Documents from Berenike. Volume III. Greek ostraka from the 2009-2013 seasons 9782960083422

Citation preview

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA

— 36 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

VOLUME III GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS FROM THE 2009-2013 SEASONS

Rodney Ast & Roger S. Bagnall

BRUXELLES ASSOCIATION EgyI'Iouhiiqit: Ri 2016

ini

E.i ismii III

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

VOLUME III GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS FROM THE 2009-2013 SEASONS

ASSOCIATION EGYPTOLOGIQUE REINE ELISABETH

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA Etudes de papyrologie et editions de sources publiees sous la direction de Alain Martin & Paul Heilporn

© Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth ISBN 978-2-9600834-2-2 D/2016/0705/1

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA

— 36 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

VOLUME III

GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS FROM THE 2009-2013 SEASONS

Rodney Ast & Roger S. Bagnall

BRUXELLES

Association Egybiologique Rune Elisabeth

2016

PREFACE Most of the texts presented in this volume come from the 2009 and 2010 seasons at Berenike, after excavations restarted following a lengthy pause. We have, however, used the opportunity afforded by working sessions in the Ministry of Antiquities’ magazine in Qift to go through the boxes from older seasons systematically. This process has allowed us to recheck readings in texts published in the earlier volumes of annual field reports, to look at a number of texts not published in the first two volumes, and to photograph or rephotograph quite a few objects. The present volume is thus somewhat less homogeneous than it might otherwise have been, but more complete. In the Introduction we provide further details on this matter. The volume does, however, have one major omission. We have been persuaded by the arguments of Jean-Luc Foumet and Nikos Litinas that jar inscriptions deserve to be studied separately as a discrete group of dipinti, rather than lumped together with ostraka, as was done with the fairly small number of such texts in O.Berenike 1 and 2. There is by now a sizable corpus of such texts, both early Roman and late antique, and we are grateful to Professor Foumet for undertaking to publish them as a group. We are also grateful to the Supreme Council of Antiquities, now the Ministry of Antiquities, and to its successive heads (now ministers) for their permission to excavate at Berenike. In the preparation of the present volume we have received much help from the co-directors of the project, Steven Sidebotham and Iwona Zych. We thank also Katarzyna Lach for her excellent conservation work on the papyri and ostraka, especially faced with the abundant harvest of 2009, and Roberta Tomber for discussion of ceramological matters during days in the magazine. The Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University, covered the expenses of our Theban stays as well as contributing to the cost of the excavations. The volume was read in manuscript by the excavation directors and by Helene Cuvigny, Adam Bulow-Jacobsen, Paul Heilpom, and Julia Lougovaya, to whom we offer our thanks for many useful suggestions and corrections, along with information about unpublished texts. We also thank Michael Bronstein for formatting assistance.

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

Abbreviations

Papyri and papyrological tools are cited according to the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin. Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets, available online at http://www.papyri.info/docs/checklist. Inscriptions follow abbreviations found in SEG. A list of literature cited by author’s name and date of publication is given at the end of the introduction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

v

Introduction

1

1. Archaeological contexts (Steven Sidebotham and Iwona Zych)

4

2. Language

5

3. Onomastics

10

4. Religion

12

5. Education

15

6. Literature

15

7. The Army

17

8. Cameldrivers and dekanoi

24

9. Water supply

29

Bibliography

31

Note on editorial procedure

35

Texts I. Papyri

39

A. 261-263. Literary

39

B. 264—273. Documentary

52

II. Ostraka A. 274-455. Water Archive

71

71

B. 456-480. Letters (see also 307, 343, 348, 350, 3t>0, 387, 400)

104

C. 481-491. Orders to let pass

ISO

D. 492-493. Exercises

1S3

E. 494-495. Accounts and lists

1S4

F. 496-511. Other

185

Indexes

N3

Concordance

213

INTRODUCTION

Wadi

Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw • University of Delaware

BERBNIKE 2009-2015 GENERAL PLAN OF THE SITE

Wadi

Northern harbor

0 103

Wadi Church

Elephant pen (?) (

Wadi

Introduction

Most of the texts found at Berenike in the 1996 to 2001 seasons were published in the first two volumes of Documents from Berenike (2000, 2005), in both cases edited by Roger Bagnall with Christina Helms and Arthur Verhoogt. After the 2001 season, it was not possible to resume work at the site until 2009, a highly productive season from which come most of the texts in the present volume. The finds of following seasons down to 2013 are also included here, as are texts from the 1994 and 1995 seasons, first published in the annual excavation reports for those years. Moreover, the opportunity to study all of the material first-hand in the magazine in Qift has given us the occasion to look back at all of the texts from 1996-2001 that were not included in the earlier volumes, and some of these are also published here. There remain many ostraka and some small papyrus fragments that we have not considered publishable. We intend to add them, with images, to the APIS database at papyri.info, so that future scholars can decide if we have failed to grasp the interest of any of them. We have found that the recent excavations illuminated several difficult-to-understand texts from earlier seasons, and it is likely that future finds will have similar benefits. For these reasons, all of the images for the texts published in this volume have been put online and may be consulted through papyri.info. One very large category of finds has been omitted from this volume, namely the more than two hundred jar inscriptions, most of which are dipinti but a few­ incised. Because of their numbers and the specialized expertise they demand, these have been entrusted to Jean-Luc Foumet for publication in a future volume. In addition, two inscriptions on stone are published by us separately in Ast-Bagnall (2015a), and a handful of texts in other languages (mostly Demotic) are also reserved for separate treatment. In the course of preparing this volume, we decided to create a unified inventory system for the written finds that would convey at a glance the most critical contextual information, namely the trench in which the object was found. These numbers are thus of the form 33001, in which "33” represents the trench and “001” an arbitrary sequence number. After that, each lemma gives the year of discovery, followed after a stop by the original specialist inventory number assigned at the time; these repeat from one category to another and from one season to another. Both numbers are written on the plastic bags or boxes m which the original items are stored in the magazine in crates from the indrv idual seasons. For the most part, groups of ostraka, in their individual wrappings, are stored in plastic boxes and organized according to the specialist inventory

4

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

numbers. Where fragments have been joined after the initial numbering, the combined ostrakon is generally kept under the first of the joined numbers.

