offprint zas 135 2008-libre

8/9/2019 Offprint ZAS 135 2008-Libre

1/14

30 F. Hagen: A Ramesside Administrative Document ZÄS135 (2008)

FREDRIK H AGEN

A Ramesside Administrative Document (P. Cambridge UniversityLibrary MS. Add. 4167) 1

Hierzu Tafel II–V

Introduction

P. Cambridge University Library MS. Add.4167 is an unprovenanced papyrus containing a

list of unspecified foodstuffs, probably grain,given to some controllers and their wives, as well as a stable master, ‘by the hand of’ severalsoldiers. It has not previously been published,although J.Černý made a preliminary transcrip-tion of it in one of his notebooks, now in theGriffith Institute in Oxford2. One scholar, pos-sibly A. H. Gardiner, also made a transcription

of the recto of the papyrus for the Wörterbuchproject 3. The papyrus is noted in the records ofCambridge University Library as having beenreceived in 1894 as part of the bequest of a Mr

1

I am grateful to Jac. J. Janssen who read and com-mented upon an early draft of this article, althoughnaturally any mistakes and opinions expressed remainmy own. My thanks are also due to the CambridgeUniversity Library for allowing me to publish the papy-rus, and for their help in establishing the history of themanuscript. The abbreviations employed in referencesto monographs series and journals are those of the

Samuel Sandars (1837–1894)4. Sandars was astudent at Trinity College, Cambridge, and fol-lowing his graduation in 1860 he began a careerin law. He was an avid bibliophile for most of

his life, and, under the guidance of the then Li-brarian at the University, Mr H. Bradshaw, builtup a considerable collection of manuscripts andearly printed books. He donated manuscripts,books and money (expressly for the purpose ofthe acquisition of books) to the Librarythroughout his life, and is remembered as itsfirst regular modern benefactor – he also foun-

ded the Sandars Readership in Bibliography 5

.Upon his death in 1894 he bequeathed the ma-jority of his collection to the Library, includingalmost a hundred manuscripts, roughly onehundred incunables, and three hundred Englishbooks printed before 16016. Along with thebooks and manuscripts, the bequest included ameticulously annotated and indexed catalogue ofthe collection made by Sandars himself

7

. Curi-ously, his catalogue makes no mention of anEgyptian papyrus, but this need not indicate thatit was not part of his collection. The catalogue isdivided into two parts, the first entitled “List inRough Chronological Order of Manuscripts be-


2/14

ZÄS135 (2008) F. H a ge n: A Ramesside Administrative Document 31

Physical appearanceCambridge University Library MS. Add. 4167

is a fragment of papyrus, light brown in colour,measuring c. 35.5× 11.1 cm. It is inscribed onboth the recto and the verso in black and redink, and clear traces of palimpsest can be seenon both sides. The text is written in black

throughout, with the exception of dates andnumbers in red. The use of red ink to writenumbers is not consistent, and examples inblack ink are found on the verso (col. III.2, III.3,III.4 and III.6), and, on one occasion, on therecto (4, end). There is one observable join(right over left), on the right hand side of therecto, approximately 8.2 cm from the current

edge. The writing on this side begins immedi-ately to the left of the join, so there is a marginof approximately 9.5 cm to the right hand edge. The lower portion of the papyrus is partly disin-tegrated, so that lines 7 and 8 are only partiallypreserved. How much is lost below this is im-possible to estimate. The fabric of the papyrus isnot particularly fine. The sheet of papyrus to theright of the beginning of the text (on the recto)has some faint traces of signs in black, and thereare blotches of diluted red ink following thesetraces, but no recognisable signs (unlike the redpalimpsest traces elsewhere which are generallyrecognisable as numbers). The bottom of therecto is the top of the verso, showing that thescribe had simply turned the papyrus over thehorizontal axis and continued writing.

The papyrus is well preserved, so that rela-tively little of the text is lost in lacunae. The onlyone that disrupts the reading is towards the endof recto 2. The physically separate fragments

d i h l i h h d f

, in which case it is most likely thestart of a line otherwise not preserved. Although the palimpsest traces cannot be

read, it seems clear that it was a list of a similartype to the current one. In particular, the tracesin red ink on the left side of both the recto and verso suggest this8. The erased middle area onthe verso was not re-inscribed, and so have sub-stantial traces of the previous text, which itselfappears to have been palimpsest judging fromthe presence of black ink (badly erased) super-imposed over traces of red ink in several places,although this may be a result of the erasure inantiquity 9. The most recently erased text on the verso is written upside-down compared to both

the current text on the verso, and to the palimp-sest traces on the recto – the palimpsest on therecto and the verso are therefore not necessarilypart of one single text. Despite the substantialtraces on the verso, the erased text cannot beread, with the exception of some isolatedgroups: both lines 2 and 3 have traces of

at the beginning (possibly also in line 6,

where the sign is clear in a corresponding posi-tion), and at the middle and end of line 2 thegroups and can be made out.

