BrIef CommuNICatIoNSJEA 96 which he rarely published. It was Harris, for instance, who recorded the rock-drawings of [17][18] more than 35 years before they were published by Golenischeff, 23 and the demotic quarry-inscription at Sheikh el-Haridi on 21 february 1856 (notebook 5) 55 years before Spiegelberg. 24 Gottfried Hamernik P. BM EA 10052, Anthony Harris, and Queen Tyti recently rediscovered text copies of what is now P. Bm ea 10052, 6.22-23 by anthony Harris from his Notebook 5, in conjunction with surviving unpublished fragments from this section of the papyrus, identify a Queen tyti as a King's Wife of ramesses III, helping to resolve a long-standing conundrum in the study of the twentieth Dynasty royal family.anthony Harris was not simply a collector, he had an intellectual interest in the antiquities he possessed. this is attested amply not only through publications issued during his lifetime, but also now in his Notebooks, lodged since 1896 in the Graeco-roman museum in alexandria, and studied for the first time by Hamernik. 1 In Notebook 5, Harris made notes on the tomb robbery papyri then in his possession, labelled by him Papyrus No. 1 (now P. Bm ea 10053), Papyrus No. 2 (now P. Bm ea 10052), and Papyrus No. 3 (now P. Bm ea 10054). 2 In these notes, Harris provided a brief description of the documents as a whole, focusing on the division into pages and lines, and also copied the hieratic of brief sections of interest to him, usually focusing on dates or royal names which he was able to spot. one such copy, from P. Bm ea 10052, 6.22-23, preserves a section of the papyrus not seen by Peet and now only partially preserved in fragments. this provides data that helps to resolve a long-standing conundrum in the study of the twentieth Dynasty royal family.P. Bm ea 10052 was first published in transcription and translation by t. e. Peet in 1930. Peet's pioneering work was outstanding, and the quality of his transcription work in particular leaves little room for improvement. However, the papyrus as seen by Peet was lacking approximately a quarter of the lower section across the papyrus, as well as the completion of the lines for the final page of the verso (Peet's page 16). more than two decades later, apparently in 1953, 3 I. e. S. edwards identified a significant number of additional fragments from the Harris tomb robbery papyri in the British museum's papyrus collection. for P. Bm ea 10052, edwards found additional fragments from all 16 pages of the papyrus (7 pages recto and the 9 pages verso), 4 allowing a closer reconstruction of the papyrus as a whole and its series of testimonies. 5 In his Notebook 5, Harris provides an overview of his

The notebooks and manuscripts of the nineteenth century collector and scholar A. C. Harris have lain unnoticed in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria for over a century. Now relocated, a summary of their contents is given.

An early record of the sarcophagi of Tjaiharpata and Esshu-tefnut and the identification of some Lieder squeezes at the Griffith Institute, Oxford'This article discusses the provenance of the sarcophagus of Tjaiharpata (now in Cairo) and the sarcophagusof Esshu-tefnut (now in Vienna): two shafts (or possiblyjust a single shaft), demonstrably near the Teti pyramid. It is based on a step-by-step identificationof four Lieder squeezes (17.1-3, 18)kept in the GriffithInstitute,Oxford. Heinrich Brugsch used these particular squeezes as the basic source for 'Planche VI' of his Recueil de monuments egyptiens and for a manuscripttranslationof the texts, but this was never mentioned in any of his later publications.IN 1862, Heinrich Brugsch published the first part of his Recueil de monuments egyptiens.' a work which in general claimed to contain Brugsch's own copies of texts and scenes made from the monuments themselves.' In one plate, Brugsch presented a selection of material from two Late Period coffins, which he stated (in one case wrongly) were housed at Vienna.' His presentation of this material (see fig. 1) has puzzled scholars for a long time.' 'Planche VI' consists of three different sections of hieroglyphic text, numbered by Brugsch as 1-3: (1) the first represents only part of a horizontal line (90 em out of 115 em) on the outside of the sarcophagus of Tjaiharpata~W~~.5 This line is the first below the lid, the one which is called by Maspero 'Bande superieure d'inscription' on the short 'cote Sud";" (2) the second is one long horizontal line incised all around the inside of the sarcophagus of Esshutefnut :J~~J~7 (see pI. XXVII, 1); and(3) the third is the equivalent on the outside of the same sarcophagus, running above 71 vertical columns of text and several mythological scenes (see pI. XXVII, 2). In the problematic 'Planche vi', the direction of writing does not correspond to that of the texts on the sarcophagi and the sequence of lines in the cases of ( 2) and (3) appears arbitrary. The sarcophagus of Tjaiharpata never came to Vienna as Brugsch assumed." Most probably he was given this erroneous information by Christian VOn Huber, the Austrian consul-general in Egypt from 1850 to 1858. 9 According to Brugsch's comments, Huber claimed to have discovered both sarcophagi. JO This is definitely not correct. The tomb from which the sarcophagus of Esshu-tefnut came was known to Anton Ritter von Laurin (Huber's predecessor as Austrian consul-general from 1834 to 1849) from at least 1847. 11 The sarcophagus of Esshu-tefnut arrived at Vienna in the first half of January 1853.J2 , This article is intended to supplement Jaromir Malek, 'The Monuments Recorded by Alice Lieder in the "Temple of Vulcan" at Memphis in May 1853', lEA 72 (1986), 101-12. I am very grateful to him for access to all the Lieder squeezes kept in the Griffith Institute, Oxford. \ H. Brugsch, Recueil de monuments egyptiens (Leipzig 1862-3).

No abstract