1 Archaeological Contexts

The majority of the ostraka published in this volume, as in its predecessors, come from the early Roman dump, which preserved material dating from the reign of Augustus down to the later first century, with a heavy concentration of material from the reigns of Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Three texts have dates in the reigns of either Nero or Titus (Nero: 267; Titus: 282, 383); another ostrakon appears to date to the reign of Claudius (502). Berenike contexts are designated, as indicated above, by trench numbers. We give below a brief description of each of the trenches from which material in the present volume has been drawn.

1: (1994) 5 x 5 m trench on the highest level of the site, 50 meters north of the so-called Serapis Temple. Main deposits were trash left behind in the fifth­ sixth century AD, with a few walls towards the bottom of the trench. 4: (1995) 5 x 5 m trench in the northeast part of the site and adjacent to trench 7. A large public building of unknown function, but surrounded by a wall resembling a temenos enclosure. Dates range from Augustan on, with most material mid-first to second centuries. 7: (1996) 5 x 5 m trench in the northeast part of the site and adjacent to trench 4. There appeared to be the entrance to the building in trench 4. It also showed an inside enclosure that resembled a temenos wall. 10: (1996-1998) Excavated from 1996 to 2000, this began as a 10 x 10 m opening immediately north of the so-called Serapis temple, with nearly continuous stratigraphy from late Ptolemaic until late Roman times. As excavations reached deeper the trench was made smaller. There were a number of public structures here, perhaps including the courtyard of the temple in its early Roman phase. 12: (1996-1998) 7 x 4 m trench at the extreme eastern edge of the site at the western end inside the Christian ecclesiastical facility. It contained a series of stone benches made of recycled gypsum/anhydrite ashlars. A door provided access to the main part of the church (which was to the east). 19: (1997-1998) Early Roman dump, and the source of much of the material in volume 1. 29: (1999-2001) Early Roman dump.

INTRODUCTION

5

31: (1999-2001) Early Roman dump. 33: (1999-2001) Early Roman dump. 48: (1999-2001) Early Roman dump. 54: (2009) Inside the Ptolemaic-Roman harbor at the southwest side of the site towards the eastern end. It had some architecture and a putative bollard made of cedar wood. 55: (2009) Inside the Ptolemaic-Roman harbor at the southwest side of the site towards the western end. It had some robbed architecture and evidence of secondary deposits of industrial waste. 57: (2009) Early Roman dump. 58: (2010) Early Roman dump,just east of trench 57. 59: (2010) 3 x 3 m trench in a late Roman dump (mainly fifth century according to the pottery), in the late Roman commercial-residential quarter. It lay just northeast of trenches 28/38 and south of 23/32. 60: (2010) Early Roman dump, between trenches 19 and 29. 64: (2010) An extension towards the south of trenches 54 and 62 in the southwest harbor. Finds here included peppercorns and cedar-wood ship timbers as well as large ropes clearly for use on ocean-going ships. 76: (2011) Early Roman dump. There were a number of animal skeletons (mainly cats, some dogs), some of which had been deliberately buried. Also found was a portion of a human skeleton of a large male. 84: (2012) Northwest area of the early Roman dump. 88: (2012) Early Roman dump, west of trench 84. 90: (2013) This trench abuts a wall near trench 77 (2011), a Ptolemaic trash deposit. Trench 90 is north and outside of the southwest harbor area. This trench had remains of a robbed early Ptolemaic city wall and, at higher (later) levels, two human skeletons. The current theory is that the early Ptolemaic city wall had been robbed in the early Roman period. 99: This dummy trench number has been used for the ostraka from the site of Wadi Abu Greiya.

2 Language

The majority of papyri and ostraka found in the 2009-2013 seasons were Greek, but a number of Latin and bilingual (Greek-Latin) texts, about 5 percent of the total published in this volume, were also discovered.' These documents augment 1 Some demotic ostraka were found as well (inv. 77001 and 77002). Thes await publi­ cation elsewhere, along with other demotic and a couple of Semitic texts trout earlier seasons

I

6

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENICE

an ever-growing body of evidence for the use of Latin in the Eastern Desert. As has become clear over the past couple of decades, Latin cannot be described, as it once was, as the official language of the Roman army, at least in Egypt.2 In fact, Greek was the primary language of the army, even for native Latin speakers, certainly in the field as well as in the local military administration. The much higher percentage of Greek texts surviving from places such as the Eastern Desert outposts makes this evident, which has led J.-L. Foumet to observe an important relationship between the use of Latin in the Roman army and the general degree of Hellenization within an occupied province: the higher degree of Hellenization within the province, the less Latin was used there.3 That is to say that the military administration adapted itself to the composition of its forces, a phenomenon that the evidence from Roman Egypt seems to bear out. One is left wondering why, then, Latin was ever used at all in Egypt. Despite the preponderance of Greek texts surviving from military camps in Egypt, a not insignificant number of Latin papyri and ostraka have been discovered in recent years, as seen at Berenike. The majority of Latin texts from the Eastern Desert are ephemeral records documenting transactions that involved no longterm obligations and therefore did not need to be preserved over a long period. There are no documents related to the issue of Roman citizenship, which were often composed in Latin or in Greek and Latin, and there are no documents of what one might call imperial significance, such as edicts issued at Rome. In other words, we do not encounter texts for which Latin might represent a “language of power,” to borrow a phrase used by J. N. Adams, as we do in the graffiti on the Colossus of Memnon, for example, or in late antique bilingual reports of proceedings.4 This makes the use of Latin all the more intriguing, especially in cases like the Greek-Latin water receipts, for which, given the many Greek examples that survive, Latin does not seem to have been necessary, at least from an administrative perspective. In what follows, we detail the types of Latin texts published in this volume and the kinds of Latin influence observed also in some of the Greek ostraka. We also seek to place these documents in their broader Eastern Desert context. All of the Latin texts are from the 2009 season, with the exception of the reedition of a Latin letter previously published as O.Ber. 2.227 (478). A single trench, no. 57, turned up a relatively high number of Latin and Latin-Greek

2 Adams (2003) 537, 599-608, addresses this point and earlier views; see also Evans (2012) 519. Despite this work the blanket statement that Latin was the “official” language of the Roman army has persisted, see Rance (2010) 63—67. ’ Foumet (2003) 438f. Haensch (2008) argues that, in Egypt, Greek was used even more than in other eastern provinces. 4 On the Colossus of .Memnon, see Adams (2003) 546- 555; on bilingual reports of pro­ ceedings, Adams (2003) 383 390 and 561; cf. Coles (1966) and Thomas (1998) and, more recently, Haensch 12008).

