THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION AND ITS

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES AT DEIR EL-MEDÎNA

IN THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY:
A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

By JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE

Delay in the distribution of grain rations regularly occurred at Deir el-Medîna during the Twentieth
Dynasty. In order to analyse the cause and social consequence of such delay, a statistical analysis of
documents recording grain deliveries is presented, using both the delay and the absence of grain
distribution, through an index specifically built for this purpose. Despite a complex circuit of cereals,
organised to maintain an even grain supply, seasonal fluctuations are demonstrated by the analysis.
These played an important role in the delay of grain distribution.

At Deir el-Medîna, the grain ration (diw) was the most important part of the
workmen’s salaries.1 It is usually accepted that their issue was expected at least by the
first day of the month,2 and when, for some reason, it was not delivered in totality,
supplements (dni) were subsequently provided to complete the wages.3 It has long been
recognised that, at least during the Twentieth Dynasty, delays regularly occurred in
the distribution of grain rations.4 On several occasions these delays, or the incapacity
of the administration even to deliver the ration, resulted in strikes, stressing both
the economic and social importance of the regularity of grain distribution. But what
were the reasons for these delays? Here, the results of a statistical study are presented,

1
On this question, see J. Černý, ‘Prices and Wages in Egypt in the Ramesside Period’, Cahiers d’Histoire
Mondiale I/4 (1954), 903–21; J. J. Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period: An Economic Study of the
Village of Necropolis Workmen at Thebes (Leiden, 1975), 457–61; W. Helck, Materialen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte
des Neuen Reiches, IV (AAWLM 1963/3; Weisbaden, 1963), 580–604; D. Valbelle, « Les ouvriers de la tombe »:
Deir-el-Médineh à l’époque ramesside (BdE 96; Cairo, 1985), 148–52; J. J. Janssen, Village Varia: Ten Studies on the
History and Administration of Deir el-Medina (EU 11; Leiden, 1997), 1–35.
2
J. Černý, ‘Egypt from the Death of Ramesses III to the End of the Twenty-First Dynasty’, in I. E. S.
Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, II/2 (Cambridge, 1975), 622
states that rations were supplied ‘in normal time at least, on the twenty-eighth day of the month for the following
month’. See e.g. O. Munich 307/22a, 1 (year 28 of Ramesses III): ration issued on the day 30. However, in O.
Berlin 10633, 2–3 (year 29 of Ramesses III) the scribe states on II akhet 21 that 20 n hrw aq m pA Abd, bw di n=n diw
‘twenty days have entered in the month and the ration has not yet been given to us’, indicating that the ration was
expected by the first day of the month for which they were accounted. In the Turin Strike Papyrus (rt. 1.1–2), on
II peret [10], the workmen complain that ‘18 days (sic) have entered in the month’ without receiving their ration.
On this passage see P. J. Frandsen, ‘Editing Reality: The Turin Strike Papyrus’, in S. I. Groll (ed.), Studies in
Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim (Jerusalem, 1990), I, 168–9 n. 5. Under Ramesses IX, the Necropolis
Journal of year 13 (P. Turin 2009 + 1999, vs. 1.4–5) notes on the last epagomenal day: wsf tA ist, iw(=w) Horw …
[diw] n Abd 3 Smw Abd 4 Smw hrw 5 Hrw rnpt […] Abd 2 hrw 5, dmD 65 ‘inactivity of the crew while they are hungry
… the ration of III shemu, IV shemu, and the epagomenal days, [making] two months and five days, making 65
(days)’. This is also consistent with the fact that the ration was calculated from the first day of the month.
3
Janssen, Village Varia, 13; Helck, Materialen IV, 585.
4
See for example Černý, in CAH II/2, 622–3; Valbelle, Les ouvriers, 149.

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95 (2009), 223–34

ISSN 0307-5133
224 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95

which provide clues towards answering this question and towards analysing the social
consequences of abnormal delays of grain salaries.

