关于31个独立碎片的尺寸，参见CPR XXVIII pp. 61-157。年代:约公元前210年至公元前二世纪中期。来源:Arsinoites (Tebtynis地区)。测年、物源、古代学及一般内容见g54771 -6 recto的描述。背面的列表与正面上的列表排列不同。文本某些部分左侧的数字表明，这些是特定月份的日期(在第11章的反面)。54771连续序列11、12、13和14存活)。匆忙的草书书写，简洁的文字布局，以及几乎所有条目都以数字结尾的事实表明，这是一份个人在特定日期缴纳税款的清单。由于这些款项是日复一日地支付的，抄写员似乎匆忙地录入纳税人的姓名、父名、家庭或职业名称，录入之间几乎没有空格。分录末尾的不同数字表明，部分支付也被接受为应付全部税款，这取决于个人能支付多少。 This system of paying tax is well known in Ptolemaic Egypt. The clerk obviously needed such a daily account of payments to keep track of the tax revenue flowing in. At a certain point in time he needed to check who had paid his dues and who had not. Therefore, he probably took the list on the verso and entered the sums it contained into a register of taxpayers, which was very similar to that on the recto (cf. the fact that probably the same individual appears in inv. no. 54771 recto col. II.34 and 54776 fr. 1 verso col. I.13; in 54771 recto col. II.27 and 54771 verso col. III.42; in 54771 recto col. II.30 and 54776 fr. 1 verso col. I.9; and in 54776 fr. 7 recto 10 and 54776 fr. 1 verso col. II.22, suggesting that essentially the same taxpaying population was concerned in both the recto and the verso of the once-complete papyrus roll), putting an x-shaped check-mark against those entries on the verso which had been entered into the register. Alternatively, it is possible that those individuals against whose names no figures appear on the recto were exempt from paying for some reason (e.g. being under age or infirm). Thus, the two lists appear to have had complementary functions but served the same overall purpose of tax collection from essentially the same taxpaying population. As the list on the recto had a different function from that on the verso in the same general process, it is impossible to tell whether the two sides concern tax collection in the same year or in two different years. What seems clear, however, is that the scribe is unlikely to have used the list on the recto with that on the verso at the same time, since turning the roll over when copying data from the verso to the recto would have been awkward from a practical point of view. This hypothetical reconstruction would explain well what would otherwise at first sight seem to be puzzling facts that not all names on the recto have figures against them; that the figures appear to be later additions; that the figures against the entries vary but not too widely or randomly (40 [?], 60, 75 [?], 80 [?], 90, 100, 120, 140, 160 [?], 200 [?], 220, 440, ?20, ?50), being almost always multiples of ten; and also the differences between the script and spacing of the recto and the verso. The papyrus was published by C. A. La’da as CPR XXVIII 9.