Ostraka in the Collection of New York University 9781479813773

Citation preview

Ostraka in the Collection of New York University O.NYU

ISAW Monographs ISAW Monographs publishes authoritative studies of new evidence and research into the texts, archaeology, art history, material culture, and history of the cultures and periods representing the core areas of study at NYU’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. The topics and approaches of the volumes in this series reflect the intellectual mission of ISAW as a center for advanced scholarly research and graduate education whose aim is to encourage the study of the economic, religious, political, and cultural connections between ancient civilizations, from the Western Mediterranean across the Near East and Central Asia, to China. Roger S. Bagnall and Giovanni R. Ruffini, Ostraka from Trimithis, Volume 1 (Amheida I) (2012) George Hatke, Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa (2013) Jonathan Ben-Dov and Seth Sanders (eds.), Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (2014) Anna L. Boozer, A Late Romano-Egyptian House in the Dakhla Oasis: Amheida House B2 (Amheida II) (2015) Roger S. Bagnall, Nicola Aravecchia, Raffaella Cribiore, Paola Davoli, Olaf E. Kaper, and Susanna McFadden, An Oasis City (2016) Roger S. Bagnall, Roberta Casagrande-Kim, Cumhur Tanrıver, Graffiti from the Basilica in the Agora of Smyrna (2016) Rodney Ast and Roger S. Bagnall, Ostraka from Trimithis, Volume 2 (Amheida III) (2016) Nicola Aravecchia, ‘Ain el-Gedida: 2006–2008 Excavations of a Late Antique Site in Egypt’s Western Desert (Amheida IV) (2019) Roger S. Bagnall and Alexander Jones, Mathematics, Metrology, and Model Contracts: A Codex From Late Antique Business Education (P.Math.) (2020) Clementina Caputo, The House of Serenos, Part I: The Pottery (Amheida V) (2020) Jonathan Valk and Irene Soto Marín (eds.), Ancient Taxation: The Mechanics of Extraction in Comparative Perspective (2021) Hélène Cuvigny, Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert (2021)

Ostraka in the Collection of New York University O.NYU Gert Baetens, Roger S. Bagnall, Clementina Caputo, Élodie Mazy, and David M. Ratzan

Institute for the Study of the Ancient World New York University Press 2021

© 2021 Institute for the Study of the Ancient World NYU Press ISBN (hardcover) 978-1-47981-379-7 ISBN (ebook) 978-1-47981-391-0 ISBN (ebook other) 978-1-47981-377-3 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Baetens, Gert, author. | Bagnall, Roger S., author. | Caputo, Clementina, author. | Mazy, Élodie, author. | Ratzan, David M., author. | New York University. Libraries. Title: Ostraka in the collection of New York University : O.NYU / Gert Baetens, Roger S. Bagnall, Clementina Caputo, Élodie Mazy, and David M. Ratzan. Other titles: ISAW monographs. Description: New York : Institute for the Study of the Ancient World/New York University Press, 2021. | Series: ISAW monographs | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Ostraka in the Collection of New York University is a comprehensive edition and commentary of 77 ostraka, or potsherds with ancient texts written on them, from Greco-Roman and late antique Egypt. Seventy-two of these ostraka are housed in NYU Special Collections, originally purchased by Casper Kraemer in 1932, then the chair of the NYU Classics Department. Although Kraemer advertised the imminent publication of the texts in 1934 and later collaborated with the famed papyrologist Herbert Youtie, neither completed the project. The texts in this small collection span the 2nd cent. BCE to the 8th cent. CE and include both Greek and Coptic texts. The majority, however, form a coherent dossier of tax receipts related to mortuary activities in Upper Egypt during the reign of Augustus (texts 7-70, dated from roughly the last quarter of the 1st cent BCE to 12 CE). The five ostraka published in this volume not held by NYU include one that had been part of Kraemer’s original purchase but was subsequently lost (thankfully preserved in a photograph in Youtie’s archive at the University of Michigan), and four ostraka now held by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The latter four texts were purchased separately and published previously, but clearly belong originally to the same group of texts. They are included in this volume both for the sake of completeness and because the authors were able to improve the readings in light of the context provided by the dossier. In addition to the scholarly edition of these texts, the volume contains a full discussion of their provenance, the taxes, the taxpayers and collectors, and a ceramological analysis of the sherds”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021033019 (print) | LCCN 2021033020 (ebook) | ISBN 9781479813797 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781479813810 (ebook) | ISBN 9781479813773 (ebook other) Subjects: LCSH: Ostraka--Catalogs. | Greek language--Texts. | Coptic language--Texts. Classification: LCC PA3371 .B33 2021 (print) | LCC PA3371 (ebook) | DDC 480.9--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021033019 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021033020

The Greek and Coptic fonts are IFAO-Grec Unicode and IFAO-Grec Exposant. Design by Andrew Reinhard Printed in the United States

Preface The Special Collections of the New York University Libraries contains a small collection of ostraka. The largest part, and that published in the present volume, was acquired by purchase in 1932; the circumstances of that purchase are described in the introduction. There is also a small group of ostraka coming from the excavations at Nessana in the 1930s. These will be published elsewhere as part of a project on Nessana. The ostraka from the 1932 purchase were long neglected, in part no doubt because they do not resemble any of the other large groups of ostraka already published; that they are also difficult to read and full of abbreviations that are not readily resolvable no doubt also contributed. The small number of ostraka belonging to the same find and now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art help only marginally and have their own share of difficulties. We are conscious of unresolved problems in the texts we present here and hope that further discoveries and learned colleagues will eventually solve them. The main part of the introduction and the edition of the Greek texts is the work of Gert Baetens, Roger Bagnall, and David Ratzan. The study of the ceramic sherds on which the texts are written is by Clementina Caputo, and the edition of the Coptic texts by Élodie Mazy, who also compiled the first version of the index. We have many debts to acknowledge and individuals to thank. Melody Chen, then of the NYU Libraries, rehoused the ostraka in proper conservation materials and containers and arranged for the photography, in both color and infrared, of the entire collection. Charlotte Priddle, director of NYU Special Collections, made it possible for Bagnall to check the originals of the ostraka in fall, 2020, and Janet Bunde, University Archivist, went out of her way to help resolve some issues in the archives. Our colleague Michael Peachin, the Department of Classics, provided copies of archival documents concerning Casper Kraemer’s antiquities buying. Nancy Thomas at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art provided provenance information for their ostraka and arranged for them to be rephotographed, again in both color and infrared. Anne Boud’hors examined the Coptic ostraka and identified Élodie Mazy as a suitable editor for them. Our three outside readers, Willy Clarysse, Ruth Duttenhöfer, and Paul Heilporn, contributed importantly to helping us think through remaining problems and made a number of valuable corrections. Baetens’s work was supported by a generous postdoctoral fellowship sponsored by the Research Foundation–Flanders (12J7919N). When the volume was in nearly final form, Nikolaos Gonis told us that there were files on these ostraka in Herbert and Louise Youtie’s papers, in the Bentley Historical Library at the University of

v

vi

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Michigan.1 These were, because of the pandemic, unavailable to us, but Brendan Haug, Archivist of the Papyrology Collection at the University of Michigan, generously undertook to photograph the old photographs in these folders, along with Casper Kraemer’s typescripts, as annotated by Youtie; Youtie’s handwritten transcripts; some additional notes by Kraemer, Youtie, and possibly Floyd Albert Spencer; and three letters. The older photos allowed us to include one ostrakon now missing from the collection, as well as to improve readings in some others that are now more faded than they were when the photos were taken, perhaps already in the 1930s. We were comforted to find that Youtie’s readings mostly agreed with ours, but disappointed to discover that he had not solved the passages that we have been unable to decipher. We do not note disagreements with his transcripts. Although this project began in what now look like good times, all of the final stages of work on this volume have taken place during the COVID-19 pandemic; most of the help given us by the colleagues listed above has come in the context of difficulties of access and working conditions during the pandemic, and our gratitude is correspondingly even greater than it would normally be. This was particularly true in the case of the Youtie files, where only the extraordinary kindness of Brendan Haug made it possible to finish this volume while restrictions are still in place.

1. A finding aid to this collection can be found at search.lib.umich.edu/catalog/record/012890163. The relevant records on the NYU ostraka appear in Box 4, Folders 82–94. Of these, Folders 82–89 contain photographs and transcripts by Kraemer and Youtie, arranged by inventory number, while Folder 90 has clean transcripts by Youtie, and Folders 91–94 have various notes.

Contents Preface List of figures List of tables Notes on editorial procedure

v ix xi xii

General introduction (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) Ceramic supports of the texts (Caputo)

1 5

Texts 1–2. 3–6. 7–70. 71. 72–73. 74–77.

Isolated Ptolemaic texts (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) Ptolemaic receipts from the bank of Diospolis (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) Archive of funerary tax receipts from the reign of Augustus (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) From the archive of Lautanis (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) Miscellaneous (Baetens, Bagnall, Ratzan) Coptic ostraka (Mazy)

References

13 16 24 119 121 123 141

Indexes Indexes of the Greek ostraka (1–73) 1. Regnal years 2. Months 3. Names of persons 4. Geographic terms 5. Money 6. Taxes 7. Greek words

147 147 147 148 148 148 149 149

Indexes of the Coptic ostraka (74–77) 1. Geographic terms 2. Products 3. Measures 4. Containers 5. Egyptian words 6. Greek words

150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Concordance

151

vii

List of figures Infrared photographs are by the New York University Libraries unless otherwise noted in the caption. Figure 1. Distribution of the ostraka by fabric type and shape. Figure 2. Macro photos of the Nile clay fabrics (N-1–N-6) and Kaolinite clay fabrics (K-1–K-3). Photos by Clementina Caputo. Figure 3. Drawings of the Coptic ostraka 74 and 76. Drawings by Clementina Caputo. Figure 4. 1. Figure 5. 2. Figure 6. 3. Ostrakon with Greek Inscription, Egypt, Roman Period (332 BCE–400 CE), terracotta, 3 3/4 × 3 5/8 in., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Jerome F. Snyder (M.80.202.198). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA Conservation, by Yosi Pozeilov. Figure 7. 4. Figure 8. 5. Figure 9. 6. Figure 10. Possible family tree of taxpayers. Figure 11. 7. Figure 12. 8. Figure 13. 9. Figure 14. 10. Figure 15. 11. Figure 16. 12. Figure 17. 13. Figure 18. 14. Figure 19. 14. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 20. 15. Figure 21. 16. Figure 22. 17. Figure 23. 18. Figure 24. 19. Figure 25. 20. Figure 26. 21. Figure 27. 22. Figure 28. 23. Figure 29. 24. Figure 30. 25. Figure 31. 26. Figure 32. 27. Figure 33. 28. Figure 34. 29. Figure 35. 30. Figure 36. 31. Figure 37. 32.

ix

x

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 38. 33. Figure 39. 34. Figure 40. 35. Figure 41. 36. Figure 42. 37. Figure 43. 38. Figure 44. 39. Figure 45. 40. Figure 46. 41. Figure 47. 42. Figure 48. 43. Figure 49. 44. Figure 50. 45. Figure 51. 46. Figure 52. 47. Figure 53. 48. Figure 54. 48. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 55. 49. Figure 56. 50. Figure 57. 51. Figure 58. 52. Figure 59. 53. Figure 60. 54. Figure 61. 55. Figure 62. 56. Figure 63. 57. Figure 64. 58. Figure 65. 59. Figure 66. 60. Figure 67. 60. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 68. 61. Ostrakon with Greek Inscription, Egypt, Roman Period (332 BCE-400 CE), terracotta, 2 13/16 × 4 1/8 in., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Jerome F. Snyder (M.80.202.188). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA Conservation, by Yosi Pozeilov. Figure 69. 62. Figure 70. 63. Ostrakon with Greek Inscription, Egypt, Roman Period (332 BCE–400 CE), terracotta, 2 9/16 × 3 1/8 in., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Jerome F. Snyder (M.80.202.202). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA Conservation, by Yosi Pozeilov. Figure 71. 64. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 72. 65. Figure 73. 66. Figure 74. 66. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.

List of figures and tables

xi

Figure 75. 67. Ostrakon with Greek Inscription, Egypt, Roman Period (332 BCE–400 CE), terracotta, 2 1/2 × 3 3/4 in., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Jerome F. Snyder (M.80.202.196). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA Conservation, by Yosi Pozeilov. Figure 76. 68. Figure 77. 69. Figure 78. 70. Figure 79. 71. Figure 80. 72. Figure 81. 73. Figure 82. 74. Figure 83. 74. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 84. 75. Figure 85. 75. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 86. 76. Figure 87. 76. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 88. 77. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.

List of tables Table 1. Nile clay fabrics. Table 2. Kaolinite clay fabrics (Aswan pink clay). Table 3. Overview of the Ptolemaic tax receipts from Diospolis Mikra. Table 4. Overview of the Augustan tax receipts. Table 5. Overview of the totals for tax years in the Augustan tax receipts.

List of figures and tables

xi

Figure 75. 67. Ostrakon with Greek Inscription, Egypt, Roman Period (332 BCE–400 CE), terracotta, 2 1/2 × 3 3/4 in., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Jerome F. Snyder (M.80.202.196). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA Conservation, by Yosi Pozeilov. Figure 76. 68. Figure 77. 69. Figure 78. 70. Figure 79. 71. Figure 80. 72. Figure 81. 73. Figure 82. 74. Figure 83. 74. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 84. 75. Figure 85. 75. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 86. 76. Figure 87. 76. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Figure 88. 77. Photo from the 1930s. Image courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.

List of tables Table 1. Nile clay fabrics. Table 2. Kaolinite clay fabrics (Aswan pink clay). Table 3. Overview of the Ptolemaic tax receipts from Diospolis Mikra. Table 4. Overview of the Augustan tax receipts. Table 5. Overview of the totals for tax years in the Augustan tax receipts.

xii

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Note on editorial procedure Texts in this volume are presented according to the usual papyrological practices. The following signs have their usual meanings: ( ) [ ] ⟨ ⟩ { } 〚 〛 α̣β̣γ̣δ̣ε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ vacat

Resolution of an abbreviation or a symbol Lacuna in the text Letters omitted by the scribe Letters erroneously written by the scribe Letters written, then cancelled, by the scribe Letters the reading of which is uncertain or would be uncertain outside the context Letters remaining in part or in whole which have not been read Space left blank on the surface by the scribe

In general, abbreviations are resolved in the text. The apparatus indicates what form the word ἔτους (year) and other abbreviations take in the text and corrects non-standard Greek except in the case of personal names. Egyptian names are accented following the recommendations of Clarysse 1997.

General introduction The first mention in published form of these ostraka comes in the printed abstract of a paper read by title at the annual meeting of the American Philological Association on 28 December 1934 (printed in TAPA 65 [1934] xlv), submitted by Casper J. Kraemer, Jr., and Floyd Albert Spencer.1 “Read by title” meant, in the language of the APA of that era, that the paper was listed in the program but not actually delivered orally. As the Program Committee will have seen only the abstract, it is unclear if this paper was ever written in full. Correspondence found among the Youtie files suggests it was not. Soon after the publication of the abstract, Sherman LeRoy Wallace wrote to Kraemer asking a copy of the paper, in order to use the information in his forthcoming book on taxation in Roman Egypt. Kraemer replied (in a letter dating to 31 October 1935): “The preliminary conclusions which I reached in the abstract of my paper on the Mummifiers in Egypt have been very conceivably changed on a subsequent working. At the present moment I am unable to give you any definite information which would be of use to you. The difficulty arises from the fact that the hoard of ostraka in our collection, while it is extensive, nevertheless is incomplete, and a good deal of extra work must be done upon the material before its conclusions are valid.”2 The notes in the Youtie papers show that Kraemer and Spencer continued to work on the collection for some time,3 but eventually Kraemer sent his typescripts to Herbert Youtie, who also worked on them but did not publish them. Nothing has ever been published about the collection other than (references to) the abstract.4 The acquisition of the collection obviously must have come at the latest earlier in 1934 for Kraemer and Spencer to have read and studied the ostraka sufficiently to have submitted an abstract. The abstract 1. For a biography of Kraemer (1895–1958) see the entry by Lionel Casson in the Database of Classical Scholars (dbcs. rutgers.edu/all-scholars/8854-kraemer-casper-john-jr). Kraemer was chair of the NYU Classics Department at the time. His contemporary Spencer was born on 23 October 1895 in Iowa. He received his B.A. from the University of Colorado in 1919, then did graduate work at the University of Chicago (where he was a fellow, 1922–23). He was an assistant professor in the NYU Classics Department from 1930 to 1938 (information based on NYU staff directories from the period), after which he worked for many years at the Library of Congress in the European Affairs Division. He wrote a book on War and Postwar Greece published in 1952. With his wife, he wrote novels as Spencer Bayne. Among the Youtie files (Folder 91), there is a letter written by Warren Royal Dawson to Spencer on 2 February 1935, replying to a request by the latter about mummification technique in the Roman period. 2. The letters are in Folder 91. 3. The bibliographical references cluster in the period up to 1938, but there is one sheet with a reference to an article of 1944. 4. Bagnall first saw them forty years ago at the time of work on the International Photographic Archive of Papyri.

1

2

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

does not even indicate that the collection was owned by New York University, and it appears that it was initially housed in the Department of Classics, coming to the Libraries only at a later date, which is not indicated in the records. The abstract also gives no indication that the collection contains material other than that of the archive that constitutes its major portion. Context for this information is provided by the documented trip that Kraemer made during spring, 1932, as a result of which he wrote to the Dean of the College at NYU, Rufus Smith, on 14 December 1932 to report on purchases of antiquities that he made. Stops included Algiers, Cairo, Baghdad, Athens, Rome, and another nine localities.5 Kraemer reports that he acquired 73 ostraka in Cairo for $36.50, as well as several hundred fragments of papyrus. Originally, the collection (not including the Nessana ostraka) indeed contained 73 ostraka (which we suggest designating O.NYU), but today one of them (64, inv. 06) is missing. Luckily, Youtie’s papers include a photograph of this ostrakon. His notes also suggest that he still got to see the original. It is thus clear that the ostraka described in the abstract of 1934 were those acquired in Cairo in 1932. Perhaps the most striking point, however, is that 71 (inv. 01) here belongs to a group of ostraka excavated only in February, 1935 at Tebtynis. How there came to be this item in a dealer’s hands in Cairo three years before that excavation is hard to say. Unfortunately, Kraemer’s list of acquisitions on this long trip, which fills only a single page, gives no information about the dealer or dealers from whom he bought his antiquities. But from Maurice Nahman’s visitor book it can be seen that Kraemer visited Nahman’s shop in early 1932 (the entry is not precisely dated), and given Nahman’s dominant position in the market at that time, it seems likely that Kraemer bought the papyri and ostraka from Nahman.6 The collection now consists of five Ptolemaic, sixty-one early Roman, and three later Roman ostraka written in Greek, and four Coptic ostraka. The early Roman ostraka that dominate the collection all belong to the same archive. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) holds three more ostraka from this archive, which were published by Klaas Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 37–43. They were acquired by the Museum as part of a gift from Jerome F. Snyder in 1980. More exactly, they were part of a large acquisition in that year, the cost of which was supported by four donors, of whom Snyder was one.7 Their whereabouts between the 1930s and that date are not recorded, but the Museum believes that the entire lot came from the dispersal of the Michaelidis collection.8 Worp already inferred the Augustan date from internal evidence; it is confirmed by Καίσαρος (twice) in 30. There is no direct evidence for the place of writing of the ostraka. Worp (in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 38) argued that the formula was not typical of that for Thebes in this period and proposed Edfu as a possible origin, “given the extreme brevity of the information recorded and the reddish color of the pottery” (see below, p. 8, n. 5). In our view, the onomastics (see below, introduction to 7–70) instead point to an origin in one of the western oases or “portes du désert.” 5. See Peachin 2014: 3. 6. The visitor book, now in the Wilbour Library at the Brooklyn Museum, has been digitized and is available at arcade. nyarc.org/record=b1385698. Kraemer’s signature appears on p. 36 (p. 40 of the PDF). 7. We are indebted to Nancy Thomas of LACMA for this information (email to Roger Bagnall, 11 June 2019). 8. See already Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 10 for speculation to this effect. On George Michaelidis (1900–1973) see Clackson 1994 and Bierbrier 2012: 370–71. Michaelides died in 1973, and large parts of his manuscript collection were acquired by British libraries in 1976 and 1977, although Michaelides certainly sold some items from his collection during his lifetime. We do not know if the ostraka were handled with manuscript materials or with other artifacts; perhaps, given the wide dispersion of the artifacts noted by Clackson, it is more likely that they were treated as artifacts. Clackson does not mention any ostraka accompanying the papyri she enumerates. A large part of the antiquities was sold at auction in 1975 and 1976, and these auctions may have been the ultimate source of the LACMA acquisition.

General introduction

3

Three of the Ptolemaic pieces are closely related to each other as well, and can be shown (see below, introduction to 3–6) to come from a Diospolis that must almost certainly be Diospolis Mikra (presentday Hiw). Interestingly, the LACMA also holds an ostrakon belonging to this group, acquired from the same donor as the Augustan ostraka in that collection, and equally published by Worp (in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 44–45). This congruity, as well as the fact that the Ptolemaic dossier and Augustan archive both concern funerary taxes, may suggest that the latter ostraka also come from Diospolis Mikra. Still, the two groups could just as well be completely unrelated. The NYU collection contains also one piece possibly from Elephantine and one from Tebtynis, while the Coptic ostraka (which may also have a connection to texts in the LACMA: cf. introduction to 74–77) seem to belong to an entirely different find.

Ceramic supports of the texts Clementina Caputo In general, all 72 ostraka studied in the collection of New York University are complete and in fairly good condition.1 During the ceramological study, each ostrakon was carefully checked and classified according to its morphology, fabric, and surface treatment and compared to others in the collection. For the so-called “diagnostic” fragments, i.e., the fragments that allow one to identify the type of the original vessel, a drawing has been made. The dimensions (maximum width, length, and thickness) in centimeters (cm), the physical properties of writing (e.g., on what side the ostrakon is inscribed, concave or convex), and the orientation of writing in relation to the wheel marks (i.e., parallel, perpendicular, oblique) were also recorded. During the analysis, no two ostraka were found to have joins with each other or identified as coming from the same vessel. Most of the texts (69 out of 72) are written on the convex side of the sherd, which tends to be smooth and without irregularities. The concave or inner side is used only for four texts (71, 74, 76, 77). The external surface of about half of the ostraka is red- to reddish/brown-slipped, few are orange-slipped, the rest have a brown pseudo-slip.2 The internal surface of many of them presents a layer of waterproofing material, or pitch, which in some cases is well preserved, while in most others it is almost lost, leaving recognizable dark traces. The texts are written in black ink, sometimes faded or no longer visible. The majority of texts have writing running parallel to wheel marks of the vessel (42 out of 72), 25 are at an angle, and five are perpendicular. Generally, the sherds are of irregular shapes. However, some ostraka tend to be of a rectangular or square contour and seem to have been reshaped specifically to serve as writing media (7, 9 [?], 16, 27, 37, 43). The complete pieces range in size from 13.0 to 6.0 cm wide and from 12.9 to 5.0 cm high, and their thickness is between 1.2 and 0.6 cm.

1. The ostraka in LACMA (see above, General introduction) have not been inspected. 2. The “clay or mud” slip is obtained by immersing the pot, before firing it, into a liquefied suspension of clay particles in water. The color of the slip varies depending on the firing method, the nature of the clays, and the pigments used, if any. The term “pseudo-slip” typically refers to a surface coating obtained by using the same clay as that of the vessel: during the modeling of the clay on the wheel, the repeated passages of the potter’s hands on the artifact polish the surface, bringing to the surface the finer clay components present in the dough, see Cuomo di Caprio 2007.

5

6

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 1. Graph 1 (top): Distribution of the ostraka by main fabric; Graph 2 (bottom): Distribution of ostraka by shape.

The macroscopic study of all ceramic fragments was carried out on the existing fractures and according to the following criteria: the type of the clay; the color of the fractures; the appearance of the texture and the color, appearance, size, frequency and quality of the inclusions; and the surface treatment (e.g., slip, decoration, etc.).3 The analysis of the sherds’ main fabrics showed a strong percentage 3. As it was necessary to carry out this analysis on the section of the fragment and on non-fresh fractures, the fracture surface that was more readable was chosen as the observation point. The macroscopic description of the fabrics is performed through the use of a monocular magnifying lens with resolving power 20x and field of view of 21 mm. When possible, some fabrics are paralleled with those classified in the Levantine Ceramic Project website (levantineceramics.org). Photographs of the sections of the fragments were made using a USB microscope with 400-times magnification. This allows for a relatively detailed picture of the fabric composition.

Ceramic supports of the texts

7

Figure 2. Macro photos of the Nile clay fabrics (N-1–N-6) and kaolinite clay fabrics (K-1–K-3).

of fragments made of Nile clay fabrics (84.7% of the fragments = 61 ostraka), while only 15.3% (= 11 ostraka) were produced with kaolinite clay fabrics, more precisely Aswan pink clay (Fig. 1, Graph 1). At least six different Nile clay fabrics and three different kaolinite clay fabrics have been classified according to the macroscopically visible differences, like the color of the fracture (which depends on the firing temperature), the amount and type of inclusions, and the texture.4 Fabrics are designated “N” for Nilotic and “K” for kaolinite, followed by a progressive number for each group. All of them are described in detail in Tables 1–2 below; the macro photo for each fabric is shown in Fig. 2. 4. The so-called “pink clay” is the term used in ceramological literature for a clay connected to kaolinitic sediment abundantly attested in the broader Aswan region, see Ballet and Vichy 1992: 113–16; Gempeler 1992: 19; Rodziewicz 1992; Katzjäger, Peloschek, and Rembart 2016: esp. 731.

8

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

In terms of the types of ceramic, at least 59 out of 72 ostraka are from amphorae of Egyptian production (Fig. 1, Graph 2): 54 fragments belong to amphorae made of Nile clay fabrics (75.0%) and five sherds are from amphorae made of kaolinite clay fabrics from Aswan (6.9%). The fragments used for writing come almost exclusively from the body of the container; for this reason it is not possible to determine the exact types of amphorae. While there is no doubt that Aswan was the site of production for some of the amphorae, it remains difficult to narrow down the provenance of the amphorae made of Nile clay.5 This is an omnipresent and readily available clay source throughout Egypt along the Nile Valley and Delta, used throughout Egyptian history for a range of vessel categories, such as table wares, cooking and utilitarian wares, and storage and transport containers.6 To these are added 13 ostraka from common ware (18.1%), of which seven are from closed forms (jars or pots) made of Nile clay fabrics, while the remaining six ostraka are from vessels produced in pink clay fabric from Aswan. All of them have red/orange-slipped surfaces. Among the Aswan productions, there are one body sherd of small bowl or cup (77); one body sherd of keg or flask (72), possibly a jar inscription; and lastly, the only two diagnostic fragments in the collection (Fig. 3), that is, two bases of plates or shallow bowls (74 and 76), datable to between the sixth and the eighth centuries CE.7 The fabric and surface manufacturing characteristics of the writing supports are compatible with the dates assigned to the ostraka on the basis of the texts. The supports of the Augustan receipts can be dated to the late Ptolemaic and early Roman period.8 One of the Coptic ostraka (75) appears to be written on an early Roman amphora fragment as well. The fragment used for writing the text attributed to the archive of Lautanis (71) shows a fabric type (N-6) usually associated with Roman amphora production in the Fayyum, and can be dated at the latest to the beginning of the third century CE.9

5. The “reddish color” of the ostraka in the LACMA was one of Worp’s reasons to attribute them to Edfu (see above, General introduction), but he was not able to see the originals, and the mere information on the color, in photographs, of the external surface of the fragments is not sufficient to confirm this attribution. On the basis of the images, it is possible to say only that these ostraka are almost certainly from fragments of amphorae. 6. Bourriau and Nordström 1993: esp. 168–86. 7. Gempeler 1992: 73–74, Abb. 18 (Nr. 9–10 = Form T 230b), 96–97, Abb. 40 (Nr. 10 = Form T 325b). 8. As for the ostraka made of pink clay, recent studies showed that this clay was used for manufacturing different kinds of vessels since the late Ptolemaic–early Roman times onwards. However, in Roman times the pink clay had been intentionally mixed with Nile mud; see Katzjäger, Peloschek, and Rembart 2016: 731–32. The characteristic of the fabric (K-3) of our ostraka would suggest that the fragments used to write are from amphorae dating to the early Roman period. 9. This fabric is very close to the Nile fabrics used for the local manufactured amphorae attested at Dime/Soknopaiou Nesos, Narmouthis, and Tebtynis. In particular, during my work on ceramics from the Fayyum, I noted that the Nile fabrics used in this region mix a strong component of limestone with the alluvial silt. The comparatively high incidence of limestone particles in the texture has been discussed with P. Ballet on the occasion of the study of the ceramics and ostraka from Dime for my PhD thesis in 2014. See also Ballet and Południkiewicz 2012: 7–8.

Ceramic supports of the texts

Figure 3. Drawings of the Coptic ostraka 74 and 76.

