Rome in Egypt's Eastern Desert: Volume Two 9781479810741

Citation preview

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert Volume 2 Hélène Cuvigny edited with an introduction by Roger S. Bagnall

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

© 2021 Institute for the Study of the Ancient World NYU Press ISBN 978-1-479-81-0611 (hardcover, vol. 1) ISBN 978-1-479-81-0673 (ebook, vol. 1) ISBN 978-1-479-81-0680 (ebook other, vol. 1) ISBN 978-1-479-81-0697 (hardcover, vol. 2) ISBN 978-1-479-81-0703 (ebook, vol. 2) ISBN 978-1-479-81-0741 (ebook other, vol. 2) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cuvigny, Hélène, author. | Bagnall, Roger S., editor, translator. Title: Rome in Egypt's Eastern Desert / Hélène Cuvigny ; edited with an introduction by Roger S. Bagnall. Other titles: ISAW monographs. Description: New York : New York University Press, Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 2021. | Series: ISAW monographs | Translated from French. | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. | Summary: "Rome in Egypt's Eastern Desert collects Prof. Cuvigny's most important articles on Egypt's Eastern desert during the Roman period. From the excavations of the forts that she has directed have come a wealth of material, including tens of thousands of texts written on potsherds (ostraca). Some of these are administrative texts, but many more are correspondence, both official and private, written by and to the people (mostly but not all men) who lived and worked for periods of time in these remote and harsh environments, supported by an elaborate network of defense, administration and supply that tied the entire region together. The contents have all been published earlier in peer-reviewed venues, but almost entirely in French. All contributions have been translated or checked by the editor and brought up to date with respect to bibliography and in some cases significantly rewritten by the author, in order to take account of the enormous amount of new material discovered in the intervening time and subsequent publications. A full index will make this body of work far more accessible than it now is. This book brings together thirty years of detailed study of this material, bringing to life the geography, administration, military, quarry operations, life in the forts, and the religion and expressive language of the population who lived in them"-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021017969 (print) | LCCN 2021017970 (ebook) | ISBN 9781479810642 (v. 1 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781479810697 (v. 2 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781479810611 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781479810673 (v. 1 ; ebook) | ISBN 9781479810680 (v. 1 ; ebook other) | ISBN 9781479810703 (v. 2 ; ebook) | ISBN 9781479810741 (v. 2 ; ebook other) Subjects: LCSH: Ostraka--Egypt--Eastern Desert. | Eastern Desert (Egypt)--Antiquities. | Mons Claudianus Site (Egypt) | Rome--History--Empire, 30 B.C.-284 A.D. | Egypt--History--Greco-Roman period, 332 B.C.-640 A.D. Classification: LCC DT73.E27 C89 2021 (print) | LCC DT73.E27 (ebook) | DDC 932/.1022--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021017969 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021017970

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

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) Clementia Caputo, The House of Serenos, Part I: The Pottery (Amheida V) (2020) Jonathan Valk and Irene Soto Marín, Ancient Taxation: The Mechanics of Extraction in Comparative Perspective (2021) Hélène Cuvigny, Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert (2021)

Contents Preface List of Illustrations List of Tables Original Publications of the Chapters Map of the Eastern Desert

v xii xvii xix xxii

Volume 1 Introduction and Survey Introduction (Roger S. Bagnall) 1. A survey of place-names in the Egyptian Eastern Desert during the principate according to the ostraca and the inscriptions

1 7

Part I. Senior Administrators 2. Ulpius Himeros, imperial procurator (I.Pan 53) 3. Sulpicius Serenus, procurator Augusti, and the titulature of the prefects of Berenike 4. Claudius Lucilianus, prefect of an ala and of Berenike 5. Vibius Alexandros, prefect and epistrategos of the Heptanomia 6. Procurator Montis

81 91 113 117 127

Part II. The Quarries 7. Greek ostraca from Mons Claudianus, revisited 8. An inscription of an ἐργοδότης in a quarry at Mons Claudianus 9. The amount of the wages paid to the quarry-workers at Mons Claudianus 10. Two ostraca from Mons Claudianus: O.Bahria 20 and 21 11. The organization chart of the personnel of an imperial quarry according to an ostracon of Mons Claudianus 12. A dedication to Zeus Helios Great Sarapis in honor of a desector on an ostracon from Mons Claudianus

v

135 147 165 175 181 213

vi Part III. The Road System and the Mail 13. An unpublished ostracon from the Eastern Desert and the provenance of O.Amst. 9 14. Kaine, a new town: an experiment in familial reunification in the second century AD 15. The road system of the Eastern Desert of Egypt under the Early Empire in the light of the excavated ostraca 16. Collection of cases of irregularities in the transmission of official mail 17. The postal register of Turbo, curator of the praesidium of Xeron Pelagos 18. Men and gods in a network

223 227 233 261 267 299

Volume 2 Part IV. Military Rations 19. A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica 20. The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse according to an ostracon from the praesidium of Dios 21. An unrecognized type of military administrative document: the order for payment of frumentum praeteritum (O.Claud. inv. 7235 and Ch.L.A. XVIII 662)

325 337 355

Part V. Business and Prostitution 22. Conductor praesidii 23. Quintana, a woman transformed into a tax 24. Rotating women: remarks on prostitution in the Roman garrisons of the Desert of Berenike 25. “Me too” in the praesidia, or when reality meets theatrical fiction

367 375 379 389

Part VI. Desert Dwellers 26. Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert 27. Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert 28. Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns: the letters of Diourdanos to Archibios, curator Claudiani

397 415 439

Part VII. Religion and Magic 29. Twilight of a god: the decline of the cult of Pan in the Eastern Desert 30. A soldier of the cohors I Lusitanorum at Didymoi: once again on the inscription I.Kanaïs 59bis 31. The shrine in the praesidium of Dios (Eastern Desert of Egypt): graffiti and oracles in context 32. The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men and imposes a preventive “seal” (tattoo?) 33. “The wheat for the Jews” (O.KaLa. inv. 228) 34. The oldest representation of Moses, drawn by a Jew around AD 100

465 473 479 527 539 545

vii Part VIII. Language 35. Πλήρωμα in the identification of soldiers in the navy 36. Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript 37. Πέμπειν/ἀγοράζειν τῆς τιμῆς in Greek letters from Egypt 38. The names of cabbage in the Greek ostraca from the Eastern Desert: κράμβη, κραμβίον, καυλίον 39. Χίλωμα = Haversack 40. “When Heroïs has given birth…” ἐάν = ὅταν in temporal clauses referring to the future

557 561 571 577 585 591

Conclusion 41. Are ostraca soluble in history?

597

Abbreviations Bibliography

617 621

Indexes 1. Sources A. Greek and Latin authors B. Greek and Latin ostraca, papyri, and tablets C. Greek and Latin inscriptions 2. Persons 3. Places and ethnic names 4. Greek and Latin words A. Greek a. Lexical b. Personal and geographical names B. Latin a. Lexical b. Personal and geographical names 5. Subjects

639 639 639 640 641 643 647 647 647 649 650 650 651 652

viii

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The Eastern Desert © Louis Manière (ERC project “Desert Networks,” CNRS)

19 A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica O.Dios inv. 480 comes from the outside dump of the praesidium of Dios, the present-day Abu Qurayya, better known to historians under the name of Iovis given it by the Antonine Itinerary. It is the fifth Roman station on the route from Koptos to Berenike, which was, along with the road from Koptos to Myos Hormos (Qusayr), one of the two great routes crossing the desert region that was called the “Desert of Berenike” (Mons Berenicidis) under the Empire. The two roads were marked by little forts (praesidia), housing small garrisons of fifteen soldiers or so, commanded by a subordinate officer bearing the title curator praesidii. These soldiers were detached from various units stationed in Upper Egypt; the curatores were directly under the orders of the governor of the Desert of Berenike, the prefect of Berenike.1 Civilians also lived in the praesidia alongside the soldiers; their number and status are difficult to discern (slaves, relatives, merchants…). The excavations, which began at Dios in 2005,2 have brought to light the Latin dedication of the fortlet,3 which gives us 115/6 as the date of its foundation. The document published here is a receipt in the form of a chirograph for the monthly rations in kind, as the use of the verb μεμέτρημαι (“I have had measured”) shows. Its state of preservation and the clumsiness of the writer create several uncertainties

1. On the prefect of Berenike, see Chapter 3. 2. On these excavations, see preliminarily BIFAO 106 (2006) 409–12 and 107 (2007) 319–23. 3. Published in Chapter 31, pp. 481 f.

325

326

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 72. O.Dios inv. 480. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

O.Dios inv. 480 (magazine of the Supreme Council of Antiquities at Quft). 13 × 17 cm. Sherd from the wall of an AE3 amphora. The upper left corner is broken. Reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161), perhaps year 8 (144/5). Fig. 72.

4

8

12

16

margin [ 6–8 ] Ψ̣ε̣ν̣{ν̣}οσιρι κου̣[ράτο]ρος πρεσιδίου Διὸς [χαίρ]ιν. μεμέτρημε τὰ [κι]β̣άριά μου ἐν τͅ ὡρίῳ πλήρης ν τὰ πούπλικα καταβέβληκα μ̣ημν δεσσάρων Θωθ ὁμοίως Φαοφι Ἁθυρ καὶ Χοια⟨κ⟩, γίνοτε ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ μημν vac. δεσσάρων ν καὶ τὰ πούπλικα γίνοτε δραχμὰς ἑκατὲν ὀκκτώ ἔτους Ἁδριανοῦ Σεβα⟨σ⟩τοῦ Ἀντων{ν}ίνου.

1 ψ̣[]ν̣οσιρι ed. pr. 1–2 l. κουράτορι πραισιδίου 3 l. μεμέτρημαι 4 l. τῷ ὡρρίῳ 5 l. ὧν 6, 9–10 l. μηνῶν 7 l. τεσσάρων 9, 11–12 l. γίνεται 9–10 l. μῆνες τέσσαρες 12 δραχμας ostr. l. δραχμαὶ ἑκατὸν 13 l. ὀκτώ 14 τους

A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica

327

“… curator of the praesidium of Dios, greetings. I have received at the granary my food rations for four months in full: Thoth as well as Phaophi, Hathyr, and Choiak, for which I have paid the publica, that is in all four months, for which the publica amount to one hundred (or one hundred eight) drachmas. “In year (eight?) of Hadrianus Augustus Antoninus.” 1–2.

κου̣|[ράτο]ρος. Another reading and restoration may be considered: κον̣[δούκτο]ρος. It is based on two parallels. One is O.Did. 54 (c. 96), an order for delivery of barley and bread for the benefit of two civilians, of which the prescript runs Ψενθώτης κονδούκτωρι Διδύμου ὑδρεύματ(ος) χ(αίρειν), “Psenthotes to the contractor of the well of Didymos, greetings.” The other is P.Bagnall 11, an ostracon from Xeron dating to 96, which is a receipt addressed to the conductor (μισθωτής) of Xeron Pelagos (edited in Chapter 22). But these parallels are unique and early. Moreover, in the present case, the traces of the third letter fit upsilon better than nu, and the lacuna appears too narrow for six letters.

4.

[κι]β̣άρια. The space and the slight remains of the first letter after the lacuna do not forbid this reading. The word κιβάριον, used in either the singular or the plural in various dossiers, is common in the ostraca of the desert zones of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia (the ostraca of Pselchis). But it is not always used with the same meaning: see below. ἐν τͅ ὡρίῳ. The praesidia of the Desert of Berenike had granaries, referred to in the ostraca by the Greek term θησαυρός or described by using a direct borrowing of the Latin horreum (ὅρεον at Maximianon: cf. Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 218).

13.

ὀκκτώ. It is difficult to know if this number is part of the total expressed in drachmas or if it is the regnal year number, which had been forgotten and then added in the blank space left between the body of the text and the date. One would in that case expect ὀγδόου. To my knowledge, there is no example of ἔτους followed by a cardinal number: could an incompetent writer commit such a blunder, particularly if to his ear there was no great difference between ὀκκτώ and ὀγδόου?

14.

The initial epsilon of ἔτους adopts the form of the symbol that normally represents this word. For a similar instance, see P.Sijp., pl. 48 (pointed out by Fabian Reiter). That suggests that the sign, whatever its actual origin, was interpreted by this point as a schematic epsilon.

General commentary §1. The recipient of the receipt: probably the curator praesidii The title curator praesidii figures in the prescript, but it is in the genitive. In my view, the most likely reason is that we are dealing with a banal case of confusion between genitive and dative and that, as a result, we should see the curator praesidii as the addressee of the chirograph. Before κου[ράτο]ρος, it is tempting to restore the personal name Psenosiris (which would have been written with two nu, like Ἀντωννίνου in line 15). If we accept this restoration as correct, the question arises whether Psenosiris was the name of the curator or is part of the name phrase of the declarant. The first possibility seems preferable to me: it is quite exceptional, in the correspondence of the Eastern Desert, for the name of the recipient to be omitted, with only his function being indicated; I have found in such correspondence

328

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

only one example of a letter addressed to a curator whose name is not given (O.Claud. inv. 7020) and two cases with other titles: O.Did. 54, cited earlier, and O.Claud. I 125 (Ποντικὸς διπλοκάριος τῷ ἰς Κλαυδιανὸν καισαριανῷ χαίρειν). In this instance, our declarant identifies himself only by his personal name, which is less troublesome than the omission of his position, a piece of information that normally is present in receipts delivered to the administration (cf. the receipts for advances to the familia in O.Claud. III), especially in the case of a soldier. Another possibility one might consider would be that the chirograph was contaminated by the form of the hypomnema, in which case the genitive κου[ράτο-] ρος would depend on a παρά lost in the lacuna. But several arguments militate against such a solution: (1) the presence of χαίρειν, which would be abnormal in the hypomnema formula; (2) the shortage of space that would remain for the addressee’s name, which would thus have to be very short; (3) the need for the recipient of the rations in that case to be the curator himself, but we would more naturally expect this subordinate officer to be a distributor, responsible for managing the granary of the praesidium: cf. O.Krok. inv. 607 (116), a receipt for barley drawn up by a dromadarius for the curator of Krokodilo.4 Taking these considerations together, I think that the receipt was drawn up for the curator, who may have been named Psenosiris, unless this is the name of the declarant. This local personal name for a soldier might be surprising under Antoninus, but there are examples of similar names. Thus, we find at Mons Claudianus, under the same emperor, curators named Nepheros (κουράτωρ Τιβεριανῆς toward 152) and Pamoskeris (κουράτωρ Κλαυδιανοῦ, cf. O.Claud. II 379, introduction). But who is the declarant?

§2. The declarant: probably a soldier a. Kibarion/kibaria In the ostraca from the desert regions of Upper Egypt, we find three categories of persons who can receive food rations called cibaria: – the employees of the familia Caesaris, for whom large numbers of receipts for advances of rations have been found in the quarry of Mons Claudianus; in this dossier, τὸ κιβάριόν μου (vel sim.) designates rations in kind, consisting of oil and lentils, which are paid in addition to the ὀψώνιον (salary in money) and the σῖτος (grain ration). – also, at Mons Claudianus, the stonemasons and smiths, free Egyptians, whose community is designated by the collective term pagani. Unlike the employees of the familia, they do not receive foodstuffs free on top of their salary and artaba of wheat; the monthly instructions (entolai) that they draw up for the commissariat5 rarely use the term κιβάρια (always in the plural), which appears as a generic term to refer to foodstuffs other than wheat: in O.Claud. inv. 6046, oil, lentils, wine, and dates are expressly designated as κιβάρια. The pagani pay for these foodstuffs from their own pockets; the total for their order is deducted from their cash salary. – the soldiers: the site of Pselchis (Dakka, in Lower Nubia), where the camp of the cohors II Ituraeorum equitata was located, has produced a series of receipts for wine issued by soldiers for a certain Petronius, described as κιβαριάτωρ (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/18–63). In most cases, the soldier states that he has received a kolophonion of wine, which he says he has drawn ἐκ τοῦ κιβαρίου (“from my alimentary ration”), and of which he indicates the value in money (a variable amount, most commonly three denarii, i.e., 12 drachmas). 4. Text published in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 343 (= SB XXVIII 17090). 5. The entolai date from the reign of Antoninus. They allowed the pagani to receive their salary and foodstuffs à la carte. On this dossier, see preliminarily Chapters 9 and 10.

A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica

329

In Latin, cibaria is used almost exclusively in the plural (it is, moreover, classed by the grammarians among the neuter nouns always used in the plural: TLL, s.v. cibarius 1035); the TLL lists only two uses in the singular, in both cases instances of technical language (the phrase cibari nomine, “on account of nourishment,” a use distinctive to wills, and the cibarium, a coarse residue remaining after the extraction of white flour from wheat, according to the description of Pliny, Nat. 18.87). In the Upper Egyptian ostraca, by contrast, whenever the term is used to refer to a specified ration (familia at Mons Claudianus, soldiers at Pselchis), it is in the singular. If it appears in the plural in O.Dios inv. 480, it is because it concerns four rations. In the entolai of the pagani, where it appears in the plural, it means simply “the non-grain foodstuffs,” and does not correspond to a specified assemblage or quantity. The population of the praesidia in the Desert of Berenike presents a rather different profile from that of the imperial quarries located to the north of the road to Myos Hormos. We can exclude the hypothesis that the declarant in the Dios receipt was a paganus; and the familia Caesaris is scarcely represented in the ostraca from the Desert of Berenike. The most probable solution is that the beneficiary of the cibaria was a soldier, even though he does not indicate his turma or century in the customary manner. Several indications support this hypothesis. First, it is noteworthy that the four months for which the man received his cibaria are precisely those covered by the first stipendium, that of the calends of January. Our receipt thus fits into the calendar of military pay. I do not suppose that the declarant actually drew four months’ rations all at once. It is more likely that we have here a recapitulation, perhaps drawn up in view of the anticipated audit of accounts carried out at the moment of the stipendium, and forming part of the supporting documentation that the curators would have had to present to the accountants at the moment of the balancing of accounts. Even if the soldiers collected their pay once every four months, the stipulated rations must necessarily have been provided to them at smaller intervals. Under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, the soldiers of Pselchis drew their wine at their convenience, but they received their wheat in monthly rations, which amounted to one artaba (cf., for example, Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/1. 3–5: ἔλαβον παρὰ σοῦ τὸν σῖτόν μου ὑπὲρ μηνὸς Χυακ [ἀ]ρτάβη⟨ν⟩ μίαν). The distribution of the specified rations to the soldiers in the praesidia of the Eastern Desert did not generate dossiers of ostraca comparable to the receipts issued by the employees of the familia Caesaris: we are better informed, thanks to their private correspondence, on the extras that they got for special occasions, paying for them out of their own pockets (fish, vegetables, meat, oil). At most one might cite, to clarify the discussion, the following unpublished letter from Mons Claudianus, which is so far the only testimony in the Eastern Desert for the use of the word κιβάριον to designate a monthly military ration.

330

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 73. O.Claud. inv. 4524+5700. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

O.Claud. inv. 4524+5700 (magazine of the Supreme Council of Antiquities at Quft). 13.5 × 14.8 cm. Sherd from the wall of an AE3 amphora. Second century, on the basis of stratigraphy. Fig. 73.

4

8

Σεραπίων Διοσκόρου κεντυρία⟨ς⟩ Μερκουρίου Πρείσκῳ συστρατιώτῃ χαίρειν. καλῶς ποιήσις δοὺς τὸ κιβάριόν μου τοῦ Ἐπειφ μηνὸς {δ̣οὺς} []μ̣ησι ἀρτοκόπῳ ἐκ φαμιλίας καὶ λαβὼν παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀ̣π̣ο̣χ̣(ήν). vacat Ἐπειφ λ̅. ἔρρωσο.

“Serapion son of Dioskoros, from the century of Mercurius, to his comrade Priscus, greetings. Please give my kibarion of the month of Epeiph to …mesis, baker of the familia, and get a receipt from him. Epeiph 30. Farewell.” This text shows that the soldiers detached to Mons Claudianus received a food ration each month. We do not know what its composition was. We might suppose this kibarion that the temporarily absent Serapion requests his comrade to draw in his place consisted of wheat, because he has it turned over to a baker. I would not exclude this possibility, but it has to be noted that in the three dossiers discussed

A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica

331

earlier κιβάριον is contrasted to σῖτος. Moreover, if we admit that in all probability κιβάριον refers to the same reality in the letter of Serapion and the receipt from Dios, it could not, given its price in this receipt (25 or 27 drachmas), consist only in an artaba of wheat; three entolai from Mons Claudianus that mention the price of an artaba of wheat at the same period give amounts of 6, 8, and 9 drachmas.6 From this one concludes that the kibarion of a detached soldier in the Eastern Desert toward the year 150 consisted in a monthly ration composed of various foods, and that we do not know if this included the artaba of wheat or not. b. Πούβλικα: always a military context? The mention of the publica also suggests that the issuer of the receipt from Dios is a soldier. This verbal borrowing is not attested in the Greek documents from Egypt, except in two other ostraca from the Desert of Berenike: O.Krok. I 70 (Trajan) and O.Dios inv. 972 (second century). O.Krok. 70 is a letter the sender of which (Τιτοσῆνος) writes to his correspondent Capito (lines 3–7): καλῶς ποιήσις ἀπαιτήσις τὰ πούπλικα ἀπὸ τοῦ Βέσσου · καὶ ὀφείλι τάλαντον ἀχύρου, “please claim the publica from the Bessian; he owes also a talent for chaff.” This “Bessian,” given his ethnic nickname, is far more likely to be a cavalryman of Thracian origin than an indigenous taxpayer,7 as I had supposed in the publication, led astray by the idea that τὰ πούπλικα had to be a Latinism for τὰ δημόσια (scil. εἴδη), “the public dues, the taxes”; the mention of achyron confirms that the Bessian has a horse to feed; a new reading of lines 8–9 of O.Krok. 70 allows us to understand that the Bessian had paid neither the publica, nor an extra talent of chaff (Chapter 20, pp. 352 f.). We do not know for certain the functions of the sender and recipient of this note. Τιτοσῆνος is perhaps to be identified with Μᾶρκος Τιτυ[], curator of the praesidium of Krokodilo and addressee of the letter O.Krok. I 69. As for Capito, this name was also borne by a curator of Krokodilo (O.Krok. I 5–23). It is possible to imagine that O.Krok. I 70 was written at the point when Capito replaced Titusenus in charge of the garrison; the latter would be pointing out to his successor a matter still in progress that he had not been able to settle before his departure. Let us now look at the third attestation of πούβλικα.

6. These amounts are of the same level as those tabulated between c. 18 BC and AD 160 in Drexhage 1991: 13–15. A noticeable rise took place after 160. 7. Βέσσος is not known as a personal name in Egypt; as an ethnic, the only other example is P.Oxy. XVI 1903.9 (561), where it is connected with the bucellarii.

332

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 74. O.Dios inv. 972. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

O.Dios inv. 972 (magazine of the Supreme Council of Antiquities at Quft). 11 × 5 cm. Sherd from an AE3 amphora wall. Second century. Fig. 74.

4

Ἀσκληπιάδης Ἀθηναίωι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις στρατιώταις χαίρειν. ἐξῆλθα ἀφ’ ὑμῶν μὴ λαβὼν πούβλικα ὑπὸ τω[] — — — — — — — —

“Asklepiades to Athenaios and to the other soldiers, greetings. I left you without having collected publica…”  It is exceptional, in the documentation of the praesidia, for a letter to be addressed “to the soldiers.” I can cite only one other example, O.Dios inv. 481, a damaged letter sent by a certain Baratit, known elsewhere to have been hypotyrannos of the Barbaroi toward the middle of the third century, a period when the life of the fortlets in the Eastern Desert gives indications of disorganization (O.Did. 41–43 and Chapter 27, p. 416). Otherwise, all correspondence concerning a garrison is addressed to the curator praesidii. Athenaios here cannot be identified; on the other hand, one or perhaps two curators of Dios were called Asklepiades. If the author of the letter is the curator, the address to the soldiers is self-explanatory. Athenaios would in that case be the replacement for the absent curator. These temporary replacements were called ἀντικουράτωρ8 or προκουράτωρ.9 In line 5, ὑπὸ τω[, probably ὑπὸ τῶν̣, should introduce the reason for which the curator has left without having collected the publica. 8. O.Claud. inv. 7295, published in Chapter 5 (= SB XXVIII 16941). 9. O.Did. 62; O.Dios inv. 626.

A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica

333

§3. What were the publica? In O.Dios inv. 480, the receipt for rations is accompanied by a declaration of payment in money on account of the publica. The declaration of payment issued by the payer himself is an uncommon type of document; the reason for it intrigued the editor of P.Oxy. XLV 3241, a chirograph in which a taxpayer writes to the farmers of the enkyklion to inform them that he has paid 62 drachmas of charges on the manumission of a slave: “The purpose (…) is something of a puzzle. It is not an acknowledgement of payment by the recipients, but a statement of payment by the payer, and since it incorporates acknowledgement of a receipt (9–10 ὧν [καὶ σ]ύμβολον ἔσχον), it was clearly not intended to serve as a receipt itself (by being countersigned by the taxmen).” In my view, such a document existed in order to prevent fraud and to protect the payer against bad faith on the part of the collector;10 the technical term for “counter-receipt,” the use of which is recommended in an edict of the prefect Petronius Mamertinus,11 will become, in the fourth century, ἀντάποχον.12 In the present instance, the curator could not embezzle all or part of the money and then claim that the soldier had not paid him a sufficient amount. The ostracon is at one and the same time a receipt for rations and a counter-receipt for the payment of the publica. The publica are here a sum of money, amounting to 25 or 27 drachmas per month. The reason for which a soldier had to pay them in order to receive his rations demands an explanation. Another document may enlighten us: I am struck by several similarities between our ostracon and W.Chr. 416, a receipt for barley issued by the cavalryman Didymos Argentis for the benefit of the presbyteroi of the village of Soknopaiou Nesos in 191: ἔλαβον παρ’ οἱμῶν τῆς ἐπιμερισχῖσαν ὑμῖν κριθὴν ὑπὸ πρα⟨γ⟩ματικῶν νυναγοραστικὴν καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἔθους τιμὴν ὑμῖν κατέβαλον ὑπὲρ μηνῶν δύω Παυνι καὶ Ἐφιπ. (ἔτους) λα Παυνι κ̅η,̅ 13 “I have received from you the barley in compulsory sale which was assigned to you by the officials, and I have paid you the usual price, for two months, Pauni and Epeiph. Year 31, Pauni 28.” As the quantity of barley is not specified, two possible interpretations have been proposed. For Wilcken, the cavalryman drew the provisions for his unit; for Lesquier,14 on the other hand, Didymos Argentis is on detachment to the Fayyum (he in fact belongs to a unit stationed at Alexandria, the ala veterana Gallica), and he is buying the barley ration for his own horse: P.Hamb. I 39 (Rom.Mil. Rec. 76, AD 179) shows that the soldiers detached at a distance from their castra received a cash advance intended to cover the purchase of basic provisions that would normally have been distributed to them in the camp. The receipts entered in this papyrus come from cavalrymen and record the drawing of γράστις, the money intended to pay for the feeding of the mounts, which came to 100 drachmas per year. The author of the present ostracon is equally detached; since he is in the middle of the desert, there was no public granary to open a supply line for him, only the granary of the praesidium. If this analogy is justified, the publica are another name for the price at which a soldier on detachment drew rations. The publica paid by the issuer of O.Dios inv. 480 represent an amount of the same level as the amounts held back in victum from the stipendium of a legionary under Domitian, according to the 10. Just like every dispatch note drawn up at the moment when an object changes hands, for example the certificates of shipment, the function of which Reekmans and Van ’t Dack described as follows: “Notification and certificate of shipment on the one hand secured the captain against contestation by the sender of goods and on the other hand provided the consignee with the most reliable means of checking if the required amount and quality of wheat had been unloaded” (Reekmans and Van ’t Dack 1952: 156). 11. P.Fay. 21.1–2 (134): ἀποχὰς ἀλλήλοις παρέχειν ἐκέλευσα. 12. Cf. W.Chr. 423.10, 17; P.Oxy. XII 1542.1. See also W.Chr. 85.15n. 13. Read ὑμῶν, τὴν ἐπιμερισθεῖσαν, συναγοριστικήν, δύο. 14. Lesquier 1918: 365.

334

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

pay records Rom.Mil.Rec. 68 and 69. In the first, which dates from 81, the sum held back from the first stipendium (the one of the calends of January, which thus pays for service during the four months September–December) for food (in victum) comes to 80 drachmas, to which are added 20 drachmas for the Saturnalia, which were celebrated from the 17th to the 23rd of December. Rom.Mil.Rec. 69 is slightly later (84?) and would fall after the increase of pay under Domitian; this is the reason, according to the commentators, that all of the deductions were some drachmas higher. In this document, the deduction in victum comes to 128 drachmas for the first stipendium, and to 100 for the two others, the difference of 28 drachmas being explained, according to Marichal, by the funds deducted for the saturnalicium. Let us recall that in the ostracon from Dios (issued by an auxiliary), the publica corresponding to the first stipendium amounted to 100 (or 108) drachmas. The ostraca from Pselchis witness equally that the prescribed ration (τὸ κιβάριον) was converted by an entry in cash in the accounts of stipendium and was even broken down into τιμὴ οἴνου, τιμὴ φακοῦ, ἁλός, ὄξους (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/15). The soldiers of Pselchis may have been free to draw their kibarion in kind or in cash, up to the limit of the credit on their account: this is at any rate how the receipts of the type ἔλαβον παρὰ σοῦ ἀπὸ τιμῆς οἴνου + sum of money in the accusative or, more problematically, in the genitive (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/70) are usually interpreted.15 Unlike wheat, the foodstuffs of the kibarion, at Pselchis, seem not to have been the object of regular monthly withdrawals: according to the wine receipts, which are practically all that has survived, draws could happen on any day of the month and, even though the quantity is almost always the same (1 kolophonion), the receipts never specify that the amount corresponds to the wine ration of a particular month, in the way that the wheat receipts do. The wine withdrawals are balanced by entries in money. It is remarkable that the price of this statutory wine is variable, as if military rations were subject to fluctuations in market price; sometimes, instead of the price, we find the formula ἄχρι συν[τιμήσεως]/ἕως συντιμηθῇ,16 literally “until the valuation,” which suggests that because of mechanisms unknown to us, the price at which the wine was debited to soldiers’ accounts was not always known or fixed at the moment of distribution.17 Despite appearances, the Pselchis dossier does not offer a very useful parallel. We do not sufficiently understand either the meaning or the mechanism of cash valuation of the withdrawals in kind; we must keep in mind that the circumstances were different: unlike the detached soldiers in the praesidia, those of Pselchis were settled in their castra hiberna, which obviously permitted more flexibility, because they drew at least their wine piecemeal. Moreover, the Pselchis receipts, being later than the ostracon from Dios, date significantly from a period, between 170 and 190, when prices had doubled18 and when the management of the stipendium and of military supply had undergone transformations. 15. In fact, I have some doubts about this interpretation. It seems inescapable in the case of Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/68 (ἔσχον παρὰ σ[οῦ ἀπὸ] τιμῆς οἴνου δηνάρια δύο), but less so in the cases of Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/69 and /70. In /70, we read: [ἔλαβον παρὰ] σοῦ ὑπ(ὲρ) τιμ[ῆς οἴνου δηνα]ρίων δύο, literally, “I have received from you, on account of the price of wine, for an amount of two denarii.” That could also be an elliptical formulation of the expression “I have received some wine to the value of two denarii, to be debited to my wine credit.” In this case, the receipts of the type ἔλαβον παρὰ σοῦ ἐκ τοῦ κιβαρίου οἴνου κολοφώνιον δηναρίων x and those of the type ἔλαβον παρὰ σοῦ ἀπὸ τιμῆς οἴνου δηνάρια x might be only two formulas to express the same operation. Some ambiguous formulations might have the same meaning: ἔλαβον ἐκ τοῦ κιβαρίου οἴνου δηνάρια ὀκτὼ ὀβολ( ) ὀκτώ (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/37); ἔλαβον παρὰ σοῦ ἀπὸ τιμῆς οἴνου κολοφωνίου δηνάρια δύο ὀβολοὶ ὀκτώ (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/69). This last case gives the (possibly mistaken) impression that the soldiers were obliged to draw either one or two kolophonia, or else the value in cash at the then-current price of the kolophonion and not some arbitrary sum that is consistent with the limit of their wine credit. 16. Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/31 (cf. Préaux 1951: 134, n. 4), /33, /38, /40, /42, /63. 17. The soldier drew his ration even though the price of wine “n’était pas encore établi” (Préaux 1951: 134); Mitthof 2001: 311. 18. This increase, following the troubled period of the Antonine plague and civil disorders (the revolt of the Boukoloi, the usurpation of Avidius Cassius), has been well brought to light by Rathbone 1997.

A receipt for military rations in exchange for payment of publica

335

If my hypothesis is correct, if πούβλικα refers in military jargon to what otherwise would be called τιμὴ κιβαρίου, the choice of publica to designate the price paid by the detached soldier from his pay in money still remains puzzling. Is the term used because detached soldiers would ordinarily supply themselves from public storehouses? Or because the foodstuffs deriving from compulsory purchase were considered to be fiscal foodstuffs, δημόσια, publica? In O.Petr.Mus. 149 (reign of Tiberius), the wheat of which a soldier of the station of Apollonos Hydreuma, on the road to Berenike, acknowledges receipt from a transporter is called πυρὸς δημόσιος. But we have seen that the military kibarion was highly likely to include foodstuffs other than wheat; and of human foods, only wheat, because it was a fiscal product, could be called δημόσιος. So, this explanation is not satisfactory. In the end, I would rather accept the idea that the πούβλικα (scil. χρήματα?) took their name from the fact that they represented a sum provided to the soldier by the army19 (either by deduction from his stipendium or through a supplementary allocation), to allow him to receive outside the camp of his unit a statutory ration, as opposed to supplemental foodstuffs that he purchased of his own desire and out of his own pocket. This hypothesis might be supported by two other receipts issued the same month to the presbyteroi of Soknopaiou Nesos, by Flavius Silvanus, signifer of the equites singulares, SPP XXII 92 and P.Freib. IV 66, of 194.20 In these two instances, Silvanus acknowledges delivery of a batch of javelins, the supplying of which had been assigned to the village, and declares that he has paid the established price. Here is the text of SPP XXII 92.3–6: ἀπέσχον παρ’ ὑμῶν τὰ ἐ̣π[ι]μερισθέντα ἡμῖν (l. ὑμῖν) ἀκόντεια ἐκ φύνεικος ὧν κατέβαλλον ἡμῖν (l. ὑμῖν) τὴν ὡρισμένην τειμὴν δημοσείας. The last word is unfortunately damaged in the other receipt: τὴν ὡρεισμένην τειμ̣ὴν δημοσ̣ε̣ι̣[]. As the ending of δημοσείας is hard to explain, the editor of the Freiburg papyrus refrained from restoring this form. The word has generally been understood as equivalent to διὰ τῆς δημοσίας τραπέζης (Silvanus would have paid through the public bank),21 but R. Bagnall (who corrects to δημοσίᾳ) understands it as meaning “from public funds, at public expense,” which would accord with my interpretation.22

Conclusion We know that under the Empire the purchase of foodstuffs provided to soldiers by the army was theoretically financed by a fixed deduction from their pay, called in victum in two accounts dating to the reign of Domitian. When soldiers were detached, they received a sum with which to purchase on the market the food that they could no longer draw in the camp of their unit. The system of publica may have allowed for the transfer to the Berenike prefecture the value of the food supply for soldiers that the Upper Egyptian military units put at the disposition of the prefecture. The curators, who are known to have kept the accounts of the granaries of the praesidia,23 banked the publica locally. It is striking that we have not found more receipts like O.Dios inv. 480; the reason may be that these documents, intended to be checked by the accountants of the prefecture of Berenike, were drawn up on papyrus, like the receipts of P.Hamb. 39. Formally deficient and abandoned on the spot, O.Dios inv. 480 may have been only a draft.

19. In Caesar, Gal. 7.55, pecunia publica refers to the army’s treasury. 20. Date established by Mitthof 1994: 208, n. 5. 21. Daris 1988a: 735; P.Freib. IV 66.12–13n. 22. Bagnall 1997: 509, n. 15. But I have not found other papyrological examples of δημοσίᾳ used in this meaning. 23. Cf. O.Krok. I 41.66–69, a copy of a circular in which the prefect of Berenike reproaches the curators for their delay in sending him an account of their stocks of wheat, barley, and achyron.

20 The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse according to an ostracon from the praesidium of Dios No information on the pay of auxiliary soldiers can be found in the roughly 15,000 ostraca discovered in the papyrological excavations in the praesidia of the Eastern Desert in which I have participated.1 At most there are hints about military rations, and even these are ambiguous. The registers on papyrus kept by the commandants of these little forts, the curatores praesidiorum, did not remain there. We must be satisfied with the indications that we can gather while trying to interpret as best we can the elusive documents, too laconic or of a private nature as they often are, that were thrown on the dump. Moreover, the practices used for distributing rations to these soldiers, detached and posted under the command of the prefect of Berenike, are unlikely to be representative of the procedures used in the camps where the units from which they were detached were stationed. From the point of view of military rations, the character of the corpus recalls that of the Vindolanda tablets, which like the ostraca were discarded, and about which Whittaker concluded: “The Vindolanda tablets were not much concerned with normal, basic supplies of food and equipments for the army, despite the large quantities that are recorded. The accounts which we have on the tablets must be accounts belonging to entrepreneurs, whether military or civil, who were providing supplementary provisions to soldiers and civilians in the camp and the vicus.”2 Once we set aside the documents that are too incomplete, those that our ignorance of their context leaves completely obscure, those that are unclear because we cannot be sure that the individuals involved were really soldiers, and those that refer to amounts received in a non-recurring fashion by soldiers and thus are not meaningful, we have a very modest corpus. The few relevant texts come mainly from the praesidia of the Desert of Berenike, where the proportion of soldiers in comparison to civilians is considerably higher than in the quarries located north of the Koptos–Myos Hormos road: in those, a handful of soldiers accompanied a large body of civilian workers, while in the praesidia an unknown but probably modest number of civilian sutlers had been authorized to live there to supply the garrisons with food and amusements. 1. Despite the occasional legionary centurions stationed at Mons Claudianus and at Berenike, all of the detached soldiers in the Eastern Desert belonged to auxiliary units and, in the third century, to ethnic units. 2. Whittaker 2004: 106.

337

338

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The diet of a detached soldier in the Eastern Desert consisted of wheat bread, oil, wine, vinegar, green vegetables grown around some of the praesidia (wine and vinegar are attested mainly by jar inscriptions, oil and green vegetables in the private letters); less commonly, the texts relevant to the food supply of soldiers mention onions, dates, legumes (mainly lentils), fish (fresh or preserved), fish sauce, meat (again, preserved or fresh), cheese, and eggs. In the case of the first three foodstuffs, which are omnipresent in the entolai3 of the Egyptian workers at Mons Claudianus, the scarcity of mentions is probably the result of our sources. If the soldier was a cavalryman, his horse essentially consumed barley and achyron, i.e., the residue of threshing, which is translated exactly by the English chaff. Of all of these foodstuffs, only the supply by the army of wheat, barley, and chaff is directly attested. This is particularly clear in the Desert of Berenike, where these are the only supplies to appear in documents that are clearly official in character. Often, two or three of them are mentioned together: – O.Krok. I 41.40–45 (109): the prefect of Berenike orders, in a circular sent to the curators of the praesidia of the road of Berenike, to escort from fort to fort the donkeys who were transporting chaff to Myos Hormos. – O.Krok. I 41.61–71 (109): a circular from the prefect of Berenike ordering the curators to send him information on the state of their stocks of wheat, barley, and chaff left to them by their predecessors. – O.Krok. I 79 (Trajan or Hadrian): a model of a report on the stocks of wheat and barley as it was to be submitted by a curator. – SB XXVIII 170904 (116): a dated receipt for barley issued by a dromadarius to the curator of Krokodilo. – O.Claud. inv. 2336 (second century): a receipt for his monthly ration of barley (“the barley owed to me”) provided by a cavalryman. This document does not necessarily imply that he had received the full amount in one payment; it could be the attestation at the end of the month that he had received the entire amount, after having had partial deliveries. – O.Dios inv. 1460 (second century, before 183). Draft of a complaint addressed by a soldier and his comrades to the prefect of Berenike, denouncing the behavior of the curator. The first grievance mentioned is that he does not give them their rations in full (ll. 5–8): ἑκάστης ἀρτάβης παρὰ Ι μάτιον λαμμάνοντες̣ καὶ μεστὸν κοπρί̣ων καὶ ὕδατος, τὴν δὲ κρειθὴν τῶν ἱππέ̣ω̣ν παρὰ μάτιον κα̣ὶ̣ τὸ ἄχυρον παρὰ {δε}δόδεκα μνᾶ̣ς̣ τὸν σταθμόν, “each artaba, we receive it reduced by 1 mation, and even so full of dirt and water; the barley of the cavalrymen is reduced by a mation5 and their chaff by twelve minas by weight.”6 The wheat, barley, and chaff are also, in the papyri of the principate, the only foodstuffs of which the delivery to the army takes place through taxation, in the form of deliveries in produce or of compulsory sale in public granaries; this is not the case for oil or wine, other products of everyday consumption. If soldiers’ pay (about which the ostraca are silent) was credited at four-month intervals, wheat, barley, and chaff were paid on a monthly basis. Obviously, the soldiers could not collect their rations all at once: where would they have kept them? They must have drawn them in small amounts from the 3. Monthly instructions on the use of their coming salary (Chapters 9 and 10). 4. Published in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: II, 343. 5. Also by artaba? This is not clear. 6. 4.28 kg (of a monthly ration of 85.68 kg, if my interpretation of the ostracon edited below is right).

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

339

granary of the praesidium, each withdrawal probably being charged to his credit balance in the register of the granary. In the camp of the ala Gallorum Sebosiana, at Luguvalium (Carlisle), around 100, the numbers in the distribution lists of the summus curator suggest that he distributed to each squadron its allotment of barley and wheat every three days.7 An ostracon found at Dios associates the three foodstuffs and provides information on the exact amounts that a cavalryman was entitled to. O.Dios. inv. 626 (Fig. 75) US 3485

14.5 × 13 cm

beginning of the second century alluvial clay

This is one of the four slips found at Dios and addressed to a man named Clarus by four comrades. The function of Clarus is never specified, but the requests presented in these documents (“give to so-and-so such an amount of wheat, barley, or chaff ”; “send on letters and their covering dispatch note as soon as he has received them”) strongly suggest that he was none other than the curator of the praesidium of Dios.

Figure 75. O.Dios inv. 626. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen 7. Tomlin 1998: 45.

340

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

4

8

12 3–4 l. μελήσει 12 l. σίτου

Γ̣ενναῖος Κλάρωι τῶι ἀδελφῶι πλεῖστα χαίρειν. ἐρωτῶ σε, ἄδελφε, μελήσι σοι περὶ τῶν πραιτερίτων μου ἐὰν δοθῇ τῇ προβολῇ· ἀπὸ Φαωφι μηνὸς διὰ Ἡρκλεανοῦ προκουράτορος τριῶν ταλάντων ἀχύρου καὶ ἱμιαρτάβιν κριθῆς καὶ μηνὶ Ἁθυρ ἀρτάβας ϛ̅ καὶ ἀρτάβην σείτου καὶ τάλαντα τέσσαρα ἀχύρου. 7 l. Ἡρακλιανοῦ

8 l. τρία τάλαντα

9 ϊμιαρταβιν ostr., l. ἡμιαρτάβιον

“Gennaios to Clarus, his brother, many greetings. I ask you, brother, to take care of my arrears of rations when they are given in the probole: from the month of Phaophi, through the vice-curator Heraklianos, three talents of chaff and a half-artaba of barley, and for the month of Hathyr, 6 artabas (scil. of barley), one artaba of wheat, and four talents of chaff.” 1.

Γ̣ενναῖος. The remaining traces of the gamma would better suit a sigma, or, in this hand, a rho (it is true that the text does not offer another gamma for comparison). But there is only one other attestation, itself doubtful and unverifiable, of a name Σ̣εννα̣ῖος (O.Tait I 22.5 [245 BC]).

5.

For ἐάν in the sense of ὅταν in the koine, see Chapter 40.

6.

προβολῇ. We might render this “when they will be given to the probole,” but I prefer to understand the dative as temporal, because the handful of other examples of the expression τῇ προβολῇ in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert always have a temporal or instrumental meaning, e.g., O.Max. inv. 235: καλῶς ποιήσεις σκύλας σατὲν (l. σεαυτὸν) ὧδε τῇ προβολῇ, “please bestir yourself to come here with the probole.” In the Eastern Desert, the probole was a type of caravan distinct from the poreia and seems to involve a more local traffic: while the poreia served all of the sites starting with the valley, the probole might be no more than a regular shuttle between two fortlets (Didymoi II, pp. 9–10). The expression does not make it possible to decide whether the probole was going to deliver only Gennaios’s rations or was going to carry out a general delivery of arrears. ἀπὸ Φαωφι μηνός is contrasted to μηνὶ Ἁθυρ. I think that the three talents of chaff represent the balance of the ration of Phaophi, while the quantities listed in lines 11–13 correspond to the full ration of Hathyr.

7–8.

διὰ Ἡρκλεανοῦ προκουράτορος. The expression presents two problems: the meaning of the preposition and that of προκουράτωρ. Is this a direct borrowing of the Latin procurator (and, in that case, are we dealing with an imperial or private procurator?), or is this a compound

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

341

based on curator (sc. praesidii) preceded by the prefix pro-, on the model of propraetor or proconsul? This second hypothesis seems to me preferable for three reasons: (1) ἐπίτροπος, a semantic calque for procurator, was in current use (cf. however BGU III 815.5 [140–143] cited by Preisigke, Wörterbuch: Σωκράτης ὁ προκουράτωρ μου); (2) προκουράτωρ in the sense of deputy of a curator praesidii is attested in O.Did. 62.3; (3) the curator praesidii was responsible for distributing rations to the soldiers. I am less comfortable with the interpretation of διά. Does it mean that the balance of the rations from Phaophi depended on an account kept by Heraklianos, because he had occupied the office of curator in that month, while Clarus was responsible for Hathyr? Or instead was Heraklianos a private procurator, a trusted agent whom Gennaios had asked to keep his provisions for the time being? Several private letters do contain requests of this sort, but in all of the Eastern Desert, I know only one case in which ἐπίτροπος seems to refer to a trusted agent who takes care of having provisions delivered to a soldier (O.Claud. inv. 7216, end of the second century).

General commentary 1. The wheat ration Unlike the amounts indicated for the month of Phaophi, which are presented as being only partial, those of Hathyr are likely to represent the complete combination of foodstuffs provided monthly by the army to a cavalryman (at least to one on detached duty in the Eastern Desert). One artaba of wheat was traditionally the monthly ration of an individual in Egypt. Soldiers were no exception, as Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 (221) shows. This document includes a receipt issued by a cavalryman for two months’ worth of wheat, that is, two artabas,8 as do the ostraca of Pselchis, several of which are receipts for the monthly allocation of wheat (Rom.Mil.Rec. 78/1–13 [reign of Commodus9 or of Caracalla]). The problem (which presents itself also for the barley of the horse) is the size of the artaba. To this problem is linked the following question: Is it conceivable that the Roman soldier received a different wheat ration in Egypt than in other provinces? The prevailing view is that provincialization brought with it an alignment of the artaba with Roman dry measures:10 henceforth the artaba would contain 4.5 modii,11 that is, referring to the capacity of the modius italicus established by Richard Duncan-Jones, 38.78 liters.12 This equivalence of 1 art. = 4.5 modii is based on several sources:

8. Contrary to what previous editors have supposed, Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 is not the remnants of a book of receipts: the Latin text which precedes the Greek receipt is not a receipt, but a request presented by the cavalryman for the delivery of his frumentum praeteritum for two months; once the authorities had approved his request, he drew up his receipt below it. My revision of this document appears in Chapter 21. 9. This hypothesis is generally preferred. 10. This view, which may be correct, is markedly simplifying: in premodern societies, measures were notoriously variable. The fluctuations in the size of the artaba, indicated in official or legal texts by various expressions, reflect not only the use of different measures (in the concrete sense of measurement containers), but also different means of expressing quantities (e.g., including or excluding taxes). In conversions between ancient and modern measures, both of capacity and of weight, I have found it simpler not to round off the amounts, even if the precision of decimals is specious. 11. Provided, that is, that we are dealing with a real equivalence and not only an approximate and symbolic one (in the same way that the names of Roman months, in some texts, are merely camouflage for Egyptian months of 30 days). 12. 1 modius italicus = 8.618 l. (ZPE 21 [1976] 51–52). The modius italicus is subdivided into 16 sextarii of 0.5387 l. each.

342

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert – A metrological text, MSR I p. 258 [fr. 81, 5]: ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἀρτάβη μοδίων ⟨ἰταλικῶν⟩13 δ (ἥμισυ), νῦν δὲ διὰ τὴν Ῥωμαικὴν χρῆσιν ἡ ἀρτάβη χρηματίζει γ (γ), “the artaba was equated to 4.5 modii italici, but now, because of Roman usage, the artaba officially corresponds to14 3 modii (1/3).” This text has come down to us in two versions. In one, attributed to Heron of Alexandria,15 the artaba equaled 3 1/3 modii, while in the other, attributed to Julius Africanus, it equaled 3 modii. The past to which ἦν refers is of necessity the principate; the text reflects the introduction in the fourth century of a larger modius (i.e., either the modius xystus of 21.6 sextarii,16 or the modius cumulatus of 24 sextarii, depending on whether the fraction was or was not present in the original text). – A passage of Epiphanius of Constantia (Salamis), according to whom the artaba contained 72 sextarii (Liber de mensuris et ponderibus = MSR I p. 262 [fr. 82.14]). If he is referring to Roman sextarii of 0.5387 l., it measured 38.78 l., which does correspond to 4.5 modii italici. – The synodal decree of Memphis (196 BC):17 to the term ἀρτάβη in the Greek text18 correspond the 8 hekat in the hieroglyphic text.19 Now the hekat measured c. 4.8 liters in the Greco-Roman period,20 which would give a capacity of 38.40 liters per artaba, very close to the 4.5 modii italici of the imperial period. This continuity, which is surprising, leads to the question whether the equation of the artaba to a number of modii was brought about in concrete form (requiring a general replacement of official measures by new and slightly larger ones), or if the equivalence of 1 artaba = 4.5 modii was only statutory. I leave this question to scholars with more expertise in metrology than I have.

In 2007, D. Rathbone wrote that soldiers between the second and fourth century received a monthly ration of 4 modii of wheat (c. 25 kg), or one artaba (c. 30 kg) in Egypt.21 In 2009, however, he expressed the view that under the Empire the frumentationes rose from 4 to 5 modii, for civilian workers as well as for soldiers.22 The Roman artaba of 4.5 modii differs in either case from the supposed ration of a soldier outside Egypt. In my calculations, I shall stick to the common view that the standard artaba contained 4.5 modii. Nonetheless, it does appear that an artaba of 5 modii existed. The witnesses are the following:

13. Omitted by error in the edition of Hultsch: cf. Shelton 1977: 55 n. 3 and 65, n. 22. 14. The general meaning is not in doubt, but the use of χρηματίζει is unexpected; I propose to give it the sense that this verb has in formulas of individual identity, “having as official identity.” 15. Geometrica 23.65.6 (J. L. Heiberg, Heronis Alexandrini quae supersunt omnia, Teubner 1903). 16. Gascou 2008: 320. 17. The two main witnesses are the Rosetta Stone and a stele coming from the region of Damanhour. 18. A passage preserved only in the Rosetta Stone (OGI I 90 = I.Prose 16, line 30). 19. This part of the hieroglyphic text, which is lost on the Rosetta stone, is preserved only on the Damanhour stele. 20. Daumas 1952: 40–41 (I thank Fr. Herbin for this reference). The capacity of the hekat is indicated there as 4.785 l.; it is rounded to 4.8 liters in T. Pommerening, “Weights and Measures, Pharaonic Egypt,” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (Malden 2013) 7089. Being conservative, hieroglyphic writing did not use the artaba, a Persian measure introduced at the end of the 26th dynasty. 21. Rathbone 2007: 170. 22. “In Rome and hence in its empire, the frumentatio of 5 modii a month (408 kg per annum) seems to have set a norm which phased out the mid-republican tradition of 4 modii. A ration of 5 modii per month for all soldiers is perhaps implied by the sum deducted for food from their salary up to AD 84, and is a better fit than 4 modii in accounts like AE 1998, 838 (Carlisle, 80s AD). Egypt retained its traditional 1 artaba a month, now made equivalent to 4.5 modii, which was the standard ration for all Roman soldiers stationed there” (Rathbone 2009: 314). A military ration of 5 modii under the principate cannot be directly demonstrated (D. Rathbone, email of 18 June 2013).

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

343

– A metrological text (MSR I 224.13 and 245.28): ἡ Αἰγυπτία ἀρτάβη ἔχει μοδίους ε, ὁ δὲ μόδιος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος καὶ Ἰταλικὸς ἔχει χοίνικας η, ὁ δὲ χοῖνιξ ξέστας β, “the Egyptian artaba equals 5 modii, the Egyptian modius, just like the Italian, contains 8 choinikes, and the choinix 2 sextarii.” Shelton, however, remarks about this passage that there is a chance that this artaba of 5 modii (or 80 sextarii) was only a theoretical deduction.23 – Some metrological documents found in Egypt24 offer the equivalence of one cubic cubit to 3 1/4 1/8 artabas. As the royal cubit measured 0.526 m, this equation implies an artaba of 43.11 liters, a value that is practically the equivalent of 5 modii italici (43.09 liters).25

2. The horse’s ration Let us attempt to verify the numbers in the ostracon of Gennaios (1) by looking to see if they correspond to the biological requirements of a horse; (2) by comparing them to other papyrological documents: O.Krok. I 18 (Trajan); Tab.Luguval. 1 (= AE 1998, 838 [c. 100]); the papers of the strategos Damarion (185–186); P.Oxy. LX 4087–4088 (fourth century). A. The biological needs of the horse The evidence of ancient sources and the statements that modern commentators have drawn from them constitute a rather cacophonous body. One of the reasons for this situation is that the composition of the equine regimen must have been adapted to the circumstances, to local resources, to the seasons, and to the metabolism of the individual (there are good doers and poor doers). Another is that, even if the horse is much more delicate than the donkey, the range of divergence that it can bear compared to an ideal nourishment is rather large; by contrast, its organism tolerates changes of diet poorly. The following points seem important: – The digestive system of horses needs fodder, dry or fresh (in the form of pasture grass, of hay, or straw, or of chaff).26 It is desirable for the daily ration to include at least 50% of fodder. The weight of fodder ingested should not be less 1% of the weight of the animal. – Horses, if they have to exert any effort, need to take in addition some cereals (oats, and in antiquity, barley).27 – Equids can consume each day about 2 to 2.5% of their weight in dry nourishment. Horses whose bones have been found in the dumps of the Eastern Desert were small in size: Martine Leguilloux 23. Shelton 1977, esp. 66: “The writers of note 9 may have had another fully legitimate division of the artab in mind, but it looks suspiciously as though they simply took the information that it contained 40 choenices, wrongly applied the standard Attic equation of two xestai per choenix, and abstracted from there.” 24. PSI III 186 v° (IV); P.Math. Ev 17 and Mr 12 (c. 365); a tablet of the British Museum (MP3 2316, VI); P.Lond. V 1718, 71 (VI). This last document, which contains metrological tables and model calculations, was compiled by the famous notarypoet Dioscoros, who did not notice that it referred to two different artabas, one of 4.5, the other of 5 modii italici (Rathbone 1983: 268). 25. These documents were assembled by Shelton 1981. Shelton seems not to have spotted the equivalence with 5 modii italici, which did not escape Rathbone 1983: 268. 26. Hyland 1990: 87. Straw and chaff, which are rich in fiber, have little nutritional value. 27. To be able to be attacked by gastric juices and digested, barley needs to be crushed beforehand or put to soak for several hours. Carlo Bergman, who has traversed the Egyptian deserts with his own camels, informs me that one avoids giving barley to camels for the same reason.

344

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert calculates that the mean height to the withers was 1.42 m,28 which points to a mean weight of 350 kg, for which the daily intake of dry food would thus need to be around 7 to 8.75 kg. This is less than the figures that I presented in O.Krok. I 18.2–4n., which were drawn from the example of horses in the British cavalry in the eighteenth century (a horse that would have consumed about 10 kg of food per day, whatever its composition); it is also less than the figures given by J. P. Roth: “Based on both ancient evidence, and modern practice, a reasonable estimate of the ration for a Roman horse would be approximately 2.5 kg of hard fodder29 and around 7 kg of dry fodder per day.”30

B. The metrology of chaff and barley In the praesidia, chaff is measured in talents and minas. In principle, the weight system in use in Egypt under the principate remained based on the Ptolemaic drachma of 3.57 g. Table 20.1. Conversion of Egyptian weight units in kg 1 mina 1 talent

60 minas

1 weight drachma

3.57 g

100 drachmas

0.357 kg

6,000 drachmas

21.42 kg

For barley, I will use the equation stated by D. Rathbone:31 1 liter of Egyptian barley = 0.624  kg. We can assume with a high degree of certainty that the artaba mentioned in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert is the standard Roman artaba of 72 sextarii (= 38.7864 l.), and that its sub-unit the mation32 was 1/12th of this artaba, or 6 sextarii. The arithmetic of a Latin account of distribution of barley to donkeys at Umm Balad shows clearly that they were calculating with a mation of 1/12 of an artaba;33 from this account, it emerges that the donkeys received their barley in two meals of 1/2 mation each. Their daily consumption of barley was thus 1 mation, or 2 kg (we do not know what amount of chaff filled out their diet).34 This result fits perfectly with the data from an archive of seven orders of delivery for donkeys, dating to the fifth century and found in Dayr al-Atrash in January 2020.35 In these vouchers, where barley is counted in modii (castrenses)36 and sextarii, each donkey receives 6 sextarii. The garrisons of the praesidia lived by the rhythm of the Alexandrian calendar, in which every month had 30 days. 28. Leguilloux 2005, esp. 272. In clubs, this height to the withers is classified in the category “double pony,” with the category “horse” beginning at 1.47 m (M. Leguilloux, per os). 29. I.e., cereals. 30. Roth 1999: 64. 31. Rathbone 1983: 273. 32. The mation, an Egyptian measure (precisely: a sub-unit of the artaba, a Persian measure introduced late in Egypt), received no attention from the ancient metrological literature. Under the principate, the mation is mainly attested in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert and is not used by the fiscal administration. 33. O.KaLa. inv. 588. The dossier of orders for distribution of wheat to the Barbarians found at Xeron and dated to the third century similarly refers to a mation measuring 1/12 of an artaba. 34. Mr. Antoine Capelle, who maintains donkeys in the Pyrenees, writes to me that one of his neighbors gives working donkeys two meals of cereals (a mixture of barley and oats) in the amounts of 1 kg in the morning and 300–400 g in the evening. They fill out their diet in the meadow (email of 19/06/2013). In P.Mil.Vogl. I 28, the donkeys receive a daily ration of barley much smaller than that of the donkeys of Umm Balad: 1 choinix, or 0.96 liter (using the standard artaba), thus 0.6 kg. The reason for this is probably that they were in the valley, where they had access to richer fodder than the chaff. 35. Mission of the MAFDO, directed by T. Faucher. The excavator was Joachim Le Bomin. 36. The modius castrensis has a capacity of 22 sextarii.