INTRODUCTION

7

ostraka, all of them water receipts. Four are strictly in Latin (291, 333, 433, and 439), two of which are apparently in the same hand (433 and 439), and ten are in both Greek and Latin (275,284,290,312,361,365, 392,412,414,416). Of the four texts written solely in Latin, three (291, 433, and 439) are in a hand clearly accustomed to writing Latin. The abnormal spelling of ptolemaica for Greek TtroXspaiKa KEpapta in 291 (spelled tollo in line 4 and tolloma in line 7) and in 333.3 (tolmca), perhaps reflects the writer’s preference for Latin. In 433 and 439, no attempt is even made to call the vessels by a Greek name; instead, they are referred to simply as ampurae (1. amphorae), another indication, we believe, of the writer’s better acquaintance with Latin. Moreover, there is some inconsistency in the rendering of the nominative form of the Greek word KapnXirric; (camelites in 439, fully Latinized as camelita in 433). It was probably impossible, or at least highly undesirable, for these writers to compose the receipts in Greek. They therefore opted for Latin, which suggests that no party to the water deliveries documented in these ostraka would have objected to the use of Latin. In effect, Latin was employed here presumably for practical purposes: the writer preferred the language and the recipients of the documents did not insist on any other. With the bilingual ostraka, establishing the motive behind language choice is more difficult. The documents follow a fairly consistent pattern, and it is worth looking at how they are composed. Latin is used in many cases for the name of the unit, normally the century, and the name of the signer. In most instances, too, both the Latin and the Greek are written in the same hand. A representative example is 312: (SeKaviaq) nerefiGiq ricijj.'iviq

4

nETEaogntpu; Kpoviou KEpa(nia) 1 Kspu(pia) 1 (centuriae) Cassi L-Valerius

Dekania of Peteesis son of Paminis, Peteasmephis son of Kronios, 10 keramia, 10 keramia; of the century of Cassius, L. Valerius. The name of the dekanos and cameldriver, as well as the delivery amount, are given in Greek, while the centurion’s and soldier’s names are in Latin. Nothing in the text suggests that there was a change of hands, especially in the first six lines, where the ductus, letter spacing, and writing direction are very

8

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

similar.' The hand is proficient, and the only non-standard form is the unde­ clined patronymic in line 2. It is noteworthy that when Latin is used for the name of the century, as here, the symbol nearly always takes a Latin shape, while the Greek symbol for CKatovrapyict is used when the century is given in Greek.6 There is a clear attempt to keep conventions straight in both languages (as ob­ served too in the use of interpunct; see below). But the question naturally presents itself: why to give both languages, when the majority of these receipts employ only Greek? It is impossible to know for sure who was responsible for the language choice. That the names of the dekania leader and cameldrivers are for the most part in Greek is unsurprising. Most of these individuals were drawn from the local population, and, for them, Greek (if any written language) was preferable. One might think that the preference of the soldier responsible for issuing the receipt could play a role. A soldier with an apparent Nabataean name (Zannae) issued 392, in which also the century name is in Latin, and the reason for this could be that he simply preferred the language.7 If this is the same person as ZavEoq, the recipient of a letter written in Greek (348), then we know that he could at least read Greek, and perhaps he could write it, too: the preference for one language does not preclude an ability to write the other. But it is not certain that the soldier issuing a receipt determined what language was used. The fact that two ostraka mentioning the same soldier and century (Marcus Longinus of the century of Albius) are both in Greek and in Greek and Latin (365 and 367) makes one wonder if the choice could sometimes depend on a writer who was distinct from the soldier. In some cases, however, language choice may have been driven not by the preference of even the writer, but by consideration of the parties involved. For example, the authors responsible for the bilingual ostraka perhaps thought that the name of the dekania and cameldriver should be in Greek because it pertained to local individuals for whom this was the more common language. The writer thus wished to accommodate the Greek-speaking parties he was serving. Information about the century and issuing soldier, however, could be kept in Latin, presumably because this was the preferred language of the soldier and perhaps other members of the unit. There could be, therefore, a certain degree of

J The signature in line 7 is also similar, but one might argue for a second hand because of the greater left-to-right descending slant in the writing. 6 An exception is 429.1, a Greek receipt that begins with the Latin symbol for century. The symbol is less surprising, however, when one observes the spelling of the genitive form of the centurion's name. KopvnZt. Both phenomena hint at Latin interference. ' This example points up an important point that is rarely acknowledged in scholarly literature: some soldiers may have been neither Greek nor Latin native speakers; for them, these could have been second and third languages.

