sfbey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Manu and Scott-
> The page of Hieratic numbers supplied by Manu are
> interesting
>
>
> I do see a problem however when compared to :
>
> Scott thinks the "<"seen above are Hieratic for
> "1/2" ......
> But note that 1/2 in Manu's page face this way ">"
> which is not the same orientation as in Scott's
> supposed 1/2 which face this way "<" on the
> accounting papyrus.
>
> Plus the 10s in the Day books are facing this way
> ">" which is the same as Manu's 1/2?
>
>
>
> This is all so confusing. What are the rules
> again?

Hi Greg,

I think part of the answer might be this:



'Old Hieratic Paleography', Hans Goedicke

It seems that a measure (in this case of grain) is written like this '<' whereas a numerical fraction is written like this '>'. Just my guess and I could very well be wrong.

SC