Turin king list: Fragments

Gustav Seyffarth’s hand drawn copies, tracings, squeezes and rubbings of hieroglyphics and sketches can be found in volume VII of the unpublished Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca Manuscripta, held by the Brooklyn Museum. This volume contain some 1500+ pages from his time in Turin (Volume VII, MSS 6283-7828). Gardiner enumerated the relevant pages, but since this volume is not published, it is here purely for the sake of completness:

S11 – No. 6804-6830
S12 – No. 6831-6856
S13 – No. 6857-6935
S2 – Pasting of the 164 fragments by Seyffarth, as seen by Lepsius and Wilkinson.
S3 – No. 6413.

The numbering scheme of the 164 numbered fragments of the Turin King List derives from Carl Richard Lepsius’ Auswahl in 1842. Giulio Farina added a few fragments in his 1938 edition when remounting the papyrus, as noted by Gardiner in The Royal Canon of Turin from 1959. Gardiner examined the papyrus in great detail, complete with a concordance of the fragments, but the details lacked in depth. As of 2022, a new editon of the king list is in the works, the first preliminary results indicate the addition of a few new fragments, as well as new positions found for some of the original fragments. It should be noted that while Lepsius’ preserve the original papyrus, there are several minor discrepancies. Some hieratic signs are actually missing in the photos, especially at the edges of the fragments. There are also a few minor discrepancies between the editions of Lepsius and Wilkinson.