INTRODUCTION

9

accommodation at play, with the preferences of the people involved being captured in the language choices that were made in distinct parts of the receipts. Setting aside these external considerations, we do occasionally see a pre­ disposition for the Latin language on the writer’s part. Non-verbal elements such as the employment of Latin punctuation (interpunct) can indicate this preference. Interpunct is used regularly in 291, and it also appears in the Latin part of a bilingual ostrakon written in a single hand, 416, showing the writer’s awareness of the place of this convention strictly in Latin.8

turma Comelli • Valerius • Petra decana flctKuPetc; KXeitod Basiq KLkou TsaoapaKOVTa Kepapia

Turma of Cornelius, Valerius Petra, dekania of Pakoibis son of Kleitos, Baeis son of Kleitos, forty keramia. The hand of a document can also be revealing. Some Greek ostraka incorporate Latin letter shapes for select letterforms (the most pronounced examples are the g and n in 387), revealing the work of a writer more at home with Latin than Greek.9 Greek rho resembles Latin p in, e.g., 504, and chi and upsilon show distinctive x and v shapes in 308.'° Clear cases of the opposite—Greek letter­ forms in Latin—have not been encountered thus far at Berenike. Similarly, there are various Latinisms observed in the Greek texts that point to a writer who is more at home with Latin, from loanwords to Latin terminations, especially the genitive singular of personal names. Latin loanwords are exemplified by terms such as tuppri/a (turma), aXp/a (ala), and KEvrvpta (centuria), and Latin terminations by forms such as ’Avriovst (293), Brien (314, 407, and 410), Kciot (353), KopvpXi (364), and Nwppdvt (381). Taken together, the evidence for Latin intervention further illustrates that, in many cases, the writer’s dominant language may indeed have been Latin, even if he wrote Greek. The fact that he chose Greek is therefore significant, and

8 One could argue that a Latin learner might be equally, if not more, inclined to use punctuation, but in this particular case the hand seems much more natural in Latin, in terms of both paleography and morphology (cf. the cognomen Petra and the spelling of Klctroti and KXirou in the same line). ‘‘ Similar examples in other Eastern Desert texts are discussed in Foumet (2003) 442; cf. too Adams (2003) 585. 10Cf. Fournet (2003) 442f. Adams cautions against deriving too much from these paleographical peculiarities, arguing that certain Latinale letterforms could be the result of paleographical developments in "bi-literate" circles, (2003) 542f And there are some letter­ forms that defy explanation, such as the alpha in 377, because they are typical of neither Greek nor Latin, but may be informed by the interference of some third language.

10

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

underscores the point that Greek was the primary language in the desert outposts. Latin was employed throughout the Eastern Desert from as early as the first century through the third. Besides Berenike, Latin papyri and ostraka have turned up at Mons Claudianus, Wadi Fawakhir (Gr. flEpoou), Wadi Hammamat, Krokodilo, Didymoi, Myos Hormos, and Maximianon.11 It seems safe to say that wherever soldiers were stationed, the language could be found. Among extant Latin documents, text types vary, from jar inscriptions whose Latinity may reveal production outside of Egypt, to private letters, writing exercises, lists of names, passes, and receipts. No official documents have been found to date. The language served everyday operations and the needs of individual soldiers accustomed to speaking it. The coexistence of Greek and Latin is indicative of the pragmatic approach of the Roman army, which did not prescribe any particular language, but relied on that which was most effective locally.

3 Onomastics Berenike has provided a rich harvest of onomastic evidence, which has been surveyed in volumes 1 (pp. 24-32) and 2 (pp. 9-14). There it was noted that the Egyptian names were strongly marked by the cults of Koptos and its environs, including Min/Pan, Horus, Harpokrates, Isis, and Geb. The Greek names in­ cluded theophoric names, common Greek names, and specifically Macedonian names. A particularly striking feature of the texts of volume 1 was the presence of‘‘mixed filiations,” with the same family showing Greek and Egyptian names in alternate generations. Roman names were not particularly numerous in volume 1, but appeared in greater quantities in volume 2. Because of the dominant position in the present volume occupied by the water receipts archive, the material newly published here has strong representations from the repertory of Egyptian theophoric names popular in Koptos and its environs; these are the great majority of the names borne by the cameldrivers and their dekanoi. Most of them were found in one or both of the two preceding volumes, where they are discussed, and need no comment here. "Examples include the following: Mons Claudianus = O.Claud. 1.2, 131, 135, 190; 2.304-306, 308, 355, 367,415; Wadi Fawkhir = CPL 303-310; Abu Sha'ar = SB 22.15377, 15455; Wadi Hammamat = SB 22.15674; Krokodilo = O.Krok. 1.45, 51, 105, 108, 110 116, 119; SB 28.17106; Didymoi = 0Did. 47,49.63,142,204 223, 229, 275 284, 326, 334, 335, 336, 362, 417, 419, 429, 455, 456, 457; .Myos Homos = SB 20.14257 (18-20], [44J, [45], [46], [66]; Maximianon 28.17098, 17099,17102, 17103, 17107.

INTRODUCTION

11

Those first attested here, however, constitute a considerable group; some are common elsewhere, a few new or rare. They are (with references to the notes where they are discussed): Chenbekis (363.1-2) Cholasou (367.2; no known derivation) Eseroueris (428.2) Har(po)chemis (292.1) Katoites (286.1) Kollouthos (265a. 1) Loikous (344.2; no certain derivation) Moueis (300.2) Naphtaaraus (277.2) Nechthatis (357.1) Ouros (299.1) Paesis (265a.5) Pamenapis (364.2) Paoupais (332.2) Pathatis (407.1) Pathotes (407.3) Pebios (471.2) Pebos (418.2) Peneouris (300.3) Pepsais (363.1) Perousis (287.2-3) Phnas (286.2) Phth(e)ious/Ptious (275.2,311.4; no known derivation) Porieuthes (280.1) Portious (347.5) Psebos (293.2) Psenetymis (275.2) Psentanais? (357.2) Samithes (365.2) Taos (270.1) Tapiomis (342.5) Tmesios (507.1-2)

Next to them is a rich body of names of Roman soldiers, including the eponymous officers of their centuries and squadrons. These, along with the Greek names borne by soldiers, are enumerated in the section on the army. Also Roman but not necessarily military are Baibios (Baebiusl and Maxima.