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

345

C. O.Dios inv. 626 and O.Krok. 18 In my edition of the letter O.Krok. I 18, I put forward the hypothesis that this document indicated the daily ration of a horse. Here is the translation I gave of lines 1–9: “Aulenus to Capito, his brother, greetings. Please give Tithoes two matia and a half of barley and ten minas of chaff, because I found him taking them to Krokodilo and I said to him, ‘I am going to write to my friend Capito for him to give them to you there.’ Write to me to whom you wish me to give them; you will oblige me greatly.” Capito is probably the same man as the curator of this name known at Krokodilo around 108. It is tempting to see in Aulenus the curator of a neighboring fort, and in Tithoes (despite his Egyptian name) a cavalryman who, before going to Krokodilo, had the intention of taking with him the rations for his horse (to avoid having to buy them at Krokodilo? Was he short of cash?). The following table makes it possible to compare the monthly and daily equine rations in the two ostraca (in bold type are the figures expressly indicated in these documents, the others being deduced). Table 20.2. Equine rations in O.Dios inv. 626 and O.Krok. 18 O.Dios inv. 626

O.Krok. 18

vol. barley/mo. in artabas 6 artabas = 232.71 l. = 145.21 kg

6 art. 3 matia

vol. barley/mo. in matia

72 matia

75 matia

vol. barley/day

2.4 matia

2.5 matia

weight barley/day

4.84 kg

5.04 kg

chaff

4 talents/mo. (thus 8 minas/day)

10 minas/day (thus 5 talents/mo.)

weight chaff/day

2.85 kg

3.57 kg

total weight/day

7.68 kg

8.61 kg

To this dossier we may add another text, O.Dios inv. 756, a letter from Hareothes to Eudaimon, which contains the order to give to a horse 2 matia of barley, or twice what the donkeys of Umm Balad get: this is probably also a ration for the day. The results presented in the table above, although they are not consistent, fit into the zone of the quantities required for small horses. The difference may come from the fact that the measures indicated in O.Krok. I 18 are those of a real ration foreseen for a horse at work, while those of O.Dios inv. 626 are a daily average deduced from a regulation monthly ration. We see that this was calculated precisely. D. O.Dios inv. 626 and Tab. Luguval. 1 (=AE 1998, 838) The reference Tab. Luguval. 1 encompasses four copies of the same document: a statement of the quantities of wheat and barley distributed during a three-day period37 to sixteen squadrons of an ala quingenaria. This schedule does not allow us to establish the amount of individual rations with certainty. The numbers vary from one turma to another, because their effective strength was never complete. The quantity of wheat per turma is either 15 or 18 modii. The numbers for barley, which range between 30 and 60 modii, fluctuate more, as if the number of animals was more variable than that of the cavalrymen. Altogether, during the three days 267 modii of wheat and 669 modii of barley were distributed. The wheat:barley ratio, which is 1:6 in O.Dios inv. 626, is approximately 1:2.5 at Carlisle. This difference is to be explained at least in part by geography: in Egypt, fodder and pastures (especially in the desert!) did not occupy as important a place in the nourishment of animals; hence the higher ration of barley. 37. The editor deduces it from the fact that all of the amounts are divisible by three (Tomlin 1998: 45).

346

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

E. O.Dios inv. 626 and the acknowledgments of receipt communicated to the strategos Damarion Around 185, ten declarations were addressed to Damarion, strategos of the Hermopolite nome, by Antonius Iustinus, duplicarius of the ala Herculiana, a 500-man ala.38 Through these documents, Iustinus attests that he has received quantities of barley assigned to various villages of the nome “out of the 20,000 artabas which his Excellency the prefect Longaeus Rufus has ordered to be sold (sc. at a fixed price) for the needs of the said ala.” Most commentators39 consider that these 20,000 artabas represent an estimate of the annual requirements in barley of the ala (but without taking into account whatever transport animals they had): this total amount is indeed not far from what one obtains by extrapolating to a full year the consumption of the three-day period that appears in Tab. Luguval. 1, that is, 81,395 modii40 (20,000 artabas equivalent to 90,000 modii). If we allow that the 20,000 artabas exacted from the Hermopolite nome covered the annual requirements of a unit with a theoretical strength of 592 mounts,41 we arrive at a monthly consumption per horse of 2.8 artabas, and thus a daily consumption of 2.23 kg, which would be acceptable in a Breton regimen, but not an Egyptian one – at least not that which emerges from the Dios ostracon. If we extend to the entire Roman army in Egypt the requirements for Dios, the annual requirements of the ala would be in theory 42,624 artabas (still not counting transport animals). The 20,000 artabas will in this case be only a part of the barley consumed by the ala, which perhaps drew part of its supplies from other nomes; unless, because of detachments, it actually needed a quantity significantly lower than the theoretical requirements. But it is also possible that the horses detached in the desert, an environment to which they were poorly suited, received more barley than in the valley. Let us attempt a comparison with the horses of the cursus publicus who figure in P.Oxy. LX 4087–4088. F. P.Oxy. LX 4087–4088 P.Oxy. LX 4087 and 4088 (middle of the fourth century) are accounts of distributions of rations to travelers stopping with their animals in two mansiones of the cursus publicus in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Despite their late date, I have found it worthwhile taking them into account because they give us information about the amount of individual daily rations. By this point, Roman measures have replaced Egyptian ones. Bread and barley are thus measured in modii. Although beginning in the fourth century larger modii were in use (the modius xystos [“level”], the modius castrensis, the modius cumulatus, respectively of 21.6, of 22, and of 24 sextarii), there was, all the same, every likelihood that in this case we were dealing with the modius italicus of 8.618 l.: the expression modius italicus is attested in the Egyptian documentation of the fourth century,42 and always in the context of the distribution of rations to soldiers (while the modius xystos is used in tax receipts given by collectors to taxpayers). In the case of the accounts P.Oxy. 4087–4088, we are also dealing with rations, even if the recipients are not necessarily military personnel. Novel 13 of Valentinian, dated to 445, which sets the rate for the conversion into money of the wheat allotted to soldiers, also refers expressly to the modius italicus. 38. They are conveniently gathered by Daris 1992 and reprinted in SB XX 14155–14162. 39. E.g., Adams 1999: 120. 40. Tomlin 1998: 45. 41. 37 per turma, because to the 30 mounts of the cavalrymen must be added 3 for the decurion and 2 each for the duplicarius and sesquiplicarius (Tomlin 1998: 47, n. 60, citing Ps.-Hygin, Mun. castr. Chapter 16). 42. The first attestation is P.Panop. Beatty 1.393–394 (298).

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

347

The rations of wheat and barley distributed are: – Bread:43 1/6 modius daily (that would correspond to 5 modii/month, which is, incidentally, an argument in favor of the hypothesis of a Roman artaba of 5 modii). – Barley: 1/2 modius daily (which would correspond to 15 modii/month: 3 artabas of 5 modii?). – Chaff: 20 pounds a day (= 6.45 kg). In the “budgetary table of Antaeopolis” (SB XX 14494 [c. 533–539]), the human and equine rations in cereals are also 1/6 modius of bread and 1/2 modius of barley, but in this case, we would be, according to J. Gascou, dealing with the modius castrensis.44 In P.Oxy. 4087–4088, the animals for whom the barley was supplied are referred to with the term κτήνη. This generic term does not allow us to know if these were horses, donkeys, or the two species mixed, but the total weight of the composite ration shows that it was based on the needs of a horse (today in France, a working donkey takes in c. 5 kg a day). If the measure used is the modius italicus, the barley ration is distinctly lower than that of Gennaios’s horse, but it agrees with the quantity usually supposed for a horse in the Roman cavalry; if instead we are dealing with the modius castrensis, it is higher than that of Gennaios’s horse. In both cases, it corresponds to the expected relationship between the human wheat allowance and the animal cereal ration: 1:3.45 Table 20.3. Equine rations in O.Dios inv. 626 and P.Oxy. 4087–4088 O.Dios inv. 626

P.Oxy. 4087–4088

weight of chaff/day

2.85 kg

6.45 kg

weight of barley/day

4.84 kg

1/2 modius

total weight/day

7.69 kg

italicus = 2.68 kg

castrensis = 5.92 kg

9.13 kg

12.37 kg

To conclude: From what we know of the size of the horses, the officially specified equine ration in O.Dios inv. 626 is, in quantity, sufficient but not generous. It is richer in barley than we would expect. In the absence of other sources for the military barley ration in Egypt under the principate, we cannot tell if barley was pushed because of the scarcity of fodder in this province, or if this regimen was specific to the Eastern Desert because of the greater difficulty of acquiring hay or green fodder for the animals. The comparison with the daily rations of Late Antiquity is not conclusive: there is no certainty about the capacity of the modius used in the accounts of the cursus publicus in the fourth century. If it was the modius italicus, the ratio of barley to dry fodder (here only chaff) is consistent with what is generally agreed for the Roman army, including under the principate, with the total weight consumed being more generous than at Dios; the rations attested in SB XX 14494 (sixth century), nominally identical, are actually superior and exceed the daily needs of the horses, because they are measured in modii castrenses. But in this period the rations had become units of measure for compensation in kind, “rather a non-monetary form of remuneration than a subsistence allowance.”46

43. I consider that 1 modius of bread is the quantity of bread made from 1 modius of wheat. 44. Gascou 2008: 325, n. 58. 45. Adams 1999: 120. Speidel 1989, esp. 242, n. 17. 46. Gascou 2008: 326.

348

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

G. Hay It appears that the cavalrymen stationed in the desert had to accustom their mounts to a regimen lacking in green fodder and hay. The total absence of any mention of green fodder (χλωρά) is hardly surprising; but there are in fact some mentions of hay (χόρτος), which the cavalrymen acquired by purchase on the private market: – O.Max. inv. 126 (second quarter of the second century, according to stratigraphy). A letter of Herakleides to Ammonios. The tone is urgent: “Not having any other hope than you, now again I find myself compelled to ask you to acquire, by any means possible, some hay for my horse and to send it to me as soon as you can, so that, thanks to you, once again my horse may be saved.” – O.Max. inv. 14747 (same period). Letter of Herennius to Lucretius: “I ask you, brother, see if one of our friends where you are has a sack of hay (χείλωμα χορταρίων)48 to advance me while I wait for some to be brought to me, and then I will repay it right away. It is in fact now five days that my horse has not eaten his food.” – O.Max. inv. 1088 (c. 150–175) suggests that hay was a rare foodstuff, which could be acquired by purchase. A comrade writes to Crescens: “I want you to know that hay is for sale here. If you need any, hurry to let me know before it is sold.” – O.Dios inv. 1407 (second century), letter of Proculus to Capito: “If you need some epimenia or hay for your horse, write to me and I will send it before selling it.” – O.Did. 387 (c. 110). Philokles, who is known also as a supplier of prostitutes, writes to Proculus not to worry, because he is taking care of hay. Proculus is likely to be a cavalryman, for whom the sutler Philokles will have promised to supply hay. The first two ostraca cited may provide evidence that some horses had trouble surviving with the barleychaff regimen that prevailed in the desert, and that their masters were forced to buy hay for them. If the army had declined to provide a regular supply of hay for the cavalrymen, it was probably because of the problems of keeping this very perishable product sufficiently fresh; if its quality was not first-rate, it risked poisoning the horses. The state of the wheat at the fortlet of Xeron, about which we know from the complaint to the prefect mentioned earlier, shows that the granaries of the praesidia might not be wholesome.

3. The question of the publica We have seen that, on one hand, the military administration seems not to have got involved in supplying to the desert garrisons foodstuffs other than the wheat-barley-chaff triad, and, on the other hand, that the soldiers do not seem to draw products other than these three from the curator. Instead, they supply the remainder for themselves on the private market, even when it was a question of foods for regular consumption, such as wine and oil. The texts do not, moreover, make any reference to the wholesale supply of oil and wine to the fortlets, as they do for cereals and achyron, and some letters testify to the existence of a private trade in wine and oil. But did the soldiers detached in the desert get all of their wine and all of their oil on the private market, and thus from the sutlers? 47. Published in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: II, 404. 48. The translation of “some green fodder” is mistaken. I have shown since that χίλωμα refers to a type of sack and χορτάριον, a diminutive of χόρτος, means hay, not green fodder.

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

349

We know that under the principate, there was a deduction from military pay that in theory covered the cost of foodstuffs distributed to the soldiers. The amount of this withholding appears in two rolls concerning legionary pay. In Rom.Mil.Rec. 68 (81), the deduction from the first stipendium amounts to 80 drachmas, to which have been added 20 drachmas for the Saturnalia, which were celebrated in December. In Rom.Mil.Rec. 69 (c. 84), there seems to have been an increase in the intervening time (perhaps because of the increase in pay ordered by Domitian): the deduction in victum is 100 drachmas, except for the first four-month period, where it is 128 drachmas, probably because once again the deduction for the Saturnalia is included. In the entire corpus of the Eastern Desert, only a single ostracon, O.Dios inv. 480 (edited in Chapter 19),49 seems to indicate that the soldiers detached in the praesidia drew from the curator other foodstuffs than their artaba of wheat. In this document, which from its blunders and omissions may be suggested to be a draft, a soldier acknowledges to the curator receipt of his kibaria for the months of Thoth, Phaophi, Hathyr, and Choiak, a four-month period that coincides with the first stipendium, which was received on the calends of January; the soldier additionally declares that he had paid in return a sum of 100 (or 108)50 drachmas, which he calls “the publica” (τὰ πούπλικα). The publica correspond in my view (see Chapter 19) to the amount of the fixed withholding from pay, which had been paid to him at the moment of his detachment in order to allow him to buy these rations. In this way, a part of the money that the home units of the soldiers had on hand to buy their provisions was returned by the curators to the prefecture of Berenike, from which we may suppose that the unit “bought,” on the model of the ala Herculiana in the archive of Damarion, the basic foodstuffs for the men and animals at its disposition. This stage is perhaps reflected by two documents that provide evidence for payments of barley by the granaries of the Fayyum for the supply of the troops of the Thebaid and the quarries (Mons Claudianus and Porphyrites being specifically named in one of these texts).51 What does kibaria mean in O.Dios inv. 480? Two possibilities have been considered in Chapter 19: (1) These are foodstuffs furnished by the State, excluding the grain ration (Chapter 19, p. 334). (2) The kibaria in O.Dios inv. 480 include wheat and thus refer to all of the food furnished directly to the soldier by the army; this is thus victum referred to in the withholding in victum of the military pay accounts, a hypothesis that I accepted in Chapter 19, pp. 333 f.). A third possibility deserves consideration. The kibaria drawn by the issuer of O.Dios inv. 480 could have been only the familiar triad wheat-barley-achyron (the issuer of the receipt would in this case be a cavalryman). Probably κιβάριον/κιβάρια in the ostraca from the desert always refers to foodstuffs for men, but the use of cibaria in the sense of food for animals is well attested in Latin. The occasional mentions of publica in the ostraca of the Desert of Berenike are almost always connected to the mention of barley or achyron, even if it is not specifically indicated that the publica represent the price of these foodstuffs (O.Krok. 70, reedited below; O.Xer. inv. 464, edited below; cf. also O.Xer. inv. 66752). 49. The ostracon dates from the reign of Antoninus, perhaps from year 8 (thus 145). 50. It is impossible to decide if “eight,” written between the lines, is to be connected to the publica or instead represents the year number, which had been omitted. 51. SB XIV 12169 (H. C. Youtie, “Supplies for Soldiers and Stonecutters,” ZPE 28 [1978] 251–54) (96); P.Oxy. XLV 3243 (214/5). But note that Claudianus and Porphyrites probably did not depend on the prefecture of Berenike. 52. An unfortunately lacunose order for payment, the author of which, Dionysios, asks his correspondent to give to [beneficiary’s name] various items, among which can be read τὰ κιβάρια, ἄχυρα, σίτου μάτια δ; in the left margin, a postscript: παρ’ οὗ λήμψῃ τὰ πούπλικα. The antecedent of οὗ is in a lacuna; the most likely solution is that it is the beneficiary, who, receiving Dionysios’s rations, will pay the publica in his stead.

350

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Is 100 (or 108) drachmas a plausible amount for the four-monthly ration of wheat, barley, and chaff? In two ostraca, issued by two different forts, where the price of wheat appears, it is 5 drachmas per artaba,53 a rather low price for the period, which could well be an advantageous fixed price at which soldiers on detachment paid for their grain ration, as one of these two documents suggests:

Figure 76. O.Xer. inv. 464. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

O.Xer. inv. 464 (Fig. 76) US 80713 ↓ 4

8

11.5 × 11.5 cm

second century alluvial clay

([.])ασιερς̣ Ἀνθεστίῳ κουράτωρι τῷ τειμειωτάτ(ῳ) χα(ίρειν). δ̣ώσης τὼ ἱμιαρτάβιν τοῦ σείτου Φήστῳ καὶ λήμψι παρ’ αὐτοῦ (δραχμὰς) β (τετρώβολον) · τὰ δημώσια καὶ τὸ τάλαντων τοῦ ἀχύρου ἄφες παρὰ σοί. ἐρρῶσθαί σε εὔχομαι.

1–2 l. κουράτορι 2 τειμειωτατ ostr., l. τιμιωτάτ(ῳ) ‖ χα 3 l. δώσεις τό ‖ ϊμιαρταβιν ostr., l. ἡμιαρτάβιον 4 l. σίτου 4–5 l. λήψῃ 5  5–6 l. δημόσια 6 l. τάλαντον “NN to his very esteemed Antistius, curator, greetings. You will give the half-artaba of wheat to Festus and you will receive from him 2 drachmas 4 obols. The publica and the talent of chaff keep with you. I wish you good health.”  53. O.Xer. inv. 464; O.Max. inv. 45.

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

351

It is entirely possible that the wheat and chaff belong to the subsistence credit that the author of this note had with the granary of Xeron. We do not know why he is authorizing someone else to draw them (because he had been shifted to another fort? because he preferred to buy grain of better quality on the private market?54). We observe that in this case publica is expressed using the semantic calque δημόσια, and not a direct borrowing of the Latin term (I do not know if, in this text, τὰ δημόσια refers to the sum paid to the curator in return for wheat). If a half-artaba is worth 2 dr. 4 ob., a whole artaba would cost 5 dr. 1 ob. (in Roman Egypt, 1 drachma = 7 obols). This is not in fact the case: the artaba costs 5 dr. (= 35 obols), but there was obviously no half-obol coin, so the price of a half-artaba is rounded up to the next obol (i.e., 18 obols). This may be confirmed by O.Max. inv. 45, the other ostracon of our corpus which mentions a price for wheat (even if the formulation suggests that this rather low price was a market price): “concerning the half-artaba (probably of wheat), that will fetch only 18 obols; actually, the artaba is being sold for 5 drachmas.” What about the price of barley? I find only two certain pieces of evidence in the Desert of Berenike at the same period: the author of the letter O.Krok. II 241 informs his correspondent that he has bought for him 2 matia of barley at the price of 1 drachma and 2 obols (i.e., 9 dr. 3 ob. for an artaba of 12 matia); in SB VI 9017, no. 8 (ostracon from Wadi Fawakhir), the artaba of barley reaches the high price of 16 drachmas.55 The subsidized price that the soldiers had to pay in drawing “public” barley was necessarily much lower. Since we know that barley was traditionally reckoned as worth 3/5 the value of wheat,56 in a scale of prices where the artaba of wheat is worth 5 drachmas, the artaba of barley will have been worth 3. As the four-monthly ration of a horse amounted, according to O.Dios inv. 626, to 24 artabas, the price would be 72 dr. Wheat and barley for four months would thus come to 92 drachmas in the official prices. That leaves 8 (or 16) drachmas to cover the price of 343 kg of achyron. To estimate the price of the achyron, since we lack information for the principate, we have to make a detour into the Byzantine period and suppose that the relationship between wheat and achyron was stable. In a tax account of the sixth century, a capitum of achyron (= 20 pounds) is worth 1/4 modius (of 22 sextarii each57) of wheat,58 thus 6.44 kg of achyron have a value equivalent to 3 liters of wheat. We may then reckon that 343 kg was worth the same as 4 artabas of standard size and thus, in the price schedule of the publica, 20 drachmas. This gives us a slightly high figure compared to the earlier calculations, but still of the same order. As a result, the arithmetic does not allow us to reject the third hypothesis concerning the meaning of kibaria in O.Dios inv. 480, which we therefore cannot use as an indication that the curator praesidii managed other human foodstuffs than wheat. It is thus theoretically possible that, unlike what happened when they were in their unit’s base camp, the soldiers detached in the Desert of Berenike had to buy all of their food except wheat on the free market.

4. O.Krok. I 70: corrigendum (Fig. 77) In my article of 2010 (Chapter 19), the new interpretation of the publica put forward there allowed me to correct the interpretation of O.Krok. I 70, a letter addressed in my view by a curator praesidii, Titose54. The wheat supplied by the state was often rotten: cf. p. 338 supra the complaint to the prefect of Berenike; at Mons Claudianus, the Egyptian quarrymen and stonecutters often prefer to sell their monthly ration of wheat and buy καλὸς σῖτος instead. 55. I have verified the reading on a photo. There is no doubt about its correctness. 56. Cf. O.Heid. 15.4n. 57. Gascou 2008: 321. 58. Gascou 2008: 343.

352

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 77. O.Krok. I 70. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

nus, to his successor Capito.59 Reflecting again on this document, a new hypothesis about the reading of the end of line 8 came to my mind, which takes account of the confused paleography while offering a satisfactory meaning. Here is how I now propose to read the text:

4

8

Τιτοσῆνος Καπίτωι τῶι τ̣ι̣μ̣ιωτάτωι χαί(ρειν). καλῶς ποιήσις ἀπαιτήσις τὰ πούπλικα ἀπὸ τοῦ Βέσσου· καὶ ὀφείλι τάλαντον ἀχύρου· ἐπὶ γὰρ ε τά̣λ̣(αντα) ὁμ̣(οῦ) ἔλαβε.

l l. Καπίτονι 2 τιμ post corr. ‖ χα̅ι̅ (πεν)τ(αρταβίαν)? ed. pr.

3–4 l. ποιήσεις ἀπαιτήσας

6 l. ὀφείλει

8 l. ἐπεὶ ‖ ετα̅λ̅ ο̅ :

“Titosenus to his very esteemed Capito, greetings. Please collect the publica from the Bessian. He also owes one talent of chaff: in all he has actually received 5 talents.” 8.

ε τά̣λ̣(αντα) ὁμ̣(οῦ). The infrared photo drew my attention to the traces which are under the group ετ ο̅ and which I had supposed to be parasitic at the moment that I published this text. It

59. In the edition of O.Krok., I had for want of parallels given to publica the traditional meaning of τὰ δήμοσια, the taxes. We have seen with O.Xer. inv. 464 that, in the Desert of Berenike τὰ δήμοσια is instead synonymous with publica.

The monthly ration of a cavalryman and his horse

353

is fairly easy to discern a line over αλ. Moreover, what I had interpreted as the symbol for artaba can also be taken as the abbreviation of a word beginning with ομ( ), where the mu is reduced to an overline stroke. For a close parallel to this abbreviation of ὁμ(οῦ), see the photo of P.Mich. XVIII 786.15 and 21 (where the omicron is represented by a simple dot). The disorder of this line end may come from the writer’s having first written only ε ο̅, then, to be clearer, having decided to insert τά̣λ̣(αντα) between the two characters. We now know that in the desert the monthly ration of achyron was 4 talents. The Bessian had drawn one talent more, for which he will therefore have to pay the price on top of the normal amount of the publica. The soldiers did not necessarily pay the publica at the moment of drawing their pay,60 which explains why Titosenus departed leaving his successor Capito a debt to collect.61

60. Cf. O.Dios inv. 972 (published in Chapter 19, p. 332). One of the orders for payment of wheat addressed to the curator Clarus (the addressee of O.Dios. inv. 626, published above) included a request not to demand money from the beneficiary, “because, as you know, he doesn’t have any at the moment” (O.Dios inv. 632). 61. The author of the letter O.Dios inv. 972 [n. 60 supra], Asklepiades, probably a curator, also departed without having collected the publica. 

21 An unrecognized type of military administrative document: the order for payment of frumentum praeteritum (O.Claud. inv. 7235 and Ch.L.A. XVIII 662) 1. O.Claud. inv. 7235 (Fig. 78) FWI – room 1 SE 5 13.2 × 7. 5 cm

186–187 alluvial clay

The ostracon is complete at the bottom but broken on the three other sides. A few traces point to the existence of a first line; lines 2–3 appear to contain a consular date: Glabrio (l. 2) is the cognomen of several ordinary consuls, one of whom was the colleague of the emperor Commodus in 186. The upper levels of the fill of room I, the source of our document, have also yielded two other dated ostraca, one to 185–187,1 the other to 189.2 What follows the date is clearly a request (cf. the subjunctive subscribas), in which an “I” (presumably the miles Iustus, whose name in the nominative appears immediately after the date) addresses a “you” (agis, subscribas). At this point, the diplomatic might seem to recall that of a Latin chirographum. Unlike the Greek chirograph, written in letter form, the Latin chirographum begins with the consular date, followed by

1. P.Bagnall 8 (FWI – room 1 SE 7). 2. SB XXVIII 16941, see Chapter 5 (FWI – room 1 NE 5).

355

356

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

a first-person statement, normally introduced by scripsi + the declarant’s name in the nominative.3 But identifying this documentary form here encounters several difficulties: (1) the chirographum is used for contracts, not requests; (2) it is drawn up in the first person, but the other party is referred to with the third person not the second; (3) a request is normally drawn up in the form of a hypomnema,4 with prescript (cui a quo) and, in some cases, a consular date at the end. But in the present case there is no trace of a prescript, and the diplomatic format adopted omits the name of the recipient, who is probably the curator of the auxiliary cohort to which the requester belongs (see commentary on l. 4). The text thus does not seem to correspond to an established documentary genre, whether chirographum, hypomnema, or epistula. Several indications suggest that it represents in fact a kind of model of the document that the soldier would have had to present in the specific situation where he wished to take delivery of wheat rations owed but not yet received (if the restoration [praete]ritum is correct): the name(s) of the month(s) for which the wheat is requested is left blank. This model would, however, be personalized, since it mentions the name of the soldier and that of the dispensator from whom the wheat is to be drawn. This explanation, the best that I have been able to find, does not, however, explain the place of the consular date, which moreover presents other oddities (see commentary to ll. 2–3). The verb subscribas puts us on the track of a parallel incorrectly understood until now, Ch.L.A. XVIII 662. This papyrus fragment in fact turns out to be a similar request. The ostracon from Mons Claudianus and the papyrus, purchased by Charles Clermont-Ganneau, probably at Aswan, bring to light a new type of document used in the Roman army and show its continued use across a span of thirty-five years: the request to draw praeterita. The soldier who wished to draw monthly rations that he had not received on the date when they were payable had to make a request to the commander of his unit, who gave his approval in the form of a laconic order addressed to the dispensator and written right under the text of the request. The administrative process is well known, and the request rogo subscribas recalls the axiosis of the petition SB XXII 15497.15–16 (Middle Euphrates, 240–250): ἀξιῶ καὶ δέομαι, εἴ σου τῇ τύχῃ δοκῇ, διʼ ὑπογραφῆς σου κελεῦσε τ̣ῷ ἐν Ἀπ[πά]δ̣νᾳ ἐπιτρόπῳ. It is striking that, in the Egyptian army, where written communication took place mostly in Greek, ordinary soldiers were required to present their request in Latin.

4

4 c̅oh 2–3.

5 l. dispensato-

(– – – – – – – – –) ][ ]i et Glabrion[e ]liano co(n)s(ulibus) vac. ]us Iustus mil(es) * coh(ortis) curam agis * (centuriae) * cu[ (]) subscribas Hermeroti despensato(])ri dari mihi n( ) frumentum ]ritum m( ) vac. 6 n̅

7 m̅

This is transparently a consular date. Glabrio was the cognomen of several ordinary consuls: M’ Acilius Glabrio, consul in 91 with M. Ulpius Traianus; M’ Acilius Glabrio, consul in 124 with C. Bellicius Flaccus Torquatus Trebonianus; M’ Acilius Glabrio Cn. Cornelius Severus, consul

3. Ch.L.A. V 284 (= P.Mich. VII 445), Ch.L.A. V 294 (= P.Mich. III 161). 4. Latin hypomnemata: e.g., CEL 149, Ch.L.A. IV 269, Ch.L.A. V 290.

An unrecognized type of military administrative document

357

Figure 78. O.Claud. inv. 7235. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

in 152 with M. Valerius Homullus; M’ Acilius Glabrio, consul iterum with the emperor Commodus (V) in 186; M. Acilius Glabrio, consul in 256 with L. Valerius Maximus. Except in 186 and 256, the Glabriones were consul prior, but never with a colleague whose cognomen ended in -lianus. In the present case, the stratigraphy suggests the date of 186. The et would indicate that Glabrio is correctly named second after the emperor. But two problems remain: how to interpret the two letters before et, and what to do with --liano in line 3? ]i. The letter before i can be only m, r (cf. dari, l. 6), t, or, less likely, c. I do not think that the whole can be interpreted as a V, which would be the iteration number of Commodus’s consulate. The only two possibilities are then feli]ci (l. feli]ce: the same error occurs in AE 1999, 201) or Caesa]ri. (There is no problem in having a developed form for the name of the consul prior, who is the emperor, and not for that of his colleague (cf. Drew-Bear 1994: 786 f.). 3.

]liano. Is this a second cognomen (not elsewhere attested) of Glabrio, who would thus be polyonymous? But the short formula, lacking his gentilicium, does not encourage us to restore a rare second cognomen, which in any case would not suffice to fill the lacuna. Could we have the name of a suffect consul, although that would normally not appear in the dating formula? A certain C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus may in fact have been suffect consul in 186. Or are we dealing with an exercise or aide-mémoire, which might have led the writer to cite one after the other the consular pairs of two successive years? In 187, the eponymous consuls were L. Bruttius Quintius Crispinus and L. Roscius Aelianus.

4.

coh( ) curam agis. Correcting agis to agens yields no convincing result. To the extent that the phrase mil(es) coh(ortis) was insufficient (the identity of the cohort is always specified), it is better to restore the relative pronoun cuius after coh(ortis). In this way we get an expression similar to RIB I 1880: coh(ors) I Ael(ia) Da/cor(um) c(uius) c(uram) a(git) Iul(ius) / Marcelli/

358

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert nus (centurio) leg(ionis) II / Aug(ustae). The phrase curam agere indicates that the cohort is temporarily under the orders of another officer, who assumes for the moment the title of curator cohortis, rather than of its prefect. cu[. cui[ and cur[ are all possible. (centuriae) Cur[ or, if we are dealing with a formula, cui[us? The restoration cur[a ut / subscribas] is not possible: this is not how one would formulate a request from a superior.

5.

subscribas. This subjunctive normally depends on a verb such as rogo, with or without a following ut, in the lacuna: before the name of the requester (e.g., [rogo Iuli]us Iustus); cf. the order of the words in the request for a pass O.Did. 49 (ἐρωτῶ Ἰσίδωρος), which is also, in the circumstances, a request for a subscription. Other possible positions: at the end of line 4 or at the start of the following line, a solution that excludes the possibility of seeing in ri at the start of line 6 the end of despensato/ri. The slight compression of the final letters of the line suggests that it is complete at right.

6.

(])ri. The end of despensato/ri, but, if there is a lacuna at left, I would propose despensato/[ri Caesa]ri⟨s⟩. n( ). Perhaps n(umero), to indicate the amount of wheat requested; this is preferable to two other hypotheses, i.e., n(omen), so abbreviated in Ch.L.A. XXV 790.3 and 23 (first century). But why repeat the word? Secondly, n(ostrum)? Would Iustus be writing in the name of his comrades? But we would expect the possessive to follow frumentum.

7.

]ritum. [praete]ritum? Too long (even supposing [prete]ritum), if ri in the preceding line completes despensato-, but suitable to the restoration of [rogo (ut)] at the start of line 5. This past participle describing foodstuffs appears in other ostraca from the Eastern Desert: – SB XXVIII 16941.5 (189, which comes from a stratigraphic unit very close to that of the present text, FWI, room 1, NE 5; see Chapter 5). In this letter the vice-curator of Claudianus reports that the vexillation stationed at the metallon has made a declaration to the praefectus concerning the wheat of the month of Phamenoth in arrears: δεδηλωκός σοι τὸ βήξιλλον περὶ (…) σείτου πραιτερίτου μηνὸς Φαμενω(θ). The delay is only a few days, since the letter of the vice-curator is itself dated to Phamenoth 5. – O.Dios inv. 626: letter of a soldier to a comrade, asking him to take care of his praeterita (μελήσει σοι περὶ τῶν πραιτερίτων μου ἐὰν δοθῇ τῇ προβολῇ; see Chapter 20. He notes the detail of the rations (nature and quantity) for the months of Phaophi and of Phamenoth, involving various amounts of wheat, barley, and achyron. –O.Xer. inv. 831 : letter of a soldier to his comrades. We find the same expression as in the preceding letter: μελησάτω σοι περὶ τῶν πραιτερίτων. m( ). m(ensis) or m(ensium) rather than m(odios) or m(atia), the quantity being represented instead by n(umero?).

An unrecognized type of military administrative document

359

2. Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 (221, Fig. 79)5 A. Bataille, JJP 6 (1952) 187 (CPL 136; SB VI 9248; S. Daris, Documenti per la storia dell’ esercito romano in Egitto [Milan 1964], no. 47; Rom.Mil.Rec. 79 [ed. Fink]); Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 [ed. Marichal]; CEL 165 [ed. Cugusi] (Ch.L.A. XLVIII p. 98). The parallel provided by the ostracon from Mons Claudianus and the infrared photo permit a substantial improvement in our understanding of Ch.L.A. XVIII 662. We will refer to this as “document a.” The verso was reused to write a Greek private letter (= “document b,” SB VI 9249). A third document, “document c,” (SB VI 9250), will also come into question.6 Document a consists of seven lines of Latin followed by eight lines of Greek, below which there is a blank space corresponding in height to about 5–6 lines. The two texts seem practically complete at left and right, as previous editors correctly observed, although they expressed uncertainty about the Latin text.7 It is not possible to be sure if line 1, which reaches the top edge of the papyrus, was in fact the first line of the document. For previous editors, the Latin text was too illegible to yield sense; they were thus tempted to interpret it as a receipt, by analogy with the Greek text. Their opinions differed on the connection between these two supposed receipts. For Bataille and Marichal, the Greek was a translation of the Latin receipt; for Fink and Cugusi, who did not pick up on the implications of προγεγραμμένος (l. 9), it was a question of two receipts issued by two soldiers and entered into a register, of which our papyrus would then be a remnant. This supposed book of military receipts would particularly recall Rom.Mil.Rec. 75 = Ch.L.A. IV 397, of which there remains only one column, in which three different soldiers have entered, in Greek and in Latin, receipts for sums of money paid to them by a certain Herennius Diogenes, whose rank or office is in a lacuna. Marichal considered that it was impossible to decide if Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 was an independent document or a fragment of a register. The parallel from Mons Claudianus allows us to understand that the Latin text of Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 is in fact a request for payment, followed, after approval and execution, by a receipt for the requested payment. Since the request is addressed to someone other than the dispensator for whose benefit the receipt is drawn up, it could, if we were dealing with a register, only concern a tomos synkollesimos, which would have been assembled in the office of the dispensator. In fact, when André Bataille became aware of this text, a fragment of Greek text by another hand appeared to the right of document a (document c). But was this fragment, glued to the right of the blank space left at the bottom of document a, the remains of another document of the same type (that is, a receipt written at the foot of a request, as would be necessary for documents a + c to represent the remains of a composite roll)? Certainly not: Bataille correctly observed that it is all that remains of another document, of which the verso was blank and which was glued by the author of letter b at the left of the back, equally blank, of a in order to enlarge its supporting material. The letter-writer had only two small fragments of scrap papyrus at his disposition, already written on one side, which he had to put together to get a leaf of letter-paper of the desired size. The subscriptio of the anonymous authority who turned the request into an order for payment is salue (see the commentary to l. 9). This side of the papyrus is a palimpsest, as a result of which stray traces of the earlier text make the reading difficult in places. 5. The date derives from the new reading of lines 6–7. Previous editors dated the document to the second half of the second century, on the basis of the paleography of the Latin text. 6. I am adapting the terminology of Bataille, who calls these different documents P.Clermont-Ganneau 4a, 4b, and 4c. 7. Actually, they evade the issue by leaving the straight brackets open, which gives the impression that they offer no view on the length of the lacuna.

360

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 79. Ch.L.A. XVIII 662. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

An unrecognized type of military administrative document

4

8

12

361

(– – – – – – – – –) → [I]sidoṛ[][ 4–6 [2–3][5–6][] rogo subscribaṣ Ṣ[i]ḷuano dispensatori Ca[e]saris dari mihi frumẹṇtum pṛạ[e-] teritum m(ensium) m.2? II Iul(i) Aug(usti) G̣ṛạṭọ ẹṭ Seleuco co(n)s(ulibus). m.3? ṣalụẹ. m.4 [Ἰ]σ̣ίδωρος Σε̣ραπίων ἱππεὺς [ὁ] προγεγραμμένος Σ̣ι̣λ̣βα̣νῶι [οἰ]κονόμωι̣ Καίσαρος χαίρειν. [ἐ]μετρήθην παρὰ σοῦ̣ σ̣ῖτόν̣ [μ]ου πρατέρετον ὑπὲρ μη[ν]ῶν δύο̣ ἀρτάβα[.] δύ[ο] []τ̣ιμης Ταυρείνου Μέλανο̣ς .([.]?) [ἔ]γραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. vacat

1 I]sidor[ ego: sido[ Bataille ]sido[ Marichal ]sidoṇ[ius uel Po]sidoṇ[ius proposuit Fink 2 ẹṛ[]a[]o Bataille ]ẹṛ[]a[][ Marichal 3 rogo ego: rog Marichal || subscribaṣ ego: subscriba[ Marichal || rog(atus) subscriba[ l. subscripsi proposuit Marichal rog(o) subscriba[s proposuit Cugusi || Ṣ[i]ḷuano ego: []urm[ Marichal 4 dispensatori ego: dispensatore Bataille, Marichal dispensator Cugusi 5 frumentum p̣ṛ[.] ego: frumẹṇṭ Bataille frumẹṇṭụṃ . [ Marichal 6 teritum m(ensium) m.2? II Iul(i) Aug(usti) G̣ṛạṭọ ẹṭ ego: ]ter m(enses) ii iula Marichal || m̅ pap. 7 Seleuco co(n)s(ulibus). m.3? ṣalụẹ ego: ṣesal Bataille ]ṣesal Marichal 8 [Ἰ]σ̣ίδωρος ego: ]ε̣ιι̣ τος Marichal 9 [ὁ] ego: nihil restituerunt Bataille nec Marichal || Σ̣ι̣λ̣βα̣νῶι ego: Τρ̣ε̣βονίῳ Marichal 10 [οἰ]κονόμωι ego: [οἰ]κονόμῳ Bataille, Marichal 11 σῖτό μ̣ο̣υ̣ Bataille, Marichal 12 [μ]ου πρατέρετον, l. πραιτέριτον ego: [τ]οῦ πρατέρ(ου) ἔτ(ους) αν( ), l. προτέρου Bataille, Marichal 13 δύο̣ ego: δύο γ̣(ίνονται) Bataille et alii 14 [.]τ̣ιμης ego: [.]ιμης Bataille, Marichal [τ]ο̣υ̣ρ̣μ̣ης proposuit Fink non recte || l. Ταυρεῖνος? || Μέλανο̣ς . ego: Μέλα̣νο(ς) ἱ̣π̣(πεύς) Bataille, Marichal “(…) Isidοros … I ask you to order, through a subscription to Silvanus, treasurer of Caesar, that I be given the arrears of wheat for two months, (second hand?), July and August. In the consulate of Gratus and Seleucus. (third hand) Authorized. “The aforementioned Isidoros Serapion, cavalryman, to Silvanus, treasurer of Caesar, greetings. I have received from you my arrears of wheat for two months, (that is?) two artabas, against payment (?). Taurinus son of Melas (…), I wrote for him.” 1.

I]sidor[. This fits the paleography better than ] Sidoṇ[ius vel Po]sidoṇ[ius (proposed by Fink): the letter descends too low to be a n. Above all, the reading of the name [I]sidor[us is supported by line 8, which leads one to restore, in line 1, Isidorus Serapio eques.

2.

We expect in this line the unit of the requester and/or the name of the recipient. There may have been only the latter, as it is impossible to see alae or cohortis in the traces at the start of the line.

362

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

3.

rogo. The second o appears only on the infrared photo. Ṣ[i]ḷuano. This is the name of the dispensator. Instead of ṇ, Marichal read ṃ, but the other m of the text have an entirely different shape. This must be instead an n like those in dispensatori and frumentum. Before ṇ, the letter is a or r. Before that, u is the obvious reading, although it is more flared than the other u in this hand. Since the name has every likelihood of being the same as that of the oikonomos of the receipt, Ṣ[i]ḷuano seems to me likely and does not contradict the traces.

6.

After m(ensium), there seems to have been a change of hand: the ink is darker, the handwriting less readable (but Seleuco cos in the next line could be by the same hand as the rest of the text).

7.

salụe.̣ Reading salụṭ(  ) is equally possible but would be still harder to justify. The hand is a bureaucratic cursive of the same type as that which wrote the rest of the request, but in a larger size and expanded style. The second stroke of s is horizontal, which is not the case in the other s of the text, and which provides a further argument in favor of a third hand. One thinks immediately of a formula ualedicendi ending Isidoros’s request, but it should instead be the subscription requested from the addressee of the request. Could this subscription have taken the form of a formula ualedicendi, salue being a variant of uale? Two objections: (1) This use of salue, banal in epitaphs, is very rare in correspondence; in the letters of Cicero, it appears only twice, and in those cases associated with uale (Fam. 16.4.4; 16.9.4); it does not appear in the letters of Pliny and is equally absent from documentary epistolography. (2) Since the author of the subscription is not the author of the “letter,” it is hard for the subscription to take the form of a formula ualedicendi; we would rather expect an order. One might therefore suggest instead that we have an instance of the adverb salue, with the meaning, “it’s good, that’s fine, OK.” But this formula of subscription would be unique.

9.

[ὁ] προγεγραμμένος. The article is required by the syntax, parallels, and the short lacuna at the start of other lines. Σ̣ι̣λ̣βανῶι is consistent with the traces.

11.

σ̣ῖτον̣. After σ̣ιτο nothing is visible except a space with three tiny dots of ink, too distant from one another for all of them to be the remains of a nu. J. D. Thomas (whom I thank for reading an early version of this chapter) has urged me also to consider σίτου̣, depending on ἀρτάβα[ς] (which would explain the absence of an article before σιτο). I nonetheless prefer to keep σῖτον because of πρατέρετον.

13.

Between δύο̣ and ἀρταβα[, there is a character interpreted by earlier editors as γ̣(ίνονται). J. D. Thomas has drawn my attention to the fact that γ̣(ίνονται) or (γίνονται) does not suit the traces. One sees in fact a descender ending in a hook towards the right before the initial alpha of ἀρταβα[. On that basis I would willingly see an eta: σῖτό[ν μ]ου πρατέρετον ὑπὲρ μη[ν]ῶν δύο, ἢ̣ ἀρτάβα[ς] δύ[ο], meaning perhaps “that is, two artabas.” But it may simply be the remains of an erased undertext.

14.

τ̣ιμης is paleographically satisfactory. Might it instead belong to a personal name ending in the nominative in -ιμης, as Fink imagined? This solution would have the advantage of avoid-

An unrecognized type of military administrative document

363

ing the need to correct Ταυρείνου to Ταυρεῖνος. But masculine personal names in -τιμης are neither so numerous nor so common (names in –αιμης can be eliminated, because the letter before iota cannot be alpha): these are Tιμῆς and its compounds, of which the Ionic ending -ῆς (a contraction of -εας) is not normal in Egypt. I should rather see a reference to the price of wheat: ἀ̣ν̣|[τ]ὶ τιμῆς? But only the phrase ἀντὶ τῆς τιμῆς appears in the DDbDP; moreover, a sigma would be better than an iota before the tau, but the presence of the article would require too long a restoration. Or perhaps we should suppose that the traces that follow δύο̣ at the end of l. 13 belong to the underlying text, and restore at the start of l. 14 [τῆ]ς̣ τ̣ιμῆς (even though we would expect only one letter, not two, in the lacuna). Isidoros would then have drawn his rations late in return for a payment (on the expression τῆς τιμῆς, found in private letters, cf. Chapter 37). The circumstances are too particular for it to be worth the trouble to reopen, simply on the basis of this text, the much-debated question of whether, in this period, the grain ration was furnished to soldiers without charge, that is to say, without any deduction from their pay (on this problem, see Mitthof 2001: II, 310).

22 Conductor praesidii The placement of garrisons along the roads of Myos Hormos and Berenike posed distinctive logistical challenges: the occupants of these fortlets depended, for supplying them and their animals, solely on caravans coming from the valley. These occupants were not all soldiers: civilians lived with them. The garrisons also served as storehouses for foodstuffs: men and the supply caravan animals, who traversed the entire road in both directions, themselves needed to be fed at the stages. The food consumed in the praesidia thus had at least three possible statuses: military rations, the price of which was in principle deducted from the soldiers’ pay and which were managed by the curator praesidii; food for the passing caravans; and foodstuffs sold to the civilian occupants as well as to soldiers who wished to improve their regular diet. Despite numerous allusions in the ostraca from the praesidia, the way in which these provisions were dispatched to the fortlets has escaped us. The mechanisms of the provisioning of the Roman army are notoriously poorly known for the principate, even in Egypt.1 Among the supply personnel for the armies are often mentioned the conductores, who are attested in a few papyri and inscriptions that do little to clarify their function. The most explicit of these documents is Rom.Mil.Rec. 80 (130), a receipt drawn up in Latin by the cavalryman Serenus2 for some conductores fenarii. Serenus acknowledges in it the receipt of the monthly hay allotment for his comrades in his turma, and he adds that he has himself paid for the cost of transportation (naulum). The ostraca from the Desert of Berenike provide about thirty attestations of the word conductor.3 Since a catalogue was compiled by A. Bülow-Jacobsen in 2003,4 the number has continued to grow; it therefore seems useful to return to the question on the basis of the discovery, in the campaign at Xeron Pelagos during the winter of 2010–2011, of two new instances.5 1. Mitthof 2001: 37–40. 2. Serenus describes himself as a procurator, a term that has been much discussed (Mitthof 2001: 305 f.). For my part, I think that it must be understood in its legal sense of mandatary. Serenus has been authorized by his comrades to take delivery of the hay in their stead and in their names. 3. By contrast, the ostraca from the quarries of Mons Claudianus and of Domitiane/Kaine Latomia never mention a conductor. In this part of the Eastern Desert, which I regard as distinct from the Desert of Berenike, we know only the μισθωτὴς τῶν μετάλλων Epaphroditos, an imperial slave, the dedicant of the Sarapieia of Mons Claudianus and of Porphyrites at the start of Hadrian’s reign. We know nothing of his responsibilities, nor how they differed from those of the imperial freedman who was at the same time ἐπίτροπος τῶν μετάλλων. 4. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 410–12. 5. The two ostraca discussed here were found in December, 2010 in the external dump excavated by Emmanuel Botte.

367

368

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

In 2003, A. Bülow-Jacobsen had, not without some audacity, proposed the idea that the conductores of the Desert of Berenike were wagon-drivers. He was influenced by the fact that most of the attestations of the term available at the time showed the conductores circulating from one praesidium to another and providing to private individuals the service of transporting small parcels (often vegetables, but also salt, fish, a pair of scissors) to neighboring fortlets, just like the cavalrymen who ensured the official mails. Some ostraca found later have led us to abandon this idea, and we have returned to the traditional, juridical, interpretation of the term: a conductor is one of the parties in a contract of locatio-conductio.6 It is not difficult to imagine reasons for which the representatives of the farming operation would visit the praesidia regularly: verification of accounts, prevention of fraud, recovery of fiscal revenues. It was only in the margins of their main activity that these conductores would have provided the inhabitants of the praesidia with the service of transporting their personal packages. The dump outside the praesidium of Didymoi, on the Berenike road, has yielded an order for delivery with the following prescript: Ψενθώτης κονδούκτωρι Διδύμου Ὑδρεύματος χ(αίρειν), “Psenthotes to the conductor of the Well of Didymos, greetings” (O.Did. 54). The conductor is requested to furnish four matia of barley and eight pairs (ζεύγη) of loaves of bread to two individuals, named Κάλβου (= Calvus?) and Sioues. The document has been dated, on the basis of the stratigraphy of the dump established by Jean-Pierre Brun, to AD 96 or not long after. The character of the goods managed by the conductor leads us to discard the notion that his title would suggest, that he had obtained the contract for the hydreuma itself (i.e., maintenance of the well and its machinery, filling the cisterns): Διδύμου Ὕδρευμα has to be considered as a toponym, formed on the model of Ἀπόλλωνος Ὕδρευμα, another praesidium of the Berenike road.7 The title of conductor of a given praesidium had remained without a parallel until the second excavation campaign at Xeron Pelagos. In the Desert of Berenike, indeed, conductor is not normally defined with a nominal or adjectival complement, as with the conductores fenarii already mentioned. O.Xer. inv. 246 (P.Bagnall 11) US 306-33 Fig. 80

18.5 × 16.5 cm

24 July 96 sherd from an AE3

Conductor, instead of being rendered as usual by the transliteration κονδούκτωρ, is replaced in this instance by its semantic equivalent μισθωτής. The layout of the text, which forms an almost rectangular block, contrasts with the shape of the ostracon, which is both too large and of an asymmetrical and irregular outline. → 4

2 χα

Πανεχάτης Διοδότωι μισθωτῆι Ξηροῦ Πελάγους χα(ίρειν). ἀπέσχον παρὰ σοῦ μαρσίππους διπλοῦς δέκα καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἕνα, (γίνονται) μάρσιπ(ποι) ι̅α̅. (ἔτους) ιε Αὐτοκράτορο(ς) Καίσαρος Δομιτιανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ, Ἐπειφ λ̅. 4 / μαρσιπ 

6. In this light, the most likely interpretation of the conductores fenarii of Rom.Mil.Rec. 80 is that they are concessionaries who have obtained for a specified term the monopoly on furnishing hay to the ala veterana Gallica. We do not know if they themselves took care of obtaining the hay, but it is certain that it was their duty at least to provide its transport to the recipients. 7. The ostraca from Didymoi betray in fact a certain fluctuation in the name of the praesidium, the name of which is sometimes in the singular.

Conductor praesidii

369

Figure 80. P.Bagnall 11. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

“Panechates to Diodotos, concessionary of Xeron Pelagos, greetings. I have received from you ten double sacks and one single, for a total of 11 sacks. Year 15 of the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus, victor over the Germans, Epeiph 30.” Panechates and Diodotos cannot be identified with other persons known along the Berenike road. The first, with his Egyptian name, is likely to belong to the milieu of Egyptian transporters organized into dekaniai. The same is true for the Psenthotes of O.Did. 54, who might be the dekanos Psenthotes known from an ostracon found in the same stratigraphic unit; in O.Did. 54, Psenthotes would thus be asking the conductor to supply two transporters from his dekania during their passage by Didymoi. The conductores of the Desert of Berenike, on the other hand, never have Egyptian names; theirs are Greek, Greco-Egyptian, and most commonly Latin.8 The goods of which Panechates acknowledges receipt are sacks (marsippoi), described as “double” or “single” but without mention of their contents. These modifiers for marsippoi are unattested in all of Greek literature and documents, except in four ostraka from Berenike, O.Berenike II 163, 165, 166, and 177 (in each case an occurrence of “double” sacks). These texts belong to a body of passes issued by a 8. Greco-Egyptian: Ammonios; Greek: Diodotos, Herakleides; Latin: Arianus, Cassius, Maximus, Saturninus, perhaps Domitius Longinus.

370

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

certain Sarapion son of Kasios (O.Berenike II 153–183 and III 483–489, dated to c. 50–75). Some concern amphoras of wine and are addressed to Andouros. The others concern marsipp( ),9 the contents of which are never mentioned, and are addressed to a certain Pakoibis. Andouros and Pakoibis are known elsewhere as quintanenses  (O.Berenike II, p. 63). The quintanenses stationed at the customs gate of Berenike were agents of the contract for collection of the quintana, a tax on commercial transactions in the military zone made up of the Desert of Berenike. The formulation of the passes issued by Sarapion son of Kasios is invariably διαπόστειλον τῷ δεῖνι + direct object in the accusative. When dates are preserved or mentioned, they are Epeiph 11 for wine and Sebastos (Thoth) 24 for the sacks. In this dossier, the sacks which are not “double” are unspecified; these are without any doubt “single” sacks. In most of these ostraca, the number of sacks is high, reaching a maximum of 235 in O.Berenike 162. Empty sacks are nowhere mentioned as an object of export in the Red Sea trade. Still, it is possible to imagine that these were linen sacks, which could then be considered as part of the category λέντια in the goods exported to Ethiopia, a destination for which one would indeed properly be loading ships in Thoth (Peripl.M.Rubr. 6). Although marsippoi and marsippia are supposed normally to have been made of leather,10 linen is a known material for making them: cf. the 54 marsippoi furnished to the linen monopoly in BGU XIV 2427 and the definition given by Galen for the κρησέρα.11 The 82 marsippoi transported by a boatman on the Bahr Yussuf and for which he receives a transportation fee (phoretron) of 1 obol per sack12 are also objects of commerce (P.Petrie III 107, fr. D.9). But another hypothesis has been put forward by Dario Nappo: the μαρσιπ( ) of the Berenike ostraka were, he suggests, sealed leather purses containing standard quantities of Roman coins (denarii and aurei),13 with “double” sacks weighing exactly twice what the others did. This cash would be used to buy exotic goods, as the Periplus Maris Erythraei indeed indicates, when it recommends bringing coined money to conduct business in some places of commerce.14 Nappo rightly observes that coins are the most frequently attested contents, in all periods, of marsippia. As a parallel, he invokes the “little treasure of Rimigliano” recently discovered, of which he gives the following description: “The ‘tesoretto’ comes from a wreck and it is supposed to represent the standard way the coins were circulating on the commercial ships around the Mediterranean. It is in fact a block of c. 3,600 coins originally contained in small leather bags of circular shape and then put together into a larger basket. The small bags contain a standard amount of silver coins, split in groups of ten units, in order to facilitate the process of counting them. A similar organisation to the one attested in the ‘tesoretto di Rimigliano’ can be postulated for the Eastern Desert as well, and this is the situation to which the μαρσίππια refer.” All the same, it is hard to see through what combination of circumstances the conductor of Xeron Pelagos would have been in a position to possess sacks of imperial currency destined for export (even if Epeiph, July, is the month in which ships prepared for departure to India). Might we in this case be dealing simply with cash receipts, entrusted to Panechates for him to take to the valley? Monthly receipts, since the receipt is dated to the 30th of the month? But since his cash receipts should have been in diverse Alexandrian currency, this idea would not agree with the postulate necessary for Nappo’s hypothesis that the double purses represented exactly double the weight and value of the single purses. 9. The editors chose to resolve this word, which is always abbreviated, as the diminutive μαρσίππ(ια). The ostracon from Xeron shows that the diminutive is not a necessary resolution. 10. Radici Colace 1997: 323. 11. Galen defines the κρησέρα (flour sifter) as a μάρσιππος λινοῦς (Linguarum seu dictionum exoletarum Hippocratis explicatio, XIX 115.1 K). 12. Of which half is turned over to the king. 13. Nappo and Zerbini 2011: 66–68. 14. Casson 1989a: 29–31.

Conductor praesidii

371

Beyond that, the fact that Panechates is taking delivery of μάρσιπποι and not of μαρσίππια stands against the idea of purses of money: for when the word refers to a purse, it almost always, if written out fully, appears in the diminutive form. The only apparent exception is P.Stras. V 401bis, but since the author of this complaint was transporting the results of tax collection in the marsippos that he complains was robbed from him, he is probably referring to a saddle-bag rather than a purse.15 Perhaps Diodotos simply handed over to the transporter some sacks containing diverse articles to be sold in another praesidium. The variety of the content would have made detail tedious, so only the number of sacks needed to be indicated, and these were perhaps sealed. The marsippoi diploi are perhaps double sacks with a central fold, easy to stow on a beast of burden. Altogether, this ostracon is far from illuminating the nature of the sacks that crossed the customs barrier of Berenike, and it does nothing to corroborate Nappo’s thesis. All that can be said, as a result, is that we are dealing in all likelihood with the same type of objects, and that we should thus prefer to resolve μάρσιπποι and not μαρσίππια in the passes from Berenike. The order for payment from Didymoi was dated, according to the stratigraphy, to “96 or a little after.” The receipt from Xeron is dated to 96. This coincidence might lead one to wonder if the rarity of attestations of the conductor praesidii might not result from the fact that the post reflects an organization limited to this period, which is by no means the best represented in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert. Another and later ostracon from Xeron, however, suggests the existence of conductores attached to a praesidium and adds an important indication to understanding their function.

Figure 81. P.Bagnall 12. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

15. There did, however, exist large sacks containing coins and called μάρσιπποι: P.Ryl. IV 591.26 (third century BC).

372

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

O.Xer. inv. 473 (P.Bagnall 12) US 807-13 Fig. 81

c. 115–13016 sherd of AE3

12 × 12.5 cm

This is one of the four letters of Aphroditous to Boubas found at Xeron. Two of them include a proskynema before Zeus, which shows that the writer was then residing at Dios, a praesidium founded in 115/6.17 As her name is not common in the Eastern Desert, it is likely that she was the woman of the same name to whom a letter found at Dios in a deep layer was addressed (O.Dios inv. 1551, end of the reign of Trajan or reign of Hadrian, according to the stratigraphy). ↓ 4

8

12

16

Ἀφρω̣διτοῦς Βουβᾶτι τῶι ἀδελ(φῷ) χα(ίρειν). καθὼς ἠρώτηκά σε περὶ τῶν γραμματίω̣ν̣, σπουδάσῃς μοι πέμψε, κύριε, ἀσφαλῶς. παρακληθεὶς δὲ, ὅ τι ἐὰν εὕρῃς παρὰ σοί, ἀγόρασόν μοι καὶ πέμψον διὰ τὼ̣ θλείβεσθαι ἡμᾶς ἐνθάδε· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν κονδούκτορ. ἀσπάζου Κόμω̣να πολλ(ὰ) καὶ μετάδος αὐτῷ̣ μή μου ἐπιλαθέσθαι. ἔρρωσο.