Fragment 1
Gardiner: II
Champollion: Nn
Column 3.1-13
Farina removed the small top part of fr. 1 from where Seyffarth had originally placed it. There is not enough space at the top for another row, so the small fragment was correctly removed, and no new position have been found.
Fragment 2
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 3.8
Gardiner note that it certainly belong to the papyrus, but left it unplaced. Helck (Helck 1992, 160f) proposed that fr. 2 belongs after a small gap in 3.2; the top of fr. 1 connects to the end of 3.3. The blank recto fits with this arrangement.
2023: A new position of fr. 2 has been found, which is confirmed by the writing on the recto and verso, plus the fibres match perfectly. The new position is at the end of 3.8, adding the text: 7 ꜤḥꜤw, emending the text to: 13427 years, their lifetime...
Fragment 3
Gardiner: II 2
Column 3.6-7
Farina moved this fragment up to 3.2 from the original position of Seyffarth 3.6. The writing and fibres of the small fragment Farina added to the left side of fragment 3 is a perfect match. Despite Gardiner noting that Seyffarth’s placement was incorrect, Farina’s position is untenable, and Seyffarth’s position is corroborated by a clear fibre correspondence as well as the text on both sides of the fragment.
Fragment 4
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 3.9-10
Gardiner recognised that this fragment contains a heading or summary, but couldn't find a place for it. Seyffarth's placement has once again shown to be excellent.
2023: A possible new position of fr. 4 has been found by shifting Seyffarths placement at 3.10-11 up one row to 3.9-10, which seems to be confirmed by the writing and matching fibres. The red signs are clearly a heading or summation, and the bracket surrounding the row below shows that the end of the previous column is encroaching on the column.
Fragment 5
Gardiner: Doubtful and useless
One row with unreadable traces.
Fragment 6
Gardiner: Doubtful and useless
One row with unreadable traces.
Fragment 7
Gardiner: I
Gardiner noted that the position is doubtful, but it most likely belong somewhere in columns 1–3. Seyffarth’s placement at the top and left of fr. 1 was not mentioned by Gardiner. Farina moved the fragment to column 1 above and to the right of fr. 11.
Fragment 8
Gardiner: I
Blank, with writing on the recto that aligns perfectly with fr. 10, as do the fibres.
Fragment 9
Gardiner: I
Column 1
The fibres confirms the position of fr. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 51. However, the fibre correspondence between fr. 9 and fr. 51 is somewhat uncertain, and the colour of fr. 9 is slightly darker than its neighbours, indicating a possible mismatch.
Fragment 10
Gardiner: I
Blank, with writing on the recto that aligns perfectly with fr. 10 and 8, as do the fibres.
Fragment 11
Gardiner: I
Column 1
Lepsius depicts this as a single continuous papyrus piece, as do the photo of Faraina, aand Gardiner’s facsimile. However, from the modern photos it is clear that handling has frayed some of the edges of the fragment, effectively dividing it into multiple smaller parts.
Fragment 12
Gardiner: I
Column 1
This fragment is in fact two fragments, one tall and thin, one more square. There is a horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence of the thin fragment with fr. 11. Farina noticed that Seyffarth had incorrectly placed the square part to the left of the first row of the thin fragment, clear from there being no fibre match, while there is a horizontal match with fr. 51 to the right, and possibly a vertical match with fr. 11.
Fragment 13
Gardiner: Unplaced
One row, likely part of a large number, evident from the sublinear line
Fragment 14
Gardiner: Unplaced
Three rows, one likely part of a long row with a large year number and ending with the month ligature Ꜣbdw.
Fragment 15
Gardiner: Unplaced
Two rows, one likely part of a long row with a large number.
Fragment 16
Gardiner: Unplaced
Two illegible rows with large space between row, indicating a possible empty row between them.
Fragment 17
Gardiner: III
Column 4.8
Moved from Seyffarth’s placement to the right of fr. 18 to the bottom right side of fr. 18.
Fragment 18
Gardiner: III
Champollion: Ff, Gg, L
Column 4.1-14
The leftmost part of this fragment was designated 18a by Gardiner, supposedly it had broken off since the remounting by Farina.
Fragment 19
Gardiner: II
Column 3.24-25
This fragment was originally placed between fr. 18 and 20 by Seyffarth, but Wilkinson correctly placed it below fr. 20, a placement matched by fibres, to which Farina eventually moved it.
Fragment 20
Gardiner: II
Champollion: Dd, F (part)
Column 3.15-22
Champollion fr. Dd joins below the two rows of fr. F.
Fragment 21
Fragment 22
Gardiner: X
Champollion: U
Column 2
Fiber correspondence ensures the horizontal alignment of fr. 22 with fr. X/24-26. The two fragments can be vertically aligned with fr. 11 in col. 1.
Fragment 23
Gardiner: II
Column 3
A join is clearly visible in the middle of the fragment and the placement above fr. 30 is secure. Even though Gardiner considered it as blank, Lepsius’ facsimile shows traces of a single sign.
Fragment 24
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 25
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 26
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 27
Doubtful; only two rows with the year sign (rnpt)
Fragment 28
Doubtful and useless
Fragment 29
Gardiner note that the recto has a heading in red and that it probably belongs, but left it unplaced.
Fragment 30
Gardiner: II
Column 3.16-23
The left side of the fragment has an obvious join between two papyri sheets.
Fragment 31
Gardiner: III
Champollion: L
Column 4.8-9
Fragment 32
Gardiner: III
Column 4.5-14
Fragment 33
Gardiner: III
Column 4.12-14
Fragment 34
Gardiner: III
Champollion: Qq, Ll, Aa, Hh
Column 4.1-14
Seyffarth was able to produce fr. 34 from four fragments that Champollion discovered by establishing fibre matches to three fragments that the Frenchman had not found.
Fragment 35
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 36
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 5.25-26
This is the sole fragment where Seyffarth mixed up the recto and verso. Despite Wilkinson and Gardiner’s claims, there is a perfect fibre match to fr. 48 in col. 5 as suggested by von Beckerath in 1966.
Fragment 37
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 38
Gardiner did not place the fragment, but his concordance puts it in column III and notes only that the verso is blank. Fibre correspondence and writing on the recto indicate that it belongs to the left of fr. 34 and above fr. 46.