12

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

A number of Greek names have appeared for the first time at Berenike, even leaving aside those belonging to members of the military. Some are otherwise common in Egypt, others rare or unattested there. They include Alexas (hypocoristic of Alexandras, already attested), Andronikos, Antichares, Apollos, Ariston, Bacchios, Boularchos, Dioskoros, Heron, Konnas, Korinthos (a slave), Nossos, Onesimos (military), Pamphilos, Parthenios (see 326.In.), Ptollis. A few Semitic names are newly attested in this volume: Bargates, Dosarion (Nabataean), Mambougaios (Mammogaios in other texts), Thaimos (if it is in fact Semitic), Zaneos (Nabataean). In 266 we encounter a number of names that belong to none of these categories, which we have treated as barbarian names. Such names are found outside Berenike, such as in third-century ostraka from Xeron, discussed by Satzinger (2014) 199-212. Although he recognizes similarity between the Xeron ostraka and the names known from Blemmye texts of later centuries, notably in their phonemic inventory and final letters, he finds no substantial correlation. His consultation of experts on modem Bedauye also produced no indication of any close connection. Our text is too damaged and the number of names too small to allow any confidence, but there are still some similarities between them and the onomastics examined by Satzinger, notably the endings -abok (cf. our -btok), -e(i)rti, and the element Aei.

4 Religion

Most of the written sources surviving from Berenike are of a bureaucratic nature, but a few texts have surfaced that reflect aspects of the cultural and religious life of the settlement. Notable among these are a substantial verse text from the 2012 season and several dedications to the goddess Isis. In this section, we discuss this epigraphical and papyrological material, some of it found as recently as 2015, in an attempt to illuminate the cultural milieu of Berenike, no matter how sketchy it may still be. Recent excavations have enlarged the corpus of inscriptions from Berenike and shed more light on religious activity there. Three inscriptions now attest the cult of Isis: (Ij O.Ber. 2.121, a dedication by an interpreter dated to AD 113-117; (2) a dedication found in 2010 addressed to Isis Tyche, the greatest goddess, and dated between June 25 and July 24, 98; and (3) a dedication set up by Eirenaios, son of Harpochration, the secretary of the Receiver’s department (ypappcttcvc axiptw.npvau;) to Isis the greatest nurse (rpoipoq) goddess, and

INTRODUCTION

13

dated June 24, 49.12 The dedication to Isis Tyche (2) was found in a fifth-century reuse context; of the other two, the inscription to Isis the nurse goddess (3) certainly comes from the so-called Serapis temple, and that by the interpreter (1) might as well. The latter was found in the same trench as two almost identical dedicatory inscriptions to Zeus, the greatest god, set up by a woman named Philotera and dating to the reign of Nero, AD 54-68 (O.Ber. 2.118 and 119). That trench (no. 37) was dug inside a building ca. 50 m east of the temple. Despite their discovery outside the temple, the inscriptions from trench 37 underwent reuse and could easily have originated in the temple itself. Epithets ofIsis The dedication to Isis by the interpreter (1) does not preserve any of the god­ dess’s epithets. We read only “to Isis the goddess” fTctot 0e[a) before the text breaks off, but this was presumably followed by psyiorri, and possibly by other names.13 The other two inscriptions provide more nomenclature: in (2) she is called Isis Tyche and in (3) she bears the unique epithet rpoipoc, the nurse. The association of Tyche and Isis has long been acknowledged in scholarly literature and the goddesses are identified in texts from elsewhere in Egypt.14 In the Eastern Desert there are no other examples of the explicit identification of the two deities, but letters acknowledging proskynemata to each goddess, apparently interchangeably, survive from the praesidium at Raima. Thus, Tyche of Raima (Tu/n 'Paetpa) is mentioned in O.Claud. 2.278 while Isis at Raima (Totq sv 'Patepa) appears in O. Claud. 2.255-257.15 These have been taken as evidence for assimilation.16 Isis the great nurse goddess is particularly interesting since the epithet rpotpoq apparently refers to her well-known iconographical representation as Isis lactans, in which she is depicted nursing her son Horos-Harpocrates. The iconographical type is extremely well attested in statuary and coins, but until the discovery of the Berenike inscription there was no explicit textual evidence for the nursing goddess in Greco-Roman sources. Although the temple near which the stele was found is generally considered to be that of Serapis, the reliefs on its

12 For (2), see Ast - Bagnall (2015a); (3) appears in Ast Bagnall (2015b). 13 See O.Ber. 1.121 ad II. 1 and 2, where the editors discuss the extent of the loss to the right of 'latdi Oe[a pi.yi'arii, though their inclination is to assume the loss of a verb and or object of dedication and perhaps the beginning of the name of the dedicant; publication of this inscription predates the discovery of the two dedications to Isis that clear!) give an ex­ panded titulature. 14 See, e.g., M.-P. Nilsson (1961) 209; Dousa (2002) 177 IS3; Malaise (2000) 9 A. Bulow-Jacobsen surveys the evidence in O Claud. 2. pp o5 fit). 16 So, too, has a carved drawing on a steatite plate from Dios, which is interpreted a* a representation of Isis.' fyche in (Juvigny (2010) no. S, p. 254

