Turin King List: column 7

The name of the king is written on the patch. The rightmost part is Champollion's fr. D, and the end of the row is fr. Vv.

The scribe erroneously added the ubiquitous "Ra" to the name, where it clearly does not belong.¹ The correct name was always written as Neferusobek. The rightmost part is Champollion's fr. D, and the end of the row is fr. Vv.

Summation of the Twelfth Dynasty. The diagonal trace above the last numbers is likely the start of a bracket around the end of the line that encroach column 8, as can also be seen in (3.14), (5.16) and (8.3). The trace of the last number can only be a 7. Manetho recorded a total of 160/182 years of reign for this dynasty.¹

Heading of the Thirteenth Dynasty, or possibly for the entire Second Intermediate Period.¹

Egyptologists have established that Wegaf could not have been the first king of the Thirteenth Dynasty,¹ and his prenomen (ḫw-tꜢwy-rꜤ) written here indicate an unintended swap of the similar prenomen of Sobekhotep I (sḫm-rꜤ-ḫw-tꜢwy) recorded further down in the list (7.19).² The trace after Ꜣbd can only be the plural .w sign.

There is a trace of what could be imn on fr. 72, which might be the beginning of the name Amenemhat. The length of reign is lost, and the six-year lacuna notation likely for Nerikara, whose record is missing.

There are worn traces of the start of the cartouche, and a rꜤ-sign added erroneously by the scribe.¹ The traces of imn are very probable, while m-ḥꜢt is certain. The final number could be in the 3-4 range.² There might also have been lacuna notation on this line for king Ameny Qemau, which is itself lost in lacuna.³ The rightmost part is the first row of Champollion's fragment C.

The scribe incorrectly added an initial s to the correct name Hotepibra,¹ as attested by all other finds of this king. The second row of Champollion's fragment C.

This is the only attestation of a king with this name.¹ The third row of Champollion's fragment C.

Horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence between fr. 72 and 75 make the position of fr. 75 certain.¹ The photos do not include fr. 75, which use the old placement of Farina. The fourth row of Champollion's fragment C.

Horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence between fr. 72 and 75 make the position of fr. 75 certain.¹ The photos of the papyrus does not include fr. 75, as it is still arranged as per Farina. The fifth row of Champollion's fragment C.

Horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence between fr. 72 and 75 make the position of fr. 75 certain.¹ The photos of the papyrus does not include fr. 75, as it is still arranged as per Farina. The first row of Champollion's fragment M.

The unnumbered fragment¹ with rꜤ-s-wꜢḏ was added by Farina.² The top part of a partial 20-sign is visible on fr. 75, which Gardiner transliterated as a ten, but a ten does not have a horizontal stroke. Horizontal and vertical fibre correspondence between fr. 72 and 75 make the position of fr. 75 certain.³ The photos of the papyrus does not include fr. 75, as it is still arranged as per Farina. The second row of Champollion's fragment M.

Gardiner read the trace of the last sign as a probable nine,¹ but since the sign does not end well below the line, it is likely a seven.²

The traces of Son of... follows the cartouche,¹ but name is lost in lacuna.² The minor traces on Fr. 70, were read that Gardiner read as a two. The scribe erroneously added the ubiquitous "Ra" to the name, where it clearly does not belong.³

Gardiner incorrectly read a f below the numbers,¹ but there is no trace of that on fr. 70. Furthermore, the fragment has moved slightly to the left compared to Gardiner, because there is no vertical fibre correspondence between fr. 70 and 78,² and also leave room for a longer text. Fragment 76 is the first row of Champollion's fragment G. As can be seen in the photo, Farina joined a tiny fragment to the left side of fr. 77,³ which is not present in Lepsius, Gardiner, or Ryholt, as the fibres do not match,⁴ or at least, is questionable.

A possible lacuna notation might have been found on this line, but if so, is itself lost in the lacuna. This is almost certain because at least four known successors of Awtibra are absent from the papyrus.¹ Fragment 76 is the second row of Champollion's fragment G.

The third row of fr. 76 is Champollion's fragment G, and fragment 78 is the first row of fr. V.

The prenomen of of Sobekhotep I (sḫm-rꜤ-ḫw-tꜢwy) written here were interchanged with the similar prenomen of Wegaf (ḫw-tꜢwy-rꜤ) recorded further up in the list (7.5).¹ The fourth row of fr. 76 is Champollion's fragment G, and fragment 78 is the second row of fr. V.

The second rꜤ was a misinterpretation by the scribe of the similar-looking Aa1-sign (ḫ).¹ The fourth row of fr. 76 is Champollion's fragment J, and fragment 78 is the third row of fr. V.

The nomen Imyremeshaw¹ was a military title, but was on occasion also a personal name for families with a military tradition.² The position of fr. 71 is tenative.³ The sixth row of fr. 76 is Champollion's fragment J, and fragment 78 is the fourth row of fr. V.

The position of fr. 71 is tenative.¹ The fifth row of fr. 78 is Champollion's fragment V, and the top trace on fr. 79 = fr. Oo. Apparent from Lepsius' facsimile, fragment 78 was once continuous but has since been split in two right on the middle of this row.

Gardiner removed part of Fr. 79.¹ The position of fr. 71 is tenative². The sixth row of fr. 76 is Champollion's fragment J, and fragment 78 is the fourth row of fr. V.

The partial kꜢ-sign following sḫm is almost certain.¹ Gardiner recorded only 2 strokes on either side of the small lacuna on fr. 80,² but as can be seen on the photo and on Lepsius' facsimile, there are 4 strokes, or years.³ The bee and opening cartouche on fr. 79 is Champollion's fr. O, and fr. 78 is fr. Oo.

Only a vertical trace of the number of months remains as the papyrus breaks off, it could be 1-5, or 10-11.¹ Fragment 79 is Champollion's fr. O, and fr. 78 is from fr. Pp and Oo.

Fragment 79 is Champollion's fr. O, and fr. 78 is from fr. Pp and Oo.

Fragment 79 is Champollion's fr. O, and fr. 78 is from fr. Pp and Oo.

The name is lost, but Sobekhotep V succeeded Sobekhotep IV (7.27) and was himself succeeded by Sobekhotep VI (8.1), which would place his name here.¹