Materials and Methods

Selection of documents
For this study only documents dated to the Twentieth Dynasty concerning the
distribution of grain rations were considered. These documents fall into two main
categories. The first consists of the Journal of the Tomb and the turnus lists, which
contain a day-by-day record of the goods delivered to the Tomb together with a
brief report of the workmen’s activity and the main concomitant events.5 The second
category corresponds to documents specifically devoted to the allocation of grain
among the crew.6
As documents of the first category regularly give the date of the distribution
of the ration (diw) or its supplement (dni), documents of the same category that
do not mention any distribution were also considered provided that they cover a
whole month without lacunae, on the hypothesis that the absence of mention of a
grain distribution corresponds to an absence of distribution. This point deserves
comment as it relies on the assumption that scribes never omitted to record a grain
issue. Several arguments support this choice. First, in several cases the scribe clearly
notes that the ration was not delivered, thus underlining the social importance of
its absence.7 Second, in several ostraca reporting that a mkw was allocated to the
workmen, a distribution of ration was not mentioned, suggesting that it was not an
accidental omission.8 Lastly, the few examples in which several documents cover the
same period of time do not contradict this hypothesis.9
Documents selected for this study fulfil two criteria. First, they are dated with
confidence to a particular reign or to a specific historical period.10 Second, they preserve
the month to which the grain ration was allotted (designated here as the ‘due month’),
or the month during which grain was actually delivered (designated as the ‘month
5
Documents that consist of administrative notes for the Necropolis Journal should be added to this category.
6
Mostly papyri. In several instances the document also registered the origin of the cereals: P. Turin 2081 + 2095,
P. Turin 1930/2050 + 2013, P. Turin 1906 + 2047 + 1939, P. Turin 2018. Documents of this category afford the
possibility of analysing the proportion of grain salaries actually received by the crew compared to the theoretical
salary. This may be an important factor for understanding of social disturbances that occurred during the Twentieth
Dynasty. Unfortunately sufficiently homogenous data were not available to perform a statistical analysis.
7
O. DeM 38, O. BM EA 5672 + O. Cairo CG 25649, Necropolis Journal of year 13 and 17 of Ramesses IX,
Necropolis Journal of year 17–18 of Ramesses XI.
8
A mkw is mentioned in O. DeM 40, O. DeM 41, O. Berlin P 12631 from the reign of Ramesses IV, and in
O. DeM 353 and O. Cairo CG 25504 from the Nineteenth Dynasty. Both a mkw and a diw were distributed in O.
Berlin P 12631, while O. DeM 40 and 41 only mention the mkw, suggesting that the ration was not distributed
at the same time. The context of O. Berlin P 12631 is obscured by lacunae, but a strike occurred (‘pass the wall’,
rt.15) and the distributions of the diw are clearly delayed, suggesting that the mkw could be a sort of compensatory
distribution. It may have the same purpose in O. DeM 40 and 41.
9
Thus, O. DeM 47 + O. Vienna 5 does not mention any distribution of grain between I peret 18 and III peret
4 of year 1 (of Ramesses IV), while O. DeM 43 shows that the ration was issued on I peret 13. O. DeM 37 covers
the period from III peret 1 to III peret 19 of year 31 (of Ramesses III) without mentioning a grain ration, but O.
Michaelides 73 indicates that the ration of III peret was issued on III peret 10+x. This may contradict the hypoth-
esis formulated above, but as the date is partly lost in a lacuna the restoration is subject to caution.
10
For most of the documents there is general agreement among scholars for an attribution to a specific reign
and year. Documents belonging to the shorter reigns covering the middle of the dynasty are more difficult to date
precisely, and it has not always been possible to assign them to a specific king. In some instances, the attribution is
still debated. In these cases, the most likely date, based on existing argument, has been used here.
2009 THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION 225
of distribution’). These months were not necessarily identical. On this basis, the
resulting sample for this study comprises 69 documents (52 ostraca and 17 papyri).11
Eighteen do not mention any grain delivery over at least one complete month.12 As a
whole, 124 due months and 118 distributions of grain were collected.13
Data management
Determination of the delay. Whenever possible the delay between the actual day of
grain distribution and the first day of the due month was calculated. Both the due
month and the month of distribution were clearly indicated in 37 of the 111 recorded
distributions, being concordant in 23 and discordant in 14. In 62 cases the month of
distribution was given without specification of the due month. In this situation, the
due month is treated as identical to the month of distribution, on the hypothesis that
the scribe would have specified the due month if it were not concomitant with the date
of distribution. Difficulties arise when two diw occurred in the same month without
indication of the due month.14 As diw designates the first distribution of grain and
dni the subsequent ones, the earliest diw was attributed to the previous month and
the latest to the ongoing one. In one case a second grain distribution was performed,
without indication of its nature, several days after a diw.15 This distribution was
treated as a dni of the same month.
The index of distribution. Among the 124 due months, a grain distribution was recorded
at least once in 92.16 When there were several distributions (diw and dni), the mean
value of their delay was attributed to the corresponding due month. In 7 cases it was
clearly specified that the ration was not distributed. In 25 others there was no mention
of a grain ration, which was hence treated as not distributed. To compare the 124 due
months, an index of distribution ranging from 0 to 5 was established (Table 1). This
index takes into account the delay of distribution, the absence of distribution, and
compensation mentioned in the documents.17 For a given month, the higher the value
of the index, the nearer to an ideal situation of the distribution of the grain ration.
Table 1 Grain ration index
Delay Index
delay 0–10 days: 5
delay 11–20 days: 4
delay 21–30 days 3
delay > 30 days: 2
no ration but compensatory distribution: 1
no distribution: 0
11
See Appendix 1. The sample was cross-checked by searching the Deir el-Medîna database with the keyword
‘grain ration’. This resulted in 110 hits for the Twentieth Dynasty, to which should be added a further 30 or so
documents that are not in the database as yet.
12
Documents that specifically indicate that the ration was not given are not included here.
13
For this study it was assumed that ideally 13 distributions occurred each year, one for each month plus one
for the epagomenal days totalling 13 ‘due months’.
14
This occurs in O. UC 39648 (= O. Petrie 50), O. DeM 34, O. DeM 153, O. DeM 381, O. Berlin P 12631.
15
O. Munich 307/22a.
16
Varying from 1 to 5, median 1.
17
The mkw mentioned in O. DeM 40 and 41, and the amount of copper, silver, and garments distributed
instead of grain in P. Turin 1881 (IIa) are treated here as compensation.
226 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95