9

10

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Table 1. Nile clay fabrics (cf. Fig. 2) Fabric N-1 The fracture is zoned: reddish/brown to pink/orange to gray/brown, sometimes with gray core. Medium-fine to medium-coarse textured fabric. Macroscopically, it includes sand, medium- to coarse-sized grains of quartz, fine mica, as well as white granules of varying size and quantities. Total ostraka: 27

1, 5, 7, 10, 13, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 47, 50, 54, 57, 58, 65, 66, 68, 72

Fabric N-21 The fracture is brown to light brown in color, sometimes with gray core. Medium-fine to medium-coarse textured fabric. Macroscopically, it has rough inclusions, rounded grains of quartz, black, white and fine gold mica of varying size and quantities, which are distributed irregularly. Total ostraka: 19

8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 27, 32, 40, 41, 45, 49, 53, 56, 62, 69, 70, 75

Fabric N-3 The fracture is brown with red core. Medium-fine textured fabric. Macroscopically, it has sand inclusions, rounded grains of quartz, white and fine gold mica of varying size and quantities, which are distributed much more regularly. Total ostraka: 8

16, 18, 19, 31, 39, 48, 51, 59

Fabric N-42 The fracture is zoned: reddish to brown to reddish/orange with light brown core. Medium-coarse textured. Macroscopically, it contains sand inclusions and a conspicuous amount of organic temper, voids, and white particles of varying size, irregularly distributed. Total ostraka: 4

6, 12, 46, 52

Fabric N-5 The fracture is zoned: red/orange to pink to gray. Medium-coarse textured. Macroscopically, it contains sand inclusions and a conspicuous amount of organic temper, voids, and large rounded limestone particles. Total ostraka: 3

4, 35, 60

Fabric N-6 The fracture is gray/brown with thin red/orange exterior fringes. Medium-fine texture, hard. Macroscopically, it contains sand inclusions and fine white inclusions, rare medium sized. Total ostraka: 1

71

1. This fabric corresponds to the “Egyptian Nile Clay” recorded in Levantine Ceramic Project: levantineceramics.org/petrofabrics/95-egyptian-nile-clay. 2. This fabric corresponds to the “Egyptian Nile Clay with Calcareous Inclusions” recorded in Levantine Ceramic Project: levantineceramics.org/petrofabrics/97-egyptian-nile-clay-with-calcareous-inclusions.

Ceramic supports of the texts

11

Table 2. Kaolinite clay fabrics (Aswan pink clay) (cf. Fig. 2) Fabric K-11 The fracture is pink/orange in color. Medium-fine textured. Macroscopically, it contains conspicuous inclusions in reddish and orange color, fine beige particles, rounded grains of quartz and fine mica. Total ostraka: 4

23, 73, 76, 77

Fabric K-22 The fracture is pink/orange with beige core. Fine to medium-fine texture, hard. Macroscopically, it contains sand, rounded grains of quartz, high amount of medium and small sized red and black inclusions and some fine mica. Total ostraka: 2

28, 74

Fabric K-3 The fracture is reddish/orange in color with buff core. Medium-fine texture, possibly mixed with Nile clay. Macroscopically, it contains grains of quartz, fine gold mica and many white inclusions, rare red and black particles. Total ostraka: 4

2, 24, 25, 55

1. This fabric corresponds to the “Aswan Pink/Kaolinitic/Shale” recorded in Levantine Ceramic Project: levantineceramics.org/petrofabrics/52-aswan-pink-kaolinitic-shale. See also fabric PC-02 in Katzjäger/Peloschek/ Rembart 2016: 731–36. 2. This fabric corresponds to the “Aswan Pink/Kaolinitic/Iron Ore” recorded in Levantine Ceramic Project: levantineceramics.org/petrofabrics/51-aswan-pink-kaolinitic-iron-ore. See also fabric PC-03 in Katzjäger/Peloschek/Rembart 2016: 731–36.

Texts 1–2. Isolated Ptolemaic texts

Figure 4. 1.

1. Receipt for beer tax Inv. 48. TM 869405 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex and concave) with impressions of ropes on the outer surface. On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 12.9 × 9.3 × 0.7 cm. Provenance unknown 15 June 131 BCE?

13

14

Ostraka in the collection of New York University ἔτους λθ̣ Παχων κζ̅ τέ(τακται) Πόωρις μέγας Ψεναμούνιος καὶ γυ(νὴ) τέ̣(λος) ζυ(τηρᾶς) τῆς β̣ (ἑξα)μή(νου) δι’ Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ παρὰ Ψεν̣εμονμοῦτος. vacat / vacat διὰ Συμμάχου.

4 1 

2 γυ τε ζυ

3 ϛ μη̅

Year 39, Pachon 27, Pooris the elder, son of Psenamounis, and his wife have paid for tax on beer of the second semester through Herakleides the agent of Psenemonmous. Through Symmachos. 1.

Year 39 could in principle belong to Ptolemy II, Ptolemy VIII, or Augustus. The handwriting in our view excludes the first and third. Youtie read year 32, interpreting the second numeral as beta, but its shape is better for theta, and there does appear to be a small horizontal stroke at the bottom of the letter, distinct from the outer line and the leg of lambda.

2.

For μέγας in the sense of “elder,” cf. the comments of J. G. Tait on O.Bodl. 1.237: “The use of μέγας or μείζων and μικρός in the sense of ‘older’ and ‘younger’ is evidently imitated from the Egyptian (Griffith).” A certain Psenamounis son of Pooris is attested in O.Helsinki 16 W 69 (Thebes, broadly dated to the Ptolemaic period; published by Wångstedt 1981: 23–24 no. 14), but these names are common not only at Thebes but elsewhere. Taxpayers named Psenamounis also appear in 2, 4, 5, and 6, but except for 4–6 there is no clear link between these ostraka. The beer tax is also paid for a husband and wife (and son) in O.Bodl. 1.125 (Elephantine [?], 122 BCE). The epsilon in τέ̣(λος) appears to have a very low crossbar. The word is usually abbreviated with supralinear lambda, but there are parallels ending on epsilon (e.g., BGU 6.1356 [Pathyris, 151/140 BCE]).

3.

For the abbreviation (ἑξα)μή(νου), cf. Clarysse 1990: 37. The beer tax is also paid by six-month periods in UPZ 1.112 (Oxyrhynchites, 204 BCE), probably in 2 (Elephantine, 100/99 BCE?), and allegedly in BGU 6.1358 (Elephantine, 120 BCE), although an inspection of the image suggests that (ἑξα)μήνου should probably be corrected to διμήνου in this text.

4.

There is ink on the right upper side of the first epsilon, which might belong to a rising nu. Presumably, this is a Ψεν-name, but the etymology is unclear. Was the end of the line left open to write an amount?

5.

Is the stroke at the beginning of the line actually the abbreviation for γίνονται, with a blank left open for the amount? In O.Theb.Taxes 1.35 (Thebes, 255 BCE), a man and his wife (καὶ γυ(νή)) pay for the price of oil through a certain Symmachos (διὰ Συμμάχου).

Ptolemaic texts

15

Figure 5. 2.

2. Receipt for beer and natron tax Inv. 03. TM 869406 Support: Body sherd of closed form (jar or pot?), Ptolemaic, Fabric K-3. Beige slip (convex), plain orange (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.0 × 11.1 × 1.0 cm. Elephantine? 16 December–14 January 100/99 BCE?

4

(ἔτους) ιε̅ Χοιαχ ̣ τέ(τακται) τέλος [chip] ζυ(τηρᾶς) νι(τρικῆς) Ἐλ(εφαντίνης?) πρ(ώτης?) (ἑξα)μή(νου) Ψενάμουνις ὁμ(οίως) τν. vacat διὰ Πετενε(φώτου?).

1 L 2 , ζυ (superimposed υ perhaps corrected),  3 ελ  ϛ μη

4 ομ

5 Πετενε

Year 15, Choiach x, has paid for tax on beer (and) natron of Elephantine of the first semester, Psenamounis likewise (?) 350 ⟨dr.⟩. Through Petenephotes.

16

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

1.

The numeral stroke above the year number is unusual, but seems intentional, unlike the ink drop above the alpha and second chi of Χοιαχ. There are traces to the right upper side of the month name that may have belonged to a day number. The Berlin excavations at Elephantine produced a cluster of dates to year 15 of Ptolemy X Alexander I and Cleopatra Berenike (100/99 BCE), and the present ostrakon probably belongs to this group.

2.

The zytera and nitrike are also paid together in two other tax receipts from Ptolemaic Elephantine (BGU 6.1357 and 1358, dating to years 38 and 50 of Ptolemy VIII, or 133–132 and 120 BCE, respectively), for 120 dr. in each case. Two documents from the second-century BCE Arsinoite nome (P.Tebt. 1.40 and 3.2.935) refer to tax farmers who have contracted both taxes.

3.

If this is the place name Ἐλεφαντίνης, the extreme abbreviation of the place name is also found in two ostraka from precisely this year, BGU 6.1317 and 1318, both for tax on fishermen, issued by the bank in Syene. The name is otherwise written more fully in all Ptolemaic texts known to us, usually ελεφ or ελεφαντ. This receipt is not of the same formula as the two Syene bank receipts, however, nor signed by the banker there, Amonios. Also, the name Psenamounis is uncommon for Elephantine. For (ἑξα)μή(νου), cf. 1.3n. The monogram  for πρ(ώτης), although in itself unexceptional as a type of abbreviation, is unparalleled in expressions for a period of months; instead, one would expect a simple alpha. If the 120 dr. for zytera and nitrike in BGU 6.1358 (Elephantine, 120 BCE) are paid for a two-month period (διμήνου rather than ἑξαμήνου: cf. 1.3n.), the 350 dr. paid for zytera and nitrike for a six-month period in the present text would provide a good match.

4.

Taxpayers named Psenamounis also appear in 1, 4, 5, and 6, but except for 4–6 there is no clear link between these ostraka. In the Roman period ὁμ(οίως) can mean “son of a man with the same name” (cf. for example P.Princ. 1.10), but there are no parallels for this use from the Ptolemaic period.

5.

The signer has not been identified elsewhere.

Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis

17

3–6. Ptolemaic receipts from the bank of Diospolis LACMA inv. M.80.202.198, published by Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 44–45, belongs to this group and is re-edited here as 3 in order to present this little dossier together. Reading the bank’s location in l. 2 there as Διοσ(πόλει) (we would prefer Διὸς π(όλει), taking the overline as a stylized pi, as in our 5 and 6: see below, 3.2n.), he assigned the provenance to Thebes. But he was frustrated by his inability to read the banker’s name as any of those in office in Thebes in 110 BCE, the date he proposed for this ostrakon, which is dated to year 7. “In itself, however, a reading Ἀσκ( ) seems far more attractive, but a banker’s name Asklepiades is attested in Thebes, only much earlier, around 150–148, 144 and 126 BC” (n. to ll. 1–2; cf. Bogaert 1994: nos. 263, 264 and 270). That reading is in our opinion inescapable. He also notes that Bogaert points out that the formula used here is not used in Thebes after 115 BCE. He thus gives only “late 2nd c. BC” as a date in the header. Worp goes on (n. to l. 2) to remark on the absence of τῆι μεγάληι after Διὸς π(όλει). He cites a couple of parallels, but says that he sees no reason to think that these ostraka come from the lesser Diospolis (present-day Hiw), located on the west bank of the Nile north of Thebes. Once one accepts the reading of the banker’s name as Asklepiades, however, and finds a late second-century date confirmed by our three ostraka, which because of the double dates can be placed securely in 105–103 and are all issued by the bank of which Asklepiades is in charge, it is evident that the Diospolis in question, which is also clearly legible in our 4 (again without τῆι μεγάληι), and plausible although hard to read in the other two, cannot be Thebes.1 The four ostraka all contain receipts for a tax abbreviated as ταρι( ). Worp argued that the traces of the tax name in 3 recall τετάρτη (with the initial tau and epsilon lost in a lacuna, and the final stroke as abbreviation mark rather than iota), but remarked that it could alternatively be a variant of the tax name ταριχ( ) found in the Augustan receipts published in this volume (7–70), three of which were already published by Worp as well. We now read the Augustan tax name as ταριχ(ευτ ). The precise nature of these tarich(eut ) taxes is hard to determine, but they clearly relate to the work of embalmers (see below, introduction to 7–70). The three new Ptolemaic Diospolis Mikra receipts from NYU seem to support a connection between the two tax names: they exclude the reading τετάρτη, and in two cases mention additional payments for κεδρί(α), one of the most common funerary products found in the papyri. Just like the Roman tarich(eut ) receipts, the Ptolemaic tari(ch ) receipts record a limited number of taxpayers: a certain Onnophris and Harmachoros paying together in 110 BCE and a certain Psenamounis paying in 105 and 103 BCE (if this is the same person all three times). Possibly, these men can be identified as undertakers, as is the case for the Roman taxpayers (see below, introduction to 7–70). In 3, the payment is said to be made for a particular year, as in the Roman receipts, but the other texts do not mention a tax year or occasion for payment. It is not clear to what extent the two taxes should be equated. The payments for kedria in 4–5 find a close parallel in O.Edfou 2.243 (111 BCE), a receipt for 540 dr. for the “kedria of the same year” (κεδρίας τοῦ αὐτοῦ (ἔτους): cf. BL 3), paid by a certain Psenenouphis to the bank in Edfu. The distribution of kedria was closely supervised by the Ptolemaic government. Most evidence regarding this subject can be found in a largely unpublished group of papyri from the first-century BCE Kynopolites (see below, introduction to 7–70), the most important text from which informs us that the undertakers in this region had to buy their kedria through the “farmers of the tax on pharmakon and kedria,” and pay for the product in fixed installments. An illegal kedria 1. In 6.1 one might read απ and suppose a provenance at Apollonopolis Magna; but the few Edfu receipts from this period lack a banker’s name in this spot.

18

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Table 3: Overview of the Ptolemaic tax receipts from Diospolis Mikra Date

Tax

Tax year

Base amount

Amount with surcharges

Taxpayer

3

year 7, Mesore 25 (9 September 110 BCE)

tari(ch )

7

2,840 dr.

3,690 or 3,990 dr.? (surcharges unclear)

Onnophris and Harmachoros

4

year 12 = 9, Mesore 13 (26 August 105 BCE)

tari(ch )

/

1,385 dr.

1,640 dr. (+ 18.75%)

kedri(a)

/

450 dr.

475 dr. (+ 5%)

tari(ch )

/

2,000 dr.

2,375 dr. (+ 18.75%)

kedri(a)

/

500 dr.

525 dr. (+ 5%)

tari(ch )

/

1,145 dr.

1,360 dr. (+ 18.75%)

No.

5

6

year 14 = 11, Pauni 9 (23 June 103 BCE) year 14 = 11, Pauni 28 (12 July 103 BCE)

Psenamounis

Psenamounis

Psenamounis

circuit is mentioned in P.Vindob. inv. G 60501, a petition from the second century BCE Arsinoite: in this papyrus, a tax farmer complains about ibis-buriers who used illegal kedria for their services.2 The receipts from Diospolis Mikra presumably concern taxes levied on kedria rather than installments for kedria purchased from the state-licensed supply, not only because payments for kedria and tari(ch ) are combined, but also because surcharges are added to the kedria payments, which are typical for taxes (see below, comments in 3–6). The Edfu receipt, given its similarity to the Diospolis Mikra texts, probably concerns a tax payment as well and suggests that the tax was paid on a yearly basis.

2. Published in Láda and Papathomas 2015. Cf. also Dogaer 2021.

Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis

19

Figure 6. 3.

3. Receipt for tax on embalmers LACMA inv. M.80.202.198. TM 131730 On convex side; complete. 9.5 × 9.2 cm. Diospolis Mikra 9 September 110 BCE Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 44–45, no. 25

4

ἔτους ζ Μεσορη κ̣ε τέ(τακται) ἐπ̣ὶ̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ ἐν Διὸς π(όλει) τρά(πεζαν) ἐφ’ ἧς Ἀσκλη(πιάδης) ταρι(χ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ὄννωφρις καὶ Ἁρ̣μάχορος χα(λκοῦ) ⟨oὗ⟩ ἀλλ(αγὴ) δισχιλίας ὀκτακοσίας μ, (γίνονται) ᾿Βωμ. δρ̣α(χμαὶ) ᾿Γχ̣ϙ. vacat δ̣ι̣’ Ἀ̣σ̣κ̣λ̣η̣(πιάδου). ᾿Γ̣ϡϙ.

1 κ̣ε: κ̣ϛ̅ ed. pr.;  2 Διὸς π(όλει): Διοσ̅ (?), Διοσ(πόλει) ed. pr.; τρα; Ἀσκλη(πιάδης): Ασκλη, Name [ ̣ ̣] ed. pr.; ταρι(χ ): ταρ/, ταρ( ) ed. pr. 3 αὐ(τοῦ): αυ, ζ ed. pr.; L; καὶ Ἁρ̣μάχορος: Κ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ρος ed. pr. 4 χα αλλ 5 /; δρα (?); ᾿Γχ̣ϙ: ᾿Γχ̣ι̣ ed. pr. 6 δ̣ι̣’ Ἀ̣σ̣κ̣λ̣η(̣ πιάδου): Ασκλη, ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ed. pr.

20

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Year 7, Mesore 25, have paid to the bank in Diospolis that Asklepiades is in charge of, for tari(ch ) of the same year, Onnophris and Harmachoros, in bronze with agio, two thousand eight hundred 40 ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 2,840 ⟨dr.⟩. 3,690 drachmas. Through Asklepiades. 3,990 ⟨dr.⟩. 2.

Διὸς π(όλει): Worp noted that “it remains to be seen whether one should prefer Διὸς ⟨πόλει⟩ to Διοσ(πόλει) here.” The abbreviation looks like Διος with a stroke above the sigma, probably a stylized pi as in 5 and 6; in 4, a longer abbreviation is used. For Ἀσκλη(πιάδης), see above, introduction to 3–6. The vague traces following kappa can probably be read as a lambda topped by an eta, resulting in the same abbreviation Ασκλη as in 4, 5, and 6. For ταρι(χ ), see above, introduction to 3–6.

3.

αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) fits the traces much better than ζ (ἔτους) and shows that the tari(ch ) tax was paid on a yearly basis, as in the Augustan tarich(eut ) receipts. Worp wanted to read a patronymic after Onnophris, but on the new infrared image it is clear that it is followed by the name of a second taxpayer, Harmachoros, also without patronymic.

4–6.

The relation between the different numbers and overall interpretation of these lines poses difficulties, as already noted by Worp. In the second and first centuries BCE, two additional charges could be made on tax payments: a service fee to cover the costs of collection and, in case the the tax was assessed in silver, an agio for converting silver to bronze (cf. Maresch 1996: 89–95, 210–13; Milne 1925). The agio was more or less fixed at ca. 10%; the collection fee varied more considerably, depending on the period, place, tax, and tax farming contract, but on average appears to have raised from ca. 5% to ca. 10% in the course of the second century. Thus, in 4–6, a total supplement of 18.75% is added to the base sum of the tari(ch ) tax. The tax payment in the ostrakon under consideration must have included an agio (l. 4: χα(λκοῦ) ⟨oὗ⟩ ἀλλ(αγή)) besides a collection fee as well, but a supplement of 18.75% cannot account for the apparent difference between the different numbers in this receipt, nor can any other supplement between 15–20%. Moreover, this receipt exceptionally seems to record three amounts for the same payment. We have not been able to find a solution.

6.

Presumably, Asklepiades’ signature can be read before the last number, as in 5–6, possibly with supralinear eta ligaturing in the loop of ᾿Γ.

Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis

21

Figure 7. 4.

4. Receipt for tax on embalmers and kedria Inv. 18. TM 869407 Support: Body sherd of closed form (storage jar?), Ptolemaic, Fabric N-5. Orange (convex), gray/brown (concave), with many organic impressions on the surfaces. On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 8.3 × 8.9 × 0.9 cm. Diospolis Mikra 26 August 105 BCE

4

8

ἔτους ιβ τοῦ καὶ θ Μεσ(ορη) ιγ̅ τ̣έ̣(τακται) ἐπὶ τὴν ἐν Διὸς πόλ(ει) τρά(πεζαν) ἐφ’ ἧς Ἀσκλη(πιάδης) ταρι(χ ) Ψενάμου(νις) χιλίας τριακοσίας πε, (γίνονται) ’Ατπε. vacat (δραχμὰς) ᾿Αχμ. κεδρί(ας) ὁ αὐ(τὸς) τετρακοσίας πεντήκοντα, (γίνονται) υν. vacat (δραχμὰς) υοε. (γίνονται) ’Βριε. vacat δι’ Ἀ̣σ̣κ̣λ(ηπιάδου) τρα(πεζίτου).

1 Μεσ,  2 Διοσπο̅ τρα 3 Ασκλη ταρ/ Ψεναμου 4 / 5  6 κεδρ/, αυ 7 / 8  9 / 10 Ασκλ τρα

22

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Year 12 which is also 9, Mesore 13, has paid to the bank in Diospolis that Asklepiades is in charge of, for tari(ch ), Psenamounis, one thousand three hundred 85 ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 1,385 ⟨dr.⟩. 1,640 (dr.). For kedria, the same, four hundred fifty ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 450 ⟨dr.⟩. 475 (dr.). That is, 2,115 ⟨dr.⟩. Through Asklepiades the banker. 2.

For the abbreviation of Διὸς πόλ(ει), see above, 3.2n.

3–9.

The base sums for the tari(ch ) tax in this receipt as well as 5 and 6 are supplemented by an additional charge of 18.75% (1/8 + 1/16) for the conversion of silver to bronze and the collection fee (cf. above, 3.4–6n.). The base sums for the kedria tax in this receipt and 5 are supplemented by an additional charge of 5%: presumably this tax was assessed in bronze (χαλκοῦ ἰσονόμου) and the collection fee for this tax was lower than that for the tari(ch ) tax. The resulting total for tari(ch ) tax (1,644.6975) is rounded down to 1,640 dr., while the total for the kedria tax (472.5) is rounded up to 475 dr. Roundings of high amounts of bronze money also occur in other tax receipts from this period (cf. comments to BGU 20.2848).

10.

The reading of the banker’s signature (cf. 3 and in particular 5 and 6) is not certain, but seems likely. The apparent supralinear chi is probably simply a lambda touching the left part of tau.

Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis

23

Figure 8. 5.

5. Receipt for tax on embalmers and kedria Inv. 43. TM 869408 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic, Fabric N-1. Beige slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 9.7 × 7.8 × 0.9 cm. Diospolis Mikra 23 June 103 BCE

4 1 L, Παυ, , Διοσ̅ τρα

(ἔτους) ιδ̣ τοῦ καὶ ια Παυ(νι) θ̅ τέ(τακται) ἐπὶ τὴν ἐν Δ̣ι̣ὸ̣ς̣ π̣(όλει) τρά(πεζαν) ἐφ ἧς Ἀσκλη(πιάδης) ταρι(χ ) Ψενάμου(νις) δισχιλ(ίας), (γίνονται) ’Β. κεδρί(ας) πεντακοσίας, (γίνονται) φ. δι’ Ἀσκλη(πιάδου). ’Β ϡ. 2 Ασκλη, ταρ/ (or perhaps ταρι/), Ψεναμου

3 δισχιλ /, κεδρ/ 4 /, Ασκλη

Year 14 which is also 11, Pauni 9, has paid to the bank in Diospolis that Asklepiades is in charge of, for tari(ch ), Psenamounis, two thousand ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 2,000 ⟨dr.⟩. For kedria, five hundred ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 500 ⟨dr.⟩. Through Asklepiades. 2,900 ⟨dr.⟩. 1. For the abbreviation of Δ̣ι̣ὸ̣ς̣ π̣(όλει), see above, 3.2n, and introduction to 3–6. 3–4.

The total of 2,900 dr. was reached by adding an extra charge of 18.75% to the base sum of the tari(ch ) tax, and an extra charge of 5% to the base sum of the kedria tax (cf. comments to 3–4).

24

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 9. 6.

6. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 56. TM 869409 Support: Body sherd of closed form (storage jar?), Ptolemaic, Fabric N-4. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.2 × 8.8 × 1.1 cm. Diospolis Mikra 12 July 103 BCE

4

1 L, Παυ, 

(ἔτους) ιδ τοῦ καὶ ια Παυ(νι) κη̅ τέ(τακται) ἐπὶ τὴν ἐν Δι̣ὸ̣ς̣ π̣(όλει) τρά(πεζαν) ἐφ’ ἧς Ἀσκλη(πιάδης) ταρι(χ ) Ψενάμου(νις) χα(λκοῦ) χιλίας ἑκατὸν με, (γίνονται) ’Αρμε. vacat δι’ Ἀσκλη(πιάδου). vacat ’Ατξ. 2 Διοσ̅ τρα, Ασκλη

3 ταρ/ Ψεναμου χα

4 / 5 Ασκλη

Year 14 which is also 11, Pauni 28, has paid to the bank in Diospolis that Asklepiades is in charge of, for tari(ch ), Psenamounis, in bronze, one thousand one hundred 45 ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 1,145 ⟨dr.⟩.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

2.

25

Through Asklepiades. 1,360 ⟨dr.⟩.

3–6.

For the abbreviation of Δι̣ὸ̣ς̣ π̣(όλει), see above, 3.2n, and introduction to 3–6.

The base sum of 1,145 dr. is supplemented by an additional charge of 18.75% (cf. comments to 3–4).

7–70. Archive of funerary tax receipts from the reign of Augustus The taxes The Augustan ostraka (7–70) can be divided into six groups:3 (a) receipts for ταρι(χευτ ) tax; (b) receipts for συμβολ( ) ταφικoῦ tax; (c) receipts for μύρου τετάρτη; (d) receipts for λαογραφία; (e) receipts for διε ̣( ) tax; and (f) receipts for other taxes whose name cannot be read. At least the first three groups of receipts relate to funerary activities. (a) The receipts for ταρι(χευτ ) tax are the largest group, with 36 texts. The name of the tax shows slight variations: τέλ(ος) ταριχ( ) (20 texts), simply ταριχ( ) (12 texts) and ταριχευ( ) (4 texts: 13, 17, 19, 49). The name connects the tax with pickling (ταριχεύω), but in Graeco-Roman Egypt this can mean two different things: pickling of food or pickling of dead people, i.e., mummification. Egyptian embalmers are regularly called “picklers” (ταριχευταί) in the papyri, by analogy with their colleagues in the food preservation industry.4 The use of this title for embalmers appears to have been more common in the Ptolemaic period, but is safely attested in at least one Roman text (P.Amh. 2.125 Vo). In some cases, these embalmers may also have been responsible for other funerary services. Up till now, taxes with names starting on ταριχ- have only been clearly recorded in relation to food pickling: a Ptolemaic τετάρτη ταρίχου/ταρίχους/ταριχηρῶν,5 another Ptolemaic tax on τάριχος,6 and a Roman toll of one-twelfth on pickled fish (ταρειχηρᾶς ἰχθύας/[τα]ρείχους).7 P.Eleph. 8 (224–223 BCE) refers to a taricheutesembalmer who has “contracted for . . . (a specific year?) the money collected for the temple from the taricheiai, 2,800 bronze dr.” (ἐ̣γ̣λ̣α̣βόντα ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν ̣ ̣ ̣ τὸ συνα̣γ̣όμενον ἀργύριον \εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν/ ἀπὸ τῶν ταριχ̣ε̣ι̣ῶ̣ν̣ [χαλκοῦ (δραχμὰς)] ’Βω), but here ἀπὸ τῶν ταριχ̣ε̣ι̣ῶ̣ν̣ seems to record the source of the tax rather than the actual tax name.8 Occasionally, it is not clear which industry is concerned. Three closely related accounts from second-century CE Soknopaiou Nesos refer to a 16-dr. tax for taricheutai (interestingly paid to the state through the temple), without offering any clues as to their activities.9 Similarly, 3. Three of these ostraka (61, 63, and 67, from the LACMA) were already published by Worp, as noted in the lemmas. 4. For taricheutai-embalmers, see Armoni 2013; Cannata 2020: passim (cf. “Lector-priest” and “Taricheutes” in index, 765– 66); Derda 1991: 19–21; Devauchelle 1987: 152–53; Vittmann, “Taricheut,” LÄ 6 (1985) cols. 233–36; Vleeming 1995, with further bibliography. 5. P.Cair.Zen. 2.59206; P.Petrie 3.58 c, 117 h; P.Fay. 15; P.Tebt. 3.2.841. Cf. Préaux 1939: 207; O.Wilck. 1, pp. 396–97. 6. P.Tebt. 3.1.701, 867: cf. P.Tebt. 3.2, p. 62. 7. P.Lond. 3.856: cf. Wallace 1938: 270–71. 8. Muhs 2003: 87–88 has translated τῶν ταριχ̣ε̣ι̣ῶ̣ν̣ as the “taricheia-tax,” but this seems inaccurate. The tax in question seems to correspond with the “tax of the necropolis” (dnỉ ḫȝs.t) attested in several demotic receipts: cf. the discussion of Ptolemaic Edfu below. For the meaning of the noun ταριχεία/ταριχεῖαι, cf. Baetens 2020: 286–87. 9. P.David 1; P.Louvre 1.4 + P.Louvre inv. AF 13314; Stud.Pal. 22.183. For a recent discussion of these accounts, see Capron 2008. For the tax payment for the taricheutai, see Wallace 1938: 206; P.David, pp. 8–9. Both discussions refer to the abstract by Kraemer and Spencer about the NYU ostraka.

