Documents from Berenike. Volume II. Greek ostraka from the 1999-2001 seasons

Citation preview

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA

— 33 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE VOLUME II

TEXTS FROM THE 1999-2001 SEASONS Roger S. BAGNALL

Christina HELMS Arthur M. F. W. VERHOOGT

with contributions by Adam BULOW-JACOB SEN, Helene CUVIGNY,

Meindert DIJKSTRA, and Ursula KAPLONY-HECKEL

BRUXELLES Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth 2005

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE VOLUME n

TEXTS FROM THE 1999-2001 SEASONS

ASSOCIATION EGYPTOLOGIQUE REINE ELISABETH

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA Etudes de papyrologie et editions de sources publiees sous la direction de Jean BINGEN

D/2005/0705/1

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA

— 33 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE VOLUME II TEXTS FROM THE 1999-2001 SEASONS Roger S. BAGNALL Christina HELMS Arthur M. F. W. VERHOOGT with contributions by Adam BULOW-JACOBSEN, Helene CUVIGNY, Meindert DIJKSTRA, and Ursula KAPLONY-HECKEL

BRUXELLES Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth 2005

Copyright © 2005 Roger S. Bagnall, Christina Helms and Arthur M. F. W. Verhoogt

PREFACE The texts published here were found in the excavations at Berenike on the Red Sea, conducted by the University of Delaware and the University of Leiden under the direction of Steven Sidebotham and Willemina Wendrich from 1999-2001. We are grateful to them for the invitation to work on these documents and much practical assistance. Excavations at Bcrenike have been suspended since 2002 because of the closure of the region to excavation by the Egyptian government for security reasons, but it is hoped that conditions will allow them to resume. We send this publication to press after study seasons in the magazine in Quft, where the finds are stored, in winter 2003 and fall 2004. Bagnall and Helms were able to see almost all of the material included in this volume during a week at the site in January, 2001; except for items seen in 2004, Verhoogt has worked from digital images, partly made from slides and partly made in 2001 with a digital camera by Nigel Blackamore, who not only photographed all of the publishable material from 2001 but captured those items from previous years of which we did not have usable photographs. We are very grateful to him for his care and energy in providing us with good images. We thank Martin Hense for the two maps. We should also like to thank the officials of the Supreme Council of Antiquities who did a great deal to facilitate our work in the magazine, particularly Magdy el-Ghandour, director of foreign missions, and Ashraf Nassar Mubarak Muhammad, inspector in Qena. The diversity of texts in this volume contrasts with the unity of its predecessor, which was devoted entirely to ostraka in Greek. Here, by contrast, we have inscriptions, papyri, ostraka, a wooden tag, a stone weight, and a lamp, in Greek, Latin, Demotic, Coptic, and one or more Semitic script. For the preliminary texts of the difficult and badly-preserved Demotic ostraka we are indebted to Ursula Kaplony-Heckel, and we owe the description of the Semitic ostraka to Meindert Dijkstra. Both of them have worked only from digital images. The archaeological reports (Berenike 1995 ff.) contain full acknowledgment of the financial support which has made possible the excavations. We are particularly indebted to the Brown Foundation (Houston, Texas) for a grant in support of Helms’s work at Berenike, which made possible her presence at the excavations in 1999 and 2001 and two seasons of excavations in the dump. We wish also to record our thanks for assistance from the University of Michigan in support of Verhoogt’s participation in editorial meetings and from the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation of Columbia University, which has paid for duplicating and digitizing the color slides

VI

DOCUMENTS FROM BEREN1KE

of the ostraka. The digital images have been invaluable in our work, particularly with some of the more difficult texts. Funds from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation made possible our final session in the magazine in October, 2004. We arc grateful to those colleagues who read the penultimate version of this volume and helped to improve the texts and commentary: Jean Bingen, Adam Btllow-Jacobsen, Hdldnc Cuvigny, Dominic Rathbone, Steven Sidebotham, Willcmina Wendrich, and Klaas Worp. Wc have benefited particularly from Helene Cuvigny’s generosity in sharing unpublished information from her excavations at Didymoi, where several individuals attested in our texts arc also found. Rather than print plates in this volume, wc have again put all of the digital images on the Web for consultation. The reader is asked to consult the APIS web site, where the entire catalogue of Bcrenike ostraka will be available, along with lowand medium-resolution images. (Higher-resolution images can be obtained on request from the authors.) The address is: http.7/www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/projects/digital/apis/index.html.

