| Date |
a: BC 103 Nov 8? (K3 P10, year 15, Phaophi 22; cf. DBL add. 1, 2007, p. 12; date
of contract; alternative date (year 15 allegedly continues the 'old dating practice'
of P09 and thus equals year 33: cf. P. Hawara p. 209) = BC 85 Nov 3? The date of 85
BC better suits the period of activities of these Hawara embalmers, cf. Uytterhoeven,
Hawara p. 340-342)b: BC 103 Nov 8? ((K3 P10), year 15, Phaophi 22; date of registration;
cf. DBL add. 1, 2007, p. 12; date of contract; alternative date (year 15 allegedly
continues the 'old dating practice' of P09 and thus equals year 33: cf. P. Hawara
p. 209) = BC 85 Nov 3? The date of 85 BC better suits the period of activities of
these Hawara embalmers, cf. Uytterhoeven, Hawara p. 340-342)a: BC 85 Nov 8? (K3
P09, year 15, Phaophi 22; cf. DBL add. 1, 2007, p. 12; date of contract; alternative
date (year 15 allegedly continues the 'old dating practice' of P09 and thus equals
year 33: cf. P. Hawara p. 209) = BC 85 Nov 3? The date of 85 BC better suits the period
of activities of these Hawara embalmers, cf. Uytterhoeven, Hawara p. 340-342)b: BC
85 Nov 8? ((K3 P09), year 15, Phaophi 22; date of registration; cf. DBL add. 1,
2007, p. 12; date of contract; alternative date (year 15 allegedly continues the 'old
dating practice' of P09 and thus equals year 33: cf. P. Hawara p. 209) = BC 85 Nov
3? The date of 85 BC better suits the period of activities of these Hawara embalmers,
cf. Uytterhoeven, Hawara p. 340-342) |
© Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.