The Scribe of The Contendings between the Body and the Head (tTurin CGT 58004 – Cat. 6238): Evidence for Innovative Pedagogical Techniques from Ancient Egypt

This study of the Contendings between the Body and the Head presents a new edition and the first English translation of the Turin tablet CGT 58004. Closer analysis of the manuscript suggests a more precise date of the text and facilitates engagement with issues raised, but not expanded upon, by other scholars relating to its composition. Evidence will be considered as to firstly, whether the text was written by a student and secondly, whether the Contendings are extracted from a lengthier, no longer extant, composition. Lastly, it will be argued that an as yet unattested pedagogical method, that of abridgement, was being employed.


Introduction
The following study presents the first English translation 1 of the Late Egyptian literary text, The Contendings between the Body and the Head, a humorous courtroom drama in which a (female) Body 2 takes its (male) Head to court to dispute his supremacy.The text is uniquely preserved on tTurin CGT 58004. 3Whereas another recent study of the text provides a new edition and German translation, as well 1 Since Blackman's translation (Erman 1927: 173-174) is an English translation of Erman's German translation (1923), rather than of the original text, it is not included in this statement. 2The word X.t can be used to mean both 'body' and 'torso'.Because the X.t in this story rules over the limbs, it remains unclear whether X.t means only the torso or the entire body without the head.Although the first possibility sounds reasonable, this reading would mean that not all the limbs are on trial.One would then have to imagine a situation like a custody trial, with two parties fighting over the custody of dependent members.The ambiguity about this means that for this purpose 'Body' is used as a translation for X.t (also Mathieu 2020: 106), although 'Torso' could just as easily be meant here. 3López 1984: 50-51, Tab.184-184a.
as a textual analysis which considers the themes, literary style and generic profile of the text in a late-Ramesside literary context, 4 the analysis undertaken here considers the material aspects relating to scribal practice and pedagogy.Features of the manuscript, including its condition, are appraised to propose a dating of the tablet.The hieratic palaeography and orthography will also be scrutinised in reference to the date, usage and composition of the manuscript.These features will allow theories about the text to be tested, such as whether the text was the work of a student 5 and whether the text on the tablet was an abridged version of a longer, no longer extant, text, written out during a dictation exercise. 6To be clear, abridgement is distinct from excerpting, i.e., copying selected, but usually unconnected, passages from longer texts.Abridgement is the reduction of a longer text in such a way that the important elements are retained to obtain a whole picture of the text, while reducing the text in length.Having overviewed the textual features that allow for speculation on these points (scribal ductus,7 orthography, morphology, syntax and punctuation), I suggest that an inexperienced hand is likely, and that abridgement is demonstrable.However, since there is cause to doubt that the pedagogical context in which this text was produced was dictation-based, this work will propose an alternate hypothesis.

About the Manuscript
The writing board, known as tTurin CGT 58004 (= Cat.6238; old inventory number 16355), belongs to the Drovetti collection at the Museo Egizio di Torino. 8It is 35 cm wide, 9.5 cm high and 1 cm thick.It was originally connected to another piece of similar size via three dowels pushed into holes along the thickness of the longest side of both pieces.Two other holes near each edge, which may originally have comprised four, two on either side of the join,9 might have strengthened the join with cords, but could also indicate the board's reuse. 10Another hole on the left-hand side, at the juncture of the two parts of the board, would have accommodated a cord of some kind, either to carry the board around, 11 or to affix a scribal palette. 12As was customary, the board was plastered.In modern times, it may have been glazed, perhaps to preserve the plastered surface, which has given the board a sheen and a dark red colour. 13ight lines of text are written upon one side in hieratic script and both text and verse points are written in black pigment. 14We can presume that the missing bottom half would have contained a roughly equal number of lines.The reconstructed height of 19 cm is standard for boards of the New Kingdom and corresponds roughly to the height of contemporary papyri. 15Since board sizes decreased and plastering was eschewed during and after the Third Intermediate Period,16 the physical features support a date of the early Third Intermediate Period at the latest.The text is unfortunately not in exemplary condition: the signs in the first line (and part of the bottom line), as well as on both sides, are abraded.Fortunately, a generous margin on the right-hand side means that the text is better preserved on that side.