14

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

facade apparently featured Isis and Harpocrates, i.e., Horos the Child.17 Furthermore, Wilkinson’s papers record finding a “bad figure of Isis and Horos,” all pointing to the importance of Isis and Horos-Harpocrates in the temple.18 In addition to inscriptional evidence for religion, there is a small amount of papyrological evidence for religious institutions. For example, a papyrus discov­ ered in 2011 mentions a sanctuary of Isis, although it is unclear if the sanctuary was located in Berenike (270.20).19 Two water receipts also published in this volume mention deities: 282 refers to the mysterious endelechisterion of the supreme god Kronos,20 and 318 mentions the goddess Berenike, presumably the deified Berenike I. Both texts are brief and tell us nothing about the respective cults, but they alert us to their existence. In addition to these references, there exists less explicit evidence for religious activity. For example, the purchase of a large number of roses mentioned by Herennios in his letter to Satomilos (O.Ber. 2.195.6-8) was perhaps related to a religous occasion, such as a festival of rhodophoria similar to what is attested in several papyri (SB 6.9127.11; P.Ross.Georg. 2.41.9; SPP 22.183.76; P.Louvre 1.4.56; P.Oxy. 52.3694.6), all of them second century with the exception of P.Oxy. 52.3694, which is dated March 12,218-225(7). Bilabel was inclined to connect the festival, which is said to have lasted thirteen days at Soknopaiou Nesos (P.Louvre 1.4.56 and SPP 22.183.76) and seven days in an unprovenanced document mentioning Dendera (SB 6.9127), with the cult of Isis, while Jordens seems to favor a funerary context within the cult of Osiris or Horos.21 Youtie views the rhodophoria as a festival welcoming the arrival of spring.22 The Oxyrhynchus papyrus, however, explicitly concerns itself with a festival of Ammon. The quantity of roses that Herennios is dealing with is large, as evidenced by a purchase price of at least 200 drachmas, and this at a time when a donkey sold for 160 drachmas (O.Ber. 2.125). Elsewhere, large amounts of roses point to a special event, such as a wedding in P.Oxy. 46.3313.8-12. Herennios makes no mention of an extraordinary occasion of this type. Besides roses, Herennios is also concerned with an unspecified number of cats in O.Ber. 2.195. The reason for this cannot be ascertained, but it is not 17 Meredith (1957) 60. 18 Meredith (1957) 70. Holbl (2005) 19-22 describes reliefs in the temple, many of which feature Isis and date to the time of Tiberius. In the 2nd century the temple saw the addition of dedications to Serapis. ' The letter was found near a wooden stylus and cat mummy; see below the possibility that cats, such as those referred to in O.Iier. 2.195, were used in cultic activity. See Ast - Bagnall (2009). ■' Bilabel (1929) 48; for the idea that it should be connected to Osiris and Horos, see the discussion in the commentary to P.Louvre 1.4 ad loc.; cf. too Perpillou-Thomas (1993) 126129. 22 Youtie (1951) 193 [=(1973) 529).

INTRODUCTION

15

impossible that it had some cultic connection as well (cf. O.Ber. 2.196, which also mentions a cat, or cats, and might be addressed to the same Satomilos). This might also be associated with the large number of finds of cat burials in and near the early Roman trash dump.

5 Education

So far, Berenike has not produced significant evidence for local schooling in the form of abecedaria, syllabaries, or other kinds of writing exercises. Nevertheless, a few texts might hint at an educational context: for example, O.Ber. 2.127 contains a repeated dating formula from Nero’s “sacred year” (year 8 = AD 61/62), with each instance of the formula apparently written on a different day. The hand responsible for the text is quite competent, suggesting that the formulas could have served as a model to be copied out by an aspiring secretary, but it is equally possible that it is not an exercise at all. Less elegant is 492, which consists of a series of letters arranged in no obvious pattern. Two further texts, O.Ber. 2.222 and 493, are difficult to interpret, but may be arithmetic exercises. None of these objects, however, constitutes clear proof of school activity in Berenike.

6 Literature

The 2012 season yielded the most significant piece of Greek literature (262) to be uncovered so far in Berenike and an important addition to the small body of non-documentary texts from the Eastern Desert.23 The papyrus preserves two incomplete columns of Greek poetry written in a small and sure, though not especially elegant, hand. The verses in the first column concern the rites of Cybele and seem to mention her priest or priestess. It is unclear what is going on in the second column; it may continue the theme of the Cybelean rites, or there might be an allusion to Hecate, who herself could be a partner of Cybele. Both Doric and Ionic forms are employed in the verses, and there is a flavor of Hellenistic leamedness. The meter is, where discernible, dacty lie-based, but the last two lines of col. 2, of which only the first few letters can be seen, are written 21 The papyrus was first published in Ast - Lougovaya (2015).

16

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

in ekthesis and preceded by what appears to be an elaborate paragraphos, which likely signals a change of meter. As for genre, three things argue for a dramatic work or collection of songs: The employment of lyric meter (or meters); a likely change of meter signaled by the above-mentioned ekthesis in the last lines of col. 2; apparently different dialectal forms in columns 1 and 2. Of dramatic works, the piece shows remarkable similarities in content and form to PSI 15.480 (= MP3 1309.1 = LDAB 2725), which has been attributed by Eric Handley to Menander’s Theophoroumene.24 Nevertheless, the verses may come from an entirely different poetic genre, the possibilities ranging from tragedy to a collection of songs. Since the vocabulary is rather post-Classical, a song collection is perhaps likelier. The repeated sequence of dactyls in col. 1 is reminiscent of another strange dactylic composition from the Roman fort of Xeron Pelagos, which praises the waters of the place in a meter that Eric Handley identifies as “dactylic octameter catalectic.”25 This affinity for dactylic meters in the imperial period may reflect a continuation of the late Hellenistic taste for dactyloepitrites, which were well suited, in the words of Martin West, to “educated bourgeois lyric.”26 Apart from the Cybele papyrus, very little survives that might be classified as literary or subliterary. The hand of 261 has a bookish character, but the content does not reveal whether it is literary or documentary. The fragments constituting 263 are quite clearly literary, but too little of the papyrus survives to reveal what kind of text it was. The language, particularly words such as rd crroua, ek t 786f. and 781. O.Ber. 2.126 is thus the earliest securely attested reference to the second cohort. On the name "Alyi\ see Worp (1991) 295. 29 It was found in the early Roman dump and is therefore to be dated broadly to the 1st century, if not more precisely to its second half. See Archaeological Contests above for discussion of the approximate dates of the finds; on the lack of ev idence surrounding cohon 111, see Maxfield (2000) 422. See Daris (1988) 759f. and Alston (1995) 180, texts mentioning them published atter Alston include I.Did. 6.3,7 (176-177), O Did. 70.10 lend ot 2nd beginning of 3rd c », Did 143.2 (ca. 220 ca. 250),.SB 22.15325.3 (Aug. 7, 176?).