1 l. Ἀφροδιτοῦς 2 αδελ χα 10–11 l. κονδούκτωρ 12 πολλ

4 ωνσπ post corr.

4–5 l. πέμψαι

6 l. ἄν

8 l. τὸ θλίβεσθαι

“Aphroditous to Boubas, her brother, greetings. As I have already asked you concerning the documents, hurry, sir, to send them to me by a secure means. And then, please, whatever you find where you are, buy it and send it to me, because we are in great difficulty here. For there is no conductor. Greet Komon warmly and tell him from me not to forget me. Farewell.” 1.

The reading Ἀφροδιτοῦς is not impossible. The writing of the phoneme /o/ poses a problem for this writer: one would say that each time there is doubt, he writes an ambiguous letter, which could be interpreted either as a broad, open omicron or as an omega with a single, narrow belly. By contrast, it is noticeable that his omicrons are always very clear in the diphthongs οι and ου. Βουβᾶτι. A Thracian or Bithynian name (OnomThrac, s.v. Buba, Bubas, Βουβας).

3–4.

In the papyri, γραμματεῖον/γραμμάτιον is used mainly in the sense of a document of private law, particularly in the Byzantine period. Attestations before the fourth century are relatively rare. In the present case, we may be dealing with loan documents (such transactions were fre-

16. According to the stratigraphy. I thank E. Botte and J.-P. Brun for this information. 17. Chapter 31, p. 481.

Conductor praesidii

373

quent in the world of the praesidia) or with prostitution, an activity that Aphroditous may have engaged in: in O.Did. 390, the pimp Philokles mentions a symphonesis, which may have been a written document. In O.Krok. II 182, the agent of a pimp asks the latter for an epitropike, i.e., a mandate giving him the power to negotiate with the clientele. The main interest of the letter of Aphroditous lies in the causal connection that it establishes between the absence of a conductor at Dios and the fact that there was nothing to buy there. It is tempting to deduce from this that one of the functions of the conductor praesidii consisted in supplying the praesidium with consumption goods that were resold to its occupants, both civilians and soldiers. If, for one reason or another, a praesidium was without conductor, as was the case at Dios when Aphroditous wrote, it became more difficult to obtain provisions there. It is also in this way that we must presumably understand O.Max. inv. 869, a letter the author of which apologizes for not sending anything but a basket of seutlon to his two correspondents. And even that, he stresses, he had bought for his personal consumption. He adds, ἠὰν δὲ γένηται κονδούκτωρ, ἐμοὶ μελήσι πῶς ἀκόλαστοι γένηστε (l. ἐὰν, μελήσει, γένησθε), “but if there is ever18 a contractor, I shall see to it that you lack for nothing.”19 All the same, even the presence of a conductor did not always make it easy to get vegetables. In very defective Greek, the author of O.Dios inv. 1202 also apologizes for not having added vegetables to the letter, which he sends to his comrades: μὴ μέμψατέ με ὅτι οὐκ ἔπεμψα ἡμῖν λάχανα· ὁ κοντούκτωρ οἷς θέλι διδῦ οὐδὲ ἡμῖ⟨ν⟩ ὅτε ἔσθωμεν λάχανα, “Do not blame me for not having sent you vegetables; the conductor gives some to those he wishes and not to us (…).”20 The two ostraca that I have just cited raise the question of the relationship between the conductor and the cultivation of kitchen gardens on the edges of some of the desert praesidia, where the well produced enough water: was this gardening part of the desert activities governed by a business contract with public authorities?

Conclusion In the Desert of Berenike, the conductor appears sometimes as a transient (eight certain cases), sometimes as a long-term resident of a praesidium (five certain cases21), in some cases even with his family.22 Were all of our conductores specifically conductores of a praesidium? If so, it is hard to understand why we see them so often in motion. Did some of them have the contract for several praesidia at once, which would have obligated them to travel from one to the other? Or were some conductores only peddlers, going from praesidium to praesidium with their goods? The term occasionally appears in the plural,23 and even in the feminine, in three forms: ἡ κονδούκτωρ, κονδουκτρία, κονδούκτριξ. The “conductrices,” as far as context permits us to judge, live in a praesidium; but we know nothing about their functions. O.Did. 405 suggests that they may have supervised prostitution: the author of this letter, which is missing its beginning, tells how he had made a woman (a 18. Unless ἐάν has its temporal value (Chapter 40): then “when there is a conductor.” Influenced by his hypothesis, now abandoned, that conductor meant wagon driver, A. Bülow-Jacobsen had understood ἠὰν δὲ γένηται κονδούκτωρ as “if a conductor comes by” (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 410). 19. This sense of ἀκόλαστος is not listed in the lexica. It comes from the weakened sense that κολάζομαι often has in the Roman period, “to lack.” 20. I do not understand the last remark. Was there an ellipsis, with the author intending to say “when we have vegetables to eat (I will send you some)”? 21. These are letters in which a conductor is the recipient or the object of greetings. 22. O.Did. 355: ἄσπασαι (…) Οὐ[κ]ο⟨ν⟩δούκτορα καὶ [τὴν ἀδελ]φὴν αὐτοῦ. 23. O.Max. inv. 362; O.Krok. inv. 524.

374

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

prostitute?) admit that she had lost a tunic. He went to the praesidium where she was and had her called by the kondouktria (εὕρηκα αὐτὴν φωνουμένην ὑπὸ τῆς κονδουκτρίας). The masculine conductor is also connected with prostitution: two ostraca show clearly the conductor functioning as a collector of the tax on the monthly hiring of a prostitute, which was called variously quintana and τὸ τοῦ κονδούκτορος.24 In O.Did. 390, at the moment of leaving to join the garrison which has hired her services, a prostitute pays to the conductor not only the quintana, but also the cost of her transportation (φόρετρον). If the conductores were in charge of supplying the fortlets, it is not surprising to find them also possessing means of transportation: in fact, we encounter the expressions ] ὀνηλατῶν τοῦ κον[δούκτορος (O.Did. 445, damaged context) and ὄνοι τοῦ κονδούκτορος (O.Xer. inv. 452: μή με μέμφου, ἄδελ[φ]ε, ὅτι οὐδέν σοι ἀπέσταλκα [1–2 ἕ]ως ἀναβῶσιν οἱ ὄνοι τοῦ [κο]νδούκτορος, “do not blame me, brother, for not having sent you anything, while I am waiting until the contractor’s donkeys come up”). Did this conductor live in the praesidium from which the author of the letter is writing, waiting with the rest of the garrison for his donkeys to supply him? As so often, the papyrological documentation brings more new questions than it solves. The image of the conductor that emerges from the ostraca is so full of contrasts that it is hard not to wonder if all of the contractors had entered into the same type of public contract, or if, in the Desert of Berenike, the contract of a conductor included carrying out several very different tasks: – the distribution of food to the donkey-drivers and camel-drivers, as well as feed to their animals (O.Did. 54); – the sale of goods, whether foodstuffs or not, to the military and civilian occupants of the praesidia. For the soldiers, this would be a matter of foods not included in their statutory ration, and which they therefore paid for out of their own pockets;25 – the collection of the tax on the hiring of prostitutes; – the transportation of supplies. But we do not know if all of the types of supplies (military rations on the one hand, foodstuffs sold to the inhabitants of the praesidia and of the ports, on the other) were involved—if, for example, the organization of the supply caravans that are called poreiai were subcontracted to conductores by the prefecture of Berenike: mounting such caravans in fact required not only assembling the transport animals and their accompanying personnel, but also providing the means of feeding them while on the road.

24. O.Did. 390 and 430. See Chapter 24. 25. They drew their statutory ration (paid for by deductions from salary in victum) from the curator against payment of a sum of money called publica (Chapter 19).

23 Quintana, a woman transformed into a tax Quintana, a woman belonging to a band of prostitutes,1 has to be struck from the prosopography of Krokodilo. It is by now well known that prostitutes were hired by the month in the praesidia. In O.Krok. II 267, Longinus negotiates with his comrade Apollinaris the rental of the prostitute Sarapias: πέμψον μοι Σαραπιάτι μετὰ Τιβεριάτι ὅτι χρῄσω αὐτήν, “send me Sarapias with Tiberia, because I need her.” If Apollinaris keeps her, he is to send “the 85 drachmas” to Longinus, but if he finds an opportunity to hire her out elsewhere, he is to make sure that she has a good protector at that location. From this we deduce that Longinus is the owner of the prostitute Sarapias, whose rental he pockets. The role of Tiberia is not clear: assistant, a member of the company, a psychological support? We supposed that we were dealing with an analogous transaction in two letters, the sender of which tells the recipient that he has hired Prokla to Maximianon and to Simiou respectively δραχμῶν ξ̅ σὺν τῇ Κουιντάνῃ, “for 60 drachmas with Quintana.” Another letter invites a pimp to bring his “earner” (whose name is not known), and he will receive 72 drachmas, without counting Quintana: αὐτὸς ἔρχου φέρων αὐτὴν καὶ λήμψῃ (δραχμὰς) ο̅β̅ χωρὶς Κουιντάνας. The personal name Quintana is attested: it refers to the fifth place in order of birth.2 But in 2004 Roger Bagnall informed me that several (then) unpublished ostraca from Berenike mentioned a previously unattested tax called κουιντάνα, and he thought that our Quintana was none other than this tax. He was right, of course, and it then leapt to our eyes that our formulas σὺν τῇ κουιντάνῃ and χωρὶς κουιντάνας recalled those found in loan contracts with words referring to interest (ἡμιολία, τόκος, διάφορον).3 The formulas with σύν are, moreover, ambiguous, because they can have practically opposite meanings according to whether the writer chose to put them into the acknowledgment of receipt of the sum borrowed or in the promise of reimbursement.4 When the borrower undertakes to repay the amount borrowed σὺν τόκῳ, the amount indicated corresponds to the principal amount received by the borrower, and σὺν τόκῳ means that he will repay this principal “plus interest,” “with 1. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 388 and 402. 2. Kajanto 1965: 293. 3. Σύν is much more common than χωρίς in this context. 4. This distinction was clarified by Lewis 1945.

375

376

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

the interest in addition.” In contrast, when the borrower acknowledges receipt of a certain amount σὺν τόκῳ, this amount equals the sum of the principal actually received and the interest on it; σὺν τόκῳ must in this case be rendered “including interest.”5 From the grammatical point of view, σὺν τόκῳ depends in the first case on the verb “to repay, to reimburse,” while in the second, it is used directly after a numerical quantity, which it modifies. At this point of the 2006 version of this article, I wrote: “This latter pattern applies to the expression ‘n drachmas σὺν τῇ κουιντάνῃ’ and to its opposite, ‘n drachmas χωρὶς κουιντάνας’.” But my position on this question has changed since then: I now think that the 60 drachmas σὺν τῇ κουιντάνῃ is synonymous with 72 drachmas χωρὶς κουιντάνας. The price is the same, but it is expressed pre-tax in the first instance, with tax included in the second. For the detailed demonstration, see Chapter 24, pp. 383–86. Thus is confirmed an intuition of Bagnall, who thought that, by analogy with the apostolion and the pittakion, farmed taxes paid in order to cross the desert, the quintana must have been another farmed tax, and that its collector, the quintanensis, was a tax farmer, that is, in Latin, a conductor. The two terms are in fact joined in a document that neither Bagnall nor I noticed, Ch.L.A. III 200 (166).6 This is a sale of a young slave, agreed between two soldiers of the fleet of Misenum in the camp of a vexillation of this fleet located at Seleucia of Pieria. The contract takes the form of a testatio drawn up in Latin, but the final subscription is in Greek. It is presented as follows in Ch.L.A.:7 Δομέτιος Γερμανὸς [μ]ισθωτὴς κ̣υιντ̣α̣[νῆ]ς Μεισην̣ά̣τ̣ω̣ν̣ ἔχω̣ [δε]κά|τ̣η̣(ν) [π]ράσ̣[εως τοῦ π]α̣[ιδ]είου Ἀββᾶ τοῦ καὶ Εὐτύχη, “I, Domitius Germanus, concessionnaire of the quintana of the Misenates, received the tenth8 (of the price) of the sale of the slave Abbas, alias Eutyches.”  The restoration κ̣υιντ̣ά̣[νη]ς instead of κυιντά[νος] in most of the editors goes back to P. M. Meyer (Jur.Pap. 37), who connected this word with the via quintana, the place where, in a Roman camp, the market was held:9 ”griechische Unterschrift des Domitius Germanus, des Pächters der auf der quintana (via?), dem Markt- und Handelsplatz im Lager, erhobenen Verkehrsteuer.” Might we have here an unnoticed instance of the quintana  tax? The idea is tempting, but I am unsure that it should be accepted, insofar as the tax paid in this papyrus has to be a tax on change of ownership (the equivalent of the enkyklion in Egypt), which is not the case of the quintana in the ostraca of the Desert of Berenike. Until we have more information, I therefore propose the following explanation: in the title μισθωτὴς κουιντάνης, the Latin equivalent of which must be conductor quintanae, quintana means “camp mar5. The borrower thus acknowledges receipt of a fictitious amount, which is in reality what he is obliged to repay. 6. If this passage, which I came across by chance in reading, had escaped us until now, it is because the Greek subscription was not lemmatized in the Wörterbuch and because, moreover, the word κ̣υιντ̣α̣[νῆ]ς suffered from a data-entry error in the DDbDP. 7. I would not place the underdots and brackets in this way, and I see nothing secure between κ̣υιντ̣α̣[νῆ]ς and -ίου Ἀββᾶ. 8. We should stress that [δε]κάτη(ν) is not so much a reading as a restoration proposed by Meyer and based on the widely held, but hypothetical, view that in Egypt the enkyklion on the sale of slaves was set at 10% of the price (Straus 2004: 76). The excellent photo published in Ch.L.A. III does not make it possible to confirm this restoration, because the text is very corrupt at this point. I would therefore not venture to rely on the evidence of this passage to support an argument about the rate of the quintana in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert. 9. This function of the via quintana is attested by Livy (41.2.11) and Suetonius (Ner. 26); in the latter, we can see how quintana comes by metonymy to mean “market”: in his youth, Nero instituted a quintana even in his palace, where the loot from his nightly pillaging around the city was sold at auction: quintana domi constituta, ubi partae et ad licitationem dividendae praedae pretium absumeretur. The editor of the CUF edition astutely renders quintana as “cantine,” a word that among other meanings refers to an “endroit où l’on vend des boissons, de la nourriture, de menus objets aux membres d’une collectivité,” for example in barracks or prisons (Trésor de la langue française). As to the etymology of the word, the latter work mentions only the generally accepted idea that it is a borrowing from the Italian cantina (“cellar”), but the Dictionnaire de la langue française of Littré thinks it more likely that “cantine” goes back to the Latin quintana. I thank Philippe Hirou for having drawn my attention to this attractive alternative.

Quintana, a woman transformed into a tax

377

ket” and perhaps also, by metonymy, the totality of the taxes on commercial transactions inside the camp. But it is only in the Eastern Desert that the use of quintana to refer to one or another of the taxes of this “bunch” can be demonstrated; for quintana does not necessarily refer to the same tax in the ostraca of the praesidia and in O.Berenike:10 in the first, the quintana is attested only as a tax on the hire of prostitutes, while in O.Berenike, it is a tax on the transporters (or those who employed them). Quintana could thus have been a vague term applied to all of the taxes paid to the concessionaire of the “market taxes.” The term quintanensis, which may be synonymous with conductor quintanae, does not appear in the praesidia of the Eastern Desert. In the Berenike ostraca, the quintanenses, who occasionally work in two-man colleges, appear sometimes as receivers of the quintana, which comes to 16 dr. a month, sometimes (and more often) as addressees of chits instructing them to let pass certain persons transporting some quantity of foodstuffs.11 These activities suggest that the quintanenses (at least in O.Berenike) were employees of the contractors of the quintana rather than the contract-holders themselves. As a designation of a position, quintanensis was until now attested only in a few documents:12 –Rom.Mil.Rec. 9 (unknown provenance, 81–90): a service chart in which during four consecutive days a soldier serves pro quintanesi[o] (“as quintanensis, in the stead of the quintanensis”?). –CIL XIV 2282 (201–250), an inscription from the ager Albanus, where the camp of the legio II Parthica was located starting with the reign of Septimius Severus. This is the cover of the tomb of Aur. Crysomallus quintane⟨n⟩sis leg(ionis). This person was understood by Mommsen as miles a cura portae quintanae and then, by others, as a soldier “carrying out a five-day duty.13 Against this, J.-Ch. Balty sees in him a civilian: “Camp14 and city coexisted for some forty years, but we have only scanty information about their everyday contacts. It is however sufficient to explain why Aur. Chrysomallus, ‘ortus C(laudiae) Apameae’, followed the army when it returned to Albano and died there as quintanesis legionis, or canteen-keeper of the legion.”15 I would incline to compare Chrysomallos to the misthotes of Ch.L.A. III 200: he would thus be a farmer who had undertaken the contract for the taxes on transactions carried out inside the camp, first at Apamea and then at Rome. –CIL XIII.2.1 7749 (Germania Superior, 211–222). A dedication (which comes from a Roman fort) to the genius hor(reorum) n(umeri) Brittonum A(ntoninianorum). It seems that there were two dedicants, the second of which was T(itus ?) Um(--) quintane⟨n⟩sis. For Zangemeister, the latter word was a cognomen, but our title would suit equally well. If we may allow a generalization on the basis of Ch.L.A. III 200, it is that some commercial activities carried out inside Roman camps were subject to farmed taxes; it is then interesting to observe that this practice was transferred to an entire military zone, the Desert of Berenike. We cannot exclude the possibility that the contracting of the quintana was a sub-department of the Arabarchy, just like the apostolion of Koptos.16 10. See, however, another possibility considered infra. 11. Most commonly wine, which seems to have been intended for export, because it is wine from outside Egypt. 12. I am leaving aside Latin inscriptions in which the word is clearly a cognomen or an ethnic, for example, ILS 6217, where the Quintanenses are the inhabitants of a place named Ad Quintanas. 13. O.Bu Njem, p. 78. 14.The camp of the legio Parthica was at Apamea, before this legion was transferred to Rome. 15. Balty 1988: 103. 16. This interconnection of the contracts is well explained by Burkhalter 2002: 226–30.

24 Rotating women: remarks on prostitution in the Roman garrisons of the Desert of Berenike The detached soldiers in the praesidia of the Desert of Berenike enjoyed the services of prostitutes, whom each garrison, going in together, hired by the month. I have described the details of this system in the first edition (2003) of Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 383–39, which is to be completed by the corrigendum that appeared in 2006 in the second edition under the title “Quintana, la femme métamorphosée en taxe,” pp. 689–93 (now Chapter 23). The discovery of further letters concerning prostitution, especially at Dios,1 has led me to revisit several points.

1. Ἀφιέναι in the letter O.Krok. II 267 I published in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 385, a letter2 in which a pimp, Longinus, of whom we know from other sources that he lived at Persou, makes the following request of his friend Apollinaris, who was stationed at Krokodilo: 5

10

-- καλῶς ποιήσις, κύρι’ ἄδελφέ μου, πέμψον μοι Σαραπιάτι μετὰ Τιβεριάτι ὅτι χρῄσω αὐτήν· ἰ μὲν θέλις ἀφῖνε αὐτὴν σατῷ{ν} ὥλων τὸν μῆνον, ἄφες καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι χαλκόν· ἰ μὲν θέλις αὐτὴν μισθῶσε παρὰ σέν, πέμψον μοι τὰς (δραχμὰς) οε καὶ γράψον μοι ὅτι “ἔχω αὐτὴν ὡς ἐπίτρωπον”·

1. Dios, which is located on the road from Koptos to Berenike, is the station called Iovis in the Antonine Itinerary. On its excavation, which was financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and by IFAO, see provisionally http://www.ifao.egnet.net/ archeologie/praesidia/. 2. Now republished as O.Krok. II 267 by Bérangère Redon, who took into account the progress I had made on this text since the editio princeps.

379

380

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert ἰ μὲν εὕρηκες μίσθωμα αὐτὴν ἰς Διδύμους, ἀσφάλισον σατῷ λίαν παρὰ πιστὸν ἄνθρωπο⟨ν⟩ ἵνα μὴ αὐτὴν ὑβρίσουσιν. --

5 l. ποιήσεις 6 l. Σαραπιάδα, Τιβερίας 7 l. χρῄζω αὐτῆς, εἰ, θέλεις ἀφεῖναι 8 l. σεαυτῷ ὅλον τὸν μῆνα 9 l. οὐδείς, χαλκός, εἰ, θέλεις 10 l. μισθῶσαι παρὰ σοί 11 l. ἐπίτροπος 12 l. εἰ, αὐτῇ εἰς 13 l. σαυτόν Longinus thus begins his letter by asking Apollinaris to send him the prostitute Sarapias, on the grounds that he needs her (or that he wants her: the verb χρῄζειν allows either translation). Then he offers three alternatives, at least two of which, however, imply that Sarapias will remain at a distance from him (to hire Sarapias out to the garrison of Krokodilo, to hire her out to that of Didymoi). As to the first of these alternatives (ἰ μὲν θέλις ἀφῖνε αὐτὴν σατῷ{ν} ὥλων τὸν μῆνον, ἄφες), I misunderstood it, because I did not grasp the meaning of ἀφιέναι, which I took to mean “send back” (sc. to Longinus). This interpretation would fit well into the context: Longinus was asking for Sarapias back, and, logically, asked Apollinarius to send her to him. The problem was σατων, for which I saw no plausible interpretation except as an error for σαυτῷ. But the construction ἀφιέναι τινά τινι is disconcerting and, as far as I know, unparalleled. I now think that it is here not a matter of sending Sarapias back from Krokodilo, but of freeing her from her work and giving her a month’s break. Still, Longinus is not proposing complete freedom: Apollinaris is authorized to liberate her “for himself.” Instead of serving as a comfort woman for a whole garrison, Sarapias will reserve her charms, without charge, for Apollinaris alone. This was probably a way for Longinus to thank Apollinaris for his broker’s services. If, however, Apollinaris does not want to take advantage of this offer, he should try to find a contract for Sarapias at Krokodilo or Didymoi. From this we may conclude that the desire expressed by Longinus to get Sarapias back was not very serious: this opening was probably an indirect way of hinting at his impatience and not having had any news of upcoming contracts and to get things back into motion. To come back to ἀφεῖναι αὐτὴν σαυτῷ, this unique formulation combines two well-known constructions: ἀφιέναι τινα, “release someone (from a professional or fiscal obligation, or from prison), to give him leave” and ἀφιέναι τί τινι, “to leave something in someone’s hands,3 to entrust something to someone.” It must there be translated “if you wish to release her and keep her for yourself for the whole month, release her.”

2. Τὸ κυκλευτικόν In the first praesidium that we excavated, Maximianon, on the road of Myos Hormos, a new Greek word appeared, τὸ κυκλευτικόν, a verbal noun derived from κυκλεύειν, “go around in a circle.” The dictionaries indicate that in Egypt κυκλεύειν had a particular meaning: to turn a water wheel. Since the water from the wells of the praesidia was indeed drawn using wheels with buckets, I concluded at that time that the kykleutikon was the salary of the staff who operated the water wheel. Kykleutikon in fact does in some ostraca refer to a sum of money. For example, we read in a woman’s letter (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 393): “I learned that you made a scene about the three staters. So, wait five days, brother, until I receive the kykleutikon (μέχρι λάβο τὼ κυκλευτικόν), and then I will send you the money by a trustworthy man.” In all this there was, however, one strange detail: the persons who receive the money of the kykleutikon are always women. From this I concluded that the water wheels of the garrisons were, 3. Including at his own house: P.Oxy. XLV 3253 (third–fourth century): τὸν οἶνον ὃν λαμβάνι ὁ ἀγροφύλαξ συνάξας ἄφες παρ̣[ὰ] σ̣εαυτῷ, “the wine that the field-guard is collecting, bring it together and deposit it in your place.”

Rotating women

381

one way or another, operated by women (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 389–94). In retrospect, this strikes me as rather surreal. Neither the ostraca of Krokodilo, nor those of Didymoi, the two sites where we excavated next, mentioned the kykleutikon. During our second campaign at Dios, we found a group of ostraca that had been carefully smashed. These were letters exchanged between, on the one hand, a man named Maximus, who was at Dios, and, on the other, two persons located at Xeron, the next praesidium in the direction of Berenike.4 These two correspondents, Antonius and a woman called Sarapias, wrote separately to Maximus, who thus kept their letters but also the replies that he sent them. The subject of all this correspondence is that Sarapias is in a hurry to return to Dios. The supposed reason is that she has finished the kykleutikon. Antonius, who supports Sarapias’s request, writes to Maximus: ἔρχου ἐπ’ αὐτήν· πεπλήρωκε γὰρ τὸ κυκλευτικὸν ἕως δ̅ Πα⟦ο⟧υ⟨νι⟩, “Come get her, since she has completely fulfilled the kykleutikon up to Pauni 4” (O.Dios inv. 430). Other ostraca from Dios, which do not belong to this little archive, also mention the kykleutikon. The anonymous author of the letter O.Dios inv. 306 announces: [κα]λῶς πο[ιήσε]ι̣[ς] πέμψον Τύχην ἐπὶ εὗρον αὐτῇ κυκλευτικόν, “Send Tyche, because I have found her a kykleutikon.” In O.Dios inv. 305, I believe that we may restore [ἔγραψ]ά σοι περὶ Θαησίου [ἵνα κυκλευτι]κὸν αὐτῇ ζητήσῃς, “I wrote to you about Thaesion: can you look for a kykleutikon for her?” In these ostraca of Dios, kykleutikon does not refer to a sum of money received. Its meaning becomes obvious if we connect these texts with line 12 of O.Krok. II 267, discussed earlier, ἰ μὲν εὕρηκες μίσθωμα αὐτὴν ἰς Διδύμους. It is clear to me that the understood word when κυκλευτικόν, an adjective used as a noun, is mentioned, is μίσθωμα, a contract of hire. Hesychius cites another substantive adjective that refers to the wages of a courtesan: συγκοίτιον· ἑταίρᾳ συγκοιμηθείσ⟨ῃ⟩ μίσθωμα (σ 2176 Hansen). In Aelian (ap. Souda Π 274 Adler), we find the expression ἑταιρικὸν μίσθωμα: the Milesian Monime refuses the gold offered her by Mithridates, ἑταιρικὸν φάσκουσα εἶναι μίσθωμα τὸ ἑαυτὴν παραβαλεῖν ἀνδρὶ ἀγνῶτι καὶ ὥσπερ ὤνιον τὸ κάλλος ἀποδόσθαι, “According to her, it was a prostitution agreement to hand oneself over to an unknown person and to sell her beauty as if it were merchandise.” Since the subject of εἶναι is not the sum of money but the act of selling oneself to someone else, μίσθωμα has here, in principle, just as in O.Krok. II 267, the meaning of “contract of misthosis,” not of “price of hire.” But it is in the sense of the wages of a prostitute that the Suda understands it, citing the passage of Aelian in support: μίσθωμα· ὁ μισθὸς ἑταιρικός. Αἰλιανός· ἡ δὲ οὐ προσεῖτο φάσκουσα εἶναι μίσθωμα τὸ ἑαυτὴν παραβαλεῖν ἀνδρὶ ἀγνῶτι (Souda Μ 1123 Adler). It is true that in all of the other literary attestations of μίσθωμα in connection with prostitution, this term always refers to the compensation of a prostitute, not to a contract.5 Μίσθωμα is thus a very good candidate for noun to be understood with κυκλευτικόν: it belongs, although not exclusively, to the vocabulary of prostitution, it is used in the milieu of the procurers of the Eastern Desert, and, like κυκλευτικόν, it can refer both to a contract and to the value of that contract. 4. One of these texts is published as P.Marganne 12 (= Chapter 25). 5. This is also the case in a passage of Porphyry (De Abstinentia 4.18.8), where the misthoma is presented, according to the translators, as a tax or a fine paid by courtesans: ἐπεὶ [δ’] οὐδ’ ἑταίραις ὁμιλεῖν ἀπαγορεύει τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πραττόμενος τὰς ἑταίρας τὸ μίσθωμα, ἐπονείδιστον ἡγεῖται μετρίοις ἀνδράσιν καὶ αἰσχρὰν τὴν πρὸς ταύτας ὁμιλίαν. Cf., for example, the translation of the CUF: “Ainsi, (la loi) n’interdit pas non plus aux gens du peuple de fréquenter les courtisanes, mais tout en prélevant un impôt sur les courtisanes, elle regarde leur commerce comme répréhensible et honteux pour des hommes qui ont des vertus civiques.” But μίσθωμα never meant fine or tax. We must understand instead that the law “takes their gains,” sc. in the form of taxation. This is a rhetorical exaggeration, which is indeed commonplace among taxpayers of all periods, and which comes down to presenting the law as a common procurer. We should therefore translate “For (the law) also does not forbid common people to frequent prostitutes, but, while collecting the prostitutes’ earnings, it considers visiting them reprehensible and shameful for honorable people” (I thank Jean Bouffartigue and Marcel Cuvigny, who kindly reflected with me on this passage and helped me to understand it).

382

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

3. Μίσθωμα Μίσθωμα is extremely rare in the Egyptian documentation. I think that we can set aside P.Leipz. 6 r.2 (Memphis, third century), an agricultural account where the resolution μίσθ(ωμα) (ἀρουρῶν) is hardly necessary in preference to the banal μίσθ(ωσις). The only occurrence besides O.Krok. II 267 appears in W.Chr. 192.27 (94). There we are dealing with a contract for the lease of a thesauros that is part of the epoikion of Pisaïs, which was the property of the god Soknopaios. The lessors are themselves misthotai of the epoikion, which they thus leased from the god, and units of which they sublease. The lessee of the thesauros undertakes to pay the rent as follows (ll. 24–27): τὸν δὲ φόρον ἀποδόσωι ἐν μηνὶ Καισαρίωι τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος τρ[ι]σκαιδεκά(του) (ἔτους), χωρὶς ἄλλων ὧν ἔχωι ἐν τῶι ἐποικίωι ἐν μισθώσι μισθωμ[άτων, “I will pay the rent in the month of Kaisareios of the current thirteenth year, without prejudice to other leases that I have entered into in the hamlet.” The thesauros is thus not the only property that he has leased in the epoikion.6 The oldest attestations of μίσθωμα in literature suggest that it was originally a term of public law, which sometimes meant a public works contract,7 sometimes the letting of a public contract, cf. Hdt. 2.180: Ἀμφικτυόνων δὲ μισθωσάντων τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖσι νῦν ἐόντα νήον τριηκοσίων ταλάντων ἐξεργάσασθαι (…) τοὺς Δελφοὺς δὴ ἐπέβαλλε τεταρτημόριον τοῦ μισθώματος παρασχεῖν, “Since the Amphictyons had let the contract for the construction of the present temple of Delphi for a sum of three hundred talents, the Delphians were required to provide a quarter of the amount” (μίσθωμα = amount of a public contract); Arist., Athenaion Politeia 47.2, concerning some πωληταί: [μ]ισθοῦσι δὲ τὰ μισθώματα πάντα, καὶ τὰ μέταλλα πωλοῦσι καὶ τὰ τέλη, “they let all the contracts for the city, and they sell the rights to exploit the mines and collect the taxes” (transl. from CUF) (μισθοῦν μίσθωμα = award a public contract); App. BC 5.13.130: τῶν εἰσφορῶν τοὺς ἔτι ὀφείλοντας ἀπέλυε καὶ φόρων τελώνας τε καὶ τοὺς τὰ μισθώματα ἔχοντας ὧν ἔτι ὀφείλοιεν, returning to Rome, Octavian “freed the taxpayers from their tax arrears and the tax farmers and those who held public contracts from the balance of what they owed.” Starting with the third century BC, we often find μίσθωμα used to refer to the earnings of prostitutes; this is even the most frequent use of the word in the literary sources. The oldest attestations occur in the comic poet Machon and, in great numbers, in the Septuagint. The work of a prostitute, even if only of a single encounter, is in effect treated as a hiring of services (cf. Aristodemus of Nysa, ap. Ath. 13.585a: Γνάθαιναν δύο ἐμισθώσαντο, στρατιώτης καὶ μαστιγίας). This is probably why, even outside of the area of prostitution, μίσθωμα could have been used as a pejorative synonym for μισθός. The following definition by Ammonius bears witness to this: μισθὸς μισθώματος διαφέρει. μισθὸς μέν ἐστιν ὁ δίκαιος μισθός, μίσθωμα δὲ τὸ ἐπονείδιστον (De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 323). Literature offers only two examples where μίσθωμα refers to “dirty money” which is not a prostitute’s salary, but a bribe: App. BC 2.17.120 (to win the favor of the common people); Philo of Alexandria, In Flaccum 134, concerning Lampon, the eisagogeus of the prefects of Egypt, who receives “his damnable salary or, more accurately, his whore’s wages” to falsify the records of proceedings of judicial hearings (τὸν ἐπάρατον 6. The pleonastic expression ἔχειν μισθώματα ἐν μισθώσει, suggests that μίσθωμα has slipped from the meaning of “public works contract” to “something taken on lease.” This last meaning appears in its pristine state only in Acta Apostolorum 28.30, where the context is not in fact that of public works contracts, but where μίσθωμα rather refers to the lodging rented by Paul during his stay at Rome: ἐνέμεινεν διετίαν ὅλην ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι. C. Spicq observes rightly the same metonymic glide of the word “location” in French: the first meaning is “action de prendre en louage,” but “location” can also refer to the rented accommodation (C. Spicq, Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire, II, Fribourg 1978, “μίσθωμα,” pp. 566 f.); another useful study of μίσθωμα is D. L. Mealand, “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” New Test. Stud. 36 (1990) 583–97. 7. Public contract refers to a contract entered into between the State or any collective body with the purpose of having some works carried out, of having needed goods produced, or having services provided.

Rotating women

383

μισθὸν ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν τὸ μίσθωμα ἐν νενικηκόσιν). In these two examples, the use of μίσθωμα likens those who receive it to prostitutes. As we have seen, these two semantic traditions of μίσθωμα coexist in Appian.

4. What does κυκλεύειν mean in the ostraca of the Desert of Berenike? From the point of view of Roman law, the hiring of a prostitute is governed by locatio operarum, in which the hired work consists, in our ostraca, of κυκλεύειν. But what is the work of a prostitute described by a verb that means “travel in a circle”? At first, I was tempted to connect the organization of prostitution in the Desert of Berenike with the use of κυκλεύειν in some Christian texts of the fourth and fifth century, the Apophthegmata Patrum and the Lausiac History of Palladius. By coincidence, the geographical milieu is the same: the desert, where monks and hermits retired into monasteries or isolated cells; their followers make a tour of these pious retreats, a journey expressed by κυκλεύειν.8 This verb could thus refer to the fact that the prostitutes “made a tour” of the network of praesidia: hired by the month by the garrisons, they went from one to the other as their contracts dictated. But this hypothesis was contradicted by a letter recently found at Dios. Addressed to a woman, it ends with these words: εἰὰν θέλῃς ἐλθεῖν ὧδαι ἐλθὲ εἵνα κυκλεύσῃς (l. ἐὰν, ὧδε, ἵνα), “If you wish to come here to turn, come” (O.Dios inv. 1420). The activity described by κυκλεύειν thus takes place inside the fort; it then appears clear that the central idea behind this image is that the women “rotated” among the soldiers during the month for which their contract ran. I have not managed to find any trace in Greek literature of this metaphor applied to women shared by several men, but a parallel can be found in the noun “tournante,” which in popular French usage refers to gang rape.

5. Σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ/χωρὶς κουιντάνας The letter O.Krok. II 267 analyzed above illustrates beautifully how the procurers arranged contracts and used their network of connections to get the clientele of the praesidia from which they were themselves too distant (if it was easy to entrust a letter to a rider leaving for the next fort, the distribution of the private mail in the more distant garrisons was unpredictable, because it had to pass from hand to hand). When a broker had found a misthoma for a prostitute, he notified the pimp about it as well as the price that he had negotiated. This price is sometimes said to be “with the quintana,” sometimes “without the quintana”: – O.Krok. II 221, a letter addressed by an anonymous broker to a pimp who lives at Krokodilo, to let him know that a contract had been found for Procula at Maximianon: (ll. 3–7) ἐ̣μίσθ̣ω̣[σα] Πρ̣[ό]κλαν εἰς πραισίδιον Μαξιμιανὸν (δραχμῶν) ξ̅ σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ, “I have hired out Procula to the garrison of Maximianon for 60 drachmas with the quintana.” 8. Palladius, Lausiac History 52.1: τοσοῦτον ἐγένετο φιλομόναχος ὡς κυκλεύειν ἀνὰ τὰς κέλλας καὶ τὴν ἔρημον ἐν ταῖς νυξί, “he was taken with such love for the monks that he spent the nights plowing the desert, going from cell to cell”; 13.2: καὶ ἦν ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν ὄρθριον μέχρις ἐννάτης ὥρας, κυκλεύοντα τὰ μοναστήρια, “and he could be seen, from dawn to dusk, making a circuit of the monasteries.” Apophthegmata Patrum, Collection Anonyme, no. 243 (Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 14 [1909] 364): ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτὸν κυκλεύειν τὰ κελλία τῶν ἀδελφῶν, “they drove him out and forced him to make a circuit of the brothers’ cells.”

384

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert – O.Krok. II 182, a letter missing its beginning, probably addressed to the same pimp: (ll.  2–4) γ̣ι̣νώσκιν σε θέλω ὅτι μ̣ε̣μ̣ί̣σ̣θ̣[ωκα] Πρόκλαν εἰς Σιμίου ἑξήκον[τ]α δραχμῶν σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ̣, “I want you to know that I have hired out Procula to Simiou for 60 drachmas with the quintana.” – O.Krok. II 219, a letter directly sent by the clients (there are at least three senders) to a pimp. The beginning is very damaged, but the conditions of payment are preserved: (ll.  8–12) ἵνα τ καὶ ἐνέκκῃ (l. ἐνέγκῃ) σοι τὸν χαλκὸν ἢ αὐτὸς ἔρχου φέρων αὐτὴν καὶ λήμψῃ (δραχμὰς) ο̅β̅ χωρὶς κουιντάνας, “so that … and for him to bring you the money, or come then yourself with her and you will receive 72 drachmas without the quintana.”

We now know that quintana is not a woman’s name,9 but a tax that appears to have fallen on all sorts of activities and transactions occurring in military territory: these are, in the Desert of Berenike, the hiring of prostitutes for the garrisons and the transport of supplies; at Seleukeia in Pieria, it falls on the sale of a slave between two soldiers in the camp of a vexillation of the classis Misenensis. All this is set out in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 690–93 (now Chapter 23). I think all the same that I was mistaken in 2006 about the meaning of the expressions σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ/χωρὶς κουιντάνας.10 We know how deceptive phrases of this type are; for example, in loan contracts σὺν τόκῳ or σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ have different meanings depending on whether they appear (1) in the acknowledgment of receipt of the sum lent, or (2) in the promise of repayment. For example:11 (1) P.Tebt. I 110.3–6 (first century BC): ὁμολογῶ ἔχειν παρὰ σοῦ πυρῶν ἀρτάβας εἴκοσι τέσσαρες ἥμισυ σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ, ἃς καὶ ἀποδώσω σοι ἐμ μην[ὶ] Παυνι κτλ, “I acknowledge that I have received from you 24.5 artabas, including interest of 50%, and I will repay them to you in the month of Pauni…” Concretely, the borrower did not receive 24 1/2 artabas as is stated; this is in fact the amount that he will have to repay. It includes the sum really borrowed, 16 1/3 art., and interest of 8 1/6 artabas. (2) P.Kellis I 44.21–23 (382): ἔσχον {τὰς} τὸ χρυσοῦ νομισμάτιον ἓν κεφαλαίου καὶ ἀποδ[ώσ]ω σὺν τῷ τόκῳ, “I have received the gold solidus as principal and I will repay it with the interest.” Here, the sum stated to have been received, 1 gold solidus, is indeed the principal, which the borrower undertakes to repay plus the interest, the amount of which is not stated. In 2006, I took σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ in sense (1), and I supposed mechanically that χωρὶς κουιντάνας had the opposite meaning: Procla would have been hired out for 60 drachmas “quintana included”; her pimp would thus have made a profit lower than 60 drachmas. On the other hand, the pimp of O.Krok. II 219 would have made a net profit of 72 drachmas. The question is complicated by the fact that χωρίς, in contracts, can have two different and, so to speak, opposite meanings: (1) “without the addition of ”; (2) “without counting (some supplement),” in other words “with (some supplement) on top of it,” “apart from.”12 It appeared to me that the clearest 9. Among the reasons for this error, there was the mention of Tiberia in the letter O.Krok. II 267, cited above: the movements of Sarapias with Tiberia and of Procla “with Quintana” led me to think that the prostitutes were hired out to garrisons along with assistants. I now think (Chapter 23) that the mention of Tiberia in O.Krok. II 267 is fortuitous: it was probably because of an already planned journey of Tiberia that Longinus had the idea of having Sarapias travel with her. 10. The mistake has been corrected in the new version of the article published as Chapter 23. 11. On the ambiguity of σύν in these expressions, see Lewis 1945. 12. E.g., P.Amh. II 36.9–11 (78), a lease of land in which the tax burdens falling on the lessee are expressed as follows: ἐπὶ φόρου κατ᾽ ἔτος ἀργυ(ρίου) δραχμ(ῶν) διακοσίων ἑξήκοντα χωρὶς γνησίων δημοσίων, “for an annual rent of two hundred sixty drachmas, not counting the regular public taxes.” The farmer will pay not only his rent, but also the land taxes.

Rotating women

385

and simplest solution was to limit myself to examining the meaning of χωρὶς τόκου vel sim. in loan contracts, thus making it possible to compare the uses of σύν and χωρίς in parallel clauses. N. Lewis did not study the formulas χωρὶς/ἄνευ τόκου in his article on σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ. It is true that they are much less frequent than those with σύν. They practically appear only in the third and fourth centuries,13 and they are found almost without exception in the promissory clause. For example, cf. P.Panop. 21.5–9 (315): ὁμολογῶ σήμερον ἐσχηκέναι καὶ δεδανῖσθαι π̣α̣ρ̣[ὰ] σοῦ εἰς ἰδίαν μου {εἰς ἰδίαν μου} κα[ὶ] ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν ἀργ[υ]ρ[ί]ου Σεβ(αστῶν) νομίσματος τάλαντα ἕνδεκα κ̣α̣ὶ δηνάρι[α τρια]κόσια, γί(νονται) (τάλαντα) ι̅[α̅] (δηνάρια) [τ̅], ἅπερ ἀποδώσω σοι μηνὶ Ἁθυρ τριακάδι τῆ̣[ς ἐνεστώσης] ὑπα[τ]εί[ας χω]ρ̣ὶ̣ς τόκου ἄνευ πάσης ὑπερθ[έσ]εως κτλ. An unsuspecting reader might understand this to mean that the debtor undertakes to repay only the principal. But since loans without interest are basically a myth, the editors rightly judged that the interest was already included in the statement of the sum borrowed. Χω]ρ̣ὶ̣ς τόκου thus has, very logically, the opposite meaning of σὺν τόκῳ in the promises of repayment: it means “without adding any interest,” sc. because the interest is already included in the sum.  Let us now return to the meaning of σὺν κουιντάνᾳ and χωρὶς κουιντάνας. We should remember first that some letters from the Desert of Berenike allude to the quintana without using this term, but mention instead the tax-farmer who collects it, always referred to as “the conductor.”14 Thus, at the request of the garrison of Aphrodites, the curator praesidii proposes to the procurer Kilikas to hire his paidiske at the price of 60 drachmas, and he adds, τὸ τοῦ κονδούκτορος πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐστι, “the part of the conductor is at our expense” (O. Did. 430). We dispose of just one document in which the amount of the quintana is expressly stated: this is a letter of the procurer and sutler Philokles, O.Did. 390, where, with a hire price of 60 drachmas, the quintana amounted to 12 drachmas. In this letter, Philokles reminds a client named Aquila of the advantageous conditions that the latter has enjoyed: οἶδες ὅτι εἴκοσι καὶ δύο στατῆρες εἰδίδουσάν μοι τὸ κατὰ μῆνα τοῦ κορασίου· ἐλθόντος δὲ σοῦ μᾶλλον ἠθέλησα ὑμῖν παρεσχεῖν ἢ {γὰρ} ἄλλοις. οἶδες γὰρ καὶ σὺ αὐτὸς ⟨ὅτι⟩ ἐκπορευομένου τοῦ κορασίου ὁ κονδούκτωρ ἔλαβε ἀπ’ αὐτῆς στατῆρες τρεῖς καὶ φόλετρον δραχμ(ὰς) β · ἀπὸ τῶν δέκα πέντε στατήρων εἰς τὰς χέρες μου στατῆρες ἕνδεκα δίδραχμον ἧκαν, “You are well aware that they would have given me twenty-two staters per month for the girl; but you came, and I preferred to place her with you rather than with the others. You know yourself that when the girl left, the conductor received from her three staters and 2 drachmas for transportation. Of the fifteen staters, I received eleven staters and two drachmas.” Converted into drachmas, the detailed calculation of the operation is as follows: Table 24.1. Itemized bill for the hire of the prostitute Serapias amount of the misthoma

15 staters

= 60 drachmas

quintana

3 staters

= 12 drachmas

transportation costs

2 drachmas

2 drachmas

profit of the procurer

11 staters 2 drachmas

= 46 drachmas

We may observe that in this operation the quintana fell on the procurer, not on the client, contrary to what we observe in the contract that was about to be concluded between Kilikas and the praesidium 13. There is one attestation, the latest, in the fifth century: P.Köln II 102.10–11 (418), a loan with Dienstantichrese. The reimbursement is “without addition of interest,” because the interest is discharged by the paramone of the debtor. 14. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 690.

386

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

of Aphrodite. In 2006, I thought that the contract between Philokles and Aquila was on the basis of 60 drachmas σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ = 60 dr. including the quintana, while that proposed to Kilikas was for 60 drachmas χωρὶς κουιντάνας, not taking account of (apart from) the quintana, which was added at the expense of the clients. Nonetheless, several observations have led me to reconsider this interpretation: – The cost of the monthly hire of a prostitute is, if not always, at least generally 60 drachmas (cf. the following table); – 72 = 60 + 12. – If Procula was hired for 60 drachmas including quintana, the procurer would make a net profit of 46 drachmas, which is 26 drachmas less than the profit of 72 drachmas made by the procurer in O.Krok. II 219: such a divergence is suspect. Probably 46 drachmas are in fact Philokles’ profit in O.Did. 390, but does not this transaction have an exceptional character? – In promises of repayment of loan, where σύν and χωρίς are the two alternative versions of the same clause, χωρίς means “without addition of ” and not “apart from.” Table 24.2. Hire and conditions of payment of the quintana in the correspondance of the procurers Amount of Hire

Quintana/Conductor

O.Krok. II 221

60 dr.

σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ

O.Krok. II 182

60 dr.

σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ

O.Did. 430

60 dr.

paid by the client (τὸ τοῦ κονδούκτορος πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐστι)

O.Did. 390 (b)

60 dr. on which…

… 12 dr. are paid by the procurer

O.Krok. II 219

72 dr.

χωρὶς κουιντάνᾳ

O.Krok. II 267

75 dr.

not mentioned

O.Did. 390 (a)

88 dr

not mentioned

O.Dios inv. 1246

120 dr. (for 2 months?)

paid by the client

The equation 72 = 60 + 12 suggests that 72 was the cost of hire including the tax. As this is also the sum that the clients in O.Krok. II 219 intend to hand over directly to the procurer, we may infer from this that it is they, not the procurer, who pay the quintana. In this perspective 72 dr. χωρὶς κουιντάνας is to be understood as “72 drachmas, without adding the quintana” (because it is already included in the amount). Inversely, 60 drachmas σὺν τῇ κουιντάνᾳ means “60 drachmas plus the quintana.” In both cases, the clients will pay 72 drachmas: the two expressions thus come down to the same thing. The writers use σύν or χωρίς depending on whether the price is expressed without tax or with the inclusion of the tax: these uses thus follow the same rules as in the promissory clauses of loans. It appears now that the quintana was almost always paid by the client: the only exception is the contract between Philokles and Aquila. I no longer think that there was any misunderstanding between the parties:15 Philokles must have been used to this type of agreement. But he wanted to attract the custom of an important client by a commercial gesture of which he reminds him, not without some clumsiness: a base amount of 60 dr. and Philokles, taking care of not only the quintana, but also the transportation costs.

15. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 690.

Rotating women

387

Several points remain obscure: – Was the amount of the quintana charged on the hire of prostitutes invariably 12 drachmas per month, or was it calculated ad valorem? In the latter case, it could have been set at the rate of 1/5 of the hire, but we have no proof of this, as we do not have the amount of the quintana charged on a hire price other than 60 drachmas. – Was the quintana charged every month, or only in those months when the prostitute was under contract? – More generally, we do not know the structure of the tax-farming contract for the quintana, for which the ostraca from Berenike (tax receipts supplied by the quintanenses to transporters, and passes intended to be presented by these transporters to the quintanenses) allow us to suspect the complexity.16 We do not know if the quintana for the Desert of Berenike was contracted in a single block to a wholesale tax-farmer who would then have subcontracted portions of it, or if it was from the start contracted in parcels to smaller farmers. Nor do we know if the quintana was connected, in way or another, with the alabarchy.

16. O.Berenike II, p. 51.

25 “Me too” in the praesidia, or when reality meets theatrical fiction The text that I have the pleasure to offer to Marie-Hélène Marganne belongs to a small group of letters found in the rubbish-dump at Dios, the station called Iovis in the Itinerarium Antoninianum. The group consists of ten letters which have been broken before being thrown away. Clearly their owner, who resided in Dios, did not want to risk them being read by curious eyes, not even in the dustbin.1 He is the addressee of most of the letters and is called Aelius Maximus, mostly abbreviated to Maximus. His two correspondents are Antonius, whose full name is Antonius Himeros, and a woman called Serapias. At the time when these letters were exchanged, Antonius and Serapias lived 37 km from Dios at the praesidium Xeron Pelagos, as is indicated by the proskynema to Athena. Two of the letters have been written by Maximus to Antonius, so they were not sent. The principal object of all these exchanges is the uncomfortable situation in which Serapias finds herself. Serapias is a prostitute and Maximus is her pimp. Antonius is clearly the local representative of the pimp, who supervised the execution of the contract of hire or κυκλευτικόν (sc. μίσθωμα).2 The girls were rented for a month by the garrisons. These representatives were designated by the term ἐπίτροπος.3 They supervised the women locally to ensure that they were docile, but also took care of their security, for the clients might be violent. This term thus has a double meaning, since the ἐπίτροποι were not only the representatives of the absent pimp, but also functioned as ad hoc guardians of the girls. At the time when Maximus receives these letters, the lease of Serapias has expired, and she consequently has nothing to do, but her return to Dios has not been prepared. In several letters both Serapias and Antonius insist that she cannot leave and urge Maximus to come and fetch her. When the letter published below was written, a solution had apparently been found, which is confirmed by another letter from Serapias (inv. 438) where she acknowledges reception of a parcel from the donkey-driver Komaros and adds that she will await his return from Apollonos, which was probably the praesidium of 1. Another group of broken letters had been found at Dios. It contains eight letters addressed to Sknips, a procuress. 2. Chapter 24. 3. For this particular use of ἐπίτροπος, see Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: II, 386.

389

390

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Apollonos Hydreuma, two stages from Xeron in the direction of Berenike. I think that this letter is later than our inv. 439, according to which Serapias only knows that she must wait for the donkey-caravan. In inv. 438 she knows the name of the donkey-driver with whom she will return to Dios: on the way to Apollonos Hydreuma he has arrived at Xeron where he has given her the parcel from Maximus, and has informed her that he will take her with him on his way back when he passes Xeron again. Although she is relieved to see the end of her problems, she tells off Maximus for having been so slow in acting. The end of the letter clearly shows that she does not feel off the hook.

Figure 82. O.Dios inv. 439. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

O.Dios inv. 439 US 3632, 3634 Fig. 82

10.5 × 12 cm

second century calcareous clay

Three letters from Serapias, in two different hands, are preserved. The present sherd, like inv. 438, shows a neat, almost literary, writing in the first lines, with few cursive traits even in less carefully executed passages. The third letter (inv. 431) is in a fast, cursive writing, written with a fine pointed calamus, a hand that we also find in a letter from Antonius (inv. 430). And yet, it is not the handwriting of Antonius, since another letter from him is written in a third hand. Like Serapias, Antonius was probably illiterate. The

“Me too” in the praesidia

391

cursive letter shows such likenesses with the present one (comm. ad 7–8) that we can be fairly sure that the two scribes reproduced the very words of Serapias, and consequently that the surprising metaphor from the theatre with which she expresses her feelings about the situation is really her own.

4

8

12

16

Σεραπιὰς Μ[α]ξ̣ίμωι τͅ ἀδελφῷ πλ[ῖ]στα χαίρειν. τὸ προσκύνημά σου ποιῶ παρὰ τῇ κυρίᾳ Ἀθηνᾷ. ὡς ⸌ἐν⸍δέταλσε τοῖς ὄνοις, αὐτοὺς ἐκδέχομε ἕως ἔλθοσιν. εἰ πεπεήκις πρᾶγμα ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὥστε σε ἐλθῖν ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, κάλλιο⟨ν⟩ ἦν εἲ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ὧδε ἀιδία⸌ς⸍ ποιεῖν ὁς ἐν θεάτροͅ· ἀρκεῖ εἰδένε τοὺς ἱππῖς τοὺς ἐρχομένους μετὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν μείμους βλέπιν ἐν τͅͅ πραισιδίῳ. διό, παρακαλ σε, βοή[θησ]όν μοι, ἐξιλήσο ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶν. ἀσπάζε⸌τέ⸍ σε ἄπας μου καὶ ἀντίγραψόν μοι ταχέως.

lege 2 τῷ πλεῖστα 5 ἐντέταλσαι 6 ἐκδέχομαι ἔλθωσιν 7 ἐπεποιήκεις 8 ἐλθεῖν 9 ἤ ἀηδίας 10 ὡς θεάτρῳ 10–11 εἰδέναι 11 ἱππέας 12–13 μίμους 13 βλέπειν τῷ 14 παρακαλῶ 15 ἐξειλήσω 16 ἀσπάζεται “Serapias to Maximus, her brother, many greetings. I make obeisance for you to the Lady Athena. As you instructed for the donkeys, I wait for their arrival. If you had made an effort from the beginning to come for me, it would have been better (for me) than being here and doing unpleasantness every day, as if in the theatre. It is enough to know that the horsemen who arrive with the letters see mimes in the praesidium. Therefore, I beg you, help me to get out of this Hell. My dad greets you. Answer me quickly.” 5–6.

The expression ὡς ἐνετειλάμην, ὡς ἐνετείλω (“according to my, your instructions”) is common. In this case, the phrase is awkward, since Serapias says she complies with instructions given not to her, but to the donkey-drivers (same situation in P.Giss. 65.3–5). We would have preferred ὡς to have a causal value (“since you gave instructions to the donkeys, I expect them”), but the conjunction never seems to be used in this way in the papyri (A. N. Jannaris, A Historical Greek Grammar [London 1897] §1740).

5.

ὄνοις. When “the donkeys” arrive from Dios to Xeron, Serapias will learn from the donkeydriver Komaros that Maximus has agreed with him to take her back (inv. 438). At the time of writing, she knows that such an arrangement has been made, but she does not know with whom. She only knows that she will return to Dios with “the donkeys,” hence the shortcut in the expression. Various types of caravans provided the link between praesidia: poreia, probole, camels, donkeys. For the latter, see O.Krok. I 97.5, O.Did. 363.4, O.Did. 462.12–13, and

392

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert O.Krok. II 207.14–15, where it also involves the transport of a woman (μετὰ τῶν ἐρχομένων σοι ὀναρίων πέμψω σοι αὐτήν).

7–8.

πεπεήκις πρᾶγμα ... ὥστε. Πρᾶγμα has the meaning of “significant action” here, as in the expression πρᾶγμα ποιεῖσθαι, of which LSJ cites several examples (s.v. πρᾶγμα, ΙΙ, 4), but where the expression does not introduce a subordinate proposal. Πρᾶγμα ποιεῖν ὥστε probably has the same meaning as the Latinism διδόναι ἐργασίαν ἵνα (operam dare ut). It is indeed this last expression that is used in another letter from Serapias of the same content, but written by the cursive hand (inv. 431: ἰδὲ πῶς δύνασαι δώσεις ἐργασίαν ἐλθεῖν ἐπ’ ἐμέ, “see how you can make sure you come and fetch me”). I know of no other example of this Latinizing use of πρᾶγμα ποιεῖν on papyrus, unless perhaps in a damaged passage of P.Wisc. II 48.4 (minutes of a hearing, second cent.): πρᾶγ[μα π]ο̣ι̣ῶ̣ ὅ̣πως ἐν φανερῷ γένηται τῷ ἡγεμόνι. In the third and fourth centuries, πρᾶγμα ποιεῖν was used at the beginning of the letters with the meaning of “doing a good (or bad) action,” πρᾶγμα being then qualified (e.g., εὐσεβές); in this case the expression is only a variation on the usual formulas καλῶς ποιήσεις/οὐ καλῶς ἐποίησας. One can also find πρᾶγμα as a complement to ποιεῖν in the letter P.Oxy. I 121 (third century): μέγα πρᾶγμα ποιῶ αὐτοῖς. The editors, followed by Winter (Life and Letters, p. 79), translate “I am causing them much trouble (?),” thus giving πρᾶγμα the meaning it has in the expression πρᾶγμα ἔχειν πρός τινα, “having a dispute with someone.” But I think we should rather understand: “I do them a great service” or “I work hard for them.” Indeed, μέγα πρᾶγμα, employed with εἶναι, means, with a negation, “it’s no big deal, it’s not complicated to...” (O.Krok. I 96, O.Did. 399), and, without negation, “it is a great thing, it is splendid” (O.Claud. II 241). It may be that, in this case, the writer, stunned by Serapias’s eloquence, mixed the expressions διδόναι ἐργασίαν and μέγα πρᾶγμα, both of which are present, but separate, in the cursive letter, where Serapias repeats μέγα πρᾶγμα ἐὰν ἔλθῃς ἐπ’ ἐμέ.

7–9.

Unreal of the past with εἰ + pluperfect in the protasis. Mandilaras does not cite any examples, except with a periphrastic pluperfect (Verb, § 523); but cf. SB XXIV 16335.16 (second–third cent.): εἰ μὴ πεποιήκειν (without augment as here, which is frequent for the pluperfect: Verb, § 233).

8.

ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ. Final use of ἐπί + accusative, cf. Mayser, Grammatik II.2, 480 ff., where the example cited closest to our text is P.Paris 23.13 (= UPZ I 18): πορεύονται ἐπ’ αὐτόν, “they go to look for him” (it is a corpse). The expression is repeated in another letter from Serapias (comm. ad 7–8).

9.

καθ᾿ ἡμέραν has the same meaning as καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν (e.g., BGU IV 1156.13 and 17, where both expressions appear). Καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν is associated with ποιεῖν ἀηδίαν in the letter P.Oxy. LIX 3999.8–9 (fourth cent.).