Abbreviations

Papyri and papyrological tools are cited according to J. F. Oates et al., Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets, 5th ed. (BASP Suppl. 9, Oakville, Conn. 2001). An updated version can be consulted on the Web at the following address: scriptorium.lib.duke/papyrus/texts/checklist.html. A list of literature cited by author’s name and date of publication is given at the end of the introduction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

Preface

v

Introduction

1

The archaeological context

1

The groups of texts .........

3

Date of the texts.....

4

3.

The customs process, tax-farmers, officials, and the military

5

4.

Goods and measures...........................................................

8

S.

Personal names

9

Bibliography..........................

15

Note on editorial procedure ....

17

Texts, Translations, and Notes

19

Indexes

109

TABLE OF DOCUMENTS Inscriptions 118-119 120 121 122

Dedications to Zeus Dedication of the Hydreuma at Sikait Dedication to Isis by an interpreter Fragmentary inscription

Papyri 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Latin text Letter? Sale of a donkey Contract Dating formulas Fragment Letter Letter Inventory Land register Account or list of persons? Account List of names

Ostraka 136-144 145-152 153-183 184-188 189-204 205-212 213-216 217-227 228-250 251-253 254-257

Receipts Orders to let pass Orders from Sarapion son of Kasios Orders from Epaphroditos Letters Lists and accounts Memoranda and tags Miscellaneous texts Jar inscriptions Demotic ostraka Semitic ostraka

Wooden tag 258

Tag

Instrumenta 259 260

Stone weight Lamp with Coptic inscription

INTRODUCTION

1/

BERENIKE 1994-2001

/' \ late Roman cemetery . \ ________ I f'"'—

24

)44

( if

Ptolemaic Industrial area

Q

•o•

% ♦C5

L

42-

\ .

49

\’ 40

\

■

19x'--\x 25

3 !

jearly Roman trash dump

3->-'

1A

-;^SC

/

16-. -^Serapis temple 10^

1

The Archaeological Context

Bercnike is like the other Roman sites of the eastern desert in that most of the texts yielded by excavations come from frustratingly uninformative archaeological contexts, mainly the dumps (cf. Cuvigny et al. 2003), rather than from occupation contexts in which we might hope to link the documents to the use of particular buildings and rooms. As in volume 1, the bulk of the material published here comes from trenches in the dump dating from the early Roman period. (See Plan 1 for a general map of the site; Plan 2 for a detailed map of the dump trenches.) Four texts (145-147, orders to pass, and 190) come from trench 19 (1997/1998), the source of most of the orders in volume 1. Immediately to the south in the dump was trench 33, a 5 x 5 m opening not completely excavated, which yielded several papyri (123,132134) and some 35 ostraka, including one with a date to AD 73 and four belonging to the dossier of Sarapion son of Kasios, described below. Just to the west of this trench is trench 48, a 7 x 4 m opening which was the source of the multi-fragment text mentioning the mysteria (124), the letter of Hikane (129), the receipts issued by Germanos in the reign of Nero (137-139), most of the texts of the dossier of Sarapion son of Kasios (157-183), the group of passes issued by the imperial slave Epaphroditos (184-188), and nearly 20 additional texts on ostraka. It also yielded mummified animals, some with iron collars (a kind of pet cemetery?), stamped plaster jar stoppers, and a fragment of a terracotta Roman soldier. South of trench 33 was the 5 x 3 m trench 31, from which came a cluster of papyrus documents of the reign of Nero (125-128), a Flavian ostrakon (148), a handful of other ostraka, and a gypsum figure of Aphrodite. Finally, trench 29 (also 5 x 3 m), although also in the early Roman dump, was located further to the east from the cluster of trenches already described. It yielded two papyri (130-131) and ten ostraka, one dated to AD 72. The chronological horizon of the dump is thus very consistent. Virtually everything from it with a date can be assigned to the reigns of Nero and Vespasian. The much less textually productive trenches in occupation areas present a different picture. Trench 10, excavated over the seasons from 1996 to 2000, was a large (10 x 10 m at top) opening in the tell immediately north of the Serapis temple, with nearly continuous stratigraphy from late Ptolemaic until late Roman. There were a number of public structures here, perhaps including the courtyard of the temple in its early Roman phase (where the flat-bottomed storage jar of Indian provenance full of peppercorns was found). Four ostraka from this trench are published here, the earliest from AD 8 (220) and nothing obviously later than Flavian (a Flavius in 214).

2

DOCUMENTS FROM BERI-N1KP.