In 13 cases, the delay could not be calculated, mainly because of lacunae in the date
of distribution. These missing delays were handled as follows: when information
internal to the document indicated that the ration was delivered during the due
month, the corresponding median delay of all the distributions performed within a
due month was used (16 days). When the ration was delivered in a following month,
the median value corresponding to this situation was 35 days. When it was not possible
to determine whether the ration was delivered within or after the due month, a delay
of 21 days was used, which corresponded to the median delay of all the distributions.
When several distributions are mentioned for a given due month, the mean value of
the index of each distribution was kept for this month.
Explanatory variables and statistics. To study the possibility of intra-annual variations,
the Egyptian dates were transposed into the Gregorian calendar.18 Several additional
variables for which the documentation provides information were considered for the
analysis. These include the strength of the crew, the fluctuations of grain prices,
the historical period, and the occurrence of social disturbances. For grain prices
only two possibilities were retained: a normal price (1–2 deben/khar) attested from
Ramesses III to Ramesses VI and a high price (> 2 deben/khar) from Ramesses VII
to Ramesses X and the first years of Ramesses XI.19 Four historical periods were
considered: Ramesses III, Ramesses IV–VI, Ramesses VII–X, and Ramesses XI.
Social disturbances include the mention of any actions against abnormal delays or
absence of grain distribution,20 to which can be added the interventions of the crew
to obtain their salaries from the authorities,21 and evidence of difficulties for the
authorities in collecting grain. Statistics were produced using non-parametric tests
with the Statview software. A multiple regression model was used for quantitative
variables wherever possible, and a logistic regression model for dichotomic nominal
variables. A value of p<0.05 was considered as significant.
18
For this the tables published in R. J. Demarée and J. J. Janssen (eds), Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna (EU 1;
Leiden, 1982), xi–xiii were used. An error of 8 to 10 days is possible, which is smoothed out by the fact that only
months were considered for the study.
19
Precisely dated grain prices are too few to allow a detailed analysis. See Janssen, Commodity Prices, 112–32.
20
This includes events qualified by phrases such as ‘to pass the walls’, ‘to be idle because of hunger’, or
‘because there was no ration’, and ‘to carry torches’. They are recorded in year 29 of Ramesses III (Turin Strike
Papyrus, O. IFAO 1255, O. Varille 39, O. DeM 890), in year 1 (O. Berlin P 12631), 2 (O. DeM 44), and probably
3 (O. Cairo CG 25533, see Valbelle, Les ouvriers, 197) of Ramesses IV, in years 13, 16, and 17 of Ramesses IX
(Necropolis Journal of year 13 and 17, P. Turin 1884), and year 18 of Ramesses XI (P. Turin 1888). To them can
be added the event recorded in O. Turin N 57072 when half of the ration was said to have been ‘taken away’ (nHm)
on IV shemu 30 of year 28 of Ramesses III. The same word is used in the Turin Strike Papyrus (rt. 3.2) by the
workmen, who made a plea to the Vizier To saying ‘do not take away (nHm) our ration’, to which To answered:
‘am I the Vizier appointed in order to take away (nHm)?’; see Frandsen, in Groll (ed.), Studies Lichtheim, 188 n.
59. The same verb also occurs in O. DeM 890, rt. 3, from year 29, where it is said that the crew ‘carried torches,
their [ration] having been taken away (nHm)’. In O. OIC 16991, vs. 9, the scribe Neferhotep complains to the
Vizier To that ‘we are extremely deprived (…). Also, one khar and two oipe of grain have been taken away (nHm)
from us to be given to us as one khar and two oipe of dirt’. The document is undated, but Wente has proposed to
ascribe it to year 28: see E. F. Wente, ‘A Letter of Complaint to the Vizier To’, JNES 20, (1961), 252–7. These
examples show that the taking away of the ration follows its distribution and suggest that it was felt by the crew as
a deliberate act of the administration, justifying their demonstration and complaint. Whether the ration was taken
away as retaliation or because of grain shortcoming is not said. It is also unknown whether the ration was first
distributed in totality and then reduced by half in O. Turin N 57072. However a disturbed social and economical
context is obvious here.
21
Illustrative cases are found in P. Turin 2074 in year 8 of Ramesses IX, again in year 14 (O. BM EA 5672 +
O. Cairo CG 25649), and in the Necropolis Journal of year 3 of Ramesses X.
2009 THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION 227
Results
The delay of grain distributions, diw and dni
Among the 118 distributions, either actually performed (111 cases) or stated as not
performed (7 cases), the word diw was used 86 times and dni only 13 times.22 In 18
cases, the nature of the distribution was not specified. Only two of the 13 dni followed
the diw of the corresponding month.23 For the others, there was no reference to a
previous diw. A measure of the delay of grain distribution was available in 89 instances.
Figure 1A clearly shows that grain salaries (diw) were only exceptionally delivered in
due time. By the Mann Whitney test, the delay was significantly longer (p=0.004)
when the distribution was a dni (33.00 ± 8.61 days) than when it was a diw (21.5 ±
16.52 days).24 A multiple regression 25 using the delay as the dependant variable, and
the nature of the distribution (diw, dni, not specified), the nature of the document
from which the data were obtained (necropolis journal/turnus list or specific count),
and whether the due month was estimated from the context or clearly specified 26 as
independent or explanatory variables, showed that none of these influenced the delay.
This indicates that potential confounding factors of the methodology used for the
study probably had a low effect on the variations of the delay.
The index of distribution
The efficacy of grain distribution was estimated by the index of distribution applied
to the 124 due months. As shown in figure 1B, this index was particularly sensitive to
variations of the delay within the due month, since most rations were issued during this
period, and to the fact that the distribution was not performed.27 In addition, it made
no difference whether the ration was specified as not distributed or only not mentioned,
since in both cases a later issue of grain could not be excluded. Importantly, the Mann
Whitney test did not show any significant difference in the distribution of the index
according to whether it was calculated from specified or estimated data. Thus, inclusion
in the study of estimated data did not introduce a bias in the statistical analysis. The
ration was distributed within the due month on 71/124 occasions, and within the first
ten days of the due month in only 17 cases, whereas an abnormal situation marked by
the absence of distribution or a distribution of compensatory goods occurred 31 times.
Intra-annual fluctuations of the index of distribution
Whether grain distributions were subjected to seasonal fluctuations is a question
of importance, which may give interesting clues about the way the administration
managed to regularise grain deliveries. For this, the monthly evolution of the index
22
P. Turin 1881 (IIa) mentions on the same day both a diw and a dni given in copper and silver. A dni is also
mentioned in O. Cairo CG 25592, O. DeM 427, O. UC 39626 (= O. Petrie 25), O. UC 39661 (=O. Petrie 73),
P. Turin 2081 + 2095, and P. Turin 1930/2050.
23
O. DeM 427, year 28 (of Ramesses III) and P. Turin 1930/2050 rt. x+4, year 6 (of Ramesses IX).
24
The difference was not significant when comparing cases, in which the nature of the distribution was
unspecified, to cases of diw, but was significant when comparing unspecified cases to cases of dni, suggesting that
most of the unspecified cases were diw.
25
The almost normal distribution of the delay permits this analysis. For this, categorical data were transformed
into numerical data.
26
Data were considered as specified when the delay could directly be determined from the document and the
absence of ration was clearly indicated. Cases without any mention of grain distribution and restored delay were
treated as estimated.
27
For this reason, its distribution was not normal, and non-parametric tests were used for the analysis.
228 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95