26

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

a long Augustan tax list contains a reference to τ[α]ριχευταὶ ιδ τελ( ) ζ (δραχμὰς) ιδ without further context.10 The ταριχ( )/ταριχευ( ) tax in the ostraka under consideration is clearly linked with the work of embalmers, however, as the symbol( ) taphikou tax and myrou tetarte in the same archive also have a funerary connection. If the ταριχευ( ) abbreviations in 13, 17, 19, and 49 can be extrapolated to the τέλ(ος) ταριχ( ) abbreviations, τέλ(ος) ταριχ(ευτῶν) seems likely as the full tax name (cf. also the τέλος τῶν νεκροτάφων discussed below). In the receipts without τέλος, the reading ταριχευτῶν seems less attractive, and the full tax name may perhaps have been ταριχευτικόν (unattested, but by analogy with ταφικόν and other tax names such as γερδιακόν). Without upsilon, τέλος ταριχείας or ταριχειῶν might be possible alternatives, but as these readings seem unlikely, we have read ταριχ(ευτ ) throughout. The Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis Mikra published in this volume (3–6) might very well relate to the same or a similar tax, abbreviated ταρι(χ ). (b) The receipts for συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ tax are the second largest group, with 11 texts. Again, the name of the tax shows slight variations. In 26, 34, 55, and 57, συμβολ( ) ταφικ( ) is preceded by τέλ(ος); in 51 the short abbreviation συμβ( ) is used; in 26 the last element seems to be ταφικου; and in 66 ταφικοῦ is written in full. Undoubtedly, ταφικοῦ should also be read in the other receipts, since the only known word starting with ταφικ- is ταφικόν, and a genitive fits best after συμβολ-. A τέλ(ος) συμβολ( ) is not known from other sources, but several documents from the first to third century CE refer to a fee called συμβολικόν levied on the issue of a tax receipt (σύμβολον). The abbreviation συμβολ( ) can also be understood in other ways, however: σύμβολον can refer to various types of written documents, and the words συμβόλαιον and συμβολή appear in the papyri as well, used, respectively, for legal deeds and for financial contributions (mostly related to associations and entertainments).11 The word taphikon is known from six other texts. In P.Enteux. 20 (221 BCE) and 21 (218 BCE), allowances paid by associations for burials of members are called taphikon. In the remaining four texts, the meaning of taphikon is uncertain. The fragmentary double document P.Ryl. 4.580 (78/49/27 BCE?) provides the closest parallel for our tax, but is difficult to interpret. The scriptura interior identifies the document as σύμβολ(ον?) ταφικ(οῦ), connected with a certain Herakleides and a sum of 100 dr. In the scriptura exterior Herakleides seems to leave something (καταλείπω: usually encountered in wills) to or from a soldiers’ association (συνόδου τῶν συστρατιωτ̣[ῶν]), again with reference to 100 dr. and possibly to a person who can present the document in question in exchange for the money: σύμβολον ἐπιφεροντ̣[ -ca.?- ]). According to the editor, Herakleides was entitled to a 100-dr. burial allowance as a member of a soldiers’ association, but assigned this benefit to another party through this document. O.Bodl. 1.134 (136 BCE) contains a receipt for τόκους καὶ ταφικὰ κα̣[ὶ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] καὶ στέφανο̣ν̣ paid for a certain period; Bataille suggests that these taphika might again denote burial allowances from an association.12 BGU 7.1668 (broadly dated to Roman period) is another puzzling text, perhaps a price list, referring to various goods and sums of money, including ταφικοῦ (δραχμὰς) δ. The Papyrus Museum in Syracuse, finally, holds an unpublished receipt from the late third century BCE for the taphikon of two men, without further information.13 Unfortunately, these parallels do not really help to elucidate the nature of the 10. BGU 16.2577, Ro l. 525. This list may be connected with the levy of the poll-tax: cf. BGU 16, pp. 34–35. Additional references to taricheutai can be found in the text in Ro ll. 110, 332, 415 and Vo l. 71. 11. For σύμβολον, συμβολικόν, and συμβόλαιον, see the relevant entries by C. Weilbach in the online neues Fachwörterbuch (https://www.organapapyrologica.net), with further bibliography. For συμβολή, which can also mean pocket or drinking money, see Preisigke and Kießling, WB 2 col. 509; P.Heid. 6, pp. 108–9; UPZ 1, pp. 438–39. 12. Bataille 1952: 274–75, n. 1. 13. This document previously belonged to the private collection of Barbara Harrauer (inv. 57). A description and image of the papyrus were published in Froschauer and Harrauer 2003: 97 no. 26, 122 Tafel 4c.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

27

symbol( ) taphikou tax in these Augustan ostraka. In theory, taphikon could have a different meaning in these receipts, linked to the professional activities of the undertakers rather than burial allowances from associations, more in line with the tarich(eut ) tax and myrou tetarte. (c) Four receipts (23, 39, 41, 64) concern the μύρου τετάρτη: a “one quarter” tax levied on μύρον, a broad term usually translated as “perfume,” “ointment,” or “unguent” (not to be confused with μύρρα, σμύρνα, or ζμύρνα, which specifically denote myrrh). Τwo other receipts for the myrou tetarte are preserved, dating to the early Ptolemaic period: SB 6.9416 (30 April 244 BCE: cf. BL 9) and O.Cair. 20 (19 July 244 BCE: cf. BL 9).14 These two closely related receipts record payments of 1 dr. 3 ob. by a certain Paues son of Psenchonsis to the royal bank in Thebes for the myrou tetarte “for year 4.” The same tax also appears in SB 6.9090 (248 BCE) and SB 3.7176 (246 BCE), two official letters linking the myrou tetarte with the retail sale (διάθεσις) of frankincense (λιβανωτικὰ φορτία), and in P.Yale inv. 691 (129 CE), an imperial oath concerning a tax farming concession for the myrou tetarte, frankincense tax (λιβανωτική), and papyrus tax (χαρτηρά) of a particular year.15 Possibly, the demotic letter P.Macquarie inv. 332 (215 BCE) also concerns the myrou tetarte: in this letter, a dealer in sgn urges some officials to hand over anyone else selling sgn or ḫwȝ in a certain village to him, so that he may bring him to the oikonomos and royal scribe and obtain “the tax of the work of sgn of the meris” (pȝ ḥtr n tȝ wp.t sgn n tȝ dnỉ.t).16 The words sgn and ḫwȝ are traditionally translated as “ointment”/“unguent” and “incense,” just like μύρον and λιβανωτός/λίβανος; the clauses in the demotic letter strongly remind one of the abovedescribed documents concerning the myrou tetarte and retail of libanotika phortia or libanotike.17 Summarizing all this evidence, the myrou tetarte appears to have been a sales tax on myron, farmed out on a yearly basis, existing from the early Ptolemaic period until at least the early second century CE.18 Another tax on myron is attested in P.Bagnall 17 (245 BCE), a receipt for 1 dr. paid for the μυροψική.19 The etymology of the word (μύρον + ἕψω, “to boil,” as in μυρεψός/μυροψός) suggests that this tax was levied on the production of myron, rather than sale.20 Taxes on myron have never been recorded in spe-

14. Perhaps μυρουβ(αλάνων) in the receipt SB 4.7390 (154/143/54 BCE), curiously written with an upsilon, should also be corrected to μύρου (τετάρτης), but we have not been able to check this on an image. 15. P.Yale inv. 691 has recently been published by Benaissa 2016, also discussing the myrou tetarte, myron and related taxes and products, with further bibliography (but without reference to the myrepsike/myropsike, discussed below). 16. This document has been published by Depauw 2009. 17. This similarity has been noted by Benaissa 2016: 385. Cf. also Depauw 2009: 204, who remarks that Copic ⲥⲟϭⲛ can render Greek μύρον or μύρισμα. Neither of them proposes to identify the ḥtr n tȝ wp.t sgn n tȝ dnỉ.t in the demotic letter with the myrou tetarte. They also do not take note of the Greek loan-word ψάγδαν, used by the Greek authors and clearly derived from pȝ sgn (which does not need to contradict the link between sgn and μύρον): cf. Fournet 1989: 66 A17. Interestingly, ψάγδαν is considered as a specific type of μύρον in Aristophanes fr. 206: “Let’s see, what μύρον will I give you? Do you like ψάγδαν?” (φέρ’ ἴδω, τί σοι δῶ τῶν μύρων; ψάγδαν φιλεῖς;). In Egyptian documents, sgn seems to be used as a broad generic term, just like μύρον: cf. Colin 2003: 93–94. 18. P.Fay. 93 = Chrest.Wilck. 317 (161 CE) contains an offer to sublease a share in “the work of selling myron and (selling?) aromatics” (τὴν μυροπω̣λα̣ι̣κὴν [= μυροπωλικὴν] καὶ ἀρομ̣ατικὴν [= ἀρωματικὴν] ἐργασίαν) in the meris of Themistos, in exchange for a φόρος paid in monthly installments, hinting at a similar system. 19. The only possible parallel for this term is μυρεψικῆι in the fragmentary third-century CE account SB 12.10865 (l. 16), but it is not clear if this μυρεψικῆι again concerns the tax or is simply a form of the adjective μυρεψικός. For the variation between μυροψ- and μυρεψ-, see the comments by R. Duttenhöfer on P.Bagnall 17. 20. Cf. also the fragmentary P.Lond. 7.2192 = SB 10.10296 (93–92 or 60–59 BCE?), in which a dealer in myron receives the permission to boil (μυρεψῖν = μυρεψεῖν) and prepare (μυροποεῖν = μυροποιεῖν) myron, undoubtedly in exchange for a fee: maybe the same myrepsike/myropsike? On the other hand, see SB 10.10727 (second–third century CE), in which a myrepsos appears to be paid for a funerary treatment (θεραπεία).

28

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

cific relation to burials, but the product myron is well attested in funerary context, so the myrou tetarte in the Augustan ostraka could certainly relate to the undertaker’s trade as well.21 (d) Eight receipts (10 [?], 18, 35, 36, 40, 54, 68, 69) concern the λαογραφία, the well-known poll-tax levied on the adult male population of Roman Egypt.22 In 68, additional payments are made for other charges, apparently abbreviated διε ̣ ( ) and φυλ( ). The latter is probably a tax for support of guard services, cf. n. ad loc. For the former, see (e) below. The additional payment in 36 probably concerns die . ( ) as well, although the name is lost. Four receipts from this group (35, 54, 68, 69) also contain an unread phrase between the patronymic and the drachma sign, possibly σ(ὺν) υἱῶ(ι). 10 is a doubtful case because the taxpayer appears to be a woman and the paid amount does not fit. In 7 and 24, the amount would fit, but it seems impossible to read λαογραφία. (e) Two receipts (47, 56) only record payment for the above-mentioned διε ̣( ) tax.23 Both receipts also have the σ(ὺν) υἱῶ(ι) (?) group between the patronymic and the drachma sign. (f) The remaining three receipts (7, 24, 63) concern other taxes whose name we cannot read. One of the most conspicuous features of these receipts are the sums of money paid for the taxes. All amounts paid for the tarich(eut ), symbol( ) taphikou, and myrou tetarte tax are multiples of 3 dr. 4 ob., with a maximum of 51 dr. 2 ob. (46). Only three exceptions to this rule can be found: a payment of 2 dr. 4 ½ ob. (?) (instead of the expected 3 dr. 4 ob.) for myrou tetarte (64); a payment of 18 dr. 1 ob. (instead of the expected 18 dr. 2 ob.) for tarich(eut ) tax (70); and a payment of 40 dr. 4 ob. (instead of the expected 40 dr. 2 ob.) for symbol( ) taphikou tax (27). Possibly, some of these exceptions result from miscalculations or scribal errors. For the laographia or poll-tax, sums of 4 or 8 dr. are paid, possibly partial payments for the total yearly amount of 16 dr. recorded as poll-tax rate for several Egyptian nomes (cf. the total of 16 dr. paid for the poll-tax of year 41, discussed below).24 In one problematic case (10), 14 dr. 4 ob., again a multiple of 3 dr. 4 ob., appears to be paid for the laographia. Conversely, the common laographia amount of 8 dr. is paid for other taxes whose name has not been read in 7 and 24. For the die . ( ), phyl( ), and remaining taxes whose name cannot be read, various sums of money are paid, all below 3 dr. 4 ob. The multiples of 3 dr. 4 ob. remind one of the Theban West Bank tax payments that are said to be 4 dr. but net (often expressed αἳ κ(αθαραί)) 3 dr. 4.5 ob. These were calculated with a deduction of 1/16.25 In the present case, we would have to deal with a deduction of 1/12 instead.26 Worp points out that these 21. Cf. P.Lund. 4.11 (second–third century CE); P.Oxy. 4.736 (Augustan?); SB 10.10727 (second–third century CE); Stud.Pal. 22.56 (second–third century CE). The product sgn/sqn features in the Embalming Ritual (l. x+2.5: cf. comments by Töpfer 2015: 73–74), the Apis Embalming Ritual (overview in Vos 1993: 393) and the Ptolemaic funerary accounts P.L.Bat. 34.21 (col. ii l. 11) and P.Tor.Choach. 14 (col. ii l. 14 and col. iii l. 17). 22. For the Roman Egyptian poll-tax, see Heilporn 2009: 77–87; Monson 2014, with further bibliography. 23. We have considered a number of other possible readings of the letters, including ορε, ογε, οιε, and δρε, but none of them seems adequate to explain the traces in all of the ostraka in which this tax appears. 24. The most notable exceptions are the Arsinoite nome and Thebes, which make it unlikely that the Augustan archive comes from one of these regions (if the link between the 4- and 8-dr. payments and the 16-dr. rate is correct). For an overview of the known poll-tax rates in different nomes, see Heilporn 2009: 80–81. 25. The classic discussion is Gara 1976; on the method of calculation see Worp 1989. 26. As P. Heilporn points out to us, Worp 1989 mentions two texts with 4 dr. gross = 3 dr. 4 ob. net, but these are not in fact good parallels. In O.Ont.Mus. 2.122.3 (Memnonia), according to Heilporn’s notes, the reading should actually be 3 dr. 1/2 ob. net; and in O.Bodl. 2.879.7 (Memnonia), on the original, he reads 3 dr. 4 ob. 1/2 net, despite Coles’s remark cited by Worp. As Heilporn observes, this is perhaps another argument against a Theban or Hermonthite provenance for this archive. There are more ostraka with amounts of (multiples of) 3 dr. 4 ob., but none of them indicate that the amount is net.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

29

conversions do not appear in receipts for all taxes, but rather dike tax, naubion, geometria, and the tax on linenweavers. Possibly the funerary taxes at issue in our archive were analogous to the last and subjected to a similar practice. Poll-tax, however, does not seem to have been subject to this accounting practice. Table 4: Overview of the Augustan tax receipts Date

Tax

7

year 12, Mecheir 25 (19 February 18 BCE or 26 CE)

?

8

year 13, Choiak 15 (12 December 18 BCE or 26 CE)

taricheut-

No.

Amount

Taxpayer

Signer

12

8 dr.

Psenpoueris son of Harpbekis

?

13

14 dr. 4 ob.

Pan . ( )

Ple . ( )

Tax year

year 13, Choiak 16 (13 December 18 BCE or 26 CE)

7 dr. 2 ob.

Ple . ( )

9

year 30, Pauni 24 (18 June 1 CE)

telos taricheut-

30

22 dr.

Petenephotes (?) son of Horos

Pise(chthis?)

10

year 30, Pauni 24 (18 June 1 CE)

laographia?

30

14 dr. 4 ob.

Ta . . ( ) son/ daughter of Paches

Pise(chthis?)

11

year 31, Hathyr 17 (13 November 1 CE)

telos taricheut-

30

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

12

year 31, Choiak 20 (16 December 1 CE)

telos taricheut-

31

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

13

year 31, Tybi 16 (11 January 2 CE)

taricheut-

31

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

P.( )

14

year 31, Pachon 14 (9 May 2 CE)

telos taricheut-

31

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

15

year 31, Pachon 24 (19 May 2 CE)

taricheut-?

31

3 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

16

year 31, Pauni 12 (6 June 2 CE)

telos taricheut-

31

22 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

17

year 31, Mesore 30 (23 August 2 CE)

taricheut-

31

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

18

year 32, Hathyr 12 (8 November 2 CE)

laographia

31

8 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

19

year 32, Hathyr 16 (12 November 2 CE)

taricheut-

32

11 dr.

Tkales daughter of Sisois

Kam( )

20

year 32, Choiak 25 (21 December 2 CE)

telos taricheut-

32

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

21

year 32, Phamenoth 28 taricheut(24 March 3 CE)

32

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

?

22

year 32, Pharmouthi 21 (16 April 3 CE)

taricheut-

32

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

23

year 32, Pachon 15 (10 May 3 CE)

myrou tetarte

32

18 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

30

Ostraka in the collection of New York University Date

Tax

Amount

Taxpayer

Signer

24

year 33, Phaophi 12 (10 October 3 CE)

?

32

8 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

[not indicated]

25

year 33 (?), Hathyr 22 (19 November 3 CE?)

telos taricheut-

32?

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

26

year 33, Tybi 30 (26 January 4 CE)

telos symboltaphikou

32

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

27

year 33, Mecheir 30 (25 February 4 CE)

symbol- taphikou

32

40 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

28

year 33, Pachon 16 (11 May 4 CE)

taricheut-

33

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

29

year 33, Pachon x (26 April – 25 May 4 CE)

telos taricheut-

33

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

30

year 34, Phaophi 19 (16 October 4 CE)

symbol- taphikou

33

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

31

year 34, Choiak 20 (16 December 4 CE)

telos taricheut-

33

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

32

year 34, Tybi 6 (1 January 5 CE)

telos taricheut-

33

3 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

33

year 34, Tybi 11 (6 January 5 CE)

telos taricheut-

33

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

34

year 35, Choiak 9 (5 December 5 CE)

telos symboltaphikou

34

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

35

year 36, Thoth 12 (9 September 6 CE)

laographia

35

8 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

36

year 36, Hathyr x (28 October – 26 November 6 CE)

laographia

35

8 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

year 36, Choiak x (27 November – 26 December 6 CE)

die-?

35?

3 dr. 1 ob.

year 36, Choiak 9 (5 December 6 CE)

taricheut-

36

11 dr.

35

3 dr. 4 ob.

38

year 37, Thoth 13 (11 September 7 CE)

telos taricheut-

36

39

year 37, Phaophi 5 (3 October 7 CE)

myrou tetarte

40

year 37, Hathyr 13 (10 November 7 CE)

41

year 37, Hathyr 16 (13 November 7 CE)

42

year 37, Phamenoth 21 taricheut(17 March 8 CE)

43

year 37, Pachon 14 (9 May 8 CE)

44

year 37, Pauni 4 (29 May 8 CE)

No.

37

Tax year

Pise(chthis?)

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

36

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

laographia

36

4 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

myrou tetarte

36

3 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

37

18 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Kam( )

telos taricheut-

37

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

telos taricheut-

37

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

Pise(chthis?)

Archive of funerary tax receipts Date

Tax

45

year 37, Pauni 6 (31 May 8 CE)

telos taricheut-

46

year 37, Pauni 10 (4 June 8 CE)

47 48

No.

31

Amount

Taxpayer

Signer

37

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

symbol- taphikou

37

51 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

year 38, Thoth 8 (5 September 8 CE)

die-

37

3 dr. 1 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

year 38, Hathyr 5 (1 November 8 CE)

taricheut-

38

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

Tax year

year 38, Hathyr 6 (2 November 8 CE)

3 dr. 4 ob.

Pise(chthis?)

49

year 38, Phamenoth 10 taricheut(6 March 9 CE)

38

11 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

?

50

year 38, Pharmouthi 15 (10 April 9 CE)

taricheut-

38

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

51

year 38, Pharmouthi 29 (24 April 9 CE)

symbol- taphikou

38

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

P.( )

52

year 38, Pauni 3 (28 May 9 CE)

symbol- taphikou

38

25 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

53

year 38, Mesore 4 (28 July 9 CE)

taricheut-

38

14 dr. 4 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

54

year 39, Thoth 5 (2 September 9 CE)

laographia

38

8 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

55

year 39, Choiak 29 (25 December 9 CE)

telos symboltaphikou

39

7 dr. 2 ob.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

56

year 39, Mesore 22 (15 August 10 CE)

die-

39

2 dr.

Harpbekis son of Sisois

Pise(chthis?)

57

year 40, Choiak 1 (27 November 10 CE)

telos symboltaphikou

40

3 dr. 4 ob.

Tkales daughter of Petenephotes (?)

Pise(chthis?)

58

year 40, Mesore ep. 2 (25 August 11 CE)

taricheut-

40

7 dr. 2 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

59

year 41, Choiak 21 (18 December 11 CE)

telos taricheut-

41

7 dr. 2 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

60

year 41, Phamenoth 25 (?) (21 [?] March 12 CE)

telos taricheut-

41

7 dr. 2 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

?

61

year 41, Pharmouthi 18 (13 April 12 CE)

telos taricheut-

41

11 dr.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

62

year 41, Pachon 20 (15 May 12 CE)

taricheut-

41

7 dr. 2 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

7 dr. 2 ob.

year 41, Pauni 3 (28 May 12 CE)

3 dr. 4 ob.

Pise(chthis?)

63

year 41, Pachon 21 (16 May 12 CE)

?

41

1 dr. 3 ob.

64

Year 41, Pachon 22 (17 May 12 CE)

myrou tetarte

41

2 dr. 4 ob. Tkales daughter 1/2 (?) of Psenpoueris

?

65

year 41, Pachon 29 (24 May 12 CE)

telos taricheut-

41

3 dr. 4 ob.

Pise(chthis?)

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

32

Ostraka in the collection of New York University Date

Tax

66

year 41, Pauni 5 (30 May 12 CE)

symbol- taphikou

67

year 41, Pauni 6 (31 May 12 CE)

68

year 41, Pauni 22 (16 June 12 CE)

No.

Amount

Taxpayer

Signer

41

3 dr. 4 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Kam( )

symbol- taphikou

41

3 dr. 4 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

laographia

41

8 dr.

Pise(chthis?)

die-

41?

3 dr. 1 ob.

Petenephotes son of Onnophris

phyl-

41?

5 ob.

Tax year

69

year 42, Thoth 2 (30 August 12 CE)

laographia

41

8 dr.

Petenephotes son of Onnophris

Pise(chthis?)

70

year 42, Thoth 16 (13 September 12 CE)

telos taricheut-

41

18 dr. 1 ob.

Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris

Pise(chthis?)

Often, several payments for the same tax are made in a single year: up to seven payments in one year (and three in one thirty-day period) for the tarich(eut ) tax, and two payments in one year for the symbol( ) taphikou tax (both in the same month), myrou tetarte, and laographia. Some years (in particular year 35) are less well represented than others. Seven receipts record multiple payments: two payments for the tarich(eut ) tax (8, 37, 48, 58, and 62), joint payments for laographia, die . ( ), and phyl( ) (68), and joint payments for laographia and probably die . ( ) (36). Four of these receipts give a different date for the second payment: one day (8, 48), thirteen days (62) or an unknown number of days ranging between 1 and 59 (36) after the first payment. Two receipts (9 and 10) date from the same day, but are issued for different taxes and payers. All receipts also indicate for which tax year the payment is made: most often for the year of payment (in 33 tarich(eut ), 7 symbol( ) taphikou, 2 myrou tetarte, 2 laographia, 2 die . ( ), 1 phyl( ) and 2 other payments), but also regularly for the previous year (in 8 tarich(eut ), 4 symbol( ) taphikou, 2 myrou tetarte, 6 laographia, 2 die . ( ) and 1 other payment). Payments for the previous year only appear in receipts from the first months of the following year (Thoth – Mecheir), and are especially common in receipts for laographia and receipts from years 33–36. Taxes for the current year are only paid when all payments for the previous year have been completed, and never in Thoth or Phaophi. One receipt issued in Choiak (37) records payments for both the current and the previous year. The yearly totals for the different taxes are not consistent. The highest recorded totals are 62 dr. 2 ob. for the tarich(eut ) tax, 51 dr. 2 ob. for the symbol( ) taphikou tax, 18 dr. 2 ob. for the myrou tetarte, and 16 dr. for the laographia. The tarich(eut ), symbol( ) taphikou and myrou tetarte taxes seem to be closely related, not only because of their funerary connection but also because of their mode of payment. Before formulating hypotheses as to the nature of these payments, it is useful to briefly review the remaining evidence on funerary taxes in Graeco-Roman Egypt. For the Ptolemaic period, there are interesting ensembles from (a) Thebes, (b) Edfu, and (c) the Kynopolites. (a) Funerary taxes in early Ptolemaic Thebes fall into two main groups.27 Several dozens of fourth–third century BCE ostraka contain receipts for the “money/tax of the overseer of the necropolis” (ḥḏ/dnỉ mr27. For funerary taxes in early Ptolemaic Thebes, see Muhs 2011: 149–94, with further bibliography (but add Bataille 1952: 273–74; Cannata 2020: 17–21, 295–96, 300–1, 358–64, 544–49, 595; Depauw 2000: 64–74; Muhs 2016: 225–26; Vleeming 1995: 251–55; and now Muhs et al. 2021: 42–43, 60–61). For possible predecessors of these taxes in earlier periods, see Agut-Labordère 2014: 1024–25; Donker van Heel 2019; Malinine 1961; Muhs 2016: 185–86, 204.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

33

Table 5: Overview of the totals for tax years in the Augustan tax receipts Year

tarich(eut )

symbol( ) taphikou

myrou tetarte

laographia

13

22 dr.

–

–

–

30

36 dr. 4 ob.

–

–

14 dr. 4 ob.?

31

62 dr. 2 ob.

–

–

8 dr.

32

51 dr. 2 ob.

48 dr.

33

40 dr. 2 ob.

14 dr. 4 ob.

–

34

–

14 dr. 4 ob.

–

35

3 dr. 4 ob.

–

–

36

25 dr. 4 ob.

37

55 dr.

51 dr. 2 ob.

–

38

44 dr.

33 dr.

–

39

–

7 dr. 2 ob.

–

40

14 dr. 4 ob.

3 dr. 4 ob.

–

41

58 dr. 3 ob.

7 dr. 2 ob.

2 dr. 4 ob. 1/2

18 dr. 2 ob.

–

11 dr.

– – – 16 dr. 4 dr. – 8 dr. – – 16 dr.

ḫȝs.t), a tax of 1/2 kite (= 1 dr., later raised by 1 ob.) paid for every corpse brought to the necropolis (occasionally for two corpses at once). A smaller number of Theban receipts from the same period concern taxes imposed on the acquisition of tombs and burial plots, usually amounting to 2 + 1/2 kite (= 5 dr.), irrespective of the size of the properties in question. Both taxes are paid by (or through) the undertakers; moreover, they also appear to be farmed out to them. The taxes are generally paid to the temple, but a couple of texts suggest that the state was involved in their collection as well. Unfortunately, very little evidence from later Ptolemaic Thebes survives.28 (b) Thirty ostraka from third-century BCE Edfu contain receipts for the “tax of the necropolis” (dnỉ ḫȝs.t), paid by tax farmers to the temple (although the state may eventually have benefited from its collection).29 These receipts do not refer to individual burials, like the Theban tax receipts, but to the year and/or month for which the tax is paid. The amounts of the payments are irregular, ranging from 3 + 1/3 kite (= 6 dr. 4 ob.) to 5 deben and 7 + 1/4 kite (= 114 dr. 3 ob.). The contract regarding “the money collected for the temple from the taricheiai, 2,800 bronze dr.” referred to in P.Eleph. 8 (cf. discussion of tarich(eut ) tax above) most likely concerns the same tax. The contractor in this document, Horos son of Pasas, is an embalmer (taricheutes) himself and also pays the tax of the necropolis (dnỉ ḫȝs.t) in one of the demotic receipts. Probably, the other tax farmers in the Edfu receipts (apparently including Horos’s brother) can be identified as undertakers as well. Several authors have suggested that the money for the payments in these texts might ultimately have been derived from a similar burial tax as attested for early Ptolemaic Thebes, paid for every mummy.30 In this case, the tax farmers would have undertaken to pay a fixed amount of tax money to the temple by the end of the year, in exchange for the right to collect the tax for every individual burial in that year. This would provide support for a more or less uniform system 28. Cf. Cannata 2020: 296–97; Muhs 2003: 104–5; Muhs 2009: 393–95. 29. For funerary taxes in Ptolemaic Edfu, see Cannata 2020: 50, 297–300, 528–29, 596–98 (unaware of the work by VignotKott cited below); Muhs 2003: 82–90, 102–4; Vignot-Kott 2017, with further bibliography; cf. now Muhs et al. 2021: 42. The dnỉ ḫȝs.t, attested in Edfu, should not be confused with the above-discussed dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t, attested in Thebes. 30. Cf. most recently Cannata 2020: 300; more reservedly Vignott-Kott 2017: passim.