PLAN OP DUMPS HERE

Detail of First Century Roman Dump

630 N —

0s

620 N~

48 33

610 N —

13 __ E

0

600 North

Trench Dimensions 13

19 29 31 33 48

5x5 3x3 5x3 5x3 5x5 7x4

Year(s) excavated 96/97 97/98 1999 1999 2000 2001

INTRODUCTION

3

Not far to the southeast of this area, trench 37 was opened to an area of 7 x 8 m, just south of and abutting the putative decumanus maximus. This is the source of 118-119, the twin inscriptions from the reign of Nero, and 121, the dedication to Isis from an interpreter in the reign of Trajan. This was a substantial structure, dated by its pottery to the late fourth to fifth century AD, and the inscriptions were thus present in it as reused blocks, rather than in their original contexts. To the northeast was trench 41, in which was found a multi-niched room with the very poorly preserved bilingual Greek-Latin inscription 122, reused as part of a wall probably to be dated to the fourth century. In an entirely different part of the site, to the west, the Ptolemaic industrial area, is trench 45, 7 x 4 m in size. The pottery from this trench ranges from third/second century BC to perhaps early Roman. Although it was not highly productive of texts, it did produce 242, an ostrakon or pot inscription. Somewhat to its northwest, in the same area, was trench 49, the source of 250, a two-word text in a late Ptolemaic hand referring to wool for weaving. The pottery here ranged from Ptolemaic to late Roman.

2 The Groups of Texts

The first volume of Berenike texts was dominated by ostraka connected to the process by which goods and their transporters passed through the customs gate at Berenike. Most of these belonged to several dossiers of orders to let individuals and their goods pass. These goods, we argued, were primarily wine (and to a lesser extent other commodities) destined to be loaded on ships and exported to markets in East Africa or India. Texts belonging to these dossiers were not found in the subsequent seasons, with the exception of two ostraka (147-148) connected to Group E, the dossier of texts mentioning Gaius lulius Epaphroditos (80-85). There is, however, one new group, our second-largest in numbers of identified texts, that of orders issued by Sarapion son of Kasios (153-183). These are in the main able to be identified as having been addressed to Andouros or Pakoibis. Andouros is no doubt the same man occurring as the addressee of ostraka in Groups A, C and F. In one of these, 86, he is identified as a quintanensis, and no doubt he and Pakoibis here were also quintanenses. (See below on Pakoibis as a quintanensis in 184-188.) It is of course striking that the ostraka of Group F (86-88) were also issued by a Sarapion, but in these he does not have a patronymic. That difference could simply reflect a variation in scribal habits between different individuals working for Sarapion, but it is also possible that the patronymic in the present group is given precisely in order to distinguish their author from the other Sarapion. The two groups are otherwise not at all similar in style. The introduction to 153-183 discusses the new group and its novelties of formula and measures in detail.

4

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

Apart from the dossier of Sarapion son of Kasios. the present volume in fact includes only a small number of orders to let pass (145-152). Of these, two arc issued hv one Alexandras (145-146); of these one is addressed to an individual, the other to the generic rote cni rf] m>Xj) already found in Group B (Rhobaos) in the previous volume. An issuer not found elsewhere, Pakoibis son of Ptolemaios, appears in 147; the addressee is Pisipmouis. known from texts in volume 1. Three texts using the key verb (inbZuoov (cf. Group D in volume 1), but without any addressee, were found, two of them giving numbers of camels rather than of jars of wine (148-150). Pisipmouis appears again in 152, issued by an otherwise undocumented Harpoch( ). A special mention, however, must be given to the very curious group 184-188, the dossier of Epaphroditos. Whether this is the same man as the C. lulius Epaphroditos mentioned earlier cannot be determined. The author of the new group is a slave of Delias, the slave of Aeimnestos, the slave of Caesar. It is entirely possible that C. lulius Epaphroditos is the same man after a series of manumissions (of Aeimnestos by the emperor, of Delias by Acimnestos, and of Epaphroditos by Delias, each in turn acquiring the names C. lulius from his patron), but this may be an uneconomical hypothesis. He produced this small group of orders to let pass, all addressed to the quintanensis Pakoibis, who is undoubtedly the same man as the addressee of a dozen texts in the archive of Sarapion son of Kasios (153-183; see above and inlrod. to this group). They are all formulated in a generic fashion unique to this group and discussed in detail in the introduction to it. The other finds of 1999-2001 are heterogeneous both in material and in contents. They are discussed singly below.

