs of the papyrus available online.39 Unfortunately, the photos only show the fragments as arranged by Farina (in three panels), and does not include Gardiner's unplaced fragments, nor any of the unpublished ones. Hopefully, these will be added at a later date. Still, these photos (including the recto!) are an incredible improvement over the previous photos published by Farina some 80 years ago.

In 2022, one of the foremost experts in papyrus restoration in the world, Myriam Krutzsch from the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, worked on the King List for ten weeks in Turin, where she removed all traces of the previous glue and fabrics used to join the fragile parts together by Seyffarth in 1826, and by Ibscher and Farina in the 1930s. The cleaning process showed that many of the numbered fragments were themselves made up of even smaller fragments, revealing just how impressive and good Seyffarth's reconstruction of the fragments was.