Contextual Questions: Dating, Usage and Composition
The hieratic script on the writing board has been assigned dates ranging from the end of the 20 th Dynasty 17 to the 22 nd Dynasty. 18However, the features of some of the signs, while acknowledging the limitations of the palaeographic approach, 19 may allow a more precise dating that conforms to the material qualities of the tablet discussed above.The abbreviated writing of Gardiner Sign A2, A2a, seems to appear from the end of the 20 th Dynasty into the Third Intermediate Period. 20The low number of ligatures in the text is moreover reflected in manuscripts dating to the early Third Intermediate Period, such as one of the El-Hibeh papyri, Papyrus Moscow 127 (Tale of Woe / Letter of Wermai). 21The dot-like diacritic, used in combination with various signs, is also a feature of early Third Intermediate Period calligraphy. 22In the Turin tablet, it appears under the beard of the head /dp 23 Gardiner Sign (D1, Möller Sign 79) 24 in Lines 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 ( in Line 7), as well as under the phallus (D53, Möller 96) in Line 1 ( ) and under the piece of flesh classifier (F51, Möller Sign 178) on every line ( in Line 4). 25 The writing of HA.t (F4, Möller Sign 146) in Line 4 is more cursive than Third Intermediate Period comparanda (see, for instance, pMoscow 127, 1.8: ) 26 and thus cannot be seen as diagnostic for that time.Likewise, the writing of X (F32, Möller Sign 169) as seen on Lines 1 and 2 ( 17 Maspero 1883: 262;Kammerzell 1995: 952;Braun 2020: 182-183. 18 Erman 1923: 224;Bresciani 1999: 339.Palaeographic dating to the Amarna Period (López 1999/2000: 477) is unlikely (see, for instance, the writing of Gardiner Signs A2 and G1).Janssen 1984: 305;Janssen 1987: 161. 20  22 See Golénischeff 1899: 75 in relation to pMoscow 120.In n. 4, he astutely establishes a palaeographic link with the roughly contemporary pBoulaq 4 (Teachings of Ani).See also Caminos 1977: 4. 23 For the writing of this sign as dp, see Werning 2004. 24Line 1 has an exception.Caminos 1977: 4, referring to pMoscow 127, 1.8 and 2.9.See also pMoscow 120, 1.3 and 2.70, in Schipper 2005, plates not  numbered, and pMoscow 128, 7.12, in Gardiner 1947: pl. 13 for more cursive variants.
in Line 2), is different from the El-Hibeh papyri, as the left extremity has no small dash. 27In keeping with variable writings of r (D21, Möller Sign 91), both open (pMoscow 120) 28 and closed (pMoscow 127), 29 in the Third Intermediate Period, 30 we see on Line 1 and on Line 3. Lastly, the writings of SA (M8, Möller Sign 274) in Line 6 appear as , compared to pMoscow 127 (see 4.5 ) or pMoscow 120 (see 1.6 ), thus are too dissimilar to be diagnostic.The ligature on our tablet bears more likeness to late Ramesside flourishes than the more self-contained later style. 31The Turin tablet thus has a style bridging Ramesside and 21 st Dynasty styles, due either to the time of composition, the scribe's education or style, or the date of the Vorlage.
Regarding usage, the writing tablet was possibly employed for the instruction of a young scribe, as Erman hypothesised, 32 since this was frequently the case with such objects. 33Though the tablet has no known find-spot, 34 the presence of the hole for appending a cord or another object, together with the signs of wear on the edges, including vestiges of ruled lines on Lines 4-6 on the left hand side, suggest consistent use.This is naturally insufficient to indicate use as a school tablet, but we shall see that there are more indications that this was indeed the case.To date, no studies have focused on signs of writing training on this tablet, in the manner carried out for other manuscripts. 35oncerning the method of composition, Kammerzell suggested that, even intact, the writing board would have accommodated only a portion of the story.He argued that the remaining text suggests that the complete text, like the Contendings of Horus and Seth, would have presented speeches and responses, provisional decisions, new arguments, revocation of the preliminary judgments, and so on. 36ammerzell also hypothesises the conditions under which this abridgement took place, namely, that 'einzelne orthographische Besonderheiten deuten womöglich darauf hin, daß die Niederschrift nach einer mündlichen Vorlage (z.B.Diktat) entstand '. 37 This study attempts to test this hypothesis.