was calculated (figure 1C). The mean number of available values was 10.33 per due
month, varying from 5 for August to 26 for May (median 8.5). An interesting feature
was the biphasic evolution of the index, whether estimated data were excluded or not.
The curve shows a first peak of high values in June and July, after the harvest and
before the Nile flood onset, followed by an attenuated deterioration during the flood
between August and October, and a progression up to January before a period of low
values between February and April. Grouping the data into four seasonal periods
of unequal length, determined according to this curve (February–May, June–July,
August–October, November–January, figure 1D), showed that these fluctuations were
statistically significant by the Kruskal Wallis test (p=0.0107).28

Fig. 1. A and B: frequency histograms of the delay of distribution of grain rations (A) and of the index of grain
distribution (B). C and D: fluctuations of the index of distribution with the due month. Grey circles = specified
data only (84 values) and black circles= all data (124 values). Solid line with arrows indicates significant
statistical differences with the Mann Whitney test (p<0.05), and dotted line a value of p almost significant
(p= 0.0568). E: Comparison of the index of distribution recorded during social disturbance, or within the six
preceding months (before), with the other distributions (other). The difference was significant by the Mann
Whitney test when comparing ‘other’ with ‘before’, and with ‘troubles’ (stars), but not between ‘before’ and
‘troubles’. Error bars correspond to the standard error.

28
A comparison of each of the four periods with the others, by the Mann Whitney test, showed that the
difference was significant between February–May and June–July (p=0.0067), and between February–May and
2009 THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION 229
Other explanatory variables
As shown in table 2, only seasonal variations and social disturbances were linked
significantly with the index.29
Table 2 Results of univariate analysis of the monthly index using the Kruskall Wallis
or Mann Whitney test with the explanatory variables defined in the left column.
The value of p is given when it is <0.05. NS: not significant

Univariate analysis

Historical periods NS
Gang strength NS
Seasons p=0.0107
Disturbances p=0.0384
Grain Price 30 NS