Fragment 39
Gardiner: Does not belong.
Fragment 40
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 10
Placed left of fr. 108 as suggested by Malek in 1982, but one row further down according to the fibre correspondence.
Outdated: Ryholt's suggestion to place fr. 40 to the left of fr. 43 is impossible since the writing on the recto does not align, nor does the fibres match. Furthermore, the suggested solution by Malek to place it to the left of fr. 108 seem possible because there seems to be a fibre correspondence, although most of the fragment does seem to consist of a patch.
Fragment 41
Gardiner: IX
Column 2.1-6
The fragment is written entirely on a patch. Seyffarth placed the fragment at the top of column V, which Farina moved to the middle of column IX. Gardiner indicated that Farina's position cannot be correct. Ryholt suggested that there must have been another column with mythological information, making Gardiner’s column II the third column. This column begins with fr. 41 at the top.
Fragment 42
Gardiner: IX
Column 2.5-6
The location of the patch on fr. 41 + 42 can be estimated to be 17 cm to the right of the patch on fr. 1.
Fragment 43
Gardiner: IV
Column 5.7-10
This fragment has been moved up one row compared to Gardiner, who in turn moved it up two rows compared to Farina, who moved it one row up from Seyffarth, which is corroborated by the fibres.
Fragment 44
Gardiner: IV
Column 5.14-17
There is a clear fibre correspondence with fragments 61 and 63 to the left.
Fragment 45
Fragment 46
Fragment 47
Fragment 48
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 5.22-26
Despite the fact that Seyffarth correctly put this fragment to the left of fr. 47, Farina erroneously eliminated it even though there is a clear fibre correspondence.
Fragment 49
Fragment 50
Gardiner: Unplaced
Column 5 top?
Gardiner note that it is written on a patch, probably from the top of a column, but left it unplaced. Possibly to be placed to the left of fr. 18 where a patch is missing.
Fragment 51
Gardiner: I
Column 1
The fibres confirms the position of fr. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 51. The fibre correspondence between Fr. 51 and fr. 9 is somewhat uncertain.
Fragment 52
Only traces on verso
Fragment 53
No writing
Fragment 54
No writing
Fragment 55
No writing
Fragment 56
Verso only a number
Fragment 57
Verso only a number
Fragment 58
No writing
Fragment 59
Gardiner: IV-V
Champollion: Tt
Column 6
stopped here
Fragment 60
Only a part of the bee and the start of a cartouche. Not commented on otherwise by Gardiner.
Fragment 61
Fragment 62
Fragment 63
Fragment 64
Fragment 65
Fragment 66
Left in place by Gardiner, but he notes that it does not belong where Farina placed it. (Gardiner 1959: 17, X 21)
Fragment 67
Fragment 68
Fragment 69
Fragment 70
Fragment 71
Fragment 72
Fragment 73
Fragment 74
Fragment 75
Fragment 76
Fragment 77
Fragment 78
Fragment 79
This fragment was published in Lepsius where it bridged fr. 78 and 79, but was removed by Farina, as the writing on the recto of the fragment made the placement impossible. Ryholt suggested that the removed fragment could be placed in col. 9 or 10, but the position is uncertain with no mention of a fibre match with any of the surrounding fragments. (Ryholt 1997: 26)
Fragment 80
Fragment 81
Fragment 82
Fragment 83
Fragment 84
Gardiner: V
Column 6.16
Horizontal fibre correspondence and sign matching with fr. 85 to the left.
Fragment 85
Gardiner: V
Column 6.14-17
Horizontal fibre correspondence and sign matching with fr. 84 to the right and vertical correspondence with fr. 64 below.
Fragment 86
Fragment 87
Fragment 88
The vertical position in col. 7 is assured due to matching fibres, however, the position is uncertain, as there is no immediate horizontal match. The placement is of little importance as the fragment only contain the royal titles. (Ryholt 1997: 23)
Fragment 89
Fragment 90
Unplaced. According to Wilkinson, fr. 90 can be aligned vertically with fr. 87 and 94.
Fragment 91
Does not belong.
Fragment 92
Fragment 93
Fragment 94
Fragment 95
Fragment 96
Fragment 97
Fragment 98
Fragment 99
Fragment 100
Fragment 101
Fragment 102
Fragment 103
Fragment 104
Fragment 105
Fragment 106
Does not belong.
Fragment 107
Two rows of the year ligature (rnpt).
Fragment 108
Fragment 109
Two rows of the year ligature (rnpt).
Fragment 110
Partial number
Fragment 111
Three rows with the year ligature (rnpt).
Fragment 112
Fragment 113
The year ligature only.
Fragment 114
Traces of numbers
Fragment 115
Does not belong.
Fragment 116
Does not belong.
Fragment 117
Does not belong.
Fragment 118
Does not belong.
Fragment 119
Does not belong.
Fragment 120
Doubtful and useless
Fragment 121
Useless traces only
Fragment 122
Placed in column 10 by Gardiner, it was left unplaced by Ryholt. The placement is of little importance as the fragment only contain the royal titles. (Ryholt 1997: 25)
Fragment 123
The small fragment at the top of fr. 123 was not present in Lepsius. It was added by Farina, and is also present in Gardiner. Ryholt joins fr. 123 with fr. 101 of col. 9, discarding the addition by Farina without comment. Fibre correspondence is unknown, it is unplaced. (cf. also Ryholt 1997: 25)
Fragment 124
Does not belong.
Fragment 125
After Ibscher and Farina changed the positions of fr. 125 and 127, a small part on the left side of fr. 125 remain. It is only a single vertical stroke, but its fate has not been mentioned since.
Fragment 126
Fragment 127
Fragment 128
Fragment 129
Fragment 130
Fragment 131
Fragment 132
Does not belong.
Fragment 133
Fragment 134
Fragment 135
Fragment 136
Two partial nsw-bit.
Fragment 137
Does not belong.
Fragment 138
Does not belong.
Fragment 139
Tiny trace only
Fragment 140
Doubtful and useless
Fragment 141
Contain the end of the title, and the opening cartouche and the initial signs of the name Ra...
Fragment 142
Fragment 143
Months and days belonging to some unknown reign.
Fragment 144
Fragment 145
Two partial nsw-bit.
Fragment 146
Doubtful and useless.
Fragment 147
The fragment cannot join with fr. 150 as placed by Farina. (Gardiner 1959: 17, IX 29)
Fragment 148
Does not belong.
Fragment 149
Fragment 150
Fragment 151
Fragment 152
Fragment 153
Does not belong.
Fragment 154
Does not belong.
Fragment 155
Two rows of the year sign (rnpt).
Fragment 156
Numbers, might belong.
Fragment 157
Does not belong.
Fragment 158
Useless, very small
Fragment 159
Does not belong.
Fragment 160
Does not belong.
Fragment 161
Does not belong.
Fragment 162
Does not belong.
Fragment 163
Fragment 164