Method: Ways of Tracking Scribal Expertise
There are several approaches to quantifying the expertise (or lack thereof) demonstrated by the scribe of a given document.This being said, lack of experience in conducting the specific task at hand is far easier to glean than, for instance, the educational level (student, apprentice, master) of the individual.It may be that a scribe well-trained in a specific type of output was attempting a different task and not excelling at it.Thus, it is also problematic to attribute to each uncertain writing attempt a pedagogical exercise: additional markers must be sought out.In any case, though it is safer in most instances to look for the dilettante rather than the student per se, since the literature concerns itself with educational level, we will review the state of this discourse.
One marker of an educational context might be the genre of the work, scribal Miscellanies being, since Erman, an oft-used example. 38However, Gardiner, followed by Hagen and others, cast doubt on this hypothesis. 39In another case, pSchulübung (pBerlin P 13639), a Ptolemaic Demotic text, Prada indicated that the attributed errors are indeed not present and that far from being a scribal exercise, the papyrus might be a 'textbook'. 40e could also potentially consider the role of the medium in whether the text in question was illustrative of an exercise or not.The current scholarly consensus (in absence of evidence) is that scribes at the earliest stage of instruction wrote on cost-effective ostraca, as illustrated by ostraca upon which signs have been repeatedly written. 41However, a number of scholars have expressed reservations about how widespread this practice was. 42For intermediate students, writing boards may have been preferred over papyrus on the basis that they were more easily erased and reused. 43ccording to this reckoning, papyrus would have then been principally used by advanced students, some of whom were already 'assistants' (Xr.yw-a). 44However, since this writing surface-based model is hypothetical, the aptitude of the scribe must instead be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
an imprecise scribal ductus, both in terms of sign and ligature formation and in terms of sign grouping, 45 problematic orthography (though the similarity of errors across copies can also suggest the careful copying of corrupt earlier versions), 46 lapsus of words (sometimes corrected by the student or their master) 47 and a problematic grasp of morphology and grammar. 48Philologists now eschew attributing cases of textual variation to 'scribal error' in the first instance, as many cases present equally comprehensible variants. 49Thus, a clear case has to be made for something going truly wrong in the text to claim error.
Another potential indication of an inexperienced hand can be the use of delimiting or structuring devices, like verse points, 50 or structuring marks (Gliederungspunkte). 51 In longer literary works, these points were sometimes dispensed with before the end of a document, 52 which obscures their purpose.When used in a potentially educational context, some argue that the marks were made by students, to show they had identified the textual unit 53 or that a passage had been 'read out after they had been copied'. 54Others take the mark as showing that 'the student scribe or his teacher has checked the completion (and accuracy) of the copy against the master document, unit by unit'. 55Cases of misplacement, especially when the point is more than two signs away from where it should be, might indicate that the scribe may have formed a different idea of the text in their head in the process of writing to what they ended up copying -or checking. 56On the other hand, seeing many of these placements as alternative readings rather than errors implies that the scribes had no verse points to copy in the Vorlage -or that they were inattentive to them.
As for the kinds of skill-building being prioritised, various papyri, 57 ostraca 58 and writing boards 59 attest to calligraphic practice, a natural requirement for scribes who needed to quickly produce documents and copies. 60nomastica, 61 lists of lexemes in specific word-fields 62 and lists of items in model letters in the Miscellanies 63 reflect a focus on learning (and memorising) lists.The satirical letter of Hori to Amenemope includes references to memorising texts, 64 exercises of practical mathematics, 65 learning the geography of Western Asia and as well as gaining familiarity with foreign terminology. 66s for the exercises carried out to acquire some of these skills, it is possible that much lies in the recitation of texts for the purpose of memorisation. 67Other kinds of drills are also attested.Conjugation exercises are attested from the New Kingdom 68 and exercises converting sentences from classical to more colloquial forms (so-called Middle to Late Egyptian) appear in the Ramesside Period and beyond. 69e have cases of a teacher copying out the first part of the text and having a student continue 70 or the student directly copying lines written prior by the teacher, even on the same surface. 71From the Late Period on, sign lists, word lists, grammatical paradigms, mathematical calculations and even calligraphic exercises are known. 72In lists of such exercises made by scholars to date, abridgement is not mentioned, 73 whereas excerpting -especially of the beginnings of texts -can be seen on a range of writing boards and ostraca, as well as in dipinti. 74Whereas excerpting is carried out by scribes of all calibres and cannot be linked unequivocally to pedagogy, abridgement, at least in the manner practiced on this writing board, gives genuine indications that an exercise was underway.I cannot comment on whether abridgement was generally used as a pedagogical technique -to the best of my knowledge no other cases of abridgement exist on writing boards -but I hope to be able to test this in a subsequent study.
Another exercise long regarded as being utilised in ancient Egyptian pedagogical contexts is copying.Though the manner of producing copies was controversial, 75 most scholars now see copying, not dictation, as being the main means of transmitting texts in an educational setting, based on the visible errors. 76In other words, if errors are made, they are more likely to be typographical slips or lapses of memory rather than errors of hearing.