16.

ἄπας μου. P.Mert. I 28.8–9 (late third cent.), a private letter from a man to his brother, makes it clear that it is the word ἄππας, variant ἄππα: μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας ἔρχετέ μου ἄππας ἐνθάδε (l. ἔρχεται) – unless μου, which we should rather expect after ἄππας, is a mistake for μοι, in which case we would be dealing with the personal name Ἄππας. The personal name and the appellative are so-called “Lallnamen” (nursery words) resulting from a socialization of the ono-

“Me too” in the praesidia

393

matopoeias used by children when calling the people who take care of them. Unlike πάππας, ἄππας does not apply to biological fathers, but, at least in some cases, to foster-fathers (P. Chantraine, “Les noms du mari et de la femme, du père et de la mère en grec,” REG 59–60 [1946– 1947] 243; F. Skoda, Le redoublement expressif : un universal linguistique [Paris 1982] 187 ff.) In two Aegean island inscriptions, ἄππας means “foster father” and refers respectively to a slave and a free man: Tit. Calymnii 190 commemorates the manumission of a certain Agathopous, ἄππας of the son of his master; in Cos, a certain Asklepiades son of Asklepiades had his ἄππας and guardian repatriate the body of his father who died abroad: διὰ τοῦ ἄππα καὶ ἐπιτρόπου μου Κρατηροῦ τοῦ Ἀπελλᾶ (W. R. Paton and E. R. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, no. 352). These epigraphic examples overlap with the Hesychius gloss: ἄππας· ὁ τροφεύς. If, in both inscriptions, ἄππας is a real appellative, in pre-Christian papyri, it is a word of familiar tenderness used without the article, either with the possessive μου, or as a prefix to a personal name. Two examples are known of this second use: SB VIII 9882.5–6 (second–third cent.), ἀσπάζετε σὲ ἀμμὰς Θαυβάριν καὶ ἄππας Δῖος, “mama Thaubarion and papa Dios greet you”; BGU ΙΙΙ 714.15–16: ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἄππα Σατορνεῖλος, “papa Satornilus greets you.” We can probably add P.NYU II 19.21 (second cent., ἀσπάζεταί σε Ἀππαφ̣[, read ἄππα Φ̣[) and especially BGU III 816 (third cent.), a private letter in which there is question several times of a certain Εὐάγγελος, sometimes called Εὐάγγελος, sometimes ἀπᾶς Εὐάγγελος, wrongly interpreted by the editor as Apas son of Euangelos, because the writer confuses the genitive and the dative (at lines 11–12, it is necessary to correct Ἀπᾶτι Εὐαγγέλου into ἀπᾶτι Εὐαγγέλῳ). This use foreshadows the religious title ἄπα preceding the personal name in the Byzantine period (from the last quarter of the fourth century). Before the Christian era, ἄπ(π)α(ς) therefore appears in the papyri as a term of respect and affection conferred on men older than the speakers/writers. As abandoned as she feels in Xeron, Serapias nevertheless has a “father” on the spot. This one is, undoubtedly, none other than the ἐπίτροπος Antonius Himeros. Not exactly a sugar daddy, but a kind of godfather.

Μῖμος What is Serapias complaining about? To have to daily ἀηδίας ποιεῖν ὡς ἐν θεάτρῳ. In the papyri, ἀηδία offers two more concrete meanings than that suggested by the dictionaries (namely: “unpleasant, obnoxious character” of someone or something). One is “indisposition, disease,” the other, more frequent, is “quarrel, scandal,” without violence. Otherwise, it would be called ὕβρις, cf. P.Lond. II 342.6–11: ἄλογον ἀηδίαν συνεστήσαντο (...) καὶ ὕβριν μοι̣ ἐποίησαν. Like ὕβρις or, later, ἀγάπη, the abstract ἀηδία takes on a concrete meaning when it is the object of ποιεῖν. The term is quite common in letters from the praesidia, and often related to women’s affairs. It happens to be linked several times to the personality of one (or more) prostitute(s) called Serapias. So, in O.Krok. II 224, we learn that Serapias turned the garrison upside down by fighting with everyone (μετὰ πάντω⟨ν⟩ ἀειδίαν ποιο̣ῦ̣σ̣α̣); the author of another letter, O.Krok. II 223, remarks: “Since the day Serapias arrived here, they have made trouble again.” Is it always the same Serapias, who would have been a disagreeable character? The Serapias of the ostraca of Krokodilo belongs to the circle of Philokles, which is not the case here; and in Xeron, a prostitute of the same name receives a direct offer of employment, which suggests that she works as a freelancer.4 It could therefore be that Serapias is a popular stage-name among prostitutes,5 perhaps 4. Published in Chapter 18, pp. 315–18. 5. But it is also common among honest women.

394

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

because it is also, according to Pliny and Dioscorides, the name of a plant considered an aphrodisiac, the Orchis mascula L:6 sed inter pauca mirabilis est orchis herba sive serapias, foliis porri, caule palmeo, flore purpureo, gemina radice testiculis simili, ita ut maior sive, ut aliqui dicunt, tenuior ex aqua pota excitet libidinem..., “but particularly surprising is the plant orchis, or serapias, which has leaves like leek, a palm-like stem, a purple flower and a double root similar to testicles, the largest of which – some say the smallest – excites desire when drunk with water” (Pliny, Nat. 26.95). In Muslim countries, orchid extract was used to make salep (sahlab), a health drink, which still exists, even if it no longer contains this substance. As the object of ποιεῖν, ἀηδία is normally in the singular. Here, the use of the plural is therefore particularly significant; it emphasizes that the young woman must put up with quarrels on several fronts. Serapias feels like in the theatre, ὡς ἐν θεάτρῳ, then she carries the metaphor further: you see but mimes in the fort. Since she has no illusions about the weight that the words of a woman, a prostitute moreover, can have in her world, she disappears behind a more authorized external gaze, that of the postal service riders. Here’s what I think is happening: Serapias, having done her month properly, has closed shop, but since she stayed there, her former customers, frustrated by this sudden withdrawal, keep harassing her. Their coarse jokes and lascivious gestures make them look like mimes, that is, mime actors. The Greek word μῖμος refers both to a popular theatrical genre of the imperial era, which portrayed deliberately scruffy situations in a buffoonish way, and to the actors who specialized in this genre. Serapias was constantly forced to fight back to defend herself, which had to have the effect of doubling the hilarity of the garrison and consequently her own fury, so that she had the impression that she was being dragged into a theatrical performance despite herself. This impression is all the more understandable in this case, because the mimes were played without masks, so that the roles of women were played by actresses, and because, in addition, the prostitute was a recurring character. Instead of taking a break between two contracts, Serapias is forced to continue to play her own role in a grotesque way, which humiliates her and reminds her of her condition. The licentious atmosphere that reigns in the praesidium of Xeron Pelagos, which has become a life-size scene for military humor, is such that it amazes postal service riders who arrive from outside. This convergence, so strongly felt by Serapias, between show and daily life, finds another illustration in a letter found in Krokodilo (O.Krok. ΙΙ 218). It is probably no coincidence that this is also a case of prostitution. The letter comes from a pimp named Didymos whose little prostitute has been violently beaten by a certain Sabinus. Didymos has had a stormy argument with the bully, which he describes in vivid language: παρακέχρηταί με λέγων· ψωλοφάγε, that is, “he insulted me by calling me a cock-sucker.” This suggestive compound (literally “prick-eater”) does not appear in any glossary. But I came across it in a much later Oxyrhynchos papyrus, since it is a sixth century codex that contains a mime (P.Oxy. LXXIX 5189). A character addresses a prostitute in these terms (→ line 24): εἰπέ, πόρνη ψωλοφάγε, (“tell me, you fucking cock-eater...”). This is the kind of courtesy that Serapias, stuck in Xeron, had to hear καθ᾿ ἡμέραν. Serapias’s letter provides a rare opportunity to access the point of view of a soldiers’ woman in antiquity and gives a glimpse of her mental representations. It shows how popular subculture could be mobilized in the small adventures of a sordid daily life. Using her memories as a mime spectator, Serapias, an exasperated prostitute, puts into words and images her experience of sexual harassment and perhaps manages to distance herself from it. 6. Amigues 2002: 150–2 (with photo).

Chapter 26 Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert Hélène Cuvigny and Christian Julien Robin At Maximianon (al-Zarqaʾ) there is almost no trace of the passage of the caravans of import and export in the written documentation found there. Only four texts are to be put into this dossier: two Nabataean ostraca,1 a dipinto on a pot that contained malabathrum to be sent to Myos Hormos, and the modest memorandum mentioning Kinaidokolpitai that is published below.

I. The ostracon (SB XXIV 16187) O.Max. inv. 81 Fig. 83

9 × 11.5 cm

c. 150

The ostracon was found in 1994 at Al-Zarqaʾ and belongs to a small group of four slips of assignments with a date, sometimes with a short description of the task, followed by a name. Since its publication in 1996, other slips of this kind have been found at Krokodilo (O.Krok. I 120) and at Didymoi (O.Did. 23 and 52).2 They do not necessarily, as here, concern the transportation of official mail, but they have in common that they note the departure or arrival of personnel (soldiers or monomachoi). Such slips could be used to establish a day-book like O.Krok. I 1, which summarizes over a month and a half the coming and going of horsemen, specifying names, times, and the reasons for their going, mostly transportation of mail, official packages, or escort duty. But if such had been the reason for these slips we should have found many more of them, and besides, the post-registers like O.Krok. I 1 are fairly rare.3

1. Published by Chr. Toll, BIFAO 94 (1994) 381-82. 2. No example from Dios, but two possibles from Xeron (O.Xer. inv. 643 and 1049). 3. Apart from O.Krok. I 1 (the most complete), O.Krok. I 24–40; 89; 90. These registers of movements of personnel are found only at Krokodilo. The typology of such registers kept by the curatores praesidiorum is treated in Chapter 17, pp. 270 f.

397

398

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The handwriting is an elegant, upright semicursive, with a broad-nibbed pen, which might, along with the spelling δύπλομα in line 3, be signs of a Latin-speaking scribe. This would further explain serious errors of morphology.

Figure 83. SB XXIV 16187. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

4

Τυβι κ̅. ἐξλταν μετὰ̣ δύπλομα περὶ Χινεδοκολπιτῶν Ἄρρις Ἁρεώθης.

1 κ post corr. 2 l. ἐξῆλθον 3 l. διπλώματος

4 περί super καί scr. l. Κιναιδο-

“Tybi 20. Departed with a circular concerning the Kinaidokolpitai: Arrius, Hareothes.” 2–3.

ἐξλταν μετὰ̣ δύπλομα. The formula is characteristic of the style of activity reports in the Roman army: cf. Rom.Mil.Rec. 10, passim, successive slips summarizing the activities of each soldier, where the expression exit cum (Timinio (centurione)/potamofulacide, etc.) appears.

3.

δύπλομα. The spelling is influenced by the Latin dupl-. Δίπλωμα may mean any kind of document: a sealed contract with scriptura interior, an order for arrest, a passport, a “post passport” which authorized the bearer, against payment and within certain limits, to use the facilities of the imperial post for his own transportation and for transportation of goods. But in the East-

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

399

ern Desert the word is used only about documents entrusted to the public post, for which the praesidia in the desert were the relay-stations. Most of these letters were circulars, addressed to multiple addressees, among whom we always find the curatores praesidiorum (Chapter 18, p. 310). They were not sealed, since they were meant to be read at each station, so the question is if they owed their name to some material peculiarity. I have not been able to solve this problem (Chapter 17, p. 270). Many of these letters concern military intelligence. They often mention the Βάρβαροι, the African nomads, later called the Blemmyes, who were a danger to travellers and to the praesidia themselves. In the diploma which Arrius and Haryothes bring to the next station, the object is not Barbaroi, but Kinaidokolpitai. 4–5.

Χινεδο-. This is the only occurrence of this ethnic written with an initial chi. The spelling reminds us of Χινδηνοί (which transcribes Kinda) in Nonnosus (see below, p. 411, n. 85).

6–7.

The two names were added later.

II. Can the Kinaidokolpitai be identified? A. Other attestations of the ethnonym In all other occurrences the ethnonym is written with an initial kappa. Etymologically it consists of two parts, κίναιδος (“homosexual”)4 and κολπίτης (“who lives in the Gulf,” in fact the Arabian Gulf,5 as becomes clear in Ptolemy). 1. Ptolemy (c. 105–c. 170), whose sources are no later than the reign of Trajan (98–117),6 gives the most detailed information about their localization (Geogr. 6.7.5 and 23). He situates them on the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula. The last locality mentioned before the region of the Kinaidokolpitai (i.e., to their north) is the village of Iambia, (which might be Yanbuʿ,7 280 km north–northwest of Jedda), and the last tribe are the Arsai. The identification of these Arsai with the tribe of Irāsha (an important part of the Bālī who inhabited and still live in the northern Hijāz, Caskel 1966 I: table 329, and II: 358; Sprenger 1875, § 29, followed by Glaser 1890: 104) is doubtful because it is founded only on a vague phonetic resemblance.8 4. But with pleasant, festive, and evocative connotations. In some contexts κίναιδος is almost a trade-name meaning a dancer specialized in lascivious dancing. On this, see Letronne, Revue de Philologie 1 (1845) 161–64, a thorough commentary on a graffito from Philae (I.Philae II 155) by the kinaidos Strouthion – i.e., “the sparrow,” a well-suited stage-name. Letronne recalls that the diminutive κιναίδιον is the name of a bird for which a scholion gives the equivalent σισοπυγίς “who wriggles his behind”: in French there is the same image with hoche-queue, and in English wag-tail. On these dancers, see PerpillouThomas 1995: 228–29. This tradition remained alive in Egypt at the time of Flaubert, who appreciated these performances by κίναιδοι, whom he calls “almées mâles”: cf. A. Y. Naaman, Les Lettres d’Égypte de Gustave Flaubert (Paris 1965), lettre VII: “citoyens à métier suspect, habillées (sic) en femmes et qui se trémoussent d’une belle façon” (“individuals of suspect occupation, dressed as women and wriggling prettily”); the ornithological metaphor comes back in his letter X: “c’est un trille de muscles” (“a warble of muscles”). 5. i.e., the Red Sea as we understand it today. 6. Desanges 1978: 330 f. 7. Identification proposed by Sprenger 1875, § 24. The name Yanbuʿ is mentioned in the Islamic sources in connection with events during the lifetime of the Prophet Muḥammad (Ibn Isḥāq, text, p. 972; translation Guillaume, p. 659, “al-ʿUshayra, in the valley of Yanbuʿ”). It is thus likely that it is pre-Islamic. 8. Besides, at the beginning of Islam, Yanbuʿ did not belong to Balī, but to Juhayna (M. J. Kister, “Ḳuḍāʿa” in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, new edition, V (Leiden 1986) 314–18, cf. 315A; Yāqūt, s.v.).

400

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

(al-ʿAqaba)

(ʿAynūna) Leuke Kome (?) Ḥigrâ* (Madāʾin Ṣāliḥ) Koptos

Didān (al-ʿUlā)

Myos Hormos Maximianon

Yathrib* (al-Madīna) Berenike

Leuke Kome (?)

(Yanbuʿ) TI

Sigā* (Sajā)

HĀ

Ni le

riv er

MA*

(Rābigh)

(Makka)

(Judda)

( ZAHR

ĀN

Qaryat* (Qaryat al-Faʾw)

)

(al-Līth)

(al-Bāḥa) GH

S

ĪR

(w

ha) (w. B īs

(ʿA

(al-Qunfudha)

ĀMID*

)

.Ḥ

(Abhā)

4000 m

1500 m

(Kamarān)

100 m

M

ām* Sih w.

AB

0

500 km

Graphics by Hélène DAVID-CUNY - 2020

IM

Y

(Zabīd) Makhāwān* (al-Makhāʾ) * Okelis (Shaykh Saʿīd)

ĀN

Niv. de la mer

Kinaidokolpitai

ʿ* ima w. R

DD

0m

Ḥ

ān* w. Ṣayḥ

MA

Aksūm* Axomites

(al-Ḥudayda)

(B

āb

al-

Ma

R

200 m

(

A

AKSŪ

500 m

ys

(al-Ṭāʾir)

(Zula)

1000 m

w. M awr)

(Dahlak)

2000 m

Ṣaʿdat* S A B A ʾ

ān* w. Jaʾz

Farasān*

3000 m

Nagrān*

a

(Ṣabya)

ʿAththar*

5000 m

(w. B

.B (w

h)

ay ḍ)

alī

)

nda

b)

(map © HC & ChJR, 2020)

Key : Roman lower case: locality, water feature Italic lower case: settlement ROMAN CAPITAL: kingdom ITALIC CAPITAL: region ... : ancient name (Greek) ...* : ancient name (local language) (...) : modern name

(ʿAynūna) Berenike Nagrān* (w. Baysh) Rimaʿ* (ʿASĪR) AKSŪM GHĀMID*

Settlement (modern) Settlement (ancient, Greek name) Settlement (ancient, local language) Water feature (modern) Locality (ancient, local language) Region (modern) Kingdom Region (ancient name, local language)

Figure 84. Map of the Red Sea. © H. David

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

401

The territory of the Kinaidokolpitai contains, from north to south: – Kopar (village), not identified. Sprenger 1875, § 37, Moritz, RE XI.2, 1360–1, and Wissmann 1963 identify Kopar with al-Jār, about a hundred kilometers south of Yanbuʿ. Wissmann further identifies Kopar with Coboea (Pliny Nat. 6.150). These proposals are based on insignificant likenesses. – Arga or Agar9 (village), not identified. Situated by Sprenger 1875, § 38, following the indications of Ptolemy, midway between Kopar and Zabram and identified with Rābigh, 150 km north of Jedda. Sprenger mentions a homonymous village in the region: al-ʿArg (probably to be read al-ʿIrq), which according to him cannot be identified with Arga since it is situated inland.10 According to Wissmann 1970: col. 915, Arga is ʿIrq al-Ghurāb “at the entrance to the port of Jedda.”11 These identifications are based on searching the best known localities south of Yanbuʿ and then on not very significant phonetic likenesses, and they are not very convincing, especially since we do not have any reasonably certain fixed points in this region. – Zabram or Zambram12 or Zadrame13 or Zaaram,14 capital (βασίλειον) of the Kinaidokolpitai, not identified. Although the paleography is in favor of reading Zambram, Sprenger 1875, § 39, has no doubts that we must retain the reading Zaaram of the vulgate, since he recognizes there Ẓahrān (“Tzahrân”), the name of a fertile wadi between Mecca and Jedda (now the wādī Faṭīma) where there is a village that was earlier called Marr Ẓahrān. Sprenger considers that Ptolemy gives the name of the town to the harbor. Glaser 1890: 235 also identifies Zabram with Ẓahrān. These proposals are not convincing. It is doubtful that the Semitic Ẓahrān would have been transcribed as Zambram (and variants) in Greek because the consonant ẓāʾ is rendered, in Greek, Latin, and Geʾez, by /s/ or /t/ in the case of Ẓafār (capital of Ḥimyar). Besides, the name Ẓahrān, which is fairly common, permits several other proposals. Wissmann, on the other hand, departs from the distribution of the place-names mentioned by Ptolemy and from phonetic likeness,15 and proposes Marsà Ibrāhīm, near al-Līth, 190 km south of Jedda (A. Dietrich, RE, Reihe 2, IX A.2, s.v. Ζααράμ [1967]). But this place-name, which means “Ibrahim’s (Abraham’s) anchor-place” must necessarily be later than the spreading of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.16 So this hypothesis also seems fragile.17 9. Agar: reading of Vaticanus Gr. 191 (= X), the only uncontaminated representative of recension J of the archetype, which is generally better than recension V (I. Ronca, Ptolemaios. Geographie 6, 9–21. Ostiran und Zentralasien, Teil I [Rome 1971], cf. stemma p. 10). The scholars who have used Ptolemy 6.7 have not had access to the readings of X. 10. The place-name al-ʿIrq, which designates various types of escarpment and is often encountered in Saudi Arabia. al-Jāsir, pp. 804–7, mentions dozens of examples. 11. al-Jāsir, p. 806, mentions an ʿIrq Ghurāb, but in the region of Ẓahrān al-Janūb (west of Najrān, not far from the Yemenite border). It has not been possible to find the one in Jedda on modern maps. 12. The reading of X, probably more faithful to the archetype, since the ms. C of recension V has the reading Zambra. 13. Thus in Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethnica 293). 14. Old editions. 15. He finds support in an argument by A. K. Irvine, according to whom Zabram could represent an otherwise unknown name in Geʾez “za-Abraham”. 16. The earliest examples of such names date from the fourth century of our era. 17. One might add, that even if the Aksumites conquered the western coast of Arabia, it is unlikely that the principal town of an Arabian tribe would have a name in Geʾez. Marsà Ibrāhīm is not mentioned in al-Jāsir.

402

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert – Kentos or Kentosi18 (village), not identified. Sprenger 1875, § 40, appears to think that Kentos means “horn” in Greek (“das Horn”). According to him, this would be a free translation of the Arabic shuʿayba, a diminutive of shuʿba, the space between the horns of an animal. But the word *κεντος does not exist in Greek (was he thinking of κέντρον, “goad”?). As for the Arabic, it is just as unhelpful, since shuʿayba rather means “a small ravine” (diminutive of shiʿb). In sum, the supposed passage from Arabic into Greek seems rather hazardous. Glaser 1890: 235, identifies Kentos with an obscure Qaryat Kinda (“Dorf der Kinda”), somewhere south of Jedda. But, as we shall see, in Greek the k of Kinda should become a chi rather than a kappa. Wissmann 1970: col. 907 relates Kentos to al-Qanāt, which should be the ancient name of alQunfudha (290 km north–northwest of Jāzān and 330 km southwest of Jedda), at the mouth of wādī Qanawnā. – Thebai (town, polis) not identified. Thebai (Θεβαι) is the reading of two interesting manuscripts, X and U,19 which belong to two different textual traditions. The other manuscripts generally have Θῆβαι, thus making this village homonymous with the Boiotian Thebes. Müller, GGM I, pp. 183–4, does not express an opinion on the reading to be retained, but considers that Θεβαι/Θῆβαι must be related to the Debai mentioned by Agatharchides (see below). Apart from the phonetic likeness,20 the Debai were friendly to the Peloponnesians and the Boiotians because of a legendary relationship with Herakles, a native of Thebes. Sprenger (1875, § 41) (followed by Wissmann 1963) thinks that Thebai renders Dhahabān (from Arabic dhahab, “gold”) and corresponds to Tabis in Stephanus of Byzantium21 and to Debai in Strabo and Agatharchides. Sprenger wrongly attributes to Müller the affirmation that the Debai would previously have been called Θηβαῖοι (Thebans) and their town Θῆβαι. Glaser (1890: 30–1) does not think one should identify Thebai with the Ṭabya (corrected to Ṭayba) of al-Hamdānī 120/17, but he is nevertheless certain that it is a town of the Debai and that it is situated north of Baitios; it might be al-Qunfudha (ibid., 235). Ryckmans (1957: 94) “easily recognises” in Thebai the name of the town Ṣabyā which “corresponds to Debai” (ibid. n. 49).22 According to Wissman (1970: col. 916), Thebai is a transcription of the Arabic Dhahabān, the name of several places in Southern Arabia. It would be the one in wādī Ḍankān. These identifications are even more uncertain since neither Dhahabān, nor Ṣabyā is regularly transcribed into Greek by Θεβαι or Θῆβαι. – The river (i.e., wādī) Baitios, which forms the southern frontier of the Kinaidokolpitai’s territory, should probably be identified with wādī Bayḍ. Modern scholars generally identify Baitios with wādī Baysh and its branch wādī Bayḍ (Wiss-

18. Reading of X. The ligature is ambiguous in the manuscript and one cannot exclude Kantosi. 19. U = Urbinas Gr. 82 is the oldest manuscript of the Geography. It belongs to the other tradition, the one depending on recension V. 20. Gignac, Grammar I, 96–97, records interchange of θ/δ in koine Greek. The phenomenon is not exceptional, but not very common either. 21. Τάβις is defined as a polis in Arabia, mentioned by Hecataeus in his Periegesis of Egypt. Could Arabia refer there to the Arabian Desert, east of the Nile? 22. Note that there are two Ṣabyā in western Arabia. The first is 30 km north of Jāzān, the second 30 km north of al-Qunfudha.

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

403

mann 1970: col. 917–8). For Müller (GGM I, pp. 183–4), and Glaser (1890: col. 917–8), it is the gold-bearing river that runs in the middle of the territory of the Debai. For Sprenger, the Baitios gets its name from wādī Bayḍ (1875, § 30), which is insignificant. Actually, Ptolemy attributes to it the characteristics of wādī Baysh (§ 49). Glaser 1890: 217 agrees that the word Baitios calls to mind Baysh or Bayḍ, both uncertainly identified. He therefore prefers to leave aside this identification and to understand the Baitios as perhaps the wādī Kisān. From a phonetic point of view, it would seem that the tau of Baitios was more likely to render the ḍāḍ (of Bayḍ) than the shīn (of Baysh). As an example of ḍāḍ in an Arabian proper name known in Greek, one could mention “Ḥaḍramawt,” which is generally transcribed by a tau: Χατραμωτῖται (Eratosth. Ap. Strab. 16.4.2), Χατραμωνῖται (Ptol. 6.7.25), Ἀδραμῖται (Ptol. 6.7.10), Ἀτραμῖται (St. Byz., s.v.), or in Latin Chatramotitae (Plin. Nat. 6.155) and Atramitae (Plin. Nat. 6.155). Maxime Rodinson has shown that the ḍāḍ in Geʾez could be rendered τλ in Greek.23 On the other hand, the Arabic letter shīn (South Arabian s²) found at the end of Baysh is transcribed sigma in a name like S²bwt (Σάβατα, in Strabo 16.4.2; Σαυβαθά in Peripl.M.Rubr. 27; Σάββαθα in Ptolemy, Geogr. 6.7.38 and 8.22.14; Latin Sabota and Sabbatha in Pliny Nat. 6.155, 12.52, and 6.154; today Shabwa).24 Baysh is the name of the large wadi which flows into the Red Sea at ʿAthr (or ʿAththar), 40 km north–northwest of Jāzān. The smaller wādī Bayḍ flows into the Red Sea 40 km north–northwest of wādī Baysh. Its lower course runs parallel to wādī ʿItwad, about 10 km to the north–northwest. Wādī Baysh should not be confused with wādī Bīsha, a large wādī in ʿAsīr which runs north and exhausts itself into the interior desert. The identification of the river Baitios with wādī Bayḍ appears reasonable since the large wadis are not very numerous and about half of them are called by the same name today as in antiquity. – South of the territory of the Kinaidokolpitai stretches, according to Ptolemy, that of the Kassanitai, perhaps to be identified with Khaṣāṣatān. Sprenger identifies them with the big tribe of the Ghassān, a branch of the Azd25 according to the traditionists of the Islamic period (1875, § 43). Before the Islamic period the Ghassān should have moved north, while other al-Azd, who stayed behind, had a common frontier with the Kināna according to al-Hamdānī 54/16. For Sprenger (1875, § 52), the Kassanitai are the Kasandreis or Gasandoi whom Agatharchides mentions south of Debai (apud Photius and Diodorus, respectively), the Casani of Pliny (Nat. 6.150). Glaser (1890: 31 and 34) believes that Kassanitai (= Casani in Pliny) draw their name either from Jāzān (a town) or from Kisān (a wadi which he spells Kasān or elsewhere Kesān)26 in the ʿAsīr, and not from Ghassān. According to Ryckmans (1957: 83) “(dhū-Sahrat) stretched out west of Ṣanʿāʾ into the territory of the ʿAkk tribe (Ry 539); it corresponded to the territory of the Kassanitai in Ptolemy, and stretched northwards to Jīzān (formerly Jāzān, whence the name of the Kassanitai).” Ptolemy lists, in order from north to south on the Arabian coast, the territories of the Kinaidokolpitai, the Kassanitai, the Elisaroi, and finally the Homeritai (Ḥimyarites) on the other side of the straits of Bāb al-Mandab. The Elisaroi are the al-Ashʿar (Sabaic: Ashʿarān, ʾs²ʿrⁿ) who control the harbor of Mouza (Arabic Mawzaʿ, today al-Makhāʾ or Moka) and of Okelis (today Shaykh Saʿīd) on the straits. 23. “Les nouvelles inscriptions d’Axoum et le lieu de déportation des Bedjas,” Raydān 4 (1981) 97–116, cf. 101. 24. See also, below, al-Ashʿar (Sabaic Ashʿarān, ʾs²ʿrn) transcribed Ἀλίσαροι var. Ἐλήσαροι in Ptolemy, Geogr. 6.7.7. 25. Caskel 1966, I: tabl. 176, 193–95 and 207–8, and II: 35–38 and 273. 26. al-Jāsir, p. 1049.

404

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

It is a tribe whose territory begins north of al-Makhāʾ and extends to the straits, which corresponds approximately to its localization in the sixth century of our era and at the beginnings of Islam.27 The Kassanitai, who live north of the Elisaroi, dominate the northern Yemenite coast from the frontier with the Kinaidokolpitai down to Adedou kome, which is probably al-Ḥudayda. The name of Jāzān,28 an important Saudi harbor on the Red Sea not far from the Yemenite frontier, is pre-Islamic. It is found in a decree originating from Ṣayḥān, and dating approximately from the sixth century BC issued “for Gaʾzān, for Khulab, for Nashshān, and for Mawr” (YMN 20); Gaʾzān is the ancient name of Jāzān/Jīzān, both the town and the wadi. Khulab and Mawr are the names of the two large wadis of Yemen which descend from the mountains into the Red Sea between the frontier with Saudi Arabia and al-Ḥudayda. Ṣayḥān is a wadi a little further south in the mountains, southwest of jabal al-Shirq (map 1:50000, 1443 B2 and B4), which flows into the wādī Sihām. Gaʾzān does not correspond phonetically to Kassan(itai), because the Arabic jīm is always transcribed g (cf. al-Ḥijr, Najrān, etc.), and besides, the passage from a toponym to an ethnonym is problematic. The Ghassān-tribe has long appeared as the best candidate for identification, even if the Arabic letter ghayn is normally (but the letter is rare) transcribed by a gamma, as in Ghazzat which becomes Gaza. But the transcription of ghayn into a kappa is perhaps not impossible.29 The principal argument in favor of this identification comes from the Arab tradition, which sets the origin of Ghassān in Yemen, in a coastal region by the Red Sea. It was, in fact, said that Ghassān took their name from a watering-point which al-Ḥasan al-Hamdānī situates in the lower course of wādī Rimaʿ, 60 km south of al-Ḥudayda (71/23–24). This is close to ʿAkk, a tribe whose territory, in antiquity as today, is between al-Ḥudayda and Jāzān.30 But, as Ryckmans notes (cf. above), the Kassanitai of Ptolemy are placed in a region which was later known as belonging to the ʿAkk. The South Arabian inscriptions do not offer any indications as to the geography of the tribes in the ancient period, but they do from the third century AD onwards. The Ghassān are then situated with some precision between Qurayyān (in the Islamic sources wādī al-Qurà, today Madāʾin Ṣāliḥ and al-ʿUlā) to the north and the region of Mecca to the south.31 A Nabateo-Arabic text from the region of al-ʿUlā mentions a king of Ghassān who appears to be in his realm. Also, a text dated to 470 ḥim. (probably AD 360),32 according to which the Ḥimyarites confront the tribe of ʿAbdqaysān (ʿbdqys¹n, Arabic ʿAbd al-Qays) at “Siyyān, at the waters of Sigah, between the country of Nizārum and the country of Ghassān”33 gives the southern frontier of Ghassān; it is the well and the mountain now called Sijā (= Sigah), in the steppe of al-Siyy (= Siyyān), 410 km northeast of Mecca. Besides, the inscriptions of the third century AD mention a fairly high number of tribal groups in the coastal area of Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia, but Ghassān is not mentioned. The “migration” of Ghassān from the south towards 27. Chr. Robin, “La Tihāma yéménite avant l’Islam : notes d’histoire et de géographie historique,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 6 (1995) 222–35, cf. 232–23. 28. Encyclopédie de l’Islam, nouvelle édition, II (Leiden 1977) (G. Rentz, “Djayzān”) 529–31, cf. 529 B. 29. Walter W. Müller notes that the Greek μοκροτου (Peripl.M.Rubr. 9 and 10), which describes a quality of incense, probably derives from a Semitic word which, in its modern form with a ghayn, is mugh(u)r (Arabic) or megherāt, meghirót (modern South Arabian) “incense tree.” But this word is also found in the form mäqar in tigrinya, with a qāf which is regularly transcribed with a kappa (Müller 1978: col. 726–27). 30. R. Wilson, “Some Notes on the Arabic Historiography of Tihāma in the Pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Periods,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 6 (1995) 277–85, cf. 279 and n. 28 (p. 284). 31. Chr. Robin, “Ghassān en Arabie,” in D. Genequand and Chr. J. Robin (eds.), Les Jafnides, rois arabes au service de Byzance (VIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne), Orient et Méditerranée 17 (Paris 2015) 79–120. 32. The beginning of the Ḥimyar era is probably 110 BC: Chr. Robin, “Décompte du temps et souveraineté politique en Arabie méridionale,” in Fr. Briquel-Chatonnet and H. Lozachmeur (eds.), Proche-Orient ancien: temps vécu, temps pensé, Antiquités sémitiques 3 (Paris 1998) 121–51 and 9 fig. (between 144 and 145), at 124–28. 33. ʿAbadān 1/29 (b-S¹yn ʿly mw bʾrn S¹gh bynn ’rḍ Nzrm w-’rḍ Ġs¹n): cf. Chr. Robin and I. Gajda, “L’inscription du wādī ʿAbadān,” Raydān 6 (1996) 113–37 and 193–204.

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

405

the north is a legend, probably invented by scholars in the Islamic period in order to reconcile a position to the north with (fictive) connections to the south. So the identification of the Kassanitai with Ghassān is unlikely. A last possiblity of identification appears never to have been proposed. Two inscriptions of the third century mention a kingdom of Khaṣāṣatān, somewhere north or northwest of Yemen, outside the region of South Arabian culture.34 It concerns first the inscription Ja 576/2 which commemorates an offering made by two kings of Sabaʾ to the god Almaqah in the great temple of Marib, the capital of Sabaʾ. Among the reasons for gratitude, the two kings mention a conflict with the king of Kinda, which is resolved by the handing over of “Marʾalqēs son of ʿAwfum king of Khaṣāṣātān.”35 The text can be dated to the 230s or 240s. Another is the inscription J[abal] R[iyām] 2006-17, which commemorates an offering that a noble Sabaean has made in a temple, because he has returned safe and sound from a diplomatic mission which has taken him to most regions of Arabia, especially the “country of Khaṣāṣātān.”36 This text can be dated to the 260s of our era. These two inscriptions do not localize the kingdom of Khaṣāṣatān, but the Arabian genealogies of the Islamic period encourage placing it next to ʿAsīr in Saudi Arabia or even further to the north, because al-Khaṣāṣa (Caskel 1966, I: Tabl. 217) is a branch of Zahrān,37 a fraction of al-Asd = al-Azd. The name Khaṣāṣatān surely sounds much like Kassanitai. However, this identification must remain hypothetical, not least because we do not have an secure example of the Semitic letter khāʾ transcribed as a kappa. The example of Khaṭṭ or al-Khaṭṭ in Eastern Arabia is illuminating. In Greek, the name is transcribed Χαττηνία by Polybius (Hist. 13.2.9), Attene by Pliny (Nat. 16.32.148) and Ἄττα by Ptolemy (Geogr. 6.7.15). 2. In his Chronicon, composed in AD 234,38 St. Hippolytus represents the Kinaidokolpitai as Madianite settlers: Μαδιηναίων δὲ ἄποικοι γεγόνασι οἱ Κιναιδοκολπῖται (Chronicon § 207),39 a passage which is reproduced in Liber Generationis, GLM, p. 167: Madianensium inhabitatores Cinaedocolpitae. This information does not seem to have attracted the attention of specialists of pre-Islamic Arabia, but is it 34. J. Schiettecatte and M. Arbach, “The Political Map of Arabia and the Middle East in the Third Century AD Revealed by a Sabaean Inscription,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 27 (2016) 176–96; 191–92 and map p. 179; M. Arbach and J. Schiettecatte, “De la diplomatie et de l’aristocratie tribale du royaume de Sabaʾ d’après une inscription du IIIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne,” CRAI 2015: 371–98, esp. 379. 35. “… because Almaqah has granted them the favor to apprehend Mālikum king of Kiddat and of the commune of Kiddat, concerning the reparation given by Mālikum to Almaqah and to the two kings, namely Marʾalqēs son of ʿAwfum, king of Khaṣāṣatān, by retaining this Mālikum and the nobles of Kiddat in the town of Marib, until they deliver this young Marʾalqēs”, … w-l-ḏt hws²ʿ-hmw (ʾlmqh b-ʾẖḏ) Mlkm mlk Kdt w-s²ʿbn Kdt b-ẖfrt hẖfr Mlkm ʾlmqh w-m(l)k(nhn) Mrʾlqs¹ bn ʿwfm mlk H̲ṣṣtn w-ʾẖḏ-hw hwt Mlkm w-ʾkbrt Kdt b-hgrn Mrb ʿdy hgbʾw hwt ḡlmn Mrʾlqs¹. 36. And has praised Ḥay[… of](11)ficer of Yarīm, Awsallāt and Barig the might [and] (12) the power of Taʾlab Riyāmum for having made him return (13) from the Land of the North when their l(14)ords had sent him on mission and he passed through the Land of Asdān, the Land of Ni(15)zārum, the Land of Tanūkh, the Land of Liḥyān(16), the Land of Palmyra, the Land of Nabaṭum, the L(17)and of the Romans, the Land of Lakhmum, the Land of Ghas(18)sān, the Land of Maʿaddum, the Land of Ṭayyum and the Land (19) of Khaṣāṣatān”, w-ḥmd Ḥy[.. m](11)qtwy Yrm w-ʾws¹lt w-Brg ẖy(l)[ w-](12)mqm Tʾlb Rymm ḥgn ʾwl-hw/(13) bn ʾrḍ S²ʾmt b-kn-blt-hw ʾmrʾ-(14)hmw w-ʿdw ʾrḍ ʾs¹dn w-ʾrḍ N(15)zrm w-ʾrḍ Tnẖ w-ʾrḍ Lḥyn (16) w-ʾrḍ Tdmrm w-ʾrḍ Nbṭm w-ʾ(17)rḍ Rmn w-ʾrḍ Lẖmm w-ʾrḍ Ḡ(18)s¹n w-ʾrḍ Mʿdm w-ʾrḍ Ṭym w-ʾr(19)ḍ H̲ṣṣtn. 37. Today, Zahrān is a tribe of the steppe depending on Ghāmid: cf. Ḥ. Al-Jāsir, Muʿjam qabāʾil al-Mamlaka al-ʿarabiyya al-saʿūdiyya (Nuṣūṣ wa-abḥāth taʾrīkhiyya wa-jughrāfiyya ʿan jazīrat al-ʿArab, 23), al-Riyāḍ (Dār al-Yamāma), 1980 (1400 h.), 2 vol. in continuous pagination, “az-Zuhrān” (275) and “Ghāmid” (524–25); idem, Bilād Ghāmid wa-Zahrān (al-juzʾ al-thānī li-ʾl-Muʿjam al-jughrāfī li-l-bilād al-ʿarabiyya al-saʿūdiyya) (Nuṣūṣ wa-abḥāth taʾrīkhiyya wa-jughrāfiyya ʿan jazīrat al-ʿArab, 15), al-Riyāḍ (Dār al-Yamāma), 1971 (1391 h.). The principal town of Ghāmid and Zahrān is al-Bāḥa, 300 km east–southeast from Jedda. The name Zahrān is not attested in pre-Islamic epigraphy. Ghāmid, however, is found in a Sabaean inscription from the third century of our era (see n. 90). 38. Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie VI.2, 2457. 39. Fragments of § 204–209 are preserved in P.Oxy. VI 870, where the name of the Kinaidokolpitai is in a lacuna.

406

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

of any value? It appears to us that it is the result of a confusion with the Kinaioi of the Old Testament, on whom cf. Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v. Cinéens (where the following spellings are recorded: Hebrew qēnī, and the following variants in LXX: Κεναῖος, Κιναῖος, Κενι, Κενεζι40). Several passages in the Old Testament mention Raguel the Medianite, his son Hobab and Jethro (variously identified with Raguel and Hobab), and reveal kinship between the Madianites and the Kenites. The Kenite Haber “had severed himself from the sons of Hobab” (LXX Jud. 4:11); Hobab (or Jethro according to the versions) is called “the Kenite” (LXX Jud. 1:16: Ιωβαβ/Ιοθορ τοῦ Κειναίου); this is what makes the author of the article “Cinéens” write: “Jethro, whether he is identical to Hobab or not, also belonged to the tribe of the Madianites and performed priestly duties there. Exod. III, 1. From this one must conclude that the Kenites were a small tribe who originally belonged to the tribe of the Madianites.” This ethnic name is found in Josephus, Ant. Jud. 5. 207, in an uncertain form Kenetidai, Kenelidai, or Keneaidai): παρά τινα τῶν Κενελίδων γυναῖκα Ἰάλην ὄνομα (κενελιδων conj. by Niese from cenelidarum Lat.; κενεαιδων mss. (very close to κιναιδ-); κενετιδων ed. Pr.). 3. Stephanus of Byzantium (fifth century) writes in his Ethnica, s.v. Ζαδράμη: βασίλειον τῶν Κιναιδοκολπιτῶν, περὶ οὗ ἐροῦμεν ἐν τῷ κ. Εἰσὶ δὲ ἔθνος τῆς Eὐδαίμονος Ἀραβίας. Μαρκιανὸς ἐν Περίπλῳ αὐτῆς “Ζαδραμιτῶν [καὶ] Κιναιδοκολπιτῶν.” Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ζαδραμαῖος, “Zadrame, capital of the Kinaidokolpitai, of whom I shall speak under letter K. It is a people of Arabia Felix. In his Circumnavigatio of Arabia, Marcianus writes ‘Zadramitai [and] Kinaidokolpitai’. The ethnic adjective is Zadramaios.” The occurrence of Kinaidokolpitai in Stephanus of Byzantium in no way means that this tribe still existed at the time of this grammarian, since his only purpose was to collect geographical proper names from literature and to indicate their accentuation and derivatives. He extracts many of these from the grammatical writings of Herodian (second century), where, incidentally, the mention of the Kinaidokolpitai and their capital has been restored from Stephanus.41 Marcianus of Heraclea, quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium, is supposed to have lived around 400. But his Periplous is copied from Ptolemy, among others (or perhaps even from a plagiarist of Ptolemy),42 and cannot be used as an argument for the existence of the Kinaidokolpitai in the late period. Some manuscripts of Stephanus of Byzantium put a copula between Ζαδραμιτῶν and Κιναιδοκολπιτῶν, but two (including the best) omit this, in which case we must understand “the Zadramitai (who are) Kinaidokolpitai.” If we keep the copula the meaning is “the Zadramitai and the Kinaidokolpitai,” as if they were two different tribes. 4. Finally, the Kinaidokolpitai are mentioned in the Monumentum Adulitanum. This is a Greek inscription, now lost, which we know only from a transcript made by Cosmas Indicopleustes at Adulis43 during the reign of Justinus (518–527).44 This monument commemorates the exploits of a sovereign whose name is not preserved, but who was probably the king of Aksum, in which he brags about his conquests, not only on the African continent, where he has extended his empire as far as Egypt, but also a victorious incursion into the Arabian Peninsula against the Arabitai and the Kinaidokolpitai:

40. I Reg. 30:29: ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν τοῦ Κενεζει (var. ms. τοῦ Κειναίου). From a consonant point of view, Kenezi is close to Kinaido-. It is worth mentioning (but not noted in Dictionnaire de la Bible, although it quotes the passage) that Gen. 15:19 mentions τοὺς Κεναίους καὶ τοὺς Κενεζαίους. 41. A. Lentz, Herodiani Technici Reliquiae I (Leipzig 1867) 325, l. 3. 42. J. O. Thomson, History of Ancient Geography (Cambridge 1948) 373. 43. Adulis is today a ruin close to Zula on the Red Sea coast, 40 km south of Maṣawwaʿ. 44. Topographie Chrétienne II, 60–63 ; latest edition by É. Bernand, RIÉth I 277.

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

407

καὶ πέραν δὲ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης οἰκοῦντας Ἀραβίτας καὶ Κιναιδοκολπίτας, στράτευμα ναυτικὸν καὶ πεζικὸν διαπεμψάμενος, καὶ ὑποτάξας αὐτῶν τοὺς βασιλέας, φόρους τῆς γῆς τελεῖν ἐκέλευσα καὶ ὁδεύεσθαι μετ’ εἰρήνης καὶ πλέεσθαι, ἀπό τε Λευκῆς κώμης ἕως τῶν Σαβαίων χώρας ἐπολέμησα. “ … and the Arabitai and the Kinaidokolpitai, who live on the other side of the Red Sea, I sent a navy and an army and subjected their kings, and I ordered them to pay tribute for their territory and to leave in peace the traffic by land and by sea, and I waged war from Leuke Kome to the land of the Sabaeans.” Just after the passage about the Arabitai and the Kinaidokolpitai, the king points out: “I was the first and the only one among the kings that preceded me, to subjugate these peoples.” Spontaneously, and this is the interpretation most often encountered, we understand ὁδεύεσθαι μετ’ εἰρήνης καὶ πλέεσθαι as the middle voice, i.e., “I ordered them to go in peace by land and sea”; this is the normalization after the war, the peace obtained by paying tribute. But these verbs are not attested in the middle voice,45 and it would be better to see them as passives, or impersonal, but this is rare in Greek except for declarative verbs (“I ordered them, that one should travel in peace …”), or personal ones (“to leave passage through themselves” (i.e., their territory).46 Although Wissmann in one passage translates “I ordered them to go in peace,”47 he explains elsewhere that the king of Aksum has attacked these tribes to put an end to their piracy in the Red Sea.48 The inscription does not tell us anything about the localization of the Kinaidokolpitai. It tells us only that their territory and that of the Arabitai stretched between Leuke Kome and Sabaʾ (excluding both of these). Add to this that the localization of Leuke Kome (which was forgotten by Ptolemy)49 is not known with certainty. For some, Leuke Kome is to be found south of the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba where wādī ʿAynūna reaches the sea,50 for others it is at Yanbuʿ or close to there.51 As for the Arabitai, no ancient author mentions a tribe of that name in the Arabian Peninsula. It is difficult to accept that Ἀραβῖται should be a variant on Ἄραβες and just mean Arabs in general, for the ethnic name Arabitai exists in the literature, but is used of an Indian tribe who live on the banks of the river Arabis.52 Ryckmans (1957: 94–5) identifies the Arabitai of the inscription with the Kassanitai in Ptolemy.53 45. No examples in the ThGrL. 46. I find this option (“leave in peace” instead of “go in peace”) only in Conti Rossini 1921: 19, and perhaps in Kobishchanov 1979: 39, who gives an ambiguous translation “having commanded them to pay tribute and conduct affairs peacefully on land and sea” and interprets the passage as the command to the Arabitai and the Kinaidokolpitai to desist from piracy. The transcription Cynaedokolpitae, which is found in this passage, gives rise to a fantastic interpretation of the name, which is without foundation. 47. Wissmann and Höfner 1952: 119. Equally W. Wolska-Conus, in her edition of Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographie chrétienne, tome I, Sources chrétiennes 141 (Paris 1968) 376. 48. Wissmann 1968: col. 1306. 49. Ptolemy probably placed Leuke Kome on the opposite coast of the Arabian Gulf, where we find this White-Village under the ghost name of Leukos Limen “White Harbor” (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 28 f.). 50. Casson 1989b: 188, quoting M. Ingraham et alii, Atlal 5 (1981) 76–78. 51. Thus Wissmann 1964: 65, n. 155; D. Nappo, “On the location of Leuke Kome,” JRA 23 (2010) 335–48. 52. These forms fluctuate: apart from Arabitai we find Arabes, instead of Arab- we find Arb- as noted by Herodian (Hdn. Gr. 1.86.23: Ἄρβις ποταμὸς Ἰνδικῆς καὶ ἔθνος, λέγεται δὲ καὶ Ἄραβις). The form Ἀραβῖται is found only in Arr. An. 6.21.4, in St. Byz. s.v. Ἄραβις and Ἄρβις, and in some manuscripts of Ptolemy Geogr. 6.21.4. The testimonies on this tribe and the variants are gathered by C. Müller, GGM I, 335, and by I. Ronca, Ptolemaios Geographie 6.9–21 (Ostiran und Zentralasien) (Rome 1971) 71. 53. Many names of Arabian tribes could be the origin of the Greek Arabitai. See, e.g., ʿArīb, Harība, or Ḥarb in the index of Caskel 1966, II.

408

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The date of these events has long been discussed.54 Most often they are placed in the third century of our era,55 but recent discoveries in South Arabian epigraphy now permit us to be more precise. Several characteristics of the inscription from Adulis must be taken into account: (1) It must be dated during a period of expansion of the Aksumite power as the author of the inscription underlines, but this argument is difficult to handle since our knowledge of the history of Aksum is too limited. (2) Aksum controls a considerable part of the eastern coast of the Red Sea from a harbor in the north to the country of the Sabaeans.56 Apart from this text, the Aksumite occupation of the Arabian littoral north of Yemen is not attested. In Yemen the Aksumites dominated the coast from the second half of the second century, and until they were expelled by Himyar around 260–270. It is thus probable that the Monumentum Adulitanum is earlier than this defeat.57 (3) The relations between Sabaʾ and Aksum seem to be good, which might correspond to the alliance between Sabaʾ and Aksum that is mentioned in South Arabian texts from the reign of ʿAlhān Nahfān (c. 200–215) and, on the Aksumite side, of Gadarat, king of the Aksumites (Gdrt mlk Ḥbs²tn, CIH 308/11; see also Nāmī NʿJ 13 + 1458 which evokes Aksumites, Sabaeans, and Ḥaḍramawti allied against Ḥimyar). There is still a diplomatic contact between Sabaʾ and Aksum under the reign of Shaʿrum Awtar, son of ʿAlhān Nahfān (Ja 631; the king of Aksum is still Gdrt mlk Ḥbs²t w-ʾks¹mn  “Gadarat king of Ethiopia and Aksum” [line 13]). This contact could have taken place in the beginning of the reign of Shaʿrum. Later, and up to the expulsion of the Aksumites from Arabia, relations are conflictual. So, the Monumentum Adulitanum is probably earlier than 220. It is tempting to attribute it to Gadarat, a sovereign attested in Arabia, but also in Aksum (see RIÉth 180: Gdr ngšy ʾksm, “Gadarat king [negus] of Aksum”), the first – as far as we know – to carry the title of “King of Aksum” or “King of the Aksumites”.59 The reign of Gadarat/Gadarā corresponds to the renaissance of writing and to the expansion into Yemen, after a period of alliance with Sabaʾ. This may well have begun with the control of the Arabian coast north of Yemen. If the Adulis Monument is not the work of Gadarat/Gadarā, we must at least think of one of his immediate predecessors. Can we move it further back in time? The campaign against the Kinaidokolpitai could be even earlier than the revival of Aksumite power as attested by the epigraphy of southern Arabia and Aksum, and might have taken place in the beginning of the second century. This is what Wissmann thinks. For him

54. In any case, there is no reason to attribute the inscription to one of the Ptolemies, as does the author of Top. Chr. (cf. also S. E. Sidebotham, Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa 30 BC–AD 217 [Leiden 1986] 129). 55. Desanges 1978: 345 and n. 234. 56. The northern border of the country of the Sabaeans is difficult to define exactly in the coastal regions before the Aksumite occupation of the Yemenite littoral around 220 (see below). In the high country, Sabaʾ extends to Ṣaʿda and Najrān from the second century: Chr. Robin, “Sabaʾ et la Khawlān du Nord (Khawlān Gudādān)  : l’organisation et la gestion des conquêtes par les royaumes d’Arabie méridionale,” in A.V. Sedov (ed.) Arabian and Islamic Studies. A Collection of Papers in Honour of Mikhail Borishovich (sic) Piotrovskij on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Moscow 2014) 156–203. 57. Chr. Robin, “La première intervention abyssine en Arabie méridionale (de 200 à 270 de l’ère chrétienne environ),” Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies (Addis Ababa 1989) 147–62, cf. 155. 58. J. Ryckmans, “L’inscription sud-arabe Nami 13–14,” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969) (= W.F. Albright volume), 102–8. 59. We do not know the title of Zoskales, a sovereign mentioned in the Periplus Maris Erythraei (c. 40–50, see below, note) in the region of Adulis, nor the extension of his kingdom, which does not necessarily include Aksum (Casson 1989a: 109–10).

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

409

the Adulis inscription is roughly contemporary with Ptolemy’s Geography,60 or even earlier. This early date could be supported by a passage in the Talmud mentioned by Conti Rossini,61 where, around 130, a rabbi travelling in Southern Arabia meets a local ruler of Ethiopian race. J. Desanges prefers to stay with a date at the end of the second century.62 B. Who does not know the Kinaidokolpitai? The descriptions of the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula that are earlier than Ptolemy do not mention the Kinaidokolpitai, though the word should have tickled the imagination of a Greek speaker. As we have seen, the descriptions by Agatharchides in his work on the Red Sea (re-copied by Diodorus, Photius, and Artemidorus of Ephesus apud Strabo), which probably goes back to a source from at least as early as the second century BC, mention, in this region, the tribe of the Debai (Δέβαι),63 an ethnic name that we find in the town of Θεβαι, mentioned by Ptolemy as being in the territory of the Kinaidokolpitai. The Debai are at the same time nomads, connected with the raising of camels, and sedentary farmers: γεοῦχοι (“land-owners”) in Agatharchides, γεωργοί (“cultivators”) in Strabo. They are warlike and fight on camel-back (Diodorus and Strabo). They are selective in their relations with the Greek world and welcome only Boiotians and Peloponnesians. They do not exploit the gold that is carried by the river which runs through their territory. South of the Debai, as we learn from these three witnesses, there is an auriferous region occupied by the Alilaioi and the Kasandreis (apud Photius) or Gasandoi (apud Diodorus), two tribes that exploit the gold-mines. Müller (GGM 184), followed by Wissmann 1970: col. 913, has proposed to identify the Alilaioi with Banī Hilāl, but this is based only on a vague phonetic resemblance that proves nothing. Glaser (1890: 29) places the Debai south of al-Qunfudha, precisely at Āl Khatārish,64 at five or six hours west of Maḥājil,65 i.e., between al-Qunfudha and Marsà Ḥalī,66 a region in which, at his time, the Beduins often found gold. Concerning the Debai, Glaser notes that al-Hamdānī 119/1 mentions a village called al-Dhayba (al-Dayba in codex Spitta) in the proximity of the town of Abhā. 60. Wissmann 1964: 66: he argues that the frontiers of the territory of the Kinaidokolpitai described by Ptolemy are the same as those that appear from the Adulis monument. In any case, (1) this inscription does not expressly define Leuke Kome as the northern limit of this territory, but only as the northern limit of the operations (we must also reckon with the “Arabitai,” whose limits we do not know); (2) if the two texts are to correspond, it is necessary that Leuke Kome be identified with Yanbuʿ, but this identification is not accepted by all. For Wissmann and others the subjugation of the Kinaidokolpitai is reflected in Ptolemy’s text itself, for the geographer does not attribute to them a μητρόπολις, only a βασίλειον, a term that in this author signifies the residence of a vassal prince, as opposed to μητρόπολις, which means the capital of an independent state (Ryckmans 1957: 95; Wissmann 1968: col. 1307). However, there is no trace in Ptolemy of this expansion of the Aksumite kingdom, as Kobishchanov (1979: 42) calls it. A map of Southern Arabia at the time when the Kinaidokolpitai were part of the Aksumite Empire can be seen in Wissmann 1970: col. 919–20. 61. Conti Rossini 1921: 17–18. The argument is approved by Ryckmans 1957: 95. 62. Desanges 1984: 257–58: “In any case, it seems a little surprising that Aksum should have had, already during Trajan’s reign, the military and naval force to dominate a large part of the Hedjaz and the Asir. A dating towards the end of the second century would be easier to accept from a historical point of view and would fit the priorities of the conquests which the anonymous king claims so loudly.” Kobishchanov (1979: 42–8) does not comment on the date of the inscription, which he places between the end of the second and the first half of the fourth century of our era. But such a late date is excluded: the Aksumites did not return to the Arabian Peninsula until the sixth century. Besides, the king in the inscription worships Ares, while the Abyssinian kings were Christians from the reign of Constantine (Desanges 1984: 257). 63. Agatharchides, De Mari Erythraeo, ed. C. Müller, Geographi Graeci Minores I, 183–4; Diod. 3.45.3–5; Str. 16.4.18. 64. al-Jāsir, p. 387, mentions a village called al-Khatārisa (with a sīn), but in the region of Jāzān. 65. Read Muḥāyil (al-Jāsir, p. 1096), at 60 km northwest of Abhā. 66. al-Jāsir mentions only one al-Ḥalī in the région of al-Līth.