18

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

Overall, the evidence suggests the cohort’s persistent presence in Egypt for at least the first two and half centuries of this era. In addition to the two Ituraean cohorts, we also meet cavalrymen stationed with the ala Apriana. This auxiliary unit is attested elsewhere in the Eastern Desert and in Koptos.31 The occurrences in this volume represent, however, our first witnesses to the unit at Berenike. It is attested in Egypt as early as AD 3740 (P.Lips. 2.133.4f., luliopolis) and as late as Aug. 7, 269 or 270 (SPP 20.71.2, Hermopolis); the Notitia Dignitatum places it in Hipponos in Middle Egypt.32 It was stationed during the first two centuries, and perhaps longer, in Upper Egypt, although we learn from a third-century papyrus that it was also present in the Small Oasis (P.Koln 2.94.If.).33 Very few of the documents in this volume actually give the regiment’s name, so it is often impossible to say what auxiliary unit a company, whether century or turma, belonged to. Still, our best attested century, that of Bassus, is listed in 264 under the cohors II Ituraeorum, so we can assume that all of the soldiers appearing with this company in individual water receipts (see the list below) were also members of the second Ituraean cohort. In addition, we learn from the same papyrus that the century of Tullius belonged to the cohors III Ituraeorum. Otherwise, we cannot be sure which regiments the soldiers named in the receipts were associated with. Many presumably belonged to other cohorts besides the Evo Ituraean, even to legionary ones. Similar ambiguity exists with the ala Apriana. The turmae of Aprianus and Paetus are said to have been in this ala, but we have no idea about the other turmae. Elsewhere in the Eastern Desert, we find members of different auxiliary units operating together, so it would not be surprising to encounter the same situation here.34 Getting a sense of the ethnic make-up of the troops appearing in the ostraka is difficult. Our best indicator is onomastics, but its value is still quite limited. As is evident from the list below, most individuals have Roman names. Non­ Romans, however, took Roman names after joining the army, something which often prevents us from knowing their true ethnic background. In addition to Roman, we also get a number of Greek names, both for commanding officers and soldiers. Beyond these, we find two Thracian cavalrymen, Dinis of the turma of Norbanus (287) and Bitus/Bithys of the turma of Serenus (296 and 333). There is a Nabataean soldier called Zannae/Zaneos attached to the century of Cassius (348 and 392), and a northerner with the Celtic name Billenius in the century of Paccius (291). Bargates, an Aramaic name, is probably the patro31 E.g., O.Krok. 1.6.4 (Dec. 10,108) and C1L XVI 29. “Haensch (2012) 70; Alston (1995) 165; Lesquier (1918) 73. 33 See Maxfield (2000) 407,41M13,429. See the table of auxiliary units attested in the desert outposts printed in Maxfield (2000) 429f.

INTRODUCTION

19

nymic of the soldier from the turma of Apollonarius mentioned in 363, and not the name of the cavalryman himself. Still, the name points to the soldier’s Near Eastern roots. As one might expect, the commanding officers of individual turmae and centuries have either Roman or Greek names. From the onomastics we are also able to identify with varying degrees of confidence a few people attested in Didymoi, and this sheds some light on the networks of soldiers posted to the Eastern Desert. We suspect, for example, that the Antonius Crispus, whose name appears on an amphora shoulder, O.Did. 161 (ca. 88-96 or earlier) is the same as our Marcus Antonius Crispus, a soldier in the century of Magnus (279). Quintus Quadratus of the century of Terentius (331, 393) could well be the Quadratus accused of defaulting on a money loan given by a fellow soldier, who unfortunately has trouble remembering the details of the loan because he had been drinking at the time {O.Did. 342, 343, 348). The most interesting overlap, though, is found in O.Did. 63, a list of turmae written in Latin and dated to ca. 88-96 or earlier. The list gives first the commanding officer’s name followed by the name of a cavalryman associated with it. It includes Dinis of the turma of Norbanus {O.Did. 63.1), who must be our Dinis, also of the turma of Norbanus (287.1). This connection convinces us that the turmae of Bassus {O.Did. 63.4), Cornelius {O.Did. 63.5, spelled Cumieli), and Serenus {O.Did. 63.6, spelled Sareni35) correspond to the companies by the same names in our ostraka (276, 296, 311, 333, 416, 423).36 This is not insignificant, because it reveals a degree of mobility among troops of the Mons Berenicidis (if not throughout the entire Eastern Desert), suggesting that they were not strictly confined to individual outposts. List of Regiments, Companies and Soldiers Cohorts cohors II Ituraeorum (264.6) cohors III Ituraeorum (264.2,4)

Alae Apriana (274.5,351.5, 376.3, 377.4)

35 The name Aseni in line 7 of this ostrakon might also be a confused attempt at Seram, if so, then Bithys in O.Did. b3.7 would also probably be the same as the Bithvs in 2% note to 296.2). 36 The turma of Bassus is referred to also in a 2nd-century ostrakon from Dios, sec Cuvigny (2013) 426f.

20

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

Turmae (328.1,402.1,421.4) Commanding Officers Antonius (277.3,293.4T, 302.2,431.4) Attested cavalrymen: ♦Andronikos s. Herakleides (302.If.) *Antiochos (293.4,431.3) *M. Antonius (277.3) Apollonarius (363.3f., 366.2) Attested cavalrymen: * Crispus s. Bargates (363.3,366.1) Apollophanes (332.6,449.4f.) Attested cavalrymen: * Apelles s. Diogenes (332.7f.) * NN unrevq (449.2f.) Aprianus (351.5-6—ala Apriana) Attested cavalrymen: * Ableros (351.4) Aulius (426.2,435.3f.—Quintus Aulius) Attested cavalrymen: * Philippos (426.1,435.4) Bassus (276.1,311.1, cf. O.Did. 63.4) Attested cavalrymen: * Publius Petronius (276.1,311.1) Cornelius (416.1) Attested cavalrymen: * Valerius Petra (416.1) Germanus (398.3f.) Attested cavalrymen: *Bab[---] (398.3) Norbanus (287.If., 381.5—NcopPavi, 428.3f., 432.4f„ cf. O.Did. 63.1) Attested cavalrymen: * Arres (428.3) * Dinis (287.1, cf. O.Did. 63.1) * Flavius Clemens (432.4) * Nemonius (381.4) Paetus (ala Apriana) (274.4, 376.4,377.3f.) Attested cavalrymen:37 * Abrulos (274.3)