Findings I: Palaeography
The scribal ductus of the Turin tablet (seen in fig. 3) is not always very careful (fig.1).In Line 1, the sign for qj/qAj 'character' ( ) looks more like Gardiner Sign A30 than A53. 78On Line 2, the signs of mAa.t n pA are poorly formed.The dp 'Head' (D1) in Line 4 ( ) may demonstrate superfluous ink in the pen and/or a lack of hand control.The writing of D6 ( ) on Lines 4 and 6 is idiosyncratic, but not unlike versions on documentary ostraca, 79 though with 77 Yuen-Collingridge 2018: 1, argues that '[t]he extended mind thesis (and developments thereof) enables us to view writing as thinking, to ask after the consciousness of the scribes involved in the production of manuscripts, and above all to emancipate the scribe from accounts of textual variation'.This application of a cognitive integrationist approach is based on Menary 2007: 621-632, who argues that 'the manipulation of external vehicles enables us to complete cognitive tasks that would otherwise be difficult or impossible' (Menary 2007: 624).These 'cognitive tasks' are interpreted by Yuen-Collingridge 2018: 2 as being 'higherlevel cognitive processes like editing, composing, and computation' and the 'manipulation of external vehicles' is tied to writing.Consequently, the act of writing can be regarded, so Menary 2007: 630, as 'thought in action', both generating and generated by thought.Its vestiges, the resulting texts, can thus presumably be regarded as vestiges not only of the action but also of thought. 78Compare A53 (Möller Sign 10, Möller 1927: 2) with A30 (Möller Sign 2, Möller 1927: 1).Here there are two protruding 'arms' (like A30), though A53, usually with a protruding 'beard' makes more sense. 79See D6 from time of Ramesses IV (Wimmer 1995: 31).more flourish.The sign groups are also generally of varying heights, which gives the impression that the lines of text are not straight, 80 as seen by wn{n} (E34:N35:N35) in Line 5. Writings of s (S29) low on the line (Lines 4, 7 and 8) also disrupt the line spacing. 81However, some disproportionately large signs, like X (F32, Möller Sign 169) in Lines 1 and 2 and TA.w (P5, Möller Sign 379) in Line 5, rather reflect 20 th and 21 st Dynasty calligraphy. 82Moreover, though the free variation in sign formation 83 might be indicative of a lack of experience, several studies indicate that such is to be expected even from learned hands. 84

Findings II: Orthography
Orthography, as attributable to the 'carelessness' (or not) of a scribe, has featured in discussions of manuscripts attributed by some scholars to didactic pursuits. 85Orthography, however, is a problematic notion in a context without a canonised orthographic system and at a time in which written and spoken language poorly reflected each other. 86Indeed, in this document, New Kingdom orthographic and/or phonological changes are visible, such as missing feminine .tendings 87 on nouns (Sr(.t),Line 4 and wSb(.t),Line 5) to reflect the silent final /t/.In addition, we note the seemingly 'extraneous' half-consonant phonograms, such as ï, j and w, at the ends of words 88 (wHa wï and sDd ï , Line 1).
appears elsewhere on the line. 91In some cases, elements of words are missing or extraneous.In Line 5, msDr.t'ear' is spelled without an m and the verb wn 'to be open' is spelled as wnn. 92In Line 6, Dr 'stay distant' is spelled as wDr 93 and in Line 7, the dependent pronoun wj is written as =j.
Some variations, however, might attest to conscious decisions of style: sn.nw 'inferior' is abbreviated before a classical possessive construction using a suffix pronoun (Line 2) and written fully in a colloquial construction following a possessive article (Line 7).Also, in equating a bwA 'nobleman' with a SwA 'poor man' (Line 6), both nouns bear the same classifier, though A21 is unusual for SwA.This might indicate a clever association of the pair of antonymic words via both assonance and classification, which reflects the case that in the text, the Head is accused of not being able to distinguish one from the other.

Findings III: Morphology
Morphological variation (fig. 1) offers insight into the scribe's grammatical knowledge in their temporal context, visibly mixing more classical features (Participles without j-, Lines 3 and 8) with more colloquial ones (articles marking gender, status pronominalis of the Infinitive qn(j), Line 7). 94Nominal morphology may show a little uncertainty: the dual =fï after a.wï is superfluous (Line 5) 95 and the singular a.t 'limb' in Lines 4 and 7 would make more sense in the plural.However, the 'feminisation' of two nouns via the feminine article (tA) and possessive article (tAy=): zAy/zAw 'strut' (Line 3) and dp 'head' (Lines 7 and 8) is deliberate.As discussed elsewhere, 96 this does not indicate Ramesside gender shift: 97 it is a rhetorical strategy of the feminine and feminised Body to gain prominence over the -in her words, ineffective -(masculine) Head.The feminised word 'strut' is used metaphorically to describe the Body's strength and diligence and is echoed in her feminisation of the word 'boss (lit.head)' when used in refer ence to herself. 98In short, morphology is a poor indicator of inexperience. 91López 1984: Tab.184a, n. h.See Popko 2009 for commentary. 92Compare Wb.I 308 and 311. 93Mathieu 2020: 110 reads Dr as wDA and thus jw=f wDA as 'dans sa integrité'.7 Winand 1992: 137;Neven 2013: 154. 98 See Di Biase-Dyson and Stock 2022: 65.On the other hand, Mathieu 2020: 106 suggests that cases with feminine demonstratives are actually 'tp(.yt),première' and unmarked masculine cases are 'tp, tête'.There are two problems with this: the case on Line 1 is masculine (written with pAy=sn) but translated as 'primauté' (F) rather than 'tête' (M).This reading also doesn't explain why other masculine words, like zA(y), 'strut' (Line 3), are also feminised.The key is that these words are used in contexts in which the body is describing herself (Di Biase-Dyson and Stock 2022: 61-62).