Special considerations

fr. 59 Seyffarth had joined a fragment with a large top margin at the top right side of fr. 59 but it was moved to the left of fr. 59 by Farina, despite there being a clear horizontal fibre match. Gardiner left the fragment where Farina placed it, but remarked that the position was doubtful.

fr. 71 This fragment has no fibre correspondence with the surrounding fragments and Ryholt suggests it may be disregarded, while still placing it in col. 7 on his fig. 10. The placement is clearly to be regarded as uncertain. (Ryholt 1997: 22)

Fragments added by Farina

The following fragments were added at the Ibscher/Farina remounting in the 1930’s. These fragments are not present in the editions of Lepsius or Wilkinson. Gardiner marked these fragments with question marks, which is imprecise, so they are designated according to the positions he established. The numbering of the fragments is continued from the last fragment (164) of Lepsius. The numbering is not official and only to help with referencing the fragments.

Fragment 165
Farina: V/7
6.7 – Small fragment, vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 61.
Fragment 166
Farina: V/8
6.8 – Small fragment, vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 61.
Fragment 167
Farina: V/17-18
6.17-18 – Correctly placed, verifiable by both fibres and writing.
Fragment 168
Farina: VI/13
7.13 – This small fragment was correctly placed, evident by fibre correspondence.
Fragment 169
Farina: VI/16
7.16 – A tiny fragment joined to the right side of fr. 77. The horizontal fibre correspondence is questionable.
Fragment 170
Farina: VII/12
8.21 – Small fragment joined to the top of fr. 94 by Ibscher/Farina. It clearly belong, evident by the perfect matching fibres and writing.
Fragment 171
Farina: VII/20
8.15 – The position indicated by Ryholt left of fr. 93 does not seem to offer up the claimed vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 81 since the bottom edge of fr. 81 ends in a patch. A visual inspection of fibres on the Museum photos seems to agree with Farina (placed VII/20 above to the left of fr. 87). There is a horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 87, as per Farina.
Fragment 172
Farina: X/13
10.21 – Part of a summation, presumably the Fourteenth Dynasty.
Fragment 173
Farina: X/14-15
Unplaced – Judging from Farina’s placement, there can be no fibre correspondence to X/16-17, as the two fragments are placed in diagonal positions to each other.
Fragment 174
Farina: X/16-17
10.26-27 – Records the incomplete reigns of two kings.
Fragment 175
Farina: X/20-21
10.28-29 – The vertical position of fr. X/20-21 in col. 10 is verified by a horizontal fibre correspondence with fr. 123, but there is no conclusive vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 112.
Fragment 176
Farina: X/24-26
2.21-23 – The horizontal alignment of fr. 22 with fr. [Gardiner X/24-26] is assured through fibre correspondence. The two fragments can be aligned vertically with fr. 11 in col. I.