410

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Pliny does not mention the Debai, but instead the Clari, whom he places between the Ichthyophagi and, again, in a gold-bearing region (Nat. 6.150, from north to south: … Ichthyophagorum. Dein Clari, litus Mamaeum, ubi auri metalla, regio Canauna, gentes Apitami, Casani…). In Casani we recognize the Kassanitai who are, according to Ptolemy, the southern neighbors of the Kinaidokolpitai. The regio Canauna surely takes its name from wādī Qanawnā which runs into the Red Sea at al-Qunfudha (Sprenger 1875, § 52; Wissmann 1970: col. 908).67 The Periplus Maris Erythraei, which updates Pliny’s sometimes outdated sources,68 presents the state of affairs between AD 40 and 50.69 No question of Kinaidokolpitai there either. Its description of the coast south of Leuke Kome is not appealing (§ 20): There are some wretched hamlets of Ichthyophagi, where bandits from the hinterland descend in order to pillage the ships that approach the coast or to capture the shipwrecked. These Κανραῖται, as they are called, speak two different languages, and the states of Arabia (τυράννων καὶ βασιλέων τῆς Ἀραβίας) repeatedly, but to no effect, take measures against them. So merchant ships that have loaded in Leuke Kome stay at sea and only come in-shore in Arabia at the far south of the peninsula from the Burnt Island (probably the small island called al-Ṭāʾir, 80 km west–northwest of Kamarān70). What corresponds to the territory of the Kinaidokolpitai is necessarily included in this description. Glaser corrects Κανραῖται into Καρναῖται “inhabitants of Karna.”71 Sprenger (1875, § 31) does not hesitate to conjecture Kananitai, members of the tribe Kināna. Wissmann accepts this conjecture. For him, wrongly dating the Periplus Maris Erythraei at the beginning of the third century,72 the mention of Kananitai would be evidence that the Kinaidokolpitai no longer existed at this time (RE Suppl. XII, 922). On the other hand, if one dates, as we do, the Periplus in the first century, it is tempting to see a connection between the shipwrecking Kanraitai (or whatever they were called), who were in conflict with their neighbors, and the intervention of Aksum, which was probably supported on the ground by the allied states73 (who would have asked for help from Aksum to combat the piracy74?). C. A temporary confederation To summarize: The ethnic name Κιναιδοκολπίτης appears out of the blue in the second century in Ptolemy, in the ostracon from Maximianon, and in the inscription from Adulis (c. 200). An important change might account for this sudden appearance. A ready explanation of such a change could be found 67. This equivalence conforms to the rules for transcribing Arabic into Greek as established by M. Rodinson, see below. 68. Ryckmans 1957: 87. 69. For a justification of the early date (instead of the date in the third century maintained especially by Jacqueline Pirenne), see most recently Chr. Robin, “L’Arabie du Sud et la date du Périple de la mer Érythrée (nouvelles données),” Journal Asiatique 279 (1991) 1–30; G. Fussman, “Le Périple et l’histoire politique de l’Inde,” ibid., 31–38; N. Groom, “The Periplus, Pliny and Arabia,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 6 (1995) 180–95; Chr. Robin, “The Date of the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea in the Light of South Arabian Evidence,” in F. De Romanis and A. Tchernia (eds.), Crossings. Early Mediterranean Contacts with India (New Delhi 1997). 40–65. 70. Casson 1989a: 147. 71. Glaser 1890: 165–66: these Karnaitai would be Beduins which the classical authors confused with the Minaeans, whose principal town, as it happened, was called Karna, in South Arabian Qarnaw (Qrnw). It is hardly even necessary to underline the weakness of this hypothesis. See also Casson 1989a: 146. 72. RE Suppl. XII, 542 and 922: c. 210–220. 73. This was the procedure of Aksumite diplomacy in the third century. During activities in the southwestern part of the Arabian peninsula the Aksumites are sometimes allied with the Ḥimyarites, sometimes with the Sabaeans (Desanges 1984: 257–8). 74. Conti Rossini 1921: 24 sketches a similar scenario, but with different issues at stake.

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

411

in the Aksumite intervention, and the hypothesis formulated by Ryckmans becomes attractive. For him the creation of the ethnic name which is transcribed Κιναιδοκολπίτης in Greek may go back to the subjugation by Aksum of these turbulent coastal tribes, so incomprehensible and varied in customs and name.75 The victor would have organized them in vassal provinces, and one of these would have found a unity in the federation of two principal tribes that were perhaps already close to each other (cf. Debai who were both nomads and sedentary, and the Kanraitai who spoke two languages). This new, artificial unit would then have received the equally artificial, and probably ephemeral, name of Kinaidokolpitai. In this perspective, it is nevertheless annoying that the Adulis-inscription gives the impression that Kinaidokolpitai were already called thus before their defeat. As we know that Ptolemy’s sources are no later than the reign of Trajan, it seems that we must date the appearance of the ethnic name in the second half of the first century AD. D. Discussion of earlier identifications Our predecessors have always believed that Κιναιδοκολπίτης was a tendentious transcription of an Arabic word, on which they have formed various hypotheses. For Sprenger the element Kinaido-76 corresponds to Kināna (§ 30) and kolpites to Kalb (§ 32). Kināna is an Arab tribe situated in the neighborhood of Mecca,77 and Sprenger remarks that the Kalb78 are often associated with them (§ 32). He is not unaware that, at the beginning of Islam, the Kalb were in the Syrian desert and thus far from the Kinaidokolpitai, but he reminds us that, according to al-Bakrī, their origins were the Tihāma (the coastal region west of Mecca). But, as Sprenger himself recognizes, this is what genealogists say about all the Arab tribes. Sprenger proposes to identify the Kalb as the Clari that are mentioned in Pliny’s description of this region (Nat. 6.150) and whose name, which has no morphological correspondent in Arabic,79 he suggests to change into Clabi80 (Wissmann, who has treated the Kinaidokolpitai on several occasions,81 agrees entirely with this idea82). Glaser (1890: 232)83 is not opposed to the hypothesis of Kalb (he proposes as an alternative Aklub, the name of a clan attested in the tenth century, which he has found in F. Wüstenfeld, Genealogische Tabellen der Arabischen Stämme und Familien [Göttingen 1853] 5584). On the other hand, he categorically rejects the identification with Kināna: “Der älteren Ansicht, dass der Name Kinda in Kinaidokolpitai enthalten ist, schloss sich 1863 Viv. De Saint Martin an; darnach wäre der Name aus Kunaida (Diminutiv von Kinda85) und aus einem andern Worte (Aklub, Kalb?) zusammengesetzt. Ich stehe nicht an, 75. Ryckmans 1957: 95: “The very use of this curious name even by Ptolemy would be easily explained if the geographer had borrowed it from the official Ethiopian terminology, where it had been formed.” 76. A name that the merchants of Berenike deserve rather than their Arab neighbors, as Sprenger observes. 77. Encyclopédie de l’Islam, nouvelle édition V (Leiden 1986) (W. M. Watt, “Kināna b. Khuzayma,” 118–19); Caskel 1966, I: tabl. 36–48 and II: 6. 78. Encyclopédie de l’Islam, nouvelle édition IV (Leiden 1978) (J. W. Fück, “Kalb b. Wabara, I. Période anté-islamique,” 513–14); Caskel 1966, I: tabl. 280–96 and II: 76–79. 79. The liquids l and r are never in contact in Arabic roots. 80. Sprenger 1875, § 52, n.1. No manuscript supports this hypothesis in any way whatsoever. 81. See especially Wissmann 1970: col. 907. But also Wissmann 1968: col. 1304–7, and 1964: 65–69. Equally Wissmann and Höfner 1952: 119 and Ryckmans 1957: 93–95 (the last two are quoted by Desanges 1978: 345 and n. 235). 82. Wissmann 1970: col. 907. He differs from Sprenger only as far as the identity of the Kalb is concerned. 83. Followed by Moritz’s article Kinaidokolpitai in RE XI.1, 458–59. 84. More recently, see Caskel 1966, II: 150–51, where we find al-Aklab, Aklab, Aklub and al-Aklūb. 85. See Encyclopédie de l’Islam, nouvelle édition V (Leiden 1986) (I. Shahîd and A.F.L. Beeston, “Kinda,” 121–23); Caskel 1966, I: tabl. 233–43 and II: 47–53. This Arab tribe of Southern Arabia (first established in the region of Qaryat al-Fāw, 250 km

412

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

mich gleichfalls der älteren Ansicht anzuschliessen, indem ich den Namen als eine Aneinanderreihung von Kunaid und Aklub, also Kunaidaklub halte, voraus die Griechen Kinaidokolpitai gemacht haben.”

What are these hypotheses worth? In the beginning of the third century the heartland of the Arab tribe of Kiddat86/Kinda is Qaryat al-Fāw (the ancient Qrytm ḏt-Khlm), 300 km north–northwest of Najrān.87 It is not impossible that its authority extended as far as Najrān,88 but nothing suggests a domination of the coastal regions. The tribe of Kināna no doubt inhabited the coast close to Mecca at the beginning of Islam, but it is never mentioned in the pre-Islamic inscriptions, so its existence is not assured in the second or third centuries. As far as the Kalb are concerned, it is a tribe that lives in the Syrian area, unknown in the inscriptions and a bad candidate for the identification. Another argument, philological this time, can be brought to bear against an identification of the Kinaidokolpitai with any of the above-mentioned tribes. If the word Κιναιδοκολπῖται is derived from the name of an Arab tribe, it is reasonable to ask if there are any rules for transcription of Arabic phonemes (in Arabic and South Arabian languages) into the Greek language. Now, Maxime Rodinson has shown that kappa normally transcribes the qāf. The cases where it is thought to render a kāf are few and all doubtful. The following are mentioned: Kamarān = Καμαρηνοί, Kināna/Kinda/Kalb = Κιναιδοκολπῖται, and Makka = Makoraba.89 The rule established by Rodinson for the words that he considers Arabic may be extended to the region in the southwest of the Peninsula, where Semitic languages, close to or different from Arabic, were spoken. There, too, the Arabic names, of which both the indigenous form and the Greek transcription are known, confirm that the kappa regularly – one might say systematically – corresponds to qāf. They are ethnica and place-names: Ns²qm Qnʾ Qrnw Qtbn

Νάσκος (Ptol., Geogr. 6.7.35) Κανη (Peripl.M.Rubr. 27; Ptol., Geogr. 6.7.10) Καρνα (e.g., Str. 16.4.2) Καταβανία (e.g., Str. 16.4.4)

north–northeast of Najrān, later in the Ḥaḍramawt) were the principal auxiliaries of the Ḥimyarite sovereigns in the fifth and sixth centuries in Central Arabia, where several Kindi princes ruled over the tribe of Maʿaddum. We recognize this tribe under the name Χινδηνοί in Nonnosus (apud Photius, Bibl. 3.2a 36). At the time of Nonnosus (sixth cent.), the Χινδηνοί and the Μααδηνοί (Sabaic Maʿaddum, Arabic Maʿadd) two “Saracen” tribes, are under the authority of the same chief. The first certain attestations of the Kinda (South Arabian Kdt) are found in Sabaean inscriptions from the first half of the third century. The diminutive “Kunayda” invoked by Glaser is not attested. 86. Supposed vocalization of South Arabian Kdt, with regular assimilation of the n. 87. See the Sabaean inscription Ja 635. 88. A king of Kidda/Kinda, probably dating to the fifth century, called Ḥugr son of ʿAmrum (Ḥujr son of ʿAmr, called Ākil al-murār, “he who eats bitter herbs” in the Arab tradition) wrote his name on a rock 120 km north of Najrān (G. Ryckmans, “Graffites sabéens relevés en Arabie saʿudite,” in Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32 [1957] (= Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Furlani), 561: Ḥgr bn ʿmrm mlk Kdt). See most recently Chr. Robin, ʿA. al-Ghabbān, and S. al-Saʿīd, “Inscriptions antiques récemment découvertes à Najrān (Arabie séoudite méridionale): nouveaux jalons pour l’histoire de l’oasis et celle de l’écriture et de la langue arabes,” CRAI 2014: 1033–127, esp. 1054–57. 89. M. Rodinson, “Sur la prononciation ancienne du qāf arabe,” in D. Cohen (ed.), Mélanges Marcel Cohen. Études de linguistique, ethnographie et sciences connexes offertes par ses amis et ses élèves à l’occasion de son 80e anniversaire (The Hague and Paris 1970) 298–319, cf. 312–13. One might add to the exceptions quoted by Rodinson the name of the aromatic spice kmkm, κάγκαμον, Latin cancamum, or the toponym S³krd, Διοσκουρίδου, today Suquṭra.

Kinaidokolpitai in a Greek ostracon from the Eastern Desert

413

or the aromatic plant: qlm

κάλαμος, aromatic reed

It is the letter chi that corresponds to kāf : ʿkm Klyb Krbʾl ms¹k

Ἀχχῖται (Ptol., Geogr. 6.7.23) Χολαιβος (Peripl.M.Rubr. 23) Χαριβαηλ (Peripl.M.Rubr. 26) μόσχος, musc

The result is that the proposed identifications of names beginning with kāf (Kinda, Kinānā, Kalb) are unsatisfactory from the point of view of transcription. However, we must not forget that the word is written with an initial chi in the ostracon from Maximianon.

Conclusion: Kolpitai and Kinaidokolpitai The Kinaidokolpitai appear to rule over a very large part of the coast. No other tribe in antiquity has such a large territory, and it must be a loose confederation of tribes, united, one would think, around a common cult. The South Arabian inscriptions from the third century mention a confederation of this kind, called the Dawʾat (Dwʾt), which unites tribes whose territories stretch along the coast from Yemen to 250 km southeast of Mecca.90 If Dawʾat extended even further towards the north–northwest, it would be a possible candidate for identification with the Kinaidokolpitai. Another candidate is the kingdom of Khaṣāṣatān, which should be in the same region. It is even possible that other confederations existed and that the Kinaidokolpitai take their name from one of these, but at the present state of our knowledge, none of these Arab tribes can reasonably be identified with the Kinaidokolpitai, except perhaps the Dawʾat and the Khaṣāṣatān. In view of the weakness of these attempts to derive the Greek composite Kinaidokolpitai from a deformation of a South Arabian ethnic name, it is probable that the name is a Greek nickname and not a transposition. Agatharchides (apud Photius 250.50) gives an explicit example, an African tribe to whom the Greeks have given the composed and humoristic nickname derived from their way of life (they are dog-breeders) which has nothing to do with what they were called locally: “A people called by the Greeks Kynamolgoi [dog-milkers], but whom their neighbors call by a name meaning ‘wild’ [Ἄγριοι].” The two parts of the compound can be explained. We have seen that κολπίτης probably refers to the Ἀραβικὸς κόλπος, i.e., the Red Sea. In fact, Philostratus (Vita Apollonii 3.35) mentions the Κολπῖται βάρβαροι who were rampant “on the right” for sailors who entered the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean. Philostratus wrote around 200, and it is almost inevitable that he means the Kinaidokolpitai. But there may have been two reasons for this ethnic name: Six Ptolemaic papyri dating from the third to the first century BC mention the verb (δια)κολπιτεύειν with the obvious meaning of “smuggling” and the adjec-

90. See Ja 616/23–26. The inscription enumerates thirteen fractions of Dawʾat: Among those identified the most northerly is probably Ghāmidum (Ġmdm), whose name is preserved by a tribe and region in Saudi Arabia, Ghāmid, who are found 300 km east–southeast of Jedda (see note 37).

414

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

tive κολπιτικός to qualify smuggled products.91 It is thus possible that the Kinaidokolpitai were not only pirates and ship-wreckers, but also smugglers. This is perhaps the reason why one took an interest in them as far away as on the road from Myos Hormos.92 Bror Olsson explains these words in κολπιτ- from κόλπος (the fold in the clothes where one could hide things), but Frisk rightly observes that they must be derived from κολπίτης.93 The problem is that the ethnic name Κολπίτης does not appear before the second half of the first century of our era,94 while κολπιτεύειν (literally “to behave like a κολπίτης”) is attested already in the third century BC. Before being applied to pirates of the Red Sea the word κολπίτης must thus have existed, but as an agent noun, rather than an ethnic name. As for the first part of the compound, which brings the Kinaidokolpitai into the series of nonsensical ethnic names that the Greeks liked to give to people who lived far away, it might play on an ancient prejudice, of which we find an echo in Aristophanes. In Birds (vv. 137 ff.), the Hoopoe asks Euelpides and Pisthetairos in which kind of city they would like to live. Pisthetairos answers: “a place where the father of a handsome lad would come up to me and say reproachfully as if I had failed him, ‘well done, indeed, Stilbonides! You met my son coming from the bath after the gymnasium and you neither kissed him, nor spoke to him, nor cuddled him, nor ever once bounced his balls! You, an old friend of the family?’” And the Hoopoe answers: “Wretched fellow, what filthy desires you have! But, thinking of it, there is a city of delights (εὐδαίμων πόλις) such as you want, on the Red Sea.”95

91. SB XVI 12671.4 (236 or 211 BC), P.Tebt. III.1 701.9–10 and 14 (159), P.Phrur.Diosk. 5.13 (146?), P.Tebt. IV 1094.3 (114/3), P.Tebt. I 38.12 (113), P.Rain.Cent. 51.7 (100–50 BC). There is one occurrence from Imperial times: P.Phil. 35.22–23 (end second cent.). See also Chapter 15, pp. 243 f. 92. But perhaps there is no need to look for a reason: Two ostraca from the Eastern Desert (O.Krok. I 87 and O.Claud. inv. 7309, published in Chapter 28, pp. 443–51) suggest that the army systematically spread information over a very large area concerning the actions and movements of Barbarians, even when they were completely harmless. 93. Br. Olsson, “Κολπιτεύω ‘faire de la contrebande’,” Eranos 48.3 (1950)  157; H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1960), s.v. κόλπος. 94. What are we to do with the notice Φοινίκη in Stephanus of Byzantium, which states that Φοῖνιξ, the eponymous hero of Phoenicia, was earlier called Ῥαββώθη καὶ Κολπίτης (Ethnica 669)? This is the only case where the word is not related to the Red Sea (but perhaps to sea trade). 95. In honesty, it must be said that for the ancients Ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα, Mare rubrum, meant all the seas around the Peninsula, not only our Red Sea, so this mention by Aristophanes may be less to the point than it seems.

Chapter 27 Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert Not too long after Egypt had become a Roman province, the new masters started to explore the resources and potential of the Eastern Desert and encountered its original inhabitants. Yet these desert dwellers are seldom mentioned in the ostraca of the Roman settlements. The object of this chapter is to gather this new papyrological documentation, whether published or unpublished.1 The ostraca that will be discussed come from the following sites, which can be grouped into two areas: 1. The hinterland of Kaine (modern Qena) This zone is structured by two large imperial μέταλλα,2 Mons Claudianus and Porphyrites, linked to the Nile harbor of Kaine by the “road of Claudianus” (ὁδὸς Κλαυδιανοῦ) and the “road of Porphyrites” (ὁδὸς Πορφυρίτου). – Mons Claudianus (excavations: 1987–93). Opened under Claudius or Nero. Activity is attested until Severus Alexander (222–235). The ostraca are referred to as O.Claud.3 – Umm Balad (excavations: 2002–2003). Ancient name: Domitiane or Kaine Latomia, then, after Domitian’s damnatio memoriae, only Kaine Latomia (“New Quarry”).4 It was a small μέταλλον opened under Domitian in the southern flank of Jabal Dukkhan (Porphyrites), but the stone revealed itself of such a poor quality that the site was soon abandoned. Ostraca are nevertheless abundant and testify to a short-lived reoccupation of the fort (praesidium) under Antoninus Pius. Papyrological abbreviation: O.KaLa. 1. For a previous survey of mentions of Barbaroi in the ostraca, see Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 346–52. 2. In the ostraca, μέταλλον is an administrative/geographic concept, referring to a quarrying zone, including its buildings, whereas λατομία (except in the toponym Kaine Latomia) is an extraction site. 3. In what follows, unpublished ostraca can be recognized by the addition of an inventory number (e.g., O.Claud. inv. 7309), whereas published ones have the number (in this case preceded by the volume) assigned to them in the papyrological edition, and the abbreviation is italicized (e.g., O.Claud. IV 851). 4. See Chapter 1, pp. 20 f.

415

416

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

2. The Desert of Berenike (Mons Berenicidis)5 During the principate, this district was crossed by two main roads linking Koptos (modern Quft, on the Nile) to the sea ports of Myos Hormos (Qusayr al-Qadim) and Berenike. The two roads served for the caravans of the “Erythraean” (i.e., Red Sea, East Africa, and India) trade. From Vespasian on, they were guarded by praesidia manned by some fifteen soldiers commanded by a curator praesidii.6 The governor of the Desert of Berenike was a Roman eques of procuratorial rank, with the title of praefectus Berenicidis/Montis/Montis Berenicidis. Usually, he was at the same time the commander (praefectus alae) of the cavalry unit stationed in Koptos (the ala Voncontiorum until c. 180, then the ala Herculiana). The ostraca containing references to desert dwellers were found in the following praesidia (the first one, Krokodilo, is on the Myos Hormos road, the following three on the Berenike road): – Krokodilo (excavations: 1996–97). Only ostraca from the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian were found here (the fort was apparently abandoned early because it was poorly situated in a wadi which flooded it from time to time). – Didymoi (excavations: 1998–2000). Founded in 76/7. Last dated attestation: 236 (Maximinus Thrax). – Dios (excavations: 2006–2009). Founded in 115/6. Latest dated attestation: 245–249 (year 3 or 6 of Philip the Arab). – Xeron Pelagos/Xeron (excavations: 2010–13). Founded at the end of the first century; first dated attestation: 96. Last dated witnesses: year 11 of Gallienus (264).7 In the three praesidia excavated on the Berenike road, ostraca were found in both external and internal rubbish dumps. The outside rubbish dumps contain the older material. For some time, the inhabitants of the forts carried their garbage outside, and cleaned the inside regularly. Material found in deposits inside the forts is later (third century, perhaps starting in the last quarter of the second century, until c. 270). The precise time when the garrisons stopped cleaning the forts is difficult to establish (it may have been a progressive process). It must surely have happened after the shock of the plague in 166–c. 176, during which the forts may have been abandoned. The habit of letting rubbish accumulate inside the forts goes along with a proliferation of small, poorly constructed spaces, partly meant to accommodate small animals, presumably sheep and goats. By then, the life style of the inhabitants was different. Civilians are less conspicuous because private letters have become scarce. People live in smaller rooms, and on their garbage, which causes the floor levels to rise. Cisterns are not filled anymore and serve as dumps (though perhaps not all of them).8 The names of the soldiers are less Romanized: soldiers of Egyptian origin have often kept their vernacular name. Soldiers of eastern origin now serve in the praesidia: Palmyrenians, Hemesenians, even Parthians. And the relations with the desert dwellers have changed, as we shall see.9 5. In the Latin expression “Mons Berenicidis,” mons does not refer to a specific mountain range (as “Mons Claudianus” to Jabal Fatira), but it is the equivalent of Egyptian ḏw, which means the “desert” (mountainous or not) on either side of the Nile valley. 6. These praesidia are rough squares of which the sides are c. 30–50 meters in length, with a well in the center. 7. Rather than of Severus Alexander (232): see O.Blem. 17–107, introduction. 8. We have not investigated all the cisterns, which are filled with sand to the top. 9. See J.-P. Brun, H. Cuvigny, and M. Reddé, “De Vespasien à la crise du IIIe siècle: chronologie générale de Didymoi,” in Cuvigny (ed.) 2011: 157–63.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

417

The time of conflicts The earliest mention of desert dwellers in our corpus of ostraca may be O.KaLa. inv. 847 (dating to Domitian or Trajan), a fragmentary letter addressed to a curator. The context is lost. They are already called by the name which is usually given to them in the ostraca: Barbaroi.

Desert dwellers who are not called Barbaroi The mention of Barbaroi in an early ostracon from Umm Balad is all the more surprising as Trajanic ostraca from neighboring Mons Claudianus do not contain any occurrence of Barbaroi. There, desert dwellers are only mentioned in two letters on the same subject, and there they are called Ἄραβες.10 Their author, Epagathos, writes in the first letter to Gaion,11 who is in Claudianus, about the Arabes, who are expected to bring fresh fish from the sea to Mons Claudianus: “when the Arabs come, receive fish from them.”12 In the other letter, Epagathos asks Gaion, “when the Arabs come, to [get?] as much fish as possible.”13 The fragmentary context suggests that the fish has been ordered by somebody who is in a third place, Kampe, which is not far from the unknown site from where Epagathos is writing. The occurrence of these Arabes is unique in the ostraca from the Eastern Desert. Although it is not impossible that, at this latitude, these fishmongers were ethnically Arabs, we cannot infer it simply from this word. When Pliny (borrowing from Juba, himself quoting Hellenistic sources), or Ptolemy locate various peoples which they categorize as Arabes from the Gulf of Suez to the desert south of Berenike, at the latitude of the Dodekaschoinos, they do not take linguistic criteria into account. Their use of Arabes is doubly motivated. Originally, this word is not an ethnic designation but rather refers to a nomadic way of life in an arid landscape: so it is in Assyrian, in the Old Testament, and in south Arabian sources.14 This original meaning, in spite of other semantic evolutions, was never forgotten. Even in today’s Egypt, inhabitants from the Nile valley call the Beduins “Arabs.”15 At the same time, the prevalence of this ethnic designation in literature is in keeping with the ancient concept, dating back to the sixth-century BC Ionian geographers, that the parts of the world were separated by large rivers: the Nile, for instance, was the border between Africa and Asia, Arabia being the western part of the latter.16 In calling the fishmongers Arabes, Epagathos means desert dwellers of a land which was, in the geographical conceptions of the times, considered as a part of Arabia, while consciously avoiding the derogatory term Barbaros. 10. I do not understand why Thomas 2012: 176 writes that these Arabs are “Greek speakers”: we have no idea in which language they communicated with the inhabitants of Mons Claudianus. 11. The names suggest that they are imperial slaves employed in the administration of the quarries. 12. O.Claud. inv. 529. 13. O.Claud. inv. 830. 14. Honigman 2002: 45 f. 15. In Ptolemaic papyri, Ἄραψ often appears as the name of a profession (related to police) practiced by people who are perhaps of nomadic origins, but who generally have Egyptian names. The ethnic name is rare in Roman papyri, except in toponyms. The use of Arabes in Epagathos’s letters to designate true desert dwellers is thus not typical of papyrological documentation. 16. Desanges 1989: 419 f.; M. C. A. Macdonald, “Arabians, Arabias, and the Greeks: Contact and Perceptions,” in idem, Literacy and Identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia, Variorum Collected Studies 906 (Farnham 2009), Ch. V at pp. 1–7 (English translation of “Arabi, Arabie e Greci. Forme di contatto e percezione,” in S. Settis [ed.], I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società 3. I Greci oltre la Grecia [Turin 2001] 231–66). This concept is even reflected in papyrological documents by the fact that when nomes (the traditional administrative districts of Egypt) extend on both banks of the Nile, the eastern bank is called the Arabia of the nome (this administrative Arabia is in the alluvial plain, and is exclusive of the desert which extends eastwards), see Honigman 2002: 49. This use of Arabia is illustrated by O.Claud. inv. 7309 (see below, p. 424).

418

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Two other exceptions to the general use of Barbaros in the Eastern Desert ostraca come from Myos Hormos. The first is a Greek dipinto on an Egyptian amphora found in Myos Hormos.17 It seems to refer to a man described as a Trogodytes. His name, incomplete, starts with Πετ-, which strongly suggests that this Trogodytes had an Egyptian name. His ethnic name probably refers to the African coast of the Red Sea, south of Berenike.18 It should be related to the Ptolemaic graffiti of the Paneion at Kana’is,19 where travellers express their gratitude for having come back safely from the land of the Trogodytai, rather than to Ptolemaic papyri, mainly from the third-century BC Zenon archive, where the ethnonym Trogodytai has evolved into a sort of trade name designating a category of guards or couriers. The second exception is a request addressed to a παραλημπτής called Avitus by an Ichthyophagos with the Egyptian name Pakybis.20 The addressee is probably the παραλημπτής Avitus mentioned in a postal day-book from Krokodilo, in which Avitus is mentioned as the author of a pass carried by a certain Modestus travelling from Myos Hormos to Koptos.21 The pass took the form of a circular addressed to the curatores of the praesidia along the road, asking them to give an escort to Modestus. The Myos Hormos ostracon is also a pass, but of a less elaborate shape, since the authorization of the παραλημπτής is reduced to a subscription (“let pass”) added in his (or a secretary’s) hand under Pakybis’s request. What Pakybis asks for is a permit to move his σχεδία (or σχεδίαι) to Philoteras, a neighboring harbor. Here σχεδία means “fishing boat,” and hence the Ichthyophagos of the ostracon from Myos Hormos is a fisherman.22 It is highly interesting that he addresses a request precisely to a παραλημπτής. This term means tax receiver, and it is mostly known in the Red Sea area in connection with the lucrative customs duties on the Erythraean trade, called τετάρτη in Greek, and vectigal maris Rubri in Latin. This παραλημπτής, stationed in Myos Hormos, is paralleled by the παραλημπτής of the τετάρτη who is stationed in the Nabataean port of Leuke Kome.23 We know that the heavy tax of 25 percent on imported goods was collected, not in the Red Sea ports, but in Koptos (if they were sold already there) or in Alexandria. The παραλημπτής is a cog in the complex machinery of Roman taxation of imported commodities. He had to verify, register, and seal all the goods unloaded at Myos Hormos.24 Why would a poor local fisherman have to refer to him? Probably, I think, because much smuggling occurred, in which fishing boats must have taken part.25 This is why, in my opinion, their whereabouts were strictly controlled by the παραλημπτής. 17. O.MyHo. inv. 543 (end of second–third century). Photo in R. Tomber, “Troglodites and Trogodites: Exploring Interaction on the Red Sea during the Roman Period,” in J. C. M. Starkey (ed.), Red Sea II. People of the Red Sea, BAR International Series 1395 (Oxford 2005) 41–49 at 41. 18. Desanges 1989: 417. The rare occurrences of the ethnic Trogodytes in documents of the Roman Period are gathered in Cuvigny (ed.) (forthcoming), chapter II. 19. See however Cuvigny (ed.) (forthcoming), chapter II, § Graffiti de voyageurs au Paneion d’Al-Kana’is. 20. O.MyHo. inv. 512 (c. 108). W. van Rengen kindly sent me a good photograph and his own transcription of this ostracon. Both confirmed the reading Avitus, which I had guessed on the basis of the published photographs. The name Pakybis is frequent in Koptos. Although still unpublished, the document is commented upon in the following articles: Thomas 2007; Nalesini 2009: 14–15; Thomas 2012: 173, 177, 179. 21. O.Krok. I 1.26 (c. 108, hence the date I assign to O.MyHo. inv. 512 in the previous footnote). 22. Σχεδία is the word employed in SB XXII 15452, a second-century ostracon from Maximianon (a praesidium on the Myos Hormos road), where a soldier apologizes for not having sent fish to the addressee and explains why: the σχεδίαι (plural) did not come when he was in Myos Hormos. 23. Peripl.M.Rubr. 19. 24. O.Krok. I, pp. 13–16. 25. Smuggling is never mentioned in the Eastern Desert ostraca. But the very ethnic Kinaidokolpites, which refers to a rogue people of the south Arabian coast, may derive from this activity. See Chapter 15, pp. 243 f. Kinaidokolpitai are mentioned as the subject of an official letter in an ostracon found at Maximianon (Chapter 26).

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

419

Recently, R. Thomas and O. Nalesini have rightly related the Ichthyophagos Pakybis to the Arabaigyptioi Ichthyophagoi whom Ptolemy locates on the coast at a latitude which happens to be that of Myos Hormos.26 This composite word means either that, by the beginning of the second century,27 Egyptians, taking advantage of the Roman presence in the Eastern Desert, had migrated to the Red Sea coast and mixed with the autochtonous Ichthyophagoi, or that indigenous Ichthyophagoi had become Egyptianized. Such processes are nicely illustrated by the Egyptian name of the Ichthyophagos in the ostracon. The fish which Arabes brought to Mons Claudianus may have been caught by Ichthyophagoi. Unlike the garrisons of the Myos Hormos road, Mons Claudianus was not linked by an official road to the sea and had to rely on Beduins for fresh sea fish.

Hostile Barbaroi If desert dwellers do not seem to have been a threat at Mons Claudianus under Trajan,28 the situation is completely different in Mons Berenicidis. Evidence mostly comes from Krokodilo, where many fragments of circular letters received by the curators of Krokodilo were copied on amphoras. Curatores praesidiorum probably kept a copy of official mail received on papyrus, whether in the form of a liber litterarum adlatarum, or of a postal diary also containing the date and time at which letters arrived, and the identity of the messengers who brought them and took them to the next station. These papyrus registers have disappeared, but, for unknown reasons, some curators of Krokodilo also had these documents copied on amphoras which were eventually dumped. We shall discuss these texts in chronological order: – O.Krok. I 6 (year 12 of Trajan = 108). Copy of a report concerning an action against eighteen Barbaroi. “We chased them with three horsemen and foot soldiers for x mile(s)29 through a difficult ground and we fought (ἐπυκτεύ[σαμεν) […] Lucretius Priscus, horseman of the cohors […], squadron of Sosinius [was killed?], NN of the same cohors, squadron of Iust… was cudgelled (ἐρ⟨ρ⟩απίσθη). Then, overtaken by darkness, we came back to the praesidium.” These events may have taken place around Mons Claudianus: the word Κλαυδιανοῦ occurs in a broken context. True, it could also be a personal name, but the cognomen Claudianus is infrequent in the papyri, especially before the mid-second century. – O.Krok. I 47 (109) Fragmentary copy of a report concerning a skirmish, presumably with desert dwellers. A horseman (or a horse) was slain (ἐσφάγη); another horseman (or a horse) was smitten on the side (ἐκ] ρ̣ούσ{σ}θη εἰς τὴν πλευράν);30 yet another horseman (or a horse) was cudgelled (ἐρ⟨ρ⟩απίσθη); and a Roman received an arrow in the head (] κεφαλὴν βέλ⟨ε⟩ι).31 26. Thomas 2007; Nalesini 2009. Ptolemy locates them at the latitude of the “mountain of basanites stone,” that is, the bekhen-quarries of Wadi al-Hammamat. These quarries are on the road to Qusayr al-Qadim (= Myos Hormos, which Ptolemy misplaces). 27. Ptolemy’s sources are not posterior to Trajan, see Desanges 1988: 22–23. 28. But see the discussion of O.Krok. 6 below. 29. I owe to John Rea a better reading of line 7: ἐπιμε[ → ἐπὶ με[ίλιον/-ίλια. 30. A correction by J. Rea of the first edition, which had εἰς πλευράν. 31. This is the only trace in Eastern Desert ostraca of the use of bows by Barbaroi. The bow is called “l’arme par excellence des Arabes” by Honigman 2002: 46.

420

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 85. O.Krok. I 49. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

– O.Krok. I 51 (109) Badly preserved circular letter addressed by a decurion to the curators of the praesidia to inform them of troubles caused by Barbaroi on Choiak 13. – O.Krok. I 26 (109) Fragment of a mail register, mentioning a circular letter (diploma) of the praefectus Montis concerning brigands (λῃσταί, Latin latrones). These words, applied to all sorts of rebels, are also wellknown alternative designations for aggressive nomads.32 – O.Krok. I 49 (109) (Fig. 85) Copy of a circular letter. The text is fragmentary: the prescript is lost, beginnings and endings of lines are broken, and the lacunae are impossible to estimate. The relevant lines are (lines 2–9):

32. Briant 1982: 51–55.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

4

8

421

] ἰχθυοφόρος ααβιτησων ἀπο[ ]οσελθεν λέγων τρεῖς ἡμέρας σήμ̣[ερον? ]ζοντας τί ἁρπά[σ]ωσιν γενόμενοι [ α]ὐ̣τῶν τὰς κοίτ[α]ς καὶ τὰ ἴχνη τα̣σσ[ ]μενα ἔγραψα ὑμεῖν ἵνα ἐπέχητ[ε ]ρ̣δον γὰρ ἐφάνη ἡμεῖν εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν [ ]δράμετε μέχρι τοῦ κρατίστου [ἐπάρχου Ἀρτωρίου Πρισκί]λ̣λ̣ου. vacat

4 ἁρπά[σ]ωσιν Rea, ἁρπά[ζ]ωσιν ed. pr.

8 ]δράμετε: ]ρα3–5 ed. pr.

At line 2, the enigmatic string of letters ααβιτησων could be interpreted as Ἀλ̣αβίτης ὤν (the dotted λ is not the only possibility). The word ἀλ̣αβίτης is new, but the suffix -ίτης points to an unknown ethnic name.33 I therefore propose the following translation: “[an Arab/Barbarian(?)] carrying fish, who was an Alabites(?) […] came, saying: it makes three days today(?) That […] searching(?) What they will rob […] their dwellings and their footprints […] I wrote to you in order that you keep intent […] For … appeared to us on the road […] run to his Excellency [the prefect Artorius Priscillus].” If this interpretation is correct, two sorts of desert dwellers would be mentioned in the text: a harmless fishmonger defined as an Alabites(?) who may have reported about robbers (Barbaroi?). However, due to the fragmentary nature of the text, this must remain speculative. – O.Krok. I 60 (end of Trajan’s reign, c. 114/5) Letter addressed by the prefect of the desert to the curators of the praesidia of the Berenike road to inform them that wrongdoers (mentioned in a lacuna) have stolen an object (also in a lacuna) and have killed three messengers of servile status.34 The culprits are probably Barbaroi: several letters of the prefect or other officers aim at informing the curators of problems with Barbaroi which have occurred in various places, and asking them to be watchful (see especially the following document). Such letters usually end with the demand to report quickly any such event, and this is also the case with this text. – O.Krok. I 87 (118, beginning of Hadrian’s reign)35 Copies of circular letters received at Krokodilo. Several concern attacks of Barbaroi. The best preserved letter, written on 15 March36 by Cassius Victor, centurion of the cohors II Ituraeorum, introduces a report which he has just received εἰς παρεμβολήν.37 The report was written by one of his cavalrymen, detached in the praesidium of Patkoua (an otherwise unknown place-name), which had been attacked by Barbaroi: “I want you to know that, on 13 March, sixty Barbaroi attacked the praesidium of Patkoua. I fought them with my comrades from the tenth hour (of the 33. Unknown, unless Ἀλ̣αβίτης is a spelling of Ἀρ̣αβίτης (cf. Chapter 26, pp. 406 f.)? A derivation from the Nile fish name ἀλάβης, as proposed by J. Rea (personal communication) and N. Gonis, review of O.Krok., in BASP 46 (2009) 217–18 at 218 does not convince me. 34. The Roman army used either military horsemen or slaves called μονομάχοι as messengers on the desert roads. 35. Therefore on the morrow of the Jewish revolt of 115–117, so disruptive in Egypt that normal activity may have stopped on the desert roads. 36. I have converted Egyptian into Julian dates. 37. “At (the) camp,” that is, of the cohors, or “in Parembole,” a toponym, perhaps to be identified with Dabod in Lower Nubia. See O.Krok. I, p. 139.

422

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert day) until the second hour of the night. Then they sat down near the praesidium until dawn. On that day, Hermogenes, a foot-soldier, of the century of Serenus, was killed (ἐσφάγη), one woman and two children were carried off (ἡρπάγη), one child was killed (ἐσφάγη). On 14 March at dawn, we fought them (ἐπυκτεύσαμεν). Damanaios, horseman, of the century of Victor, [was killed?], Valerius Firm-- was struck (ἐπ̣λ̣[ή]γη), and his horse as well…” The following letter is written on 26 March by Arruntius Agrippinus (probably the second in command after the prefect of Berenike, who, at that time, seems to be Cassius Taurus/Taurinus). It is addressed to the curators on the Myos Hormos road. Agrippinus informs them of an event (in a lacuna) which has prompted him to ask them to give escorts to transporters carrying supplies from Koptos, “so as to deprive the Barbaroi of any opportunity to do harm. Having read this letter, resend it quickly from praesidium to praesidium, and if you hear something clearer,38 hasten to inform me at once.” Apparently, Barbaroi were particularly active these days, as on 2 April the centurion Cassius Victor forwards another report, sent to Parembole from the praesidium of Thonis Megale (otherwise unknown). The report is lacunose, but enough remains to understand that it concerns troubles with Barbaroi. It was also in the reign of Hadrian (year unknown) that Servius Sulpicius Serenus led a successful expedition against the Agriophagoi, probably in his capacity of praefectus Montis and praefectus alae Vocontiorum. He commemorated his victory on a bilingual (Greek and Latin) stela made from the basanites/bekhen stone of Wadi al-Hammamat.39 Serenus says that he has erected an altar for Jupiter in fulfillment of a vow and relates that, during two days, he has chased the “infamous Agriophagoi” (nequissimos Agriophagi), the majority of whom were killed in action, while the Romans themselves suffered no loss or even injury, and recovered all the loot as well as the camels.40 The choice of the rare ethnic Agriophagoi, instead of the usual Barbaroi, may aim at a certain solemnity. Apart from in the Periplus Maris Erythraei (written c. 30–40), the term also appears in the Historia Alexandri Magni, a literary text composed in Alexandria around the third century.41 It is difficult to avoid the thought that Serenus’s Agriophagoi are the same as the ones mentioned in the Periplus. The latter are located some distance to the south of Berenike, and it is unlikely that Sulpicius Serenus ventured into the deep south, where his troops and horses would not have had the support of Roman forts and water resources. On the other hand, perhaps the Agriophagoi, attracted by the comings and goings of caravans, made incursions to the north. Or had they moved there since the forties? In any case, they testify to the migration of Nubian desert dwellers into the Egyptian Eastern Desert. Sulpicius Serenus does not mention his official title in the inscription, but other documents give some clues. He visited the Memnon Colossus on the Theban west bank in the sixth year of Hadrian (121/2) and had an inscription made on the statue’s leg to commemorate his visit.42 This inscription (partially preserved) recalls his career: among other titles, he was (or had been) prefect of the ala Vocontiorum, and prefect of the Desert. The inscription does not allow us to decide whether he filled these two positions at the same time or successively, nor if he was still in the same office while sightseeing (see Chapter 3). At an unknown date, a technician in charge of the wells (ἐπιμελητὴς ὑδρευμάτων) wrote a letter to him to ask for tools and men to re-excavate

38. Probably about the event mentioned in the lacuna. 39. I.Pan 87. The Myos Hormos road passes through these quarries. 40. It is not clear whether these camels belonged to the Agriophagoi, or had been stolen from a caravan. 41. Historia Alexandri Magni 1.2.2, p. 2 Kroll; Peripl.M.Rubr. 2. 42. I.Col.Memnon 20.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

423

a well which had dried up.43 This ἐπιμελητής addresses him as ἐπίτροπος Σεβαστοῦ (procurator Augusti), a usual form of address for prefects of the Desert. The letter is written on a potsherd which was found at Dios. One hypothesis would be to suppose that this ostracon was the original letter, sent from another site44 to Serenus, who would then have stayed at Dios during his expedition. It would explain the dedication of the above-mentioned stela precisely to Jupiter—not the most commonly invoked deity in Roman Egypt—the tutelary god of that praesidium (“[the praesidium] of Jupiter”): the stela, purchased at Luxor, may then come from Dios.45 More probably, however, the ostracon was a draft of a papyrus letter sent from Dios to Koptos. – O.Dios inv. 687 (second cent.) Private letter. Apollonios advises Melanas: “wait these two days without going out to collect wood, until we get fresh news concerning the Barbarians.” – O.Xer. inv. 465 (c. 115–130, according to stratigraphy) This is the only mention of Barbaroi in the outer rubbish dump at Xeron (but this dump did not yield many ostraca). Letter addressed by Petronius to Gaius,46 accompanying an oil flask: “I want you to know that the oil flask contains 6 kotylai.47 […] Know that, for the Barbaroi, the price of the chous (= 12 kotylai), is 24 drachmas. Receive the oil flask through Biton.” I propose the following interpretation of this text: Petronius is sending to Gaius a flask of oil for him to sell at Xeron. He notifies Gaius that there is a special price if he sells the oil to the Barbaroi. It may be higher than the price for non-Barbaroi.48 This text reveals, firstly, that the Barbaroi used money in their everyday transactions with the inhabitants of the forts and, secondly, that even in the period when the relations of the praesidia with the Barbaroi were characterized by conflict, some trade was conducted with them. This is not surprising: the desert dwellers should not be considered as a homogeneous bloc. In order to survive in hard natural conditions, nomads have to diversify their activities. According to the place where they live and the opportunities which that place provides to them (resources, contacts with settled people), people belonging to the same ethnic group can be involved in fishing, camel or sheep/goat herding, charcoal making, selling products to the settled inhabitants of coastal settlements or caravans, serving as caravan guides or coast guards, and raiding caravans.49 – O.Did. 27 (dumped c. 140–150 according to stratigraphy) Copy of a circular letter concerning Barbaroi; the incident seems to have happened on the Myos Hormos road.

43. O.Dios inv. 90, published in Chapter 3. 44. The neighboring Xeron would be a good candidate: the thick and numerous rubble layers in its dump bear witness to the continuous troubles of the well. 45. I have demonstrated that I.Kanaïs 59bis, also purchased at Luxor, actually came from the praesidium of Didymoi (Chapter 30, pp. 474 f.). 46. Possibly, but not necessarily, soldiers, because of the Latin names. 47. 6 kotylai = 1.5 liters. 48. In O.Krok. inv. 524, 1 chous of oil costs 20 drachmas and 4 obols. 49. Modern illuminating examples can be found in P. Weschenfelder, “Towards Variability: Cultural Diversity in the Economic Strategies of the Beja Peoples,” in Barnard and Duistermaat (eds.) 2012: 344–56 at 349–51. See also Power 2011: 343–44.

424

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert – O.Claud. inv. 4888 (c. 145 according to stratigraphy) Letter of Petearoeris to Bekis: “I want you to know that I have not eaten for two days because of the fear of Barbarians (διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Βαρβάρων). Therefore, please, father, if we are relieved, that is fine. Otherwise, make an effort to have me transferred. Otherwise, I am going to break down. For my salary has not yet been brought(?) to me. No matter all I did in order to come: nobody let me go. Let me know what is happening where you are.” The names of the correspondents point to Egyptian craftsmen employed respectively in Mons Claudianus (Bekis) and in a satellite. The small μέταλλον of Tiberiane (modern Barud), where activity is recorded mostly in the 140s, is a good candidate, all the more as it is quite isolated in the mountains, well off the via Claudiana by which supplies were brought in from the Nile valley. Petearoeris has nothing to eat because raids of the Barbaroi have disrupted the provisioning. – O.KaLa. inv. 31 (146) A fragmentary list of personnel mostly related to supply (including transportation and storage), classified by trade name, for several days in a row. On Mecheir 26, the personnel consisted of a tesserarius,50 a herald, two men collecting wood, a doorkeeper, two men (who had gone?) with the camels, eleven waterskin carriers, seven donkey drivers, four sick men, and so on. But, under the entries for Mecheir 27 and 28, one reads only διὰ τὸ βαρβ(αρικὸν) ἀργία: “no work because of the Barbarians.”51 – O.Claud. inv. 7309 (c. 152/3 according to prosopography)52 Letter of Diourdanos, probably the curator of Raïma to Archibios, curator of Claudianus.53 Diourdanos sums up the contents of some official letters. One of them is a report in which Longinus Priscus, curator of a praesidium called Parambola, expressly said to be in the Dodekaschoinos, writes that he has observed five Barbaroi and two camels taking water at the river on the opposite bank, the Arabia, and walking downstream. Therefore, he wrote “to the downstream bank” (κάτω ῥίπα) to keep an eye on them. The army takes care that outposts are informed of the slightest movements of Barbaroi, even if far away. There are more than 300 km as the crow flies between Claudianus and Syene (modern Aswan), which is on the northern border of the Dodekaschoinos. – O.Claud. inv. 7226 (150–190, according to stratigraphy) Mutilated letter written by Alexandros to five comrades (all are probably soldiers). “I heard that … Barbarians … [I was happy?] to hear that nobody was struck (ἐπλήγη).” – P.Bagnall 8 (186/7) Translation of a Latin covering letter of the prefect of Egypt to the procurator metallorum. This letter accompanied the verdict of the trial of two soldiers who had been tried “because they have left their fellow soldiers behind, so that the latter were subjected by some weak and unarmed Barbarians.”

50. Not a soldier, but a minor bureaucrat in the logistics of the quarries (Chapter 11, pp. 203 f.). 51. The abbreviation τὸ βαρβ( ) is resolved thanks to O.Claud. inv. 7255 (cf. p. 425), where this neuter name, semantically equivalent to οἱ Βάρβαροι (cf. LSJ s.v. βαρβαρίζω), is written out in full. 52. Published in Chapter 28. 53. Raïma : Chapter 1, p. 53–56.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

425

– O.Claud. inv. 7255 (c. 189, according to stratigraphy and prosopography) Letter of Aurelius Besarion, curator of Raïma, to two comrades who are in Mons Claudianus. He advises them: “Be on your guard because of the Barbarians” (διὰ τὸ βαρβαρικόν). – O.Claud. IV 851 (end of the second cent.) Draft of a fragmentary letter addressed by the workers to a high official (perhaps a prefect). Apparently, they explain that they could not finish a work “because of the fear of the Barbarians” (διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν βαρβάρων). The formula, which is found in an earlier letter,54 may be an idiomatic phrase in the desert epistolography. The fear inspired by the Barbarians is also reflected in works aiming at facilitating the defense of the fort gates. From a certain point on, the garrisons began to feel less secure; of course, this feeling might also derive from the simple fact that, in later periods, garrisons tended to be smaller. This is particularly clear in the case of the main praesidium at Mons Claudianus. It is not surprising that Barbaroi are never mentioned in the ostraca under Trajan when one considers that, on a certain day in c. 110, 917 persons were present in the metallon. Even if only sixty of them were military, this mass of robust craftsmen and laborers must have deterred any band of Barbaroi who thought to attack the place.55 On the other hand, we know that in 189, a distraught vice-curator of Mons Claudianus tries to explain to the procurator metallorum that he has at his disposal only two slaves (familiares) out of twelve, one donkey out of five, and eight old water skins, and that the cisterns are empty because there are not enough personnel to fill them.56 In these conditions, it is understandable that the gate of the praesidium has been partly blocked, and a clavicula added in front of it. These works took place at the latest under Severus Alexander (222–235), perhaps years before.57 Other praesidia in the Porphyrites-Claudianus district present a reshaping of the gate: Umm Balad, where Barbaroi disrupted work under Antoninus Pius (clavicula, no blocking), neighboring Badiya,58 Al-Saqiya59 (blocking), and Samna (blocking and clavicula).60 In Mons Berenicidis, among the praesidia where we have excavated, Maximianon, Didymoi, Dios, and Xeron also present a partial blocking of the gate, the date of which is uncertain, but no doubt posterior to the time when “Barbarian” raids are mentioned in the ostraca. On the contrary, relations with the Barbaroi may have been peaceful by then,61 but the garrisons, now probably smaller,62 had become less secure.

Strabo’s testimony in the light of the ostraca The situation in the Eastern Desert had changed since the times of Strabo. The geographer had spent some six years in Egypt and, in 27 or 26 BC, he had accompanied Aelius Gallus, the second prefect of Egypt and a personal friend of his, on a trip to the Thebaid. Strabo confidently writes: “but the country 54. O.Claud. inv. 4888. See above, pp. 423–24. 55. Chapter 11. 56. Chapter 5. The vice-curator does not mention the number of soldiers, but these could not have been numerous. 57. Maxfield and Peacock 2001: 18 and 21. 58. Blocking and clavicula: Peacock and Maxfield 2007: 81. 59. The third station after Kaine on the Porphyrites road. 60. Sidebotham, Barnard, Harrell, and Tomber 2001: 157. 61. See the ostraca testifying to food distribution among the Barbaroi at Xeron discussed below, pp. 430–33. They may, however, reflect only a short-term situation, and/or only with one group of desert dwellers. 62. Duty rosters allow us to estimate the number of soldiers at fifteen in the first period of the praesidia. In the second period, when the forts became “shantified,” we have no means of knowing the size of the garrison.

426

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

beyond the mountains is for a great distance uninhabited.”63 By mountains, he means the desert plateaus on both sides of the Nile valley, which, seen from there, can appear imposing. Later on, he repeats that the Nile valley is protected on its two flanks by the “desert mountains (ἐρήμοις ὄρεσι) of Libya and Arabia.”64 Strabo’s desert stops being empty only from Berenike southwards,65 where he locates the Trogodytai,66 Blemmyes, Noubai, and Megabaroi, all of whom he seems to gather under the category of “the Ethiopians beyond Syene” and describes as nomads, and whom he distinguishes from “the Ethiopians who extend towards the south as far as Meroe.”67 For this list of nomadic peoples, his source is Eratosthenes, as appears from an earlier passage, where he quotes the third-century BC Alexandrian scholar: “The lower parts of the country on either side of Meroe, along the Nile towards the Red Sea, are inhabited by Megabaroi and Blemmyes, who are subject to the Ethiopians and border on the Egyptians, and along the sea by Trogodytai.”68 Strabo seems to consider that this information is still valid in his own day, since he contrasts what the ancients (οἱ πάλαι) thought, wrongly impressed by the fact that the mentioned nomads would often attack unprotected travellers,69 with the present situation: they are “neither many nor warlike.”70 When Strabo visited Upper Egypt, the road between Koptos and Berenike did not yet exist: the Erythraean trade transited through Myos Hormos only. The party around Aelius Gallus was intent on the commercial boom and the general mood was euphoric, as is reflected by Strabo’s remark on the fact that in his time 120 boats navigated from Myos Hormos to India, whereas under the Ptolemies few dared to attempt the adventure.71 Desert dwellers were not a problem yet: Strabo totally ignores them, and the ones whom he acknowledges, the Ethiopian (Nubian) tribes south of Berenike, are, according to him, harmless. Perhaps the φιλορώμαιος Strabo was too eager to praise the results of the pax Romana. In any case, not before Vespasian was it considered necessary to fortify the wells on the roads of Myos Hormos and Berenike: three similar dedications found in praesidia on the Berenike road have shown that, in 76/7, it was decided to reinforce the equipment of this track, where caravans had been satisfied with a few wells since the time when it had been “opened,” in c. 2 BC.72 Although no text mentions it, the reason why the Romans decided to strengthen the military presence in Mons Berenicidis and fortify the outposts may have been the nomadic threat (as well as perhaps the necessity to check smuggling). This suggests that the desert dwellers had become more aggressive in the meantime. Possible reasons are easy to imagine. The desert dwellers probably saw the garrisons and the heavy traffic to be a significant intrusion into their territory, and they probably also saw both as a temptation. People from the valley were in competition with them for the desert’s scarce resources of pastures, wood, and game. They 63. Strabo 17.1.4; trans. H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo 8. Book 17 and General Index (Loeb Classical Library 267; Cambridge, MA, 1932) 17. 64. Strabo 17.1.53 = FHN III 190. 65. Written some seventy years later, Peripl.Mar.Rubr. 2 gives the same impression. 66. I use the spelling Trogodytes, plural Trogodytai, instead of Troglodytes, Troglodytai, which is found in the manuscripts and the Loeb translation. The spelling Trogo- is corroborated by the epigraphical and papyrological evidence. See the recent discussion by Pierce 2012: 228–31, with references, and Cuvigny (ed.) Blemmyes, chapter II. 67. Strabo 17.1.53 = FHN III 190. So, recently, Dijkstra 2012: 239. Alternatively, Blemmyes, Noubai, and Megabaroi may be in apposition to Trogodytai (in Agatharchides, apud Diodorus Siculus 3.33.1, Megabaroi are precisely presented as a sub-category of Trogodytai). On the philological ambiguity of this text, see Pierce 2012: 264. 68. Strabo 17.1.2 = FHN II 109. 69. Presumably on the caravan routes between the Kingdom of Meroe and Syene, which cut through the desert, thus avoiding the Nubian Nile cataracts. 70. Strabo 17.1.53 = FHN III 190. 71. Strabo 2.5.12. 72. Bagnall, Bülow-Jacobsen, and Cuvigny 2001.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert 427 may have disliked that the Romans dug wells to which they themselves had no access. Strabo, who writes elsewhere that the desert is empty, remarks that “the Arabes” work as miners in the emerald mines.73 The context of this passage suggests that he heard this information during his 27–26 BC trip to the Thebaid. We know, thanks to the dedication of a Paneion in Wadi Samna, that the emerald mines were, by AD 11, like all the other μέταλλα, under the control of the prefect of Berenike.74 If Strabo is reliable here, it appears that the Romans had taken the mines from them in the meantime. It surely caused resentment on the part of the Arabes. At this time, however, Barbaroi do not seem to have represented a serious threat to the Roman outposts. Otherwise, sole couriers would not have carried official mail almost every day between the stations. Then again, if the Barbaroi were principally interested in booty, there was no point for them in attacking a horseman only carrying mail and occasional bunches of salad.75 The fact that even the slightest movements of small groups of nomads were reported and passed on to the entire network is rather a matter of bureaucratic routine. If the praesidium of Patkoua hosted around fifteen soldiers (with only about three horsemen), as the forts of Mons Berenicidis did, its garrison could be outnumbered by a group of sixty Barbaroi. However, these did not manage to take the fort (not on the first day, anyway), and they could not prevent a message from being taken out to the castra of Parembole. When the Barbarians became a more significant threat (perhaps they had successfully attacked a caravan), an expedition led by the prefect of the Desert subdued them easily. Their weapons (arrows, perhaps more wooden sticks than swords or daggers) were no match for Roman military equipment. Raids started at first in Mons Berenicidis, under Trajan. In the Porphyrites-Claudianus district, the first signs of turbulence date to Antoninus Pius. Several explanations are possible for this time gap. First of all, Trajan’s reign was the period when activity in the imperial μέταλλα reached a peak. Barbaroi would have been outnumbered by the population residing in the Roman sites. Secondly, the precious commodities transported to Mons Berenicidis were a more attractive booty than the supplies carried from Kaine to the μέταλλα. And, finally, the Barbaroi operating north of the Myos Hormos road were not necessarily the same as the Barbaroi operating in Mons Berenicidis.

The time of truce The excavations in three praesidia on the Berenike road (Didymoi, Dios, and Xeron) have produced ostraca betraying a radical change in the relations between the Roman garrisons and the desert dwellers, who continue to be called Barbaroi. Ostraca precisely dated to the second decade of the third century were found in the dumps filling spaces which seem to have been the curator’s quarters (praetorium) at Xeron. Some of them are copies of official correspondence mentioning Barbaroi. The gaps in the contexts do not allow for certainty, but these documents do not contain any trace of the phraseology of violent encounters with Barbaroi.

73. Strabo 17.1.5. 74. I.Pan 51. 75. In praesidia where water was plentiful, herbs and vegetables were cultivated and the horsemen of the mail service were often asked, as a private service, to take bunches of greens for comrades living in the neighboring forts.

428

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The praetorium ostraca from Xeron of 217–219 (and some ostraca from Didymoi) – O.Xer. inv. 620 (SU 0802; 217; Macrinus and Diadumenianus) (Circular?) letter of Vettius Gallianus, prefect of the Desert, about the control of circulation on the Berenike road. The phrase βαρβάρων κτήνη κατελθεῖν ἐπιτρε̣[ means: “(to?) authorize the animals of the Barbarians to travel down.” The word for “animals,” κτήνη, often means “donkeys” in the papyri. – O.Xer. inv. 601 (SU 0702 + 0802; 28 May 219, year 2 of Elagabalus) Fragmentary circular letter of Marcus Aurelius Signas (function unknown) to the curatores from Xeron to Phoinikon. Mention of three Barbarians and two other men (Barbarians?) who have been sent(?). Mention of a letter written by the prefect of the Desert Valerius Apolinaris. The letter ends with the usual formula: “I write you so that you know.” – O.Did. 40 (c. 219)76 Draft of a letter addressed by the curator of Didymoi to the prefect of the Desert Valerius Apolinaris. “I inform you, my Lord, that I went down to Koptos on 28 Mecheir. Regarding the three κάδοι which I gave to change, I brought back all those which Petronius the Barbarian made.” Unless “the Barbarian” is a nickname, this κάδος-maker is a Barbaros who works as a craftsman in Koptos, who does business with the Roman army, and who has taken on (or is called by) a Latin name. – O. Xer. inv. 570 (SU 0802; c. 217–219, according to stratigraphy) Letter of Iulius Kroni-- to […] : “could you please lend my bedroom (contubernium) to the Barbarian?” Presumably, “the Barbarian” came to Xeron with this ostracon. – O.Xer. inv. 603 (SU 0801 + 0802; c. 217–219, according to stratigraphy?)77 Account mentioning wheat, barley, κολοφώνια (a wine container), and “Barbarian” names (Masalit and Kintob, also spelled Kintub). – O.Did. 46 (fort, SU 13401; dumped between c. 220 and 250) Letter of the curator of Didymoi to the curator of Phoinikon (or vice versa): “I inform you, so that you inform the prefect, that four Barbarians, accompanied by three children, nine camels, and four donkeys have come from the south [day?, x hour] of the night, and that they went away on the 18th at the sixth hour of the day.” The group seems to have spent the night in or near the praesidium. It is highly probable that, unlike Egyptian donkey drivers, the nomads did not have to ask for a pass, such as the ones issued by Roman officers, which were found at Mons Claudianus and on the Berenike road.78 On the other hand, their movements where closely observed, both at the time when they were a threat and in the third century.