Date of the texts No absolute dates are preserved in the dossier of Sarapion son of Kasios, but the appearance of Andouros indicates that this group must be approximately contemporary with the groups of customs passes found in 1997 and 1998. The connection of Pakoibis, in turn, with the dossier of Epaphroditos (184-188), ties that group into the same chronological matrix. The dated texts of the 1999-2001 seasons are consistent with the indications of the earlier discoveries but help to tie them firmly to the third quarter of the first century. Two texts of the reign of Augustus, however, confirm that activity was already fully underway at that point. One of these, dated to 1 BC/AD 1 (year 30 of Augustus), is only a fragmentary end of a receipt for the quintana (136). Another, dated to year 35, is probably a similar text (219). Another very effaced text of uncertain character, perhaps also a receipt (220), contains a date to year 37 of Augustus, or AD 8. There is more evidence for the reign of Nero. The twin inscriptions 118-119 were dated to Nero, but the year number did not survive erasure clearly enough to be identified. Papyri of years 7 and 8 of Nero (AD 60 and 61) record sales, one of them of a donkey; both documents (125 and 126) were executed in Berenike itself. Nero’s titulature is also to be identified in 127 and 128, which come from the same

INTRODUCTION

5

archaeological context, and which we argue belong in September, 62. Receipts for the quintana dated to years 11, 12, and 14 of Nero, plus one from a Neronian year of which the numeral is lost, all add to the evidence for activity under that emperor (137-140a). In 141 we have a continuation of these receipts into the fourth year of Vespasian (AD 72). Another receipt (142), similar but too damaged to be assigned confidently to the quintana, dates to year 6 of Vespasian (AD 73). Three years later, in year 9 of Vespasian, the prefect L. Julius Ursus dedicated the hydreuma at Sikait (120) as well as other fortified installations along the route to Berenike. The documents then have a gap until the reign of Trajan, from which comes the interpreter’s dedication (121) mentioning the prefect Marcus Rutilius Lupus and thus datable to AD 113-117. The pattern of finds certainly does not entitle us to draw any negative conclusions about periods from which no datable documents have been found. Most of our texts come from the early Roman trash dump and simply reflect its contents; there are presumably other areas of the dump containing the material before Nero and after Vespasian. The reign of the latter emperor, however, was clearly a decisive moment in the improvement of the security of the desert network, and it seems likely that the reign of Trajan was another such period.

3

The Customs Process, Tax-farmers, Officials, and the Military The new finds have added only modestly to the information about the customs process that we were able to extract from the material in volume 1. There we proposed that the orders to let pass that dominate the finds published in that volume were addressed by someone at the valley end of the desert road, i.e., in Koptos, and received by the officials in charge of the customs gate in Berenike. They indicated, we suggested, that the amounts due were collected in the valley, with the goods then free to pass through the gate in Berenike without further charges. This picture is not significantly challenged by the new material, but neither do the new texts offer confirmation or clarification of the general lines of this hypothesis. The subject most added to is a payment that had been unknown before discovery of the Berenike ostraka, namely a charge called quintana or quintane. The term is obviously connected to the title of the quintanenses. It appears written out in full only in two receipts, 138 and 139, in Germanos’ inimitable script and spelling, as Kouravag (probably plural); and it is mentioned in a letter (190), where we find Tqv KOUtv[Tdvav]. That the reading is correct is further guaranteed by multiple occurrences of the term in ostraka from Krokodilo, on the Koptos-Myos Hormos Road; these are mostly still unpublished, but K544 is quoted in Cuvigny et al. 2003: 384 and K252 is published on p. 402 of that volume. There the charge is referred to in connection with the leasing of prostitutes at a rate of 60 drachmas ofiv rf|