Social disturbances
To test whether low values of the index, associated with social troubles, were
occasional or embedded in a long-term tendency, the index of months with known
social disturbances was compared to that of distributions within the 6 preceding
months, and to the remaining distributions. The index was significantly lower before
and during known social disturbances (figure 1E).31
As only documents of the turnus list or necropolis journal category recorded social
events,32 a subsequent analysis was performed restricted to this category.33 For this,
a logistic regression was carried out using the presence of social disturbances as the
dependent variable and the due months, the historical periods,34 gang size, grain price,
and whether the ration was distributed or not as independent variables. Only the
month of April, the Ramesses VII–X period, and a ration specified as not distributed
were significantly associated with social disturbances (Table 3).35

November–January (p=0.0125). The level of significance was almost reached when comparing June–July to
August–October (p=0.0568).
29
As the distribution of the index was not normal, it was not possible to perform a multivariate analysis with
a multiple regression analysis.
30
This was calculated with fewer data (109), as data after year 8 of Ramesses XI, for which there is no available
indication on grain price, were excluded.
31
With the Kruskall Wallis test (p=0.0003), which compares the three groups as a whole. With the Man
Whitney test, which allows comparison of groups two by two, the difference was significant when comparing the
index during social disturbances (p=0.0044) and the index 6 months before (p=0.0005) to the other distributions
respectively, but not when comparing the index during social disturbances to the index 6 months before.
32
Documents specifically devoted to the distribution of grain ration never record contemporaneous events, so
that a simultaneous occurrence of social disturbances cannot be excluded with these documents.
33
Representing 78 data, after the exclusion of documents with doubtful dating.
34
As documents were precisely dated in this analysis, the reign was used as a chronological variable.
35
The odds ratios are given in table 2. This ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds of an event occurring in
one condition to the odds of it occurring in another: for example, the odds of social disturbances during April to
the odds for the other months of the year. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the condition or event under study is
equally likely in both groups. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the condition or event is more likely in
the first group. Grain price was significantly associated with social troubles, but the logistic regression analysis
shows that this reflected co-linearity of grain price with the historical period, so that grain price was excluded
from the model. The large 95% confidence interval observed with some variables depends on a low number of
data in some categories, which is a limitation of the analysis.
230 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95
Table 3 Logistic regression analyses of the presence of social disturbance
with different explanatory variables. Only variables with
statistically significant odds ratio are shown. CI: confidence interval

variable odds ratio 95% CI P value

Month of April 4.58 1.09–19.22 0.0374

Ramesses VII–X period 4.90 1.62–14.86 0.005
No distribution indicated 24.86 2.76–223.48 0.0271