76. Edition in Chapter 6. 77. If the SU 0802 produced ostraca of 217–219, the more superficial layer SU 0801 did not. Perhaps this document, the anthroponymy of which reminds one of the orders for delivery of year 11 of Gallienus, is later. Yet no order of year 11 was found in SU 0801. 78. O.Claud. I 48–82; O.Did. 47–51.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert 429 – O.Did. 44 (beginning of third century, according to stratigraphy) Letter of a μονομάχος to a tesserarius who had sent him on a mission to Koptos.79 He was going back to the praesidium (of Didymoi?) when he (and his companions) had an unpleasant encounter: “Iekoun, who was going down with the Barbarians, cudgelled us (“made us ξυλοκρουστοί,” a new composite adjective literally meaning “struck with wood”), having found us alone, and we took flight for a mile.” Barbaroi are still dangerous for μονομάχοι, but they are not anonymous any more: the name of their chief is familiar. This ostracon is the only “late” document which positively suggests tensions between the Roman garrisons and the Barbaroi.

The “Baratit Dossier” Several ostraca found in Didymoi and Dios mention Baratit, ὑποτύραννος of the Barbaroi. When I wrote the original version of this chapter, we thought that they belonged inside the span between the end of the second and the first half of the third century. However, the discovery in Xeron of orders for delivery to Barbarians, among whom was Baratit, incited Jean-Pierre Brun to push forward the date of Baratit’s dossier, which is now considered to be roughly contemporary with the vouchers from Xeron. The latter (see below) date to an 11th year of an emperor who, according to several observations, can only be Gallienus, thus 264. – O.Did. 41 (outer dump, phase 11; c. 264) A memorandum: “Mageiren, δεκανός, and the five Barbarians with him, sent by Baratit, ὑποτύραννος of the Barbarians, came to me and I gave them one κολοφώνιον and twelve pairs of loaves. 1 Phaophi.” About ὑποτύραννος, see further discussion below. The use of δεκανός to designate the head of a working team is meaningful. This word, which must have been originally a Macedonian military title, was revived by the Romans in Egypt as an equivalent of decurio in its civilian sense (for instance as the head of a servile decuria).80 In the Eastern Desert, several sorts of working teams, called δεκανίαι, are under the orders of a δεκανός, be they workers belonging to the imperial familia, or freeborn Egyptian donkey- or camel-drivers working in water transportation from the wells, or carrying goods on the roads of Mons Berenicidis. The same vocabulary was applied to Barbaroi. The twelve pairs of loaves are at most a two-day ration for the six men. The μονομάχος Kylindros, who has brought an official letter to Didymoi, received two pairs of loaves, according to the memorandum O.Did. 24 (mid-third cent.), the phrasing of which closely reminds one of O.Did. 41.81 Perhaps two pairs of loaves was the prescribed quantity for people working for the network and stopping off at a praesidium. As seen above, a κολοφώνιον is a wine container: desert dwellers were wine drinkers, as is confirmed by a sherd of molded “Eastern Desert Ware” (EDW) incised with motives of grapes and amphoras, found at Dios.82 O.Did. 41 also shows on which kind of occasion Barbaroi could have access to ceramic containers made in the Nile valley.

79. For the term μονομάχος, see n. 34 above. 80. O.Did., p. 64. 81. Such memoranda, written on an ad hoc basis, were presumably meant to elaborate periodic syntheses of the withdrawals from the stocks. 82. Precisely on the surface of the rubbish layer dumped in a cistern, where an ostracon dated to the reign of Philip the Arab (248/9) was found. On Eastern Desert Ware, see below, p. 435.

430

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert – O.Did. 42 (fort, SU 10504; c. 264) Letter of Baratit to the curator [of Didymoi]. Broken. The only significant word is “food.” Experienced hand of the same sloping type as the hand of the vouchers found at Xeron (see below). – O.Did. 43 (fort, SU 12805; c. 264) Letter of [NN, ὑπο?]τύραννος of the Barbarians, to ..narius (or a [statio?]narius), probably asking barley “for my donkeys.” The hand is not really awkward, but lacks the bureaucratic fluidity of O.Did. 42. The author is probably Baratit again. Instead of rendering the name of his tribe by a transliteration or a semantic equivalent, he is content to use the (originally) disparaging ethnic bestowed by the Romans on the desert dwellers when they stopped being peaceful Arabes. – O.Dios inv. 481 (fort, SU 10902; c. 264) Incomplete letter of Baratit (no title) “to the soldiers:” “I want you to know that … Do not neglect to ….” The subject of the letter escapes us, as well as the general tone. The Roman garrison seems to lack a curator—absent curatores are not rare in ostraca of the end of the second to the third century—and Baratit knows about it. The hand is experienced and different from the hands of the two other letters of Baratit: at least three scribes worked for him, who could earn the title ἑρμηνεὺς καὶ γραμματεύς held by the dedicant in a Trajanic inscription from Berenike.83

The orders for delivery to Barbaroi from Xeron84 In specific places of the southwest quarter of Xeron ninety-four orders were found for the delivery of wheat to people whose names cannot but denote Barbaroi. Though this term is never used in the dossier, sufficient proof that these people were “Barbarians” is the attestation of Baratit among the names. It is probable that this Baratit is the same as the hypotyrannos mentioned in the ostraca from Didymoi and Dios. The names offer, for the first time, a unique glimpse into the language spoken by the dwellers of the Eastern Desert at this time.85 All the vouchers are written by the same experienced, typical third-century sloping hand. The distribution must have taken place in Xeron. Before being discarded, the sherds have been crossed out, obviously to prevent them from being used more than once. The formula used in these texts is similar: (ἔτους) ια// Φαρμουθι x. μέτρ(ησον) τῷ δεῖνι ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) τοῦ δεῖνος πυρ(οῦ) [quantity in artabas or matia written in full], total: [quantity in number]. ωευρευεξ “11th year, Pharmouthi x. Measure out to NN, in the name of NN, such quantity of wheat, total: x artabas/matia. Oeureuex.” We shall now discuss the various elements of this formula in order of appearance (year, day, names, quantity, and subscription), followed by a typical example of a text and some observations on the group of texts as a whole. 83. O.Berenike II, p. 27 (Inscr. 121.3). 84. O.Blem. 17–107. 85. Satzinger 2014.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

431

After the year number, the name of the emperor is omitted, as is usual after the 180s. There is no doubt that the sherds date to the third century. According to the archaeologists, they were even found on the latest occupation level of the fort. Therefore, they are later than the 217–219 ostraca from the praetorium rubbish. Only two third-century emperors reigned long enough to have an 11th regnal year: Severus Alexander and Gallienus. The julian year would then be 232 or 264. J.-P. Brun prefers the latter for several reasons. The main argument comes from the ceramics: to the final phase of occupation belong several types of imported amphoras dated to the mid- and third quarter of the third century.86 The 260s were marked by difficulties in Egypt. On 27 December 260, two envoys of the king of the “Ethiopians” (that is, Meroites) left their inscriptions of the proskynema-type at the temple of Philae.87 One of them, the ambassador Tamis, specifies that he made peace after a period (of war?) of seven years.88 In 261, the prefect L. Mussius Aemilianus proclaimed himself emperor, and was subdued in 262. The Historia Augusta praises his energy and relates that he expelled the Barbari from Upper Egypt.89 From 251 to 268, the Roman empire was devastated by an epidemic which had come from Ethiopia: half the population of Alexandria died.90 Finally, in 270, the Palmyrenes invaded Egypt.91 After the year comes the day. It should be stressed that this is the day when the voucher was written: the wheat was not necessarily withdrawn on the same day. We have no idea where these documents were written: in Xeron, in Koptos, in Berenike, or somewhere in the desert? Except for one voucher dated to Pharmouthi 11, all the others were written within a span of seven days, between Pharmouthi 22–28 (17–23 April). However, most of them were written on the 22nd. Continuing with the names, in the simplest case, the anonymous addressee of the order “measure out” is asked to deliver a certain quantity to the voucher-bearer, in the name of another person. We shall refer to the bearer, who withdraws the wheat, as the middleman, and the other person as the beneficiary. The voucher often allows the middleman to withdraw wheat for several beneficiaries. Almost always, both middleman and beneficiary have “Barbarian” names.92 These “Barbarian” names are striking in their diversity, in clear contrast with the Graeco-Egyptian anthroponymy of that time, where names such as Apollonios, Apollinarios, Ammonios, and Sarapion recur with monotonous regularity. Apparently, there was no problem of homonymy among those mentioned, and so no need for patronymics.93 The quantities in these texts are expressed in Egyptian units, artabas (around 39 liters) and matia (here, 1 artaba = 12 matia). One artaba is the standard monthly ration in Roman Egypt for a soldier as well as, for instance, for a quarry worker or an imperial slave in Mons Claudianus. No such standardization is seen here. Quantities allocated to one beneficiary vary from 2 matia to 2.5 artabas. However, three amounts are more frequently allocated: 0.5 artaba (= 6 matia): fifty-two occurrences; 5 matia: forty-one occurrences; 2.5 matia: seventeen occurrences. How the individual amounts were calculated is unknown. All the vouchers bear the enigmatic subscription ωευρευεξ, written in the same hand as the rest of the text. Is it a personal name? In that case, it would be either the name of the scribe who issued the 86. The ceramics of Xeron had not been completely studied when I wrote the first version of this chapter. We can now completely exclude the 232 hypothesis. See Brun 2018, § 31 and n. 62. 87. I.Philae II 180–81 = FHN III 265–66. 88. I.Philae II 181.3. 89. Historia Augusta, Tyranni triginta 22 = FHN III 282. 90. See P.Oxy. LXXIV 4996–98, introduction. 91. Schwartz 1953: 74–75. 92. See on these names Satzinger 2014. 93. One possible exception, O.Blem. 26.2n.

432

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

voucher, or the name of the official who decided who would receive how much, in which case this official, Oeureuex, would not have been able to write Greek and his secretary would have subscribed for him. But ωευρευεξ could also be the transliteration of a “Barbarian” formula equivalent to the Greek σεσημείωμαι (“I have signed”) or εὐδοκῶ (“I agree”). Since the vouchers are intended for the eyes of a Greek reader, it sounds absurd at first sight that a “Barbarian” formula could be transliterated, but it could reinforce its value as a mark of authentication, which this subscription is anyway. To end this discussion of the formulas used in these texts, let us look at one representative example, O.Xer. inv. 374 = O.Blem. 83 (fig. 86):

Figure 86. O.Blem. 83. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

4

8

(ἔτους) ια// Φαρμουθι κ͞ε. μέτρ(ησον) Ενγοσα̣ρεκ ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) Μακακ πυρ(οῦ) ἀρτ(άβης) ἥμισου, ⟨γί(νεται)⟩ (πυροῦ ἀρτάβης) (ἥμισυ), καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) Χανσαϊα ἀρτ(άβης) ἥμισου, γί(νεται) (πυροῦ ἀρτάβης) (ἥμισυ), καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) Μαχ ἀρτ̣(άβης) ἥ̣μ̣ι̣σου καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) Χοϊαπ μάτ(ια) πέντε, γί(νεται) μ(άτια) ε̅, καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) Ινκνετ μάτ(ια) τρία, γ(ίνεται) μ(άτια) γ̅, ⟨γί(νεται)⟩ (πυροῦ ἀρτάβαι) β μ(άτια) β̅. ωευρευεξ.

“11th year, Pharmouthi 25. Measure out to Engosarek, in the name of Makak, half an artaba of wheat, equals ½ art., in the name of Chansaïa, half an artaba of wheat, equals ½ art., in the name of Mach, half an artaba of wheat, in the name of Choiap five matia, equals 5 m., in the name of Inknet, three matia, equals 3 m., ⟨grand total⟩ 2 art. of wheat 2 m. “Oeureuex.”

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

433

We shall end this overview of the vouchers from Xeron with some general observations. The formula ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνόμ(ατος) τοῦ δεῖνος is well-known in tax-receipts from the second century onwards, but I have spotted no instance of it in an order for delivery. The idea which springs to mind is that the wheat is intended for the beneficiaries who, for some reason, did not come themselves to take it, but who sent other persons instead. There are fifty-two middlemen at the most (slightly less if some names are variant spellings). All have “Barbarian” names, except for one, who is a woman, Herakleia. Only two middlemen are given vouchers on two different days: Iantatos on the 22nd and 23rd, and Sogod on the 22nd and 24th. Beneficiaries, at a total of around 110, are twice as numerous as middlemen. Most have “Barbarian” names, but eight bear Roman,94 at least three Greek,95 and six Egyptian names.96 Either some beneficiaries were not Barbaroi, or they were acculturated, however this may be understood.97 Some middlemen also act as beneficiaries in five cases, where they withdraw for themselves. To these cases, we could add Masaki, who appears as a beneficiary on the 22nd (middleman Aei) and who (under the name of Masakin) withdraws wheat for Chemmin on the 23rd. Herakleia is not the only woman in these texts. The morphology of the name Tamenrou (and Tamodora?) denotes a woman, while Koko and Mouncha[] are also revealed as such thanks to the feminine anaphoric pronoun.98 Perhaps many more women are hidden behind these “Barbarian” names. The fact that at least two “middlemen” are women makes one wonder whether these women were not supposed to make bread with the wheat they had withdrawn. The scribe’s working method betrays a puzzling lack of a synthetic and systematic approach. When one middleman has to withdraw wheat for several beneficiaries, the scribe can write, even on the same day, as many vouchers as there are beneficiaries. But it also happens that the names of several beneficiaries are grouped on one voucher (the maximum number is ten). This seems to depend, not on the day, but on the middleman: on the 22nd, Herakleia is given ten vouchers with which she will withdraw for eleven beneficiaries (one voucher is in the name of two beneficiaries). On the same day, Emporet is given one voucher with the names of six (or more) beneficiaries. Only on the 23rd does the scribe use a shortcut: instead of enumerating the names of several beneficiaries, he writes ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνομ(άτων) ἐπιβαλλόντων αὐτῷ, “in the names of those who fall to him/are his responsibility.” But he proceeds so only for Iantatos and Serechem. On the same day, three vouchers are issued to Terpou, for three different beneficiaries. This would seem to confirm the idea that the occasional effort at synthesis depended on the middlemen. Iantatos also acts as middleman on the 22nd: two vouchers are given to him, one with one beneficiary, and the other with three. Fourteen persons are designated several times as beneficiaries, often on the same day, once on the same voucher.99 Even if it is on the same day, middlemen are almost always different.100 This seems to indicate that middlemen are not chosen by beneficiaries, but the latter are assigned to middlemen at random. Finally, the sum of distributed amounts is 901 matia, or 150 artabas and 1 mation, that is, around 5820 liters, which would have taken twenty-five camels to carry to Xeron.101 Evidently, this amount is 94. Aprianus, Atius, Aurelius, Berenicianus, Claudius, Cornelius, Petronius, and Turannius. 95. Epagathos, Dioskoros, Komaros, and maybe Megalos, Morous, and Leda (the latter, if her name is Greek, as it seems, is a woman). 96. Kouei, Pebo, Tamenrou, Τaphtaph, Τbοchini, and Chemmin. 97. Cf. Petronius the Barbaros, who repairs saqiya-pots in Koptos, above, p. 428. 98. In O.Blem. 85, Koko is allocated a second ration: ὑπ(ὲρ) τῆς αὐτ(ῆς) Κωκω. In O.Blem. 58, Mouncha[] is allowed to withdraw wheat ὑπ(ὲρ) ὀνό[μ(ατος)] αὐτ̣ῆς, “in her own name.” 99. This is the woman Koko in O.Blem. 85, see the previous footnote. 100. E.g., on the 22nd, Aprianus appears as beneficiary in three vouchers issued to three different middlemen: Bekrabie who must receive 5 matia for him, Godenat (5 matia), and Phada (3 matia). 101. In Egypt, the usual load for a camel is 6 artabas.

434

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

a minimum, since many other vouchers must have disappeared. Which exceptional circumstances led to this distribution? What special service had the Barbaroi rendered to the Roman garrisons? We shall probably never know.

The ethnicity of the third-century Barbaroi As we have seen, Baratit calls himself ὑποτύραννος of the Barbaroi. The word Barbaros is not a simple noun here (as it may have been in the second century ostraca), but serves as an ethnic. Could Baratit be a scion of the Barbaroi mentioned, along with the Ichthyophagoi, Agriophagoi, and Moschophagoi, in the Periplus Maris Erythraei? The Periplus situates all these peoples in the βαρβαρικὴ χώρα which extends south of Berenike.102 Βαρβαρικὴ χώρα is a generic phrase designating the territory of several peoples, but Barbaroi may refer to a specific people:103 they occupy the inner part of the βαρβαρικὴ χώρα, whereas the Ichthyophagoi are on the coast and the Agriophagoi and Moschophagoi are “after” (beyond?) the Barbaroi; these peoples are organized in τυραννίδες. However, the text as it stands does not prevent us from understanding Barbaroi in its usual meaning, that is, as an indefinite noun referring to a people, or to peoples, whose name the author does not know. The Periplus does not use the ethnics Arabes, Trogodytai, or Blemmyes. The date of the vouchers invites consideration of the possibility that the Barbaroi in the third-century ostraca were Blemmyes (who are alternatively called Barbaroi in later sources, as any hostile, “uncivilized” outsiders can be).104 Arguments in favor of this hypothesis are: (1) The fact that Blemmyes were active in Upper Egypt from the middle of the third century onwards (although the literary sources are not as reliable as one would wish). The earliest date is 249–251, if the fantastic account of the Chronicon Paschale, which records that Decius repelled Nubians and Blemmyes from Egypt with the help of snakes and hermaphrodites, is a distorted recollection of real events.105 Blemmyan activity is better documented c. 280, when, according to the Historia Augusta, but also Zosimus, Blemmyes, as allies of Ptolemais, seize Koptos.106 These events seem to be confirmed (although the reasons for the troop movements are not specified) by two papyri, P.Oxy. VIII 1115 and XII 1412. The first text contains the copy of a receipt delivered to two Oxyrhynchite ἐπιμεληταί107 for 38,496 [units] of bread which they have given to soldiers and sailors gathered in Panopolis. The original receipt had been issued on 11 January 281.108 The date of the second text is lost, but prosopographical evidence implies that it should be between 279 and 284.109 It is a notification to attend a special meeting of the council of Oxyrhynchos for an urgent matter: the upstream transportation of supplies for the soldiers. The direction of the supplies shows that they are intended for Upper Egypt. However, these events are some sixteen years later than the vouchers from Xeron.

102. Peripl.M.Rubr. 2. The Periplus is concerned only with the foreign countries encountered by sailors after leaving the Egyptian Red Sea ports, and therefore does not mention desert dwellers in Mons Berenicidis. 103. This is how Casson (1989a: 98) understands the text. 104. E.g., Priscus, fragment 27 Blockley (= FHN III 318); Procopius, Persian Wars 1.19.30, 33, 34, 36 = FHN III 328. 105. Chronicon Paschale, pp. 504–5 Dindorf. 106. Historia Augusta Probus 17.2–3 = FHN III 284; Zosimus 1.71.1 = FHN III 323. See discussion by Dijkstra 2008: 137 and Dijkstra 2012: 241. 107. In this context, superintendents responsible for the execution of public services. 108. F. Mitthof (2001: 382) is the first to relate this papyrus to Probus’s campaign against the Blemmyes. 109. Mitthof 2001: 374.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

435

(2) The fact that the title ὑποτύραννος in O.Did. 41 is otherwise known almost exclusively for Blemmyes: apart from the ostracon, it appears in the fifth-century historian Priscus, the Phonen letter (c. second half of fifth century) and three of the Gebelein documents (last quarter of the sixth century).110 According to these late texts, ὑποτύραννος is the lowest of three hierarchical degrees, the other two being βασιλεύς/βασιλίσκος and φύλαρχος/τύραννος. However, the argument that ὑποτύραννος refers to a specifically Blemmyan organization is not compelling, because τύραννος/τυραννίς are the usual words in Greek to designate nomadic tribes and their chiefs.111 (3) The rich anthroponymy of the Barbaroi betrays no Arabic influence. But similarities with known (much later) Blemmyan names are few: is this discrepancy a matter of time, or of dialectal difference?112 (4) The presence of Eastern Desert Ware, which is often associated with the Blemmyes, in late layers of the three praesidia where ostraca of Baratit’s dossier have been found.113 This typically handmade, burnished ceramic consists mainly of cups and bowls decorated with incised motifs. Eastern Desert Ware is found, always in small quantities, in fourth- to sixth-century contexts in the Nubian Nile Valley between the first and fifth cataracts, and in the Eastern Desert of northern Sudan and Upper Egypt, more precisely, Mons Berenicidis: before our work at the praesidia, it was attested on the coast (at Myos Hormos,114 Marsa Nakari, Berenike, and its hinterland), as well as in Biʾr Menih, Smaragdos, and the Byzantine gold mine of Wadi al-Fawakhir.115 Sherds found in stratigraphic layers at Smaragdos are dated by the archaeologists to the fourth to fifth or the fifth to sixth centuries, which corresponds to exploitation of Smaragdos by the Blemmyes as attested in literary sources from the very end of the fourth to the sixth centuries.116 However, because the period when Eastern Desert Ware was produced is much shorter than the one in which Blemmyes are mentioned in the textual sources and the sherds have been found in places where no Blemmyes are situated according to the texts, some scholars are hesitant to associate Eastern Desert Ware with the Blemmyes.117 (5) A final argument emerged with the excavations of the fort at Biʾr Samut (third century BC), which yielded Greek as well as Demotic ostraca.118 Some of these texts mention nomads who interact with the 110. Priscus, fragment 27 Blockley (= FHN III 318); SB XIV 11957.15 = FHN III 319; BKU III 350.13 = FHN III 331; SB III 6257.7 = FHN III 336; P.KölnÄgypt. 13.10 = FHN 339. For discussion of these attestations, see Dijkstra 2008: 166, Dijkstra 2014: 318. 111. Cf. in the area the τύραννος of the Triakontaschoinos instituted by Cornelius Gallus in 29 BC (I.Philae II 128 = FHN II 164), the organization in τυραννίδες of the peoples south of Berenike (Peripl.M.Rubr. 2), and the τύραννοι of both the Blemmyes and Noubades, to whom ὑποτύραννοι are subordinated, in Priscus, fragment 27 Blockley (= FHN III 318). 112. See Satzinger 2014, comparing the “Barbarian” names with the later Blemmyan ones. 113. J.-P. Brun dates these layers to the second quarter of the third century (personal communication). No sherd of Eastern Desert Ware was present in any Roman praesidium excavated by our team on the Myos Hormos road, probably because even the longer-lived among these (Maximianon, Qusur el-Banat) were abandoned before the time when Barbaroi came to fetch food rations. 114. In a late second- or third-century deposit (R. Tomber, personal communication), therefore roughly in the same period as in the praesidia of the Berenike road. 115. Barnard 2008: 1 (with location map Fig. 1.1). 116. Epiphanius, De XII gemmis 21 = FHN III 305; Olympiodorus, fragment 35.2 Blockley (= FHN III 309); Cosmas Indicopleustes (SChrét. 197, p. 353). In the latter passage, the Blemmyes exchange the precious stones with the Aksumites who export it, presumably from Adulis, to India. See Dijkstra 2008: 154–56, Dijkstra 2012: 244, and Dijkstra 2014: 313. 117. Barnard 2008: 104 (with references to earlier studies by the same author), 113, repeated in H. Barnard, “Introduction to Part 2: The Last 2500 Years,” in Barnard and Duistermaat (eds.) 2012: 175–88 at 180. Cf., however, Krzywinski 2012: 151–54, for an opposite view. 118. Three campaigns took place between 2013 and 2015, under the direction of Bérangère Redon and Thomas Faucher.

436

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Greek desert settlements. They are called Trogodytai in the Greek ostraca, and Blhm.w in the Demotic ones.119 And sherds of Ptolemaic Eastern Desert Ware were found there too.120 Since many clues point in the direction of a connection between the third-century Barbaroi of the Berenike road and Blemmyes, we should wonder why Baratit calls himself ὑποτύραννος of the Barbaroi, a pejorative term, and not “of the Blemmyes.” I would suggest that the ethnic “Blemmyan” may at that time not yet have achieved its semantic evolution, towards a general sense of Eastern Desert dweller of African descent. In Eratosthenes, followed by Strabo, who in turn is followed by Ptolemy, Βλέμμυς “Blemmyan” has a restrictive meaning and designates a nomadic people of the Nubian Eastern Desert, as distinct, for instance, from the Megabaroi. In sources from Late Antiquity, by contrast, Blemmyes are ubiquitous, while the other ethnics have vanished.121 It is difficult to decide whether this lexical standardization results from political conditions (the short-lived Blemmyan “kingdom” in the fourth–fifth centuries, which may have consisted of a confederation of tribes which had different names but pushed forward the ethnic Blemmyan), or from the nature of our sources (the changes that occurred in the Eastern Desert from the third century onwards were not recorded by scientific expeditions as in GraecoRoman times, a period of expansion and intellectual curiosity).122 In any case, Blemmyes has become by then a generic term for African nomads.123 Although he presumably spoke some sort of Old Bedauye, the ὑποτύραννος Baratit probably did not consider himself as a Blemmyan (either because he was not one in the old restrictive sense, or because Blemmyan had not imposed itself yet as a generic ethnic). And he did not insist on being called by his own ethnic, which would have been too complicated for his Roman partners. Both parties may have preferred to keep things simple and straightforward.

Conclusion In the Graeco-Roman period, the nomadic inhabitants of the Egyptian Eastern Desert originated from northern Arabia as well as from the Nubian Eastern Desert. The African origin of the Barbaroi in the third-century ostraca from Didymoi, Dios, and Xeron is well established thanks to their anthroponymy and their association with Eastern Desert Ware. Were the Barbaroi mentioned in the second-century ostraca also Africans? Probably, at least in Mons Berenicidis: the Barbaroi who raided travellers according to Trajanic ostraca are probably cousins of those Agriophagoi against whom the prefect Sulpicius Serenus led a Blitzkrieg, and whom the Periplus Maris Erythraei locates south of Berenike.124 In fact, if we accept the hypothesis that “pan graves” are related to the Medjay, and that the Medjay are the ancestors of the Blemmyes/Beja, it appears that African nomads have been roaming the Egyptian Eastern Desert quite far to the north since time immemorial.125 Did they progress as far as Mons Claudianus and Umm Balad? It can only be remarked that, roughly at this latitude,126 Pliny locates the Asaraei (variant spellings Abasaei, Asarri) and defines them as Arabes 119. Cuvigny (ed.) (forthcoming), esp. the chapter by M.-P. Chaufray, “Les Blemmyes dans le désert Oriental égyptien à l’époque ptolémaïque (O.Blem. 1–16).” 120. J. Gates-Foster, “New archaeological evidence for the indigenous peoples of the Eastern Desert in the Ptolemaic and Roman eras,” in Cuvigny (ed.) (forthcoming). 121. Dijkstra 2012: 239–40. 122. Cf. Dijkstra 2012: 246–47, who argues for the first option. 123. The earliest occurrence of the ethnic Blemmyan with the new, generic meaning is found in Panegyrici Latini 11.17.4 = FHN III 279 (dated to 291), therefore about half a century before the Blemmyan “kingdom.” 124. See above, p. 422. 125. Krzywinski 2012; J. Cooper, “Children of the Desert: The Indigenous Peoples of the Eastern Desert in the Pharaonic Period,” in Cuvigny (ed.) (forthcoming). 126. At some distance north of Myos Hormos.

Papyrological evidence on “Barbarians” in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

437

who have been made wilder by intermarriage with Trogodytae.127 This notation could reflect the fact that, in this region, Arabs from the Sinai and the northern Arabian Peninsula and African nomads had met (and stopped each other’s progress?).128 It also reflects an awareness, on the part of the ancient authors, that, although their idea of Arabes (and also of Trogodytai) was not clear, these people were ethnically different. This awareness is similarly shown by the fact that, in his praise of Cleopatra’s linguistic abilities, Plutarch distinguishes the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Trogodytic languages.129 In Plutarch’s text, Ethiopic must be Meroitic, and Trogodytic the ancestor of Beja/Bedauye.

127. Pliny, Nat. 6.168. 128. Today the ethnic border between African Ababda and Arab Maʿaza (who have come from the Arabian Peninsula in the eighteenth century) is the Quft-Quseir road. Power 2007: 202 observes that literary sources of the fourth to seventh centuries suggest that Arabs settled as far as the Wadi ʿAraba (which leads to St. Antony’s monastery), but archaeological finds (Byzantine huts, Eastern Desert Ware) compel him to also place the limit between Arabs and Blemmyes at the Quft-Quseir road. See also Power 2011: 338. 129. Plutarch, Life of Antony 27.4 = FHN III 218, on which see Desanges 1989: 428.

Chapter 28 Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns: the letters of Diourdanos to Archibios, curator Claudiani The Corfu colloquium on administrative documents in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire gave me the opportunity to return to the study of an ostracon from Mons Claudianus that I had intended to publish already long ago.1 It is part of a group of nine letters, all addressed by a certain Diourdanos to the curator of Claudianus, at that time a man named Archibios. I decided to publish the entire group in the written version of my paper, because even if the other letters are not as interesting as no. 4, some of them help to elucidate it. The dossier comes from the debris that filled room 1 of the insula Fort West I, up to the top of its walls. This room adjoined the hall of cisterns in the large fortified village of Mons Claudianus; its approximate date, c. 150, is based on prosopography: Archibios receives also a letter from Nepheros, curator of Tiberiane, who also wrote a letter to the tabularius Athenodoros, who is mentioned in two ostraca with precise dates to year 16 of Antoninus and which came from the same trench.2 Room 1 in fact seems to have been filled at least in part with trash from the office of the curatores (under Antoninus, Mons Claudianus was locally commanded by a curator and no longer a centurion as it had been in the time of Trajan and Hadrian).3 The author of the letters, Diourdanos, who has a common Dacian name,4 was in charge of the praesidium of Raïma, the last stop before Claudianus on the quarry road that started at Kaine on the Nile. Diourdanos never identifies himself as curator of Raïma, whether for the sake of

1. I thank the organizers, Professors George Souris, Elias Sverkos, and Rudolf Haensch, for having invited me to participate in it. Thanks also to Rodney Ast, who reread the manuscript of this chapter and helped me decide on several paleographical difficulties. 2. Inv. 7726 and perhaps O.Claud. III 556. 3. Chapter 15, pp. 238–40. 4. OnomThrac 386; Dana 2003: 176–77. Several men with this name appear in O.Claud.

439

440

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

brevity or because he did not have this title.5 All of his letters are in the same hand, an idiosyncratic cursive that may well be his own handwriting; the formula valedicendi does not in fact represent a change of hands but only a slight change of style. We may add that Diourdanos had an annoying mania for reusing sherds: several of his letters are palimpsests. 1 FWI – room 1, NE 9 Fig. 87

inv. 7297 11 × 7.2 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

Acknowledgement of receipt of a post bag sent from Mons Claudianus. Diourdanos specifies that he has forwarded it “having written an ostracon to Hermias.” Hermias was probably the curator of the station located lower down from Raïma; this may have been Kampe,6 which is mentioned in the next document. As to the ostracon for Hermias, it is probably the dispatch note that accompanied the post bag, in which Diourdanos will have noted, in the usual fashion, the number of letters, the identity of the carrier, and the hour at which he left Raïma.

Figure 87. 1. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↓

Διούρδανος Ἀρχιβίῳ τῷ τειμιωτάτῳ χαίριν. ἐκομισάμην ἐπιστολὰ⟨ς⟩ η̅ ζ̅ ὥρᾳ τῆς νυκτὸς διὰ ταβελλα̣ρίου σου καὶ εὐθέω⟨ς⟩ τῇ αὐτῇ̣ ὥρᾳ διεπεμψάμην γράψα[ς] καὶ Ἑρ̣μίᾳ ὄστρακον. vac. ἐρρῶσθαί σε εὔχομαι.

4

8 1 l. τι-

2 l. χαίρειν

5. Cf. 8.11–12n. 6. Chapter 1, p. 57.

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

441

“Diourdanos to his most esteemed Archibios, greetings. I received 8 letters at the 7th hour of the night from your messenger, and I sent them on right away at the same hour, after writing an ostracon for Hermias. “I wish you good health.” 3–4.

The 7th hour of the night corresponded to midnight in all seasons.

8.

The formula valedicendi is in a more nervous hand, but it was probably written by the same writer.

2 FWI – room 1, SE 12 Fig. 88

inv. 7595 6.4 × 5.1 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

Figure 88. 2. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

The number of letters proposed in the lacuna at left is based on the assumption that the left edge was approximately vertical. → 4

2 l. κουράτ]ορι

[Διούρ]δανος Ἀρχιβίῳ [κουράτ]ωρι Κλαυδιανοῦ [χαίριν.] εὐθέως σου λα[ ἔπ]εμψα ἰς Καμπὴ⟨ν⟩ []ν μετὰ τοῦ συσ[]των μον – – – – – – 3 σου: σ post corr.

442

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

“Diourdanos to Archibios, curator of Claudianus, [greetings]. As soon as I received (?) [. . .] from you, I sent [. . .] to Kampe with . . .” 3–4.

We would expect εὐθέως σου λαβὼν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, but the space in the lacuna does not allow this. Perhaps the last words were forgotten?

5–6.

It is probably necessary to restore συσ|τρατιώτου. Perhaps then μετὰ τοῦ συσ|[τρατιώτο]υ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τῶν μονο|[μαχῶν].

3 FWI – room 1, NE 10 Fig. 89

inv. 7469 11 × 8 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

Figure 89. 3. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

A fragment with the upper right part of a letter in the hand of Diourdanos. It concerns at least in part the transmission of official mail. The lacuna at left may perhaps be larger than the restoration of only the name of Διούρδανος in line 1 suggests. → 4

8 1 l. χαίρειν

[Διούρδανος Ἀρ]χιβίῳ κουράτορι χαίριν. ] ταβελλάριν ἔχω καὶ αὐτὲς ]του ἥκι ἐπιστολὰς ἔχω̣ν ὥστε ] μηκέτ̣ι ἰς Καινὴν καταβαίνιν διεπεμ?]ψάμην σοι μίαν ἑκάσ̣τ̣ῳ ]ε̣ π̣ερ̣ὶ̣ αὐτοῦ{του}· διὸ ἐκρα] τοὺς ἄρ̣τ̣ους αὐτοὺς̣ ὑ̣] μ̣έμψ̣ι̣ν γὰρ υκα̣ – – – – – – – – 2 l. ταβελλάριον, αὐτός 3 l. ἥκει ἔχων: ω ex ε corr.

4 l. εἰς, καταβαίνειν

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

443

“Diourdanos to Archibios, curator, greetings. I have [so-and-so (?) as (?)] messenger and … he has arrived with letters, so that … no longer to go down to Kaine … I have sent you one of them … This is why …” 2.

Does Diourdanos explain that he has no tabellarius available to him? Or that he has someone (with a personal name in the lacuna) as tabellarius?

5

μίαν. One letter?

6.

ἐκρα-. The lexical usages common in the ostraca from the praesidia suggest κράζειν or κρατεῖν (cf. O.Claud. I 157.2: ἐκρατήθην ὧδε, “I have been kept here”).

7.

ἄρ̣τ̣ους. ἄλλους is also possible.

8.

υκα. σ̣υκα or ο̣υκα.

4 FWI – room 1, NE 11 Fig. 90

inv. 7309 12 × 11 cm

Figure 90. 4. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

c. 150 alluvial clay

444

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

This ostracon echoes a minor episode that took place in the Dodekaschoinos, and in its content recalls the postal logs in which official letters were copied or summarized (see, for example, O.Krok. I 87 or the register of the curator Turbo found at Xeron).7 However, this is not a postal log but a letter, and even though it has characteristics of the transmission of mail, this letter is not a dispatch note. A hypothesis about the circumstances in which it was drawn up is offered in the commentary to l. 2. Palimpsest. ↗ 4

8

12

16 Passim l. εἰς l. Παρεμβολῆς ὑδρευομένους

Διούρδανος Ἀρχιβίῳ χαίρε̣ι̣ν. τὰ περιεχοντα̣ διπλωμαυ̣τα· ἰς τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ πρώτην ἐπιστολὴν γ̣ρ̣ά̣φι Σα̣τορ̣ν̣ῖ̣λ̣ος ὁ πρίνκιψ σὺ ἀσφαλῶς τὸ μέταλλον φυλάσιν καὶ ὑμεῖν τὰ πραισίδια· ἰ̣ς̣ τὴν ὑποκάτω ἐπιστολὴν γράφι Λονγῖνος Πρίσκος κουράτωρ πραισιδίου Π̣α̣ρ̣α̣μ̣βολὰ τῆς Δωδεκασχύνου ἰς τὴν ⸌⸍ ω̣ν τὸ πραισίδιν τῇ θ̅ τοῦ Φαρμουθι τεθ̣εωρακέναι ἰς τὴν ⸌Ἀραβίαν⸍ ἰς τὸ πέρα ε̅ βαρβά[ρ]ους καὶ δύω καμήλους ὑδρευωμένους παρὰ ποταμὸν καὶ περιπατοῦντες ἰς τὰ κάτω μέρη· διὸ ἔγραψε τῇ κάτω ῥίπᾳ α⟨ὐ⟩τοὺς φυλάσιν. ἐρ⟨ρ⟩ῶσθαί σε εὔχομ̣(αι). ἐρωτηθ[εὶς] ἵ̣να ὁ ἀσκ̣[ὸς ῥ]αφῇ.

3, 6 l. γράφει 4 l. σοί 5 l. -λάσσειν, ἡμῖν 6 l. γράφει 7–8 8 l. Δωδεκασχοίνου 9 l. πραισίδιον 11 [ρ]ους: υ post corr., l. δύο, 12 l. περιπατοῦντας 14 l. φυλάσσειν

“Diourdanos to Archibios, greetings. Here is (?) what the diplomata contain (?). In the first letter, Saturnilus (?), the princeps, writes to you to watch carefully over the security of the quarry, and to me, to take care of that of the praesidia. In the appended letter, Longinus Priscus, curator of the praesidium of Parambola in the Dodekaschoinos, writes that while … praesidium … on the 9th of Pharmouthi, he saw, on the west bank, on the other side (scil. of the Nile), 5 Barbarians and two camels watering themselves on the banks of the river and heading downstream. He consequently has written to the bank downstream to keep an eye on them. “I wish you good health. “Please see to having the water-skin sewn.” 1–2.

The first word of the under-text is quite legible between the lines: Διούρδανο̣ς̣. It was thus another letter from the same sender. But I have not managed to recognize Ἀρχιβίῳ in what follows.

2.

τὰ περιεχοντα̣ διπλωμαυ̣τα. Τὰ περιέχοντα̣ διπλώματ̣α̣ ⟨τα⟩ῦ̣τα or ⟨α⟩ὐτά? When its subject is a book or any written document, περιέχειν means “contain” and refers to the sub7. Chapter 17.

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

445

stance of the text. It always has a direct object (the content of the document), either in the accusative or through a complementary phrase, or else it is preceded by ὡς or by καθώς (“as [the document] indicates/stipulates”). Placed here between the article and the noun, it is not evident what it can mean. I have considered the possibility of an error for a passive participle: τὰ περιεχόμενα διπλώματα, “the circulars contained [or wrapped] in it”; in this case, περιέχειν would have a concrete meaning. A different hypothesis, however, offers a more interesting meaning. One could interpret τά as an article used with the meaning of a relative pronoun (Mayser, Grammatik II.1 [1926], pp. 58–60; Kühner – Gerth, Grammatik. Satzlehre I [1966], §460) and divide differently: τὰ περιε⟨ῖ⟩χον (l. περιεῖχε) τὰ διπλώματα, “what the circulars contained”; ⟨τα⟩ῦτα would then be the subject of the verb that is expected right afterward (ἐστι would suit the space but does not appear to fit the traces; οὕτως is not possible). Parallels for the absence of the augment in περιεχον, however, are rare and late: PSI I 50.14 (fourth–fifth cent.), παρε⟨ι⟩χόμην; P.Oxy. XVI 1867.13–14 (seventh cent.), ἐνε⟨ῖ⟩χεν. This hypothesis, which I thus offer with all reserves, would explain why Diourdanos made such an exact summary of the official correspondence: it had been lost or destroyed, perhaps as a result of an accident similar to that reported in P.Berl.Zill. 10.2–6, which Naïm Vanthieghem has pointed out to me: the author of this letter asks his correspondent to write back to him because his earlier letter, which got wet, has become completely unreadable. But did the διπλώματα circulate at a time of year when violent rainstorms could have taken place? The only mention of a month in the letters of Diourdanos is found precisely in the present ostracon: that is the date on which the curator of Parembole made his observations, Pharmouthi 9, that is, 3 April (Gregorian calendar). We may suppose that the diploma of the princeps was circulating on the road to Claudianus later in the same month. April is not notably rainy in the Eastern Desert, where precipitation falls mainly in winter. Maël Crépy (Laboratoire Archéorient, Lyon) has been so kind as to examine the possibility of rain in April. Among the references that he has pointed to, the thesis of Ahmed Hadidi is particularly illuminating (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299345563_Wadi_Bili_ Catchment_in_the_Eastern_Desert_Flash_Floods_Geological_Model_and_Hydrogeology); the author describes there (p. 22) the pattern of rainfall in the Eastern Desert and gives in fig. 2-1 a climate chart for Hurghada, according to which the precipitation measured in this city during the period 1971–2000 appears to have been even a bit more abundant in April than in December (Hurghada is a beach resort some sixty km to the northeast of Claudianus). For Crépy, the occurrence of a violent rainstorm in April in the region of Claudianus is therefore not at all impossible; the surrounding mountains are an additional favorable factor. At the end of the line, ἰς τὴν is probable (cf. line 5), but the four letters between ⟨τα⟩ῦ̣τα and ἰς τήν have resisted reading; the two last could be ις. 3.

γ̣ρ̣ά̣φι. There is room for one letter between phi and iota and traces are visible, but as they do not correspond to epsilon, I think they belong to the underlying text. Σα̣τορ̣ν̣ῖ̣λ̣ος. This is the reading best suited to the space, but it is paleographically doubtful. Σε̣ρ̣τορι̣α̣ν̣{1–2}ός, which I considered first, is still more problematic.

4.

πρίνκιψ. The title princeps is very rare in the ostraca from the praesidia. At Mons Claudianus, moreover, it appears only in another letter of Diourdanos (8). In the other Roman sites of the Eastern Desert, it is attested only in a badly damaged fragmentary letter from Krokodilo (O.Krok. inv. 59: ]ν τῷ̣ πρίνκιπι |[---] σ̣υντέτευχε) and in an ostracon from Xeron, a short account of barley,

446

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert wheat, and bread, in the name of a princeps named Σωλᾶς (O.Xer. inv. 747); this name (not previously attested) also appears on two amphora necks from the same site. These three documents can be dated by the stratigraphy to the beginning of the second century, which also agrees with the date of the ostracon of Krokodilo (end of the reign of Trajan or beginning of the reign of Hadrian). The princeps mentioned by Diourdanos is thus later. On this title, see particularly Speidel 1981. Despite some cases in which princeps serves to specify the rank of a subordinate officer (princeps optio, princeps signifer), this title is habitually attached to centurions in various circumstances, in which it represents the abbreviation of a longer title. Except when princeps refers to the title of a centurion in a legionary cohort other than the prima (princeps prior, princeps posterior), it concerns high-ranking centurions, seconded to particular functions, especially of an administrative character: princeps of the officium of the provincial governor, princeps at the head of the administration in a statutory unit or a detachment (princeps vexillationis). In my view, we are dealing with this last use of princeps in the ostracon. Indeed, we know that in this period when the metallon was under the local command of a curator metalli, also known as curator praesidii Claudiani, a centurion exercised a high authority over Claudianus and apparently also over Porphyrites (see Chapter 15, pp. 239–40). Speidel, however, does not exclude the possibility that some principales (and so some sesquiplicarii and duplicarii) may be named at the head of detachments with the title of princeps (1981: 13).

7–8.

Π̣α̣ρ̣α̣μ̣-|βολά. The initial π is formed the same way as the same letter in πρώτην in line 3. In this toponym, derived from the term παρεμβολή (“military camp”), we recognize the Parembole of the Antonine Itinerary, which is located in the Dodekaschoinos, 16 miles south of Contra Suene, a place not otherwise attested and so far not identified on the ground. The name Contra Suene indicates, at any rate, that it was located on the bank opposite Syene, thus on the west bank of the Nile; consequently, so also was Παρεμβολή. That agrees with line 10 of the ostracon: the curator of this praesidium noticed Beduins on the other side (i.e., of the river: ἰς τὸ πέρα), thus on the east bank (Ἀραβία). On the Parembole of the Dodekaschoinos, see O.Krok. I, pp. 139–41. It is probably mentioned in O.Krok. Ι 87 (118); at that date, the fort seems to have been under the command of a centurion of the cohors II Ituraeorum, one of the three units of the garrison of Syene-Elephantine-Philae, rather than under a curator. The spelling παραμβολή is attested in several papyri of the imperial period (and in O.Claud. inv. 3864); the ending -α, unique to this ostracon, is a Latinism.

9.

ω̣ν τὸ πραισίδιν. Do the first two letters represent a participial ending? I have not been able to read λιπών or λείπων (the only transitive verb used with πραισίδιον in the desert ostraca). Then πραισίδιν can refer to either the fort or to the men of the garrison.

16.

ἐρωτηθ[είς]. P.Hombert II 41 is another desert letter written by a soldier in which the formula valedicendi is followed by a post scriptum beginning with ἐρωτηθείς. The small letter after ι̣να, if it is complete, is an omicron (the betas of this hand are large); one might also think of the head of a rho of which the descender has been effaced, but the ink seems well preserved in this place. After ἐρωτηθείς, one normally expects an imperative, but in some cases, we find instead a final clause introduced by ἵνα (O.Krok. I 76.2) or ὅπως (O.Claud. II 386.6–7).

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

Figure 91. After TAVO B V 21. © Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden; reprinted by permission

447

448 17.

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert [ῥ]αφῇ. A restoration by Jean Gascou. Along with the present letter, the messenger may have been carrying a water-skin to be repaired at Mons Claudianus. The sewing of water-skins, particularly waterproof joints and reinforcing pieces, was a specialist’s work; one can readily see the results in the numerous fragments that have been found, because it is precisely the sewn pieces that have been preserved. The O.Claud. have yielded several witnesses to the fragility of waterskins (e.g., O.Claud. I 128 and 129, cf. Daniel 1994).

The ripa of Dodekaschoinos (Fig. 91) After noticing, from the left bank of the Nile, a small group of Beduins on the opposite, Longinus Priscus decided to write to the opposite bank α⟨υ⟩τοὺς φυλάσ⟨σε⟩ιν. But which of the two banks of the Nile is in question? The east bank, the Arabian one, where the Beduins are moving northward, or that on which the curator was located? On this question depends the breathing to be placed on α⟨υ⟩τούς and the meaning to be given to φυλάσσειν. If it is in fact a question of the east bank, the message of Longinus Priscus is intended to warn the soldiers stationed on this bank about the imminent passage of a group of Beduins, from whom they should protect themselves (α⟨ὑ⟩τοὺς φυλάσιν), φυλάσσειν in this case having the same meaning (“protect”) as in the letter of the princeps (ll. 4–5). If, on the other hand, the west bank is meant, and the message is addressed to some soldiers who will in turn observe the movement of the Beduins, φυλάσσειν would then mean “watch” the Barbarians (α⟨ὐ⟩τούς). This direct borrowing of the Latin ripa was not found previously in the Egyptian documentation. The expression κάτω ῥίπα brings to mind the idea of ripa superior et inferior of the Euphrates, known from the title of the curator ripae superioris et inferioris, which appears in the cursus inscription of the legionary centurion Caelesticus at Palmyra.8 Ripa, in its strategic sense, is to be understood not as the bank of a river, but as a militarized frontier zone on the edges of the Roman Empire, separated from foreign territory by the river, which constitutes a natural border. In the ostracon, the expression “write to the ripa” shows that the term can refer only to the military disposition, made up of a line of forts and observation posts, along with the men located in them. Even if there may have been some bastions or bridgeheads on the opposite bank to allow penetrating operations, a ripa in this sense is established only on one bank, the one that is separated from enemy territory by the watercourse.9 In Diourdanos’s letter, ἡ κάτω ῥίπα can therefore only be the military detachment posted on the west bank north of Parembole. It must have been small; Parembole was, according to the Antonine Itinerary, only 23.6 km from Contra Suene, and there was no fort between them. This supposes, then, that surveillance was carried out by other observation posts unknown to us: a praesidium, like the Patkoua mentioned in O.Krok. I 87, which seems to have been a satellite of Parembole?10 Or simply a surveillance line made up of small square towers, like those characteristic of the Eastern Desert and perhaps referred to as σκόπελοι, the presence of which has also been noted in Lower Nubia?11 In fact, apart from Qasr Ibrim, which lies beyond the Dodekaschoinos, all of the Roman forts of Lower Nubia were located on the west bank of the Nile. On the right bank, the Antonine Itinerary men8. IGLS XVII 207 and 208. Cf. H. Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes,” Syria 22 (1941) 237 f.; Kh. Asʿad and Chr. Delplace, “Inscriptions latines de Palmyre,” REA 104 (2002) 383–85, nos. 14 and 15; p. 385 for the centurion’s period of activity (72–123). 9. Cf. Trousset 1992 and Trousset 1993. 10. However, the attack on Patkoua by sixty Barbarians narrated in O.Krok. I 87 is difficult to explain if Patkoua was located on the west bank. 11. “A series of watchtowers protected the great temples of Dendūr and Talmis” (Speidel 1988: 262).

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

449

tions only a few place-names, which M. P. Speidel calls “bridgeheads”:12 Contra Tafis, Contra Talmis, and Contra Pselchis. Their presence is justified by B.  R. Trigger as follows: Contra Tafis and Contra Talmis control the two ends of the gorge of Kalabsha,13 and Contra Pselchis controls the entrance of the Wadi ʿAllaqi, the route by which the Blemmyes penetrated into the valley of the Nile.14 The existence of a military organization of the ripa type in the Dodekaschoinos is probably to be explained by the danger that the Blemmyes of the Eastern Desert (called Barbarians by the Romans in the ostraca of the second and third centuries, see Chapter 27) represented, as Trigger already observed in 1965 with respect to the placement of the forts: “Since the arable land north of Koshtemna is found in small pockets on both sides of the river, this preference for the west bank does not reflect environmental limitations. But whereas the Western Desert was virtually uninhabited, the nomads of the Eastern desert were undoubtedly troublesome, especially as they began to acquire the camel and adapt more completely to desert life.”15 Speidel was of the same opinion: “In turreted and bastioned mud-brick forts, all on the West bank of the river with bridgeheads across – a precaution probably against surprise attacks by the Nomads of the Eastern Desert – a Roman garrison held the northern part of that country.”16 The ostracon of Diourdanos confirms this interpretation in a striking manner: not only does it put a name on this organization, but it describes how the alarm was sounded on the ripa. This polarization of the west bank was not a Roman innovation. Although the territory of the Dodekaschoinos extends along both banks of the Nile,17 almost all of the Egyptian temples of the Dodekaschoinos, which date from the Ptolemaic period but have sometimes been built on older structures, are also located on the west bank. Only two (now destroyed) Ptolemaic temples are known on the Arabian bank: Sahdab (across from Kertassi) and Ajuala (also known as Abu Hor).18 Dedicated to Mandoulis, a divinity popular among the Blemmyes, the little temple of Ajuala may have been built to discourage this population from crossing the Nile to worship their god at Talmis.19 We should note that κάτω (l. 13), which is to be understood in relation to the location of the curator,20 does not have in this case the same meaning as in the Palmyrene inscriptions, in which superior and inferior refer to a permanent spatial division, defined by the frontier between the Roman province of Syria and the kingdom of Commagene, conquered in 72. The ripa of the Nubian Nile is a military defense line, intended to protect the inhabited zones of the left bank against river crossings by the Barbarians21 and to allow observation of the movements of the latter. But it was not a political frontier.22 We do not know when this arrangement was created: after the 12. Speidel 1988: 768. 13. Trigger 1965: 14. I thank David N. Edwards for this reference. 14. The gold mines to which Wadi ʿAllaqi led had been exploited by the Egyptians in the New Kingdom, but they were no longer in use in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, particularly because of the Blemmyes (Klemm, Klemm, and Murr 2001, esp. 654–56). 15. Trigger 1965: 127. 16. Speidel 1988: 768. 17. The Ptolemies gave the goddess Isis of Philae “12 schoinia of Takompso (= Hiera Sykaminos) at Syene on the west bank and 12 schoinia on the east bank, a total of 24 schoinia” (a decree of Ptolemy VI, dated to 157 BC, and renewing grants made by Ptolemy II: Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, IV 27/b, cf. Török 2009: 400). 18. Porter and Moss VII (1951) 39. At Ajuala, a terrace was constructed in the reign of Augustus (Török 2009: 452). A proskynema inscribed by a priest who had come from Talmis refers to the god with the periphrasis τὸν κύριον Παπτούλεως, “the lord of Paptoulis,” which suggests that the ancient name of Ajuala was Paptoulis (SB I 3921 [TM 98456]). 19. An idea put forward by Ugo Monneret de Villard, La Nubia Romana (1941) 17. 20. This thus has nothing to do with a κάτω τόπος that one would infer from the ἄνω τόπος τῆς (Δωδεκα)σχοίνου mentioned in an ostracon from Pselchis (SB III 6953.2 [second–third cent.]). 21. In the Dodekaschoinos, this crossing was free of risk in the period of low water (Trigger 1965: 10). 22. On the difference between the two, see Th. Mommsen, Le Droit public romain (Manuel des antiquités romaines VI.2, Paris 1889) 462 f.

450

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

treaty of Samos concluded between Augustus and a Meroitic embassy in 21–20 BC, which settled the (poorly known) status of the Roman Dodekaschoinos?23 Or later, when the Barbarians of the Eastern Desert became aggressive—a development visible in the Desert of Berenike24 through the construction of praesidia starting in the reign of Vespasian?25 After observing the group of Barbarians, Longinus Priscus ordered the soldiers stationed downriver from Parembole to follow their progress, then drew up a report on his observations, including a note on the instructions that he had given. His report was apparently intended for the general area of Syene. From there, the report was disseminated along the valley and on the desert roads. It reached the princeps (stationed at Kaine?) and from there the praesidium of Raïma. For reasons we do not know, it did not reach Mons Claudianus; this made it necessary for Diourdanos to make a summary of it for Archibios. The report of Longinus Priscus recalls O.Did. 46 (start of the third century), in which the curator of Didymoi writes to that of Phoinikon, the last station before Koptos, where the prefect of the Desert of Berenike resided:26 “I inform you that 4 Barbarians, three children, 9 camels, and 4 donkeys have come down, so that you may let the prefect know about this (…) they left on the 18th.” The two documents show in action the use of Roman frontier posts as “listening posts.”27 The tiniest movements of the enemy were observed and signaled, the reports collected and analyzed for the long term. If it is not so surprising to find the observations of the curator of Didymoi being transmitted up to the prefect of the desert, or the announcement of the attack by 60 Barbarians on a praesidium of the Dodekaschoinos passed on along the roads of the Desert of Berenike (O.Krok. I 87), the transmission of the report of Longinus Priscus to the sites of the road to Claudianus, which are very distant from Parembole,28 is more astonishing. It does not conform to the procedures of military information described by Austin and Rankov, readily shown in the following diagram (Fig. 92):

Figure 92. The intelligence cycle. After Austin and Rankov 1995: 8. 23. Str. 17.1.54. 24. The Desert of Berenike (Mons Berenicidis) is the southern zone of the Egyptian Eastern Desert (Chapter 1, p. 10). Mons Claudianus was not part of it. 25. Insofar as the decision to build the praesidia was the direct result of attacks by the Barbarians (and not, for example, of a desire to control smuggling better or to make more wells available to caravans). The attacks of Barbarians in the Desert of Berenike are documented in the texts only starting with the reign of Trajan (O.Krok. I 6; 47; 51). 26. The writer seems to have reversed the cases in the heading. 27. Austin and Rankov 1995: 9. 28. From Syene to Kaine by river is about 280 km.

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

451

Figure 93. 5. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Such partial scraps of information would normally go up the chain of command to be compared with others and analyzed; it is not evident what use there would be in retransmitting such a report in its raw form so far from the place where the observation was made. It is difficult to decide if the Roman army acted in a fashion less efficient than modern armies, disseminating partial and unfiltered information, or if the diffusion as far as Claudianus of the observations of Longinus Priscus was the result of excessive zeal or of a tense moment.

452

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

5 FWI – room 1, NW 10 Fig. 93

inv. 7436 13 × 14.2 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

A letter of recommendation. Palimpsest. → 4

8

12 1 l. τιμιωτάτῳ 7 l. ἐὰν χρείαν

m.2

Διούρδανος Ἀρχιβίῳ τῷ τειμιωτάτῳ πολλὰ χαίριν. Περαγ̣ωνον διεπεμψάμην ἀντὶ Νουμίου διὰ χερὲς ἔχε· εὔχρηστος ἔσει κατὰ πάντα καὶ φιλάμθρωπος καὶ ἤ τινος καὶ σὺ αἰὰν χρέαν̣ ἔχ̣ῃ̣ς, ὡς ἐξουσίαν μου ἔχων πέμψον καὶ ἥδιστα πυήσω. Δέξαι παρ’ αὐτοῦ (δραχμὰς) δ̅ ἰς τὸ ⟨ὀ⟩λίγον ν̣α β̣τος καὶ ἄλλας (δραχμὰς) ι̅· προσεφώνησε̣ν̣ ρυγχης αἰὰν μὴ ᾖ γ̣’ εὐπιθὴς εὐθέως συ Ἀν̣τᾶ̣ν διαπ̣έ̣μ̣ψ̣ω̣ 2–4 ἐρ⟨ρ⟩ῶσ(θαι).

3 l. χαίρειν, Πελάγωνα ὅν? 8 l. ποιήσω 9 ̅δ̅ 10 ̅ι̅

4 l. Νουμμίου, χειρός 6 l. φιλάνθρωπος, εἴ τινος 11 l. ἐάν, εὐπειθὴς 12 σοι

“Diourdanos to his most esteemed Archibios, warm greetings. Take care of Pelagon (?), whom I am sending in place of Nummius. You will show yourself of service and kindly toward him in everything, and if you yourself have need of anything, consider that I can refuse you nothing, and send me a word; I will do it with the greatest pleasure. Receive from his hands 4 drachmas for the little chouïa of …, as well as 10 drachmas. Harynches (?) stated, ‘if he (?) is not satisfied (? or docile), I will send you Antas (?) right away …’ Be well.” 3.