6

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

KOtnvtdvq.Thc amount in some eases is specified as 12 drachmas. (We owe this information to Adam Btilow-Jacobscn.) The receipts for the quintana published in the present volume (136-141), although not doing much to clarify the purpose of the payment, establish it as a sum due on a monthly basis, at lb dr. per month (see the section introduction for more detailed discussion of the quintanenses). In 140 we find the monthly payment of 16 dr. further specified as for two donkeys. The charge was thus perhaps not only personal but limited to a standard number of animals driven by an individual. It was, not surprisingly, collected by the quintanenses, sometimes operating singly, sometimes as a pair. As we note below, the evidence mostly comes from the summer months, when the transport activity would have been most active, but the existence of receipts dated to Tybi (219) and Mcchcir (140) should prevent us from reaching any rash conclusions that this sum was collected only in part of the year. Because none of the recipients of the receipts is otherwise securely identifiable, we have no definite basis for judging whether the quintana was exacted from transporters or from the owners of goods, or both. We can, however, conclude that this tax is to be added to the list of charges assessed on individuals involved in the Eastern Desert traffic, and the mention of the two donkeys in 140 points strongly in the direction of the transporters as being the persons taxed. Other charges known, the apostolion and the pittakion, have been recently discussed by F. Burkhalter (2002) and by D. Rathbone (2002: 184 with n. 23). By analogy with the collection of these charges, it would seem increasingly likely that the quintanenses were tax-farmers rather than government officials. (On the staff involved in control of the desert, see now generally Hennig 2004.) In O.Berenike 1 we invoked (pp. 12-13) Mommsen’s derivation of quintanensis from quintana, and this is now clearly demonstrated to be correct. What is still not evident is whether his identification of qiiintana as coming from via quintana, as the marketplace in a military camp, was correct. The apparent proportion of one-fifth in the Krokodilo ostraka could make it attractive to think that the form simply comes from quinta, one-fifth. But against this may be adduced the monthly, rather than ad valorem, character of the payments in the Berenike ostraka, as well as the lack of any reason why the particular adjectival form quintana should used if what was meant was simply what in Greek would be called TtegrtTri. It would also be remarkable to find what in effect would be a proportional tax on earnings, not a normal feature of the Roman taxation system. For these reasons the association with markets still seems to make sense as the source of a tax bearing on those exercising any commercial profession, whether donkey-driver or prostitute, in the Eastern Desert. Its relatively high level, which is in keeping with other charges in this zone, suggests the high-value character of the entire desert operation. The other group of texts to contribute significantly is the little dossier of Epaphroditos (184-188). We find there two important pieces of information. First, the issuer of these orders to let pass, addressed to a quintanensis, is a slave of the imperial household, or more precisely the slave of a slave of an imperial slave.

INTRODUCTION

7

Second, the persons who arc to be allowed to pass belong generically—in all of these passes a blank has been left for a name to be filled in, except in 184, where the even more generic roug epyopevoug iiyovteg (1. eyovrag) Ttpoaypaipa appears—are also slaves of the same slave of an imperial slave. It seems reasonable to deduce from this that the passes served to identify the persons accompanying the goods as members of the same household as that of the writer, and that the writer and the recipient had an established relationship in which the amounts due from the writer to the recipient were settled globally rather than transaction by transaction. In other words, the authors of the passes are not to be seen, at least not in all cases, as officials of the customs house in Koptos, but as higher managing agents within the same wine­ exporting enterprise. We are not entitled to assume that the same is true of all of the customs texts, because we know as yet too little of the relationship between the quintanenses and “those in charge of the customs gate” who appear in other texts. These could be the same, or the quintanenses could be a subset of “those in charge of the customs gate.” Many of the authors of the passes in volume 1 may still have been customs officials. But it seems inescapable to conclude that the higher managers in the export businesses run by the imperial household and the customs officials and tax farmers worked together closely and tried to keep to a minimum the payment in detail by transporters and in particular payments at Berenike itself. The first volume attested a handful of military personnel. The present volume adds several to that group. A century of lulius Marinus is attested in 202, which is unfortunately very badly preserved. Another century, that of Domitius, is mentioned in 213, where C. Cornelius, a member of the unit, is mentioned as having or being in charge of 20 camels. A third century, that of Capito, is mentioned in 226, where lulius Lysimachos is identified as a member. (Capito himself is probably the author of 198.) A cavalryman, Nonnius Abaskantos, of the turma of Sextilius, is mentioned with 8 jars of Ptolemaic wine in 215. Perhaps most notable of all is the appearance of a soldier of the Cohors [II] Ituraeorum Equitata in the contract 126, dated to AD 61. The commander’s name is lost in lacuna, as is that of the soldier himself; it does not appear that the seat of the cohort is specified. This is, as we note (line 3n.) the earliest secure date for this cohort. In O.Berenike I, p. 13, we noted that the Xoyxeug attested in 102 as a party to a loan might be the equivalent of the Latin lancearius (or lanciarius), but we pointed out that this term occurs only later (our ostrakon comes from AD 33). Happily, an almost contemporary Latin instance has now come to light in a letter from Carlisle written by a cavalry officer named Docilis, to be dated to AD 77-84, where the term lanciarius occurs, as Roger Tomlin (1999: 133) has noted, for the first time. Whether our lancer was a cavalryman or a foot lancer cannot be determined; Tomlin points out that the latter is more common, but his instance is clearly a mounted lancer.

