DOI Artikel:
Kenyon, Frederic George: Progress of Egyptology: graeco-roman Egypt
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12051#0069
GlUECO-KoMAN EgYTT.
57
will not rank as one of the most generally interesting of those for which
its editors are responsible; but to the specialist it will take its place
alongside of the volumes of tbe Petrie papyri as a main source of in-
formation for the earlier part of the 1'tolemaic empire in Egypt. Full
texts are given of 121 papyri (20 being tbe literary works mentioned
above), and descriptions of 50 more; the indices are on the usual scale,
and ten plates are added, containing reproductions of 21 MSS. (mostly
literary). The texts include a few royal ordinances, legal documents,
and petitions, a great quantity of letters (official and private), and
several contracts, receipts, and accounts. None of them singly is very
noticeable (except the astronomical and festal calendar for the Saite
nome, and the register of the State letter-post); but collectively they
contain a large amount of economic data. At the end are three im-
portant appendices, which (as in the Tebtunis volume) summarize the
more important and novel results of the volume. The first (in which
the editors have had the assistance of Prof. Smyly, who has made a
special study of the subject) is on the difficult topic of the Macedonian
and Egyptian calendars. It cannot be said that it removes all difficul-
ties or explains all obscurities, but it is at least more promising than
Prof. Strack's results (see Report for 1899). It is too complicated to
summarize here, but it may be stated that it is based on an Egyptian
year of 305 days and a Macedonian of 354, the latter, however, being
so extended by irregular and arbitrary intercalation that on the average
it works out as longer than the Egyptian year. The second appendix
deals with the system of dating, showing that in the reigus of
Philadelphia, Euergetes I, and Philopator there were two systems of
reckoning the years. One (with which we have been long familiar,
and which was used for revenue purposes) began on the 1st of Thoth,
and reckoned the period between a king's accession and the next 1st of
Thoth as his first year; the other began at some different day, but it
is difficult to fix what it was. One would naturally expect it to be
the day of the king's accession, but this explanation does not readily
harmonize with all the known facts; what is certain is that the figures
of the " revenue" year are generally higher by one than those of the
other system. Documents connected with the revenue are presumably
always dated by the revenue year; but there is some reason to suppose
that in oilier documents the rival system was generally employed. The
third appendix gives a list of the eponymous priesthoods from 301 to 221
B.C. They begin (in the earliest document known) with a single
priesthood, which can only be that of Alexander, the very early establish-
57
will not rank as one of the most generally interesting of those for which
its editors are responsible; but to the specialist it will take its place
alongside of the volumes of tbe Petrie papyri as a main source of in-
formation for the earlier part of the 1'tolemaic empire in Egypt. Full
texts are given of 121 papyri (20 being tbe literary works mentioned
above), and descriptions of 50 more; the indices are on the usual scale,
and ten plates are added, containing reproductions of 21 MSS. (mostly
literary). The texts include a few royal ordinances, legal documents,
and petitions, a great quantity of letters (official and private), and
several contracts, receipts, and accounts. None of them singly is very
noticeable (except the astronomical and festal calendar for the Saite
nome, and the register of the State letter-post); but collectively they
contain a large amount of economic data. At the end are three im-
portant appendices, which (as in the Tebtunis volume) summarize the
more important and novel results of the volume. The first (in which
the editors have had the assistance of Prof. Smyly, who has made a
special study of the subject) is on the difficult topic of the Macedonian
and Egyptian calendars. It cannot be said that it removes all difficul-
ties or explains all obscurities, but it is at least more promising than
Prof. Strack's results (see Report for 1899). It is too complicated to
summarize here, but it may be stated that it is based on an Egyptian
year of 305 days and a Macedonian of 354, the latter, however, being
so extended by irregular and arbitrary intercalation that on the average
it works out as longer than the Egyptian year. The second appendix
deals with the system of dating, showing that in the reigus of
Philadelphia, Euergetes I, and Philopator there were two systems of
reckoning the years. One (with which we have been long familiar,
and which was used for revenue purposes) began on the 1st of Thoth,
and reckoned the period between a king's accession and the next 1st of
Thoth as his first year; the other began at some different day, but it
is difficult to fix what it was. One would naturally expect it to be
the day of the king's accession, but this explanation does not readily
harmonize with all the known facts; what is certain is that the figures
of the " revenue" year are generally higher by one than those of the
other system. Documents connected with the revenue are presumably
always dated by the revenue year; but there is some reason to suppose
that in oilier documents the rival system was generally employed. The
third appendix gives a list of the eponymous priesthoods from 301 to 221
B.C. They begin (in the earliest document known) with a single
priesthood, which can only be that of Alexander, the very early establish-