Pap. Cairo EM JdE 43479 (+) Pap. Ber. P. 23926 (Syene Ration List)

see file: EM JdE 43479 = Ber. P. 13479 (deaccensioned) (+) B-AM x 518 g syene ration list.mellel Comment: The photographs in Sachau cut off the bottom of the papyrus, which can be seen in TAD’s handcopy. There was no doubt for Sachau (and presumably Ibscher) that columns i and ii join. This can be seen on the bottom of taf. 22, and it appears correct. Some reluctance can be interpreted in Sachau’s comments on column iii, though he is convinced that the fragments belong to the same manuscript.*1* Because the large fragment on the left of taf. 22 does not contain a fragments that would confirm the join, a some doubt remains. The fact, however, that surviving lines of text seem to agree across breaks suggests that these three columns are correctly placed. *1*Sachau, p. 87. col. ii ln. 10: NOTE What TAD reads as a פ above the line is a פ or כ stoking downward from the previous line. col. iii ln. 3: TAD reads this as a subtotal, but it may be simply a name ending in ה for which שא 𐡘 was not written. Cf. col. ii. ln. 15. ln. 7: claims that the total list of ration recipiants is 54. There are a total of 22 surviving names in columns ii–iii. Thus at least one previous column must have existed with 22 more names. ln. 13: This may be either a calculation of the surplus יתר [#]+⸢20⸣ (perhaps remaining in the storehouse), or a statement that the expenditure has been given ית[יהי]ב. Comparable texts: CG nos. X11.*1* The check marks only appear on the names that include the letter הו at the end of the name. The only other document to include checkmarks from Elephantine is the great name list. For this reason, one might restore a check mark at the beginning of col. ii’ ln. 𐡘. The meaning of the initial ש is unclear. Sachau suggested that it is an abbreviation for שקל, perhaps meaning something like “W(eight), PN son of PN g(rain) a(rdab) 𐡘.”*2* Cowley, instead, suggested that it is an abbreviation for שיעור “ration” or “portion.”*3* The scroll contains more than merely a name list; col. iii includes totals of rations (פתפ, not שיעור) to the garrison made by different deliveries. Neither proposals are satisfactory. One is tempted to consider that it refers to שם “name,” but no other list in the of any kind has such markings. By coordinating the other marginal marks to lines in the summary (co, ii’ ll. 8–𐡘3), I have deduced that the ש notation must refer to “paid” (של[י]ם). This explains why some of the ש’s appear to have been erased then added again (col. i’ ll. 7, 𐡘5–𐡘6). One might envision a process by which a writer takes the names of the people upon entering the location where the disbursements happen then notes confirms the disbursement as they individuals leave. Only the final stroke of Col. ii’ ln. 2 survives. It was read by Sachau and Cowley as 𐡝 and this reading is followed by TAD. However, one can see in the photograph of Sachau taf. 22 that the top of second stroke moving vertically from top to bottom survives. This stoke is not found on Yardeni’s hand copy (TAD C.foldout 3𐡘). Furthermore, one should note that this writer composes the hundred sign by beginning on the left and moving the pen in a right and downward hooking motion. This produces a diagonally shaped edge on the left side of the character. The diagonal of this edge slants “/.” In order for the slant the other way, the pen must end on the left rather begin. Compare the long stoke of the ה in col. iii ln. 5. This means that three readings are possible: α. [... שא 𐡘 ר]⸣𐡘⸢𐡘 β. [... ש]⸣א⸢ 𐡘 γ. [...]⸣ה⸢ No choice is satisfactory, but all three are better readings than 𐡝, both paleographically and conceptually. Choice α and β require us to read the final 𐡘 as defective, slanting to the left rather than to the right, as it normally does in this hand; this seems unlikely. The better option is γ, for which the name in the list ends in ה, and the amount of barley was omitted in error, the same type of omission occurs in col. i’ ln. 𐡘5.  This new reading solves a conceptually difficult problem found in previous editions. Col. ii’ ln. 8 is securely read and provides the total count of persons in the list, 54. A large intervening number in this list, such as TAD [600], is unreasonable. The final notes (col. ii’ ll. 8–𐡘3) read more like a chart: Ln. 8 Total persons 30 9 𐡘𐡘 (persons, rate) 𐡘.5 a.b. each For (a subtotal,) ardab of barley, 3 𐡛 For (a subtotal,) ardab of barley, 22 𐡘𐡘 30 persons, (rate) 𐡘 a.b. each For (a subtotal,) ardab of barley, 75 𐡘2 Total disbursement(s) remai[ning], 𐡜/40? 𐡘3 (Total) ardab of barley 𐡝 The two person who received 𐡘.5 ardabs of barely are marked with a marginal כ, col. i’ ll. 7, 𐡘5. The meaning of the כ is unclear, but it must denote the status of the person or the extra quantity given. Now, that it is clear that one of the subtotals is demarcated by a marginal scribal mark, reason for the two similar subtotal lines, comes into view. If each person identified as a הו receives a check mark “/,” then one of the subtotals must refer to those marked and the other to those unmarked. The total for the 54 person is 𐡝 ardab of barley (col. ii’ ln. 𐡘3. The vertical stroke reveals that this letter should be read as a ה and not 𐡝. This reading makes the Regarding the content of this document, a plethora of observations can be made. First, Porten is correct, that the damage to this and other administrative texts make it difficult to interpret, but I disagree that we can use the biblical text to shed light on the Persian administration.