S

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

4 Goods and Measures

A considerable amount of recent bibliography relevant to the wine trade between the Roman Empire and India has appeared in the last few years, including three articles by Kai Ruffing (1999, 2001, 2002) completed too early for the author to know the first volume of Berenikc ostraka. A paper by Dominic Rathbone in the Koptos colloquium volume (spring, 2000; published 2002) benefited from advance information on the Bcrcnikc oslraka but not the published texts. Kruit and Worp 2000, which was forthcoming when volume 1 went to press, has now appeared; it has full references to O.Berenike I from information provided to the authors in advance of publication and will allow the reader to see the full evidence from other sources for the measures appearing in our ostraka. The repertory of wines mentioned in the texts in the present volume presents only one novelty, to which we shall come in a moment. First, however, we canvass new evidence for a pair of perhaps related puzzles in the previously-known material. There arc additional instances of the rtToXep(aiKdv) or 7tToXep(arriKdv) attested in O.Berenike I (see p. 21). Only in 187 is it written out fully enough to distinguish between these two possible resolutions, and here the reading is decisively rnoXcpjraiKoO (read rnoXspaiKoO). It is probable that this is the correct resolution in the other instances as well, but this cannot be proven beyond doubt. We still cannot say if the name of a city is indeed, as we would expect, the source, nor if so which Ptolcmais is the source. (The two suggestions we made, Akko and Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, arc repeated in Kruit and Worp 2000: 126). In O.Berenike I 87.6 one 7tok( ) of vinegar was included in a list of items to be let past the customs gate by the order of Sarapion. We noted in the note ad loc. that we could not cite a parallel nor offer a resolution. This identifying term appears five additional times in the archive of Sarapion son of Kasios (154, 164, 167, 168, and 183). In 164 and 167, the phrase reads oivov rtoZ( ), thus making explicit what one might have guessed, that the term refers to a wine, from which the vinegar in 87 was made. The quantities attested are 4, 7, 58, and 3 keramia (the word Kspapiov appears in 167.4). No plausible candidate for the source appears in Kruit and Worp 2000, and the number of attestations now seems to make it highly unlikely that we are simply dealing with a misspelling of 7rroX( ). It should be noted, however, that the rapid writing of the Sarapion son of Kasios archive makes it possible in some cases that what we read ttok is actually TttoZ, with the second vertical of pi used also for tau. This possibility, which Helene Cuvigny pointed out to us, is present in 164, 167, and 183. On the other hand, we do not believe that such a reading is possible in 87, 154, and 168, where the articulation of the letters is clearer. The brevity of the abbreviation would be less surprising if it were more common. As it is, we are led to suppose that some common word is meant. One possibility would be 7t6X(s7t[: Possibly a form of wroypaipco or vitoypacpT]. The traces before TEipqv may contain the object of which this refers to the price. 9-10 epPoXq|Ofji: Read cpPIpOrp for “lading” of a cargo; since the flow of traffic seems to be from Berenike to Koptos (see line 5), this must be the loading of a Nile barge. 10 pe%pi o[u] ouvtoxco ooi: “Until I meet with you.” This suggests that Kalleis goes to Koptos first and that the soldier will meet him there. 16 Kexap[: Most likely a form of xapaaaco, “to stamp.” 17 Perhaps read eon y[. 18 ey8c [: Possibly a form of CKSexopai? a4 Read perhaps ] Kvra[t, but not 7tp]6Kvra[i.

127, Dating Formulas BE99-31-2284-88. There are four fragments, one large and three much smaller. Fragment 3 has traces of 3 lines; Fragment 4 has only a couple of letters. AD 62 (probably September).

DOCUMENTS FROM UERENIK1-

40

Fragment I ] traces

1----

4

vacat 2 cm. KA|8iov Kainapoi; Ei:|l(iorof> FcppuviKov AiijTOKpiiropoc jn]V(d^) [E]f:|laotof> i | KXavbimt Ka(a[ aov rd tipoaortov Kai av[. -].^a> to rtvevpa, p6vov epTO ae Kai TtapaKaXd) Kai E^opKi^co as tov[t]ov ovce .. qv. ke) 8 (etouq) AvroKpatopoIq] Kalcupoq Our.maatavoO Ee|lacrrof> I laKoi|)t Kai 'i'r.vamiOqt dp(vt) 'Enr.icp dpyfvpiou) (Spaxjidq) rpidKovra 8i>o (yivovrat) (op.) X[l. (M2) "A^(itq fix00 (6p.) [X0], 4 dptporcpotq

Albius, quintaiiensis of the 4th year of Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, to Pakoibis and Pscnapathcs, both sons of Psenminis, greetings. I have received from you the quintana of Pauni (and) Epciph, thirty-two drachmas of silver, total, dr. 32. (2nd hand) I, Albis, have 32 dr.