Date and palaeography

The hand is practised and consistent, and it

exhibits a rather cramped style with a number oflong horizontal signs being shortened consid-erably 10. Dating an administrative text based onpalaeography is problematic, and the standardreference work, G. Möller’s Hieratische Paläo-graphie, has a number of methodological short-

i f d i 11 R k


3/14


the 19th

and 20th

Dynasty by S. Wimmer wouldappear to have improved matters12, but his ap-proach has been questioned13. Wimmer himselfhas rightly been cautious in his evaluation of thereliability of palaeography for dating purposes:‘differences [in signs and sign groups of the 19thand 20th Dynasty] must not be mixed up withsound dating criteria. Their reliability is depen-

dent on the quantity of their occurrence, and inmany cases they indicate no more and no lessthan statistical tendencies’14. In addition to this,H.-W. Fischer-Elfert has observed how a num-ber of ostraca from Elephantine written in anOld Kingdom hieratic style were found in ar-chaeological contexts that date them securely tothe 12th Dynasty 15, and the Saite oracular papyrus(P. Brooklyn 47.218.3), securely dated to thereign of Psammetichus I., has 50 signatures thatemploy scripts which vary from hieratic to ab-normal hieratic – if taken separately and out ofcontext they would most likely have been datedto different periods16. Such examples show thelimits of palaeographical dating methods, andthe following comments should be read withthese limitations in mind.

According to the methodology developed by Wimmer17, the following signs may give an indi-cation of the date of the hand. Of the three ex-amples of , all are of typed (recto 4, 5 and 6), which is only attested for the 20th Dynasty in

12 S. Wi mmer, Hieratische Paläographie der nicht-literarischen Ostraka der 19. und 20. Dynastie, ÄAT 28, Wiesbaden 1995, 2 vols; S. Wimmer, HieratischePaläographie: Zur Datierung der nicht-literarischenOstraka in: Proceedings of the Seventh International

Wimmer’s corpus18

. The form of non-ligaturedis in two cases typec (recto 5 and 6) and inone case typeb (recto 5), all of which are primar-ily attested in the 20th Dynasty, although theoverall paucity of examples of in the 19thDynasty part of his corpus is potentially distort-ing 19. A number of ligatures may point to a 20thDynasty date, including (recto 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and

verso I.1, I.2), (recto 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and verso I1)and (recto 2, 3, 5 and 8), although none aremore than suggestive20. All seven examples of(recto 2, 5, 6, 7 and verso I.2) are of typea which is marginally more common in the 20thDynasty 21. The two examples of (recto 4 and verso I.2) are both typeb , which is more com-mon in the 20th Dynasty 22. (recto 6; not liga-tured) is of typea which Wimmer has as a 20

th

Dynasty variant 23, but there are few examplesoverall in his corpus. (recto 6) is of typec or d ,both of which are only attested in 20th Dynastysources in Wimmer’s corpus24, but the low num-ber of occurrences makes interpretation diffi-cult. (recto 7) is of type b, which appears to betypical of the 20th Dynasty 25, but here too thelow overall number may be misleading.

None of these examples are decisive, and the-re are some forms that point to an earlier date. The sign (recto 6) with a clear cross on top ismore common in the 19th Dynasty 26, but Wim-mer lists one example securely dated to the reignof Ramesses III27. The traces of (recto 2), if

18 Wimmer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 191–192;II, 199.

19 Wimmer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 150; II,28.

20 Wimmer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 152–153,197 203; II 35 235 261


4/14


this is the correct reading (cf. the hieratic com-mentary below), show a form associated withthe 19th Dynasty 28. According to Wimmer, thesign is frequently diagnostic29, and the (non-ligatured) loop form, which occurs three times(recto 3, 7 and verso I.1), points to the 19th Dy-nasty 30. The limited range of verbal forms usedin the document does not allow for a meaningful

linguistic analysis, but it is noteworthy that thesingle Circumstantial First Present in recto 4preserves the prepositionHr ( iw Nb-mHyt Hrdi.t=f ) which may also indicate a 19th Dynastydate31.