Findings IV: Syntax
A key part of the study focuses on syntax to uncover the process of writing the text.Some interesting syntactic features of the text communicate register variation: whereas the narration (Line 2) employs traditional forms (sn.nw=s), the direct speech (Line 7) has more colloquial elements for the same phrase (nAy=s sn.nw), mirrored also in the orthography for these words, as discussed above.However, as we shall see, other interesting syntactic cases reveal word omission, which is indicative of breaks in the text.We will then consider whether such features interact with markers indicative of the writing process.

Omissions of words causing breaks in the text
Words can be omitted from texts for a number of reasons and by scribes of all calibres, as contemporary writing studies indicate: generalisation driven by expectation drives a notorious amount of human perception and output, causing 'misperception errors'. 99The association between word omission and lack of (copying) experience is only clear where corrections are made. 100This study is interested in another type of lapsus, however: one indicative of attempts to shorten a text.Thus, this study considers 'breaks' in the syntactic flow via 'unfinished' clauses and unexpected arguments (fig.1).These breaks seem to indicate not only that the tablet is an abridged version of a longer text, but also that we can anticipate where and why parts of the text were excised.
As can be seen in the translation (Appendix), 101 in Line 1, the text starts straightforwardly, employing the term wp(j).t'a litigation', characteristic of a 'Contendings': 102 the parties are introduced and their actions and audience are outlined.Between Lines 1-2 the first abridgement seems to have taken place.A question (with pw-tr, written ptr) 103 is abrupt: pw-tr pAy=sn dp 'Who is their boss (lit.head)?' 104 This is equally abruptly followed by a conjunctive mtw=tw sHA(j) pA aDA.w 'and one reveals the wrongdoer'.Since the conjunctive usually follows modally marked forms, 105 its placement after an interrogative clause is surprising.The conjunctive might extend the preceding r + infinitive r wHa 'in order to clarify', thus reading: 'and in order that one reveal the wrongdoer'. 106Mathieu 2011. 103 Wb.I 506.8. 104Mathieu 2020: 106 reads the interrogative as a verb '<r> pt{r} j pAy=sn tp, pour examiner leur primauté', but since this meaning of tp is unattested (cf.Wb.Frandsen 1974: 112-152. 106Junge 2005: 233; also Frandsen 1974, though one of the two  examples (Wenamun, pMoscow 120, 1.x+20-21, in Frandsen   the legal register, 107 and thus befits literature (humorously) drawing on its structural features.
Line 2 abounds in syntactic anomalies.Between pA aDA.w 'the wrongdoer' (the identity of whom the text has not established) and jr.tï=f 'his eyes' there was probably more text, as the suffix pronoun =f has an unclear prior referent. 108he male person who is <r>m(j) 'weeping' could be the Head (the defendant) or 'the god' (pA nTr), who in this version has not yet been introduced.Following <r>m(j) is a prepositional phrase r mn 'in order to fluctuate(?)', whose meaning is unclear.The phrase '(impending) demotion(?)'has been suggested for the English translation, but the phrase is strangely out of context and has led to varying interpretations. 109A direct object is missing at least, but it is more likely that a clause was here excised.Another abrupt change of theme, outlining the purpose of the trial, follows.The introduction of 'the god' as beneficiary is also strange, since he has not been introduced.