57 The three names are likely to refer to the same person.

INTRODUCTION

21

* Ebruros (376.3) * Eibreilos (377.3) Paulus (300.4f.) Attested cavalrymen: * Capito (300.3f.) Pos[---] (323.2) Attested cavalrymen: * Antonius (323.4) Quintus Domitius (264.5) Attested cavalrymen: * K[- - -]ueis (264.5) Rufus (352.3f., 441.5f.) Attested cavalrymen: * Antonius Eraton (352.3,441.4f.) Serenus (296.1, 333.1 423.6, cf. O.Did. 63.6, 7?) Attested cavalrymen: * Bithys (cf. O.Did. 63.7; 296.2, 333.1—Bitus) * Ignatius (423.6) Centuriae Centurions Albius (280.4,340.3,342.7,345.4, 349.3,361.4,365.3,367.3,418.3,503.4?) Attested soldiers: * Antiochos (280.5) * Gaius Longinus (418.4) * Gaius Petronius (345.3) * Gaius NN (349.4) * Lucius Blaesius (342.8) * Marcus Longinus (365.4,367.3) * Quintus Caecilius (361.5) Antonius (294.4,440.4) Attested soldiers: * Lucius Caecilius (294.5) * Marcus Valerius (440.3) A[- - -] (362.3) Bassus (264.6L—cohors II Ituraeorum, 299.3,308.4, 314.3,357.3. 359 3, 368.3, 369.4, 379.4,401.4,407.4,410.3,419.4,425.3,430.3) Attested soldiers: * Finnus (379.4,419.4) * Gaius Aemilius (359.4) * Gaius lulius Apollonius (314.3 5)

22

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

* Gaius Val[—] (308.3) * lulius E[—] (368.3) * Lucius NN (401.5) * Marcus Apollos (299.2) * Marcus A[—] (357.4) * Marcus Messius (425.3) * Quintus NN (410.3L) Cassius (312.6,353.3,392.3,417.3) Attested soldiers: * Boularchos (417.3) * Lucius Valerius (312.7) * Zannae (392.4) Cornelius (281.3,290.3,364.3—Kopviftt, 370.5,372.2,396.4,414.4, 429.1— KopvnXi, 434.3,437.3) Attested soldiers: ♦Antipater (370.6) * Gaius Pe[---] (414.5) * Gaius NN (437.4) * Heliodorus (429.2) * Lucius Domitius (281.3) * Marcus lulius (290.4,434.3f.) * Marcus Valerius (364.4) * NN lulius (396.5) C[--]? (374.4) Domitius (408.3) Attested soldiers: * Gaius Apollonius (408.3f.) Fabianus (286.3) Attested soldiers: * Gaius Clemens (286.4) Ferox (315.2,378.3,409.4,412.3) Attested soldiers: * Marcus Antonius (412.4) * Marcus Longinus (409.5) lulius (415.3) Attested soldiers: * Gaius Publius Octavius (415.4f.) Livius (326.3) Attested soldiers: * Lucius Merconius? (326.3)

INTRODUCTION

Licinius (330.4,422.3, cf. Marcus Licinius) Attested soldiers: * Marcus Statius (422.3f.) Magnus (275.4, 279.4,283.3, 322.3,420.6,442.3,447.3) Attested soldiers: * Eilon (283.3) * Gaius Domitius (420.7) * Lucius (442.3) * Lucius Valerius (275.5, 322.4?) * Marcus Antonius Crispus (279.3, cf. O.Did. 161) * Valerius Longus (447.4) * NN Valerius (322.4) Marcus Licinius (292.5,420.3) Attested soldiers: * Marcus Pompeius (420.4) * Petronius Fuscus (292.4) Paccius (291.6,433.4,439.4) Attested soldiers: * Billenius/Crillienus (Billenius: 291.6; Crillienus: 433.4,439.4—or Billienus) Terentius (331.2, 393.If., 427.3) Attested soldiers: * Gaius Herodes (or s. Herodes) (427.3) * Quintus Quadratus (331.2, 393.1, cf. O.Did. 342, 343, 348) Tertullus (291.4, 433.5,439.5) Attested soldiers: * Publius lulius Seneca (291.3,433.5—lulius Seneca. 439.5- ■lulius Seneca) Titius (395.2) Tullius (264.2,4—cohors III Ituraeorum) Attested soldiers: * Gaius lulius NN (264.2) * Gaius Valerius Satuminus (264.3) Valerius (298.3,390.3f.) Attested soldiers: * Gaius lulius (298.3) * [---]nius (390.3)

23

24

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE 8 Cameldrivers and Dekanoi

In principle, each receipt in the water archive gives the name of the cameldriver responsible for the individual delivery and the name of the dekanos to whose dekama the driver belonged. We have identified 25 of these dekanoi; it is likely a aTk'V r' IUrl< un'dent*fied *n more fragmentary or badly preserved ex s. they have veiy uneven numbers of preserved receipts; what circumstances either of performance of duties or of discarding of receipts give rise to this variation, we do not know. That the dekanoi were not in charge only of the delivery of water to rem e is s own by their appearance in the ostraka from Didymoi. Four or five Of the men listed below (nos. 11?, 12, 15, 16, 21) can be identified in O.Did. , SUggests a certain durability to these dekaniai. The dekanos was himself find th6 d V 3 mern^er his dekania and performed service for its credit; we 17 andei aekIV0Suldentified

Same” in reCeiPtS fr0m dekan0i n0S- 7> 9> 12>

vidt.7 U ave hV0 or even three or ^l- What remains unclear is why vere being used at all, as water was usually transported in skins.

and f where 'nStances °fln this volume led us to re-examine cases in O.Berenike 1 167.3, I81.4 WaS transcribed as "oXf ), specifically, at 1.87.6, 2.154.4, 164.2, 2154) most of th at.we ^ound was lbal> w‘tb tbe exception of two instances (1.87 and absolutely consi«P„!TP ,, ’”,deed have TO?Z To read °ne would need t0 suppose an might be noscihu • ersc^efu,