Translation

Recto (Tf. II–III)(1) List 32 of all the transactions he made:(2) Given to the citizeness Tauty 33, the wife of

the Overseer of the kitchen (?)34 Pa[. . .] who isin Shedu35, by the hand of the soldier Su[. . .]36, ?:2 measures37

28 Möl ler , ZÄS 56, 1920, pl. III no. 374; cf. Wi m-mer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 203; II, 263.

29 E.g. Wimmer, LingAeg 9, 2001, 286, 288– 90.30 Wimmer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 229–30;

II, 396. However, as a ligature it appears both as aspiral shape (recto 2) and as a loop (recto 5 and 6).

31 Wimmer, Hieratische Paläographie, I, 14.32 For rx meaning ‘list’ or ‘inventory’, see Wb 2,

448–9.33 This is an otherwise unattested name, cf. Ra nke,PN I, 377.

34 The reading of the title is not certain (cf. the hier-atic commentary below). On the titleimy-r st , ‘Overseerof the Kitchen’, see Helck, Verwaltung, 256–7.

35 I take Shedu to be an otherwise unattested place-name because of the settlement determinative There

(3) Given to him to eat on the riverbank 38

atBary 39 with the citizeness Wadjytemheb40:1 meas-ure

(4) Month 3 of Akhet, day 12: Given to thestable master of the residence41, Nebmehyt, whois raising (horses)42 on the riverbank at Bary: 3measures,

changed hands. This implies that the other entries referto another type of commodity. It is unclear how themore varied entries on the recto relate to the recto (if atall), but they include ‘curds’ ( smii ), ‘wine’ ( iArt, irp ),‘vegetables’ ( SAwt ), ‘great loaves of bread’ ( t aA ), ‘fish’( rm ) and ‘grain’ ( it ).

38 On the ‘riverbank’ ( mryt ) as a place of trade andcommerce, see J.Č erný, A Community of Workmenat Thebes in the Ramesside Period, Cairo 1973, 93–7;C. J. Eyre, The Market Women of Pharaonic Egypt, in:Le commerce en Égypte ancienne, eds. N. Gr imal andB. Me nu, BdÉ 121, Cairo 1998, 177.

39 The name Bary may be Semitic in origin, cf.Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the NewKingdom and Third Intermediate Period, New Jersey1994, no. 114. P. Anastasi III (2.6–8) has a reference to‘fish of Bar’ ( ) which could be related to thislocation (cf. Wb 1, 447.13), but the determinatives ofthe latter speak against this – they indicate that a bodyof water is meant.

40 That the name Wadjytemheb is feminine is con-firmed by the titleanx nt niwt , despite the male determi-native (contra Ranke, PN I, 75.8).

41 ‘Stable master of the residence’ is a relatively wellattested title, cf. the Wadi Hammamat inscription of anexpedition of Ramesses IV (Kitchen, Ram. Inscr. VI,14.4–6), P. BM EA 10447, 4 (Gardiner, RAD, 59)and P. Turin 1882, 1.4 (Gardiner, RAD, 83). Indi-

viduals with this title may have been associated withstables with the qualification ‘of the residence’, asmentioned in P. Bologna 1094, 2.10: ‘the great stable( pA iHw aA ) of Ramesses II of the residence ( n Xnw )’ (cf.Gardiner, LEM, 3; Caminos, LEM, 12; H.-W.Fischer-Elfert, Die satirische Streitschrift des Papy-rus Anastasi I, ÄA 44, 1986, 109 note f), although P.Wilbour has one example where a ‘stable master of the


5/14


and Nebmehyt giving him 20 large loaves ofbread and 1menet -jar of beer.(5) Month 3 of Akhet, day 13: Given to the

citizeness Titi (?), the wife of the controller43 Iry-iry, by the hand of the soldier Huy, son of Iry-iry: 1 measure

(6) Month 3 of Akhet, day 14: Again, given tothe citizeness Titi, the wife of the controller Iry-

iry, by the hand of the soldier Pawah, son of Tjay: 1 measure(7) [. . . giv]en to the controller Hatiay, by the

hand of the soldier Pendua, [son of N]eferhat[. . .]

(8) [. . . given to] the citizeness [. . .]