At the juncture of Lines 2-3, the text jumps to a paraphrase of the plaintiff's opening statement: Dd X.t sn.nw=s dp 'The Body stated that the Head is her subordinate (lit.second)'.The sentence following it was probably governed by a verb of communication (possibly sbH 'to cry out'), given the A2 classifier and the following direct speech, though the adverb (r-)jqr is not frequently used with verbs of communication. 110he Body's petition on Lines 3-4 is more legible.However, in Line 4 it is possible that before the first wnf.ï a <Hr> (the noun 'face') might be missing, which would mean that wnf.ï is no longer a modifier 'gladly' but rather a predicative element (in the resultative): '<The face> is glad (and) the heart is glad'. 111Also, the listing of body part functions in Lines 4-5 might lack something in the description of the eye's function, as it is the only phrase describing a body part without a two-part structure: 'My eye sees into the distance (lit.sees in distancing itself), the nose can breathe and draws breath, the ear is receptive (lit.open) and hears, the mouth articulates (lit.shouts) and makes (lit.finds) its response, and the arms are controlled (lit.clever) and render service'. 112n Line 6 it is unclear, due to a lacuna, whether there is text missing between the Body's recapitulation of her own 1974: 117) represents a conjunctive following not the infinitive but the nominal subjunctive. 107pAbbott 6. 15-17, in Frandsen 1974: 117-118; pSalt 124, Rto  2.13, in Junge 2005: 237; pBM EA 10054, Vso 1.8-9, in Černý  and Groll 1993: 442-443. 108Kammerzell 1995: 953, followed by Mathieu 2020: 108, takes =f as pertaining to the god.Popko 2009. 110 Amarna Boundary Stela B, 7, in Murnane and Van Siclen 1993:  90, in which Dd.t r-jqr means 'to say' (with emphasis), or 'to speak properly', and the letter to Ankhiri (pLeiden I.371, Rto 33, in Gardiner and Sethe 1928: pl.VIII), in which the speaker rmj r-jqr 'cries a lot'. 111See Mathieu 2020: 109. 112 The way that this two-part structure identifies function and activity is discussed in Di Biase-Dyson and Stock 2022: 63. actions, jw=j mH.kw m mAa.t 'while I am doing everything right (lit.full of maat)' and her summation, in which she describes her wellbeing in Lines 6-7, [jAd.t?] jm=f [Hr]=j '[The conflict (lit.lack)?] with him weighs (lit.is) [upon] me!'.
In Line 7, the Body then cuts to the chase and makes her plea.Prohibitive forms start abruptly, and may indicate abridgement, but make sense in context.Certainly at least a dependent pronoun <wj> is to be expected after the prohibitive m sft: 'Don't hurt (lit.slaughter) <me?>!' 113 In Line 8, if the translation proposed is followed, the Body's summation and accusation of naysayers make sense and do not indicate abridgement: [aDA jwï ] (w)sï pA Dd n=f dp {r'} bn sw m DA.jw(t) 'How [wrong] is the one that says concerning it: 'The Head, he is not in the wrong'!'Other translations naturally bring different outcomes.If we follow Popko, the Body is here referring to things already said by the Head: [aDA.jw](w)sj pA Dd n=f dp <r> r'' bn sw m DA.jw(t) 'Gänzlich [Unrecht] hat das sogenannte Haupt <bezüglich> (seiner) Meinung (?), (dass) es nicht in Unrecht sei(?)'. 114Popko's interpretation would imply a more invasive abridgement process -i.e., cutting out the Head's defence -than this study presumes.It also requires more reconstructions and does not provide a fluid translation.It is more likely that the student has abridged a lengthier first petition by the Body, in which she is anticipating arguments by her opponent or his defence.The response by the Head/defendant would have then followed on the other half of the board.Thus, based on the reading proposed, the abridgement mostly occurs in Lines 1-2 but might also be found in more subtle ways throughout the text. 113Mathieu 2020: 110 reads Hr m snd 'le visage est dans la crainte', which does not take into consideration that Hr carries the suffix pronoun =j.It also in my opinion makes little sense in context. 114Popko 2009.Mathieu 2020: 111 reads: 'La bouche, n'est-elle pas son contradicteur?'.