περαγ̣ωνον. After the heading, letters of recommendation often start with the name of the person recommended. We certainly need to read the name of a person here. The most natural reading would be Περατωνον. One gains nothing by supposing a deformation of Παραιτόνιον (which is in any case unknown as a personal name). Since in this hand gamma sometimes presents extra ink toward the left (for example, in l. 9 of this ostracon, we may—allowing for a rhotacism—be dealing with the name Πελάγων, which Bechtel (HP 576) classifies among personal names derived from heroes. Νουμίου: This Nummius is not otherwise attested in O.Claud.

4–5.

διὰ χερὲς ἔχε. Διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν has various meanings according to context (LSJ II.6.c). When the object is an amount of money, the meaning is “to receive from hand to hand” (i.e., in cash, as opposed to a bank transfer); in other contexts it means to hold an object in the hand or in one’s arms (Sophocles, Antigone 1258: Creon carries in his arms the body of his son, διὰ χειρὸς ἔχων), or to have something in hand, i.e., under control (a weighty object that one is keeping: Th. 2.76; the πολιτεία: Aristotle, Politica 1308a.27 Bekker). The object is rarely a person. An

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

453

example of the construction διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν τινά appears in Ar., Vesp. 597, where Philocleon says, with respect to Cleon, μόνον ἡμᾶς οὐ περιτρώγει, ἀλλὰ φυλάττει διὰ χειρὸς ἔχων καὶ τὰς μυίας ἀπάμυνει (“it’s only on us that he doesn’t bite; he’s keeping us, rather, holding us in his arms and chasing away the flies,” rendering the translation of Van Daele, CUF). This translation does not give a clear idea of the ambiguity in Philocleon’s reply, which can be understood at the same time as praise of Cleon in the mouth of his partisan, and as a warning by Aristophanes himself: φυλάττειν, like διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν, has a double meaning; it can mean “protect,” but also “keep under guard”; διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν can express a protective movement but also control (“he has us well in hand”), cf. D. M. Macdowell, comm. ad Vesp. 597, OCT. Was there a sense of control also in the present instance? The ending might suggest this, but I think that we should reject this idea, which does not appear in other Egyptian letters of recommendation where the expression appears: P.Mich.Michael. 23.8 (51 or 57); O.Claud. I 158.5–6 (with the correction at O.Claud. II, p. 278 = BL XI, 125): ἵνα σε διὰ χερὸς ἔχῃ εἰς ὃ θέλεις, καὶ σὺ αὐτῷ εὔχρηστος γενοῦ ἰς ὃ θέλει, “(I’ve asked Valentinus) to help you in everything you want, and you too, receive his wishes kindly.” In P.Giss. 80.9 (= P.Giss.Apoll. 17) (113–120), a private letter the author of which transmits to his correspondent the request of a mother who is recommending her son to a teacher, the idea of control would not be impossible. The expression ἔχειν τὰ ὑπομνήματα διὰ χερός, which appears among the duties of an oikonomos in P.Tebt. III 703.277–278 (c. 210 BC) is more difficult to translate, because ὑπομνήματα can refer either to the instructions of the dioiketes to the oikonomos (“follow instructions carefully”) or to the document in which these instructions were written (“don’t be without your memorandum”). In letters of recommendation, one wonders if there is not all the same the notion of “hold by the hand,” an image undeniably present in C.Pap.Jud. I 141.5–6 (first cent. BC): χιλαγώγησον [αὐτ]όν, ἐν οἷς ἐὰν χρήζῃ (l. χειραγώγησον). Χειραγωγεῖν presents the same possibility of ambivalence as διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν does, as the verb means “guide while holding by the hand,” but also “lead by the end of the nose, make a fuss over.” 7.

ἐξουσίαν μου. An objective genitive (“as if you had complete power over me”). The examples where this genitive refers to a person are not numerous. Cf. P.Brem. 22.3–4 (second cent.), ἐγὼ δὲ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: the author of the letter boasts of having obtained from the seller a discount of 2 drachmas because he has power over him (more colloquially, “because he can’t refuse me anything”); P.Mil.Vogl. IV 229.19 (140), ἐξουσίαν ἔχων τῆς θυγατρός, “having paternal power [potestas] over my daughter”; P.Rain.Cent. 161.33–25 (fifth cent.), a double construction with an objective genitive of person and infinitive (i.e., power over someone + to do something).

9–10.

Apparently, a noun in the genitive that I have not been able to identify. Cf. P.Kellis Ι 74.9– 10: πέμψον μοι τὸ ὀλίγον πορφύρας.

10–12. It is not certain that this last sentence concerns the 10 drachmas; it could concern some entirely different matter. 11.

ρυγχης. I see no solution other than a personal name (ῥυγχῆσαι ἄν is a dead end). Rodney Ast has drawn my attention to the possible presence of a letter before ρ, proposing to read a form of the name Ἅρυγχις, which appears in three Theban ostraca of the second century. In

454

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert fact, on the card with the transcription made in 1992 from the original, I noted that a flake had fallen off before the ρ, but that there was a dot of ink from the vanished letter. εὐπιθής. See O.Krok. I 95.7–8n. ᾖ γ̣’. ᾖς̣ is less satisfactory from a paleographic point of view.

Figure 94. 6. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

6 FWI – room 1, HS Fig. 94

inv. 8087 4 × 3.8 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

The upper left corner of a letter of Diourdanos. It may have been written by the same hand as the rest of the dossier, but with more care. It probably comes from a dispatch letter. ↓ 4

Διούρδα[νος Ἀρχιβίῳ τῷ τι-] μιωτάτ[ῳ (πολλὰ) χαίριν. εὖ?] πυήση[ς κομισάμενος?] παρὰ το[ῦ ][ – – – – –

3 l. ποιήσει[ς 7–9. Not a drop of water for the wagon 7 FWI – room 1, NW 5 Fig. 95

inv. 7537 10.2 × 12.7 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

The names of the author and addressee of this letter, in which one recognizes the hand of Diourdanos, are in a lacuna, but their identity is not in much doubt. Diourdanos informs us that there are four shadufs at Raïma. Rather than tiered shadufs, which would allow water to be brought up from a considerable depth and thus would suppose a complex system of cisterns placed at different elevations, we should imagine a well with a large enough opening to accommodate four devices placed around its perimeter.

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

455

Figure 95. 7. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↘ 4

8

12

16

20

[Διούρδανος Ἀρχιβίῳ] κουράτορι Κλαυ[διανοῦ χαίριν. Μή μ]ε̣ μέμψῃ, ἄδελφε, [ c. 10 ἐπι]τρόπῳ ὅ̣τι οὐ θέλου[σι c. 10 ]α̣ι̣ ἰς Ῥαϊμα ἐλθεῖν [ c. 5 Κλαυδι]ανόν· ἤθελον καὶ ο̣υ̣ [ c. 8 κε]κλήρωμαι ἕως μεθ’ ὑγίας [ c. 6 ἀλλ]α̣σώμεθα ἰς τὰ σίγνα [ c. 8 ] γὰρ καὶ Διγνιτα καὶ [ c.7 ]φ̣ιαρις καὶ χρυσην̣ [ c. 6 ]ο̣υ̣ς γράφι ὁ ἐπίτροπος εἶναι. [3-4] ἄδελφε, γείνωσκε ὅτι στ̣ρ[άγξ] ὕδατος ἰς τὸ λάκκον οὐχ ὑπά[ρχι?] • δ̅ γὰρ κηλώνηα ⟨ἀ⟩ντλῖ καὶ δήκεπτες ἡ ἅμαξα γείνετ̣αι · οἱ γὰρ̣ ωλλ̣υο̣υ̣ μ̣ο̣ν̣ο̣μ̣ά̣χα̣ι̣ δ̅ υ̣ρ̣ ις̣ νωθρεύετ̣α̣[ι]. λ̣έγ̣ο̣υσ̣ι̣ν̣ · “ο̣ὐ̣κ ἀντλοῦμεν εἰ μὴ̣ ὁ̣ ἐ̣π̣ί̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣π̣ο̣ς̣ ἡ̣μ̣ῖ̣ν̣ γράφ̣ῃ ο̣υ̣ς ἀντλι1–3 κ̣α̣ι̣μ̣η̣α κεκληρωμένο1–2.” ἔδει βοηθητῆναι τὸ ἔργον Καίσαρος. ἐρρῶσσ̣θαί σε.

4 l. εἰς ραϊμα 6 l. ὑγιείας 7 l. ἀλλ]ασσώμεθα εἰς 10 l. γράφει 11 l. γίνωσκε 12 l. εἰς 13 l. κηλώνεια ἀντλεῖ 13–14 l. δηκέπτα, γίνεται 17 τ ex θ corr. 20 l. βοηθηθῆναι

456

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

(Lines 1–7) “[Diourdanos to Archibios], curator of Claudianus, greetings. Don’t reproach me, comrade, (for having written ?) to the procurator that [the monomachai (?)] don’t want to come to Raïma [but to stay (?)] at Claudianus. I (?) wanted (?) also […] I have been selected for, with heaven’s aid, […] we may be transferred to the standards […] (Lines 11–14) “Know, brother, that there is not a drop of water in the cistern. 4 shadufs draw (water), and the wagon is caught unprepared! Indeed, the 4 monomachai sent by (?) …, … is suffering. They say: ‘We do not draw, unless the procurator writes to us that/about …’ It was indeed necessary to bring help for the work of Caesar. Good health to you.” 3.

ὅτι γράφω τῶι (cf. 8.5) suits precisely the estimated length of the lacuna.

3–4.

θέλου-|[σι]. Cf. 8.8. The subject of this verb is probably to be found in the lacuna in line 4: οἱ μονομάχαι, φαμιλιάριοι, ἄνθρωποι, ἀντληταί? Line 15 leads me to prefer the first of these options.

5.

[ἀλλὰ ἰς Κλαυδι]ανὸν ⟨μένειν⟩? Cf. 8.9–10. Unless ἤθελον is a third person plural with the same subject as θέλου-[σι].

7.

ἰς τὰ σίγνα. Literally, “under the standards.” This is the oldest occurrence of this expression in the papyri, the others being P.Haun. III 52.6–7 (sixth–seventh cent.) and P.Abinn. 6.12 and 16 (c. 346); in the last of these texts, it is a matter of hunting nets stored εἰς τὰ σίγνα. In the present case, I think that the expression means, by metonymy, “to the camp,” where the chapel with the standards is located, in opposition to the praesidia in which the soldiers are detached. The editors of P.Abinn. 6 glossed “the regimental headquarters” (comm. ad 12). This could also be a metonymy for “the camp” and not necessarily the principia.

8.

Διγνιτα. The name appears in this spelling in O.Claud. II 349, a list of four watches. There it is in the nominative, a borrowing from the uncommon Latin cognomen Dignitas. At Claudianus, the consonant declension has been turned into the first declension. Like practically all of the cognomina based on feminine nouns referring to abstractions, Dignitas is normally a woman’s name (cf. Kajanto 1965: 97 ff., citing as example Felicitas, a name borne by one man and 458 women; Pax and Pietas, which are mostly men’s names, are exceptions). Kajanto knows Dignitas only as a feminine name (1965: 280), and the database EDCS has no certain examples in which it is a man’s name.

9.

]φια̣ρις. γρ]ά̣φι Ἄρ̣ρις? Χρυση. A personal name? In that case, we must punctuate after δ̅.

11.

[3–4] ἄδελφε. [λοιπό]ν̣ ἄδελφε? Cf. O.Did. 317.6.

12–13. ὑπά-|[ρχι]. [ρχει] would be too long, but more satisfactory for the sense than ὑπά-|[γει]. 13.

κηλώνηα. Two other ostraca refer to the presence of shadufs (κηλώνια, κήλωνες) at Raïma (inv. 2238, 8981).

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

457

13–14. δή-|κεπτες. Cf. O.Claud. inv. 7558, a fragment of a letter coming from the same trench, but originating from Apolinaris, curator of Tiberiane, who describes a similar situation (a mention of a “drop of water,” then δήκεπτοι γεγόναμεν). This is the perfect passive participle of decipio (“take by surprise, deceive,” and, in this context, “be deceived in one’s expectation”). This borrowing from Latin seems to have become specialized in the desert jargon to express the distress of travelers arriving at a stopping place that they were counting on for water for themselves and their animals, and discovering dry cisterns. Four shadufs draw and the wagon is caught unprepared: seemingly contradictory statements. Perhaps Diourdanos is intending to say that while there are four shadufs to draw water, they are useless without personnel to operate them. 15.

ωλλ̣υο̣υ. Perhaps π̣α̣ρ̣ωλλ̣υο̣υ (παρ’ Ωλλ̣υο̣υ? But no such personal name is known). It is impossible to recognize a form, even defective, of the verb ἀπόλλυμι.

15–16. υ̣ρ-|ις. Personal name? 16.

νωθρεύετ̣α̣[ι]. Νωθρεύειν (“to be indisposed”) is sometimes used in the middle in the papyri: cf. P.Freib. IV 56.2–3 (first–second cent.). What is the subject of this present form? A personal name υ̣ρ-|ις (ll. 15–16)? Or only ἷς (“one man is suffering”)? Οἱ … μονομάχαι needs a verb in the plural: λέγουσι, to be sure, but what do we make of the singular νωθρεύετ̣α̣[ι]? In line 15, after δ̅, it is possible to read neither ὧν nor εἰσι.

18.

ἀντλι1–3: ἀντλῖν (ἀντλεῖν)? ἀντλία̣ι̣⸌ς⸍?

19.

ἢ καὶ μή? The following letter is ρ or π. κεκληρωμένος, -μένου, -μένου⸌ς⸍?

20–21. τὸ ἔργον Καίσαρος. This intrusion of wooden official language suggests that we are dealing here with a calque of a Latin expression, opus Caesaris. In this context, it probably means the extraction and/or transportation of monoliths, rather than the monument for which they were intended. I do not think that this final remark is connected with the comments of the μονομάχαι. Diourdanos is hiding behind his loyalty to the emperor to justify himself for having indirectly accused Archibios.

458

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 96. 8. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

8 FWI – room 1, NE 6 Fig. 96 Palimpsest. ↓ 4

8

12

16 4 l. στράγγα

8, 9 l. εἰς

inv. 7810 8.5 × 10.5 cm

– – – – – – – – ]κα[ ]δε[ [ 4–5 ]υσιν ειν̣[ [(ἡ) ἅμα]ξ̣α στράνγα ὕδ[ατος [ὅτ?]ι̣ ἐ̣γ̣ὼ γράφω τῷ ἐπ̣[ιτρόπῳ καὶ?] τῷ πρίνκιπι ἵνα μ̣[] ἔχω ἐγώ, ἄδελφε, γ̣ρ̣[] ὅτι οὐ θέλουσιν ἰς Ῥα[ϊμα] ἐλθεῖν ἀλλὰ ἰς Κλαυδι̣ανὲν μένιν • οὐ γὰρ οὕτω ἔμ̣α̣θ̣ον κατ̣ὰ̣ π̣ρινκιπ̣αρίου μου γράφιν ὅτ̣ι̣ σ̣ὺ α̣ὐ̣τοὺς ς̣. ἐρ⟨ρ⟩ῶσθαί σε εὔχ(ομαι). 10 l. -ανὸν μένειν

12 l. γράφειν

c. 150 alluvial clay

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

459

“… (do not reproach me because (?)) I write myself to the procurator and to the princeps so that (they may help me (?)). It is very necessary (?) for me to write that they do not wish to come to Raïma, but to stay at Claudianus. For it is not my custom (?) to write against one of my sub-officers, (and to say) that it’s you who holds them back (?). I wish good health for you.” 4.

[(ἡ) ἅμα]ξ̣α στράνγα ὕδ[ατος. The end of the line might be: ὕδ[ατος· μὴ μέμψῃ]. On the topos of the drop of water, cf. 7.11–14n. In 9.3, it is again a matter of a wagon; the idea is probably that the wagon has not found (or will not find) a single drop of water when it arrived (or arrives) at Raïma.

7.

ἔχω (…) γ̣ρ̣[. γ̣ρ̣[άφειν or γ̣ρ̣[άψαι. For this construction of ἔχω with the infinitive, see LSJ s.v. III, b (“have to face, be obliged”).

11.

ἔμ̣α̣θ̣ον (or perhaps ἔμ̣α̣τ̣ον) suits the traces better than ἔμελλον.

11–12. πρινκι-|παρίου μου. Is this the same person as the princeps of l. 6? Probably not, even if the two words are equally rare in the desert ostraca and it is a remarkable coincidence to find them together in this fragment. Here, principalis seems to refer to Archibios, the use of the possessive μου implying a hierarchical relationship between the two men; actually, Diourdanos never refers to himself as curator of Raïma. Perhaps he was a simple immunis who had been entrusted with the command of this station, on the model of the eques Antonius Celer, who reports a raid by the Barbarians on his praesidium in O.Krok. I 87.21–50. The principales are the subordinate officers known also under the titles duplicarii and sesquiplicarii, which in contrast are well attested in the desert ostraca (Breeze 1974). In the Egyptian documents in general, attestations of principales are not numerous. In Greek: P.Lund. II 1.5 (second cent.), P.Mich. VIII 465.16 (108?), and P.Worp 52 (second cent.). The last of these, kept in the Kelsey Museum, is a letter on ostracon that is said to have been found at Karanis, but of which the ambiance seems to me to evoke instead the praesidia of the desert; the lack of stratigraphic information and of a date of registration in the register of the museum may not be matters of chance. The names of the two correspondents, Crispus and Niger, however, do not appear together in the ostraca from the praesidia of the Eastern Desert. In this letter, Crispus asks Niger to buy a suckling pig for him and to have it sent to him in the following manner: ἀγοράσας Δομιτίῳ παραθοῦ ἵνα ἐὰν ἀναβῇ τὰ κιβάρια, ἐμβάληται αὐτὸ ὁ πρινκιπᾶλις καὶ ἐνέγκῃ. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔ̣χ̣ῃς χαλκόν, συμφώνησον καὶ̣  Δομιτίωι καὶ δώσομεν τῷ κιβαριάτῃ πρινκιπαρίωι καὶ οἴσε̣ι αὐτό, “when you have bought it, turn it over to Domitius, so that when the supplies come up, the principalis may load it and bring it (to us). If you lack money, make an agreement also (?) with (praenomen?) Domitius and we will repay the sum to the principalis in charge of the cibaria (or: to the κιβαριάτης principalis), who will bring it (to you).” It is not possible to say if πρινκιπᾶλις/-ρις refers in each instance to the same person, in which case the second occurrence of principalis would perhaps not refer to a sesquiplicarius or a duplicarius. We may observe that in the second occurrence the suffix -alis is spelled -άριος with rhotacism, just as in the letter of Diourdanos, which is uncommon, as Jean Gascou points out to me. In fact, I know of only two other papyrological examples of this substitution: κοντ[ουβε]ρ̣[ν]ά̣ριοι (P.Mich. VIII 466.43 [107]) and κον[τουβερνά]ριν (O.QaB inv. 129.4 [beginning of the third century]). The papyrological attestations of principalis in Latin are Jur.Pap. 37.28, a buccinator principalis

460

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert of a trireme (Seleucia in Pieria, 166); CEL I 207.2 (ordinatis et principalibus [first half of the third century]; P.Brook. 24.42 (pridianum, Upper Egypt, 215).

14.

κρατῖς, l. κρατεῖς?

Figure 97. 9. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

9 FWI – room 1, NW 8 Fig. 97

inv. 7849 5.8 × 5.5 cm

c. 150 alluvial clay

This sherd does not seem to be a non-joining fragment of the same ostracon as 8; both the orientation of the lower left edge and the fact that it is not a palimpsest speak against such an identification. ↓ 4

8

4 l. σῖτος

– – – – – – ]αιο̣υ̣[ ἄ]δελφε, τιϲτ̣[ ἐπ]ιτρόπῳ ἡ ἅμαξα σ̣τ̣ρ̣[άνγα ]βῆναι καὶ τὸ ἀντλ[ ]ι καὶ ὁ̣ σεῖτος αὐτ[ παρ’ ἐμοὶ ἐκ̣[ ταβελλαρ̣ι̣[ οτα[ λ̣[ – – – – – – – –

Public post, military intelligence, and dry cisterns

461

Already under Antoninus, deficient logistics Letters 7–9 concern the same affair, which remains difficult to reconstruct, because the three ostraca are incomplete. From 7.2 it emerges that Archibios had reproached Diourdanos (“don’t blame me, comrade”). Combining 7.3–5 with 8.8–10, we understand that Archibios complains to him about his having written to the procurator (sc. metallorum) that a group of men (some monomachai?) did not want to come to Raïma, preferring to stay at Claudianus. It is easy to see that this could have put Archibios in a delicate situation with respect to the hierarchy, since these men were necessarily under his command: Archibios thus seemed to lack authority over his own personnel. The ends of 7 and of 8 are preserved. In 7, Diourdanos justifies himself, not without some pomposity, asserting his devotion to the imperial project, an unanswerable argument. In 8, I believe that I can discern a veiled threat: if my interpretation of lines 7–14 is correct, Diourdanos defends himself by saying that had no choice, and it would have been far worse for him to accuse Archibios of having held the men back on his own. The fact that Diourdanos sent three letters justifying himself to Archibios shows that the disagreement between the two men lasted for some time. The tenor of 7, the best preserved of these three letters, calls to mind another ostracon from Mons Claudianus, some forty years later than our dossier: SB XXVIII 16941 (189),29 a draft of two requests by the vice-curator of Claudianus, Rufus Aristoteles. In the second of these requests, which is addressed to Tertullus, procurator (sc. metallorum), the vice-curator remarks that he is lacking personnel and equipment to take care of the filling of the cisterns. Unlike Rufus Aristoteles, Diourdanos and Archibios are contemporary with a reign, that of Antoninus, which has generated numerous ostraca at Mons Claudianus, particularly receipts for advances made to the familia, published in O.Claud. III, and particularly the ἐντολαί, that is, the monthly instructions of indigenous workmen, for the most part quarrymen and smiths, concerning the receipt of their salaries. It remains to be seen whether these some 1,200 ἐντολαί will make it possible to evaluate the numerical size of the manpower at this period; this was in any case hardly negligible. Nonetheless, these three last letters of Diourdanos betray a lack of involvement by the authorities in the human and logistical resources of the metallum. The reason for this lack of interest is perhaps that, under Antoninus, the exploitation of Mons Claudianus was no longer connected with any personal project of the emperor, who was content at that point to wind down the work zones launched by his predecessor.30

29. Edition in Chapter 5. 30. O.Claud. III, p. 8.

Chapter 29 Twilight of a god: the decline of the cult of Pan in the Eastern Desert Since the Old kingdom1 Min, a local god from Chemmis (Panos polis) and Koptos, had ruled in the Eastern Desert, where travellers asked his protection and success in their commercial, military, or mining enterprises. In the Graeco-Roman period he still had this function under the name Pan for the Greek-speakers, whence the title Pan du désert given by André Bernand to his collection of Greek and Latin inscriptions from the Eastern Desert. Still, it was in another collection, De Koptos à Kosseir, that he republished the largest concentration of proskynemata to Pan from this region, namely those that were written among the decorations of a rock-sanctuary installed under Nectanebo I in the graywacke2 quarries, and known by classicists as the Paneion of Wadi al-Hammamat. As is well known, the proskynema (“act of adoration”) is a specifically Egyptian epigraphical genre which has its origin in an indigenous practice.3 These inscriptions are very often graffiti written by the worshipper himself. The basic structure, in the case of proskynemata to Pan, is τὸ προσκύνημα τοῦ δεῖνος παρὰ τῷ Πανί, which corresponds to a more explicit, demotic formula: “May the name of NN rest before Min in eternity.” The key to understanding the proskynema is in the Demotic: by scratching his name and the names of his beloved ones in the sanctuary, the worshipper places the named beings under the protection of the god for eternity. The trend is first seen in the middle of the second century BC. There are many examples from the reign of Augustus until the end of the third century AD. Proskynemata are also found in epistolography as a polite phrase by which the writer assures his correspondent that he sets him under the protection of the god or gods of the place from which he is writing (τὸ προσκύνημά σου ποιῶ παρά followed by the name of the god in the dative). According to the table of epistolary proskynemata compiled by Geraci, these are rare in the first century AD, more frequent in the second, and reach a peak in the third. None of the letters in Geraci’s list is precisely dated. The os1. First attestation in Wadi al-Hammamat under Pepy I (R. Gundelach, LÄ IV, 137). 2. Certainly the bekhen stone of the Egyptians, and perhaps the lapis basanites of Pliny (Nat. 36.58; 157). On this material, see Belli Pasqua 1995: 26 and n. 10: the identification of the basanites is not certain. 3. Geraci 1971; Bingen 1989: 20; Bernand 1994.

465

466

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

traca recently found in stratified layers in the Eastern Desert do not contradict these results, but neither do they allow a refinement of them, inasmuch as they are mutually contradictory. On Mons Claudianus, the Trajanic layers have not delivered a single example of this formula, which is found only in the Antonine layers. Except for the years 136–138, the Hadrianic layers have not been found, or at least identified as such. Against this, the mostly Trajanic deposits at Al-Muwayh (Krokodilo) have delivered many examples of epistolary proskynemata.4 As we might expect, the use of prokynema is rather more prominent in the mostly later text-corpus from Al-Zarqaʾ (Maximianon):5 Table 29.1. Incidence of proskynemata in O.Krok. and O.Max. O.Krok.

O.Max.

Total of certain cases1

297

439

Letters with proskynema

72 (24.24%)

175 (39.96%)

Letters without proskynema

225 (75.75%)

264 (60.13%)

1. I.e., letters in such a state of preservation that we can be sure whether they contained a proskynema or not.

At Mons Claudianus, the deities most often mentioned in the epistolary proskynemata are Isis and the Tychai of the various praesidia whence the letters were sent. In his synthesis on the proskynemata from Mons Claudianus, Adam Bülow-Jacobsen is surprised by this, and writes,6 “it is thought-provoking that while we have so many actual proskynema-inscriptions to Pan from the Eastern Desert, I have not found a single letter where the writer claims to have performed such an act of obeisance.” We find the same state of affairs, the same silence, or almost, in the ostracon-letters that we have found between 1994 and 1996 at Maximianon and Krokodilo.7 And yet, the Paneion of Wadi al-Hammamat was not far away.8 In fact, in the direction of Koptos or Myos Hormos respectively, these two praesidia come directly after that of Biʾr al-Hammamat, which commands the entrance to the narrow passage through the mountains where the quarries and the Paneion are situated. But out of 247 epistolary proskynemata in the two corpora, there is only one proskynema to Pan (O.Max. inv. 421). What is more, we have observed that, on the road from Koptos to Myos Hormos, each praesidium mainly corresponded with its immediate neighbors. But the numerous letters sent from the region of Wadi al-Hammamat to Maximianon or Krokodilo contain proskynemata to Our Lady Athena. The site where a letter-writer would invoke the protection of Athena for his correspondent was called Persou. This is proved by an ostracon from Maximianon. In spite of its fragmentary state, this ostracon is important, for, among all the texts from the road of Myos Hormos, it is alone in proving the relationship between the cult of Athena and Persou.

4. The corpus of texts from Krokodilo (O.Krok.) gives evidence for several regnal years between year 6 of Trajan and year 2 of Hadrian, a time-span that seems to correspond well with the relatively short period of occupation of the site. 5. Two letters from the archive of Menandros, Demetrous, and Gallonia, who are well attested at Krokodilo, have been found at Maximianon, but the latest evidence is an imperial titulature with two emperors. Unfortunately, the names are mutilated, but the titles would seem to refer to the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (O.Max. inv. 430). 6. “Proskynemata in the Letters and the Evidence for Tyche/Isis etc. in the Eastern Desert,” in O.Claud. II, pp. 65–68. 7. Since the French version of this chapter was written, epistolary proskynemata to Pan have appeared in four ostraca found in Didymoi (see O.Did., p. 296): the letters probably came from Phoinikon, where Pan served as genius praesidii. 8. 30 km from Maximianon, 22 km from Krokodilo.

Twilight of a god

467

Figure 98. O.Max. inv. 1214. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen O.Max. inv. 1214 (Fig. 98)

4

11.2 × 6.7 cm

second century

Κολλο?]ύθῳ τῷ τέκν̣[ῳ τὸ] προσκύνημά σου πο̣ι̣[ῶ Ἀθ]ήνᾳ ἐν Πέρσου· καλῶς ([) ] τ̣έ̣κν̣ο̣ν̣, δοὺς τῷ ὀνηλά([) ]κ[]τ̣ολ[][ – – – – – – – –

4 ] τ̣έ̣κν̣ο̣ν: ] ed. pr.

5 ]τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ ([]) τ̣ολ[ ed. pr.

“[NN] to [Kollo]uthos, his child, [greetings]. I make obeisance for you [to (Our Lady?)] Athena in Persou. Please, child, give […] to the donkey-driver …” 1.

Κολλο?]ύθῳ. This is the only possibility suggested by the corpus of Maximianon.

The place-name Persou, which is now richly attested in the O.Krok. and the O.Max., was already known from four inscriptions from the metallon of Wadi al-Hammamat: – in the Paneion, I.KoKo. 105, signature of Petearoeris son of Peteminis, who styles himself σκληρουργὸς ἐκ Πέρσου καὶ Ταμοστύμεως; – on construction-blocks from the village-temple that was built just opposite the Paneion there are three proskynemata “to the gods in Persou” (παρὰ τοῖς ἐν Πέρσου θεοῖς), two of which can be dated to the reign of Tiberius.9 In any case, the graffiti on the chapel cannot be later than 67/8.10 “The gods of Persou” must mean Pan and his associates, which is proved by two proskynemata in the same “nest” of graffiti, viz. that of the horseman Marcus Valerius παρὰ τῷ κυρίῳ Πανί (no. 9, year 13 of Nero = 66), and that of Marcus Munatius πρὸς τὼν κύριων Πανὰ καὶ τὸν ἐνθάτε 9. Kayser 1993. The inscriptions are nos. 4, 7, and 15. 10. Kayser 1993: 114.

468

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert θεῶν11 (no. 10, year 14 of Nero = 67/8). The associate gods are represented in the nearby Paneion: they are Isis and Harpocrates. Athena is never mentioned in the inscriptions from Wadi al-Hammamat.

More than the signature of the σκληρουργὸς ἐκ Πέρσου, the proskynemata to the “gods in Persou” prove beyond any possible doubt that the group of graywacke quarries (i.e., the metallon), of which the Paneion was the center, was called Persou. The origin of this name is unknown.12 So, do the letters sent from Persou to Krokodilo or Maximianon come from the village in Wadi al-Hammamat? There are several reasons to doubt this: 1. This village, with its irregular shape,13 is very different from the praesidia on the road and is unlike a military post with which Krokodilo and Maximianon would be in contact. 2. The ceramics found during the excavation of Ifao in 1988 do not seem to be later than the first century after Christ. Pascale Ballet, to whom I am obliged for this information,14 has identified three pieces of Eastern sigillata A, which never appears in contexts later than the first century. Two of these sherds belong more precisely to Claudio-Neronian types (40–70).15 What is more, among the ceramics from the site there is not a single costrel. This type is not found at Krokodilo either, but is well attested at Maximianon, and appears during the reign of Antoninus at Mons Claudianus. Finally, one of the ostraca probably dates from the reign of Tiberius.16 If the village had been occupied under the Antonines, we should expect older ceramics to have been ousted or covered by the later material. It is therefore likely that this village was no longer inhabited at the time when Maximianon (occupied from the reign of Trajan or Hadrian to that of Marcus Aurelius) and perhaps Krokodilo (occupied under Trajan and during the first years of Hadrian) were active. 3. Persou is the provenance of the 59 ostraca published by Guéraud and known as the ostraca from Wadi al-Fawakhir.17 The name of Persou is not mentioned in these texts, but prosopographical coincidences with the O.Krok. show that these ostraca belong to the archives of Philokles, Sknips, Ischyras, and Parabolos (now published in O.Krok. II). O.Fawakhir 34 has a proskynema to Athena in a letter that was never sent – not a rare situation. The exact place where these ostraca were found is not known. Guéraud just writes that they were found in the ancient heaps of crushed gold-bearing quartz which the Egyptian Mining and Prospecting Company tried to re-exploit between 1939 and 1941, and in the “dozen huts near the mines.”18 In this group of huts there was also a Min-temple built under Ptolemy III, which is now completely destroyed (Porter and Moss VII [1951] 337). It is thus possible that the name Persou was transferred to a site adjacent to the graywacke quarries. There are two possible candidates for this (Fig. 99): 11. Marcus Munatius no doubt meant τοὺς ἐνθάδε θεούς. 12. Thissen 1979: 86–88. It might simply be the genitive of Πέρσης, either meaning “Persian,” or as a personal name. In any case, both the O.Krok. and the O.Max. show that this name designates a place where people lived, and not an individual quarry as Fr. Kayser thought (1993: 115) following J. Bingen (CdE 56 [1981] 144 = Pages d’épigraphie grecque, Attique–Égypte 1952–1982 [Brussels 1991] 147). 13. See the plan in Kayser 1993: 156. 14. And to whom I am grateful for reopening her files on the ceramics of Wadi al-Hammamat in order to answer my questions. 15. We remember that the latest dated graffito from the village is precisely from 67/8. 16. Kayser 1993: 140–41 (no. 38) is an ostracon mentioning the dekanos Pakoibis, who is probbly the author of the proskynema Kayser no.  5, where he styles himself as Pakybis, son of Paminis, dekanos of Iuventius. The latter must be either P. Iuventius Rufus or his freedman P. Iuventius Agathopous, who is mentioned in year 5 of Tiberius in the inscription on the naos found in the quarry-village (I.KoKo. 41). 17. Guéraud 1942 = SB VI 9017. 18. Guéraud 1942: 143 and 148.

Twilight of a god

469 Bi’r Sayyala

Al-Fawakhir, Persou gold mines granite quarries gardens, praesidium

MYOS HORMOS

Persou: village naos of Tiberius graywacke quarries

KOPTOS Krokodilo

Al-Matula

Phoinikon

Paneion Bi’r al-Hammamat

Al-Dawwi

Al-Hamra Maximianon

Qusur al-Banat

Figure 99. The route of Myos Hormos

1. The praesidium of Biʾr al-Hammamat. This praesidium is situated 4 km from the Paneion towards Koptos. At first sight, it is a good candidate, but both the ceramics (presence of costrels) and the architecture seem to date this praesidium after Krokodilo. It is even possible that Biʾr al-Hammamat replaced Krokodilo as a link in the chain of praesidia that guarded the road. 2. A praesidium that would have been 5 km from the quarries at the present Biʾr al-Fawakhir and which has now disappeared without trace, except for the O.Fawakhir.19 If their provenance is correct as indicated, this solution seems to be the best. I am thus tempted to believe that when activities in the graywacke quarries slowed down or came to a halt, perhaps at the beginning of the second century,20 the small garrison was transferred to a camp more modern than the half military, half civilian village from the first century, but that the name Persou was maintained, as was the tradition of vegetable-growing. The letter no. 29 (Kayser), found at the quarry village, is a receipt for vegetables, just like the O.Fawakhir, as the editor remarks. On the other hand, the letters from Persou, found at Krokodilo and Maximianon, are for a large part letters accompanying vegetables. So, from one century to the next, Persou remained a kitchen garden and continued to supply the two nearest garrisons with fresh vegetables. It is probable that the inhabitants of the quarrying village already grew their vegetables in the region of Wadi al-Fawakhir where, unlike in the graywacke-district, there were broad wadi floors and probably a well. So, the new praesidium would have been closer to the gardens. On the other hand, the tutelary deity changed, and Athena took the place of Pan. This Athena was probably an Athena-Isis, a deity who was already well established in the Roman army of Egypt. But how could this intruding deity replace the old-established lord of the desert, Pan, at such a short distance from his sanctuary?

19. In Wadi al-Fawakhir, Henry Wright has found the foundations of a wall which, according to him, might be what is left of this praesidium (C. Meyer, “Gold, Granite, and Water: the Bir Umm Fawakhir Survey Project 1992,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 52 [1995] 43). The region is so destroyed by modern mining that we shall probably never have any certainty on this point. 20. Belli Pasqua 1995: The Roman sculptures of graywacke from Wadi al-Hammamat are datable between the end of the first century BC and around AD 150 (p. 52), but the peak is in the first century and the beginning of the second (p. 55). Most inscriptions in Wadi al-Hammamat are from the reign of Tiberius. If, as seems likely, the imperial slave Epaphroditos, whose name is found on two blocks in the quarries (I.KoKo. 54 and 55), is the same as the misthotes of the metalla who had his name engraved on the lintel of the Serapeum at Mons Claudianus (I.Pan 42, AD 118), we have there the latest evidence for the quarrying of graywacke.

470

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

This usurpation is not an isolated phenomenon. In the big ostracon of water-distribution at Mons Claudianus,21 there is, among those who have the right to receive water, a “warden of the Paneion.”22 This Paneion is the only sanctuary mentioned in the ostracon, which is almost complete, and it is also the only evidence we have for a cult of Pan at Mons Claudianus. According to the stratigraphy and the prosopography, this ostracon should be dated to the reign of Trajan, probably around 110. As a matter of fact, the Sarapis-temple which today overlooks the principal site was not dedicated until 118, the second year of Hadrian, by the imperial slave Epaphroditos (I.Pan 42). This curious building has clearly undergone several modifications, some of them on the initiative of Epaphroditos, as indicated by the verb κατεσκεύασεν23 in his dedication. It is altogether possible that this temple is the result of a transformation of the Paneion. At Porphyrites the situation is similar. Until recently, the only attestation of a cult of Pan there was the proskynema of Apollonius Longinus from year 16 of Tiberius.24 But in year 16 of Trajan, it is to “Isis of the Thousand Names” that a centurion consecrates a sanctuary (I.Pan 20, 113), while some years later Epaphroditos dedicates a temple to Sarapis, no doubt contemporary with the one at Mons Claudianus (I.Pan 21, no date).25 On the other hand, in an inscription, found in 1995 in one of the quarrymen’s villages,26 a certain Gaius Cominius Leugas thanks Pan and also Sarapis for the discovery of the quarries at Porphyrites by offering them a sanctuary. This happened in year 4 of Tiberius (AD 18). Sarapis is a subsidiary to Pan. He is only mentioned second in the text and is not represented on the stela, where only Pan-Min is seen.27 An evolution can thus be followed in the history of the cults of the Eastern Desert, and it is confirmed by the observation that none of the dated inscriptions, public or private, in honor of Pan is later than the first century of our era.28 Among the dated inscriptions, the proskynemata are concentrated in Wadi al-Hammamat and in the Paneion of Al-Buwayb (a rock-shelter on the road to Berenike with no connection to mines or quarries). They are dated to the reign of Tiberius, except for two from the reign 21. Chapter 11. 22. ἐπιμελ(ητὴς) Πανείο(υ). 23. J. Bingen has pointed out to me that this verb does not mean “has reconstructed,” but “has equipped, decorated, fitted out.” 24. I.Pan 18. Incidentally, the same Apollonius Longinus wrote two proskynemata in Wadi al-Hammamat (year 14 of Tiberius). 25. The consecration of temples to Serapis, both at Claudianus and at Porphyrites, was surely meant to celebrate the resumption of work in these metalla under a new reign after the interruption during the war against the Jews, which paralyzed Egypt from 115 to 117. The two metalla must have been abandoned during the period of two years or more that the war lasted, and the memory of Pan was thus the more easily forgotten. 26. Published by Van Rengen 1995. From the point of view of iconography and lay-out, this stela is rather like that of Agathopous in Ophiates. 27. The invocation of Sarapis is the more unexpected since, like Augustus, Tiberius, who had ordered the expedition of Leugas, disliked the Alexandrian gods. Some months later he even had some Jews and Isis-worshippers deported to Sardinia. The gens of Leugas was close to that of the emperor, see Van Rengen 1995: 243. 28. A. Bernand had a foreboding of this problem, but did not understand that it is a question of chronology. In fact, on the last page of the conclusion of Pan du désert, he writes (I translate): “It is interesting to observe that before Serapis and with the exception of the case where the assimilation of Serapis and Min is mentioned, Pan is not named, whether he was confused with him or was eclipsed by him. This is the explanation of the absence of Pan from the inscriptions of of Gebel Dokhan, Gebel Fatireh, and Berenike.” The assimilation of Sarapis-Min, of which Bernand writes, would be found in I.Pan 69, a dedication of a rock-sanctuary of [Sarapis], Isis, Apollo, and their synnaoi theoi in the emerald mines at Sikayt, dating to the reign of Gallienus (262–268: Sijpesteijn, CdE 52 [1977] 344). At the end of this inscription there is a formula of thanks which Bernand reads εὐχαριστήσας τῷ Σαράπιδι τῷ Μινι (restituted from travellers’ copies). In fact, as Sijpesteijn had already noted (op.cit.), this reading is suspect, not only because of the doubtful transmission of the text, but also because of the date, for this would be the only Greek inscription where Min was not called Pan. So, this unique example of an assimilation of Sarapis and Pan-Min must be discarded.

Twilight of a god

471

of Augustus and one from Domitian. The proskynema of Apollonios Longinus at Porphyrites is also from the reign of Tiberius. Equally, the official representatives of Rome who prospect and exploit the desert also address Pan. Thus, Publius Juventius Agathopous, procurator and administrator of the mines of Egypt, dedicates a sanctuary to Pan in Samna in year 40 of Augustus (I.Pan 51, AD 11), and seven years later, in Tiberius’s 5th year (I.KoKo. 41, AD 18), the same procurator, inseparably accompanied by Mersis, the architect, offers a naos to Pan in Wadi al-Hammamat. This naos is in the chapel of the quarry-village. It is also first of all Pan who is thanked, two months earlier, by the discoverer of Porphyrites: I.KoKo. 41 is dated 2 October, the inscription of Leugas on 23 July of the same year. Finally, at the end of the century (c. 90) it is to a Greek Pan, associated with the nymphs, that a certain Isidoros son of Menippos expresses his gratitude for having found the quarries at Ptolemaïs (I.métr. 116; I.Pan 16). These prospectors of the first century of the Empire found themselves in an indigenous tradition where Min was an explorer searching for deposits, which is expressed in the Ptolemaic epithet sr-bjȝ which has been studied by J. Yoyotte.29 Let us quote the translation that he gives of an inscription from Edfu: “Let Min be the Medja of the Eastern Desert searching his eye in the God-Land, for he is the good sr-bjȝ from Punt who searches things to paint the eyes.” The title Medja is applied to officials who prospect the desert30 (as Cominius Leugas was doing). As for “things to paint the eyes,” it is among other things galen, a kind of lead-ore which was used as eye make-up, known in Egyptian as msḏmt (Gr. στιμμι) and which the demotists propose as the etymology of the mysterious Ταμοστύμεως in I.KoKo. 105.31 So, Petearoeris son of Peteminis, quarryman ἐκ Πέρσου καὶ Ταμοστύμεως, would have worked at Persou and in the galen-mines.32 It is striking that the “list of mining regions in the Luxor-temple” indicates ʿȝt and galen as resources from the “Desert of Koptos.”33 It is a characteristic of Roman religion, that in a new place, one tries to attract the good-will of local deities: “One can see the animistic nature of the soldiers in the numerous dedications to the genius loci. Every place had its own spirit which the soldiers felt must be pacified lest harm come to them. Similarly, dedications to Silvanus show that the wilderness around the camp had to be pacified,” remarks J. Helgeland.34 The Latin god Silvanus, assimilated to Pan, was also a protector of quarries35 and also lent his name to native deities: in Yorkshire, for example, the local Celtic god Vinotonus was assimilated to him.36 Influenced by the desert, which was still terra incognita here in the first century, and perhaps also counselled by Mersis, the Egyptian architect, Publius Juventius Agathopous found it advisable to thank Pan-Min.37 29. Yoyotte 1952: 135–7. 30. The word appears in the Old Kingdom and is first an ethnic name (originally a Nubian tribe). It became the name of a function in the 18th dynasty. As explorers of the desert the Medjaw were then regularly associated in the texts with another military corps, the nww (“hunters”) (Gardiner, Onomastica I, 88*; recently G. Andreu, LÄ IV, 1069). Here one thinks of O.Fawakhir 14 (SB VI 9017, no. 14), a letter of a Roman soldier: “Write the libellus to say that since Agrippinos and until now, under the command of the prefects, we have been hunting all kinds of wild animals and birds, for a year.” 31. Thissen 1979: 88. 32. It nevertheless remains surprising that the quarryman gives his place of work as home and not his origo in the valley. I also find it suspect that a σκληρουργός, a skilled worker, qualified in extraction and shaping of stone, would have been employed as a miner. 33. H. Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques VI (Cairo 1929) 122, s.v. zou n Qbt. It is an error when Gauthier translates ʿȝt “pierre de construction.” This word is very general and signifies any kind of mineral and even other substances, such as ivory or aromatics: Harris 1961: 21. I thank Fr. Herbin who advised me on the use of Egyptian sources. Deposits of lead near Safaga and at 112 km south of al-Qusayr: Lucas 1962: 243. 34. Helgeland 1978: 1499 ff. 35. W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie IV (Leipzig 1909–1915) col. 844. 36. Birley 1978: 1538. 37. For the Pan on the Greek stela in Ophiates, like that in Porphyrites, is iconographically the Egyptian Min.

472

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The last certain and precisely dated inscription mentioning Pan is a proskynema in Wadi al-Hammamat, I.KoKo. 53 (91). Pan’s fall from grace seems to have been completed during Trajan’s reign. Under this emperor, there was still a Paneion at Mons Claudianus, but it is to Zeus Helios Great Sarapis that the architect Apollonios dedicated an altar to assure the success of his enterprise (I.Pan 38), and at Porphyrites the temple of Isis was constructed under Trajan also.38 The cults of the Alexandrian gods were thus established in the two metalla even before the dedication of the Serapeia under Hadrian and partook in an expansionist movement of the hellenized Isis-cults which Françoise Dunand believes she can follow in the Thebaid under Trajan and Hadrian. These cults spread under the influence of “Roman” circles (imperial slaves, the army). The Serapeum of Luxor, reconstructed by a retired decurion in 126, also belongs in this context.39 This phenomenon may well be connected to the return to favor of Jupiter, who had been neglected by imperial propaganda until and including the reign of Claudius, a process that fully developed under Hadrian, when the ideological centerpiece is the emperor represented as Jupiter’s protégé and colleague.40 Three inscriptions from Jabal Abu Diyayba (amethyst mines southwest of modern Safaga) illustrate the same development. The two Ptolemaic inscriptions are dedicated respectively to Pan and Haroeris, and to Pan and Harpocrates (in that order), while an inscription of imperial date, consecrated to Isis, Sarapis, and Pan, relegates Pan to just an associated god.41 The hierarchy has been reversed. Now we see why the epistolary proskynemata never invoke Pan, even though he is the main beneficiary of the epigraphical proskynemata: he had fallen out of favor at the time when this formula of politeness became trendy. In the competition with the gods of the day, Pan of the Desert, the protector of the pioneers, also fell victim to the road-system of the praesidia, between which the needs for services and provisions meant a steady circulation of donkeys, wagons, patrols, and postal services, not to mention the caravans carrying exotic goods. The desert was no longer what it used to be. Its resources were known and inventoried. Forgotten was the emotion of finding a good deposit of ore that made you give thanks to Pan Chrysodotes. Travelling became, for a time at least, more secure and comfortable. So, it was no longer Pan Euhodos, the retired god, who was responsible for your safe arrival, but the Roman garrisons. And this is why Pan, the genius loci of Persou, was replaced by Athena, who belongs to the order of tasteless “genii of the military installations.”42

38. Yet, it is a temple of Pan, at Panos polis, that a former tribunus repairs or embellishes in year 12 of Trajan (I.Pan 79, 109). But this is not the desert. The continuity of the cult was more secure in an urban temple with its priests and property. 39. Golvin, ʿAbd el-Hamid, Wagner, and Dunand 1981: 143 and 148. I am grateful to Fr. Dunand for drawing my attention to this hypothesis. 40. Fears 1981, esp. 66–89. 41. I.Pan 59, 60, and 62. Note that at Koptos itself (I.Pan 78: Ἴσιδι καὶ Ἁρποχράτῃ καὶ Πανί), Pan is associated with Isis from the reign of Tiberius on, but (1) this is not the desert, (2) the temple is dedicated to Isis, of whom an autonomous cult of Osiriac character developed in Koptos in the late period. On the relationship of Min and Isis in Koptos and the co-existence of Osiriac religious tradition with the properly Coptite one, see Traunecker 1992: 334–36. In the Roman inscriptions from the desert, the Isis who replaces Pan belongs to the Alexandrian tradition, not the Osiriac theology. 42. Studied by Speidel and Dimitrova-Milčeva 1978: 1549. In the list of genii which they give, we find the genius praesidii. The genius of a place is in fact often identified with a particular god (D. Fishwick, “Genius and Numen,” HThR 62 [1969] 360). The genius of the praesidium of Raïma, styled sometimes Τύχη Ῥαϊμα (O.Claud. II 278), sometimes ἡ κυρία Ἴσις ἐν Ῥαϊμα (O.Claud. II 255 and 256), presents a good example of such an assimilation.

Chapter 30 A soldier of the cohors I Lusitanorum at Didymoi: once again on the inscription I.Kanaïs 59bis During the season December 1999–January 2000 at Didymoi, Jean-Pierre Brun discovered, while dismantling the vault of a silo, a reused inscribed brick. This silo was located in room 120, which occupies the northwest corner of the fort and which adjoins the chapel. The brick, which is a flat, square hypocaust brick, comes from the baths of the praesidium. The author of the graffito incised on one of the faces is already known to us from the oddly opisthograph inscription I.Kanaïs 59bis, of which I reproduce the text as it appears today, based on the excellent photo published in I.Kanaïs, pl. 55; I include in it the readings of Schubart, whose transcription1 was made before the destruction of the right edge in 1945 in the fire of Sophienhof, where many objects from Berlin museums had been transferred.2 The letters that have been lost since Schubart’s reading and thus can no longer be verified are printed in gray. What was already lost at the time Schubart saw the stone is placed between square brackets.

1. Schubart’s notes are lost; probably they were entrusted by Wilcken, who had also worked there, to Seymour de Ricci when the latter drew up, at Wilcken’s request, the epigraphical bulletin for Roman Egypt for APF 2 [1903], where the inscription was first published with a minimum of commentary. 2. G. Poethke, per litt. I thank Professors Poethke and Priese for the information they kindly communicated to me about this object (letter of 6 March 2000).

473

474

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

I.Kanaïs 59bis Principal face

4

upper margin []ις Κρισπῖνος στρα[τιώτ]ης χώρτης α̅ Λυ⟨σι⟩τα[νῶν] (ἑκατονταρχίας) Σερήνου ἐν ὀνίροις [ἤκουο]ν – “τὸ συνπόσιν ποίησαι [τοῦ κ]υρίου Σεράπιδος” [καὶ ε]ὐχαριστήσας ἐποίησα ] ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ.

4.

Between ]ν and τό, there is a space filled by a horizontal stroke, evidently a punctuation mark.

7.

Before ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ, the lacuna could theoretically hold five letters (it is thus too short for τὸ συνπόσιν). I think, however, that ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ was centered in the middle of the line, which contained no other text.

Back face There are guidelines, but the cutting is less careful and more superficial than on the other face. Nothing shows that the two inscriptions are contemporaneous or have any connection with one another.

4

Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου Κομμόδου Καίσαρ̣[ος] ἐπὶ Οὐαλερίωι Φή[στωι?] ἐπάρχῳ κά[στρων?]

2.

Καίσα[ρος] Schubart. But the photo permits the observation that the rho of Καίσαρος is visible (only the hasta of it remains).

4.

Schubart’s reading here is very astonishing, because we ought to see something of it; but in its present state line 4 contains guidelines, yet it is entirely without inscription, as G. Poethke has confirmed from the stone; it is also inexplicable why the end of κά[στρων?] would have been missing in Schubart’s time. Moreover, ἔπαρχος Ὄρους would have been far more natural in this context.

This inscription on schist, purchased in Luxor in 1901 from the dealer Abd-el Megid by Ludwig Borchardt, belongs to the Ägyptisches Museum of Berlin,3 where it bears the inventory number 15726. André Bernand gives no explanation of his decision (which was taken at the last minute, as the numbering shows) to insert I.Kanaïs 59bis into his corpus of the inscriptions of the Paneion of AlKanaʾis, particularly given that this document had always previously been attributed to Ridisiya, that 3. And not in the Papyrussammlung as is stated in the lemma of I.Kanaïs 59bis.

A soldier of the cohors I Lusitanorum at Didymoi

475

is, Contrapollonopolis Magna.4 This place is located on the east bank of the Nile, across from Edfu; it controlled the point where the track to Berenike left the valley. On this track, 45 km from Ridisiya, is located the Paneion. We know from the pridianum Rom.Mil.Rec. 64 that the cohors I Lusitanorum had its camp at Contrapollonopolis from 131 until at least 156. In 288, it built a camp at Hierakon polis (Dayr al-Gabrawi, near Manfalut).5 The main text of I.Kanaïs 59bis, as we have seen, was broken at right after Schubart copied it; this text was already broken at left, so that the gentilicium of the soldier who had it inscribed was lost; the brick of Didymoi allows us to restore it and, moreover, puts the supposed provenance of the inscription of Berlin into serious doubt: it is virtually certain that it was in reality found at Didymoi. It is therefore necessary to stop using it as evidence that the cohors I Lusitanorum still had its camp at Contrapollonopolis Magna under the reign of Commodus (even if that remains highly likely). There is no evidence to show who first decided to attribute the stone to Ridisiya, or for what reason.6 I suppose that it was the first Hellenists who examined it, Schubart and Wilcken, and they based their attribution simply on the mention of this cohort in the description of the soldier responsible for the inscription. That attribution did not take account of the fact that soldiers were often detached from their base camp. We would thus have here a fine example of circular argumentation: the stone comes from Contrapollonopolis Magna because it mentions the cohors Lusitanorum, the cohors Lusitanorum was still at Contrapollonopolis Magna under Commodus because the stone, dated to Commodus, comes from this locality… We have seen that the disparity between the two inscriptions on the stone in Berlin does not allow us to date Crispinus’s benefaction with confidence to the reign of Commodus. We must nonetheless stress that the archaeological data from Didymoi do not contradict such a date. Moreover, room 120 of the praesidium of Didymoi has produced another inscription dating to the reign of Commodus (I.Did. 9, cf. Chapter 4); I.Did. 9 and I.Kanaïs 59bis, which give thanks to divinities, were probably dedicated originally in the chapel of the praesidium, built right next door. I.Did. inv. 941 (= I.Did. 7) US 12014. The brick measures 24 × 24 × 5 cm. Its surface is full of irregularities that make the reading uncertain in some places. The preliminary marking of the letters in black ink is visible here and there (l. 1: ετ, l. 2: πιν). The inscribed face was covered with a plaster coating (intended to hide it?), of which there are now only a few traces. There is an incised vertical line in the left margin of the inscription from the first until the penultimate line. Fig. 100.

4. This erroneous attribution to Al-Kanaʾis by Bernand has been repeated: O.Florida, p. 22; Maxfield 2000: 419. The mistake did not escape Jean Bingen in his review of I.Kanaïs (CdE 48 [1973] 198). 5. CIL III 22 = ILS 617. 6. G. Poethke, per litt.

476

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 100. I.Did. 7. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

4

8 2 -πῖνος: ς ex ν corr.

6 l. εἶδον

Οὐέττις̣ Κρισπῖνος {ισ}στρατιώτης χώρτης I̅ Λυσιτανώ{ν}ρομ vac. κ̣α⟨θ⟩ὼς̣ ἶδο̣ν ἐν ὀνί̣ροις ἐ̣π̣όησα τὸ σ(υμπόσιον) vac. ἐπ’ ἀγα(θῷ). vac. 7 l. ὀνείροις ἐποί-

“Vettius Crispinus, soldier of the First Cohort of Lusitanians. In accordance with what I saw in dreams, I gave the banquet, for good.” 1.

ουε vac. ττις to avoid a hole in the brick. I dot the sigma because it could perhaps be an epsilon written by mistake. Our soldier is a homonym of the Vettius Crispinus who was named a senatorial tribune at the age of 16 by Domitian (PIR1 III, no. 325).

2.

{ισ}στρα-. Perhaps ϊσ (unless this apparent trema is a defect in the brick). This prothetic iota comes from a Latin rather than Greek phenomenon: written e or i, the prothetic vowel is at-

A soldier of the cohors I Lusitanorum at Didymoi

477

tested from the middle of the second century; in inscriptions, it is often found before the initial groups sc-, sp-, st- (J. Taillardat, Revue de Philologie 72 [1998] 88). 4.

The Roman numeral is to be noted, in place of the expected α.

4–5.

Λυσιτανώ{ν}ρομ. The writer betrays a hesitation between the Greek and Latin genitive plurals; the unphonetic writing Λυσι- also betrays the influence of Latin orthography. In Greek documents, Λουσιτανώρουμ is no less common than Λουσιτανῶν. I have not found any other instance in the Greek documents of Egypt of the -ρομ for the Latin genitive plural; it is always -ρουμ.

6.

κ̣α⟨θ⟩ὼς̣. Possible alternatives: βα in place of κα, epsilon in place of sigma. Perhaps ϊδον (the same uncertainty about the reality of a trema as in line 2). We find the same idea of reproducing what one has seen in a dream in IG IV2, 1 126.21 (Epidaurus), an account of a healing that followed a dream which had revealed the steps to follow (to cover the body in mustard): ἐποίησα ἃ εἶδον, “I did what I had seen.” The solution adopted seems to me the most likely, and I would definitively dismiss two feeble hypotheses, in which the verb κάω or else the word (otherwise unattested in this neuter form) *ῥόμ|βα (a ῥόμβος could be a ritual or magic instrument, used notably in love spells or as a defense against death and illness) would come in between. ἶδο̣ν invites us to question the restoration [ἤκουο]ν in I.Kanaïs 59bis, but ἤκουον is better suited to the Berlin inscription, because it introduces an order in direct discourse (all this is well explained by A. Bernand in his comm. ad 4). It is probably not a matter of concern that Crispinus presents his dream as a vision in one case, as an auditory hallucination in the other. Moreover, the plural ἐν ὀνί̣ροις suggests that this was a recurrent dream, which could have taken various forms.

8.

Restored on the basis of the Berlin inscription. Examination of the original shows without any doubt that the ends of lines 8 and 9 were never inscribed, rather than having been erased or eroded later.

There is no use in trying to divine the circumstances that led Vettius Crispinus to produce two inscriptions. Was the graffito on a brick, carelessly executed, leaving two words incomplete (above all συμπόσιον, indispensable to understanding the inscription), only a draft? But why then would we have found it in an archaeological context rich in ex-votos coming from the chapel?

