Page 85 [85]
OCR
us of a disagreement between the leaders of the workmen and the ‘scribe’ Amennakht. The latter was sent for the wdpw Aha(?) to settle the dispute. However, the title is not combined with the epithet nswt, based on the nature of the matter, it cannot be doubted that Aha(?) was a ‘royal wdpw’. Although no detail of the end of the case can be revealed due to the fragmentary state of the inscription, an interesting addition is that Amennakht sent a message directly to Aha(?) asking for his intervention. It cannot be ascertained, however, if the ‘royal wdpw’ had his own decisional authority to interfere in a matter like this or he was allowed to act only on the orders of the ruler. Somewhat later, under Ramesses IX, Nesamun, together with the ‘vizier’ and the ‘high priest’ who were not named, was also involved in a disagreement because of the complaints of the workmen as they had not received their provisions for a period of time. The officials decided in their favour again." Another matter differing from the above mentioned ones is the increase in the number of workmen at Deir el-Medina from 60 to 120 in the 2™ year of Ramesses IV reported in the papyrus Turin Cat. 1891.7” The assignment seems to be important enough as implied by the number of the high ranking officials acting as members of the delegation. Besides the ‘vizier’ Neferrenpet, the ‘overseer of the treasury’ Montuemtaui and the ‘deputy’ Menna, three ‘royal wdpws’ were present; Hori, Ramessessethherwenemef and Atumnakht. IL.5.2.2.4. Legal matters Legal matters in which the officials played an active part were the trial of the conspirators in the plot against Ramesses III, generally known as the harem conspiracy (Turin, Cat. 1875), and an investigation into the cases of tomb robberies under the reign of Ramesses IX (London, EA 10054, EA 10221, Brussels E 6857) and Ramesses XI (London, EA 10052, EA 10383, Liverpool M11162). In the trial of the harem conspiracy, some officials were members of the judiciary, others were accused, and one of them was accused by a judge.”* In spite of the fact that they were designated ‘only’ as wdpws, it is reasonable to assume that those acting in the judiciary were high ranking officials regarding the importance of the matter." It is clearly stated in the account of the trial that the accused were set 266 For the text of the papyrus, see [89] Necropolis journal for year 17 on p. 592. 767 For the text of the papyrus, see [73] Pap. Turin 1891 on p. 537. 768 For a discussion on the officials that took part in the trial, see p. , for the text of the account of the trial, see [62] Judicial Papyrus of Turin on p. 521. 769 There are other examples where a person otherwise designated as wh} nswt or wdpw nswt, appears in a document only as wdpw, see for instance Ramessesemperre on p. 201, Paenrenenutet on p. 209,