Discussion
In a recent article, J. J. Janssen stressed that accountancy was frequently inaccurate at
Deir el-Medîna.36 However, despite some limitations, the material used in the current
analysis was wholly suitable for purpose. Neither the nature of the documents,
nor the assumptions required for the restoration of missing data, are statistically
confounding factors for the analysis of delay in ration payment. Nor does the inclusion
of documents that do not mention a delivery of grain ration, on the hypothesis that
this was not an error of omission, significantly modify the index value. This may
indicate that the scribes rarely forget to record grain deliveries. However, the study
presented here cannot avoid the possibility that the available sample is not statistically
representative of the whole population, and thus that new documents may modify
the conclusions. This risk is probably low, since the 124 collected data represent 9%
of all the due months of the Twentieth Dynasty, and 29% of the 36 years covered by
the documentation.
As already noted, it is commonly accepted that for a given month, the word diw
refers to the first delivery of grain ration and dni (n diw) to the subsequent ones.
Interestingly, most of the distributions were called diw, while dni are more seldom
mentioned.37 However, as expected, the delay of the dni was mildly but significantly
longer than that of the diw. One may wonder about this under-representation of dni,
since the whole amount of grain was rarely issued at one time. One explanation may
be that many dni were distributed after the corresponding diw in a period not covered
by the documents, and thus escape our view.38 Alternatively, the dni may have been
recorded in documents specifically devoted to this purpose, of which P. Turin 2081
+ 2095 is currently the only known example.39
As the delay and the absence of grain distribution were equally important in
Ancient Egyptian eyes, an index was specifically built to take them into account. This
index brought to light the existence of seasonal fluctuations which may depend on
the complex and multi-stage organisation of the collection, transport, delivery, and
36
J. J. Janssen, ‘Accountancy at Deir-el-Medîna: How Accurate are the Administrative Ostraca’, SAK 33
(2005), 147–57. The different drawbacks include calculation errors, mistakes in the records of dates, or omission
of events, such as deliveries of goods that were actually performed, as demonstrated by other sources.
37
The proportion of diw may even be greater, as suggested by the similar delay of diw and of distributions not
specified as being a diw or a dni.
38
This may explain why almost none of the dni specifically refers to a previous diw.
39
The document is unpublished, but significant information can be obtained from the online Deir el-Medîna
Database. See also Valbelle, Les ouvriers, 65–6 and Janssen, Village Varia, 136. This text summarises the dni of
year 2 (of Ramesses VI) from III peret to III akhet.
2009 THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION 231
storage of grain from the field to distribution to the crew.40 However, this study shows
that the grain supply was directly dependent on the agricultural cycles of cereals.41
Thus, the lowest index values occurred between February and May, when cereals
were harvested and stocks of the preceding years were probably almost exhausted.
A clearly significant improvement follows within two months after the end of the
harvest, before the onset of the Nile flood in June and July, a delay probably due
to the different steps of grain distribution. A slight deterioration possibly takes
place between August and October, which may be due to problematic conditions of
navigation during the high waters of the inundation.42 However, the level of June and
July is reached again and maintained until the end of the year before the return of the
more lean times that precedes the next harvest.43
As a whole, the picture obtained here is that of a system working with a relative
efficiency, but which, typically, was able to maintain an even cereal supply only over
three quarters of the agricultural year.44 It may be significant that the known dates
of transport of corn to Thebes extend from April to January, with a cluster between
June and September, and omit the harvest period when the provincial granaries were
probably not yet filled up.45 The documentation illustrates two further characteristics
of this system, namely the multiplicity of sources of cereal and the small amount of
grain transported each time. The latter is explained by the size of the boats used for
this purpose, which at the best were only able to ship a ration and half.46 The result
was a need for multiple and repeated small journeys. All of this was time-consuming,
and probably constituted a weak point of the system, although it may have permitted
a ready and rapid adaptation to demand.47
40
On this question see Janssen, Village Varia, 4–8 and Valbelle, Les ouvriers, 148–52.
41
On cereal production, see M. A. Murray, ‘Cereal Production and Processing’, in P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 505–36.
42
This degradation may be conjectural since the level of significance is barely reached. During this period,
the North West wind is prevailing, although variable, facilitating southward navigation against the river current.
J. Besançon, L’homme et le Nil (Paris, 1957), 19–20.
43
If the low period of August–October does exist, the improvement of November–January may be due to
the restoration of ordinary transport conditions with the declining flood. It is also possible that a second crop on
land harvested during the inundation may contribute to this improvement. This is a debated question. For K. W.
Butzer, Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt (Chicago and London, 1976), 48–51, summer crops almost did not
exist before the Ptolemaic Period. However, P. Sallier IV, vs 13.1 shows that grain was threshed during II and III
akhet of year 3 of Merneptah, which corresponds to August–September, before being stored in IV akhet (end of
September). This presumes sowing in February or March. Another indication interpreted as an evidence of the
existence of summer crops comes from the date of land assessment in the Wilbour papyrus (23 July). See H. W.
Fairman, ‘The Wilbour Papyrus’, JEA 39 (1953), 118–23.
44
On the buffer-stock effect of large temples such as the Ramesseum in the Theban region see B. J. Kemp,
Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London and New York, 1991), 192–7.
45
The available sources are P. Turin 1930/2050 + 2013 (year 6 of Ramesses IX), P. Turin 2002 + 1906 (year 7
of Ramesses IX), the Necropolis Journal of Year 3 of Ramesses X, and the Turin Taxation Papyrus (year 12 of
Ramesses XI), which by itself provides 7/14 dates. On the verso of the Baldwin/Amiens papyrus, grain is loaded
on ships and transported to an unknown destination between III(?) peret 17 and I shemu 12, which corresponds to
the second half of December and the beginning of January, with dating the document to the middle part of the
dynasty, see J. J. Janssen, Grain Transport in the Ramesside Period: Papyrus Baldwin (BM EA 10061) (HPBM 8;
London, 2004), 4–5.
46
In the Turin Taxation Papyrus, 2 boats transport 402 khar of grain (rt 3.9–10). The cargo of two fishermen
is 48 and 70 khar respectively in P. Turin 1930/2050 + 2013 (rt 1.3, rt x+5), and a boat ships 502 khar of grain in
P. Turin 2002 + 1906 (rt 3.12). This contrasts with the capacity of the cargo-ships belonging to the temple of Amun
in the Baldwin/Amiens papyrus, which in most cases range from 700 to 1000 khar (Janssen, Grain Transport, 28).
47
In the Turin Taxation papyrus, it takes between 2 to 6 days to bring grain back to Thebes from Gebelein to
Esna.
232 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95

Textual sources repeatedly indicate that a delayed grain ration was a determinant
factor in outbreaks of social disturbance at Deir el-Medîna in the Twentieth Dynasty.
These took the form of work interruptions and protests by the crew claiming wages,
or insistent solicitations of the authorities by the workmen themselves to obtain their
dues.48 As grain rations were only exceptionally distributed in due time, a chronic delay
was probably, within limits, perceived as normal, and troubles required a combination
of psychological, social, and economic factors to occur. Statistical analysis confirms
the importance of the delay. As a whole the index was abnormally low, both in
periods of trouble and in the preceding months, suggesting that social disturbances
resulted from a long-term abnormal situation.49 Moreover, in documents restricted
to the Necropolis Journal/turnus list category, a specified absence of distribution was
a significant explanatory variable of social troubles. The recurrent delay of grain
delivery in the Twentieth Dynasty has sometimes been ascribed to the inefficiency
of the administration.50 This study points to the importance of agricultural factors,
and specifically of seasonal fluctuations. Among 14 known and dated social troubles
(Table 4), 9 developed between February and May. In the logistic regression model,
April was a due month specifically associated with an increased risk of trouble.51
At this time, granaries were probably almost empty and the harvest not yet or just
completed. The abnormal situation that frequently prevailed in the months preceding
the outbreak of social troubles suggests that a bad crop in the previous year may
result in a failure of the buffer capacity of grain storage, the consequence of which
was particularly marked at the end of the agricultural year in February–May.52
Finally, a few comments are necessary on the other explanatory variables studied
here, namely the strength of the crew, grain price, and historical periods. It must be
noted that these are interdependent, since the first two varied according to the third.
The absence of significant fluctuation of the index with the historical period and with
the gang size indicates that the model elaborated above has a general value. However
in the logistic regression, the Ramesses VII–X period was a determinant factor of
social disturbances, confirming that troubles occurred in restricted periods only.

