In Early Dynastic Egypt, stone vessels were manufactured on a large scale, probably by full-time specialists attached to the government or palace. The stone vessel was established as the primary piece of burial equipment during this period. Scholarship has focused on aspects of stone vessel production such as 'large-scale production' and 'attached specialisation'. However, the mortuary use of stone vessels has not been analysed in depth. Therefore, this paper clarifies the structure of their mortuary use and the background of their large-scale production, by comparing the assemblages of stone vessels found in tombs with the social class of the deceased.
It was found that in the First Dynasty, the tombs of the higher classes in the Memphite region contained a variety of wares, including specialty wares and vessels of stone such as mudstone, basalt, and tuff from remote quarries. But in the Second Dynasty, the geographical distribution of stone vessels expanded. In parallel with that, the hierarchical ranking of stone vessels appeared also in local sites. It is argued that during the Second Dynasty the mortuary consumption of stone vessels was widely promoted in the whole Nile Valley by the royal court and that, kings and high officials distributed stone vessels to powerful local clans in order to create bonds between the center and local areas. At any rate, stone vessels were the preferred political and symbolic resource for promoting regional integration throughout the Early Dynastic society of Egypt.
This paper reconsiders the focalizing function of the Demotic second tenses (i-ir=f sḏm [past/present], i-ir=f (r) sḏm [future], and i-ir ḫr sḏm=f [aorist]) in main clauses. In Demotic grammatical studies, it is generally stated that the second tenses are constructions with a focalized adverbial adjunct. This widely accepted analysis, however, does not account for all actual examples of the second tenses, because there are cases where there is no adverbial adjunct. Therefore, an alternative analysis which can explain such “exceptions” also is required.
By comparison with the analysis of the second tenses in Sahidic Coptic (cf. BSNESJ 56/2), another focus type, i.e., the sentence focus (one whose focus domain corresponds to a whole sentence), is considered as a possible solution to the problem. Therefore this paper considers the following hypothesis: The Demotic second tenses can serve a sentence-focalizing function as well as an adverbial-focalizing function.
In order to test this hypothesis, selected examples exhibiting three different structures are discussed: (1) examples with no adverbial adjunct (ʽOnchsheshonqy 23, 14; P. Cairo 30692 12; Setne II 4, 27-28; Demotic Chronicle 4, 1); (2) examples with an adverbial adjunct (ʽOnchsheshonqy 23, 7; P. Cairo 30692 12; Setne II 4, 17; Demotic Chronicle 5, 18 and 5, 19); (3) examples followed by a conjunctive (Hermopolis Legal Code 8, 13-14; P. Jumilhac 11, lower margin).
The results of the examination demonstrate that the second tenses had already gained the sentence-focalizing function at the stage of Demotic before Coptic.
This paper investigates the number and proportion of levends (irregular soldiers) and Arnavud (Albanian) soldiers in the Ottoman military organizations. It is known that from the 17th century the numbers of levends and Arnavud soldiers in Ottoman military organizations gradually increased and they came to play an extremely important role, but little is known concretely about their number and proportion in those Ottoman military organizations.
MM1971 is a ta‘yinât register (ration and allowance register) from the Ottoman Danube and Sava Campaign of 1692. My analysis of that register shows that many levends and Arnavud soldiers were mobilized for the campaign.
The total number of the Rûmeli (the Ottoman Balkan province) governor’s troops and frontier garrisons that joined the campaign reached a minimum of 15,478–17,055 men. About 9,953–10,656 of them were levends, accounting for about 64.3–62.4% of the total. Furthermore, the number of the levends is also a minimum, because MM1971 does not mention the number of some levends mobilized from Anatolia and Syria. The number of Janissaries sent from Istanbul to the front line in the middle and the second half of the 17th century is estimated at approximately 10,000, and from the above it is reasonable to suppose that the number of all mobilized levends was even greater.
The number and proportion of Arnavud soldiers deduced from the analysis of MM1971 indicates their immense importance in Ottoman military organizations. The total number of Arnavud soldiers in the campaign was 8,261–8,881, of whom 7,064–7,119 were levends. Thus, Arnavud soldiers accounted for 53.3–52.0% of the total number of combatants, and 70.9–66.8% of the total number of levends were Arnavud levends.
This paper elucidates the Egyptian metrological system of the Greco-Roman Period by analyzing a set of archaeological and textual evidence such as cubit-rods, nilometers, building inscriptions, mathematical treatises, and property contracts, which provide information not only about the nomenclature and the length of the units and their subdivisions, but also about the metrical relationship between them. Concerning the nomenclature of the cubit, the data show that the official term had changed from “royal cubit” to “divine cubit” during the Persian Period. Other variants attested from the Ptolemaic Period express the cubit’s relationship with a specific deity, a religious aspect of it, or its function. The introduction of a new unit, the “Ptolemaic foot” of c. 35 cm, is also noteworthy.
The mathematical treatises and evidence stating the dimensions of certain monuments and properties denote the length measurements in two ways. One is the traditional method, in which the length is stated in terms of a unit and its sub-units, i.e. “x cubit y palms z fingers.” The second method, which appears from the Ptolemaic Period, uses the cubit as the sole unit and expresses smaller values in fractions, i.e. “x+1/y+1/z cubit.” The fractions here use the division into 6 or 24 parts of the Greek and Roman metrological system rather than the traditional Egyptian division into 7 or 28 parts.
The result of the analysis supports the view that the cubit reform in Egypt took place at the beginning of the Hellenism rather than in the Late Period. Although the precise background of this change remains a matter for future research, we may safely state that the introduction of the Ptolemaic foot as well as the 6-division systems from the Hellenistic culture created the need to reconcile the traditional and the recently introduced metrological systems by means of mathematical conversions.
This paper explores the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its tax-exempt auxiliary units. Throughout the 16th century, both in wartime and peacetime, these auxiliary units received tax exemptions. Their members were employed as warriors and cannon carriers, as well as laborers in dockyards, mines and so on. One type of these units, called müsellems, received fiefs, and members who gave service were supported by the others, called yamaks.
In Western Anatolia, the müsellem system was abolished in 1582 because of a shortage of lands and tax assignments to allocate. However, investigations into the müsellems in the Balkans have been few. Because of this, it has not been clarified when müsellems were abolished in the Balkans, some claiming around the end of the 16th century and others, around the beginning of the 17th century.
In this paper I examine the müsellem groups and the system that existed in the Balkans in the 16th and 17th centuries, making full use of tax registers, especially the tax registers held in the Archive of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadaster, situated in Ankara.
I conclude that the müsellems, who had the tax exempt privilege were not abolished in the Balkans until 1602, unlike the müsellems in Western Anatolia. However, by the 1630s–1650s, the müsellems in the Balkans became normal taxpayers, that is, they became tax-farming units, so-called muḳāṭaʻas.
I believe the reason is that in the 17th century when the Ottoman military and social system changed greatly, the Ottoman auxiliary units lost their importance to the Ottoman army, at which point the müsellems in the Balkans became normal taxpayers.