bpy=i ptr

The phrase bpy=i ptr, and its variants,140 _{occurs frequently in both P.BM EA}

10052 and P.Mayer A and is the second most utilised form of denial beyond ‘explanation’. The accused, throughout the course of both P.BM EA 10052 and P.Mayer A, use this particular phrase in various places either to deny their involvement outright, or to deny further involvement in the robberies and can be alongside other denial phrases or focus constructions, either being the first statement the accused makes, or the final one. The construction itself appears to be a different palaeographical writing of the bwpw=f sDm negative past tense/negative preterite (Černý & Groll, 1993: 204ff; Junge, 2005: 153). The only time the form bwpw is used in the TRP is in P.Abbott141 _{where it is used to detail whether or not tombs had been broken into, and}

not used as part of speech.

bpy=i ptr at the Beginning of a Testimony

The first place that bpy=i ptr occurs is at the beginning of the accused’s testimony. An example of this has already been shown at the beginning of Section 4.5 (Ex.1), but another example from the testimony of Pawenesh is:

140 _{As demonstrated in the tables above, bpy=i ptr also has endings such as nty nb gr, or just gr. The}

addition of these endings to the bpy=i ptr construction does not denote ‘everyone’ or ‘everything’ but rather ‘anyone’ or ‘anything’ just as nb in negative constructions does not always define its proceeding noun Černý & Groll 1993: 231.

123 | P a g e

Ex.3: P.BM EA 10052 11, 18

Dd=f bpy=i ptr nty nb i-ir(=i) anx m wa pr [Sri] n pr mwt

‘He said, “I saw no one. I lived in a small house belonging to the temple of Mut.”’

Since the phrase bpy=i ptr occurs at the beginning of both these testimonies it means that the accused’s denial of involvement is brought to the fore immediately, without the accused bringing forth evidence of their innocence. In the testimony of Ese (Ex.1) she simply states that she did not see, thus leaving no room for interpretation on the part of the Tribunal. The testimony of Pawenesh142 _{(Ex.3) also has the bpy=i ptr}

denial at the beginning of his recorded speech. His particular denial is not just a straightforward bpy=i ptr denial, but one of the variants classified as a bpy=i ptr + explanation that allows the accused to not only deny their involvement in the robberies but also to explain why their involvement was not possible. In his testimony, Pawenesh uses the bpy=i ptr + explanation to provide a plausible reason as to why he has not benefited from the robberies, the reason being that he is poor and therefore could not have benefited, implying that he would otherwise be benefitting from this new wealth. His use of bpy=i ptr in this way does not take active control of the discourse with the Tribunal, unlike Ese’s use of it. Instead, Pawenesh remains in the position we would expect of a subordinate in this situation, as while he is challenging the Tribunal on their presuppositions, he is not directly confronting them. While on the surface the bpy=i ptr examples in Ese’s and Pawenesh’s testimonies appear similar, they are in fact using them in different ways. Indeed, Pawenesh uses bpy=i ptr nty nb ‘I saw no-one’ which is a variation on the standard bpy=i ptr we see in the TRP, perhaps indicating that this is something Pawenesh said, rather than something that was ‘scribified’.

Another example of the phrase bpy=i ptr being used at the beginning of a testimony comes from the testimony of Slave Degay, who has been brought before the Tribunal on account of his ‘master’ Bukhaaf, likely because the Tribunal believe he has seen or been involved with Bukhaaf’s robberies. While there is no direct evidence for Degay’s involvement in the robberies, we cannot rule out his participation:

142 _{Priest Pawenesh also has a testimony in P.Mayer A (8.6-7) that uses a bpy=i ptr + explanation}

124 | P a g e

Ex.4: P.BM EA 10052 4, 14-18

Dd=tw n=f ix pA sxr Sm i-ir=k i-r-m bw-xAa=f pA nb twt nA rmT wn i-r-m=f Dd=f bpy=i ptr iry.tw=f ix wa HD gm=f sw m-di ps-snTr ns-imn Hna nA iTA wn i- r-m=f

‘He was asked, “What is the story of your going with Bukhaaf the master of yours with the men who were with him?” He said, “I did not see (it). What is this about a (haul of) silver? He found it in the possession of the Incense Preparer Nesamun with the thieves who were with him.”’