1 Albius: The name is attested in Etruria and Umbria in Schulze 1904: 119,221. Year 4 of Vespasian was 71/2. 2 The reading of the last word is extremely doubtful, but it is required by the standard formula and the beginning is not in question. 5 The central pan of the line is doubtfully read. 8 The hand here is a bit more Latinate than elsewhere.

142-144. Other Receipts 142. BE00-33-002. 13 x 10.5 cm. Our readings are based on a photograph; the surface had deteriorated markedly between 2000 and 2001. Despite the fragmentary state of our text for lines 3-7, we print it in the hope that it may in future find a parallel. AD 71.

4

8

'Eppepwq'Apucbrofu) Kai |i(£toxoi) flaKotpi naqpEtog tov "Opou x(atPelv)‘ JtapsXapov Ttapdoou traces traces Kpo traces e^a8 traces 8 k.vX( ) apxq( ) 8.p[ ul( ) apx( ) 8e p Kat aapa. (etouq) 8 AutoKpaTopoq Kaiaapoq OueoTtaatavou Sepacrrov Odrr Kq. 'Eppepcbq a

DOCUMENTS JUOM BERENIKE

5S

2 Pakoibis son of Pacris: Perhaps identical to the individual of this name appeanng in O.Herenike I 114.2. 7 8 Year 4 of Vespasian was 71/2; Thoth 28 is 26 ScptcinlxT 71. 9 Presumably or.ar](|ii;i(iiput).

143. BI:01-48-030+033. 8.1 x 8.2 cm. Broken at lower left. The surface is effaced in places.

4

MupKOC KttXccpu; riip|ii]c Aovycivog i':Xi Kcpdpta 6ck(ii:£. ’Ijdp«xo$ lI'cvotjipio[g],

2 Aoyycivov 3 cym

Marcus Kalc.eris of the turma of Longinus. I have sixteen kcramia. Epi machos son of Psenosiris. The syntax is not entirely clear. We have supposed that Marcus Kale.eris is the issuer, with the name (otherwise unattested, as far as we can see) correctly in the nominative. If so, the names in lines 4-5 may be the name of the person to whom the receipt was issued. It is, however, conceivable that the reverse is the case. The nature of the receipt is not clear.

1 In the absence of a good parallel, we have left one letter of the name unread. It could be iota, tau, or gamma, but none of these yields a name known to us from the Roman repertory (Solin and Salomies 1994) nor from any other language. 2 Possibly Longinus is the person referred to in 123.9. 144. BEO1-48-O38. 12 x 11.3 cm. eyo 8irt0epag 6cppdtov 0 KaiSeppdrov kc y (yiverat) icy

k

1 eyto SupBepag Scpparuv 2 Seppdrwv

I have 9 hides of skins, 20 and 25 of skins, 3 total 23.

TEXTS

59

The dictionary meanings of 8up0epa and Seppu overlap, both referring to prepared hides or skins, making it unclear exactly what the writer intends here. It is difficult to interpret the information given on the assumption that the numbers at right arc in drachmas, in which case the SupOepat were worth a bit over 2 drachmas each, while the Sfrpputa in line 2 would be worth less than an obol each. Both words occur in ostraka from the Nikanor archive: SupOspa in O.Petr. 252.4 (Koptos, AD 37); Scppa (both goat and bovine) in O.Petr. 290.11 (Myos Hormos, AD 62). Possibly we are dealing with oupOcpai composed of multiple Scppara, thus 20 made up from 9 Scppara and 3 made from 25 each. 145-152. Orders to Let Pass

145. BE99-19-026. 6.5 x 7.5 cm.

4

'AXs^avS(popcot Kovivraviiatg %a(ipEtv)rtapere KXav6[icp] 0£o8rbpcot o'ivov Za8tK(r]vov) Kep(dpta) irj.

2 KouiVTOvriaiw Alexandros to Theodoras, quintanensis, greetings. Let pass for Claudius Theodoras 18 keramia of Laodicean wine.

1 For Alexandras see also 146.

146. BE99-19-035. 8.3 x 8.6 cm. Surface flaking.

4

’AXe^avSpoi; ton; repot; rfp rrvXrp- rtapet; neTsaprtoxCparn) TevTtpoui; o'ivov rrrokep( )' ' KEpap(ta) X((ou)-Ena), with Kcpdpta omitted or understood? Cf. 147,4n.

149. BE99-31-061.9.8 x 7 cm. traces anokv(aov) rcii(v) Titov ka[oviov] flordptovoG;) o'ivo(v) irak(tKov) Kcp(dpta) TEaaaapa, (yivetat) Ksp(dpta) 8. ... Release from those of Titus Flavius Potamon 4 keramia of Italian wine, total 4 kcramia.