48
Normally, only the captains of the Tomb, particularly the scribes, were the intermediaries with the authorities
(Černý, Community of Workmen, 238).
49
An analysis of the distribution of the absent grain issues (index = 0) shows that they were significantly more
frequent within the six months preceding the onset of social disturbances, and with social disturbances, than with
other due months (44% and 40% versus 16%, p=0.0006 with the Chi 2 test).
50
See for example D. O’Connor, ‘New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552–664’, in B. G. Trigger,
B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, and A. B. Lloyd, Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge, 1983), 229.
51
Eight of the fourteen events listed in table 4 took place in April and May. This is in accordance with the fact
that April is a due month statistically linked with social disturbance.
52
There is no room here to analyse each social event individually. The most documented is the well-known
strike of year 29 of Ramesses III. Troubles started on II peret 10 (beginning of November) and lasted at least
to February of the next year. On IV peret 28 (end of January), the Vizier states that the granaries are empty.
However, as soon as in July (II akhet 21) of the preceding year an abnormal delay was noted in O. Berlin 10633.
All of this fits well with the hypothesis of a bad crop in this year. Interestingly, O. Turin N57072, which contains
a monthly account of arrears of grains due to one of the captains of the crew, probably the scribe, shows that as
a whole only two thirds of the ration were distributed within the 15 months preceding the onset of the events in
II peret of year 29, suggesting that agricultural difficulties also occurred in year 28.
2009 THE DELAY OF THE GRAIN RATION 233
Table 4 Known dated reactions of the workmen delayed
or absent distribution of their grain ration

Egyptian dates Gregorian dates Social events Source

Ramesses III
yr 28, IV shemu 30 May, last decade Taking away half of the ration. O. Turin N57072
December, first Pass the walls, hunger because of P. Turin 1880
yr 29, III peret 10–
decade–February, ration. Vizier states granary empty (Turin Strike
I shemu 25
second decade on IV peret 28 (end of January) Papyrus)
yr 32, II shemu 29–30 April, second decade Pass the walls O. DeM 38

Ramesses IV
yr 1, IV shemu 17 May, first decade Pass the walls O. Berlin 12631
yr 2, III shemu 29 April, second decade Carry the torches because of ration O. DeM 44
yr 3(?), IV shemu 21 May, first decade Pass the walls because of delay O. Cairo CG 25533

Ramesses IX
yr 9, IV shemu 27 mid May Pass the walls and call for the HPA O. DeM 571
Inactivity because of hunger and
yr13, epag. days mid May absence of ration of III and IV Necropolis Journal
shemu
September, first The crew demands ration from the O. BM 5672 + O.
yr 14, IV akhet 22
decade Vizier Cairo CG 25649
Inactivity because of hunger
yr 16, I akhet 28 mid June P. Turin 1884
whilst grain is in the granary
October, second
Inactivity because of hunger and
yr 17, II peret 3–27 decade–November, Necropolis Journal
absence of the ration of II peret
first decade

Ramesses X
Inactivity, crew crosses Nile and
yr 3, II shemu 28–9 March, first decade stay in No demanding of ration Necropolis Journal
from authorities
Inactivity whilst smdt tries to find
yr 3, I akhet 20–9 June, first decade Necropolis Journal
grain in the south

Ramesses XI
Inactivity because there is no P. Turin 1888
yr 18, IV shemu 24 Beginning of May
ration + 2085

Conclusion
In a recent study it was established that the accounts of fish delivery from Deir
el-Medîna were particularly suitable for a statistical analysis.53 Although necessitating
an indirect method of evaluation, through the use of the index of distribution, the
53
J.-C. Antoine, ‘Fluctuations of Fish Deliveries at Deir el-Medina in the Twentieth Dynasty: A Statistical
Analysis’, SAK 35 (2006), 35–41.
234 JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE JEA 95

delay of issue of grain ration appears as a good reflection of the system of cereal supply
in an urban community that as a whole did not practice agriculture. This confirms
that, despite some limitations, the abundant written material of Deir el-Medîna
may allow a quantitative approach. Seasonal fluctuations are observed that probably
played an important role in the outbreak of social troubles. We may thus suspect that
a similar phenomenon may have the same social consequences throughout the history
of Deir el-Medîna. It is the absence of documentation that prevents us from knowing
whether strikes occurred in the heyday of the Village.54
Appendix 1
List of documents used for this study classified by the reign to which they are dated.