The 2022 reconstruction

The extensive research of Egyptologist Kim Ryholt, has created a new reconstruction of the document while collaborating closely with Egyptologist Rob Demarée, served as the foundation for the restoration. 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.

After this difficult cleaning process, the fragments fibres of the papyrus was meticulously examined before consolidating them. 10 new fragments were added to the manuscript's structure, and Kim Ryholt has placed several others in light of his recent research. The numbering of the fragments is continued from the last fragment of Farina (176). The numbering is not official and only to help with referencing the fragments.

Fragment 177
2.16(?) Halfway below fr. 22 and halfway above fr 150.
Fragment 178
3.19a To the left of fr. 20 at the end of row 3.19.
Fragment 179
3.19b To the left of fr. 2022/2 at the end of row 3.19.
Fragment 180
4.5 Joins to the left of fr. 32.
Fragment 181
4.8-9 Joins in space between fr. 31 and fr. 32.
Fragment 182
5.14 Joins to right side of fr. 61 at the end of row 5.14.
Fragment 183
6.15 joins to left side of fr. 85. Tiny and blank.
Fragment 184
6.20 Left of fr. 64.
Fragment 185
7.8 joins left side of fr. 72.
Fragment 186
9.22-24 to the left of fr. 103/104 and below fr. 69. Contains figures.

The columns and their fragments

The fragments ordered by their placement in each of the eleven columns.

  • Column 1       1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 51
  • Column 2       89, 41, 42, 150, 151, 152, 22, X/24-26
  • Column 3       3, 1, 20, 21, 19, (23), 30
  • Column 4       18, 136, 31, 32, 17, 33, 34, 38, 45
  • Column 5       59, 133, 135, 43, (40), 61, 63, 44, 46, 47, 48, 36
  • Column 6       59, V/7, V/8, 61, 62, 84, 85, 63, V/17-18 64, 67
  • Column 7       72, VI/13, 81, 73, 74, 75, 77, 70, 76, 78, 71, 79, 80
  • Column 8       81, 97, 86, 83, 87, (90), 88, (82), 93, VII/12, 94, 95, VII/20, 134
  • Column 9       97, (108), 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 69, 103, 104, 123
  • Column 10     105, 108, 112, X/13, X/16-17, X/20-21
  • Column 11     125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 142, 163, 164
The layout of the columns is rather well documented, but the exact step-by-step reasoning for placing the fragments has not been discussed at any length.

The papyri sheets

The fragments order on each of the seven papyri sheets. The sheets are numbered from the right to the left of the recto (the original papyrus roll), meaning the numbering of the canon (also from the right to the left) on the verso goes from 7 to 1.

  • Sheet 7   8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 51, 89, 41, 42, 150, 151, 152, 22, X/24-26
  • Sheet 6   (?), 3, 1, 20, 21, 19, (23), 30
  • Sheet 5   (23), 30, 18, 136, 31, 32, 17, 33, 34, 38, 45, 133, 135, 43
  • Sheet 4   59, 133, 135, 43, (40), 61, 63, 44, 46, 47, 48, 36, 59, 61, 62, 84, 85, 63, 64, 67
  • Sheet 3   72, 81, 73, 74, 75, 77, 70, 76, 78, 71, 79, 80, 97, 98, 80, 86, 83, 87, (90), 88, (82), 93, 94, 95, ?, 134
  • Sheet 2   97, (108), 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 69, 103, 104, 123, 105, 108, 112, X/13, X/16-17, X/20-21
  • Sheet 1   125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 142, 163, 164

The Champollion fragments

Champollion copied the fragments he discovered in 1824 into a notebook. However, several of these fragments were not part of Seyffarth’s reconstruction in 1826, and their current whereabouts is unclear. The fragments were published by Champollion’s brother in 1851, where he also commented on the missing fragments. (... there are also eight fragments missing in the lithographs of Lepsius. These fragments, still unpublished, give us four names of kings in sets of two).