This is another example of the bpy=i ptr + explanation usage, which is found at the start of a person’s testimony. This example also includes a ‘rhetorical question’ in conjunction with the denial phrase as part of the accused’s ‘strategy’. By using the bpy=i ptr + explanation at the front of his testimony, Degay allows himself to deny outright that he saw anything to do with the silver his master Bukhaaf is alleged to have stolen from the tombs, and challenge the Tribunal on their assumptions. The bpy=i ptr at the beginning allows him the opportunity to deny his involvement but then move directly into challenging the Tribunal on their assumptions. This gives Degay, as the Subordinate, a temporary active control in the discourse with the Tribunal in order to try to persuade them of his innocence in the matter. Unlike Pawenesh, who only uses the bpy=i ptr + explanation to defend himself, Degay uses it to directly challenge the Tribunal, thus giving him active discourse control. His usage of the bpy=i ptr phrase here fits neatly as an answer to the question posed. It does not read as if the Scribe has doctored Degay’s speech in order to insert this as a paraphrase for a much longer denial, and therefore the assumption is that this was something Degay actually said. This testimony is unusual as Degay is listed as having the title ‘Slave’ and belongs to another accused, Bukhaaf, yet seemingly directly refutes the Tribunal’s accusations thus going against the established norm for a Subordinate/Superior relationship in this context. Therefore, if what is being shown here is Degay using his speech to launch a direct FTA back at the Tribunal, then what we have is another example of someone from the lowest positions in society speaking out against some of the highest.

125 | P a g e

bpy=i ptr at the End of a Testimony

This example of bpy=i ptr, from Trumpeter Perpatjau, comes at the end of the testimony, after he has been asked how he went to rob the tombs, and before Butcher Pennesuttawy is examined:

Ex.5: P.Mayer A 3, 18-20

in sft pn-nswt -tAwy sA b-s iw Dd Dd-m-Snb pr-pA-TAw sDm=ir-Dd wn=f m nA swt iw bpy=i ptr=f m irt=i

‘The Butcher Pennesuttawy son of Besa was brought in because of the Trumpeter Perpatjau had said, “I heard that he was in the places, although I did not see him with my eye.”’ The bpy=i ptr in this particular example is one of the variants mentioned earlier, which denies seeing anything with the eye. By using this form of the bpy=i ptr denial Perpatjau is only denying having seen something to do with the robberies, but not that he does not know anything about them. This is evident from the statement that precedes the denial, which states that he heard of information to do with the robberies. By stating that he heard of Pennesuttawy’s involvement, Perpatjau admits that he knew of someone else’s crimes, but with the use of the denial phrase Perpatjau halts further presupposition from the Tribunal; i.e. that he saw anything more than this. Note that his use of the bpy=i ptr denial here is not used as an exclamation of ‘I didn’t see!’ but in a conditional manner where he accepts knowing Pennesuttawy was a thief, but denies having seen him commit crimes i.e. being there when robberies were occurring. The use of the bpy=i ptr denial at the end of his testimony also effectively cuts off the Tribunal’s further questioning as it implies he has said all he is willing to say on the issue. The variation present here would indicate that this might be in fact something Perpatjau actually said rather than ‘scribification’ as one would expect if the phrase was spoken in the same context and style as many others. In all the examples shown so far there have been slight variations in the way in which bpy=i ptr is used by the accused, which shows us that, at the very least, not all instances of bpy=i ptr repeat in the same manner and therefore not all can be said to be ‘scribified’.

In some cases, bpy=i ptr is only used by the accused to try to end their testimony sooner. This is evident here where Pawenesh, seen again here in P.Mayer A, is using the bpy=i ptr denial phrase to try to end the interrogation as he has no more to add to the testimony:

126 | P a g e

Ex.6: P.Mayer A 8, 8

wHm smtr=f m qn(qn) m b-D-n m qnqn Dri m Ss sp.2 Dd=f bpy=i ptr ‘He was examined again by beating in a very severe beating. He said, “I saw nothing”’ It is this type of bpy=i ptr phrase that appears most often at the end of testimonies as the accused try to convince the Tribunal that they have nothing more to confess, and one which is possibly the most heavily edited by the scribe writing the document. While it is very likely that the accused chose to answer the Tribunal using very similar language, when this particular phrase occurs at the end of a testimony it usually comes directly after the accused has been beaten. This ‘beating’ uses standardised phrasing, which only changes depending on what the accused was examined with, and therefore it is not erroneous to presume that the denial phrase that follows it might also be something which the scribe has shortened or edited to sit alongside the other standardised phrases that occur in these texts. Even so, the use of the denial phrase here at the end of the testimony is not about achieving a more stable position, unlike as if it was used at the beginning, but merely a statement to the Tribunal that they are not going to get any further information from this particular accused. Pawenesh has already used a bpy=i ptr + explanation example143 _{in this particular}

testimony to gain active control of the discourse in order to try to persuade the Tribunal of his innocence with evidence. When this fails and he is beaten, he seems to use the straightforward bpy=i ptr as a last attempt to get the Tribunal to see that he has nothing more to say. From the context we know that this fails, as there is a note after his testimony that states that the Tribunal have sent him back to be held for further questioning should the need arise.144