34

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

of funerary taxation in early Ptolemaic Edfu and Thebes, but there is no positive evidence for this, and in any case the amounts paid in the receipts are too irregular to be direct multiples of fixed tax sums paid for individual burials. It is also possible that the tax payments were connected in some other way (or multiple ways) to the work of embalmers, like some of the taxes discussed further below. The later Ptolemaic evidence from Edfu is even more problematic. Six second-century BCE ostraka contain receipts for a 1/10 tȝy=f/s ḳs(.t) (“tithe for his/her burial”?), accompanied by orders for burial, and two other ostraka contain receipts for the mnḳ (“completion”?) of/for several people, paid by the same persons. One ostrakon, which possibly dates from the first century BCE, contains a receipt for the ḥḏ (n) pȝ ḳs (“money of/for the burial”) of/for a certain person.31 The precise nature of these payments is uncertain, but they in all events concern individual burials rather than annual dues. (c) Finally, a complex system of funerary taxation is attested in five Greek documents from the first-century BCE Kynopolite nome.32 The most important text is an unpublished contract concluded between “the farmers of the tax on pharmakon and kedria” (οἱ ἐξειληφότες τὸ τέλος τοῦ φαρμάκου καὶ τῆς κεδρίας) and a group of undertakers (νεκροτάφοι) in this region,33 in which the former give the latter the permission to bury the people who will die in the following year and to use kedria for this purpose, on condition that they pay for the kedria in fixed installments and pay some additional taxes for specific services: 2,700 dr. for “each corpse” (ἑκάστου νεκροῦ), the same 2,700 dr. for those “who will be put down in the ground and dug up again before seventy days,” 400 (additional?) dr. “after the seventy days,” and 600 dr. for “each body (ἑκάστου δὲ σώματος) when you bury it on the last day.” The last tax recalls the burial taxes in early Ptolemaic Thebes; the others appear to be linked to the mummification treatment. Additionally, four receipts issued by the above-mentioned tax farmers are preserved (only one of which is published: SB 20.14426): two for payments by the undertakers and two for payments by relatives of the deceased, through the undertakers. The precise nature of these payments is uncertain. Pharmakon and kedria are among the most widely attested funerary products in the Greek papyri.34 Kedria has been identified as a resinous product derived from the juniper tree (probably corresponding with Egyptian sfy or syf). Pharmakon is a general term for “drugs,” but surely had a more specific meaning in funerary context (probably corresponding with Egyptian pẖr.t). Government control and taxation of these products is also attested in documents from other contexts, including two Ptolemaic receipts from Diospolis Mikra published in this volume (4 and 5, recording payments for kedria).35 The funerary taxes recorded in Roman texts can be divided into three groups: (a) taxes explicitly connected with the activities of νεκροτάφοι (the most common name for undertakers in this period); (b) the Theban τέλη ταφῆς; and (c) miscellaneous taxes. In contrast to the Ptolemaic evidence, the Roman material is almost exclusively Greek. 31. “Burial money” (ḥḏ ḳs) is also recorded in one Theban receipt of uncertain date (O.Mattha 190), but it is not clear if these two burial monies should be equated. In O.Mattha 190, the burial money is paid for multiple persons. 32. These documents seem to belong to a bilingual undertakers’ archive, described in Clarysse 2007. Only one of the taxrelated texts from this group has already been published (SB 20.14426); the other four will be published by Willy Clarysse and Gert Baetens. 33. For nekrotaphoi, see Bagnall 2017: 7–13, with further bibliography. 34. For kedria, see Láda and Papathomas 2015: 84–87, with further bibliography. For pharmakon in funerary context, see Azzarello and Reiter 2016: 319–20; Bernini 2019: 228; Vos 1993: 201; Bataille 1952: 210; P.Haun. 2, p. 27. Both products will be discussed in further detail in the forthcoming edition of the Kynopolite texts by Willy Clarysse and Gert Baetens. 35. For the Ptolemaic period, see O.Edfou 2.243 (cf. introduction to 3–6); P.Sorb. 1.34; P.Vindob. G 60501 (cf. introduction to 3–6). For the Roman period (less clear), see P.Harris 1.89; P.Princ. 3.132; P.Ryl. 4.574. For kedria, see also Dogaer 2021.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

35

(a) First, taxes on νεκροτάφοι are mentioned in a set of fiscal regulations put up for display at the dromos of Karnak (SB 18.13315, 89 CE), together with trade taxes on fullers, general dealers, potters, wine dealers, and wool dealers.36 Unfortunately, the regulations are very fragmentary and the lines on the nekrotaphoi need to be largely reconstructed on the basis of the other sections. The fullers have to make monthly payments of 4 dr. per person and the general dealers monthly payments of 4 dr. per shop, or 6 dr. if they sell oil. The other professional groups, including the nekrotaphoi, are expected to pay their taxes “according to custom” (κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν). In addition to these regular payments, extraordinary contributions appear to be levied on all the trades, identified by the editor as ἐπικλασμός or ἐπιμερισμός. Besides these regulations, some receipts for taxes related to nekrotaphoi are preserved.37 Two unpublished receipts from Elephantine record payments for the χιρον̣[αξίου νεκρο]τάφου of a certain year (O.Eleph. inv. 4125, 61–62 CE) and the [τέλος τῶν (?)] νεκροτάφων of a certain month (O.Old. inv. 15, second–third century CE), probably trade taxes of a similar nature as those described in the regulations from Karnak.38 A different τέλος τῶν νεκροτάφων seems to be involved in two Theban/ Hermonthite receipts written by a scribe named Πλήινις Χαρμ( ): O.Camb. 51 (8 CE) and O.Cairo 89 (9 CE).39 The first receipt is issued by Psenetymis son of Pikorphis and his colleagues (μέτοχοι) to Senbouchis daughter of Pamonthes for the τέλ(ος) τῶν νεκροτ(άφων) due for Pamonthes son of Petenephotes (possibly her father), and the second is issued by Kalasiris son of Horos and his colleagues to a person whose name is lost for the same tax due for a certain Π̣ενειο̣( ). The facts that these taxes are not paid for particular periods and that Senbouchis might be paying for her father suggest that the payments relate to individual burials, unlike the taxes on nekrotaphoi discussed above. This hypothesis finds support in O.Med.Habu 63–64, two demotic receipts from 14 CE issued by the same Kalasiris son of Horos for the “tax of the overseer of the necropolis” (dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t) due for certain individuals. Not only the tax collector but also the paid amounts (12 dr.) in the demotic and Greek receipts are identical.40 Clearly, dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t and τέλ(ος) τῶν νεκροτ(άφων) are two names for the same tax in this case, presumably levied on individual burials just like the ḥḏ/dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t attested in early Ptolemaic Thebes. A last relevant 36. Wagner 1971. 37. The Roman receipt O.Ont.Mus. 2.166 possibly also concerns a tax related to nekrotaphoi, but is left out of account because of its fragmentary state. 38. Information kindly provided by Ruth Duttenhöfer, who is currently preparing an edition of these two texts. For the cheironaxion, see Hobson 1993; Reiter 2004: 111–12, 288, with further bibliography. 39. For the Theban/Hermonthite τέλος τῶν νεκροτάφων, see Heilporn 2009: 170–72, with further bibliography (but add Kaplony-Heckel 2019: 73). 40. O.Camb. 51 appears to record a different amount (5 dr.), but the relevant passage is damaged. Heilporn was the first to notice this link between the demotic and Greek receipts. Kaplony-Heckel does not appear to have noted the link, but refers to another unpublished demotic receipt issued by Kalasiris and his colleagues “über 3 Stater für die Bestattung einer Frau” (O.Stras. inv. D. 1914) and discusses the archive of the person for whom the dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t in O.Med.Habu 63 is paid. Neither seems to be aware of a new reading introduced in the Chicago Demotic Dictionary with important consequences for our understanding of O.Med.Habu 63–64. In the editio princeps of O.Med.Habu 63–64, the initial phrase of the receipts was read Gl-šr sȝ Ḥr ỉrm nȝy=f ỉry.w (n) nȝ ˹rd.w˺ n tȝ ḫȝs.t nȝ nty ḏd, “Kalasiris, son of Horos, and his colleagues, the agents of the necropolis, are the ones who say (...).” In the CDD (see under relevant entry), the reading swnw.w, “doctors,” is proposed instead of ˹rd.w˺, “agents,” and this proposal is clearly correct. Interestingly, the title of “doctor” could exceptionally also be given to embalmers (in one case clearly corresponding with the Greek title taricheutes): see the relevant CDD entry; Reggiani 2015: 79, with further bibliography. This raises the question if swnw n tȝ ḫȝs.t (“doctor of the necropolis”) in O.Med.Habu 63–64 could correspond with nekrotaphos, and Kalasiris and his colleagues could have been recruited among the embalmers. Alternatively, the preposition n preceding nȝ swnw.w in O.Med.Habu 63, together with the fact that the two Greek receipts also contain an address to the taxpayer, might suggest that the receipt was addressed to a group of doctors/embalmers (cf. also the address Διονύσιος καὶ οἱ μέτοχ(οι) νεκρ[ο]τάφοις χ(αίρειν) in P.Laur. 2.33, a receipt from 48 CE for 302 dr. for the λεμ(ύσου) (?) Θηβαίδ̣(ος)). The latter option seems unlikely, however, since this would result in the faulty demotic formula [sender] n [addressee] nȝ nty ḏd, and since the tax is not paid by the professionals in the Greek receipts.

36

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

piece of evidence is provided by the fragmentary P.Ryl. 2.95 Ro (71–72 CE, Oxyrhynchos?), a document concerning tax farming that refers to a nekrotaphos, payments of 4 dr. linked to deaths (θανόντος) and payments of 5 ob. apparently linked to digging (ἀναρυγῆς, presumably for ἀνορυγῆς), reminiscent of the complex system of funerary taxation in the late Ptolemaic Kynopolite nome.41 (b) Twenty-four ostraka from second and early third-century CE Thebes contain receipts for a τέλος ταφῆς.42 These receipts fall into two groups: receipts for 1 dr. per taphe, collected by the τελῶναι/ ἐπιτηρηταὶ τέλους θησαυροῦ ἱερῶν, and receipts for 2 dr. per taphe, collected by the τελῶναι/ ἐπιτηρηταὶ τέλους ἱματιοπωλῶν. Three receipts from the latter group do not simply refer to the τέλος ταφῆς, but to the τέλος ὀθωνίων (l. ὀθονίων) ταφῆς; four of them concern multiple burials (two double and two triple). Since the different rates match with the different collectors, and the two groups date from the same period, they probably concern two different taxes. The precise meaning of the word taphe in this context is uncertain: taphe is a very broad term, which can mean anything from burial to mummy and wrappings, in a similar way as Egyptian ḳs(.t).43 In any case, the available evidence suggests that both taxes were paid by relatives of the deceased on the occasion of individual burials, in the receipts for multiple burials possibly through undertakers.44 It seems improbable that the tax collected by the telonai/epiteretai telous himatiopolon was paid by clothes-dealers, as was originally thought. Perhaps the tax collected by these officials was levied on burial textiles, whereas the tax collected by the telonai/epiteretai telous thesaurou hieron was a general impost paid for the burial (like that known from earlier periods). (c) Two documents attest other taxes. O.Mattha 91 (84 CE, Thebes [?]) contains a receipt issued by Asklas son of Teos and his fellow agents (ỉry.w rt.w) to a certain Senpamonthes for the “bronze of the overseer of the necropolis (?)” (pȝ ḥmt n mr n ḫȝs.t, if the reading is correct) for a certain Psenesis, possibly another burial tax of the early Ptolemaic ḥḏ/dnỉ mr-ḫȝs.t type.45 I.Prose 59 (90 CE, Koptos), finally, contains a list of tolls levied on the passage (ἀποστόλιον) of people, animals, and materials through Koptos, including a tax of 1 dr. 4 ob. for every “mummy brought up or down” (ταφῆς ἀναφερομένης καὶ καταφερομένης).46 In short, the available evidence on funerary taxes is not at all uniform. Documents from different periods and regions record taxes with different names and different modes of taxation, some of which are still poorly understood. It is hard to judge to what extent different taxes should be equated and fitted in one system. The general place of these imposts in the fiscal framework of their time is not always clear, either.47 Nevertheless, some general distinctions can be discerned in the material, which can be compared with the Augustan receipts from NYU and LACMA. First, some taxes are paid for specific burials and others for specific periods. The Augustan taxes belong to the second group, together with the tax of the necropolis (dnỉ ḫȝs.t) attested in early Ptol41. For a recent discussion of this document in the context of tax farming, see Benaissa 2016: 381. 42. For the telos taphes, see Heilporn 2009: 167–70, with further bibliography (but add Sänger-Böhm 2010, discussing a possible parallel for the Egyptian telos taphes in a letter by emperor Hadrian found in Alexandria Troas). O.Heid. 114 possibly also contains a receipt for the telos taphes. Cf. also O.Wilcken 2.1203. 43. For ταφή, see Goossens 1938; P.Giss. 1, part III, p. 55. For ḳs(.t), see Cannata 2007, with updated version in Cannata 2020: 521–38. The similarity between the two words has been noted in P.L.Bat. 19, pp. 231, 265. 44. In O.Heid. 216, the tax is said to be paid for a specific year, but this is an exception (cf. O.Heid., p. 202). 45. Cf. O.Mattha, pp. 111–12. 46. P.Hamb. 1.74 and SB 1.5538 may refer to a similar tax. Cf. Drexhage 1994. 47. Cf. comment about the telos taphes in Heilporn 2009: 26.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

37

emaic Edfu and the Roman taxes on nekrotaphoi attested in the fiscal regulations from Karnak and the receipts from Elephantine. In general, the burial taxes appear to be levied on the relatives of the deceased (though regularly paid through the undertakers), and the periodical taxes on the undertakers. In the receipts from early Ptolemaic Edfu, the taxpayers are clearly contractors farming the dnỉ ḫȝs.t, but the evidence suggests that these tax farmers were recruited among the undertakers. The taxpayers in the Augustan ostraka (cf. below), a small group of people repeatedly paying for different funerary taxes, can probably be identified as undertakers as well, collaborating in a family enterprise or broader professional association. Women working as undertakers and paying funerary taxes are also known from other sources.48 Second, some funerary taxes seem to be paid to the temple and others to the state, although this distinction is not always clear-cut and the eventual destination of the payments is generally not known. The Augustan taxes are clearly collected by the state, since they are paid together with the poll-tax. Moreover, the myrou tetarte had always been a government-controlled tax (cf. discussion of myrou tetarte above). Looking at all the material together, one gets the impression that the role of the temple in the collection of these lucrative taxes gradually diminished. Third, some taxes are levied on the profession of the undertakers as such, while others are levied on specific services by the undertakers, on products used in the funerary process, or on the acquisition of tombs and burial plots. The myrou tetarte in the Augustan receipts evidently belongs in the product category, but for the tarich(eut ) and symbol( ) taphikou taxes there are at least two possibilities. First, they could be occupational taxes per capita, like the trade taxes on nekrotaphoi recorded in the documents from Karnak and Elephantine. It would not be clear what would constitute the difference between the tarich(eut ) and symbol( ) taphikou tax in this case, but the regulations from Karnak show that trade taxes could be comprised of multiple elements: regular and extraordinary contributions, plus additional charges if a professional provided special services (e.g., if a general dealer also sold oil). In any case, the above-proposed reading τέλ(ος) ταριχ(ευτῶν) would work well with this hypothesis. Alternatively, they could be interpreted as taxes for specific services, perhaps for embalming on the one hand (tarich(eut ), referring to the “pickling”?) and funerals on the other (symbol( ) taphikou, granting the “authorization” to proceed to burial?). The papyri from the first-century BCE Kynopolite nome also record a complex combination of taxes on mummification, funerals, and funerary products. The fact that the taxes are paid for specific years rather than individual burials seems to fit better with the first scenario (cf. in particular the Roman periodic taxes levied on the profession of nekrotaphoi), although the myrou tetarte receipts suggest that taxes paid for particular years do not always have to be occupational taxes in the strict sense. The yearly totals paid for the tarich(eut ) and symbol( ) taphikou tax are considerable: for tax year 37, Harpbekis paid 55 dr. for tarich(eut ) and 51 dr. 2 ob. for symbol( ) taphikou (cf. Table 5). Compared to other trade taxes (e.g., those attested in the fiscal regulations from Karnak), these amounts are high, which may mean that the taxes recorded in these receipts were paid for multiple undertakers at the same time.

48. For female choachytes (responsible for funerary cults), see Cannata 2020: 106–18, 120–21, with further bibliography. For female embalmers, see Baetens 2020: 303–6; Cannata 2020: 118–21. For female nekrotaphoi in the late Roman undertakers’ achive from the Great Oasis, see P.Nekr. 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 24, 34, 40, with comments by R. S. Bagnall in the General introduction. Nine receipts from third century BCE Thebes concern payments of funerary taxes by women: O.Mattha 89, 90; O.Taxes 2.127, 128, 134; O.BM EA 5740, 5753, 5767, 5756 (published by Wångstedt 1974–1975: 39–43, nos. 25–28).

38

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

The taxpayers The taxes are paid by a small set of persons. The most important taxpayers are Harpbekis son of Sisois (attested for 28 tarich(eut ), 8 symbol( ) taphikou, 3 myrou tetarte, 5 laographia, 3 die . ( ), and one other payment from years 31–39) and Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris (attested for 9 tarich(eut ), 2 symbol( ) taphikou, 1 myrou tetarte, and one other payment from years 40–42). Exceptionally, receipts from these years record other taxpayers: Petenephotes (?) son of Horos (1 tarich(eut ) payment from year 30); Ta . . ( ) son or daughter of Paches (1 laographia [?] payment from year 30); Tkales daughter of Sisois (1 tarich(eut ) payment from year 32); Tkales daughter of Petenephotes (?) (1 symbol( ) taphikou payment from year 40); and Petenephotes son of Onnophris (2 laographia payments from year 41–42, the first together with die . ( ) and phyl( )). The receipts of years 12–13 concern payments by Psenpoueris son of Harpbekis (1 double receipt for unknown tax) and a certain Pan . ( ) (1 double tarich(eut ) receipt). Probably several of these taxpayers belonged to the same family, and possibly all did. Harpbekis son of Sisois and Tkales daughter of Sisois might be siblings. If Harpbekis was named after his grandfather, Psenpoueris son of Harpbekis might be their uncle. In this case, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris might be their cousin. Alternatively, Psenpoueris son of Harpbekis could be the son of the taxpayer Harpbekis, with year 12 in 7 (and in this case also year 13 in 8) referring to the reign of Tiberius rather than Augustus; but this would not permit us to identify Psenpoueris son of Harpbekis with Psenpoueris father of Tkales, and therefore seems less attractive. Finally, Tkales daughter of Petenephotes (?) might be the daughter of Petenephotes (?) son of Horos or Petenephotes son of Onnophris, and Petenephotes (?) son of Horos might have been married or related in some other way to Ta . . ( ) daughter (?) of Paches (cf. 10.1n.). In all likelihood, the taxpayers were active as undertakers themselves, collaborating in a family enterprise or broader professional association (cf. above). The receipts were probably kept in their archive, and Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris may have been the last archive keeper. One open question with respect to the identification of the taxpayers is a highly stylized abbreviation found in six of the ostraka (35, 47, 54, 56, 68, and 69), which we have transcribed σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ). The phrase occurs immediately after the patronymic of the taxpayer and only in receipts for the laographia and die- taxes signed by Pisechthis. From the traces and the position, the most likely expansion would seem to be σὺν υἱῶι, possible parallels for which one finds in just a handful of later receipts and accounts (e.g., P.Sarap. 62.ii.46 [Hermopolite, 128 CE], O.Theb. 55 [Thebes, 190/191 CE], and P.Lips. 97. xx.18 [Hermonthis, after April 25, 338 CE]). The amount paid, however, does not seem to be affected by the mention of a second person (if that is what is happening), and we do not understand the function of this phrase.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

39

Harpbekis Sisois

Harpbekis attested years 31–39

Psenpoueris attested year 12 Tkales attested year 32

Tkales attested years 40–42

Figure 10. Possible family tree of taxpayers.

The signers With the apparent exception of 24 (which uses a very different formula), all receipts bear a signature. We have identified at least three different signers: (1) Πλε̣ ̣ ( ): attested in 8 (year 13). The two signatures in this receipt, clearly starting with Πλ-, probably continuing with epsilon (though slightly different in the two signatures) and ending with a supralinear diagonal descender, in all likelihood belong to the same signer. If the descender is taken as a stylized lambda, the name could be read as Πλελ(οῦς) (TM Nam 19549). (2) Πιση( ), presumably Πίσηχθις (cf. onomastics below): the most frequent signer. His signature always seems to be written as Πισ- followed by a supralinear 7-shaped sign representing eta, but this initial Πισ- can take different shapes. The clearest writings of Πισ- can be found in the receipts of years 30–33 (9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20 [?], 25, 26, 27, and 29 [?]; in 20, the same letters could also be read as Πετ-, and in 29, the signature is partly effaced). In these early signatures, the pi and iota are always separated from each other, which never happens in later signatures. Other articulated writings, though already more cursive (and linking the pi and iota), appear in some receipts from years 34–37 (31, 34, 36 [second signature], and 41). In the remaining receipts, Πισ- appears to be written in a more compressed fashion, reduced to (a) two bumps which could also be taken for Πα- (32, 33, 35, 37 [twice], 38 [?], 39, 40, 43 [?], 44, 45 [?], 46 [?], 47, 48 [second signature], 50, 52, 53 [?], 56 [?], 57, 59, 61, 63, 67, and 69, dating to years 34–42);49 (b) a group shaped more or less as \/\ or \/\/ which could also be taken for E- or E ̣- (48 [first signature], 54, 55, 58, 62 [first signature], 65, and 70, dating to years 38–42);50 or (c) one angular bump which could also be taken for Α- (62 [second signature] and 68, dating to year 41). The attribution of the last two groups to Pise(chthis?) is less certain. Worp (in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 37–43, nos. 22–24) read the signatures in 61, 63, and 67 as ἐση(μειωσάμην), but this expression is very rare in the early Roman Period and the reading does not work well in most of the other receipts. The same goes for σεσημείωμαι.

49. In 43, 53, and 56, the first bump is more pointed than in the other receipts and may therefore be more difficult for pi; in 38, 45, and 46, the signature is faint. 50. In 58, the final 7-shaped sign is more diagonal than in the others.

40

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

(3) Καμ( ), presumably Καμῆς or Κάμητις (cf. onomastics below):51 attested in 17, 19 [?], 22, 23, 28 [?], 30, 36 (first signature), 42, and 66, from years 31–34, 36–37, and 41. His signature is usually written as Κα with supralinear stroke representing mu above the alpha, but in 23 and 36 it appears to be written more fully as Καμ with supralinear stroke above alpha and mu. In 19 and 28, both kappa and alpha are topped by the supralinear stroke, and the kappa has an unusual shape. The other signatures are more problematic: • In 13 (year 31), the signature looks like a pi immediately followed by a supralinear 7-shaped sign, or perhaps by a second letter topped by an overline together with the pi. The ending is rather faint. • In 49 (year 38), the cramped signature, which looks very different from all the others, defies any secure reading. • In 51 (year 38), the signature looks like a pi followed by a horizontal stroke. • In 7, 21, 60, and 64, the signatures are too faint to suggest a reading. Most of the receipts that record two payments have two signatures (8, 36, 37, 48, 62), in one case (36) the signatures of both Kam( ) and Pise(chthis?). With the exception of 37, which concerns payments for two different tax years, they also have two dates. The other receipts, which concern multiple payments made on the same day, only add a signature after the first (58) or last payment (68). It seems possible that Pise(chthis?) and Kam( ) collaborated during all these years. The absence of Kam( ) in years 30 and 35 does not pose a problem for this hypothesis, since there are only a few receipts from these years. His absence in years 38–40, before resurfacing once in year 41, is more unusual. Perhaps, one of the more uncertain signature groups attributed to Pise(chthis?) (identified above as groups 2b and 2c, from years 38–42 and year 41, respectively) might actually belong to a different signer, who joined Pise(chthis?) in these years. There is no apparent correlation between signatures and types of taxes.

The scribes The abbreviations and other scribal features in this archive show a great degree of consistency, with some clear differences depending on the signer: (1) With the exception of 24 (without signature), the receipts never refer to the reigning emperor in the date formulas. Worp (in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 39–41) lists parallels for this, dating to the reign of Augustus. (2) The writing of the month names shows clear trends (with variation according to the signature in the case of Pharmouthi, Pachon and Pauni): • Θωθ (attested in six receipts signed by Pise(chthis?)) is always written out in full, in one case (70) with the second theta above the line. In some cases, upsilon is added. 51. The signature consists essentially of kappa with two or three peaks following; taking them all together they seem more likely to represent Καμ than Καλ, the other most plausible of the various conceivable readings.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

41

• Φαωφι is abbreviated as Φαω in 24 (without signature), as Φαωφ with a horizontal stroke through the second phi in 30 (signed by Kam( )), and is written out in full in 39 (signed by Pise(chthis?)). • Ἁθυρ (attested in eight receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) and one receipt signed by Kam( )) is always written out in full. • Χοιαχ is abbreviated as Χοι in the receipt signed by Ple . ( ) (8), and as Χο ι in six receipts signed by Pise(chthis?). Three receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) write out the name in full, always ending with chi rather than kappa; in 59, Χοιηχ appears to be written with eta and chi above the line. • Τυβι is abbreviated as Τυβ in one receipt with problematic signature (13), and is written out in full in three receipts signed by Pise(chthis?). • Μεχειρ is written out in full in 7 (with problematic signature), and abbreviated as Μεχ in 27 (signed by Pise(chthis?)). • Φαμενωθ is abbreviated as Φαμεν in 21 (with problematic signature), Φαμε (?) in 60 (with problematic signature), and is written as Φαμενωθ in 42 (signed by Kam( )) and 49 (with problematic signature). • Φαρμουθι is abbreviated as Φαρμουθ in one receipt signed by Kam( ) (22) and one receipt with problematic signature (51), and as Φαρ in two receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) (50, 61). The theta ending the first two abbreviations is open-topped, with no visible crossbar, almost as if an open beta. Beta for theta seems like an unlikely phonetic interchange, however. • Παχων is abbreviated as Παχω in six receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) and probably one receipt with problematic signature (64), Παχ in one other receipt signed by Pise(chthis?) (29), Παχ in one receipt signed by Kam( ) (23), and Παχω̅ in another receipt signed by Kam( ) (28). • Παυνι is written out in full in four and abbreviated as Παυ (with a curved stroke for upsilon on top of alpha) in six receipts signed by Pise(chthis?). The unabbreviated form appears to have been preferred in the earlier receipts. In 66 (signed by Kam( )), the month name is abbreviated as Παυν̅. • Μεσορη (attested in three receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) and one receipt signed by Kam( )) is always written with eta above the line. (3) Abbreviations that we read as τέτακται are added in five early receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) (9, 10, 11, 12, and 15; possibly originally 14 as well [cf. 14.1n.]), all the receipts signed by Kam( ), and five receipts with problematic signatures (13, 21, 49, and 51), but never in other receipts.52 In the receipts signed by Kam( ) and the receipts with problematic signatures, τέτακται is always represented by an unusual  - shaped symbol, sometimes ligatured with the date stroke and presumably representing τε-. The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) have longer abbreviations: τετα with ligatured initial tau – epsilon (9, 11, and 12), τετακτ (?) with similar initial ligature (10), and a somewhat differently shaped τετα with a first sign resembling the  - shaped symbol used to abbreviate τέτακται in the other group (15). (4) The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) often add τέλους to the formula, abbreviated as τελ. τέλους is also added in one receipt with problematic signature (60), but never in other receipts. 52. Youtie did not read any of these abbreviations as τέτακται, but neither does he offer a consistent alternative interpretation.

42

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

(5) The abbreviation ταριχευ( ) replaces the usual ταριχ abbreviation in two receipts signed by Kam( ) (17, 19) and two receipts with problematic signatures (13, 49), but never in other receipts. (6) The abbreviation συμβολ( ) is always written with supralinear lambda, with the exception of the short abbreviation with supralinear beta in 51 (with problematic signature). In 57 (signed by Pise(chthis?)) and 66 (signed by Kam( )), the mu is replaced by a nu. (7) ταφικοῦ is always abbreviated as ταφικ, with the exception of ταφικου in 26 (signed by Pise(chthis?)) and the fully written form in 66 (signed by Kam( )). (8) μύρου τετάρτης is always written with the typical symbol  for τετάρτης, usually with a curved stroke for upsilon on top of omicron in μύρου (with the exception of 64, which writes out μύρου in full). (9) The unread tax name διε ̣ ( ) and unread phrase σ( ) ̣ ̣ ω( ) are always abbreviated in the same way. (10) The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) always abbreviate λαογραφίας as λαογ, with a small omicron beneath the gamma.53 The only receipt for poll-tax signed by Kam( ) (36) abbreviates the word in a more cursive, irregular way. (11) The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) from years 30–33 always have a double overline representing the two upsilons in τοῦ αὐτοῦ, which also happens in one receipt with problematic signature (13) and one receipt signed by Kam( ) (28), with somewhat different shapes, but never in other receipts. (12) Harpbekis is always written with pi but without beta in receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) (with the exception of 38, without pi but with beta), and with both pi and beta in receipts signed by Kam( ), receipts with problematic signatures (7, 13, 21, 49, and 51), and the one receipt without signature (24). Outside this archive, writings without pi but with beta are by far the most common (cf. TM Nam 286). When abbreviated, the name receives a iota below the kappa in receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) (with the exception of 20 and 52, abbreviating Αρπηκ) and probably 7 (with problematic signature), and an overline above eta and/or kappa in the receipts signed by Kam( ) (with the exception of 30, abbreviating Αρπβη) and 49 (with problematic signature). In the other receipts with problematic signatures, the name appears to be abbreviated as Αρπβηκ (13), Αρπβη (24), and seemingly Αρπβηκ\ (21) and Αρπβη̅ικ (51). (13) The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) often abbreviate Σισόιτος, and always do so by putting a tau on top of the iota. Only two other receipts abbreviate Σισόιτος: one signed by Kam( ) (30), seemingly abbreviating Σισοικ, and another without signature (24), abbreviating Σισοιτο. (14) The patronymic Ψενπο(υ)ήριος is always abbreviated with a supralinear 7-shaped sign, presumably representing a ligatured eta and rho, although it is not always clear which strokes are stylized letters and which simply abbreviation marks.54 Sometimes, the 7-shaped sign has a bump at its right side, which can be interpreted as the head of the rho. The nominative form Ψενπόηρ(ις) in 7 (with problematic signature) is abbreviated in a similar fashion. 53. This small omicron always appears to be there, although it is regularly omitted in this period (cf. Gignac 1976: 301–2, and 1981: 31). 54. We have reconstructed the genitive ending -πο(υ)ήριος instead of -πο(υ)ήρεως (like Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 37–43, nos. 22–24), because the ending -πο(υ)ήρεως is only attested from the second century CE onwards. Our archive provides the first attestations of this name written with an upsilon. In 7 and 58, the upsilon appears to be omitted.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

43

(15) The name Petenephotes, which only appears in three receipts signed by Pise(chthis?), seems to be abbreviated with a nu coming from the epsilon in 9 and 57, and an epsilon on top of the nu in 69. (16) The name Onnophris, which only appears in two receipts signed by Pise(chthis?), is twice abbreviated with supralinear omega. (17) The four earliest receipts by Pise(chthis?) add ἀρ(γυρίου) before the amount, which never happens in other receipts. (18) The receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) usually add a drachma sign before the amount (with the exceptions of 10, 11, 37 [second payment], 48 [second payment], 58 [second payment], 62 [second payment], 68 [second payment], and 70), which also happens in two receipts with problematic signature (60 and 64), but never in other receipts. In 10 and 11, the exceptional absence of the drachma sign can be explained by the abbreviation ἀρ(γυρίου) added before the amount (cf. 9.2n.). In 37, 48, 58, 62, and 68 the symbol is included for the first payment. (19) τρ(ε)ῖς τετρόβ(ολον) and δεκατέσσαρες τετρόβ(ολον) are often written in heavy Verschleifung, making it difficult to assign the right strokes to the right letters. In 15 (signed by Pise(chthis?)) and 66 (signed by Kam( )), τρεῖς is written with a clear epsilon; in the other receipts (all signed by Pise(chthis?)), τρῖς without epsilon appears to be written, although some readings are doubtful due to theVerschleifung. With regard to δεκατέσσαρες, it sometimes seems equally possible to read the number with a single sigma between epsilon and alpha, and/or with ending on -ας (as it is often read by Youtie). We have consistently read the number as δεκατέσσαρες because it is written as such in the clearest examples (cf. in particular 11, signed by Pise(chthis?), and 21, with problematic signature). In 8 (signed by Ple . ( )), δεκατέσσαρες exceptionally appears to be written as δεκατέσσαρος.55 τετρόβ(ολον), finally, is always written with omicron instead of omega.56 The word is usually abbreviated with supralinear beta, but there are exceptions: in 53 and 62 (signed by Pise(chthis?)), both omicron and beta appear to be written above the line, in 43 (signed by Pise(chthis?)), the more extensive abbreviation τετροβολ is used, and in 66 (signed by Kam( )), the abbreviation looks like τετρο̅. (20) One receipt signed by Kam( ) (19) and one receipt with problematic signature (49) exceptionally write μίαμ instead of μίαν.57 Outside this archive, this irregular form is only attested in in P.Cair.Zen. 4.59600. (21) ὀβολόν and ὀβολούς are always abbreviated with supralinear lambda. In receipts signed by Pise(chthis?), the abbreviation is regularly written with considerable Verschleifung (see in particular 39, 47, 59, 63). The same goes for 60 (with problematic signature). In the receipt signed by Ple . ( ) (8), both omicron and lambda are written above the line. This survey suggests a close scribal relationship within the groups of receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) on the one hand, and the receipts signed by Kam( ) on the other. With regard to the receipts with problematic signatures, 60 and 64 can be linked to the Pise(chthis?) group on account of the drachma 55. TM Text Irregularities gives 41 parallels for τέσσαρος and 1 parallel for δεκατέσσαρος, all dating to the Roman period. 56. TM Text Irregularities gives 67 parallels for this, mainly but not exclusively from tax receipts from early Roman Thebes. 57. For the assimilation of mu to nu, cf. Gignac 1976: 166–67.

