DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6444#0110
g-urob
the scribe has continued his columns (a) and
(b) of 10 uninterruptedly, we may safely correct
the numeral 10 to 5. This is warranted by
the occurrence of the numeral 1 in these lines
where the other lines have 2; by the summa-
tion of neheh-oil at the left-hand end of these
lines (d) requiring 5 in (b); and lastly, by the
statement in 1. 1 requiring a total of 130 for
the whole column (a).
We now come to the most violent of the
corrections, and yet it is one which I think
perfectly justified. In 11. 14 and 16 the pay-
ment of the overseers drops from 10 henu to o,
and to 0 in 1. 18. In 1. 4 there are 89 work-
men, who dwindle to 63 in 1.13; in the next
line they drop suddenly to 40-J. Here the
overseers receive only half the allowance, and
although in 11. 15 and 17, where the workmen
are 34 and 38, they receive the full, it is
halved again in 1. 16, where there are 33 men.
But in 1. 18, where there are only 2 workmen,
the overseers get nothing.
The natural explanation of these figures
would be as follows. There were only 2 over-
seers, and when the workmen dropped to half,
one or other was allowed to absent himself
occasionally; when the men were reduced to
2, both overseers left. This explanation is
fully confirmed by the first phrase in 1. 4:
" [2 overseers take each] 5 henu, making
10 henu [of bak-oiY]." But in the next phrase
the scribe has made a muddle, for he continues:
" and each one 2 henu of neheh-oil, makes
10 henu." What he ought to have said was:
" and 2 [overseers], each one [5] henu of
neheh-oil, makes 10 henu." He continues the
erroneous formula throughout, and so in 11. 14
and 16 writes 1 henu instead of 1 overseer.
If we were to suppose that there were really
5 overseers, each receiving 2 henu on most
days and 1 on others, this would be in direct
contradiction to the statements in the first
phrase. The scribe has, in fact, carelessly
entered the number of overseers under the
PAPYRL 97
henu column, instead of the number of henu
of oil paid to them.
Bale-oil, which was perhaps considered of
superior quality to neheh-oil, has generally
been supposed to be olive-oil, but Loret,
Flore Pharaonique, 2nd Ed., p. 86 (cf. Bee. de
Trav., vii., 101), considers it to be the oil of
the Myrobalanum (Moringa aptera). Neheh is
a general name for vegetable oils, but probably
it strictly designates some commoner sort, such
as castor-oil (Bicinus). Klkl, "castor-oil," and
eXaiov, " olive-oil," were amongst the payments
in kind to grooms in the Ptolemaic period
(Mahaffy, Petrie Papyri, ii., p. [72]). The
measure henu is nearly |- pint, or '477 litre, so
that the labourers would receive about 2 pints
of neheh-oil, while the overseers obtained 4 pints
of neheh-oil and the same of &aZ>oil.
Below the table the same width is divided
into two pages, the second of which is nearly
complete. The first page can be in part
restored from the second.
Second Entry.
(19) [Year 2, 1st month of Winter (Tybi), day ... :
One was in the House of Rameses Meriamen, L.P.H.!
the great lea of Ra] Harmakhis.
(20) .......................................... 50 tamu.
(21) [Received as tax(?) of the fish which were in
the hands of ........................ rejputy (?) fish on the
quadruple hehat system of measure, 1520 medimni.
Their detail:—
(22)................................................. 1*2, 113,
111, 60, 57, 68, 3.
. (23) ....................................... 20 A-ba-shtu (?),
8 apt-full of dough.
(24)................................................ 12.
1. 19. This was the Residence to which
Harnesses II. returned after his triumph over
the Kheta (Sail., iii., p. 11, 1. 6).