Verso (Tf. IV–V)(Col. I, 1) Given to him by the citizeness [. . .]

making [. . .](Col. I, 2) Given to him by the soldier [. . .] 5

measures44(Col. II, 1) [. . .]tjebu -vessels of curds(Col. III, 1) wine: 2 jars [. . .](Col. III, 2) Two . . .?, one sweet . . .? and twofish (?)(Col. III, 3) Onemeh -vessel of wine and one

tjebu -vessel of vegetables(Col. III, 4) Onetjebu -vessel of milk and one

tjebu -vessel of . . .?(Col. III, 5) Again . . .?(Col. III, 6) 32 great loaves of bread, and 25

fish (?)(Col. III, 7) Twokhar -units of grain.

Hieratic commentaryRto. 2

The determinative oftAwywty is strictly speak-ing and not – it lacks the tick that distin-guishes the female from the male figure (as inrecto 3) – but it is for the sake of clarity tran-

scribed as when the context demands it.

The reading of is problematic because thelower part of the group is obscured by surfacedamage to the papyrus.Černý read ( ) ,‘here’, but the context seems to demand a title45,and I read the group as ‘overseer’ as suggestedby the Wörterbuch transcription46. For similarforms of imy-r , cf. O. Cairo 25726 line 247,O. BM EA 50744 rto. 248 and O. DeM 148 rto.1349.

The surface of the papyrus in the middleof the line is damaged, and traces are obscuredby this as well as smudging and traces of pa-limpsest, making them very difficult to read:

. Černý suggested which does not suit the traces. It is clearly aname Pa[. . .], and as such one expects as adeterminative in the last group, which may cor-respond to the lower sign; the reading of theupper one could be as suggested by the Wörterbuch transcription50.

Černý read the name of the soldier as, but this is difficult to reconcile with

the traces and the space available: . The first sign is certainly and the last sign pos-


6/14


sibly 51

, with space for in the lacuna follow-ing. The other traces are not obvious to me52.

The reading of escapes me.Černý sug-gested which is possible but does not matchthe forms of elsewhere in this papyrus (recto1, 5 and verso I.1 and III.4). The shape is remi-niscent of , but sA n, ‘son of’ makes no sensein this context.

The sign is used to indicate an abbreviatedstroke, the typographical convention used by thescribe at the end of the lines instead of repeatingthe signs immediately above.

Rto. 4 The papyrus is damaged but the traces suit

as suggested byČerný: .

Rto. 5

Fischer-Elfert suggests reading ast(i)wtiw with thetiw-bird, which suits the

preceding phonetic signstw, rather than ( nH )like Černý did ( tw-nH is an otherwise unattestedname); for the shape, cf. Möller, Paläographie,II, 17 (no. 191). seems to be a very cursive writing of , both in this line and in recto 6,rather than as Černý transcribed. All four ex-amples occur after names, and in both cases( tiwtiw andiry-iry ) it suits the context.

Rto. 8 The lower edge of the papyrus is damaged,

but the reading is certain:

.

Vso. I, 1

There are no traces for about 3 cm after ,and then traces of black ink at the very end,possibly of a number (1?). The rest of the line islost.

Vso. I, 2Because the papyrus is damaged at this point

the name of the soldier is not certain:

. I followČerný’s suggestion. There is more space available for

the group than is apparent from the photo-graphs because of distortion caused by a ridge.

Vso. II, 2

is plausible:

.

Vso. III, 1Černý did not transcribe this line; the reading

( ‘ i ’) h b i i l


7/14


Vso. III, 3

The reading is not certain: .

Vso. III, 4

The initial four signs were not transcribed byČerný; they can hardly be anything but :

.

I cannot read the second type of goods:. The last two signs are certainly .

Vso. III, 5

The reading and meaning of this line is uncer-

tain: .

Vso. III, 6

The reading of is uncertain;Černý suggested .

Discussion

Without an archaeological context, or indeeda provenance, it is difficult to relate the papyrusto a geographical location. The places named inthe text, Shedu and the riverbank village Bary,are otherwise unattested. The name of the origi-nal writer is lost although he is probably to be

Kingdom ‘ship’s logs’54

. The distributive processapparent in the text may indicate that its socialcontext was official administration rather thanpersonal record keeping (Tab. 1 below).

In the lines where the relevant information ispreserved, four out of eight transactions arecarried out through a middleman, and in everycase this is a man with the titlewaw, ‘soldier’.