These ‘lost’ fragments were marked K, Q, R, Dd, Ii, Mm, Rr and Ss by Champollion. Contrary to the claim of Champollion’s brother, most of the lost fragments only show parts of nsw-bit and at most the cartouche open with the almost ubiquitous rꜤ-sign. Champollion did not preserve the outlines for fragments A to G.

Table 3: The fragments of Champollion
Ch. Fragment Ch. Fragment Ch. Fragment
A 81 (8.1-8.5) Q Gg 18 (4.4-4.6)
B 97 (9.1-9.6) Qbis 93 (8.24-8.27) Hh 34 (4.23-4.26)
C 72 (7.7-7.11) R Ii 98 (9.11-9.13)
D 72 (7.1-7.2) S 126 (11.5-11.8) Jj 98 (9.7-9.11)
E 101 (9.23-9.27) T 98 (9.12-9.14) Kk 61 (5.14, 6.13-14)
F 20 (3.16-3.17) U 22 (2.21-2.23) Ll 34 (4.17-4.19)
G 76 (7.19-7.21) V 126 (11.3-11.5) Mm
H 101 (9.20-9.22) X 93 (8.22-8.24) Nn 1 (3.7-3.12)
I 108 (8.5-8.10) Y 159 (does not belong?) Oo 79 (7.23-7.24)
J 76 (7.19-7.21) Z 126 (11.3-11.5) Pp 79 (7.25-7.27)
K Aa 34 (4.23-4.24) Qq 34 (4.14-4.16)
L 31 (4.8-4.9) Bb 97 (9.3-9.6) Rr
M 72 (7.12-7.13) Cc 108 (copy of I?) Ss
N 101 (9.15-9.19) Dd 20 (3.18-3.22) Tt 59 (5.3-5.4)
O 79 (7.24-7.27) Ee 152 (2.17-2.18) Uu 1 rt (recto of Nn)
P 97 (7.3, 8.1-6) Ff 18 (2.17-2.18) Vv 72 (7.1-7.3)
Table 4: Fragment numbers corresponding with Champollion
Fr. Champollion Fr. Champollion Fr. Champollion
1 Nn [Uu] 61 Kk 97 B, P, Bb
18 Ff, Gg 72 C, D, M, Vv 98 T, Ii, Jj
20 F, Dd 76 G, J 101 E, H, N
22 U 78 V 108 I, Cc
31 L 79 O, Oo, Pp 126 S, Z
34 Aa, Hh, Ll, Qq 81 A 152 Ee
59 Tt 93 Qbis, X 159 Y (does not belong?)

Reconstructing the papyrus.

It might seem natural to start by placing the rightmost fragments, but the obvious place to start is by placing the largest and most complete fragments and work backwards from there. When the fragments’ fibres line up vertically (V) and/or horizontally (H), this is known as “fibre correspondence,” (marked as fc below) which confirms the accurate position of the fragments.

  • 1   Place fr. 81 at the top.
  • 2   Place fr. 72 to the right of fr. 81 (H fc).
  • 3   Place fr. 73 (V/H ƒc with fr. 81).
  • 4   Place fr. 74 (V/H ƒc with fr. 81 and V ƒc with 72).
  • 5   Place fr. 83 below fr. 81 (V ƒc).
  • 6   Place fr. 86 below fr. 81 (V ƒc).
  • 7   Place fr. 76 below fr. 72 (V ƒc).
  • 8   Place fr. 77 to the left of fr. 72 and 76 (H ƒc).
  • 9   Place fr. 70 to the left of fr. 77 (H ƒc).
  • 10   Place fr. 87 to the left of fr. 70 (H ƒc).
  • 11   Place fr. VII/20 to the left of fr. 87. (H/V ƒc).
  • 12   Place fr. 78 to the left of fr. 76 (H ƒc with fr. 76, V ƒc with fr. 77).
  • 13   Place fr. 80 to the left of fr. 78 (H ƒc).
  • 14   Place fr. 79 to the right of fr. 78 (H ƒc).
  • 15   Place fr. 93 to the left of fr. 80 (H ƒc).
  • 16   Place fr. 94 to the left of fr. 93 (H ƒc).
  • 17   Place fr. 95 to the left of fr. 93 (H ƒc) and below fr. 94 (V ƒc).
  • 18   Place fr. 82 to the right of fr. 94 (H ƒc) and above fr. 93 (V ƒc).
  • 19   Place fr. VII/20 at the left top corner of fr. 87 (V/H ƒc)