Syntax and its interaction with the writing process
The following analysis unites the aforementioned breaks in the syntax with the material factors helping us trace the writing process: the placement of the so-called verse points and signs of re-inking the pen (i.e., recharging the pen with ink) (fig.2). 115Regarding the verse points, Kammerzell remarked that they are 'nicht immer sehr konsequent',116 without substantiating further.In fact, of the 28 verse points now visible in photos (fig.3),117 the distribution is quite regular, though sometimes faulty (fig.2): Line 1 (4), Line 2 (3), Line 3 (3, with 2 incorrectly placed), Line 4 (3, with 2 incorrectly placed), Line 5 (4, with 1 incorrectly placed), Line 6 (4, with 1 incorrectly placed and 1 with traces), Line 7 (4, with 1 incorrectly placed), Line 8 (3, with 1 incorrectly placed).
Concerning the eight verse points in problematic places (fig.1), they precede (rather than follow) the A2 and the suffix pronoun =f in Line 3, the classifiers A2 and F51 in Line 4, the suffix pronoun =f in Line 5 and the classifier group Y1:Z2 in Line 8. The points are out only by a single sign/ group, a common error.118However, two other errors occur in unexpected places, which leads us to consider how the scribe was reading, writing or correcting the text.In Line 6 the verse point segments the predicative elements of a clause from the adverbial phrase: jw pt{r}j=f bwA j {VP} mj S A wA j 'he has taken a nobleman • for a poor man'.In Line 7, a verse point divides the subject of a nominal non-verbal sentence from its predicate: jnk {VP} tA dp 'I am • the (female)  boss (lit.head)'.In this case, perhaps the scribe misread the passage, seeing the jnk as the possessive pronoun ('my') of the preceding noun Hn.wt 'mistress'.This is possible in Late Egyptian with several antecedents,119 but does not make sense in context, as a possessive pronoun tAy=w already precedes Hn.wt.These errors make it possible that the scribe was mostly inserting the verse points after the composition was completed, as Tacke suggested for the Miscellanies. 120wo things support this: firstly, as we shall see, the fact that there is a correlation between sense breaks and re-inking (i.e., independent of whether verse points are in the right place or not, see below) and secondly the location of the verse points (Table 1).In eleven of 28 cases, there is no extra space between signs for the verse points, suggesting that they are later additions.Also, the fact that many verse points have a similar shape and hue (contrasting with the signs around them, see throughout Line 7) may also suggest they were made together.
The placement of the verse points, however, is not always haphazard.The 20 of 28 correctly placed cases are clearly connected with sense-breaks in the text (fig.2).Mathieu, on this basis, claims that the verse points mark couplets in the text, 121 which is true for the most part.However, where verse points are missing in longer stretches, couplets fall apart and abridgement seems to have taken place.Following the second verse point on Line 2, the theme changes without further separation by a verse point.This is the most garbled part of the text, suggesting that the scribe, perhaps overwhelmed by their task, could not decide where to put in visual breaks, as they were cutting so much text that they couldn't follow the visual cues of the original.Nevertheless, as we will see, even where the scribe was not sure where to put verse points, they do seem to have had a natural sense of where the sense breaks were.We can tell this based on having tested the potential correlation between interruptions in syntax and signs of the scribe re-inking the pen. 122ases for re-inking are derived from changes in ink colour and line thickness.Though colour contrast can help, the state of the surface must likewise be taken into consideration.As for line thickness, though helpful, it can be misleading, since straight signs (signs like s and j), in which the full thickness of the pen is pushed onto the surface, tend to be the thickest.On the other hand, perhaps scribes predominantly chose to re-ink before writing straight signs, to discharge extraneous ink before tackling more complex signs.In any case, to avoid charges of arbitrariness, the thickness is only regarded as significant when it is concomitant with colour change.
Though some see frequent inking as a hallmark of inexperience, 123 one must consider that many variables (such as speed and need for display) come into play here. 124evertheless, this half writing tablet has at a minimum 60 cases of re-inking and on average seven dips per line (see Table 2, figs 2 and 3).
Venturini 2007123 Venturini : 1886. 124 . 124 Compare Pentaweret's calligraphy on pSallier III = pEA10181, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10181-3(accessed 01.06.2022) with the shorthand of Qenherkhepeshef on pChester Beatty III, Vso = EA10683, <https://www .britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10683-3>(accessed 01.06.2022).In the latter, the scribe re-inks only when necessary, indicating haste.Neither case can be taken as demonstrating lack of skill.surfaces are so abraded.Regardless, from those cases in which the beginnings of lines can be read, re-inking seems to be common at the beginnings of lines (at least six to eight times).Moreover, as mentioned, re-inking also often correlates with sense breaks: of the 33-34 natural breaks in the syntax (with or without verse points, an average of four per line), re-inking co-occurs at least 24 times.Re-inking is also visible in places where there are surprising jumps in the text (i.e., likely abridgement): twice on Line 1 (ptr and mtw=tw) and four times on Line 2 (jr.t=f, r mn, j-jr and Dd) (fig.2).In papyrology, re-inking where a clear sense-break in the content occurs (instead of in the middle of a word) can be taken as indication of attention to content. 125Thus, correlations of these features can highlight comprehension and composition method.If that is the case, a commensurate kind of attention is visible here in about 73% of cases, indicating frequent correlation between pausing at the end of a phrase (or line) and re-inking the pen.Similarly, the six cases of pausing to re-ink before a major jump in the text (in Lines 1 and 2) are indicative of a process of slower action and concentration.