The entries have different middlemen even when the recipient is the same, as in recto 5 and6. The title ‘soldier’ (name missing) reappears in verso I, 2 where he is the subject of the verbrdi ;the recipient, described only as ‘he’, may be the writer of the document. Similarly, the entry in verso I, 1 has a ‘citizeness’ (name missing) as thesubject, again with the anonymous ‘he’ as the

recipient. Although the fragmentary nature ofthe verso hinders interpretation, it is possiblethat this side of the papyrus primarily recordedmaterials received by the writer55.

In four cases on the recto (2, 5, 6 and 8), women with the title ‘citizeness’ are named asthe recipients – or possibly five if one countsrecto 3 – and these account for roughly half ofthe transactions. The titleanx nt niwt , ‘citizeness’is not revealing in terms of social status. Thetitles of the husbands of the women include arwD , ‘controller’ or ‘agent’ and possibly, if myreading is correct, animy-r st , ‘Overseer of thekitchen’. Another ‘controller’ appears as a re-cipient in recto 7. These ‘controllers’, as well asthe ‘stable master’ of recto 4, appear to be supe-rior in rank to common ‘soldiers’ ( waw ). An in-scription in Wadi Hammamat commemorating

54 Jac. J. Janssen, Grain Transport in the Rames-side Period: Papyrus Baldwin (BM EA 10061) and


8/14


Table 1: Table of transactions

Giver Recipient Middleman Line

Anonymous The citizeness Tauti, wifeof the Overseer ofKitchen (?), Pa[...]

The soldier Su[...] rto. 2

Anonymous ‘Him’Hna the citizeness Wadjytemheb

none rto. 3

Anonymous The stable master of the

residence, Nebmehyt

none rto. 4

Nebmehyt ‘Him’ none rto. 4 Anonymous The citizeness Titi, wife

of the controller Iry-iry The soldier Huy son of Iry-iry rto. 5

Anonymous The citizeness Titi, wifeof the controller Iry-iry

The soldier Pawah son of Tjay rto. 6

Anonymous The controller Hatiay The soldier Pendua [son of N]eferhat rto. 7 Anonymous The citizeness [...] [...] rto. 8

The citizeness [...] ‘Him’ [...] vso. I, 1 The soldier [...] ‘Him’ [...] vso. I, 2

an expedition of Ramesses IV (year three) listsseveral of the titles (‘stable masters’, ‘controllers’and ‘soldiers’) among the expedition members,possibly ranked according to seniority: ‘. . . the

High Priest of Amun and Overseer of works,Ramsesnakht, the justified . . . the King’s butler,Usermaatre Sekhepersu; the King’s butler, Nakht-amun; the Deputy of the army, Khaemtir; theOverseer of the treasury, Khaemtir; the Chief ofquarrying and nobleman of the City, Amen-mose; the Chief of quarrying and Overseer ofcattle of the temple of Usermaatre Meryamun,

Bakenkhonsu; the Charioteer of the residence,Nakhtamun; the Scribe of the army-lists, Suner;the Deputy scribe of the army, Ramsesnakht;scribes of the army – 20 men; stable masters ofthe residence ( Hry iHw n Xnw ) – 20 men; theChief of the commanders of the army, Khae-

of the army’ and ‘soldiers’. In the Turin Indict-ment Papyrus, ‘controllers’ ( rwD with no furtherqualifications) attached to the temple of Khnumat Elephantine are listed after ‘scribes’ but be-

fore ‘cultivators’57

. In the Nauri decree of Sety I,‘stable masters’ appear towards the end of listsof high officials: ‘(A decree proclaimed . . .) tothe vizier, the high officials, courtiers, judges ofthe courts, the viceroy of Nubia, commanders of the army, overseers of gold, mayors and villageheadmen of the south and the north, chario-teers, stable master ( Hry iHw ), standard-bearers,

and every controller of the king’s house ( rwD nbn pr-nsw )’58; the ‘controllers’ in this case, al-though mentioned towards the end, are qualified withn pr-nsw , so are not directly comparable tothe ‘controllers’ in the Cambridge papyrus. TheNauri decree is concerned, broadly speaking,


9/14


nel or anyone sent on a mission to Kush’59

. Suchlists are illuminating in that they ascribe to thetitles mentioned an authority (against which thedecree itself offers protection) in relation to workers like herdsmen, fishermen, beekeepers,field workers, gardeners, vintners, quay workers,etc.60. These are not absolute categories (supe-rior-inferior), and ‘controllers’ associated with

the temple are themselves protected againstother high-ranking external officials elsewhere inthe decree61. The sequence of officials is notconsistent in all the entries; in one case the ‘con-trollers’ are listed after ‘counts’ ( HAty.w-a ) butbefore ‘high officials’ ( sr.w ) and ‘men’ ( rmT )62,and the last entry of its kind lists titles in theorder ‘controller’ – ‘charioteer’ – ‘stable master’