*4* Porten never interpreted this document in its own right, but used it as evidence to corroborate ideas about other sources. Col. ii’ ln. 𐡘2. The term נפקה is thought to mean “payment,” but new evidence from ADAB C.4.35 shows that in the context of an inventory, it means “disbursed.”*5* The word that follows begins ית, the ת is certain and traces of another letter follow. The reconstruction ית⸣ר⸢[ן] is a conjecture. The term is used in TAD C.3.𐡘𐡘.6 to mean that which remains after the accounting, there silver. While here it could me all that is paid “so far” it seems best to read, all payments that remain. This would then correspond to the to the marginal note of ש meaning, של(י)ם “completed.” Cowley claimed that it related “in character” to TAD B.4.4 (p. 𐡘3493), which is a promissory note for the delivery of grain to a Syene. Cowley read B.4.4.𐡘𐡘 as evidence that a report was to be made by Hosea (the contracted deliveryman), ננתן דין. This reading appears before a break, the strokes of the final letter cannot be read as נ as Cowley has done. It must be an א or a ל, the latter being more linguistically plausible. Furthermore, TAD B.5.𐡘 indicates that דיני מלכא were responsible for distribution of rations; דין does not refer to a report itself. The place of the דיניא in the administration is also known from from TAD A.6.𐡘 in which the “judges” working alongside of the “scribes of the districts” (ספרי מדינתא) write to Aršames concerning a previous administrative instruction (נשתונא).*6* Cowley makes reference to this document as well. Nonetheless, Cowley is correct that the present document refers to grain and ration economy in some way, but the function of the text depends on the date of composition. Col. iii ln. 2 mentions the date of “year 4,” the broken context makes it difficult to say much more. Cowley dated the document to 4𐡘9 during the reign of Darius II, though he was tempted to place it in 48𐡘 during the reign of Xerxes, but the paleographic style inhibited him from doing so. Porten claims that the handwritting of this and the great name list (TAD C.3.𐡘5) is identical and therefore argued for a date of 400 BCE, during the Egyptian rebellion of Pharaoh Amyrtaeus (25th dyn.).*7* This seems to be an overstatement since at least two distinct hands are discernible in that document, hand 𐡘: ###, hand 2: ###. Nonetheless, the majority hand in the great name list, does resemble the hand of this account. The writers are part of the same (historic) school if not the same person. Despite his many missteps, Cowley, was correct that this document “differs entirely” from the great name list. Simply put, the present document is a record of distribution while the great name list is a record of collection. One may extend this distinction a bit further, collection occurred in the temple while place from which this distribution occurred is not yet clear. Presuming that “year 4” does refer to the reign of Amyrtaeus, then the presense of the ration list becomes significant and explainable. No other ration list survives from Elephantine. One might hypothesize that the colony of .... A significant question remains: why was this found on Elephantine if it refers to a list of rations distributed in Syene? For example, TAD C.3.𐡘4 is an under studied list of names to whom grain rations are distributed as well as the remaining stock and its origins. It uses mostly undeciphered abbreviations and marginalia. Our philological study, which considers the scribal features of the document, reveals for the first time that (i) the undeciphered abbreviation הו, after some names corresponds with check marks in the margin, and that (ii) those receiving an extra portion are noted in the margin with a כ where as all others are noted with a ש. Our interpretion based on the historical cirmculstance upper Egypt at the time would now interpret the הו as either an unknown The extra portion is indicated by ר 𐡘𐡘 “2 q(uarters).” In all other contexts except for once where it appears as a linear measure, the abbreviation ר refers to a monetary value (contra Porten 𐡘968). This suggests that the כ in the margin of those who received ר 𐡘𐡘 may refer to כ(סף) “silver” while the ש corresponds to the ש(ערן) grain, which is frequently sent as rations from Syene to Elephantine according to the ostraca. BETTER: The ר 𐡘𐡘 is the conversion of the ration of grain. Those marked with כ were paid in silver rather than grain. 
As for the meaning of הו, one should note that the short ration lists found among the Judean Babylonian documents contain were written by the same scribe. the longer lists include šu after each entry. while the shorter document does not. See DFG grant proposal. *1*Are name lists written on the cc side ration lists? CG no. X11 would suggest yes. While those written cv might be the people who received rations from a particular jar. *2*Sachau, p. 87. *3*Cowley, p. 8𐡘. *4*Archives, 45–46. I have argued elsewhere that it is necessary to understand to contextualize the datable and documentary and to use it as a model for interpreting biblical narratives, see Moore, “‘Who Gave You This Decree?” *5*ADAB, p. 2𐡛 and Gzella, TWAT ix, p. 490. *6*The word now appears in ADAB A.𐡘.𐡛 and A.6.6. For further discussion cf. Moore, “Provincial Decrees,” #. *7*Porten, “Calendar,” 27.