Unplaced fragments

There are a number of fragments that cannot be placed with certainty. Evidence is needed to corroborate their correct position, either by fibre corroboration, or consideration of the text on the recto. Some have had their position changed over time, as more thorough examinations of the papyrus were undertaken, but many still remain unplaced because their position can not be determined conclusively.

Giulio Farina, the director of the Turin Museum from 1928, together with papyrus conservation specialist Hugo Ibscher, began restoration of the papyrus in July 1930. Ibscher detached the 164 fragments from the blotting paper on which Seyffarth had glued them, and rearranged the fragments taking careful note of the fibres. Some fragments that did not belong to the papyrus were naturally removed; and some that had previously been impossible to reunite (probably from inv. no. 281), were added as matching fibres were established. The reassembly caused some minor damage along the edges and many minute signs or traces of signs were lost on some fragments, making the facsimiles of Lepsius and Wilkinson all that more important, as they preserve signs that are now lost.

To protect the papyrus, the fragments were placed between two glass panes in three separate frames. Over the next few years, Farina sorted through the unpublished fragments held at the museum, tweaking the positions of the fragments, until he was satisfied with the final arrangement in October of 1934.

Gardiner’s examination discarded 25 fragments as belonging to other papyri, while 15 fragments were classified as useless or doubtful, and another twelve as completely blank; they were not commented on further, and supposedly belong to the papyrus. Five fragments only contain traces, while another five only hold the sign for year, or part of the king’s title. In all, Gardiner retained 102 numbered fragments[*] on his plates, plus ten unnumbered fragments marked by question marks, added to Seyffarth’s original sheets by Ibscher or Farina.[*] These ten unnumbered fragments are referenced by Gardiner’s position.

The museum have an unknown number of unpublished fragments with parts of royal names of both kings and gods, figures relating to the reigns, and parts of headings and summations.

Determining possible positions for the unplaced fragments require an exhaustive examination looking for any fibre correspondence with the already placed fragments. Until a full investigation of the fragments can be undertaken, progress is only possible in small increments.

Table 5. Gardiner’s unplaced fragments
Remark Fragments
Unplaced (17) 1, 2, 4, 7, 29, 40, 36, 48, 50, 75, 90, 133, 135, 141, 145, 147, 30a
Does not belong (25) 24, 25, 26, 35, 37, 39, 91, 106, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124, 132, 137, 138, 148, 153, 154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162
Doubtful/useless (15) 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 107, 120, 121, 134, 140, 144, 146, 158
Blank on vs (12) 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 65, 68, 92, 128, 129, 149
Traces (5) 52, 56, 57, 114, 139
Years/title (5) 109, 111, 113, 136, 155, 156
The unplaced fragments
Figure 1: The unplaced fragments of the Turin king list.

Unpublished fragments

The archives at the Museo Egizio in Turin hold an unspecified number of unpublished fragments collected in four frames. These frames are referred to as Cat. 1874/2, 1874/3, 1874/4, and 1874/5. Despite many examinations by Egyptologists, they remain unplaced, as their positions cannot be determined as there is apparently no clear fibre or text correspondence with the placed fragments of the papyrus. Most of these fragments are expected to be quite small, only holding parts of royal names, figures, and headings and summations.

In 2022, a new reconstruction was finally performed, that is, a thorough examination with modern tools and expertise. This ensured that all possible fragments showing any correspondence were added to the new reconstruction. Further details may be revealed upon publication of the results in 2024, which is also the bicentenary of the discovery of the papyrus.