1 By comparison with 150 and 151, one might suppose that nothing was lost before the verb in line 2. There are, however, sufficient traces descending to indicate that indeed an introductory formula was present. 3 It looks as if the scribe wrote first a gamma for the numeral at the end, then wrote a delta without removing the gamma.

150. BE00-33-041. 8 x 5.9 cm.

dnokvsov Kpovu; IIiadipai). pr|vd ] /(aiptav)- vacat •rijjv o(i>Ti]piuv ) njv kouiv[tavav dJnoanXai nJapcXOr] fflKd[vq ] ncopcvtopai ] dpu 8i6ovp ]cXm otSeg co­ in] ouk ipi ape(e)W|9-

7 icJcipfjkOc 8 iropevopat, or perhaps rcopEvcopat 10-11 6|n 11-12 eipi apc|Xf)i; (lines 10-12)... you know that I am not neglectful. 1 There is just a trace of this line, and it cannot be excluded that it is a rising stroke from line 2. 5 It is interesting to see this tax (see 136-141, 219) appearing also in a letter; the feminine article confirms that we are dealing with the same form. The writer seems to be asking the addressee to send him the funds for the quintana. 7 One could also suppose that the adjective ucavot; is intended here, but it seems more likely that the reference is to the proper name Hikane, and specifically to the writer of 129. 9 The ink runs from the surface onto the broken edge; it is not clear if there is another letter after mu. Whether this is an indicative (e.g. 818oupsv for 8i8opev) or participle is not evident. 11-12 It seems likely that line 12 is complete, with the writer duplicating the epsilon from the end of the previous line.

191. BE99-29-037. 4.9 x 6 cm. The left side is faded as well as broken off. Broken also at bottom.

4

[ ] traces [vv ’AvJtcovIcdi ran [ xlaipetw Kopt[a]ag tov da-

DOCUMENTS EROM BERENIKE

RO

]k|6v iiftaro; | | Oikrot bn (

]traces

5 Oi'J.rn

NN Io Antonios (his son?], greetings. Having received the skin of water, [now?] I want...

2 Whether Antonios is Io he identified with other bearers of that name in these oslraka (130.20,205.3) is unknown. 3 The lacuna cannot have been very large. Restore perhaps riito. 4-5 For the askos, see DGE 3.556; N. Kruit-K. A. Worp, APF 46 (2000) 100 n. 84; P. Radici Colace, Lexicon vasorum Graecontni I (Pisa 1992) 320-24. 6 Probably restore (vfiv] or ]) (dpraPat) [ ] r|g (opoicog) 7ru[p(ou) (dprapai)

4 1 The name could be either Egyptian Fldpig or Greek Ildpig, cf. Guide to the Zenon Archive I (Pap.Lugd.Bat. 21A) 388. The word ui6g refers back to someone in a line now lost, as the similar use of the word without a following name in line 2 shows. 3 opoicog is represented as often by a straight line.

208. BE00-33-001. 6.4 x 7.6 cm. Tsaivwvg Sepaitag po8Ei( )

(Spaypai) tg (Spaypai) t (Spaypai) p

1 One could also read Teotvaug, but this is palaeographically less attractive. Neither name is attested elsewhere. Can it be a variant of Tavavcog (“the two brothers”)?

DOCUMENTS FROM BI.RI NIKE

90

3 We cannot find any name beginning in po6ci-, no matter what the reading of the last letter, perhaps most likely a tau. There is space for another letter, presumably an alpha, at the beginning, but no traces of it.

2119. BEOO-surfnee 5 m. north of trench 19-no number. Not seen. The photograph shows that the surface has been lost in places. It is not certain whether the left edge is preserved (except in lines 1-2).

l«.| 1 Eva | KUpIKiilV |

4

araipiiM] djir.iv( cXauSv po6( j | Kai Ki:p(dpta) tu:v[tc ? | n:o|v rdiv a[ 247. BE0I-48-078. 13.2 x 7.2 cm. 'lonotou

248. BE01-48-081. 4.3 x 4.4 cm. Broken at left and right. hiotc ) Bcp[ 2 Presumably some ease of Bep(c)vtKT). Only the very top of the rho is visible. 249. BE01-48-086. 5.8 x 6.4 cm. XVIII

250. BE01-49-172. 5.8 x 3.1 cm. U/l BC.

cpiou ixpuvTciou The reading of av is not quite secure, but vcpavieiov is known (a weaving workshop), and the only alternative would seem to be v