Ramesses III: O. Ashmolean Museum 107 (KRI VI, 171); O. Berlin P. 10633 (KRI V, 529–30); O.
Cairo CG 25592 (KRI V, 530); O. DeM 32 (KRI V, 497–9); O. DeM 34 (KRI V, 512–13); O. DeM 37
(KRI V, 548–9); O. DeM 38 (KRI V, 551–2); O. DeM 39 + 174 (KRI V, 552–3); O. DeM 145 (KRI V,
537–8); O. DeM 148 (KRI V, 505–6); O. DeM 153 (KRI V, 549–50); O. DeM 155 (KRI V, 544–6); O.
DeM 156 (KRI V, 519–20); O. DeM 158 (KRI V, 555); O. DeM 159 (KRI V, 547); O. DeM 180 (KRI
VI, 174); O. DeM 427 (KRI V, 521–3); O. DeM 738 (Grandet, OHNL VIII, 34, 140); O. DeM 842
(Grandet, OHNL IX, 21, 211); O. Glasgow D 1925.67 (KRI VII, 292–3); O. Michaelides 73 (KRI V,
556); O. Munich 307/22a (KRI VII, 297); O. Prague H 14 (KRI VII, 302–3); O. Turin 57033 (KRI
V, 496–7); O. Turin N. 57072 (KRI V, 535–6); O. Valley of Queens 6 (Koenig, BIFAO 88, 120–1);
O. Varille 39 + O. IFAO 1255 (KRI VII, 300–2); P. Turin 1880 (RAD, 45–58); O. UC 39626 = O. Petrie
25 (KRI V, 501–2); O. UC 39648 = O. Petrie 50 (KRI V, 499–500).

Ramesses IV: O. Ashmolean Museum 113 (KRI VI, 124–5); O. Berlin P. 12631(Deir el Medine
online); O. Cairo CG 25698 (Černý, Ostraca CGC, 63, 84*); O. DeM 40 (KRI VI, 106–7); O. DeM 41
(KRI VI, 107–9); O. DeM 42 (KRI VI, 109–10); O. DeM 43 (KRI VI, 110–11); O. DeM 44 (KRI
VI, 116–18); O. DeM 45 (KRI VI, 119–21); O. DeM 46 (KRI VI, 121–24); O. DeM 47 + O. Vienna 5
(KRI VI, 111–13); O. DeM 162 (KRI VI, 114); O. DeM 395 (KRI VI, 133).

Ramesses VI: O. Ashmolean Museum 11 (KRI VI, 248–9); O. Ashmolean Museum 131 (KRI VII,
331–2); P. Bibl. Nat. 237, carton 1 (KRI VI, 339–40); P. Turin 2081 + 2095 (Deir el-Medina Database).

Ramesses IV–VI: O. Cairo CG 25280 (Daressy, Ostraca CGC, 71); O. Cairo CG 25533 (KRI VI, 175–
7); O. DeM 184 (Černý, OHNL II, 21–2, pl. 51); O. DeM 252 (Černý, OHNL IV, 3–4, pl. 3); O. DeM
380 (KRI VI, 127–8); O. DeM 381 (KRI VI, 140–1); O. UC 3966 = O. Petrie 73 (KRI VI, 170).

Ramesses VII: P. Turin 2070/154 (KRI VI, 426–8).

Ramesses IX: Necropolis Journal year 13 (KRI VI, 560–6); Necropolis Journal year 17 (KRI VI,
566–98); O. BM EA 5672 + O. Cairo CG 25649 (KRI VI, 660–1); P. Turin 1881 (KRI VI, 610–19);
P. Turin 1884 (KRI VI, 644–50); P. Turin 1900 (KRI VI, 619–24); P. Turin 1906 + 3047/242 + 1939
(KRI VI, 624–30); P. Turin 1930/2050 + 2013 (KRI VI, 600–3); P. Turin 1932 + 1939 (KRI VI, 685–
7); P. Turin 2071/224 + 1960 (KRI VI, 641–4).

Ramesses X: Necropolis Journal year 3 (KRI VI, 687–99).

Ramesses XI: P. Turin 1888 + 2085 (RAD, 64–8); P. Turin 2018 (KRI VI, 851–63).

54
An echo of similar events may be found in the well-known stela of year 8 of Ramesses II from Manshiyet
es-Sadr (Cairo CGC 34504), translation in K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated:
Translations, II: Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions (Oxford, 1996), 193–5. In this document, the king describes in
detail the organisation, similar to that of Deir el-Medîna, he has set up for the benefit of his stone-cutters and
sculptors. Phrases such has ‘I know that … only on a full stomach are people glad to work’ (lines 13–14), or ‘I have
filled the stores for you…..that you may persevere daily. None of you pass the night moaning about poverty’ (lines
34–36) sound like an answer to workmen’s complaints about deficient supplies.