Conclusions
The user of the writing board Given the state of the text on the writing board, we can hypothesise that its owner was a student who had reached an intermediate stage of formation.Though errors of syntax are most common at the beginning of the text (with six of ten in the first two lines alone), verse point issues are distributed throughout.Though the morphological features are more representative of the chronolect or style than of inexperience, orthographic particularities are visible (at least ten cases), as are indications of an immature scribal ductus (eight have been marked).

The writing exercise being executed
Since so little is known about the didactic process, Goelet opts to use the term 'reproduction' to cover 'direct copying, copying from memory, and taking dictation'. 126His list, however, does not include processes like abridgement.Abridgement is, however, very likely to have been practiced here, 127 in contrast to the calligraphic exercises and excerpting on most other writing boards. 128The findings might also suggest under what conditions this abridgement took place.While Kammerzell argues for the textual errors to be attributed to taking dictation, 129 this presumes that an already abridged version of the text was the text being read aloud.The errors point in a completely different direction.For one, we do not have the kinds of errors attributed to dictation, like homonyms of a word. 130Moreover, if the student had been inattentive and omitted words, such mistakes would occur throughout the text.Instead, they are limited to the first two lines.Once the Body's speech starts, the text reads fluently.For this reason, it is likely that the student had a fuller text in front of them and they had to find a way to accommodate a shorter version onto sixteen lines.Wanting to get to the prosecution, the scribe attempts to cover key points from what must have been a lengthy and convoluted introduction -with less than spectacular results.One could hypothesise, based on these findings, that the second half concerns itself principally with the defence address of the Head, followed by a brief description of the verdict.The erroneous placement of verse points (eight of 28) also seems to indicate that the verse points and text were not checked after copying, by the student 131 or the master. 132espite this, it seems that verse points were inserted after the text was completed, not as a checking mechanism 133 but rather as a hasty means of completing the text.We see this in the absence of verse points from highly abridged passages as well as in the way verse points are squashed above signs or in the wrong place.
To conclude, the orthography and ductus indicate that this writing board contained a student exercise.That abridgement was the exercise being carried out, rather than another copying exercise, is suggested by cases of disjunction in the syntax, as well as the setting of verse points.These findings suggest that this was a first pass, as it does not seem to have been corrected by a master.The verse points are more likely to be indicative of a student hand and bear signs of having been hastily inserted to finish the task.They were certainly not inserted while the text was being read through carefully.In sum, this tablet reveals heretofore unknown pedagogical practices from the Late Ramesside and Third Intermediate Periods and encourages a closer look at the way in which writing boards were used by their owners.

Appendix: Translation of The Contendings between the Body and the Head
This translation is confronted by a methodological issue: To what extent should translators attempt an elegant transla tion of an abridged text by mitigating potential gaps, and to what extent should they attempt to translate in a way that reveals textual problems?The following attempt presents as smooth a translation as possible, while indicating via (?) cases in which gaps prevent a clear translation.
[1] The litigation (lit.judging) of the Body against (lit.with) the Head • in order to clarify what they do • and to proclaim their (respective) characters before the Tribunal of Thirty • -who their boss (lit.head) is • -and in order that one reveal [2] the wrongdoer • -his (the Head's?) eyes were weeping because of the (impending?) demotion(?)(lit.fluctuation) • -It is for the god (?) that one carries out justice, as his abomination are cases of injustice.• The Body stated that the Head is her subordinate [3] and her mouth [cried 131 McDowell 1996: 607. 132 Möller 1927: 3 (Sign 35B); Verhoeven 2001: 102. 21Caminos 1977: 3. pMoscow 127 = pPushkin I b 127 (Letter of Wermai / Tale of Woe) has been dated via relative dating -the palaeography of other El-Hibeh papyri, such as pMoscow 120 = pPushkin I b 120 (Misfortunes of Wenamun) and pMoscow 128 = pPushkin I b 128 (Onomasticon of Amenemope), as well as their common find spot inside a jar -and absolute dating, such as the mention of early Third Intermediate Period rulers in pMoscow 120.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Transcription of the writing board showing variations or problems in palaeography, orthography, morphology, syntax and verse points.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Transcription of the writing board showing sense breaks and possible re-inking.
Goelet 2008: 109. 133Tacke 2001: 137.out] loudly (lit.a lot): • 'As far as I am concerned, I am the (female) strut of the whole • house, who guides the (other) struts and who steadies (lit.harnesses) the (other) struts.• Each limb leans [4] gladly on me, the heart being glad, • the {heart} <limb> being controlled (lit.clever), • and the neck being established under the head.• My eye sees into the distance (lit.sees in distancing itself), the nose [5] can breathe and draws breath, • the ear is receptive (lit.open) and hears, • the mouth articulates (lit.shouts) and makes (lit.finds) its • response, and the arms are controlled (lit.clever) and render service.• [6] That the man goes around, staying distant, • his forehead being lifted (so far) up • that he has taken a nobleman • for a poor man, (is) while I am doing everything right (lit.full of maat)!• [The conflict (lit.lack)?] [7] with him weighs (lit.is) [upon] me! • Don't hurt (lit.slaughter) <me?>! Don't subjugate (lit.conquer) me! • Each limb works with the other.• I am their mistress!I am • the (female) boss (lit.head) of her subordinates […] [8] How [wrong] is the one that says about this: • 'The head, he is not in the wrong [...]'!Let one call me the (female) boss (lit.head)!• I am one who vivifies • [...]'.

Table 1 .
Number of verse points above the final sign group compared to the number of verse points per line.

Table 2 .
Estimated number of cases of re-inking the pen per line.