– ‘soldier’63

. Such examples64

show the danger inassuming that lists of personnel can be useduncritically to reconstruct relative status in mili-tary or administrative hierarchies65. The author-ity to command or conscript personnel is paral-leled for some of the titles in the Late-EgyptianMiscellanies66. ‘Soldiers’ ( waw ), on the otherhand, often appear as subjects of authority in the(model) letters of the LEM

67

, as well as in themany compositions detailing the hardships ofthe soldier68, although P. Wilbour appears to

59 Kitchen, Ram. Inscr. I, 52.11–13; cf. 51.7–8;51.10–11; 51.13–15; 52.3–4; 52.11–15; 53.3–4;53.10–11; 54.1; 55.5; 57.2.

60 E.g. Kitch en, Ram. Inscr. I, 52.6– 9.61 Kit ch en, Ram. Inscr. I, 52.6.62 Kit ch en, Ram. Inscr. I, 53.10.63 Kit ch en, Ram. Inscr. I, 57.13.64 Similar lists occur in many royal decrees from the

Ramesside period, cf. the examples listed in K. A. Kit-chen, Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Anno-tated: Notes and Comments I Oxford 1993 49

have two examples where soldiers were them-selves in charge of temple domains69, and a 19thDynasty letter in Cairo mentions a soldier whohas wrongfully apprehended labourers70. Thesame letter mentions soldiers working withhorses under the command of stable masters. The fact that all the middlemen in the transac-tions in the Cambridge papyrus are soldiers may

indicate that the writer of the papyrus wassomeone in a position to command their ser- vices, but to link the transactions themselves with a military context is difficult, not least be-cause in five of the entries (rto. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8)the recipients are women. Other contexts arepossible: contemporary tomb-scenes show grainbarges interacting with women on the riverbank

( mryt )71

, and the ‘soldiers’ mentioned in the pa-pyrus could well be sailors72. Textual sources forthese activities come in the form of ships’ logs with details of transactions between sailors and women traders73, many of which involve rela-tively small amounts of grain bartered by thesailors in return for prepared food and drinkfrom the women74. The Cambridge papyrus isperhaps to be associated with this social contextbased on the mention of transactions conducted

means that they cannot be used directly as a source forthe social and hierarchical status of the title ‘soldier’.

69 Ga rdine r , The Wilbour Papyrus, II, 157.70 P. Cairo 58054: Kitchen, Ram. Inscr. I, 323–4.

This source is not utilised by Schulman, MilitaryRank, Title and Organization, 36–7, and although hisconclusions regarding the low status of the soldier arenot contradicted by it, they should perhaps be modifiedaccordingly. A papyrus in the Náprstek Museum, Pra-gue, refers to soldiers involved in the theft of cattle nearHermopolis: H -W Fischer-Elfert Viehdiebstahl im


10/14


on the riverbank (rto. 3 and 4), and the manyentries listing women as recipients.

Summary

The article presents a previously unpublished Ra-messide administrative papyrus from the CambridgeUniversity Library (P. CUL MS. Add. 4167). The

document is a list of food and drink given to variousnamed individuals, mainly controllers ( rwD ) and their wives, as well as a stable master ( Hry iHw ), ‘by thehand of’ several soldiers ( waw ). Its social context isnot known, but it may be connected with riverbanktrading. Photographs, transcription and translation with commentary are included.


11/14

T A F E L I I

P. Cambridge University Library MS. Add. 4167, Recto (zu Hagen, A Ramesside Administrative Document)


12/14

T A F E L I I I

Recto

(1)? tr. ? tr. ?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(4 continued)

(5)

(6)?

[ ] [ ] [ ] (7)

[ ] [ ] [ ] (8)



13/14

T A

F E L I V



14/14

T A F E L V

Verso tr. ? tr ? ?

(III, 1) [...] [...] (I, 1)? ? ? ? ? ? ?

(III, 2) (I, 2)? ?

(III, 3)? ?

(III, 4) (II, 2)? ? ?

(III, 5)?

(III, 6)

(III, 7)

P. Cambridge University Library MS. Add. 4167, Verso (zu Hagen, A Ramesside Administrative Document)

offprint zas 135 2008-libre

Documents