Mayi] PROCEEDINGS. [1894.
Corrections.
ProfessorEisenlohr'stranscriptionof this long tablecan be fullytrusted,exceptingthatin the eighth columnthereis a Affi omitted,
viz. :—
In 2-5-91 read ^* 70 i| rr\r
(sic)^ 130 $ *V
The followingare the results of my collation of the original (see
plateof corrections).
PI. 1, No. 7, read " 7
" 14
/A 28
Thestrokebefore 4 is not very distinct,in black ink ; possibly it
was erased by the scribe, intendingto mark it in red ink.
No.9. The correctionsdo not affect Eisenlohr'stranscription:
the addition of a small fragmentin the wrong placehad confused
the reading on the facsimile.
No.11. I cannot proposeany other readingthan —
[. 11 This leaves the first fraction 1 if J-
2]2? stupidlyunexplained. It should havebeen
[4 4J4? workedout in the manner of Eisenlohr's
/6 [6]6J- restoration.
I have alsorestoredthe fragment in I. 1 with £ to its proper
place.
PI. II, No. 17. Eisenlohrnotesa discrepancy : in the first line
JT = i£ -fa, while in the eshemt the equation is ^ = i\ £. In the
Kahun Papyrus (wherethe eshemt are not given) the equation is
PI. Ill, 29, read 174 instead of y|T.
35- T5 broken.
111.. r- oy i£24i±—r r was first written but afterwards — 24 was corrected to 24.
PI. IV, 43. 5th line, I was firstwrittenon the right, afterwards
correctedto 7.
PI. V, 59. Thereis a split alongthe upper edge,injuringthe
signs.
PI. VI, 69, top line. Theupperhalfof the ^ must have
beenwrittenon a straw accidentallystruckto the papyrus, for it has
quitedisappeared,and there is no appearance of any damage.
207 s