The Royal Canon of Turin [antikvár]

INTRODUCTION HISTORY OF THE PRESENT EDITION T H E transcriptions to which the following notes referarethefinal outcome of others made from the original by Alan H. Gardiner in September 1947, these again based on earlier ones made many years previously before the papyrus had been remounted by H. Ibscher. The present reproductions have been made to the size of the original as shown in the plates of Lepsius, Auswahl, whence have been taken the outlines of the fragments, which have in some cases suffered through removal of the papier végétal used for the original mounting. No full-scale photographs having been available for the present undertaking, the relative positions of the fragments have had to be judged from the plates of Farina's publication. A rapid checking of the fibres has tended to show that Ibscher's work was extremely accurate, though there are difficulties in places, as have been indicated in the transcripts or will be explained in the observations below. Farina is said to have removed or changed the place of certain fragments. A large number of those included in the publications of Lepsius and Wilkinson could not be utilized in the three frames of Ibscher's mounting, either because their exact positions were unascertainable or because they do not belong to the papyrus at all; details concerning these will be found in the following notes or in the concluding Concordance of Fragments. For writing out the hieroglyphic transcriptions Gardiner is deeply indebted to Mrs. Constance Smither and to Jaroslav Cerny: to the former for Frame i, comprising cols. 1,11 of the list of kings and Frame 2, cols. III-V; to the latter for Frame 3, comprising cols. VI-XL Great thanks are due also to Professor Scamuzzi for facilities in studying the original, and for the gift of old photographs made by order of Professor Schiaparelli. Photostats of the drawings made as above described were taken to Turin for a final revision in September 1952, when Professor Scamuzzi again accorded full facilities for the work. Cerny collated Gardiner's transcriptions and Professor Botti gave assistance by re-examining all the unplaced fragments. Unhappily the results were mainly negative; very few new readings were found, and no additional fragments were put in place. Indeed, the chief modification consisted in the rejection of a number of fragments which it was found could not belong where Ibscher and Farina had placed them. These have been transcribed on Plate IX. The transcriptions were written out anew by Cerny in March 1953 ; Gardiner's notes were completed 2 April 1953. Joins and patches have been indicated by cross-hatching on the verso (the King-list), but not on the recto (the Tax-lists). The joins are by no means easy to detect. The patches seem due to deep damage suffered by the papyrus some time after the recto had been written. They are all (except one now probably wrongly standing in the lower half of col. IX) in the upper portions of the columns at regular intervals of 17 cm. Since, however, the distance between the patches in cols. Ill and V is 32.5 cm., one must be missing between, and traces of this are possibly to be seen in fragments 40 and 50. THE SEYFFARTH MANUSCRIPTS Before the 1952 visit to Turin several weeks were devoted by Gardiner to investigating the early history of the papyrus, the best previous account of which is that in E. Meyer, Ägyptische Chronologie (1904), pp. 105 foil. Of the forty-eight fragments picked out by Champollion in 1824 and published by his brother Champollion-Figeac in Rjevue archéologique vil (1850), pi. 149, there remain only eight (K. Q. R. Dd. Ii. Mm. Rr. Ss) hard to identify, and these all consist of little more than the recurring title ij.'^ and consequently are of no importance. Champollion was not interested in the recto, and it is only by accident that his Uu, which gives the recto of his Nn (fr. i) was included in the published plate. Champollion made no attempt to place or mount the