44

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

sign and other minor features, and 13, 21, 49, and 51 can be linked to the Kam( ) group on account of the  - shaped symbol representing τέτακται, the writing of Harpbekis, and other minor features. A closer inspection of the handwriting confirms this grouping: the receipts signed by Pise(chthis?), 60, and 64 appear to be written in one hand, and the receipts signed by Kam( ), 13, 21, 49, and 51 in another. The first hand is generally more cursive than the second, which has fewer ligatures and more distinctive letter shapes (see, for example, the open omicrons, nicely rounded sigmas, alphas with big bellies, clearly articulated upsilons, etc.). It is not clear if the receipts were written by the signers themselves or by personal secretaries. The signatures in 13, 49, and 51, which can hardly be read as Καμ( ), rather suggest the latter. The receipt signed by Ple . ( ) (8) is clearly written in another hand, possibly the same hand as in 7. The receipt without signature (24) constitutes a problem. It dates from the same period as the Pise(chthis?) and Kam( ) receipts, but has a very different formula and may be written in a different hand.

Onomastics and provenance Because of the small number of payers and collectors involved in this archive, only a modest number of names appear in it. Of these, two very common names (collectively nearly 14,000 attestations registered in Trismegistos) are so widespread in Egypt as to be of little use in helping to establish the provenance of the ostraka: Onnophris and Horos. Almost as common is Sisois (TM Nam 1118), the 798 instances of which are found all over Egypt, with a high percentage of instances in the Panopolite but common in the Arsinoite as well, and occurring in the demotic ostraka of the Small Oasis. Petenephotes (TM Nam 874) is also common (423 instances) but more regional, being found largely in the Theban region and to the south, but also in the eastern desert and the western oases and at Diospolis Mikra (cf. P.Nekr. 39.5n.). Harpbekis (also spelled Harpekis or Harbekis), the name of the principal taxpayer of the archive (TM Nam 286) is also not rare (272 instances);58 it is particularly Theban, but its occurrences are spread from the Delta to Elephantine, including the eastern desert and the Small Oasis (again, the demotic ostraka). The 68 occurrences of Psenpo(u)eris (TM Nam 992) extend from the Arsinoite to Elephantine, with Panopolis, Koptos, Thebes, and both deserts represented. Paches (TM Nam 673), with 52 instances, is mainly Arsinoite, rare at Edfu, and found once in the Kharga Oasis (O.Douch 3.295). We have left the signers for last. Their names are abbreviated, making an identification less certain. Kam( ) could most probably be either Kametis or Kames. Kametis (TM Nam 393) is strongly Theban in character, with Edfu and Elephantine also represented among the 365 instances. Kames (TM Nam 3564), with half that many occurrences, is heavily represented in the western desert (particularly Kellis and Kysis, in the Dakhla and Kharga oases respectively), but also found at Thebes. We do not see any basis for choosing between these two resolutions. With the other signer, whose name is consistently written Πιση( ), matters are different. It is most unlikely to be Pisenis, of which TM registers a single doubtfully read example from Koptos, or Piseph(is), occurring in one Arsinoite text from the sixth century CE. It can hardly be other than Πίσηχθις (TM Nam 11634), “the one of Seth,” with 56 occurrences (a somewhat deceptive figure, as the majority come from the Kellis Agricultural Account Book and refer to the same person; on the other hand, the names from O.Trim. 1 and 2 and some other recent publications of oasis material are not yet included in TM’s database). This name is known exclusively from the western oases, mostly from Dakhla (largely Kellis 58. It is, however, unusual to have the form omitting beta, as Willy Clarysse remarks. The commonest form omits the pi (the definite article).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

45

and Trimithis) but also from Kysis (O.Douch 4.449). This particularity is the result of the veneration of Seth in the desert oases.59 (There is a Pisechthis in P.Oxy. 12.1228, but he is identified there as coming from Mothis, the capital of the Dakhla Oasis.) We would not be so rash as to attribute the archive to the Dakhla Oasis solely on this basis; there is in general much onomastic commonality between the western oases and the cities of the valley to which they were linked by road. It is possible that the fragmentary name Πιση[ ̣ ̣] appearing in P.Bingen 27.11 (Diospolis Mikra, 211–204 BCE) is to be restored as Pisechthis; the space indicated for the lacuna in the edition may seem inadequate, but this space in the previous line contains one damaged letter and three restored, so Πίση[χθις] does not seem at all impossible. The overall evidence of the names in the archive certainly suggests Upper Egypt as its place of origin, whether one of the “portes du désert” or one of the oases; both of those hypotheses seem possible to us. The scales might be tipped in favor of Diospolis Mikra by our identification of that city as the source of 3–6. The presence in the collection of ostraka from several other provenances makes this in itself a weak argument, but the fact that the Ptolemaic group also concerns funerary taxes may strengthen it. But for the present we cannot go beyond “Upper Egypt” as a secure provenance for the archive.

59. For discussion of the name see Heilporn and Worp 2007: 222–23 (listing attestations in Greek texts up to that point) and G. Vittmann, in Cribiore, Vittmann, and Bagnall 2015 at 341–43, who discusses other names based on Seth. The signer here is to the best of our knowledge the earliest attested Pisechthis in published texts, but there are many unpublished Ptolemaic ostraka from Mothis yet to appear.

46

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 11. 7.

7. Receipt for a money tax Inv. 21. TM 869410 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric: N-1. Light brown (convex), brownish (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 8.4 × 5.3 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 19 February 18 BCE or 26 CE

4

ἔτους ιβ Μεχειρ κ̅ε̅ ὑπ(ὲρ) ̣ ̣ ω̣( ) θ ̣( ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ψενπόηρ(ις) Ἁρπβήκι(ος) (διώβολον) συ̣νπα̣ν̣τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἑ̣π̣τ̣ὰ̣ ̣ ̣ ὀ̣κτώ, (γίνονται) η. vacat ̣ ̣ ̣

2 υ\, αυ (?) L 3 Ψενποηρ Αρπβηκι = 4 οκτω /

Year 12, Mecheir 25, for . . . of the same year, Psenpoeris son of Harpbekis, 2 ob. . . . seven . . . eight, that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. (signature). 1.

This receipt and 8 date to a year 12 and 13, which can be dated to either the reign of Augustus or Tiberius. A dating under Augustus would allow us to identify Psenpoeris son of Harpbekis in the present text with Tkales’ father Psenpo(u)eris in the receipts of years 40–42 (cf. introduction on the taxpayers).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

47

2.

The name of the tax remains a riddle. Amounts of 8 dr. are paid for the poll-tax in this archive, but it seems impossible to read λαογραφίας. The tax name has two parts: a first group with a final raised letter probably representing omega; and a second group consisting of a theta or badly made epsilon with an abbreviation stroke. The first letter of the first group may be lambda or chi, but a mu in which the first upstroke goes beyond the line of the following downstroke is not impossible, either. One could suppose the sequences χμω- or μευ-, but neither leads us to a tax name, unless one supposes χμω- to be a metathesis for χωμ-. Alternatively, one might read μέ(ρισμος), but the abbreviation stroke does not seem to suggest that the writer had rho in mind as the abbreviated third letter. For γεω(μετρίας), the first letter does not work. We have no plausible suggestions for the second group. χωμ(ατικῶν) ἔργ(ων) seems unlikely.

3.

The end of the patronymic is faint. Ἁρπβήκιος is probably abbreviated with the iota below the kappa, joining the left leg of the kappa of ὀ̣κτώ in the next line. Alternatively, it might be abbreviated with a prolonged right leg of kappa, and a small omicron high above the line.

3–4.

Everything between the patronymic and ὀ̣κτώ poses problems. Our best guess is to read something like (διώβολον) σύνπαντος (?) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ (τετρώβολον), (γίνονται) ὀκτώ, (γίνονται) η, which would allow us to connect the apparent 2 ob. with the 8 dr. in the next line. We hesitate to adopt Youtie’s reading σύνπαντος (which can perhaps also be read σύνπαντι), however, because we do not grasp the meaning of the phrase in this context, and because the traces preceding ἑ̣π̣τ̣ά̣ are not at all clear (they almost look like another διώβολον symbol, but more probably belong to another abbreviation). Alternatively, a metronymic could be read following the patronymic, with a very flat μη(τρός) abbreviation instead of (διώβολον) in l. 3, and the rare name Σενπαήσιος followed by something else in l. 4. Yet this seems even more farfetched, and moreover metronymics in tax receipts only became more common in the second half of the first century CE (cf. Depauw 2010).

5.

The signature is too faint to offer a secure reading. Possibly, the signature read in 8, Πλε̣ ̣ ( ), can be read in this receipt as well. On the original, pi and lambda look possible.

48

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 12. 8.

8. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 42. TM 869411 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brown (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.2 × 5.4 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 12 and 13 December 18 BCE or 26 CE

4

ἔτους ιγ Χοι(αχ) ιε̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) ⟨ι⟩γ (ἔτους) Παν ̣ ( ) δραχ(μὰς) δεκατέσσαρος τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) (δραχμαὶ) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Πλε̣ ̣ ( ). ις̅ ὁμοίως δραχ(μὰς) ἑπτὰ {τα} ὀβολ(οὺς) δύωι, (γίνονται) (δραχμαὶ) ζ (διώβολον). Πλε̣ ̣ ( ).

1 Χοι, ταριχ, L 2 δραχ; δεκατέσσαρος: l. δεκατέσσαρας 3 τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; / ;  Πλε̅\ 4 δραχ, οβολ 5 δύωι: l. δύο; / , = Πλε̅\

Year 13, Choiach 15, for tarich(eut ) of the 13th year, Pan . ( ), fourteen drachmas four obols, that is, 14 (dr.) 4 ob. Ple . ( ). On the 16th, likewise, seven drachmas two obols, that is, 7 (dr.) 2 ob. Ple . ( ).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

49

1.

The number 13 at the start of the line appears to be written twice, the second ιγ written more clearly on top of the other, slightly more to the right. At the end of the line, the scribe accidentally appears to have written only one iota for ταριχ ιγ, although it seems possible that he noted this mistake and added another small iota between rho and the big iota. For the chronology, see 7.1n.

2.

The name of the taxpayer does not appear elsewhere in this archive and is the only one without patronymic. The supralinear part of the name is unclear. We have considered reading Πάνασις, but it would be surprising to have so many letters above the line. The final recurving line is probably just an abbreviation stroke. For δεκατέσσαρος, see the introduction on the scribes.

3, 6.

For the reading of the signatures, see the introduction on the signers.

50

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 13. 9.

9. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 11. TM 869414 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, apparently cut to a rectangular shape, Fabric N-2. Reddish slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 11.7 × 5.4 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 18 June 1 CE ἔτους λ Παυνι κ̅δ̅ τέτα(κται) τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Πε̣τ̣ε̣ν(εφώτης?) Ὥρου ἀρ(γυρίου) (δραχμὰς) εἴκοσι δύο, (γίνονται) κβ. Πίση(χθις?). 1 τετα τελ ταριχ

2 του αυ L Πετεν, αρ 

3 /, Πιση

Year 30, Pauni 24, has paid for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Peten(ephotes?) son of Horos, twenty-two (dr.) of silver, that is, 22 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 1.

9 and 10 are written on the same day: see 10.1n.

2.

The writing of Πε̣τ̣ε̣ν(εφώτης?) resembles that in 57.3, with a nu leaving from the epsilon, but this writing is slightly more extensive, with one additional (superfluous?) bump. The abbreviation ἀρ(γυρίου), clearly starting with alpha rather than delta, also appears in 10, 11, and 12. In 10 and 11, the abbreviation is immediately followed by the number, but this is not unparalleled (see for example O.Bodl. 2.958, P.Berl.Cohen 1, and P.Ryl. 2.190, dating to the same century).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

51

Figure 14. 10.

10. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 65. TM 869415 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.0 × 8.3 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 18 June 1 CE

4

ἔτους λ Παυνι κδ̅ τέτακτ(αι) λαογ(ραφίας) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τα ̣ ̣( ) Παχῆτ(ος) ἀρ(γυρίου) δεκατέσσαρες τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?).

2 τετακτ (?) λαογ του αυ L l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

3

Παχητ αρ; δεκατέσσαρες: l. δεκατέσσαρας

4

τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ,

Year 30, Pauni 24, has paid for poll-tax of the same year, Ta . . ( ) son/daughter (?) of Paches, fourteen ⟨dr.⟩ four obols of silver, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

9 and 10 are written on the same day, but concern different taxes and payers. The fact that they were found together may suggest that the two taxpayers were related, perhaps as husband and wife.

52

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

2.

The first character in the line looks most like zeta, but no plausible tax name emerges from the following traces, and this seems far more likely to be a variant writing of τέτακται, similar to that in 9, 11, and 12 (with ligatured initial tau – epsilon) but longer. This is followed by the actual tax name, λαογ(ραφίας), which is written clearly but raises two problems: (1) The taxpayer’s name appears to be female; and (2) the amount paid corresponds to net drachmas, like the amounts paid for funerary taxes in this archive. We have not managed to read the name beyond alpha with any confidence. Ταωρ( ), maybe with supralinear pi, is conceivable but requires double use of the last stroke of omega as part of the rho. Either Τακρη( ) or Ταβρη( ) seems paleographically possible, but neither yields a known name. Ταῦρ(ος) would provide a male taxpayer, but ligatured upsilon – rho does not seem convincing. The second letter of the name could also be read as lambda, but that does not yield plausible readings either.

3.

See 9.2n. for ἀρ(γυρίου).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

53

Figure 15. 11.

11. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 68. TM 869416 Support: Shoulder fragment of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.8 × 6.6 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 13 November 1 CE ἔτους λα̣ Ἁθυρ ιζ̅ τέτα(κται) τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) λ (ἔτους) {Σ} 〚ισοιτ?〛Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) ἀρ(γυρίου) δεκατέσσαρες τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 τετα τελ ταριχ 2 L, Αρπηκι Σισοιτ, αρ l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

2–3 δεκατέσσαρες: l. δεκατέσσαρας

3 τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ,

Year 31, Hathyr 17, has paid for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 30th year〚Sisois?〛 , Harpekis son of Sisois, fourteen ⟨dr.⟩ four obols of silver, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 2.

The rubbed out letters before Ἅρπηκι(ς) are not entirely clear, but the scribe may accidentally have started writing the taxpayer’s patronymic. As noted by Youtie, the initial sigma was not erased. See 9.2n. for ἀρ(γυρίου).

54

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 16. 12.

12. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 51. TM 869417 Support: Body sherd of closed form (storage jar or pithos), Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-4. Red slip (convex), brownish (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 10.0 × 9.5 × 1.2 cm. Upper Egypt 16 December 1 CE ἔτους λ̣α̣ Χοι(αχ) κ̅ τέτα̣(κται) τ̣έλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτος̣ ἀρ(γυρίου) (δραχμὰς) δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Πίση(χθις?). 1 Χο ι, τετα τελ

2 ταριχ του αυ, L Αρπηκι

3 αρ , /, Πιση

Year 31, Choiach 20, has paid for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, eleven (dr.) of silver, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 1.

The regnal year could also be read as mu, 40, but no other receipt involving Harpbekis dates to year 40, and the alpha of our reading is plausible in this hand, comparable to the two-part alpha in Ἅρπηκις in l. 2. Moreover, several scribal features link this receipt with others from this period.

3.

See 9.2n. for ἀρ(γυρίου).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

55

Figure 17. 13.

13. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 02. TM 869418 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Reddish slip (convex), plain reddish (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 9.0 × 8.5 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 11 January 2 CE ἔτους λα Τυβ(ι) ι̅ϛ̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχευ(τ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σισό̣ι̣τος δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Π̣ ̣( ). 1 Τυβ,  2 ταριχευ του αυ L Αρπβηκ

3 /, Π̅\ (?)

Year 31, Tybi 16, has paid for taricheu(t ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, eleven ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. P . ( ). The ostrakon seems to contain washed out traces of another text, most clearly visible on the left and right lower side. 3.

The signature is unlike all the others (cf. introduction on the signers). The handwriting and other scribal features seem to link this document to the receipts signed by Kam( ) and receipts with problematic signatures 21, 49, and 51 (cf. introduction on the scribes).

56

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 18. 14.

Figure 19. 14. Photo from the 1930s.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

57

14. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 31. TM 869412 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Reddish/orange slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; now broken at upper and lower right and reassembled, but still together on the photograph in Youtie’s files; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.2 × 6.5 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 9 May 2 CE

4 1 Παχω

ἔτους λ̣α Παχω(ν) ιδ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι̣(ς) Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀ̣β̣[ο]λ̣(οὺς) δύ̣ο̣, (γ̣ί̣ν̣ο̣ν̣τ̣α̣ι̣) ζ̣ (διώβολον). Πίση(χθις?).

2 τελ ταριχ του αυ L Αρπηκι

3 , οβολ 4 /, = Πιση

Year 31, Pachon 14, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

Most of the year numeral lambda has now disappeared in the crack, but the photograph in Youtie’s files shows that the reading is correct. All other receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) from this period contain abbreviations of τέτακται (9, 10, 11, 12, and 15: cf. introduction on the scribes). It is conceivable that this ostrakon originally had τέτακται as well, completing the series, but that the abbreviation broke off together with the right part of the overline on top of the day number.

2.

The iota appears to have been placed below the kappa, as usual in receipts signed by Pise(chthis?) (cf. introduction on the scribes), but is now largely lost.

58

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 20. 15.

15. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 20. TM 869419 Support: Neck of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Orange/brown (convex), brown (concave). On convex side; small loss in upper right corner; writing parallel to wheel marks. 13.0 × 7.3 × 5.7 cm. Upper Egypt 19 May 2 CE ἔτους λα Παχω(ν) κδ̣̅ τ̣έ̣τ̣α̣(κται) τ̣έ̣[λ](ους) τ̣α̣[ριχ(ευτ )] τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) τρεῖς τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 Παχω, τετα τελ ταριχ (?) 2 του αυ L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ

3 , τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

Year 31, Pachon 24, has paid for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

In view of the amount, this receipt is expected to concern the tarich(eut ), symbol( ) taphikou or myrou tetarte tax. It is clearly impossible to read μύρου (τετάρτη), and συμβολ( ) ταφικ( ) also seems difficult. That only leaves ταριχ( ). The abbreviation of τέτακται seems to be constructed in a similar way as in 9, 11, and 12, also signed by Pise(chthis?), but is shaped somewhat differently, with a first sign resembling the  - shaped symbol used to abbreviate τέτακται in receipts with other signers (cf. introduction on the scribes). The actual tax name could also be read as ταρι[χ( )] without τέλ(ους), but in this case one would expect longer verticals for rho and iota.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

59

Figure 21. 16.

16. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 22. TM 869420 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Red/orange slip (convex), plain light brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 7.3 × 5.0 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 6 June 2 CE ἔτους λα Παυνι ι̅β̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ( ) τοῦ α̣ὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) εἴκοσι δύο, (γίνονται) κβ. Πίση(χθις?). 1 τελ

2 ταριχ του αυ L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ

3 , /, Πιση

Year 31, Pauni 12, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, twenty-two (dr.), that is, 22 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?).

60

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 22. 17.

17. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 24. TM 869421 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Reddish/orange slip (convex), bulk of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete or slightly broken at right; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.4 × 5.3 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 23 August 2 CE ἔτους λα Μεσορη λ̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχευ(τ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σι⟨σ⟩όιτος ἑπτὰ ὀβο̣λ(οὺς) δύ̣[ο], (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Καμ( ). 1 Μεσορη,  ταριχευ, αυ

2 L Αρπβηκ̅, οβολ

3 —, = Κα̅

Year 31, Mesore 30, has paid for taricheu(t ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, seven ⟨dr.⟩ two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Kam( ). 1.

The day number appears to be corrected, but we cannot be certain what the original intention was. The descender from the supralinear eta ending the month name probably overlaps with an initial stroke, but we have not found a hypothesis that takes account of all of the strokes.

2.

As noted by Youtie, the scribe appears to have omitted the second sigma in Σισόιτος. Although it might be possible to read a sigma ending in a small omicron, the general shape and size suggests this is omicron alone. Perhaps the scribe started writing a sigma, but accidentally finished the letter as omicron.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

61

Figure 23. 18.

18. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 63. TM 869422 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Traces of red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.8 × 6.5 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 8 November 2 CE ἔτους λβ Ἁθυρ ιβ̅ λαογ(ραφίας) λα (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ὀκτώ, (γίνονται) η. Πίση(χθις?). 1 λαογ

2 λα Γ: λα (ἔτους) corrected from λαογ(ραφίας) (?); Αρπηκι

3 , /, Πιση

Year 32, Hathyr 12, for poll-tax of the 31st year, Harpekis son of Sisois, eight (dr.), that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 2.

Instead of writing λα (ἔτους), the scribe appears to have repeated the abbreviation λαογ of the previous line, with the gamma resembling an upside-down version of the usual (ἔτους) sign, and λα followed by a small omicron resembling the year number.

62

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 24. 19.

19. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 34. TM 869423 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 7.0 × 10.0 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 12 November 2 CE

4

ἔτους λβ Ἁθυρ ι̅ϛ̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχευ(τ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Σ̣ισόιτος δ̣έκα μίαμ, (γίνονται) ια. vacat Κ̣αμ( ).

1  2 ταριχευ, αυ L 3 ; μίαμ: l. μίαν; / 4 Κ̅α̅

Year 32, Hathyr 16, has paid for taricheu(t ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Sisois, eleven ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Kam( ). 3.

There is a faint vertical stroke following Σισόιτος, which Youtie seems to interpret as a drachma sign preceding δ̣έκα. We have not retained this reading, because the drachma sign never appears in other receipts signed by Kam( ) and the start of the delta is in any case very unclear. For μίαμ, which also appears in 49, see the introduction on the scribes.

4.

This signature is different from most other signatures by Kam( ), but similar to the signature in 28.4 (cf. introduction on the signers).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

63

Figure 25. 20.

20. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 38. TM 869424 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), brownish (concave). On convex side; complete but faded in places; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.9 × 7.7 × 1.1 cm. Upper Egypt 21 December 2 CE

4 1 Χο ι

ἔτους λβ Χοι(αχ) κ̅ε̅ τέ̣λ̣(ους) τ̣αριχ̣(ευτ ) το̣ῦ̣ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπ̣η̣κ̣(ις) Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 τελ ταριχ του αυ L Αρπηκ

3 

4 οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 32, Choiach 25, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

The supralinear omicron in Χοι(αχ) looks diagonal rather than circular.

4.

For the reading of the signature, see the introduction on the signers.

64

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 26. 21.

21. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 61. TM 869425 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 9.5 × 8.0 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 24 March 3 CE ἔτους λβ Φαμεν(ωθ) κ̅η̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σ̣ισόιτος δεκατέσσαρες τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). ̣ ̣ ̣ 1 Φαμεν,  ταριχ, αυ L 2 Αρπβηκ\; δεκατέσσαρες: l. δεκατέσσαρας 3 τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /; 

Year 32, Phamenoth 28, has paid for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, fourteen ⟨dr.⟩ four obols, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. (signature). 2.

The reading of the name Harpbekis poses problems. The right leg of the kappa appears to be prolonged. We have interpreted this prolongation as an abbreviation mark, followed by a large sigma starting the patronymic. Alternatively, a full iota could be read, followed by two sigmas, resulting in a full writing of the name. It seems unlikely that the name is abbreviated with an overline as in most other receipts written by this scribe (cf. introduction on the scribes): the apparent traces above kappa do not seem to belong to a continuous line.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

65

There is a smudge around the delta of δεκατέσσαρες. We do not know if this is the remains of an erased first attempt at delta or just stray ink. 3.

The signature is too faint to read. The handwriting and other scribal features seem to link this document to the receipts signed by Kam( ) and receipts with problematic signatures 13, 49, and 51 (cf. introduction on the scribes). The reading Κα̅ is conceivable here.

66

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 27. 22.

22. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 54. TM 869426 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.0 × 7.0 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 16 April 3 CE ἔτους λβ Φαρμουθ(ι) κ̅α̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκις Σισόιτος δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Καμ( ). 1 Φαρμουθ

2  ταριχ, αυ L 3 /, Κα̅

Year 32, Pharmouthi 21, has paid for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois eleven ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Kam( ).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

67

Figure 28. 23.

23. Receipt for quarter tax on ointment Inv. 50. TM 869427 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric K-1. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; broken at left; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.6 × 8.5 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 10 May 3 CE [ἔτου]ς λβ Παχ(ων) ι̅ε̅ τέ(τακται) μύρου (τετάρτης) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) [Ἅρπβ]ηκ(ις) Σισόιτος δεκαοκτὼ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, [(γίνονται) ιη] (δ̣ι̣ώ̣β̣ο̣λ̣ο̣ν̣). Καμ̣( ). 1 Παχ,  μυρου ϲ, αυ L 2 Αρπβηκ̅, οβολ

3 = Κα̅μ̅

Year 32, Pachon 15, has paid for quarter tax on ointment of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, eighteen ⟨dr.⟩ two obols, [that is, 18 ⟨dr.⟩] 2 ob. Kam( ). 1.

Curiously, the usual symbol for (τετάρτης) appears to be followed by a lunate sigma in this receipt, or something shaped like that. It seems unlikely that this would represent the final sigma of τετάρτης.

2.

For the writing of [Ἅρπβ]ηκ(ις), see the introduction on the scribes.

68

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 29. 24.

24. Receipt for a money tax Inv. 30. TM 869432 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic/Roman, Fabric K-3. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete (?); writing oblique to wheel marks. 7.7 × 5.5 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 10 October 3 CE

4 1 διL Αρπβη Σισοιτο

〚 ε ̣ ̣〛δια(γέγραφε) Ἅρπβη(κις) Σισόιτο̣(ς) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ψ ̣ ̣ ̣ειου γ̣ραμ( ) ὑπὲρ λβ (ἔτους) Καίσαρος δραχμὰς ὀκτώ. (ἔτους) λγ Καίσαρος Φ̣α̣ω(φι) ι̅β̅. 2 γραμL 3 L 4 L 5 Φαω

. . . Harpbekis son of Sisois has paid for . . . for the 32nd year of Caesar, eight drachmas. Year 33 of Caesar, Phaophi 12. 1.

The very large initial epsilon suggests the intention to write ἔτους, but it does not seem that that was carried out in full; the traces following epsilon appear to be crossed out, unlike the epsilon itself. This does not appear to be another example of the abbreviation ἔτ(ους) attested in 42, where both the writing and formula are different. We suppose that the faint δια is most likely, given the raised, stylized alpha, to represent δια(γέγραφε). This formula is not found elsewhere in the archive, but neither is the tax or the use of a full regnal formula.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

69

2.