  • Allen, James P. 1999. ‘The Turin Kinglist’. BASOR 315: 48–53.
  • ———. 2010. ‘The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin king-list’, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth - Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192: 1–10.
  • Barta, Winfried. 1983. ‘Bemerkungen Zur Rekonstruktion Der Vorlage Des Turiner Königspapyrus’. GM 64: 11–13.
  • Beckerath, Jürgen von. 1962. ‘The Date of the End of the Old Kingdom of Egypt’. JNES 21: 140–47.
  • ———. 1964. Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten. Glückstadt: Augustin.
  • ———. 1966. ‘Die Dynastie der Herakleopoliten (9./10. Dynastie)’. ZÄS 93: 13–20.
  • ———. 1976. ‘Die Chronologie der XII. Dynastie und das Problem der Behandlung gleichzeitiger Regierungen in der agyptischen Überlieferung’. SAK 4: 45–57.
  • ———. 1984a. ‘Bemerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus und zu den Dynastien der ägyptischen Geschichte’. SAK 11: 49–58.
  • ———. 1984b. Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. MÄS 20. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
  • ———. 1995. ‘Some Remarks on Helck’s “Anmerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus”’. JEA 81: 225–27.
  • ———. 1999a. ‘Anmerkung zu zwei unbeachteten Fragmenten des Turiner Königspapyrus’. GM 168: 19–21.
  • ———. 1999b. Handbuch der Ägyptischen Königsnamen. 2nd ed. MÄS 49. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Birch, Samuel. 1843. ‘Observations upon the Hieratical Canon of Egyptian Kings at Turin.’ TRSL 2, 1: 203–8.
  • Brugsch, Heinrich. 1859. Histoire d’Égypte des les premiers temps de son existence jusqu’à nos jours. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
  • Champollion, Jean-François. n.d. Papiers de J.-Fr. Champollion Le Jeune. XVI Canon Hiératique des dynasties Égyptiennes. NAF 20318. Vol. 16. Bibliothèque nationale de France.
  • Champollion-Figeac, Jacques Joseph. 1851. ‘De la table manuelle des Rois et des dynasties d’Égypte ou papyrus royal de Turin, de ses fragments originaux, de ses copies manuscrits ou Imprimées, et de ses intreprétations’. Revue Archéologique 7 (2): 397–402, 461–72, 589–99, 653–65. Plate 149.
  • Farina, Giulio. 1938. Il Papiro dei re, restaurato. Rome: G. Bardi.
  • Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1959. The Royal Canon of Turin. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
  • Goedicke, Hans. 1956. ‘King ḤwḏfꜢ?’ JEA 42: 50–53.
  • Helck, Wolfgang. 1956. ‘Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten’. UGAA 18. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
  • ———. 1992. ‘Anmerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus’. SAK 19: 151–216.
  • Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. 1979. ‘P. Turin N.1874, Vso.’ In Ramesside Inscriptions 2:827–44. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lauth, Franz J. 1865. Manetho und der Turiner Königspapyrus. Munich: Wolf.
  • Lepsius, Karl Richard. 1842. Auswahl der Wichtigsten Urkunden des aegyptischen Alterthums. Leipzig: Wigand.
  • Málek, Jaromír. 1982. ‘The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Turin’. JEA 68: 93–106.
  • Meyer, Eduard. 1904. Aegyptische Chronologie. Berlin: Verl. der Königl. Akad. der Wiss.
  • Möller, Georg. 1927. Hieratische Paläographie. Die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der fünften Dynastie bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Osnabruck: Otto Zeller.
  • Ryholt, Kim. 1997. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 B.C. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
  • ———. 2000. ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-List and the Identity of Nitocris’. ZÄS 127: 87–100.
  • ———. 2004. ‘The Turin King-List’. Ägypten Und Levant 14: 135–55.
  • ———. 2008. ‘King Seneferka in the king-lists and his position in the early dynastic period’. JEH 1: 159–73.
  • ———. 2018. ‘Seals and History of the 14th and 15th Dynasties’. In The Hyksos ruler Khyan and the early second intermediate period in Egypt : problems and priorities of current research, ErghÖJh 17: 235–76.
  • Wilkinson, John Gardner. 1851. The Fragments of the Hieratic Papyrus at Turin. 2 vols. London: Richards.