ï~~210
Reviews
ing) the ostraca. On the whole I agree with the identifications proposed by
Muhs, though he does not always take account of the possible homonymy
between grandfather and grandson, which makes the argument somewhat
tricky if the years of payment are not consecutive. Thus the succession Spotous/
Osoroeris (p. 67) is found over many generations in one or more priestly families (Pros.Ptol. 3 and 9.5669, 5672, 5677, 5677a, 5816, 5816a, and 5817). I also
have doubts for tax payer 4 (p. 107), who occurs only twice, under different
names ( Ta-bly and Ta-m3y, though the orthography is indeed similar) in year
7 and 15 respectively. Similarly the last two items in the list of tax payer 10 (p.
111) are thirteen years later than the others, in a different collection and for
different taxes; these persons may well be homonyms. On the whole, however, the arguments are convincing. The prosopography is followed, somewhat
unexpectedly, by a study of papyrus archives of Theban mortuary priests, of
whom only some appear in the prosopography (pp. 128-131 and stemmata
pls. 30-32), and of the possible provenance of ostraca bought by 19th century
collectors (pp. 132-134).
The texts are published in order of the inventory numbers, i.e. in random
order (pp. 135-179, with photographs and facsimiles). 53 are Demotic, 1 Greek,
and 7 bilingual Demotic-Greek. For the reader it would have been easier if they
had been grouped according to date, type of tax or tax payers' archives. Now
each text seems to stand by itself.
This leads to many overlaps: e.g. the scribe Ns-Min occurs in eleven texts,
starting with text 1, and receives each time the same four-line note with reference to each of the other texts. It would have saved space if these references
were given the first time, with a short cross-reference to that note elsewhere.
Similarly the amount of the burial tax is explained, with all parallel passages,
in the notes to nos. 8, 23, 29, 54, and 60. The argument for the reading 1/6
kite, is repeated in full (5 lines) in the notes to nos. 6, 21, 28, 35, 42, 45, and 61,
footnote 593 repeats note 591, etc.
Because many texts are written very cursively the readings often depend
on parallels elsewhere. On the whole the editor did an excellent job. The following notes are suggestions rather than corrections.
Text 3.5. The name of the second person is cbq = Abykis; at the end of the
next line an amount of kite must have followed.
Text 18. In 1. 2 I prefer Psenthotes to Psenamounis (in 1. 1 Psenamounis
is written differently).
Text 21.41, 48. I read the name of this taxpayer (no. 28, p. 121) as Pa-hy
(Pais) not Pa-hy (Paches or Pachois). This is also the reading of C. Andrews
in P.Brit.Mus. 4.
0