The tax name has so far eluded us. The amount in l. 4 would suggest poll-tax, but we cannot read that here. There seems to be a faint chi over the pi of ὑπέρ. We do not know what it is doing there; perhaps part of a previous text. There also seems to be a superfluous diagonal (NW to SE) through the rho.

3–4.

This is the only receipt in the archive that adds Καίσαρος (cf. introduction on the scribes).

5.

This seems to be the only receipt without signature.

70

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 30. 25.

25. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 69. TM 869440 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric K-3. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.0 × 7.2 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 19 November 3 CE?

4 2.

ἔτους λγ̣ Ἁθυρ κ̅β̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ )〚λ ̣ (ἔτους)〛λβ̣ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πίση(χθις?).

τελ ταριχ, L, L 4 , οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 33 (?), Hathyr 22, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 32nd (?) year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1–2.

The year numbers are uncertain and could also be read as 36 (λϛ) and 35 (λε). It is hard to judge the shape of the second numeral in l. 1, because its lower leg is so faint. There appears to be a small slanting vertical. In l. 2, the reading of the number is further complicated by the correction: it appears that the writer began to insert the tax year for which the payment was made, and then decided to start over, writing a new lambda and second numeral over part of the year sign of the first try. Neither beta nor epsilon is ideal for the second numeral: the ductus of the

Archive of funerary tax receipts

71

other betas in this receipt is different, without horizontal stroke closing the top of beta (cf. κ̅β̅ in l. 1 and ὀβολ(ούς) in l. 4); epsilons tend to have more angular shapes in this hand (cf. τέλ(ους) in l. 2 and ἑπτά in l. 4). In the end, the best argument for reading the year numbers as 33–32 rather than 36–35 is the signature: in Pise(chthis?) signatures from years 30–33, the pi and iota are always separated from each other; in later receipts they are always linked (cf. introduction on the signers). The erased tax year number in l. 2 may possibly have been 31 (λα), necessating a correction.

72

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 31. 26.

26. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 13. TM 869428 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. White patina but possibly red slipped (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 10.9 × 11.1 × 1.1 cm. Upper Egypt 26 January 4 CE ἔτους λγ Τυβι λ̅ τέλ(ους) συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ λβ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 τελ συμβολ

2 ταφικου, L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ

3 , οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 33, Tybi 30, for tax on symbol( ) taphikou of the 32nd year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). There are scattered ink traces above and below, which may indicate that an earlier text was washed out.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

73

Figure 32. 27.

27. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 19. TM 869429 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.4 × 6.2 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 25 February 4 CE ἔτους λγ Μεχ(ειρ) λ̅ συμβολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) λβ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) τεσσαράκοντα τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) μ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 Μεχ, συμβολ 2 ταφικ, L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ 

3 τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

Year 33, Mecheir 30, for symbol( ) taphikou of the 32nd year, Harpekis son of Sisois, forty (dr.) four obols, that is, 40 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?).

74

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 33. 28.

28. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 33.TM 869430 Support: Body sherd of closed form (jar?), early Roman, Fabric K-2. Beige slip (convex), plain brownish (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 9.0 × 8.7 × 1.2 cm. Upper Egypt 11 May 4 CE

4

ἔτους λγ Παχω(ν) ι̅ϛ̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σισόιτος δέκα μία̣ν̣, (γίνονται) ια. Κ̣αμ( ).

1 Παχω̅,  2 ταριχ του αυ L Αρπβη̅κ̅ 4 –, Κ̅α̅

Year 33, Pachon 16, has paid for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, eleven ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Kam( ). 4.

This signature is different from most other signatures by Kam( ), but similar to the signature in 19.4 (cf. introduction on the signers).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

75

Figure 34. 29.

29. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 35. TM 869431 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.8 × 9.0 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 26 April – 25 May 4 CE ἔτους λγ Πα̣χ̣(ων) ̣ ̣ τ̣έλ(ους) ταριχ( ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόι̣τ(ος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύ̣ο̣, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣[ση(χθις?).] 1 Παχ, τελ

2 ταριχ του αυ L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ

3 , οβολ, /, =

Year 33, Pachon x, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). The ostrakon seems to contain washed out traces of another text. 1.

The month name appears to be abbreviated differently than in other receipts in this hand (cf. introduction on the scribes). The date number probably started with iota or kappa. The end of the date stroke can still be seen left of the lambda of τ̣έλ(ους).

76

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 35. 30.

30. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 62. TM 869433 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.2 × 9.9 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 16 October 4 CE

4

ἔτους λδ Φαωφ(ι) ι̅θ̅ τέ(τακται) συμβολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) λγ (ἔτους) Ἅρπ̣βη(κις) Σισόι(τος) δεκατέσσαρε̣ς ⟨τετρώβολον⟩, (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Καμ( ).

1 Φαωφ,  2 συμβολ ταφικ, L 3 Αρπβη Σισοικ (sic); δεκατέσσαρε̣ς: l. δεκατέσσαρας 4 /,  Κα̅

Year 34, Phaophi 19, has paid for symbol( ) taphikou of the 33rd year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, fourteen ⟨dr. four obols⟩, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Kam( ). The ostrakon seems to contain washed out traces of another text.

Archive of funerary tax receipts 3.

77

This is the only receipt by Kam( ) that abbreviates Ἅρπβηκις with a supralinear eta rather than an overline over eta and/or kappa. It is also the only receipt by Kam( ) that abbreviates Σισόιτος, and it curiously seems to do so with an abbreviation mark shaped as kappa, more or less similar to the supralinear kappa in ταφικ in l. 2. In other receipts by the same scribe, comparable supralinear signs not only seem to be used for kappa (cf. Αρπβηκ in 13 and ταφικ in 51), but also for beta (cf. Τυβ in 13, τετροβ in 21, and συμβ in 51) and theta (cf. Φαρμουθ in 22 and 51). Supralinear eta looks somewhat different: cf. Αρπβη in the present text and Μεσορη in 17. We have chosen to read δεκατέσσαρες in full with τετρώβολον accidentally forgotten, because the end of the line hardly looks like the end of the usual τετρόβ(ολον) abbreviation or another writing of this word, but works well for sigma. This would be the only receipt in which τετρώβολον is omitted.

78

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 36. 31.

31. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 58. TM 869434 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-317-25. Brownish (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 9.1 × 7.7 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 16 December 4 CE ἔτους λδ Χ̣ο̣ι̣(αχ) κ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) λγ (ἔτους) Ἅ̣ρ̣πηκι̣(ς̣) Σισόιτ(ος) (δ̣ρ̣α̣χ̣μ̣ὰ̣ς̣) ἑπ̣τὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύ̣ο̣, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 Χο ι, τελ ταριχ

2 L Αρπηκι Σισοιτ 

3 οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 34, Choiach 20, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 33rd year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

It is difficult to read another numeral following kappa: most likely the kappa simply has a long right leg.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

79

Figure 37. 32.

32. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 29. TM 869435 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Reddish/orange slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.8 × 7.7 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 1 January 5 CE

4 2

τελ ταριχ, L Αρπηκι

ἔτους λδ Τ̣υβι ϛ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) λγ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). vacat Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 3 Σισοιτ ; τρῖ̣ς̣: l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /; 

4 Πιση

Year 34, Tybi 6, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 33rd year, Harpekis son of Sisois, three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3. For the Verschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes.

80

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 38. 33.

33. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 46. TM 869436 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 9.4 × 5.6 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 6 January 5 CE ἔτους λδ Τυβι ια̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) λγ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 1 τελ ταριχ, L 2 Αρπηκι Σισοιτ , /, Πιση

Year 34, Tybi 11, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 33rd year, Harpekis son of Sisois, eleven (dr.), that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

81

Figure 39. 34.

34. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 52. TM 869437 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.5 × 11.8 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 5 December 5 CE ἔτους λε Χοι(αχ) θ̅ τέλ(ους) συμβολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) λδ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 Χο ι, τελ συμβολ 2 l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

ταφικ, L Αρπηκι

3

; δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣: l. δεκατέσσαρας; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ,

Year 35, Choiach 9, for tax on symbol( ) taphikou of the 34th year, Harpekis son of Sisois, fourteen (dr.) four obols, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

The Verschleifung in the written-out amount (cf. introduction on the scribes) makes it difficult to be certain which strokes represent which letters, but does not raise doubts about the reading.

82

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 40. 35.

35. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 66. TM 869439 Support: Body sherd of closed form (storage jar?), Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-5. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave), with many organic impressions and voids on the surfaces. On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 9.5 × 6.2 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 9 September 6 CE ἔτους λϛ Θωυθ ιβ̅ λα̣ο̣γ(ραφίας) λε̣ (ἔ̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣) Ἅρπηκι(ς) Σισόιτος σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ) (δραχμὰς) ὀκτ̣ώ̣, (γίνονται) η. Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 2 λαογ, L Αρπηκι 3 σ\, , /, Πιση

Year 36, Thoth 12, for poll-tax of the 35th year, Harpekis son of Sisois . . . eight (dr.), that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 2.

λε̣ (ἔ̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣): the year sign appears to be written above the line, as if an afterthought. Alternatively, λα̣ο̣γ(ραφίας) [τοῦ] α̣ὐ̣(τοῦ) (ἔ̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣) could be read, but a payment for the poll-tax of year 36 would be unexpected in view of the payment for the poll-tax of year 35 made a few weeks later (36). Moreover, it seems more likely that the chip between between λαογ and lambda was already there before the sherd was written on (the gamma almost seems to be written around the chip), leaving no room for [τοῦ].

3.

σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

83

Figure 41. 36.

36. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 47. TM 869441 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; broken at right; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.6 × 9.0 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt October–November – November–December 6 CE

4

ἔτους λϛ Ἁ[θυρ ̣ ̣ τέ(τακται)] λα̣ο̣γ̣ρ(αφίας) λε (ἔτους) Ἅρπβ̣[ηκις Σισόιτος] ὀκτώ, (γίνονται) η. Καμ̣( ). Χο[ι](αχ) [ ̣ ̣ tax τρεῖς] ὀβολ(όν), (γίνονται) γ (ὀβολός). Πίση(χθις?).

2 λαογρ\, L 3 /, Κα̅μ̅ Χο ι(?) 4 οβολ /, , Πιση

Year 36, Ha[thyr x, has paid] for poll-tax of the 35th year, Harpbekis [son of Sisois], eight ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. Kam( ). Choiach [x for . . . three ⟨dr.⟩] one obol, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 1 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

τέ(τακται), written with the small  - shaped symbol, appears in all other receipts signed by Kam( ), so can tentatively be reconstructed in this receipt as well.

2.

The Verschleifung in λαογρ is exceptional, but the amount of 8 dr. is usually linked to this tax in the archive.

84 3–4.

Ostraka in the collection of New York University This second part of the receipt is signed by Pise(chthis?) instead of by Kam( ). It was probably added on one of the first days of Choiak, since a new receipt was issued on Choiak 9 (37), though for another tax. It is not clear if the hand in this second part changes. The month Choiak is only attested in receipts signed by Pise(chthis?), where it is always written with omicron and iota on top of the chi. The same abbreviation is probably used here. In 47 and 68, the same sum of 3 dr. 1 ob. is paid for the problematic die . ( ) tax; in 56, 2 dr. is paid for this tax.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

85

Figure 42. 37.

37. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 64. TM 869438 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 6.1 × 5.0 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 5 December 6 CE

4

ἔτους λϛ Χοιαχ θ̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). καὶ λε (ἔτους) τρῖς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 ταριχ 2 αυ L 3 , /, Πιση 4 L; τρῖς̣: l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

Year 36, Choiak 9, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, eleven (dr.), that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). And for the 35th year, three ⟨dr.⟩ four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

At first sight, the year number in this line might look like 35 (λε), but the epsilons in this hand tend to look different (cf. λε (ἔτους) in l. 4), and on closer inspection the apparent upper part of epsilon in the first year number rather appears to be a leftover of an earlier text or simple surface coloration. Moreover, the receipt makes more sense if year 36 is read in l. 1, recording both a payment for the current year (l. 2: τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους)) and some final arrears for year 35 (l. 4: λε (ἔτους)). For the chronology of the payments, see the introduction on the taxes.

4.

For the Verschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes.

86

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 43. 38.

38. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 36. TM 869442 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.8 × 7.1 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 11 September 7 CE ἔτους λζ Θωυθ ιγ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) λϛ (ἔτους) Ἅρβηκις Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) δεκατέσ̣σ̣α̣ρ̣ε̣ς̣ τ̣ετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). vacat Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

4

2 τελ ταριχ, L 5 Πιση

3 

3–4 δεκατέσ̣σ̣α̣ρ̣ε̣ς̣: l. δεκατέσσαρας

4 τ̣ετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /; 

Year 37, Thoth 13, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 36th year, Harbekis son of Sisois, fourteen (dr.) four ob., that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 2.

Ἅρβηκις is the only example in this archive of the name with beta but without pi. The long upward stroke following rho seems to exclude reading pi.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

87

Figure 44. 39.

39. Receipt for quarter tax on ointment Inv. 28. TM 869443 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Reddish slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 11.1 × 4.9 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 3 October 7 CE ἔτους λζ Φαωφι ε̅ μύρου (τετάρτης) λϛ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 1 μυρου

2 , L, Σισοιτ

3 , οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 37, Phaophi 5, for quarter tax on ointment of the 36th year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

For the Verschleifung in ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(ούς), see the introduction on the scribes and 59.3n.

88

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 45. 40.

40. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 15. TM 869444 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Plain brown (convex and concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 7.6 × 7.2 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 10 November 7 CE ἔτους λζ Ἁθυρ ιγ̅ λα̣[ο]γ(ραφίας) λϛ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) τέσσαρες, (γίνονται) δ. Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 1 λαογ

2 L, Σισοιτ

3 ; τέσσαρες: l. τέσσαρας; /; Πιση

Year 37, Hathyr 13, for poll-tax of the 36th year, Harpekis son of Sisois, four (dr.), that is, 4 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

89

Figure 46. 41.

41. Receipt for quarter tax on ointment Inv. 14. TM 869445 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Plain brown (convex and concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 11.3 × 8.2 × 1.1 cm. Upper Egypt 13 November 7 CE ἔτους λζ Ἁθυρ ιϛ̅ μύρου (τετάρτης) λϛ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) τρῖ̣ς̣ τε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πίση(χθις?). 1 μυρου  2 L; Σισοιτ ; τρῖ̣ς̣: l. τρεῖς; τε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετρoβ, l. τετρώβολον 3 /,  Πιση

Year 37, Hathyr 16, for quarter tax on ointment of the 36th year, Harpekis son of Sisois, three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

For the Verschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes.

90

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 47. 42.

42. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 39. TM 869446 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Light brown (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 12.3 × 5.0 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 17 March 8 CE ἔτ(ους) λζ Φαμενωθ κ̅α̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σισόιτος δεκαοκτὼ ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(οὺς) ⟨δύο⟩, (γίνονται) ιη (διώβολον). Καμ( ). 1 ετ, Φαμενωθ,  ταριχ, αυ L 2 Αρπβηκ̅, oβολ, /, = Κα̅

Year 37, Phamenoth 21, has paid for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, eighteen ⟨dr. two⟩ obols, that is, 18 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Kam( ).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

91

Figure 48. 43.

43. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 44. TM 869447 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.0 × 5.0 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 9 May 8 CE

4

ἔτους λζ Παχω(ν) ιδ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις [Σ]ισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣βολ(ον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Παχω 2 τελ ταριχ, αυ L 3 Σισοιτ ; δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣: l. δεκατέσσαρας; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣βολ(ον): τετροβολ, l. τετρώβολον 4 /,  Πιση

Year 37, Pachon 14, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, fourteen (dr.) four obols, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

The Verschleifung in the written-out amount (cf. introduction on the scribes) makes it difficult to be certain which strokes represent which letters, but does not raise doubts about the reading.

92

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 49. 44.

44. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 40. TM 869448 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Reddish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.6 × 5.6 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 29 May 8 CE

4

ἔτους λζ Παυ(νι) δ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) δεκατέ̣σ̣σ̣αρες τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). vacat Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Παυ, τελ 2 ταριχ, αυ L, Σισοιτ /;  4 Πιση

3 ; δεκατέ̣σ̣σ̣αρες: l. δεκατέσσαρας; τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον;

Year 37, Pauni 4, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, fourteen (dr.) four obols, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

93

Figure 50. 45.

45. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 59. TM 869413 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 9.0 × 8.0 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 31 May 8 CE

4 2 τελ ταριχ, αυ L 3 , οβολ

ἔτους λζ̣ Παυνι ϛ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ἑπ̣τὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) θ (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 4 /, = Πιση

Year 37, Pauni 6, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 9 (sic!) ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

The short horizontal stroke between the year numeral lambda and the following pi that begins the month name could also be interpreted as alpha or as a stroke that turns lambda into mu, but year 31 would not suit the shape of the signature (cf. introduction on the signers), and year 40 would not suit the presence of Harpbekis (who is only attested in years 31–39), nor would mu take the same shape as in other receipts in this hand. The other nearby letters suggest that the missing upper part of zeta is situated in an abraded zone.

94 3–4.

Ostraka in the collection of New York University Youtie read (δραχμὰς) ἐν̣έα, matching the numeral theta in the next line; but ἐννέα spelled with one nu is rare (5 examples attested in TM Text Irregularities)—even a single nu is hard to read—and normally multiples of 3 dr. 4 ob. are paid for the tarich(eut ) tax. We prefer to view the theta as a scribal error for zeta.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

95

Figure 51. 46.

46. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 72. TM 869449 Support: Shoulder fragment of closed form (jar or amphora?), Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-4. Beige slip, peeled (convex), plain reddish (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 8.6 × 7.4 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 4 June 8 CE

4 1 Παυ, συμβολ

ἔτους λζ Παυ(νι) ι̅ σ̣υ̣μ̣βολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σ̣ι̣σό̣ιτ(ος) (δ̣ρ̣α̣χ̣μ̣ὰ̣ς̣) πεντ̣ήκον̣[τα] μίαν̣ ὀβο̣λ̣(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) να (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η̣(χθις?). 2 ταφικ, αυ L 3 Σισοιτ 

4 οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 37, Pauni 10, for symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, fifty-one (dr.) two obols, that is, 51 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?).

96

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 52. 47.

47. Receipt for a money tax Inv. 12. TM 869450 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Reddish slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.6 × 7.2 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 5 September 8 CE

4

ἔτους λη̣ Θωθ η̅ διε ̣( ) λζ (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) σ( ) ̣ ̣ω( ) (δραχμὰς) τρῖς ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(όν), (γίνονται) γ (ὀβολόν). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 διε̅, L 3 Σισοιτ σ\; ; τρῖς: l. τρεῖς; οβολ

4 /, — Πιση

Year 38, Thoth 8, for . . . of the 37th year, Harpekis son of Sisois . . . three (dr.) one obol, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 1 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

For the Verschleifung in ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(όν), see the introduction on the scribes. σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

97

Figure 53. 48.

48. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 60. TM 869451 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Brownish (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 6.9 × 6.5 × 0.6 cm. Upper Egypt 1 and 2 November 8 CE

4

ἔτους λη̣ Ἁθυρ ε̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτος (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο̣, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). Ἁθυρ ϛ̅ ὁμ(οίως) τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 ταριχ 2 αυ L 3 , οβολ, /, = Πιση 4 ομ; τρῖ̣ς̣: l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον 5 /,  Πιση

Year 38, Hathyr 5, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). Hathyr 6, likewise, three ⟨dr.⟩ four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?).

1.

The second digit of the year number is somewhat uncertain, but we are confident it is not theta (it is very different from that letter in Ἁθυρ), and beta is the only plausible alternative. In year 32, however, this would represent a payment for the current year before payment for year 31 was completed (18). Moreover, year 32 would not suit the shape of the signatures (cf. introduction on the signers), and reading beta is more difficult than eta.

98

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 54. 48. Photo from the 1930s.

3.

We first read δύω, but in the end adopted Youtie’s reading δύο: on the old photograph in his files the letter appears to be closed on top, and omegas are usually more pronounced in this hand.

4.

For the Verschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

99

Figure 55. 49.

49. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 49. TM 869452 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.5 × 11.0 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 6 March 9 CE ἔτους λη Φαμενωθ ι̅ τέ(τακται) ταριχευ(τ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ(ις) Σισόιτος δέκα μίαμ, (γίνονται) ια. ̣ ̣( ). 1 Φαμενωθ,  2 ταριχευ, αυ L Αρπβηκ̅ 3 μίαμ: l. μίαν; /

Year 38, Phamenoth 10, has paid for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, eleven ⟨dr.⟩, that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. (signature). 3.

For μίαμ, which also appears in 19, see the introduction on the scribes. The signature is different from all the others and defies any secure reading. The handwriting and other scribal features seem to link this document to the receipts signed by Kam( ) and receipts with problematic signatures 13, 21, and 51 (cf. introduction on the scribes).

100

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 56. 50.

50. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 53. TM 869453 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.0 × 9.2 × 1.1 cm. Upper Egypt 10 April 9 CE

4 1 Φαρ

ἔτους λη Φαρ(μουθι) ιε̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 ταριχ, αυ L 3 Σισοιτ 

4 οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 38, Pharmouthi 15, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

For the peculiar writing of Pharmouthi, cf. 61.1.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

101

Figure 57. 51.

51. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 45. TM 869454 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete or broken at lower right; writing oblique to wheel marks. 8.6 × 12.9 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 24 April 9 CE

4

ἔτους λη Φαρμουθ(ι) κ̅θ̅ τέ(τακται) συμ̣β(ολ ) ταφικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπβηκ̣ι(ς) Σισόιτος ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). vacat Π ̣( ).

1 Φαρμουθ,  2 συμβ ταφικ, αυ L Αρπβη̅ικ 3 οβολ, /, = 4 Π-

Year 38, Pharmouthi 29, has paid for symb(ol ) taphikou of the same year, Harpbekis son of Sisois, seven ⟨dr.⟩ two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. P . ( ). 1.

Harpbekis appears to be abbreviated with an overline ending in a small kappa, with a normal-sized iota beneath, as if the scribe changed his mind on the abbreviation. Alternatively, this could be Αρπβη̅κ̅, as in most other receipts written by this scribe (cf. introduction on the scribes), but with the right part of kappa lost.

4.

The signature is different from all the others (cf. introduction on the signers). The handwriting and other scribal features seem to link this document to the receipts signed by Kam( ) and receipts with problematic signatures 13, 21, and 49 (cf. introduction on the scribes).

102

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 58. 52.

52. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 27. TM 869455 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-4. Reddish/orange slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 8.2 × 12.7 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 28 May 9 CE

4 1 Παυ

ἔτους λη Παυ(νι) γ̅ συμβολ( ) ταφ̣ικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκ(ις) Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) εἴκοσι πέντε τετρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) κε (τετρώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 συμβολ ταφικ, αυ L 3 Αρπηκ Σισοιτ 

4 τετρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

Year 38, Pauni 3, for symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, twenty-five (dr.) four obols, that is, 25 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 4.

It is not clear if the omicron in τετρόβ(ολον) is written to the right of rho (perhaps integrated in its bowl) or on top of rho, under beta (as in 53 and probably 62).

Archive of funerary tax receipts

103

Figure 59. 53.

53. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 16. TM 869456 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Plain brown (convex and concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.4 × 7.5 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 28 July 9 CE

4 1 Μεσορη 2 ταριχ, αυ L 4 /,  Πιση

ἔτους λη Μεσορη δ̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δραχμὰς) δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) ιδ (τετρώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 3 Σισοιτ ; δεκατέσσαρε̣ς̣: l. δεκατέσσαρας; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον

Year 38, Mesore 4, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, fourteen (dr.) four obols, that is, 14 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

The Verschleifung in the written-out amount (cf. introduction on the scribes) makes it difficult to be certain which strokes represent which letters, but does not raise doubts about the reading. The writing resembles that in 34 and 43, but is more compressed and puts both omicron and beta above the line, instead of beta alone (which also seems to happen in 62).

104

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 60. 54.

54. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 41. TM 869457 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.9 × 7.6 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 2 September 9 CE ἔτους λθ Θωθ ε̅ λαογ(ραφίας) λη (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) σ( ) ̣ ̣ ω( ) (δραχμὰς) ὀκ⟨τ⟩ώ̣, (γίνονται) η. Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 2 λαογ, L 3 Σισοιτ σ\, , /, Πιση

Year 39, Thoth 5, for poll-tax of the 38th year, Harpekis son of Sisois . . . eight (dr.), that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 3.

Youtie’s transcript shows ὀκτ̣ώ,̣ taking this as an extreme case of Verschleifung, but we rather think the tau is omitted. σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

105

Figure 61. 55.

55. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 09. TM 869458 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric K-3. Red/orange slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 7.7 × 8.0 × 0.7 cm. Upper Egypt 25 December 9 CE

4 1 Χο ι

ἔτους λθ Χο̣ι(αχ) κ̅θ̅ τέλ(ους) συμβολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτ(ος) (δ̣ρ̣α̣χ̣μ̣ὰ̣ς̣) ἑ̣π̣τ̣ὰ̣ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 τελ συμβολ ταφικ , αυ L 3 Σισοιτ 

4 οβολ, /, = Πιση

Year 39, Choiach 29, for tax on symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?).

106

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 62. 56.

56. Receipt for a money tax Inv. 55. TM 869459 Support: Shoulder fragment of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.8 × 9.4 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 15 August 10 CE

4 1 Μεσορη

ἔτους λθ Μεσορη κβ̅ διε ̣( ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Ἅρπηκις Σισόιτος σ( ) ̣ ̣ω( ) (δραχμὰς) δύο, (γίνονται) β. Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 2 διε̅, αυ L 3 σ\, 

4 /, Πιση

Year 39, Mesore 22, for . . . of the same year, Harpekis son of Sisois . . . two (dr.), that is, 2 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 3.

σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

107

Figure 63. 57

57. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 73. TM 869460 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.7 × 8.2 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 27 November 10 CE

4

ἔτους μ Χοιαχ α̅ τέλ(ους) συν̣βολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Πετεν(εφώτου?) (δραχμὰς) τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρ̣ό̣β̣(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 τελ; συν̣βολ( ): συνβολ, l. συμβολ( ); ταφικ; αυ L 3 Πετεν ; τρῖ̣ς:̣ l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρ̣ό̣β̣(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον 4 /,  Πιση

Year 40, Choiach 1, for tax on symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Tkales daughter of Peten(ephotes?), three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 2.

Youtie read συμβ̣ο̣λ with mu, but we rather see a cramped nu, with ligature stroke to beta.

4.

For the Verschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes. In this particular case, it may also seem possible to read τρεῖς , but this never appears in the other receipts, and the end of the line rather looks like -ροβ (cf. 52, for instance) than the τετρώβολον symbol (cf. next line).

108

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 64. 58.

58. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 08. TM 869461 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Reddish/brown slip (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 7.0 × 9.8 × 1.1 cm. Upper Egypt 25 August 11 CE

4 1 Μεσορη

ἔτους μ Μεσορη ἐπαγομ(ένων) β̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψε̣ν̣π̣ο̣ήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) ἑ̣πτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η̣(χθις?). ἄλ(λας) ζ (διώβολον). 2 επαγο μ, ταριχ, αυ L 3 Ψενποηρ 4 οβολ, /, = Πιση 5 αλ, =

Year 40, Mesore epagomenai 2, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoeris, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). Another 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. 3.

The patronymic is abbreviated in a similar way in the other ostraka (cf. introduction on the scribes), but theVerschleifung is exceptional in this case, and the upsilon following omicron appears to be omitted.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

109

Figure 65. 59.

59. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 70. TM 869462 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-3. Red slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 9.2 × 7.8 × 0.8 cm. Upper Egypt 18 December 11 CE

4

ἔτους μα Χοιηχ κ̅α̣̅ τ̣έλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Χοιηχ: Χοιη χ, l. Χοιαχ; τελ

2 ταριχ, αυ L 3 Ψενπουηρ , οβολ

4 /, = Πιση

Year 41, Choiach 21, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

For the Verschleifung in ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(ούς), see the introduction on the scribes. This example is more extreme than all the others, with οβο- apparently reduced to a small circular sign between the end of alpha and the nose of delta. The writing in 39.3 provides the best parallel, but is clearer.

110

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 66. 60.

Figure 67. 60. Photo from the 1930s.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

111

60. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 32. TM 869463 Support: Shoulder of closed form (storage jar or pot?), Ptolemaic/early Roman, Fabric N-5. Orange slip with red painted lines (convex), plain light orange (concave), with many organic impressions and voids on the surfaces. On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 9.3 × 8.9 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 21 (?) March 12 CE

4

ἔτους μα Φαμ̣ε̣(νωθ) κ̣̅ε̣̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ α̣ὐ̣(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκα̣λ̣ῆ̣ς̣ Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(οὺς) δύ̣ο̣, (γίνονται) ζ̣ (δ̣ι̣ώ̣β̣ο̣λ̣ο̣ν̣). vacat ̣ ̣ ̣

1 Φαμε 2 τελ ταριχ, αυ L 3 Ψενπουηρ , οβολ, /, =

Year 41, Phamenoth 25 (?), for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. (signature). 3.

For the Verschleifung in ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ(ούς), see the introduction on the scribes.

4.

There was probably a signature in this line, but it is too effaced to be read. On the basis of the handwriting and other scribal features (cf. introduction on the scribes), one would expect Pise(chthis?).

112

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 68. 61.

61. Receipt for tax on embalmers LACMA inv. M.80.202.188. TM 131727 On convex side; complete. 10.5 × 7.1 cm. Upper Egypt 13 April 12 CE Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 37–39, no. 22

4

ἔτους μα Φαρ(μουθι) ιη̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) δέκα μίαν, (γίνονται) ια. Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

Φαρ, τελ 2 ταριχ; τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ): του αυ, μ̅α̅ ed. pr.; L 4 /, Πί̣σ̣η(χθις): Πιση, ἐση(μειωσάμην) ed. pr.

