Turin King List: column 5

The name is lost, as is the number of years, only the months and days remain. The signs before the numbers are undecipherable. The fragment containing traces of the month ligature (Ꜣbdw) was incorrectly moved by Ibscher, as there is a fibre correspondence in the original position by Seyffarth.¹ The name is lost in lacuna, however Teti is the known successor of Unas in the other king lists.

The record is lost, but a poorly attested Userkara is present between Teti and Pepi I in the Abydos Canon, suggesting this could be the case here too.

The reign (or the entire record) was likely interchanged with (5.4), emending the reign of Pepi I to 44 years. This agrees with the archaeological records, as Pepi I reigned between 25 to 50 years, while his son and successor only ruled around ten years.¹ Champollion's tiny fragment Tt is part of fr. 59 around the 20-sign.

The reign (or the entire record) was likely interchanged with (5.3), making the correct reign 20 years for this king.¹ The trace just before the '4' is not the top of a 10-sign, but a dot of the hieratic number 40,² which is now partly obscured by a piece of transparent tape.³ Champollion's tiny fragment Tt is part of fr. 59 around the 4 sign.

This entry can only belong to Pepi II due to the long reign recorded.

The name is lost, but Nemtyemsaf II is listed in the Abydos Canon as the successor of Pepi II. The fibres of fr. 40 correspond with fr. 43, and has been moved here from the unplaced fragments of Gardiner.¹ Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 40, but the signs on the recto of fr. 40 does not seem to align with fr. 43.

Fr. 43 has been moved one line up from Gardiner and joins with fr. 40.¹ Netiqerty is a phonetic corruption of the similar-sounding Netjerikara, which for a long time was interpreted as belonging to an otherwise unattested Queen Nitocris from Manetho's epitome.² This row could also have held a lacuna notation (ironically lost in the lacuna) explaining the missing ten kings that does appear in the Abydos Canon.³ The two names following the lacuna notation in (5.8) and (5.9) are clearly incompletely recorded, likely due to a larger lacuna in the original source for this period, and the scribe simply copied what was left. Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 40, but the signs on the recto of fr. 40 does not seem to align with fr. 43.

The names ppy-snb and ẖrd-snb are interchangeable,¹ and the ra-sign of Neferkara was probably lost in a lacuna in a vorlage of the Canon. The hieratic snb ligature was inaccurately copied by Lepsius.² The remaining signs of a larger lacuna in the original source was copied by the scribe, explaining the corrupted name, and perhaps also why the name appears out of order on the Abydos Canon (51), where it should have occupied no. 41. The fibres of fr. 40 correspond with fr. 43, and has been moved here from the unplaced fragments of Gardiner.³ Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 40, but the signs on the recto of fr. 40 does not seem to align with fr. 43.

There are four signs following the fr-signs; the first looks very much like a s-sign, but is transcribed as the G7-determinative, followed by the two strokes of a closing cartouche,¹ and another G7, as read by Gardiner. The signs following s-nfr present in the Abydos Canon, were perhaps lost in a larger lacuna. and the scribe copied the remaining signs in the original source, resulting in an incomplete name.²
The name Sneferka Anu translates to the odd the one whom a ka has made perfect, Anu. The sign emblem for the god Min, R22 (mn) and the door-bolt, O34 (s) look very similar, and a small mistake by a scribe is easily understood. Exchanging the signs makes the corrected name Neferkamin Anu, which gives the more fitting translation of the perfect one of the ka of Min, Anu. The unreadable traces at the end of fr. 40 are present in Lepsius and Wilkinson, but non-existant today.³ Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 40, but the signs on the recto of fr. 40 does not seem to align with fr. 43.

The prenomen is recorded with the singular –kꜢ in the kings pyramid at Saqqara,¹ while the slightly incorrect Abydos Canon use the plural –kꜢw. Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 40, but the signs on the recto of fr. 40 does not seem to align with fr. 43.

The name is lost, only the numbers remain. Neferkaura is attested on the Abydos Canon between Qakaura (53) and Neferkauhor (55).

The name is lost, only the numbers remain. Neferkauhor is attested between Neferkaura (54) and Neferirkara (56) on the Abydos Canon.

The name is lost. The ditto mark after the year, makes it clear that the "half"-sign (gs) is recorded as "half a month".¹ The Neferirkara of the Abydos Canon is a different First Intermediate Period king from Neferirkara Kakai of the Fifth Dynasty.²

First row of summation of the Sixth to Eight Dynasties. The traces of the ir-sign on Fr. 61 is clearly visible on the plates of Farina,¹ but not present in the facsimiles of Lepsius and Wilkinson. The restoration by Ryholt suggest the complete reading of the summation.² Calculating the missing number of kings, is done by counting the number of rows recorded after the previous summation (4.26), which is 13 (i.e. from 5.1 to 5.13).³

Summation continued from (5.14). The sublinear sign is the tail of a 100-sign.¹ The summation of the First to Eight Dynasties begins at the end of the line.

Summation continued from (5.15). The curved line at the end is a sort of bracket around a line that intruded on the next column.

Summation continued from (5.16). The number of months is zero, and despite the missing 5 at the end, the number of days can be confidently restored to 15 from the subtotal in 5.16.¹

Only small traces remain of the name of this unidentifiable king, presumably the founder of the Herakleopolitian Ninth dynasty, named Achthoes by Manetho. However, this identification very uncertain, due to the fragmentary state of the papyrus, and could belong to any of the kings of this dynasty.

The name of this unidentifiable Herakleopolitan king is unknown, only tiny traces of the title remain.

A Herakleopolitan Neferkara is unattested in the other New Kingdom canons, and there are no archaeological finds of a king with this name during this time period.

The A51-sign (šps) is curiosly missing the "seat" vertical stroke at the back.¹ The name is almost certain to be the nomen.

The traces of signs after the initial S29-sign are illegible, and there is not enough space for the reading of swnn as proposed by Černý.¹ Despite Gardiner's assertion to the contrary,² the fibres of fr. 47 and 48 match perfectly,³ and the placement is beyond doubt.⁴ Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 48.

The first signs of the first cartouche are unreadable traces,¹ followed by a second cartouche with a clear Neferkara. A possible explanation for two cartouches could be a genealogical indication that this king was a son of Neferkara in 5.20, tenatively restored by von Beckerath. Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 48.

If the first sign is an U7 (mr), it is larger than normal, and more to the right than usual, as noted by Gardiner.¹ The throne- and birth-names are combined into one cartouche.² Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 48.

The addition of fr. 36¹ adds the ending of the name, which Gardiner recorded as unplaced.² Unfortunately, the photo of the papyrus does not include fr. 48 and fr. 36.

The recto of fr. 36 was mistaken for the verso by Lepsius and Wilkinson.¹ Unfortunately the hieratic signs are not available, as fr. 48 and fr. 36 are not included in the photo of the papyrus.