Turin King List: column 6

Only the title is left, the rest is lost. Farina placed an unnumbered fragment at the end of th column, but its position is probably incorrect,¹ and has been moved to the Unplaced Fragments section.

The name is lost, only an unreadable trace of the first sign remain.

The name is lost, only the opening cartouche remains. Written on a patch.

A trace of the tip of what could be a mr or wsr sign is visible above the opening cartouche, but it is only guesswork. Written on a patch.

The name is lost, only a partial title remain. Written on a patch.

The name is lost, only the partial title remain, but with a curious stroke above the "head" of the bee-sign. Written on a patch.

The name is lost, only a tiny stroke of the title remain.

The name is lost; there are no traces of any writing.

Summation of the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties. Most of the line is lost, only the initial signs remain. The number of kings is verified by the 18 kings recorded from 5.18 to 6.9. According to Manetho, during this period either 38 kings ruled for 594 years¹, or 23 kings ruled for 285 years.² The First Intermediate period as a whole lasted only for about 125 years, so it is clear that the numbers of Manetho are unreliable, probably due to misinterpretation or corruption by the redactors of the epitomes.

Heading of the Eleventh Dynasty. The scribe has actually written kingship (pl.), which is a mistake.¹ Only the initial signs remain, the rest is lost.

The name is lost. Gardiner tentatively restored the first sign as V29 (wꜢḥ), noting that it could also be N28 (ḫꜤ),¹ but neither restoration fits an Eleventh Dynasty king. Beckerath proposed sꜤ as a possible reading,² but ultimately, the tiny trace makes a proper identification impossible. Counting back from Mentuhotep II (6.16), this line would have contained the name of Mentuhotep I, who only gained royal titles posthumously. He was the father of Intef I, the founder of the Eleventh Dynasty at Thebes. Only the first two signs of the name in the Karnak Canon are readable, but as the Horus name tpy-Ꜥ (“the forefather”) is also readable, it undoubtedly belong to Mentuhotep I.

The name is lost, only the title remain. Counting back from Mentuhotep II (6.16), this line would have contained the name of Intef I. The bee is part of Champollion's fragment Kk.

The name is lost. The partial sign before the nine is most likely the back end of 40. Counting back from Mentuhotep II (6.16), this line would have contained the name of Intef II. Note: in the museum photo of the papyrus, fr. 85 is incorrectly rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise and is partially obscured by a transparent tape running vertically at the left edge, which is corrected here. The bee and the top of the fragment is part of Champollion's fragment Kk.

The name is lost. Counting back from Mentuhotep II (6.16), this line would have contained the name of Intef III. The writing on this line starts farther left than the rest of this column, due to (5.16) encroaching this column.

The first king of the Eleventh Dynasty whose name is intact.

Farina added the unnumbered fragment¹ which clarifies the ankh part of the name. A mistake was made in the Karnak Canon, where the Ꜥnḫ-sign was misinterpreted from the source used, as the similar-looking nfr-sign.

Summation of the Eleventh Dynasty. Farina added the unnumbered fragment.¹ The traces of a six at the edge of fr. 63 is certain.² Only a horizontal stroke of the lacuna notation remain in fr. 64, above the sublinear 100-sign that extend to the left. This seven-year lacuna notation account for the last king of the dynasty, the missing Mentuhotep IV, and indicate another lacuna notation, most likely in (6.17). The number written above the sublinear hundred-sign must be 136 as we know the total (143), and the lacuna (7).

Only part of the heading for the Twelfth Dynasty remain, however, it does mention the capital Itj-tawy.

All but ending of the name is lost, but Amenemhat I's prenomen Sehotepibra is the only possibility. As for the number of years, the sublinear tail of a nine is recorded, but a preceding ten-sign is lost where the papyrus breaks off. However, the number 29 is most likely correct, if not certain.¹ Curiosly, the redactors of the Epitome failed to understand that Manetho's narrative contained not only four kings named Amenemhat, but also three kings named Senusret, resulting in a badly garbled dynasty which placed Ammenemes between the dynasties.

All but the ending of the name is lost, but the signs for 40+5 years are certain,¹ although the vertical stroke of the five is weak.² Herodotus failed to understand that the Twelfth Dynasty contained three kings named Senusret, and this Sesostris was in all likelyhood a combination of Senusret I and III.

The name is lost, but can only have held that of Amenemhat II, the predecessor of Senusret II (6.23). The ten-sign could be a 10, 20, or 30, but most likely 30, as Amenemhat II reigned for at least 35 years, for a likely total of 35–39 years.

The name is lost, but was likely that of Senusret II. The partial ten-sign could be a 10/20/30, but most likely a 10. Below that is the sublinear tail of a nine, yielding a very probable 19-year reign. Manetho's Sesostris was probably a conflation of the two kings with the same name, or misunderstood by the redactor of the Epitome.

The name is lost, but most likely that of Senusret III. The 30-sign is certain; the subsequent number could be in the range of 1–8,¹ for a total of 31-38 years. A nine is impossible, as the tail of a nine would have extended below the ten-sign.² Manetho's Sesostris was probably a conflation of the two kings with the same name, or misunderstood by the redactor of the Epitome.

The name is lost, but most likely that of Amenemhat III. The 40-sign is certain, but any extra years are lost. His highest attested date is year 46,¹ and probably had a long coregency (c. 20 years) with his father Senusret II,² and shorter coregency with his son, Amenemhat IV.