3 Ψενπουήρ(ιος): Ψενπουηρ, Ψενπουή(ρεως) ed. pr.; 

Year 41, Pharmouthi 18, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, eleven (dr.), that is, 11 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 1.

For the peculiar writing of Pharmouthi, cf. 50.1.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

113

Figure 69. 62.

62. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 67. TM 869464 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), traces of pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.1 × 7.6 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 15 and 28 May 12 CE

4

ἔτους μα Παχω(ν) κ̅ ταριχ(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) ἑπτὰ ὀβολ(οὺς) δύο, (γίνονται) ζ (διώβολον). Παυ(νι) γ̅ ὁμο(ίως) τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣β̣(ολον), vacat Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Παχω 2 ταριχ, αυ L 3 Ψενπουηρ , οβολ, /, = 4 Παυ; ομο; τρῖ̣ς̣: l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣β̣(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; Πιση 5 /,  Πιση

Year 41, Pachon 20, for tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, seven (dr.) two obols, that is, 7 ⟨dr.⟩ 2 ob. Pise(chthis?). Pauni 3, likewise, three ⟨dr.⟩ four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?).

114 4.

Ostraka in the collection of New York University It is not clear why the payment of Pauni 3 was added to this receipt, while a separate receipt was issued for a payment for the ταριχ( ) tax by Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris on Pachon 29 (65). For theVerschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes. In this particular case (as well as 65 and 67), it may also seem possible to read γ τετρόβ(ολον) with the numeral instead of fully written τρῖς, but the first letters look more like tau and rho than like gamma and tau. TheVerschleifung seems more extreme than in the other examples, however. The stroke on top of the rho probably represents both omicron and beta, just like in 53. The signature at the end of this line concludes the payment of Pachon 20, but there was no room left in l. 3.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

115

Figure 70. 63.

63. Receipt for a money tax LACMA inv. M.80.202.202. TM 131728 On convex side; complete. 8.0 × 6.5 cm. Upper Egypt 16 May 12 CE Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 42, no. 23

4

ἔτους μα Παχω(ν) κα̅ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ( ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψεν̣πουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὴν) μίαν τριό̣β̣ο̣λ(ον), (γίνονται) α (τριώβολον). vacat Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Παχω 2 τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ): του αυ, μ̅α̅ ed. pr.; L 3 Ψεν̣πουήρ(ιος): Ψενπουηρ, Ψε⟨ν⟩πουή(ρεως) ed. pr. 4 ; τριό̣β̣ο̣λ(ον): τριοβολ, l. τριώβολον, τρι(ώβολον) (γίνονται) ed. pr.; (γίνονται): /, δρ(αχμὴ) ed. pr.;  5 Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?): Πιση, ἐση(μειωσάμην) ed. pr.

Year 41, Pachon 21, for . . . of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, one (dr.) three obols, that is, 1 ⟨dr.⟩ 3 ob. Pise(chthis?).

116

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

2.

In this receipt and three others (64, 65, and 69), the day number is exceptionally not on the same line as the name of the month. For the unread letters, the line note in the ed. pr. suggests συμλλ, but the first letter looks more like epsilon, and the rest is also uncertain. Whatever the precise reading, it seems unlikely that this would be a variant of the abbreviation συμβολ( ) found in several of the other ostraka: this abbreviation never appears without ταφικοῦ in the archive.

4.

For the Verschleifung in -ό̣β̣ο̣λ(ον), see the introduction on the scribes.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

117

Figure 71. 64. Photo from the 1930s.

64. Receipt for quarter tax on ointment Inv. 06. TM 942703 (now missing; see General introduction, p. 2) On convex side; complete; 6.4 × 5.7 cm. Upper Egypt 17 May 12 CE

4

1 Παχω

ἔτους μα Παχ[ω(ν)] κβ̅ μύρου (τετάρτης) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δ̣ρ̣α̣χ̣μ̣ὰ̣ς̣) δύο τε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον) ἡμ̣(ιωβέ)λ(ιον), (γίνονται) β (τετρώβολον) (ἡ̣μ̣ι̣ω̣β̣έ̣λ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣). vacat ̣ ̣ ̣

2 , αυ L 3 Ψενπουηρ 4 ; τε̣τ̣ρόβολ(ον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; ημλ /;  |

Year 41, Pachon 22, for quarter tax on ointment of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, two (dr.) four and a half obols, that is, 2 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 1/2 ob. (signature). 1.

Judging from the size of the lacuna, it seems likely that the abbreviation Παχω was used, as in many receipts in this hand.

2.

For the place of the day number, see 63.2n.

118

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

4.

Youtie read δύο τετρ̣ό̣βολ(ον), (γίνονται) β (τετρώβολον), but there are several problems with this reading. First and foremost, his τετρ̣ό̣βολ(ον) with supralinear lambda is not convincing. Clearly, the same abbreviation τετροβ as in many of the other ostraka is used here, with epsilontau in Verschleifung as in several other cases. That means there is another abbreviation preceding (γίνονται). Second, there is another stroke at the end of the line, following the (τετρώβολον) symbol. We propose to read these two groups as ἡμ̣(ιωβέ)λ(ιον) and a (ἡμιωβέλιον) symbol. The abbreviation of ἡμ̣(ιωβέ)λ(ιον) is unusual and not entirely clear: even with heavy Verschleifung, this can hardly be ἡμιωβέλ(ιον) written out full until lambda. A similar abbreviation, at least printed as such, appears in P.Stras. 4.250 e (157 CE), but unfortunately no image of that text is available. Finally, we think there is a faint drachma symbol at the start of the line, as expected in receipts in this hand.

5.

There was probably a signature in this line, but the traces are too faint to offer a secure reading. On the basis of the handwriting and other scribal features (cf. introduction on the scribes), one would expect Pise(chthis?). It is conceivable that there was a Pise(chthis?) signature of the type 2b discussed in the introduction on the signers here, with the supralinear 7-shaped sign close to the right edge of the ostrakon.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

119

Figure 72. 65.

65. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 04. TM 869465 Support: Body sherd of amphora (belly), early Roman, Fabric N-1. Plain light orange/reddish (convex), plain brown (concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 8.4 × 6.7 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 24 May 12 CE

4 1 Παχω

ἔτους μα Παχω(ν) κ̅θ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ̣(ευτ ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψενπουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 τελ ταριχ, αυ L 3 Ψενπουηρ 4 ; τρῖ̣ς:̣ l. τρεῖς; τ̣ε̣τ̣ρόβ(ολον): τετροβ, l. τετρώβολον; /;  Πιση

Year 41, Pachon 29, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 2.

For the place of the day number, see 63.2n.

4.

For theVerschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes. In this particular case (as well as 62 and 67), it may also seem possible to read γ τετρόβ(ολον) with the numeral instead of fully written τρῖς, but the first letters look more like tau and rho than like gamma and tau, and the entire writing is rather similar to τρῖς τετρό(βολον) in other receipts.

120

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 73. 66.

Figure 74. 66. Photo from the 1930s.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

121

66. Receipt for burial tax Inv. 05. TM 869466 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Red slip (convex), plain gray (concave). On convex side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 9.0 × 12.1 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 30 May 12 CE

4

ἔτους μα Παυν(ι) ε̅ τέ(τακται) συνβολ( ) ταφι̣κ̣οῦ τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆι Ψενπουήρ(ιος) τρεῖς τετρό̣(βολον), (γίνονται) γ̣ (τετρώβολον). Κ̣α̣μ̣( ).

1 Παυν̅; ; συνβολ( ): συνβολ, l. συμβολ( ) 2 αυ L; Τκαλῆι: l. Τκαλῆς 3 Ψενπουηρ; τετρό̣(βολον): τετρο̅, l. τετρώβολον 4 /,  Κα̅

Year 41, Pauni 5, has paid for symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, three ⟨dr.⟩ four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Kam( ). 1.

We read the correct month abbreviation thanks to Youtie. The traces are clearer on the old photograph in his files.

4.

The signature is clearer on the old photograph. The previous secure attestation of Kam( ) dates from year 37.

122

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 75. 67.

67. Receipt for burial tax LACMA inv. M.80.202.196. TM 131729 On convex side; complete. 9.5 × 6.4 cm. Upper Egypt 31 May 12 CE Worp in Muhs, Worp, and Van der Vliet 2006: 42–43, no. 24

4

ἔτους μα Παυ(νι) ϛ̅ συ̣μβολ( ) ταφικ(οῦ) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Τκαλῆς Ψεν̣πουήρ(ιος) (δραχμὰς) τ̣ρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣β̣(ολον), (γίνονται) γ (τετρώβολον). Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

1 Παυ(νι): Παυ, Πα( ) ed. pr. 2 συ̣μβολ( ): συμβολ, τ̣έ̣λ(ους) ed. pr.; ταφικ; τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ): του αυ, μα ed. pr.; L 3 Ψεν̣πουήρ(ιος): Ψενπουηρ, Ψε̣ν̣πο̣υ̣ή(ρεως) ed. pr. 4 ; τρῖ̣ς̣ τ̣ε̣τ̣ρό̣β̣(ολον): τρις τετροβ, l. τρεῖς τετρώβολον, τρεῖς ed. pr.; /; ; Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?): Πιση, ἐση(μειωσάμην) ed. pr.

Year 41, Pauni 6, for symbol( ) taphikou of the same year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, three (dr.) four obols, that is, 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 4 ob. Pise(chthis?). 4.

For theVerschleifung in the written-out amount, see the introduction on the scribes. In this particular case (as well as 62 and 65), it may also seem possible to read γ τετρόβ(ολον) with the numeral instead of fully written τρῖς, but the second letter looks more like rho than like tau, and the entire writing is rather similar to τρῖς τετρό(βολον) in other receipts. In the present text, the first letter would be perfect for gamma, however, unlike the first letter in 62 and 65.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

123

Figure 76. 68.

68. Receipt for poll-tax, guard tax, and another money tax Inv. 10. TM 869467 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Reddish slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; complete; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.7 × 9.7 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 16 June 12 CE

4 1 Παυ

ἔτους μα Παυ(νι) κ̅β̅ λαογ(ραφίας) τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) (ἔτους) Πετενεφώ̣της Ὀννώ(φριος) σ( ) ̣ ̣ ω( ) (δραχμὰς) ὀ̣κ̣τ̣ώ̣, (γίνονται) η, δ̣ιε ̣( ) γ (ὀβολόν), φυλ( ) (πεντώβολον). Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?).

2 λαογ, αυ L 3 Οννω σ\; ; ὀ̣κ̣τ̣ώ̣: τ ex δ; / 4 διε̅, — φυλ  Πιση

Year 41, Pauni 22, for poll-tax of the same year, Petenephotes son of Onnophris . . . eight (dr.), that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩, . . . 3 ⟨dr.⟩ 1 ob., phyl( ) 5 ob. Pise(chthis?). 3.

ὀ̣κ̣τ̣ώ̣ may possibly have been corrected from δέκα. σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

124 4.

Ostraka in the collection of New York University φυλ( ) seems most likely to refer to a tax for guard services. For taxes for guards see HomothKuhs 2005: 149–92. The standard form of reference to the tax is the genitive φυλάκων, and it is likely that this should be resolved in that way here. But Homoth-Kuhs points out that the chronological span of references from the Roman period is from the mid-first century CE to the end of the second century. Upper Egyptian examples, largely from the Theban region, begin in 58 CE (P.Bad. 4.108), thus nearly a half-century after our text.

Archive of funerary tax receipts

125

Figure 77. 69.

69. Receipt for poll-tax Inv. 17. TM 869468 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Plain brown (convex and concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 10.1 × 11.8 × 1.0 cm. Upper Egypt 30 August 12 CE

4 2 λαογ, L Πετενε

ἔτους μβ Θωθ β̅ λαογ(ραφίας) μα (ἔτους) Πετενε(φώτης) Ὀννώ(φριος) σ( ) ̣ ̣ ω( ) (δραχμὰς) ὀκτώ, (γίνονται) η. vacat Πί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 3 Οννω σ\, , / 4 Πιση

Year 42, Thoth 2, for poll-tax of the 41st year, Petenephotes son of Onnophris . . . eight (dr.), that is, 8 ⟨dr.⟩. Pise(chthis?). 2.

For the place of the day number, see 63.2n.

3.

σ( ) ̣ ̣ ̣ω( ): For this abbreviation, see discussion on the taxpayers in the introduction to this archive.

126

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 78. 70.

70. Receipt for tax on embalmers Inv. 07. TM 869469 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Plain brown (convex and concave). On convex side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. 7.7 × 6.4 × 0.9 cm. Upper Egypt 13 September 12 CE

4 1 Θωυθ

ἔτους μβ Θωυθ ιϛ̅ τέλ(ους) ταριχ(ευτ ) μα (ἔτους) Τκαλῆ(ς) Ψενποήρ(ιος) δεκαοκτὼ ὀβολ(όν), (γίνονται) ιη (ὀ̣β̣ο̣λ̣ό̣ς̣). vacat Π̣ί̣σ̣η(χθις?). 2 τελ ταριχ , L Τκαλη 3 Ψενποηρ δεκαοκτω οβολ /,  4 Πιση

Year 42, Thoth 16, for tax on tarich(eut ) of the 41st year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoeris, eighteen ⟨dr.⟩ one obol, that is, 18 ⟨dr.⟩ 1 ob. Pise(chthis?). 1.

We initially read the day number as ι̅ε̅, with a big date stroke covering both numerals, but eventually adopted Youtie’s reading ιϛ̅. The stroke covering the two numerals is probably simply a continuation of the horizontal bar of theta. What we took for the upper part of epsilon probably is the actual date stroke, only covering stigma. In most receipts in this hand, the date stroke only covers the second numeral of day numbers 11–19 and not the iota.

Archive of Lautanis

127

71. From the archive of Lautanis

Figure 79. 71.

71. Receipt for beer tax Inv. 01. TM 869470 Support: Body sherd of amphora, Roman, Fabric N-6. Beige slip (convex), plain gray (concave). On concave side; complete; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 6.7 × 5.1 × 0.7 cm. Tebtynis 29 October – 27 November 207 CE? This ostrakon belongs to the archive published by Claudio Gallazzi in O.Tebt.Pad. 1 (1979), listed as no. 129 in Trismegistos Archives. Fifty-nine of the seventy ostraka published by him there are part of this archive. They and the other miscellaneous texts included in the volume were found in the excavations conducted by Carlo Anti and Gilbert Bagnani at Tebtynis, and specifically in the campaign directed by Bagnani in December 1934 and the first months of 1935. Gallazzi has established (p. 1) that the archive was found inside a tomb building attached to a domestic structure in February, 1935. Of the texts published by Gallazzi, nos. 28–53 concern the beer tax. Of these, nos. 32–53 are issued to Lautanis or Laudanis (as it is spelled in our ostrakon), rather than to his father Petesouchos or one of his uncles. None of the receipts contains an emperor’s name. As the older generation was active, as far as the handful of preserved receipts allow us to say, in the latter part of the reign of Antoninus and through that of Marcus Aurelius, Gallazzi has assigned the earliest securely datable receipts for Lautanis to the reign of Commodus, in year 26 (no. 40), as Caracalla had no year 26. But many others could belong to more than one possible reign, with those dated to years 21 to 25 belonging to either Commodus or Caracalla. That the archive dates as late as Caracalla is shown by the fact that Lautanis bears the nomen

128

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Aurelius in laographia receipts of year 23, which therefore must be 214/5 (nos. 18, 19), and year 25 (no. 22). But other receipts that are closely similar and must belong to the same period omit Aurelius. It is therefore clear that the absence of Aurelius is not in itself evidence for a date before 212. In the case of our ostrakon, however, no relevant year 16 followed the Constitutio Antoniniana. Our choices are thus 175/6 or 207/8. As the first would come before any possible date for another receipt in Lautanis’s beertax receipts, the second seems more likely. Moreover, the formula and layout, although not perfectly congruent with any other group, seems more similar to those datable under Severus and Caracalla. ιϛ (ἔτους) ἀριθμ(ήσεως) Ἁθυρ διέγρα(ψε) Λαυδᾶνις ὑπὲρ ζυτήρας κατ’ ἄνδρα κώμης Τεπτύνεως ἐπὶ λόγου δραχ(μὰς) ὀκτώ, (γίνονται) (δραχμαὶ) η.

4

1 L // αριθμ

2 διεγρS

5 δραχ̅ 6 / 

16th year for the reckoning of Hathyr, Laudanis paid for beer tax per capita for the village of Tebtynis, on account, eight drachmas, that is, 8 (dr.). 5.

ἐπὶ λόγου appears in O.Tebt.Pad. 47 with beer tax, year 2, dated by Gallazzi to 217 or 218, and also in O.Tebt.Pad. 22 and 33, which are not for beer tax.

Miscellaneous texts

72–73. Miscellaneous

Figure 80. 72.

72. Text of unknown purpose Inv. 23. TM 869471 Support: Shoulder of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-1. Light brown (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; broken at left; writing parallel to wheel marks. 8.0 × 6.4 × 0.9 cm. Provenance unknown Second–third century CE? πρεσ]βύτερος Elder.

129

130

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 81. 73.

73. List of names Inv. 37. TM 869472 Support: Body sherd of flask or keg, fourth–fifth century CE, Fabric K-1 (see Fig. 3). Orange slip (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; broken at right; writing perpendicular to wheel marks. 6.1 × 6.0 × 0.7 cm. Provenance unknown Fourth century CE?

4

- - - ̣[ Νῖλος α ̣[ Σαραπίων [ Τιμόθεος [ Μουσῆς ̣[ Παῦλος η ̣[ Ὡρίων [

Nilos [ Sarapion [ Timotheos [ Mouses [ Paulos [ Horion [

Coptic ostraka

131

74–77. Coptic ostraka (Élodie Mazy) Three of the Coptic ostraka are waybills referring to the transport of goods, wheat in 74 and 75, and wine in 76; it is likely that 77 is also a waybill. It is not possible to determine with certainty their provenance based on internal criteria only: similar orders are attested in Coptic documentation from the monasteries of Bawit (in particular CPR XX; O.Baouit; O.BaouitIFAO; O.BaouitFribourg) and Wadi Sarga (O.Sarga), but 76 displays a formula close to the Greek ostraka from Abu Mina near Alexandria (O.AbuMina; SB 12.10990, 27–56). The presence of waybills that are probably from Bawit in the LACMA collection (van der Vliet in Muhs, Worp, and van der Vliet 2006: 51–58), acquired from the same donor as the LACMA documents belonging to the same archives as 3–6 and 7–70, suggests that all these ostraka could have been acquired together, and thus makes it likely that 74–77 also come from Bawit.

132

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Figure 82. 74.

Figure 83. 74. Photo from the 1930s.

Coptic ostraka

133

74. Waybill Inv. 25. TM 869473 Support: Foot ring base fragment of plate or shallow bowl, sixth–eighth century CE, Fabric K-2. Red/orange slip (convex and concave). On concave side; broken at left; writing oblique to wheel marks. 6.1 × 8.5 × 0.7 cm. Provenance unknown (Bawit?) Eighth century CE The handwriting, influenced by the Greek minuscule in ⲃ, ⲏ and ⲫ, evokes similar texts from the eighth century (see for instance O.Baouit 10).

4

2 φορ

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] α φορ(ά) ϩⲛ ⲧⲣⲓⲛⲏ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲏ ⲛ]ϭ̣ⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲩⲧⲟⲟⲃⲉ ] σί(του) θ̣α̣λλ(ία) σιγ̣( ) κε σί(του)] ἀ̣ρτ(άβαι) ν (καὶ) κρ(ι)θ(ῆς) ἀρτ(άβαι) ϛ ]ⲟⲩ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲩⲟ ⲙ] ϭ̣ⲟ̣ⲟⲩⲛⲉ. 

4 σι θαλλ σιγ 5 αρτ,  κρθ αρτ

 . . . first load at Trinê . . . [twenty-five] sacks of wheat, sealed . . . 25 sacks of wheat, sealed (?) . . . 50 artabas [of wheat] and 6 artabas of barley . . . as they are . . . sacks.  2.

[ ] α φορ(ά) It is difficult to assess how large the lacuna in front of each line is. In similar documents, when a load number is stated at the beginning rather than at the end of the text, this number is the first formulaic element (CPR 31.5; O.Bawit 35–36, 38, 41, 49; O.BawitFribourg 38, 62; O.BawitIFAO 6, 16–24, 29–31, 33–34, 50–53; P.Clackson 4, 11–15; SB 12.10990, 27– 56); sometimes, a date precedes (O.BawitIFAO 13–15; O.BawitFribourg 63). Given that the ostrakon is broken on its left side, a date was probably written in front of the load number. ϩⲛ ⲧⲣⲓⲛⲏ The use of the preposition ϩⲛ-, “in, at,” appears to be unique among the documentation: the place where the goods come from is elsewhere introduced by ⲛ- (“of ”) and the producers’ or conveyors’ names by ϩⲓⲧⲛ or διά (“through”). In this case, Trine refers to the place where wheat and barley are produced, but no such toponym could be identified. Perhaps one should read ⲧⲣⲱⲏ, a village near Memphis (Timm 777–89), but this is not satisfactory.

3.

[ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲏ ⲛ]ϭ̣ⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ The lacuna can be filled from the next line, which states, in Greek, the amount of 25 sacks of wheat. ⲉⲩⲧⲟⲟⲃⲉ Containers (pottery or sacks) are sometimes sealed in Coptic documents. In SB Kopt. 2.836 is found ⲧϭⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ ⲛⲉⲙϫⲱⲗ ⲉⲥⲥⲟⲗⲉϭ ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲟⲃⲉ, “the sack of onions smeared and sealed” (according to the first transcription by de Ricci and Winstedt 1906: 1–4 no. 1, an image of which is printed in MacCoull 1986: 192, which proves to be more accurate); in P.Mon. Epiph. 304 ϯϥⲧ̣[ⲟ] | ⲛⲑⲁⲗⲗⲓⲥ ⲛⲥⲟⲩ̣[ⲟ ⲉ]|ⲩⲧⲁⲃⲉ, “these four sealed sacks of wheat”; in O.Mich.

134

Ostraka in the collection of New York University Copt. 25 (with the corrections of Delattre 2007) ϭⲟⲩⲛⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲩⲟ ⲉϥⲧⲟⲟⲃⲉ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟ | ⲛⲧⲥⲁⲙⲛⲧ θαλλ(ία) ιδ ἀρτ(άβαι) λς, “sacks of wheat sealed for the treasury of the collecting place, 14 sacks, 36 artabas.” This last occurrence offers the closest parallel to our document. The verb ⲧⲱⲱⲃⲉ, “seal,” sometimes stands alone (see also O.CrumST 117–118), but is often combined with ⲥⲟⲗϭ, “smear, obliterate, smeared with clay for seal” (also attested in O.Crum 348; P.Mon. Epiph. 253, 549). Perhaps the sacks, after being closed with a rope, were sealed with a stamp on this rope or smeared with clay.

4.

[ ] Given that the Greek summary in l. 5 mentions six artabas of barley, one would expect an amount of sacks of barley in this lacuna, in Coptic. If, as suggested in l. 5, the ratio of two artabas per sack is in use here, a likely reconstruction would be [ⲙⲛ ϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲛϭⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ ⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ] “and three sacks of barley,” followed, perhaps, by [γί(νονται)], “that is,” introducing the Greek summary. σιγ̣( ) The last letter, inscribed above the iota to indicate an abbreviation, could be a tau or a gamma. Given that the sacks of wheat are said to be sealed in l. 3, it would be tempting to expand with a form of σιγιλλόω (a participle would be expected to match the Coptic circumstantial ⲉⲩⲧⲟⲟⲃⲉ), but no parallel could be found in Greek documents.

5.

[ σί(του)] ἀ̣ρτ(άβαι) ν (καὶ) κρ(ι)θ(ῆς) ἀρτ(άβαι) ϛ The number ν “50” probably refers to the amount of artabas of wheat. Twenty-five sacks of wheat are mentioned in l. 4, which suggests a ratio of two artabas a sack. This ratio is common (though not systematic) in similar Coptic documents, for instance in O.Baouit 63; O.BaouitIFAO 5–7, 11; P.Sarga 205–8, 365, 368. Given that six artabas of barley are mentioned later in l. 5, the lacuna, holding the second part of the Greek summary, could perhaps be filled as follows: [(καὶ) κρ(ι)θ(ῆς) θαλλ(ία) γ], “and 3 sacks of barley.” A few ostraka explicitly state the equivalence between sacks and artabas, with a formula beginning with ⲉⲣⲉ and ending with ϩⲓⲱⲟⲩ (O.Bawit 63–64; O.BawitIFAO 1–11; SB Kopt. 1.226–234). This may be the case here as well, but the Greek summary most often comes after, not before, the equivalence between sacks and artabas.

6–7.

ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲩⲟ ⲙ|[ ] ϭ̣ⲟ̣ⲟⲩⲛⲉ Perhaps this is an indication of the condition of the sacks, but no explanatory parallel could be found. A similar expression occurs, though in a different context, in the farming contract P.Ryl.Copt. 162: [ ]ⲛ̣ ⲥⲉⲙⲉϩ ⲥⲉϣⲁⲁⲧ ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲩⲟ [ⲛ]ⲙ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ “they are full or lacking as they are.”

Coptic ostraka

Figure 84. 75.

Figure 85. 75. Photo from the 1930s.

135

136

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

75. Waybill Inv. 71. TM 869474 Support: Body sherd of amphora, early Roman, Fabric N-2. Brownish (convex), pitch (concave). On convex side; broken at left; writing parallel to wheel marks. 10.0 × 8.0 × 1.0 cm. Provenance unknown (Bawit?) Seventh–eighth century CE The handwriting, partially quadrilinear, allows a dating to the seventh or eighth century. The document is a palimpsest: one can discern eight faded lines, belonging to two distinct texts, but only scattered letters are readable.

4

[ [ [ [

]ⲟ ⲥⲟⲩⲟ ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ θ]α̣λλ(ία) κϛ ] vacat ν ] φορά.

2 θαλλ

. . . old wheat . . . 26 sacks . . . 50 . . . load. 1. [ ]ⲟ This is probably the place where the wheat comes from, perhaps Ταχοί in the Hermopolite nome (TM Geo 7480; Timm 2549). Several Coptic anthroponyms end in -oi, as Psoi, Pchoi, and Matoi; the sequence could refer to a place called by its owner’s name. ⲥⲟⲩⲟ ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ Old wheat is attested in some Greek documents (P.Amh. 2.79; P.Cair.Masp. 2.67139; P.Herm. 38; P.Laur. 2.26; P.Oxy. 7.1071, 68.4704) and in two etmoulon ostraka (SB Kopt. 1.129–130). This wheat was harvested one or several years before. 2–3.

Two kinds of sacks are conveyed, twenty-six of some sort, fifty of another. Therefore, this order could concern the transport of different goods, wheat and barley for instance, or old wheat and wheat produced in the current year.

Coptic ostraka

Figure 86. 76.

Figure 87. 76. Photo from the 1930s.

137

138

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

76. Waybill Inv. 57. TM 869475 Support: Foot ring base fragment of plate or shallow bowl, sixth–eighth century CE, Fabric K-1 (see Fig. 3). Orange slip (convex), red slip (concave). On concave side; complete; writing oblique to wheel marks. ø base 12.0; 8.0 × 10.0 × 1.0 cm. Provenance unknown (Bawit?) Sixth–eighth century CE The handwriting is straight, bilinear and does not allow a palaeographical dating. The usual dating of such documents is thus suggested here: sixth–eighth century.

4

 ⲡⲙⲉⲙⲧⲛⲏ ⲫⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲟⲗⲟⲡⲏ ⲝⲇ  ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̣ ⲗⲁϩⲏ̣.

3 φορά κολοβόν

 The fifteenth (?) load: 64 kolope . . . small lahe. 1–2.

ⲡⲙⲉ|ⲙⲧⲛⲏ This must refer to a number of the load written as a word. The scribe, whose hand shows little experience, perhaps intended ⲡⲙⲉ〈ϩ⟩ⲙⲛⲧⲏ “fifteenth,” making three mistakes: gender confusion between the feminine φορά and the masculine article ⲡ-, omission of ϩ in the ordinal infix -ⲙⲉϩ-, and metathesis of -ⲙⲧⲛ- for -ⲙⲛⲧ- “ten.”

3.

ⲕⲟⲗⲟⲡⲏ This is probably a measure, most likely a κολοβόν, which is attested in references to wine, in Greek at Wadi Sarga (P.Sarga 381), Abu Mina (SB 12.10990, 27–56; O.AbuMina 340, 521, 609, 744, 918, 970) and in the Theban region (P.Horak 31–62), and in Coptic perhaps in O.Brit.Mus.Copt. 1.89.1 (though in this last case, the word ⲕⲟⲗⲟⲃⲱⲛ could be borrowed from κολόβιον, which is a sleeveless tunic).

4–5.

 | ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̣ ⲗⲁϩⲏ̣ Small lahe are attested at Bawit in O.Bawit 7, 12–14, 24, 25, 27, which show that a ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲗⲁϩⲏ is equivalent to a κνίδιον. The traces in l. 4 most likely record a numeral referring to this container, perhaps preceded by  for (ⲙⲛ).

Coptic ostraka

139

Figure 88. 77. Photo from the 1930s.

77. Waybill? Inv. 26. TM 869476 Support: Body sherd of bowl, fourth–eighth century CE, Fabric K-1. White slip with rouletting (convex), light orange (concave). On concave side; broken at right; perpendicular to the wheel marks. 9.7 × 8.4 × 0.8 cm. Provenance unknown (Bawit?) Sixth–eighth century CE The ink is now almost entirely faded, but the old image made an edition possible. The handwriting is bilinear, but not much of the text is preserved. The phraseology suggests that this is another Coptic waybill.