I. 21. The helcat contained 10 hin, the quad-
ruple hehat 40 hin, and the medimnus four
times the quadruple helcat, or 160 hin = 16f
gallons or 76-32 litres. The reading h>r (Jchar)
proposed for -D-, "sack, medimnus," P.S.B.A.,
the scribe has continued his columns (a) and
(b) of 10 uninterruptedly, we may safely correct
the numeral 10 to 5. This is warranted by
the occurrence of the numeral 1 in these lines
where the other lines have 2; by the summa-
tion of neheh-oil at the left-hand end of these
lines (d) requiring 5 in (b); and lastly, by the
statement in 1. 1 requiring a total of 130 for
the whole column (a).
We now come to the most violent of the
corrections, and yet it is one which I think
perfectly justified. In 11. 14 and 16 the pay-
ment of the overseers drops from 10 henu to o,
and to 0 in 1. 18. In 1. 4 there are 89 work-
men, who dwindle to 63 in 1.13; in the next
line they drop suddenly to 40-J. Here the
overseers receive only half the allowance, and
although in 11. 15 and 17, where the workmen
are 34 and 38, they receive the full, it is
halved again in 1. 16, where there are 33 men.
But in 1. 18, where there are only 2 workmen,
the overseers get nothing.
The natural explanation of these figures
would be as follows. There were only 2 over-
seers, and when the workmen dropped to half,
one or other was allowed to absent himself
occasionally; when the men were reduced to
2, both overseers left. This explanation is
fully confirmed by the first phrase in 1. 4:
" [2 overseers take each] 5 henu, making
10 henu [of bak-oiY]." But in the next phrase
the scribe has made a muddle, for he continues:
" and each one 2 henu of neheh-oil, makes
10 henu." What he ought to have said was:
" and 2 [overseers], each one [5] henu of
neheh-oil, makes 10 henu." He continues the
erroneous formula throughout, and so in 11. 14
and 16 writes 1 henu instead of 1 overseer.
If we were to suppose that there were really
5 overseers, each receiving 2 henu on most
days and 1 on others, this would be in direct
contradiction to the statements in the first
phrase. The scribe has, in fact, carelessly
entered the number of overseers under the
PAPYRL 97
henu column, instead of the number of henu
of oil paid to them.
Bale-oil, which was perhaps considered of
superior quality to neheh-oil, has generally
been supposed to be olive-oil, but Loret,
Flore Pharaonique, 2nd Ed., p. 86 (cf. Bee. de
Trav., vii., 101), considers it to be the oil of
the Myrobalanum (Moringa aptera). Neheh is
a general name for vegetable oils, but probably
it strictly designates some commoner sort, such
as castor-oil (Bicinus). Klkl, "castor-oil," and
eXaiov, " olive-oil," were amongst the payments
in kind to grooms in the Ptolemaic period
(Mahaffy, Petrie Papyri, ii., p. [72]). The
measure henu is nearly |- pint, or '477 litre, so
that the labourers would receive about 2 pints
of neheh-oil, while the overseers obtained 4 pints
of neheh-oil and the same of &aZ>oil.
Below the table the same width is divided
into two pages, the second of which is nearly
complete. The first page can be in part
restored from the second.
Second Entry.
(19) [Year 2, 1st month of Winter (Tybi), day ... :
One was in the House of Rameses Meriamen, L.P.H.!
the great lea of Ra] Harmakhis.
(20) .......................................... 50 tamu.
(21) [Received as tax(?) of the fish which were in
the hands of ........................ rejputy (?) fish on the
quadruple hehat system of measure, 1520 medimni.
Their detail:—
(22)................................................. 1*2, 113,
111, 60, 57, 68, 3.
. (23) ....................................... 20 A-ba-shtu (?),
8 apt-full of dough.
(24)................................................ 12.
1. 19. This was the Residence to which
Harnesses II. returned after his triumph over
the Kheta (Sail., iii., p. 11, 1. 6).
I. 21. The helcat contained 10 hin, the quad-
ruple hehat 40 hin, and the medimnus four
times the quadruple helcat, or 160 hin = 16f
gallons or 76-32 litres. The reading h>r (Jchar)
proposed for -D-, "sack, medimnus," P.S.B.A.,