4

[ ]  ⲛⲧⲁⲛ[ ] ⲉϩ̣ⲣⲁ ⲉ[ ] ϩⲟⲧⲟⲩ[ ]

. . . which we have . . . to . . .

140 2–3.

Ostraka in the collection of New York University ⲛⲧⲁⲛ[ ] | ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉ[ ] If this document, like the other Coptic ostraka, relates to the transport of goods, these lines could be reconstructed ⲛⲧⲁⲛ[ⲧⲁⲗⲟⲟⲩ] | ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉ[ ] “which we have loaded to,” followed by a toponym. Such an expression is found in P.Sarga 131 referring to wheat and in P.Sarga 133, which is headed ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲛⲛ|ⲏⲣⲡ ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲧⲁ|ⲗⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲧⲟⲩϩⲱ “the account of the wine which we have loaded in Touho.”

References Agut-Labordère, A. 2014. “The Saite Period: The Emergence of a Mediterranean Power.” In J. Moreno García (ed.), Ancient Egyptian administration: 965–1027. Leiden. Armoni, C. 2013. Das Archiv der Taricheuten Amenneus und Onnophris aus Tanis (P.Tarich), Papyrologica Coloniensia 37. Paderborn. Azzarello, G. and Reiter, F. 2016. “Petition einer Frau wegen Verzögerungen eines ägyptisches Begräbnisses (P.B.U.G. inv. 260): Ein neuer Papyrus aus dem Zenon-Archiv?” ZPE 200: 313–20. Baetens, G. 2020. “An Embalmers’ Dispute in Hypsele/Shashotep.” APF 66: 273–312. Bagnall, R. S. 2017. The Undertakers of the Great Oasis (P.Nekr.). London. Ballet, P. and Południkiewicz, A. 2012. Tebtynis V. La céramique des époques hellénistique et impériale: Campagnes 1988–1993. Production, consommation et réception dans le Fayoum meridional, Fouilles de l’Ifao 68. Cairo. Ballet, P. and Vichy, M. 1992. “Artisanat de la céramique dans l’Égypte hellénistique et romaine. Ateliers du Delta, d’Assouan et de Kharga.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 3: 109–19. Bataille, A. 1952. Les Memnonia: Recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecques sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Egypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine. Cairo. Benaissa, A. 2016. “Perfume, Frankincense, and Papyrus: Collecting the State Revenues.” ZPE 200: 379– 88. Bernini, A. 2019. “Una ricevuta latina su ostracon: O.Brit.Mus. inv. EA 29745.” ZPE 212: 224–30. Bierbrier, M. L. 2012. Who was Who in Egyptology, 4th ed. London. Bogaert, R. 1994. Trapezitica Aegyptiaca: recueil de recherches sur la banque en Égypte gréco-romaine, Papyrologica Florentina 25. Florence. Bourriau, J. D. and Nordström, H. Å. 1993. “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics.” In D. Arnold and J. D. Bourriau (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, SDAIK 17: 143–90. Mainz am Rhein. Cannata, M. 2007. “Of Bodies and Soles: The Meaning of the Root ḳs and its Derivatives in the Ptolemaic Period.” In M. Cannata (ed.), Current Research in Egyptology 2006: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium, University of Oxford 2006: 21–42. Oxford. Cannata, M. 2020. Three Hundred Years of Death: The Egyptian Funerary Industry in the Ptolemaic Period, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 110. Leiden-Boston.

141

142

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Capron, L. 2008. “Déclarations fiscales du temple de Soknopaiou Nêsos: éléments nouveaux.” ZPE 165: 133–60. Clackson, S. J. 1994. “The Michaelides Manuscript Collection.” ZPE 100: 223–26. Clarysse, W. 1990. “Abbreviations and lexicography.” Ancient Society 21: 33–43. Clarysse, W. 1997. “Greek Accents on Egyptian Names.” ZPE 119: 177–84. Clarysse, W. 2007. “A Bilingual Archive from the Cynopolite Nome.” In J. Frösén, T. Purola, and E. Salmenkivi (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004: 185–89. Helsinki. Colin, F. 2003. “Le parfumeur (pȝ ʿnṱ).” BIFAO 103: 73–109. Cribiore, R., Vittmann, G., and Bagnall, R. S. 2015. “Inscriptions from Tombs at Bir esh-Shaghala.” CdE 90: 335–49. Cuomo di Caprio, N. 2007. Ceramica in archeologia 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Rome. Delattre, A. 2007. “Bemerkungen zu Papyri XX. 586. O.Mich.Copt. 25–27.” Tyche 22: 225. Depauw, M. 2000. The Archive of Teos and Thabis from Early Ptolemaic Thebes. P. Brux. Dem. Inv. E. 8252–8256. Turnhout. Depauw, M. 2009. “Controlling the Perfume Monopoly. A Demotic letter in Macquarie referring to a proxy in Duke.” ZPE 171: 201–8. Depauw, M. 2010. “Do Mothers Matter? The Emergence of Metronymics in Early Roman Egypt.” In T. Evans and D. Obbink (eds.), The Language of the Papyri: 120–39. Oxford. Derda, T. 1991. “Necropolis Workers in Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Greek Papyri.” JJP 21: 13–36. Devauchelle, D. 1987. “Notes sur l’administration funéraire égyptienne à l’époque gréco-romaine.” BIFAO 87: 141–60. Dogaer, N. 2021. “The Black Market in Oil in Ptolemaic Egypt.” BASP 58: 315–41. Donker van Heel, K. 2019. “P. Louvre E 7856 C: A Possible Memorandum about Tax Payment from the Eisenlohr Lot.” ZÄS 146/1: 130–35. Drexhage, H. J. 1994. “Einige Bemerkungen zum Mumientransport und den Bestattungskosten im römischen Ägypten.” Laverna 5: 171–74. Fournet, J.-L. 1989. “Les emprunts du grec à l’égyptien.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 84/1: 55–80. Froschauer, H. and Harrauer, H. 2003. Tod am Nil: Tod und Totenkult im antiken Ägypten, mit einem Beitrag zum Totenlied und Totenbrauch in Österreich. Vienna. Gara, A. 1976. Prosdiagraphomena e circolazione monetaria. Milan. Gempeler, R. D. 1992. Elephantine X. Die Keramik römischer und früharabischer Zeit, Arch. Veröff. DAIK. Mainz. Gignac, F. T. 1976–1981. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. 1, Phonology; vol. 2, Morphology. Milan. Goossens, R. 1938. “L’épitaphe de Seuthès et les ‘secondes funérailles’ à Hermopolis.” CdE 13: 373–77. Heilporn, P. 2009. Thèbes et ses taxes: Recherches sur la fiscalité en Égypte romaine (O. Stras. II). Paris. Heilporn, P. and Worp, K. A. 2007. “A Wet Nurse Contract with an Unusual Provenance.” CdE 82: 218– 26. Hobson, D. 1993. “Receipt for χειρωνάξιον.” JJP 23: 75–92. Homoth-Kuhs, C. 2005. Phylakes und Phylakon-Steuer im griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des antiken Sicherheitswesens, APF Beiheft 17. Munich–Leipzig.

References

143

Kaplony-Heckel, U. 2019. “Der Acker-Ausweis des Pasemis und sein frührömisches Archiv.” In K.-T. Zauzich (ed.), Akten der 8. Internationalen Konferenz für Demotische Studien: Würzburg 27.–30. August 2002: 64–91. Wiesbaden. Katzjäger, D., Peloschek, L., and Rembart, L. 2016. “The Multiplicity of Aswan Pink Clay Pottery (Roman Times to Late Antiquity). Synchronising shape repertoire, clay pastes and firing properties.” In Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 44: 731–36. Láda, C. A. and Papathomas, A. 2015. “Enteuxis Concerning Illegal Sale of Cedria.” Tyche 30: 81–90. Maccoull, L. S. B. 1986. “Coptic Documentary Papyri in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria.” Aegyptus 66: 187–95. Malinine, M. 1961. “Taxes funéraires égyptiennes à l’époque gréco-romaine.” In Mélanges Mariette: 137–68. Cairo. Maresch, K. 1996. Bronze und Silber. Opladen. Milne, J. G. 1925. “Double Entries in Ptolemaic Tax-Receipts.” JEA 11: 269–83. Monson, A. 2014. “Late Ptolemaic Capitation Taxes and the Poll Tax in Roman Egypt.” BASP 51: 127–60. Muhs, B. P. 2003. “Demotic Ostraca from Ptolemaic Edfu and the Ptolemaic Tax System.” In K. Vandorpe and W. Clarysse (eds.), Edfu, an Egyptian provincial capital in the Ptolemaic period, Brussels, 3 September 2001: 75–105. Brussels. Muhs, B. P. 2009. “Two ‘Orders for Burial’ from the Valley of the Kings.” JARCE 45: 393–95. Muhs, B. P. 2011. Receipts, scribes, and collectors in early Ptolemaic Thebes (O. Taxes 2). Leuven. Muhs, B. P. 2016. The ancient Egyptian economy, 3000–30 BCE. New York. Muhs, B. P., Scalf, F. D., and Jay, J. E. 2021. The Archive of Thotsutmis, Son of Panouphis. Early Ptolemaic Ostraca from Deir el Bahari (O. Edgerton), Oriental Institute Publications 146. Chicago. Muhs, B. P., Worp, K. A., and Van der Vliet, J. 2006. “Ostraca and Mummy Labels in Los Angeles.” BASP 43: 9–58. Peachin, M. G. 2014. Greek and Latin Inscriptions at New York University. Rome. Préaux, C. 1939. L’ économie royale des Lagides. Brussels. Reggiani, N. 2015. “Ispezionare cadaveri: mummificatori, medici e anatomisti nell’Egitto greco-romano (a proposito di P.Oxy. III 476).” Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 33: 75–86. Reiter, F. 2004. Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites: Ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen Ägypten. Paderborn. de Ricci, S., and Winstedt, E. O. 1906. “Papyrus coptes du Musée d’Alexandrie.” Sphinx 10: 1–4. Rodziewicz, M. 1992. “Field Notes from Elephantine on the Early Aswan Pink Clay Pottery.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 3: 103–8. Sänger-Böhm, K. 2010. “Die συντάξεις und τέλη τὰ ἐπὶ ταῖς ταφαῖς in der Hadriansinschrift aus Alexandria Troas: Eine papyrologische Bestandsaufnahme.” ZPE 175: 167–70. Töpfer, S. 2015. Das Balsamierungsritual: Eine (Neu-)Edition der Textkomposition Balsamierungsritual (pBoulaq 3, pLouvre 5158, pDurham 1983.11 + pSt. Petersburg 18128), Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 13. Wiesbaden. Vignot-Kott, D. 2017. “‘Dans ce monde, il n’est rien d’assuré que la mort et les impôts.’ Étude de la taxe de la nécropole à Edfou au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.” Kentron 33: 91–126. Vleeming, S. P. 1995. “The Office of a Choachyte in the Theban Area.” In S. P. Vleeming (ed.), HundredGated Thebes. Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (P. L. Bat. XXVII): 241–55. Leiden. Vos, R. L. 1993. The Apis Embalming Ritual: P. Vindob. 3873, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 50. Leuven.

144

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Wagner, G. 1971. “Inscriptions grecques du dromos de Karnak (II).” BIFAO 71: 161–79. Wallace, S. L. 1938. Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton. Wångstedt, S. V. 1974–1975. “Demotische Bescheinigungen über Begräbnissteuer.” Orientalia Suecana 23–24: 7–43. Wångstedt, S. V. 1981. “Demotische Ostraka. Varia II.” Orientalia Suecana 30: 5–36. Worp, K. A. 1989. “How did Egyptian Scribes Calculate Net Drachmae in West Bank Tax Receipts?” ZPE 76: 63–68.

Indexes

Indexes

147

Indexes of the Greek ostraka 1. Regnal years Ptolemy VIII (?) ἔτους λθ 1.1 Ptolemy X ἔτους ζ 3.1 ἔτους ιβ τοῦ καὶ θ 4.1 ἔτους ιδ τοῦ καὶ ια 5.1, 6.1 ἔτους ιε 2.1 Augustus ἔτους λ 9.1, 10.1, 11.2 ἔτους λα 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1, 18.2 ἔτους λβ 18.1, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1, 22.1,

23.1, 24.3 (Καίσαρος), 25.2, 26.2, 27.2 ἔτους λγ 25.1, 26.1, 27.1, 28.1, 29.1, 30.2, 31.2, 32.2, 33.1 ἔτους λγ 24.4 (Καίσαρος) ἔτους λδ 30.1, 31.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.2 ἔτους λε 34.1, 35.2, 36.2, 37.4 ἔτους λϛ 35.1, 36.1, 37.1, 38.2, 39.2, 40.2, 41.2 ἔτους λζ 38.1, 39.1, 40.1, 41.1, 42.1, 43.1, 44.1, 45.1, 46.1, 47.2 ἔτους λη 47.1, 48.1, 49.1, 50.1, 51.1, 52.1, 53.1, 54.2 ἔτους λθ 54.1, 55.1, 56.1

ἔτους μ 57.1, 58.1 ἔτους μα 59.1, 60.1, 61.1, 62.1, 63.1, 64.1, 65.1, 66.1, 67.1, 68.1, 69.2, 70.2 ἔτους μβ 69.1, 70.1 Augustus or Tiberius ἔτους ιβ 7.1 ἔτους ιγ 8.1 Septimius Severus (?) ἔτους ιϛ 71.1

2. Months Θωθ 35.1 (Θωυθ), 38.1 (Θωυθ), 47.1, 54.1, 69.1, 70.1 (Θωυθ) Φαωφι 24.5, 30.1, 39.1 Ἁθυρ 11.1, 18.1, 19.1, 25.1, 36.1, 40.1, 41.1, 48.1, 4, 71.1 Χοιαχ 2.1, 8.1, 12.1, 20.1, 31.1, 34.1, 36.3, 37.1, 55.1, 57.1, 59.1 (Χοιηχ)

Τυβι 13.1, 26.1, 32.1, 33.1 Μεχειρ 7.1, 27.1 Φαμενωθ 21.1, 42.1, 49.1, 60.1 Φαρμουθι 22.1, 50.1, 51.1, 61.1, Παχων 1.1, 14.1, 15.1, 23.1, 28.1, 29.1, 43.1, 62.1, 63.1, 64.1, 65.1 Παυνι 5.1, 6.1, 9.1, 10.1, 16.1, 44.1,

45.1, 46.1, 52.1, 62.4, 66.1, 67.1, 68.1 Μεσορη 3.1, 4.1, 17.1, 53.1, 56.1, 58.1 ἐπαγόμεναι 58.2

148

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

3. Names of persons Ἅρπβηκις s. Σίσοις 11.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 12.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 13.2, 14.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 15.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 16.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 17.2, 18.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 20.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 21.2, 22.2, 23.2, 24.1, 25.3 (Ἅρπηκις), 26.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 27.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 28.2, 29.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 30.3, 31.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 32.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 33.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 34.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 35.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 36.2, 37.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 38.2 (Ἅρβηκις), 39.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 40.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 41.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 42.2, 43.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 44.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 45.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 46.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 47.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 48.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 49.2, 50.2–3 (Ἅρπηκις), 51.2, 52.3 (Ἅρπηκις), 53.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 54.2 (Ἅρπηκις), 55.3 (Ἅρπηκις), 56.2 (Ἅρπηκις) Ἅρπβηκις f. Ψενπόηρις 7.3 Ἁρμάχορος 3.3 Ἀσκληπίαδης 3.2, 6, 4.3, 10, 5.2, 4, 6.2, 5 Ἡρακλείδης 1.3 Καῖσαρ 24.3, 4 Καμ( ) 17.3, 19.4, 22.3, 23.3, 28.4,

30.4, 36.3, 42.2, 66.4 Λαυδᾶνις 71.2 Μουσῆς 73.5 Νῖλος 73.2 Ὄννωφρις f. Πετενεφώτης 68.3, 69.3 Ὄννωφρις 3.3 Π ( ) 13.3, 51.4 Παν ( ) 8.2 Παῦλος 73.6 Παχῆς f. Τα( ) 10.3 Πετενεφώτης s. Ὄννωφρις 68.2, 69.2 Πετενεφώτης (?) s. Ὧρος 9.2 Πετενεφώτης (?) f. Τκαλῆς 57.3 Πετενεφώτης (?) 2.5 Πίση(χθις?) 9.3, 10.4, 11.3, 12.3, 14.4, 15.3, 16.3, 18.3, 20.4, 25.4, 26.3, 27.3, 29.3, 31.3, 32.4, 33.2, 34.3, 35.3, 36.4, 37.3, 4, 38.5, 39.3, 40.3, 41.3, 43.4, 44.4, 45.4, 46.4, 47.4, 48.3, 5, 50.4, 52.4, 53.4, 54.3, 55.4, 56.4, 57.4, 58.4, 59.4, 61.4, 62.4, 5, 63.5, 65.4, 67.4, 68.4, 69.4, 70.4 Πλε̣ ( ) 8.3, 5 Πόωρις μέγας s. Ψενάμουνις 1.1–2 Σαραπίων 73.3 Σίσοις f. Ἅρπβηκις 11.2, 12.2, 13.3,

14.3, 15.2, 16.2, 17.2, 18.2, 20.3, 21.2, 22.3, 23.2, 24.1, 25.3, 26.2, 27.2, 28.3, 29.2, 30.3, 31.2, 32.3, 33.2, 34.2, 35.2, 36.2, 37.2, 38.3, 39.2, 40.2, 41.2, 42.2, 43.3, 44.2, 45.3, 46.3, 47.3, 48.2, 49.3, 50.3, 51.3, 52.3, 53.3, 54.3, 55.3, 56.3 Σίσοις f. Τκαλῆς 19.3 Σύμμαχος 1.5 Τα( ) s./d. Παχῆς 10.2 Τιμόθεος 73.4 Τκαλῆς d. Πετενεφώτης (?) 57.3 Τκαλῆς d. Σίσοις 19.2 Τκαλῆς d. Ψενπούηρις 58.3, 59.2, 60.2, 61.2, 62.2, 63.3, 64.3, 65.3, 66.2, 67.3, 70.2 Ψενάμουνις f. Πόωρις μέγας 1.2 Ψενάμουνις 2.4, 4.3, 5.2, 6.3 Ψενεμονμοῦς (?) 1.4 Ψενπόηρις s. Ἅρπβηκις 7.3 Ψενπούηρις f. Τκαλῆς 58.3 (Ψενπόηρις), 59.3, 60.3, 61.3, 62.3, 63.3, 64.3, 65.3, 66.3, 67.3, 70.3 (Ψενπόηρις) Ὡρίων 73.7 Ὧρος f. Πετενεφώτης (?) 9.2

4. Geographic terms Διὸς πόλις 3.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2

Ἐλεφαντίνη (?) 2.3

Τέπτυνις 71.4

5. Money διώβολον 7.3, 8.5, 14.4, 17.3, 20.4, 23.3, 25.4, 26.3, 29.3, 31.3, 39.3, 42.2, 45.4, 46.4, 48.3, 50.4, 51.3, 55.4, 58.4, 5, 59.4, 60.3, 62.3 δραχμή 3.5, 4.5, 8, 8.2, 3, 4, 5, 9.2, 12.3, 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 18.3, 20.3, 24.3, 25.4, 26.3, 27.2, 29.3, 31.2, 32.3, 33.2, 34.3, 35.3, 36.3, 37.3, 38.3, 39.3, 40.3, 41.2, 43.3, 44.3,

45.3, 46.3, 47.3, 48.3, 50.3, 52.3, 53.3, 54.3, 55.3, 56.3, 57.3, 58.3, 59.3, 60.3, 61.3, 62.3, 63.4, 64.4, 65.4, 67.4, 68.3, 69.3, 71.5, 6 ὀβολός 8.4, 14.3, 17.2, 20.4, 23.2, 25.4, 26.3, 29.3, 31.3, 36.4, 39.3, 42.2, 45.3, 46.4, 47.3, 4, 48.3, 50.4, 51.3, 55.4, 58.4, 59.3, 60.3, 62.3, 68.4, 70.3

πεντώβολον 68.4 τετρώβολον 8.3, 10.4, 11.3, 15.3, 21.3, 27.3, ⟨30.3⟩, 4, 32.3, 34.3, 37.4, 38.4, 41.2, 3, 43.3, 4, 44.3, 48.4, 5, 52.4, 53.3, 4, 57.3, 4, 62.4, 5, 64.4, 65.4, 66.3, 4, 67.4 τριώβολον 63.4

Indexes

149

6. Taxes διε ̣( ) 47.2, 56.2, 68.4 ζυτηρά 1.2, 2.2, 71.3 κεδρία 4.6, 5.3 λαογραφία 10.2, 18.1, 35.2, 36.2, 40.1, 54.2, 68.2, 69.2 μύρου τετάρτη 23.1, 39.1–2, 41.1, 64.2 νιτρική 2.2 συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ 26.1–2, 27.1–2, 30.2, 34.1–2, 46.1–2, 51.2, 52.2,

55.2, 57.2, 66.1–2, 67.2 ταρι(χ ) 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.3 ταριχευ(τ ) 8.1, 9.1, 11.1, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2, 15.1, 16.2, 17.1, 19.2, 20.2, 21.1, 22.2, 25.2, 28.2, 29.2, 31.1, 32.2, 33.1, 37.1, 38.2, 42.1, 43.2, 44.2, 45.2, 48.1, 49.2, 50.2, 53.2, 58.2, 59.2, 60.2, 61.2, 62.2, 65.2, 70.2 ταριχευτής, see ταριχ( ), ταριχευ(τ )

ταριχευτικόν, see ταριχ( ), ταριχευ(τ ) ταφικόν, see συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ τέλος 1.2, 2.2, 9.1, 11.1, 12.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1, 20.2, 25.2, 26.1, 29.1, 31.1, 32.2, 33.1, 34.1, 38.2, 43.2, 44.1, 45.2, 55.2, 57.2, 59.1, 61.1, 60.2, 65.2, 70.2 τετάρτη, see μύρου τετάρτη φυλ( ) 68.4

7. Greek words ἀλλαγή 3.4 ἄλλος 58.5 ἀνήρ 71.3 ἀργύριον 9.2, 10.3, 11.2, 12.3 ἀρίθμησις 71.1 αὐτός: 4.6; αὐτοῦ ἔτους 3.3, 7.2, 9.2, 10.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2, 15.2, 16.2, 17.1–2, 19.2, 20.2, 21.1, 22.2, 23.1, 28.2, 29.2, 37.2, 42.1, 43.2, 44.2, 45.2, 46.2, 48.2, 49.2, 50.2, 51.2, 52.2, 53.2, 55.2, 56.2, 57.2, 58.2, 59.2, 60.2, 61.2, 62.2, 63.2, 64.2, 65.2, 66.2, 67.2, 68.2 γίγνομαι 3.5, 4.4, 7, 9, 5.3, 4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.3, 5, 9.3, 10.4, 11.3, 12.3, 13.3, 14.4, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3, 18.3, 19.3, 20.4, 21.3, 22.3, 23.3, 25.4, 26.3, 27.3, 28.4, 29.3, 30.4, 31.3, 32.3, 33.2, 34.3, 4, 35.3, 36.3, 4, 37.3, 4, 38.4, 39.3, 40.3, 41.3, 42.2, 43.4, 44.3, 45.4, 46.4, 47.4, 48.3, 5, 49.3, 50.4, 51.3, 52.4, 53.4, 54.3, 55.4, 56.4, 57.4, 58.4, 59.4, 60.3, 61.4, 62.3, 5, 63.4, 64.4, 65.4, 66.4, 67.4, 68.3, 69.3, 70.3, 71.6 γραμ( ) 24.2 γυνή 1.2 δέκα (δέκα εἷς) 12.3, 13.3, 19.3, 22.3, 28.3, 33.2, 37.3, 49.3, 61.3 δεκαοκτώ 23.2, 42.2, 70.3 δεκατέσσαρες 8.2, 10.3, 11.2–3, 21.2, 30.3, 34.3, 38.3–4, 43.3, 44.3, 53.3 διαγράφω 24.1, 71.2 διε ̣( ), see Index 6 δισχίλιοι 3.4, 5.3

διώβολον, see Index 5 δραχμή, see Index 5 δύο 8.5, 9.2 (εἴκοσι δύο), 14.4, 16.3 (εἴκοσι δύο), 17.2, 20.4, 23.2, 25.4, 26.3, 29.3, 31.3, 39.3, ⟨42.2⟩, 45.4, 46.4, 48.3, 50.4, 51.3, 55.4, 56.3, 58.4, 59.3, 60.3, 62.3, 64.4 εἴκοσι 9.2 (εἴκοσι δύο), 16.3 (εἴκοσι δύο), 52.3 (εἴκοσι πέντε) εἷς 12.3 (δέκα εἷς), 13.3 (δέκα εἷς), 19.3 (δέκα εἷς), 22.3 (δέκα εἷς), 28.3 (δέκα εἷς), 33.2 (δέκα εἷς), 37.3 (δέκα εἷς), 46.3 (πεντήκοντα εἷς), 49.3 (δέκα εἷς), 61.3 (δέκα εἷς), 63.4 ἑκατόν 6.4 ἑξάμηνος 1.3, 2.3 ἐπάγω: ἐπαγόμεναι 58.2 ἑπτά 7.4, 8.4, 14.3, 17.2, 20.3, 25.4, 26.3, 29.3, 31.2, 39.3, 45.3, 48.3, 50.3, 51.3, 55.3, 58.3, 59.3, 60.3, 62.3 ἔτος for regnal years, see Index 1; for αὐτοῦ ἔτους, see αὐτός above ζυτηρά, see Index 6 κεδρία, see Index 6 κώμη 71.4 λαογραφία, see Index 6 λόγος 71.5 μέγας 1.2 μύρον, see Index 6, μύρου τετάρτη νιτρική, see Index 6 ὀβολός, see Index 5 ὀκτακόσιοι 3.4 ὀκτώ 7.4, 18.3, 24.4, 35.3, 36.3, 54.3, 68.3, 69.3, 71.5

ὁμοίως 2.4, 8.3–4, 48.4, 62.4 πεντακόσιοι 5.3 πέντε 52.3 (εἴκοσι πέντε) πεντήκοντα 4.7, 46.3 (πεντήκοντα εἷς) πεντώβολον, see Index 5 πρεσβύτερος 72.1 πρῶτος 2.3 συμβολ( ), see Index 6, συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ ταρι(χ ), see Index 6 ταριχευ(τ ), see Index 6 τάσσω 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 9.1, 10.2, 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, 15.1, 17.1, 19.1, 21.1, 22.2, 23.1, 28.1, 30.1, 36.1, 42.1, 49.1, 51.1, 66.1 ταφικόν, see Index 6, συμβολ( ) ταφικοῦ τέλος, see Index 6 τεσσαράκοντα 27.3 τέσσαρες 40.3 τέταρτος, see Index 6, μύρου τετάρτη τετρακόσιοι 4.6 τετρώβολον, see Index 5 τράπεζα 3.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2 τραπεζίτης 4.10 τρεῖς 15.3, 32.3, 36.3, 37.4, 41.2, 47.3, 48.4, 57.3, 62.4, 65.4, 66.3, 67.4 τριακόσιοι 4.4 τριώβολον, see Index 5 φυλ( ), see Index 6 χαλκός 3.4, 6.3 χίλιοι 4.3, 6.3

150

Ostraka in the collection of New York University

Indexes of the Coptic ostraka (74–77) 1. Geographic terms ⲧⲣⲓⲛⲏ 74.2

2. Products ⲥⲟⲩⲟ 74.3, 75.1

κριθή 74.5

σῖτος 74.4, 5

3. Measures ἀρτάβη 74.5

4. Containers ⲗⲁϩⲏ 76.5 ϭⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ 74.3, 7

θαλλίον 74.4, 75.2

κολοβόν 76.3

5. Egyptian words ⲁⲥ (ⲁⲡⲁⲥ) 75.1 ⲉⲓⲣⲉ (ⲟ†) 74.6 ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ 77.3 ⲕⲟⲩⲓ 76.5

ⲗⲁϩⲏ, see Index 4 ⲙⲏⲧ (ⲙⲛⲧ-) 76.2 ⲥⲟⲩⲟ, see Index 2 ϯⲟⲩ (-ⲧⲏ) 74.3, 76.2

ⲧⲱⲱⲃⲉ 74.3 ϩⲉ 74.6 ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ (ϫⲟⲩⲧ-) 74.3 ϭⲟⲟⲩⲛⲉ, see Index 4

6. Greek words ἀρτάβη, see Index 3 θαλλίον, see Index 4 καί 74.5

κολοβόν, see Index 4 κριθή, see Index 2 σιγιλλόω (?) 74.4

σῖτος, see Index 2 φορά 74.2, 75.4, 76.3

Concordance Inventory 01 02 03 04 05 06 (now lost) 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Number 71 13 2 65 66 64 70 58 55 68 9 47 26 41 40 53 69 4 27 15 7 16 72 17 74 77 52 39

Inventory 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

151

Number 32 24 14 60 28 19 29 38 73 20 42 44 54 8 5 43 51 33 36 1 49 23 12 34 50 22 56 6

152 Inventory 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Ostraka in the collection of New York University Number 76 31 45 48 21 30 18 37 10 35 62

Inventory 68 69 70 71 72 73 LACMA inv. M.80.202.188 LACMA inv. M.80.202.196 LACMA inv. M.80.202.198 LACMA inv. M.80.202.202

Number 11 25 59 75 46 57 61 67 3 63