Chapter 31 The shrine in the praesidium of Dios (Eastern Desert of Egypt): graffiti and oracles in context* I. Introduction Under the principate, an important part of the trade between the Roman Empire and the Erythraean world (India, South Arabia, the Horn of Africa) passed through the Red Sea harbors of Myos Hormos and Berenike and the customs warehouses in Koptos on the Nile. Koptos was linked to both harbors by two roads along which Roman fortlets (praesidia) were built at intervals: the Berenike road (ὁδὸς Βερενίκης) and the Myos Hormos road (ὁδὸς Μυσορμιτική). Several praesidia on both roads have been excavated within the framework of a French research program on the Roman presence in the Eastern Desert. Dios is one of these praesidia on the road to Berenike. It is known as Iovis in the Itinerarium Antonini, but as Dios in the Tabula Peutingeriana, the Ravenna Cosmography, and the ostraca found in the excavations1 (Fig. 101). By the end of Augustus’s reign, the Berenike road had superseded the Myos Hormos road in importance. Around 50, Pliny the Elder enumerates, with fairly correct distances, the stopping places where caravans used to rest or to water at wells, sparse at that time. Most fortlets did not exist yet: several praesidia, furnished with a well and cisterns, were built in 76/7.2 The praesidium at Biʾr Bayza, situated c. 6 km south of Dios, was probably one of them. For unknown reasons (water shortage?), it was soon abandoned and replaced by Dios in 115/6.3 This date is provided by the dedication found at Dios on the first day of excavation. * I would like to thank Jean Bingen for his friendly advice on several epigraphical matters. 1. But Ioues in the only Latin ostracon where the toponym occurs (inv. 922). 2. Bagnall, Bülow-Jacobsen, and Cuvigny 2001. 3. The date given in the first edition of this paper (114/5) was erroneous.

479

480

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Dump

11

12

10

13

14

15a

9

16a

15b

non excavated

17a

8 15c

6

17b

16b

7

4 54 58

19a 20a 21

18b 19b

17c

59

5

18a

20b

24

20d

18c 20c

55

22

57

26

56

53 non excavated 52 49A

SHRINE

Well

0m

49

48B

a

a

b

48 489,5 m

47

a e

cistern 3

a

3b 30

44 41b 43

36a

32

40b 42

31

36b 41a

40a

39

37

non excavated

d

c 35 b

38

33 a

34

Figure 101. Plan of Dios (drawing by J.-P. Brun, M. Reddé, E. Botte)

Plan général du fort de Iovis - Dios

b b

b

g 2

h cistern 1

45

1

d

cistern 2

46

25

23

a

g

d

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios 1 SU 15302 Fig. 102

inv. 262 max. dim. 67.5 × 57 × 11 cm

481 115/6

The slab was found between the two towers on each side of the gate of the praesidium. The stone is a hard, coarse, shellbearing limestone (Muschelkalk), extracted in quarries situated in the Eastern Desert between Qus (Apollonos polis Parva) and al-Laqita (Phoinikon).4 The dedications of the praesidia of Didymoi and Aphrodites (76/7) are of the same material. The text starts with the imperial titulature in the dative. Although commemorating the building of a fort, the inscription is also a dedication to the emperor. Roman and local elements are mixed, as is often the case in Latin epigraphical documents from Egypt. Thus, the consulates have been omitted, replaced by the Alexandrian regnal year, and the number after the tribunate has been left out. The inscribed surface is surrounded by a border. Light guidelines are visible here and there. No trace of whitewashing or rubrication. Letter-height : l. 1 = 8 cm, ll. 2–4 = 6 cm, ll. 5–6 = 5 cm. Lines 1–3 are centered.

Figure 102. 1. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

4

Imp(eratori) • Neruae • Traiano [•] Optimo • Caesari • Aug(usto) • Germ(anico) • Dacico • pont(ifici) • max(imo) • trib(unicia) • pot(estate) • p(atri) • p(atriae) • anno • X̅I̅X̅ • M • Rutilius • Lupus • praef(ectus) • Aegypti • per • L • Cassium • Taurinum [•] p[raef(ectum)] • Mont(is) • praesidium • ex f̣und⟨ament⟩o 1–2 [2–3] . . ụit •

5 mont 4. Traunecker 2000: 103–5.

482

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

“To the emperor Nerva Trajanus Optimus Caesar Augustus, victor over the Germans and the Dacians, chief priest, holder of the tribunician power, Father of the Fatherland, in the 19th year, Marcus Rutilius Lupus, prefect of Egypt, [built? rebuilt?] the fort from its foundation, under the direction of Lucius Cassius Taurinus, prefect of the Desert.” 3.

The number after the tribunate is also omitted in other Latin inscriptions from Egypt: ILS 8907 (Trajan, Syene quarries); Breccia, IGL Alex. 69 (Pius, Luxor).

4.

M. Rutilius Lupus is attested as prefect of Egypt between 28 Jan. 113 and 5 Jan. 117.

5.

This prefect of the Desert is otherwise attested in O.Krok. 60 and 65. Here per is equivalent to curam agente, which expresses the intervention of the prefect of the Desert in the dedication of the three praesidia whose construction was ordered by the prefect of Egypt Iulius Ursus (Bagnall, Bülow-Jacobsen, and Cuvigny 2001).

6.

No verb seems to be compatible with the traces. -uxit and -auit are excluded. The letter before ụit has a loop which reminds of b or s (but posuit is too short).

In January 2008 workers were put to work to remove the sand from one of the barrack-rooms along the western wall which, at this place, is 1.90 m broad and 2.35 m high. Inscriptions and sculpted objects began to appear: we had found the aedes of the praesidium.

Figure 103. The aedes in its surroundings. © J.-P. Brun

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

483

Main entrance

2

Tower 3

Stairs

Room 53 4

13

1

Basin A

a 10

9

Rampart

Basin B

11

12

5

6

Area 70

Room 52 7

8 Room 49A Bench 18 C

14

15

A B 16

b

Room 49B Bench 19

17

Room 48 Figure 104. Schematic plan of the aedes (drawing by J.-P. Brun)

N 0

0,5 1 m

484

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Altar 10

15201

15206 17001 17005

15211

17002

15202

M9

15207

15210

M1

15209

17004

Section A-B

0

0,5

1m

Figure 105. A–B section of the aedes looking south (drawing by J.-P. Brun)

The shrine (= room 52) is situated south of the main gate, from which it is separated by room 53, where a staircase leads to the rampart walk (figs. 103–105). Three large cisterns are located 2.50 m to the south. Cistern 3 was completely emptied. At its bottom, we found a layer of rubbish which belongs to the last period of occupation. One of the ostraca found there contains the latest date ever found, up to now5 in any of the praesidia excavated on the roads of the Mons Berenices: year 3 or 6 of Philip the Arab (245/6 or 248/9).6 This aedes is not the original shrine. It replaced former barracks, as is shown by the fact that wall 8 of the shrine was built over bench 18, which is still visible in room 49A. The Trajanic shrine may have been in another part of the fort. In Maximianon and Qusur al-Banat, two forts which we had excavated earlier on the Myos Hormos road,7 it was on the axis of the gate. That was not the case in Didymoi, where the shrine which we found is considered to be late. In that fort, however, the remnants of an apse were observed under later structures against the rear wall and on the axis of the main gate. M. Reddé thinks that this apse belongs to the original aedes.8 There are similarities in the history of Dios and Didymoi, both on the Berenike road. Their inner organization has been modified from the second half of the second century on, especially in the rear zone, practically suppressing any architectural trace of the original disposition. The hypothesis that the early shrine at Dios was in the rear part of the fort, as in Maximianon, Qusur al-Banat, and presumably Didymoi, is strengthened by the fact that two inscriptions (texts nos. 2 and 3) were found reused in that sector, but of course, they could have been carried there from any part of the fort. It was not a rule, in any case, that the praesidia should be built with a shrine set against the rear wall on the axis of the gate: at Biʾr Bayza, too short-lived a fort to have undergone structural changes, the shrine was erected to the left of the axis, as an isolated structure in the space between the northern row of barracks and the well.

5. That was the state of things in 2010, but it is no longer true: by now, the latest ostraca from praesidia in Mons Berenicidis are the vouchers for wheat distributed to Barbarians in 264, found in Xeron (O.Blem. 17–117, cf. Chapter 27). 6. O.Dios inv. 1507 (unpublished). 7. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006, I: 248–51. 8. Cuvigny (ed.) 2011: 48 f.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

485

II. Phasing and short archaeological description of the aedes9 Phase 1 (AD 115/116). The area situated south of the main gate shows stairs leading to the rampart walk and probably already barrack-rooms erected along the western wall of the fort. Wall 4 is then a strong wall built in schist and granite stone (= wall 4A). Phase 2 (after Antoninus Pius). One of these barrack-rooms is equipped with bench 18, built on the geological ground. The filling of the bench contained a worn coin (of the Hermanoubis type struck in year 22 of Antoninus Pius) and ceramics datable within the second half of the second century.10 Phase 3. The barracks are modified, walls 7 and 8 are built (wall 8 passes over bench 18). Phase 4 (Fig. 104, 105a, 106). Building of the shrine (internal dimensions: 4.25 × 3.5 m), of room 49 (equipped with silos for grain) and probably also of the entire row of rooms between the western rampart and cistern 3. By then, wall 4A, preserved only c. 0.20 m high, is topped by wall 4B. Wall 4B presents two faces of schist stones arranged in a herringbone pattern and bonded with clay. In that phase, the main features inside the shrine are a podium, or pedestal, set against the western wall for displaying the statues (9), three blocks (10, 11, 12) in front of the podium, and a geometric mosaic floor (SU 15206), similar in style and execution to those discovered in two rooms of the apartment (probably the praetorium) situated in the northwest corner of the fort: the shrine and the praetorium are certainly contemporary. The mosaic is made of chips of local white quartz and black schist vertically inserted. The shrine has two openings: a main, axial entrance (1.20 m) opening to the east, originally equipped with a double door, and a small, lateral one11 (height 1.05 m × width 0.40 m), through wall 4B, which gives access to a staircase with three steps (0.43 m wide) built inside the podium. The podium (2.25 m long, 0.745 m, wide, 1 m high) is a partially hollow parallelepiped built in bricks and stones bonded with chalk mortar (Fig.  106). The central part of the main face (1.60  m wide) is decorated in opus sectile with graffiti and proskynemata inscribed on some of the plates: 9, 10, 12). The podium has been modified three times during the history of the shrine. During the first stage (= phase 4), the table at the top presented a flat surface of steatite and sandstone slabs, whereas in the southwestern angle, there was a quadrangular receptacle built with bricks and covered by white plaster (internal length: 0.25 m; width: 0.14 m; height: 0.10 m) (Fig. 107). The above-mentioned stairs inside the podium may have served to give access to the top of the podium, for anointing and adorning the statues of the gods. The remnants of three steatite statues were found broken in the layers of abandonment. The seated one is probably Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis on a throne, with which a clay Cerberus-head is to be associated. The two others are a standing statue in Graeco-Roman style, and the lower part of another standing one in Egyptian style (Fig. 110). It is possible that they belong to this phase, but their original position is unknown. The blocks 10, 11, and 12 are bases made of brick and stone and covered with plaster. They are contemporary with the mosaic, and only the foundations are preserved. Block 10 would be an altar, placed 9. The aedes was excavated by Jean-Pierre Brun and Emmanuel Botte. I am indebted to J.-P. Brun for giving with his usual generosity a summary of his observations, which is the substance of this section. 10. Two costrels from Aswan (Tomber 2006, flagon type 73), a jug (Tomber 2006, flagon type 29), two urns and a cooking pot in marl fabric, two jugs in red fabric, one Cretan amphora, and a big jug probably imported from the Aegean zone (Type 4 in Brun 2007). 11. In P.Oxy. LI 3642.28–29 (second cent.), the lateral door of a Serapeum is called πλαγία τοῦ Σαραπείου.

486

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 106. The aedes, phase 5. © J.-P. Brun

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

Figure 107. Receptacle at the southern end of the podium. © J.-P. Brun

Figure 108. The podium seen from above. © J.-P. Brun

487

488

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

on the axis of the main entrance. Its importance is enhanced by the decoration of the mosaic: in front of it, there is a black rhombus (Fig. 108), whereas the rest of the mosaic consists of plain black and white squares. Blocks 11 and 12 are probably the bases of pillars supporting, not the roof of the room, but a baldachin sheltering the altar and the podium. The dating of phase 4 is uncertain. We are sure only that it is posterior to Antoninus Pius. One of the two inscriptions found in the rear part of the fort and presumably belonging to the first aedes may give a clue (3), because the only two surviving words, Imperator and Caesar, have been erased. Since the praesidium was built under Trajan, the damnatio memoriae cannot be Domitian’s. As is shown in the introduction to 3, the remains do not fit a titulature of Commodus, but point to Caracalla or Severus Alexander. Phase 5 (Fig. 106). Two basins, obviously used for new rituals, were built over the mosaic floor. Basin A blocked the frontal passage leading to the stairs inside the podium, which remained accessible by the lateral door. Perhaps during this phase the top of the podium was reorganized: the slabs were partially removed and replaced by an aggregate of mortar, bricks, and stones which sealed the standing statue and four small wooden pegs. At the time of the discovery, only the lower part of the standing statue was preserved. It is, like the rest of the stone objects, in local steatite and stood on a base with a pivot, the feet being molded in plaster. The four pegs, measuring 6 to 7 by 3 cm, are displayed so as to delimit a square, the center of which is occupied by a hemispherical hole (13 cm diam.) (Fig. 108). The pegs seem to be part of a support maintaining a movable vertical object resting in the central hole. The archaeologists think of a vexillum, but I am rather tempted to believe that it is the four legs of Sarapis’s throne.12 This transformation may have taken place independently. It has not been possible to date phase 5. Phase 6. A first, violent destruction of the shrine occurs. The podium did not decay progressively: the sanding up conditions in this desert zone could not have caused either the partial destruction of the opus sectile, nor the levelling of pillars 10, 11, and 12. The conclusion is that the shrine was sacked at a time which is not easy to define, but probably during the second quarter of the 3rd century. Phase 7. The shrine is rebuilt with various reused materials. The staircase inside the podium is filled and a wall (13, see Fig. 104) is erected to hold in the filling. The oracular ostraca published below were found in this filling, which means that that they were used in a previous stage, either the original one (phase 4), or phase 5, when a change had occurred in the rituals, as is suggested by the addition of basins. A stump of a brick pillar was placed horizontally over the top of the podium in order to create a small lateral wall. Between the standing statue and this partition, a reused, seated statue (the sitting Sarapis already mentioned) was settled. Several plates from the opus sectile of the podium were put in the filling underneath the new pavement mainly made of bricks and slabs (SU 15207, see Fig. 105), or reused in it (Fig. 109). At the time of the discovery, the podium bore several objects, viz. from north to south (right to left on Fig. 110): a clay lamp, the knees of the sitting Sarapis, and the standing statue sealed with mortar. Close to the latter’s back, a coarse steatite statuette of Zeus holding the thunderbolt was found. Note that in this configuration there is no room for the statue of Cerberus near Sarapis. It could, on the other hand, easily be fitted to the left of the four pegs, which I proposed to interpret as the remnants of Sarapis’s throne. 12. Against my idea speaks the smallness of the wooden pegs, which suggests that they supported something light. Note also that this contraption is posterior to the original organization of the podium.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

Figure 109. The brick floor, phase 7. © J.-P. Brun

Figure 110. The podium at the time of the discovery. Against its façade, the fragmentary Egyptianstyle statue. On the sand, a fragmentary stela coarsely representing Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis (the head was retrieved in cistern 3), and a rectangular plate originally belonging to the decoration of the podium, with graffiti 9–10. © J.-P. Brun

489

490

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

A precise chronology is impossible because of the absence of dated material. The relative quality of the repair of the floor could be an indication that this stage occurred during the occupation of the fort by the army and not during a possible episode of reoccupation which, in any case, is not documented. Thus phase 7 is probably to be dated before the abandonment of the fort, which is later than the middle of the third century. After the abandonment, a layer of packed sand progressively settled down in the shrine, which, however, continued to be frequented by travellers: Sisinnios and Nestorios carved their names on a stone of the podium in the fourth or fifth century (13). Aksumites did as well: three graffiti in non-vocalic Geʾez (identified by Christian Robin) were inscribed, one on the podium table, the two others on plates found in the sand. Then the shrine was vandalized again: the statues were broken and their fragments dispersed in the rooms and in the cistern nearby. Potsherds of Late Roman Amphora 3 from the region of Ephesus and of Late Roman Amphora 4 from Gaza found in the layer SU 15202 confirm the frequentation of the place during the fourth and the fifth centuries: these late, Christian visitors are probably responsible for the final destruction.

III. Two inscriptions from the primitive aedes? 2. Dedication by an architect SU 10106 Fig. 111

inv. 261 20 × 10.5 × 27 cm

second century

This inscription was found not in the identified aedes, but in the eastern zone of the praesidium, where it was reused twice as pivot-stone. It comes presumably from the former aedes, which we suppose to have been there (cf. p. 490). The dedicant is a military “architect.” At Mons Claudianus under Trajan, another architect, this time a civilian (the Alexandrian Apollonios son of Ammonios), also made a dedication to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis, which is the earliest dated attestation of this divine titulature (I.Pan 38). Steatite. Epigraphic field: 20 × 10.5 cm. The rest of the block is irregular and has a maximum depth of 27 cm. Apart from the two pivot-stone holes, a deep hole (8 × 8 × depth 6 cm) has been drilled on the face above the inscription and has traces of lime. Is it related to the inscription or was it drilled in the afterlife of the stone? In the first case, it could be related to the embedding of a statue. The inscription is neatly carved. The surface has been smoothed and light guide-lines incised. Therefore, the letters tend to have the same height (c. 1.2 cm). Only the last line, which looks like an addition, is of a smaller module. The letters were originally rubricated. Some letters were reshaped in the final stage of the carving (to modify their width or the distance to the neighboring letters), useless strokes being filled by stucco (initial δ, π in Σεράπιδι, ιτ in ἀρχιτέκτων, second ν in Ἀντώνιος).

4

Διὶ Ἡλίῳ Mεγάλῳ  Σεράπιδι Μ(ᾶρκος) • Ἀντώνιος Κέλερ ἀρχιτέκτων χώρτης α̅ Λουσιτανῶν ἐποίει.

2 μ̅ “To Zeus Helios Great Serapis, Marcus Antonius Celer, engineer of the First Cohort of Lusitanians, made (this).”

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

491

Figure 111. 2. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

1–2.

The hedera serves as spacefiller (to avoid cutting the theonym), not as separator, for the name of Sarapis is not enhanced through the letter size or the layout as in I.Pan 38.2 or I.Akôris 20.2.

2.

W. Clarysse (2009: 68–69) has demonstrated that the spelling Σεραπ- instead of the more frequent Σαραπ- in the god’s name and in derived anthroponymics is not a matter of date, but is characteristic of a Roman milieu (in Latin, the spelling is normally Serap-). That is the reason why, in Egypt, the highest concentration of Σεραπ- is found in the Eastern Desert.

3.

Military architects are usually mentioned in legions, equites singulares, or praetorian cohorts. Two are known in the Misenian Fleet (Stoll 2001). Attestations of architects belonging to auxilia are doubtful (Stoll 2001: 316 and n. 65; E. Evans, “Military Architects and Building Design in Roman Britain,” Britannia 25 [1994] 146). There is however one exception, if the restoration is right, a first century AD votive inscription on an altar found in the sacred bath zone in Aquae, Germania Superior (not mentioned in Stoll 2001): Mineruae / Val(erius) Perimus arc(hitectus) c(o)ho(rtis) et / Vittalis lapp/idari(us) ex uotto / et sui lappidar(ii) (H. Nesselhauf, Fundberichte aus Bade-Württemberg 3 [1977] 328–31, no.1 and Fig. 1;13 cf. Lupa 8257). Since equites singulares are selected from the auxilia, it is not surprising to find architects belonging to an auxiliary unit.

4.

Cohors I Augusta Lusitanorum, which was still part of the garrison of Iudaea in 90 (RMD V 332), is attested in Egypt from 105 on (AE 1968, 513).

13. I thank Dr K. Matijevic for this reference.

492

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 112. 3. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

3 SU 13602 Fig. 112

inv. 658 21 × 26 × 6.5 cm

post 235?

Fragment of a slab, broken to the right, with a Latin inscription. It is the only possible evidence for a mention of an emperor in an aedes at Dios. The inscribed area is framed and topped by a roughed-out pediment with acroteria. Although unfinished, the object was on display, since it suffered a rasura. The length of lines is doubtful, because the state of preservation of the top and of the pediment14 does not allow us to decide with confidence if part of the right side of the pediment is preserved or if the center of the pediment is further to the right, which would imply long lines. On the other hand, I do not see what word(s) could be restored to the right of imper at line 1. Unless the slab was very wide (Caesar would then belong to a filiation), which is doubtful, Imperator was the only word at line 1. The solution at which one arrives by reading and restoring Se[uer-- at line 3 is a titulature (possibly in the dative) of either Caracalla or Severus Alexander (Imperator Caesar M. Aurelius Seuerus Antoninus/Alexander). Imperator and Caesar have been erased, not Seuerus. Both emperors were submitted to damnatio memoriae, but rasurae are by far more frequent in the case of Severus Alexander. Normally the erased elements are only Alexander, or M. Aurelius Seuerus Alexander, sometimes the whole sequence from Imperator Caesar on. I have found only one instance where Imperator Caesar and Alexander were erased and Seuerus preserved (CIL VIII 22386, milestone, Numidia). 14. I have reexamined the stone in Quft for this purpose. It seems that the right part of the pediment has not been carved out, which gives the (false?) impression that the left raking cornice continues to go up.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

493

Steatite. The stone and decoration have been crudely prepared. Guidelines incised, but the stonecutter did not use them. The letters (2.5 cm high) were originally rubricated. Two holes (pivot-stone holes?) have been drilled in the left side of the frame. The back, naturally flat and smooth, is unworked. ⟦Imper[ator(i?)]⟧ ⟦Caesa[r(i?) ---]⟧ Ṣẹ[uer---] –   –   –   – 2. After Caesa[r(i?), M. Aur. should be restored.

IV. Greek and Latin graffiti from the aedes (4–13) A few worshippers left a written trace of their visit in the aedes, incised on the soft steatite slabs or inlaid plates of the podium. Some of these graffiti can be ascribed to travellers who passed the site after it had been abandoned (13 and the Geʾez graffiti). Earlier worshippers tend to be soldiers (a librarius, two infantry-men, and a curator praesidii); the only certain non-soldier is a naukleros (12). None of these persons can be identified with any other mentioned in the ostraca found at Dios or in the other praesidia. 4 SU 152 Fig. 113

inv. 1067 18.5 × 16 × 3.5 cm

second century–c. 250

Figure 113. 4. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Graffito incised with a fine point on a steatite plate of a roughly trapezoidal shape. Face and edges are hewn; the back is rough. Curiously, the text is not horizontally lined up with the top edge, which makes one wonder how the stone was positioned when it was written. The two main deities of the aedes are here identified. On this pair, see the general conclusion infra.

494

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert Διὶ Ἡλίῳ Μεγάλῳ Σαράπιδι καὶ τῆς Τύχης τοῦ πραισιδίου Ἰούλις Ἀχιλλᾶς λιβ(ράριος).

4

1 διϊ

2–3 l. τῇ Τύχῃ

4 ϊουλις

6 λιβ/

“To Zeus Helios Great Sarapis and to the Fortuna of the fort, Iulius Achillas, clerk.” 2–3.

The mistaken grammatical case is perhaps due to the fact that, in the inscriptions, the syntagm ἡ Τύχη is generally in the genitive (ὑπὲρ τῆς Τύχης).

6.

For librarii in the Desert of Berenike, see O.Krok. I 105.

5–7 SU 152 Fig. 114

inv. 1087 max. dim. 30 × 23.5 × 5.4 cm

second century

Figure 114. 5–7. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Northeast corner slab on top of the podium. Steatite. The side along which the Latin graffito runs is rough; the three others are sawn. The edge facing the entrance of the aedes carries a Geʾez graffito. The surface of the slab presents many scratches, among which only the Latin graffito and two Greek ones are legible. 5. The brickwork added during one of the remakings of the podium covered the last letters. Letter height: 5.5 cm. CLBRLIS MILET

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

495

1.

It seems that most vowels are missing: C(aius) L⟨i⟩b⟨e⟩r⟨a⟩lis (it is not exceptional in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert to have Γάιος + cognomen)? One can also think of Cl(audius) B⟨i⟩r⟨i⟩lis, understand Virilis.

2.

Read milit(is) (but why the genitive?) or miles?

6. Along the northern edge. ε̣ παρὰ τ̣ῷ̣ κ̣υρίῳ̣ Σαρά̣πι̣δος 2 l. Σαράπιδι 1.

The letters before ε look like two π, which is not meaningful. This line is perhaps the continuation of a preceding one, almost completely erased.

7. Along the western edge. Ἰσιδ 1–3 1.

The letter after δ could be ω, in which case it would be the proper name Ἰσίδωρος and not the goddess Isis.

8 SU 152 Fig. 115

inv. 1070 22 × 26 × 2.5 to 5 cm

second century–c.250

A roughly trapezoidal steatite plate with protruding top edge. The four sides are smoothed, and the back is roughed out. The author of the Greek graffito has a typical Coptite Geb-name (Kronios). His hand is uneducated, and he has crudely represented Min and Isis, Egyptian style, facing each other. For this non-Romanized dedicant, Isis could be the interpretatio aegyptiaca of the Roman Isis whose head has been preserved, and who probably is the Tyche of the praesidium as well, Isis being often identified with Tyche in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.15 Letters written in the praesidium of Raïma in the middle of the second century have proskynemata either to the Tyche of Raïma (O.Claud. II 278) or to “Isis in Raïma” (O.Claud. II 255–257). The statue of Isis standing on the pedestal in the Serapeum of Luxor dedicated under Hadrian by a former decurio is also an Isis-Tyche, to judge by her cornucopia (Fr. Dunand, BIFAO 81 [1981] 138). Isis is not mentioned in the dedication of the Luxor Serapeum, but only Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis (SEG XXXI 1548). Was Min, the former patron of the Eastern Desert, officially associated as synnaos theos to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis in the aedes of Dios, or is he a free addition due to Kronios’s initiative? Is the third large statue found in the aedes (cf. Fig. 110) a Min?

15. See, e.g., Malaise 2000: 9.

496

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 115. 8. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Κρόνις Ὥρω l. Ὥρου “Kronios son of Horos.” 9–10 SU 152 Fig. 116

inv. 1068 30.8 × 12.2 × 2–3.6 cm

Figure 116. 9–10. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

second century–c. 250

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

497

Two graffiti on a rectangular schist plate which was part of the opus sectile decorating the podium. The surface is polished, the sides are sawn, and the back is raw. The first graffito is incised with a fine point; the second one is deeper. The names are typical for the military occupants of the praesidia. The two graffiti are written over a previous one consisting of two lines superficially incised and generally illegible. Its first line appears between the two later graffiti and runs: καλὸς οβ̣. m.1 m.2 4

Κάσις Ἀπολλώνιος vac. τὸ προσκύνημα Νέπως Δράκων στρατιώτης

“Cassius Apollonios.” “My act of worship. Nepos Drakon, infantry-man.” 2.

If placed after τὸ πρόσκυνημα, the name is normally in the genitive. On Egyptian epigraphic proskynemata, see Geraci 1971. I do not know if Δράκων is a patronymic or an alias.

11 cistern 3 Fig. 117

inv. 1593 16.8 × 8 × 4 cm

second century–c. 250

Figure 117. 11. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

This fragment of steatite must have belonged to the podium’s masonry. It is one of the few objects from the aedes found in cistern 3. The graffito has been incised with a fine point on the smoothed face. The two undersized last letters suggest that it did not continue on another stone. vac. Νίγερ κουράτ(ωρ) “Niger, curator.”

498

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

12 SU 152 Fig. 118

inv. 1069 15 × 28 × 4.2 cm

post 212

Figure 118. 12. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

The plate belonged to the opus sectile of the pedestal. Schist. A rather skilled graffito by an Alexandrian businessman, although he miscalculates the space he needs and is obliged to cram letters at line ends. A play on interlinear space (slightly larger between ll. 1 and 2, and 3 and 4). The verb was meant to be centered. The hopeful exclamation ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ is written in bigger letters. The verb ἀνέθηκε implies that the inscription accompanies a votive gift. Its modesty suggests some cheap offering, perhaps a lamp or a statuette. This naukleros is exactly the kind of customer who would consult the oracle.

4 1

Αὐ(ρήλιος) Σαραπίων Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ναύκληρος ἀνέθηκα ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ. palma

“I, Aurelius Sarapion, Alexandrian, ship’s manager, have dedicated (this). Bless me!” 3.

ναύκληρος. A shipping contractor, who can either own or rent one or several boats, be aboard (sometimes as captain), or not.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios 13 SU 152 Fig. 119

inv. 1065 12 × 5 × 2.5 cm

499 fourth–fifth century

Figure 119. 13. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Plate of steatite sawn on each face and side, except for the break (the graffito may have been written after the break). Raised edge on the right side. Was the plate perhaps reshaped from a larger, framed one? Irregular, angular letters, engraved with a fine point. Sigma recalls Latin c, a late paleographical feature. Both names have a late flavor. They must have been left by visitors who came when the praesidium had been abandoned and the aedes had begun to sand up. Σισίννιος Νεστόρ̣ι̣ος 1.

The Iranian name Sisinnios appears late in Egyptian documents. Two saints of that name were worshipped in Egypt, the earlier being a martyr killed in Nicomedia under Diocletian (A. Papaconstantinou, Le culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbassides [Paris 2001] 190; D. L. O’Leary, The Saints of Egypt [London and New York 1937] 258 f.). The oldest dated occurrence is the name of the rationalis Flavius Sisinnius (P.Ammon II 30 [348]). There exist two other graffiti made by a Sisinnios in the Eastern desert: one in Kompasi (the station after Dios in the direction of Koptos), one in the Paneion in Wadi Minayh (cf. Cuvigny and Bülow-Jacobsen 1999: 151 ff.).

2.

The iota is doubtful. If it exists, it was added afterwards and awkwardly against the rho. Perhaps it had even been added first, before the rho, by mistake, which would explain the parasitic stroke which is seen there. Νεστόρι̣ος is more probable than a genitive Νέστορος, the name Νέστωρ occurring only once after the Ptolemaic period (SB XVIII 14053, third–fourth cent., seemingly a school-exercise). Νεστόριος appears in Egypt from the third–fourth century on.

500

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

V. The ostraca from the filling of the podium Some 20 ostraca were dumped in the staircase behind the façade of the podium,16 together with an incomplete sundial.17 Among the ostraca, there is a remarkable collection of eight sherds (and one fragmentary tablet made out of steatite), each of them containing one or several oracular answers. The other ostraca (fragmentary private letters, tituli picti, lists of names) are too insignificant and uninformative to be published here and seem to have nothing to do with religion or rituals, except perhaps for the following sherd. 14 US 15302 Fig. 120

inv. 1005 11.7 × 8.1 cm

second century–c. 250

Figure 120. 14. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Probably not a titulus pictus on an AE3 amphora: the sherd has a symmetrical pleasant shape, the text is roughly centered, and tituli picti are normally written along the direction of the wheel marks. The text is written in a field where the ceramic has been scratched with a pointed tool, which is rare in ostraca. It happens when the writer wants to make a correction. In the present case, it would have been easier to take another potsherd. Did the writer want to smooth the surface? The writing in line 1 is slightly larger than in line 2. ↓

ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ τ̣ῷ ουη̣ξίλλου

2 l. -ίλλῳ

16. The filling of the staircase is numbered SU 15204 in the stratigraphical record. Some materials labelled 15302 were found in room 53, where they slid from the filling through the little door between the chapel and room 53. Thus, they belong to the same stratigraphic unit as material from SU 15204. 17. This object, made in steatite, therefore on the spot, will be published by Alexander Jones. Apart from numbers, it has a Greek inscription (δυστυχῶν μερίς) which suggests that it may have been used in the mantic procedure.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

501

It is well known that in Egypt ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ is a wishful acclamation with the same meaning as ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ or εὐτυχῶς (A. Rehm, Philologus 94 [1940/41] 10). Ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ most often occurs at the end of an inscription, but is sometimes found at the beginning. In the latter case, it is normally used absolutely (“good luck!”), although it may occasionally be applied to the person(s) mentioned in the genitive, e.g., I.Philae II 131: τὸ προσκύνημα ὧδε παρὰ τῆι Ἴσιδι ἐπ’ ἀγαθῶι Κεφάλωνος καὶ Πρωτογένους (“for the good of Kephalon and Protogenes”). In I.Alex. impér. 101, the name is in the dative, under the influence of εὐτυχῶς which often precedes a dative: εὐτυχῶς καὶ ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ Μάρκωι Αὐρηλίωι Μικκαλῶνι. The identification of the word in line 2 is problematic: what springs to mind is οὐηξίλλου, but how to explain the space, corresponding to two letters, between ου and η̣ξίλλου? An easy way out would be to regard the faint traces not as letters, but as remains of the ink stain which is below line 2, precisely at this level. The writer would simply have avoided the stain. If we accept the reading οὐηξίλλου, another problem arises: does it refer to a standard of the garrison, which was presumably kept in the chapel, or does vexillum have its metonymic meaning of “detachment,” vexillatio? To this day, there exists only a single other occurrence of vexillum in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert, namely in O.Claud. inv. 7295 ([189], see Chapter 5), where it means “detachment.” Usually (in private letters), the group of soldiers composing the garrison of a praesidium in the Eastern Desert are referred to as τὸ πραισίδιον, not τὸ οὐήξιλλον. In the first case, the ostracon would be a sort of dedication to the standard of the garrison (“Good luck! To our standard”), in the second it would be a modest votive inscription for the benefit of the garrison (“Good luck to the garrison!”).18 Whatever the interpretation, the ostracon is a substitute for an inscription: it is either a very cheap sort of dedication, or a draft of a stone inscription.

15–25. The oracular responses A. The texts In their presentation and contents, the oracular answers from Dios show striking similarities with the so-called astragaloi-inscriptions from southwestern Asia Minor, the complete corpus of which has recently been published by J. Nollé (2007). This masterly publication, where one finds not only the texts of all the astragaloi-inscriptions known today, as well as of the related alphabetic oracles, but also a general historical and philological study of these documents, replaces previous editions, and in the following commentaries I shall refer to the texts according to Nollé’s sigla.19

18. The second hypothesis is more probable according to R. Haensch. 19. List in Nollé 1987: 295. I shall most often quote “K,” which means the archetype of the main group of astragaloiinscriptions as reconstituted by Nollé, and “Ant,” with reference to the dissenting astragaloi-inscription of Antiocheia on Kragos; for convenience, I shall indicate at the same time the page of Nollé 1987 where the quoted text can be traced. The following modern studies are also useful: Naour 1980; Brixhe and Hodot 1988; Graf 2005.

502

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

15 SU 15204 Fig. 121

inv. 994 10.5 × 7.5 cm

c. 200

Figure 121. 15. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↓ 4

8

1 απολλω νος ομ

β̅ Ἀπόλλωνος. ὁμ(οίως). πύλας ἄνοιγε εὐλύτους τε ἀτραποὺς ἔχεις· πορεύου τὴν προκειμένην ὁδόν, ταχέως δὲ ἔργοις μὴ λόγοις γείνου βροτοῖς. γ̅ μὴ χρῶ. Λητοῦς. ἄπελθε· λοιπὸν μηδὲν ἀ⸌ν⸍τείπῃς θεῷ ἰς ὃ ἐπιβάλλῃ · τοῦτο οὐχ̣ ὅτ̣ι̣ τ̣ω̣[][][][ [δ̅ --] – – – – – – – – – – – 6 l. γίνου

10 χ ex κ corr.?

“2. (Oracle) of Apollo. Likewise. Open the doors, easy are for you the paths. Walk the road which is before you, but in your intercourse with mortals, hasten to use acts, not words.” “3. Don’t consult. (Oracle of) Leto. Go, and from now on don’t object to the god concerning what you undertake. Not only…” “[4.] …”

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

503

2–3.

The metaphors of open doors and a good journey are also associated in the astragaloi-inscription of Antioch on Kragos: ἀλλ’ ὁδὸς ἥδ’ ἀγαθὴ καί σοι πύλαι εἰσὶν ἀνοικταί (Ant 8.2 = Nollé 2007: 195). Open doors also in Drexl 1941: 7: ἀνοίγει σοι ὁ θεὸς θύρας. εὐλύτους τε ἀτραπούς: although not exclusively literary, ἀτραπός is not attested in papyrological documents: it does not seem to have belonged to colloquial or administrative Greek in Egypt, where only its doublet ἀτραπιτός is found in five metrical epitaphs, all from the necropolis of Edfu and by the same local poet (e.g., I.métr. 35.1–2: Εὐαγόρου κούρην συνγνούς, ξένε, τῶιδ’ ὑπὸ τύμβῳ / στεῖχε σὺν εὐτυχίηι τῆσδε δι’ ἀτραπιτοῦ, “Hear, foreigner, that Euagoras’s daughter is under this tomb and go away happily on this path”). To an Egyptian, ἀτραπός must have been felt as Homeric and poetic. Εὔλυτος (literally “easy to untie”) referring to a way has no parallel. The idea is that the obstacles are easy to overcome. The theme of the λύσις (from fear and all kinds of hardships) as a favor of the gods is frequent in the astragaloi-ostraca (Nollé 2007: 133 and n. 564).

4–5.

Cf. GVI I 1644.4–5, an epitaph republished with different restorations in R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem Griechischen Osten, Bd 1 (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) 211 (Hyllarima, Caria, first cent. BC): [σὺ δέ, ὦ] ξ̣ένος, τὰν ἀμφ’ ἐμοὶ γραφὰν ὁρ̣[ῶν]/[χαίρ]ων ἀπέρχευ τὰν προκειμέναν ὁδ[όν].

5–6.

Same themes, with a different meaning, in the Alphabeticum paraeneticum by Gregory of Nazianzus, a collection of sententiae similar to the alphabetic oracles from Asia Minor (J. Sakkelion, Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθήκη [Athens 1890] 18–19): ἔργοις δ’ ἀρέσκειν σπεῦδε καὶ λόγοις Θεῷ. Same order to take action quickly in the inscription of Antioch on Kragos: τάχυνε ἐπ’ ἔργοις (Ant 27.3 = Nollé 2007: 198), but without the opposition to λόγοι, which occurs in this Menandrean sententia: ἔργοις φιλόπονος ἴσθι, μὴ λόγοις μόνον (Monost. 256). Here, the construction of γίνεσθαι is awkward.

11.

Only the extremity of the line above the numeral is extant.

16 SU 15204 Fig. 122

inv. 995 9.5 × 9 cm

c. 200

Corrections and erasures show that this is a draft (perhaps of oracle no. 4 on the preceding sherd?). Because of its fragmentary state and the uncertainty of the last line, the message is not fully understood, but it sounds like a χρησμὸς ἄπρακτος, a deterring oracle. It may have something to do with the choice of an ominous deity as its source.

504

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 122. 16. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↓ 4

8 2 l. ἐπιχείρεις

δ̅ Τυφῶν[ος ὃ ἐπιχίρις πο[ ὃ κατὰ ψυχὴν [ ⟦μὴ πόει⟧ πράξα̣ι μ̣[ὴ] πρά⟦ξῃ⟧⸌ξῃ⸍ς εἰδὼς ὅτι οὐ συνφύρει· ἡ γὰρ ὁδὸς ––––– κατέστηκεν καὶ ηολ vac. π.ουκε̣ι.δ.νο̣υι

6 l. συμφέρει 7 κατεστη- ex κατεστα- corr., l. καθέστηκεν

2.

ποι̣[ῆσαι rather than an imperative.

3.

After ψυχήν, a verb (e.g., θέλεις) introducing the infinitive πρᾶξαι at line 4? It seems that the chresmograph tried two ways of expressing the same idea, first with ποιεῖν, then with πράσσειν, which is the normal word in this kind of text (whereas ποιεῖν is never used). Then, ὃ κατὰ ψυχὴν - - replaces ὃ ἐπιχίρις π- - (which should then have been cancelled). Here κατὰ ψυχήν is instead of κατὰ νοῦν, associated to πράσσειν in three oracles of the five-astragaloi tradition of the Pisidian type (e.g., K 28.3 = Nollé 2007: 154: πράξεις πᾶν κατὰ νοῦν). The meaning is “to succeed according to one’s wishes/plan.”

3–6.

Cf. K 3.2 = Nollé 2007: 127: ἣν πράσσεις πρᾶξιν, μὴ πράξῃς· οὐ γὰρ ἄμεινον, “the action you are doing, don’t do, for it is of no avail.” Ἄμεινον is typical of the oracular epigraphical questions and answers in all the Greek world, particularly in the juncture λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον (Nollé 2007: 128). It is synonymous with σύμφορον, also found in the astragaloi oracles. As far as pagan inscriptions are concerned, the verb συμφέρειν is found only in this verse of the alphabetic

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

505

oracles: μάτην ἐπείγῃ· μὴ τάχυν’· οὐ συμφέρει, “In vain do you make haste. Do not hurry, it is of no avail” (Nollé 2007: 249). But cf. Drexl 1941: 9: σὺ δὲ μὴ πράξῃς τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτον, ὅτι οὐ συμφέρει. 7.

κατέστηκεν. An unexpected verb with ὁδός as a subject. The γάρ implies that it explains why to undertake something is useless (οὐ συμφέρει): “for the road is already set/fixed by fate”? Or the sentence is left unfinished after ὁδός, as may be suggested by the paragraphos, the larger interlinear space, and a slight change of writing between lines 7 and 8.

8.

This line contains too many ambiguous letters: πλου or πτου (ἠόλπτου for ἀέλπτου?); κε̣ι or καί? It is unsure whether there is a character or not between ε̣ι and δ. δυν or δεν? Οὐκ εἶδεν or κε̣ι⟨ν⟩δύ̣νο̣υ? Several combinations are paleographically possible at the end. Two far-fetched hypotheses: καὶ ἠόλπτ̣ου κε̣ιν̣δύνο̣υ γ̣έ̣μ̣ι, “and (the way) is fraught with unexpected danger.” Or καὶ ἡ ὅλ[η] πλ̣οῦ⟨ς⟩ κειν̣δυ̣νε̣ύσ̣ε̣τ̣α̣ι, “and the whole voyage will be endangered.”

17 SU 15204 Fig. 123

inv. 1012 11 × 14 cm

c. 200

This steatite plate had at least two distinct fields (col. i and col. ii) of writing, separated by a bead which perhaps formed a frame. The writing surface was whitened, but the writing must have been rubbed and the white is gone except close to the bead. Later the fields were inscribed directly on the stone. Col. i, of which only the last letter(s) of each line remains, is not published. The text is too fragmentary for continuous sense, but lines 7–8 seem to give the answer to a question concerning marriage. The present type of oracles normally avoids reference to a precise subject, but K 25 is bold enough to predict that the inquirer will come back having married. The only preserved theonym is Kronos, mentioned in the astragaloi-inscriptions. In Egypt, PGM IV 3083–3111 offers instructions to obtain a prophecy of Kronos (μαντία Κρονική). The prayer to say includes: … λέγε μοι ἐν ἀνάγκῃ περὶ τοῦ δεῖνος πράγματος, “tell me, by necessity, concerning such and such an affair.” The aim of the prayer is ἵνα … εἴπῃ, περὶ ὧν ἐπερωτᾷς, “in order that … (Kronos) might speak concerning what you ask.” We recognize here the vocabulary of our responses. On the Berenike road, the mention of Kronos could have sounded as a reference to the Coptite Geb.

506

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 123. 17. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

col. ii

4

8

12

11 l. ἀποδημίᾳ

– – – μ[ ἐμπ[ ο ἀποδι[ ἐπικαλειϲ[ λητε ἐὰν ζητ̣[ νος λαβεῖν οὐ μ[ ἐὰν γαμεῖν μελ̣[ γαμει ἄπρακτος̣ [ δος ἐστιν. ε̅ Κρόνου [ ὁ ἐν ἀποδημείᾳ η̣[ ων εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ̣[ τι ποιεῖς η̣[ ὁ̣ βίος σ̣[ – – –

12 ϊδιαν

4.

I wrote in 2010 that ἐπικαλεῖν (“invoke”?) does not belong to the vocabulary of this type of oracles. However, it appears now in an oracular book from Kellis (Hoogendijk 2016: 607).

5.

-λητε. A second-person plural is not to be expected in such responses. An address in the vocative?

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

507

7–9.

Perhaps ἐὰν γαμεῖν μέλ̣[λῃς, μὴ] γάμει· ἄπρακτος [γὰρ ἡ ὁ]δός ἐστιν (“If you are on the point of marrying, do not marry: this road is to no avail”), although in this type of oracle ἄπρακτος qualifies only πρᾶξις, πρᾶγμα, and χρησμός.

11.

The inquirer is not directly addressed as usual, but spoken of in the third person. This is also sometimes the case in the astragaloi-inscriptions, notably in one oracle concerning the ἀπόδημος (K 9.4 = Nollé 2007: 136: τόν τ’ ἀπόδημον ἐόντα θεοὶ σώσουσιν ἐς οἴκους, “the one who is abroad, the gods will bring him safely home”).

14.

ὁ βίος σ̣ο̣υ̣ [ is possible.

18 SU 15204 Fig. 124

inv. 996 8.5 × 7

c. 200

Figure 124. 18. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↓ 4

1 ομ

l. ἁλιεύς

η̅ ὁμ(οίως). ὡς ἂν ἁλε̣ι̣ε̣ὺς ἄνγισ̣τ̣ρων̣ ἰ̣ς̣ βυθὼν βάλλω̣ν̣ ἰχθύα κομίζῃ κοὐκ ἄρματα [ – – – – – 2 l. ἄγκιστρον εἰς

3 l. βυθόν

“8. Likewise. Like a fisherman who throws his hook into the depths of the sea, you bring back a fish and (do not lack?) food …” 1–2.

Read by A. Bülow-Jacobsen. ὁμ(οίως) had obviously been forgotten and was added later.

4.

ἰχθύα, late and poetic accusative singular of ἰχθῦς. The comparison with the fisherman does not occur in this kind of literature, but cf. Sortes sanctorum 49: In quo speras pisces latent, et tu laetus capies eos (…).

508

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert κομίζῃ. One expects the future. I do not think it is a subjunctive active, third person, depending on ὡς ἄν.

5.

ἄρμα, late and rare “food” (cf. DELG, s.v. 1 ἀείρω).

19 SU 15204 Fig. 125

inv. 1000 8.5 × 7.5 cm

c. 200

Figure 125. 19. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↘ 4

2 l. δειλιαίνου

3 l. βίος

ι̅η̅ δι̣’ ὅλης ἡμ̣έ̣ρ̣α̣ς̣. ὄψῃ ὃ βούλει, μὴ δειλαίν̣ο̣υ· ὁ βείος ἕξει ἐπὶ τὸ β̣α̣ί̣λ̣τιον. ἡ γ̣ῆ στερ⸌ε̣⸍ά. ἐ̣πὶ τὸ κρῖσσον ἔστ̣α̣[ι ]  ἀγ̣α̣θ̣ό̣ν̣[ ε[ – – – 4 l. βέλτιον

5 l. κρεῖσσον

“18. During the whole day. You will see what you want. Don’t fear. Your life is heading towards the better. The earth is firm. All will be better …” 4–5.

Cf. P.Vindob.Sal. 1.4 (infra, p. 520).

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios 20 SU 15204 Fig. 126

inv. 997 8.9 × 10 cm

509 c. 200

Figure 126. 20. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↘ 4

8

κ̅α̣̅ ὁμοί̣ω̣ς̣. ὄψῃ τὸ σ̣υν 3–4 ο̣ν̣ σου. μὴ εὐλαβοῦ τὰ κ̣ύ̣μα̣τα τῆς θαλάσσης. μὴ ὑ̣π̣ο̣πτ̣εύσῃς τὸν χειμῶνα οὐδέ σοι χαλεπὸν ἔσ̣τ̣α̣ι̣. εὔχου τοῖς θεοῖς πεποιθῶς, καὶ αὐτοί σε κυβερνήσουσιν ἐφ’ ὃ πορεύῃ. ἃ δει̣λ̣άν̣ει μὴ τῖε μηδὲ δειλαίνου.

9 l. δειλαίνει “21. Likewise. You will see your … . Do not fear the waves of the sea. Do not apprehend the storm and it will not be hard for you. Pray to the gods with confidence and they will guide you where you are going. What you cower before, pay no heed to it, and do not cower.” 2.

σ̣υν 3–4 ον is not understood. ε̣υν- is not excluded but does not help, γ̣υν- is not paleographically acceptable. The letter after υν seems to be ε or σ. Two meanings are possible: either it means something like “your wishes” (cf. 19), or it refers to what a traveller hopes to go back to

510

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert (his house, country, family), a theme known in cleromantic inscriptions, although expressed differently.

3–6.

Same idea in Sortes sanctorum 36: Licet et ventum cum magno sudore et labore venire, tunc erit tibi in manibus tuis quod petisti; Deum roga, et refer ei gratias.

3.

εὐλαβέομαι does not belong to the vocabulary of cleromantic inscriptions, but μὴ εὐλαβοῦ is a phrase of gnomonologic style, the earliest occurrence, often quoted by later compilators, being Diphilos’s θνητὸς πεφυκὼς μὴ εὐλαβοῦ τεθνηκέναι, “being a mortal by nature, do not fear death.” κύματα is a metaphor employed in oracular inscriptions, but in negative prophecies: πρὸς ἀντία κύματα μοχθεῖς (“you are toiling against hostile waves,” K 14.2 = Nollé 2007: 141); κύμασιν μάχεσθαι χαλεπόν (“waves are hard to fight,” alphabetic oracles).

4–5.

ὑποπτεύειν does not occur in cleromantic inscriptions, but ὕποπτος and ὑποψία are found in some alphabetic oracles, cf. Tim and Sol, Y (Nollé 2007: 269): ὑποψία μὲν ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ φόβου, “there are reasons for apprehension, but do not be afraid.”

6–9.

Cf. K 31.4 (Nollé 2007: 157): θεοῖς πείθου καὶ ἐπ’ ἐλπίδος ἴσθι, “obey the gods and hope.” Orders to obey the gods are common in cleromantic oracles. The same notion is found in Homer, when Achilles, choosing to obey Athena’s order, says: ὅς κε θεοῖς ἐπιπείθεται, μάλα τ’ ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ, “whoso obeys the gods, to him do they gladly give ear” (A 218, trad. A. T. Murray, ed. Loeb).

8.

Cf. K 10 (Nollé 2007: 136), an oracle of Τύχη κυβερνώσα, “the steering Fortune.”

9.

δειλάνει, l. δειλαίνει. Indicative present middle, second-person singular of δειλαίνω (derived from δειλός). The word is not common in the papyri, nor elsewhere, but is found in P.Tebt. I 58 (W.Chr. 287, 111 BC, δεδίλανται) and P.Lond. VI 1914 (AD 335, διλανθῆναι). This verb, whether active, middle, or passive, is normally intransitive (“to be a coward”), but at line 9 it has an object (ἅ). Unless we have here another verb, δειλιαίνω (derived from δειλία), “to make afraid.” In that case δειλ⟨ι⟩α⟨ί⟩νει, “what makes (you) afraid.” Then there would be two different verbs at lines 9 and 10. But δειλιαίνω is attested only once, in LXX, Deut. 20.8 (ἵνα μὴ δειλιάνῃ τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, “so that he does not scare his brother’s heart”).

10.

μὴ τῖε. Homeric verb. μηδὲ δειλαίνου. No related verb is found in the astragaloi oracles, but cf. Drexl 1941: 6: περὶ τούτου μὴ δειλιᾷς μηδὲ ταραχθῇς. τὸν θεὸν γὰρ ἔχεις βοηθὸν καὶ ἀναψύχοντά σε, “do not let yourself be scared or troubled about this. God is with you, giving you help and relief.”

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios 21 SU 15204 Fig. 127

inv. 1024 8 × 7.5 cm

511 c. 200

Figure 127. 21. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↗ 4

κ̅ε̅ ὁμοίως. ὥσπερ ἐπιθυμεῖ γεωργὸς ἐὰν σπίρῃ τυχεῖν, οὕτως ὃ ἐπιθυμ⸌ε⸍ῖς καταλαβοῖς χωρὶς φθόνου.

3 l. σπείρῃ “25. Likewise. As the farmer wishes to harvest when he sows, so may you obtain without hatred what you wish.” 2–5.

The nearest parallel is Sortes sanctorum 26: Sicut seminator in terram bonam semen mittit, et fructum in tempore suo restituet, ita ad quod desideras laetus pervenies, et tuam voluntatem facile invenies.

512

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

22 SU 15204 Fig. 128

inv. 1015 7.5 × 10.5 cm

c. 200

Figure 128. 22. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↘ 4

2 ϊτα-

3 l. πλοῖον

κ̅ϛ̅ μὴ χρῶ. ὡς ἐπιθυμεῖ ἰταλικὸν πλῦον σῶσαι ναύτης, οὕτως εἰς ὃ ἐπιβάλλῃ ἡ ὁδός σοι ἔστε σε καλή.

6 l. ἔσται σοι J. Rea, ἔστεσε l. ἔστεσαι i.e., ἔσται ed. pr.

“26. Do not consult. As the sailor wishes to save an Italian ship, so, for you, the way to what you commence will be good.” 2–3.

ἰταλικὸν πλοῖον σῶσαι. Cf. Sortes sanctorum 14: Sicut navis in pelago gubernata fuerit, quod desideras ita tibi veniet (…).

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios 23 SU 15204 Fig. 129

513 c. 200

inv. 1027 7 × 9 cm

Figure 129. 23. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

↓ 4

8 1 l. πρωΐας

5 l. ἀγαθῷ

κζ προείας. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐρωτᾷς ἐπιτεύξῃ καὶ τελειωθήσεται. γηράσεις ἐν ἀγαθοῖς, κακὸν οὐ μὴ εἰδοῖς. ἡ ὁδὸς καλή, οἱ θεοὶ εὐείλατοι ἔσονται. 6 οὐ: ο ex μ corr.

l. ἰδοῖς

8 l. εὐίλατοι

“27. In the morning. You will obtain what you ask and it will be fulfilled. You will grow old in happiness. May you not see Evil. The road is good. The gods will be merciful.”

514

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

B. Diplomatic Each oracle has a heading with two or three elements. Always present are a number and an indication as to the auspiciousness of time to consult the oracle. There are only two papyrological parallels for this type of notations. One is a table entitled ἡμερομαντίαι καὶ ὧραι (“days and times suitable for divination”) found in the magical miscellany PGM VII (ll. 155–167). It gives for each of the 30 days of an undetermined month (of any month?) the auspicious moment of the day: ἕωθεν (“in the morning”), μεσημβρίας (“at midday”), δείλης (“in the evening”), δι’ ὅλης ἡμέρας (“all day”); this tripartition of the day belongs to the pharaonic tradition.20 Some days are entirely inauspicious and are labelled μὴ χρῶ (“do not consult”). In the Dios oracular answers, we find δι’ ὅλης ἡμέρας and μὴ χρῶ, but πρωΐας is used instead of ἕωθεν. However, another tradition, witnessed by several medieval manuscripts of the Sortes Astrampsychi,21 has the adverb πρωΐ, as does our second papyrological parallel, P.Oxy. LVI 3831 (third–fourth cent.), which, however, distinguishes between πρωΐ (“in the morning”) and ἀπ’ ἠοῦς (“at dawn”). It is an unfinished book of homeromanteia, the preamble of which consists of instructions for use, including a list of days from 1 to 30, with the usual notations (lines 12–20). There is no consistency between the tables of PGM VII, P.Oxy. LVI 3831, and the one which belongs to the instructions for use at the beginning of medieval manuscripts of the Sortes Astrampsychi. The thirteen data that agree between two of the three tables look incidental, except perhaps on the 3rd, which is always a μὴ χρῶ day, as also at Dios (15.7). Four times in Dios oracles one reads ὁμοίως instead of the auspiciousness notation. It means that the latter is the same as in the previous oracle. Therefore, the Dios oracular answers were not tesserae meant to be handed out to the consultant. In spite of the writing support, they belong to a collection of oracles in which they are classified according to numerals. Since there are three oracles numbered 4 (but one is obviously a draft), this collection apparently consists of at least two series. However, one should also consider the possibility that even the “neat” ostraca (e.g., 15) are drafts, and that the steatite plate 17 is a remnant of the fine copy. What remains of oracle no. 4 on plate 17 is certainly different from the (aborted) oracle no. 4 on ostracon 16, but it may have been the fair copy of the lost oracle no. 4 in ostracon 15. The extant numbers range between 2 and 27. In four cases (corresponding to the lowest numbers), the name of a god in the genitive is added (Apollo, Leto, Typhon, and Kronos). They are of course the gods who are supposed to give the corresponding answers. They are unrelated to the deities actually worshipped in the aedes. The writing in all these documents is experienced. Several scribes were at work. 15 has an upright hand, using a bevelled pen (hand 1). 16 may be written in the same hand as 15, but in a less careful style, because it is a draft (hand 2). The steatite plate is written in another hand (hand 3: the most diacritical shapes being epsilon and nu). The last six oracles (18–23) are in a neat slanted hand (hand 4); they also differ from the preceding ones by their contents, in that they do not mention a god in their heading. Only in them do we find a comparison (introduced by ὡς vel sim.). They show two other characteristics: no sherd contains more than one oracle (it is obvious at least with the complete 20–23), and in four cases out of five, the lines of writing run obliquely to the direction of the turning. This is infrequent with ostraca, on which the writers normally choose to write along that direction or perpendicularly to it. Because this scribe is the best attested, we get an impression of his habits: two oracles start with ὄψῃ, two with ὡς ἐπιθυμεῖ, in two others the verb δειλαίνεσθαι (middle, “to fear”) is found, and the optative is employed twice (21, 23). 20. Cf. Malinine 1935–38. 21. R. Stewart (ed.), Sortes Astrampsychi II (Munich and Leipzig 2001) 7.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

515

Hand 4 is paralleled in P.Marm., col. xx, see C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands (Oxford 1956) 18c; in the last columns, the scribe has a slanted hand with cursive elements. This copy of Favorinus’s Περὶ Φυγῆς was made between 190/191 and (perhaps) 215; the same passage is in R. Seider, Paläographie der griechischen Papyri II (1970), no. 30; Seider dates it to the beginning of the third cent. This time span is the same as the one which has been determined by archaeology for the oracles. Table 31.1. Dios oracles n° 15

16 17 (steatite plate)

Hand 1

2 (= 1 quicker?)

Direction of the Turning

Numeral

↓

β̅

Ἀπόλλωνος

ὁμ(οίως)

γ̅

Λητοῦς

μὴ χρῶ

δ̅

[---]

[---]

δ̅

Τυφῶν[ος ---

[---]

[---]

[---]

Κρόνου

[---]

↓

[δ̅]

3

ε̅

God

Auspiciousness Advice

18

4

↓

η̅

ὁμοίως

19

4

↘

ι̅η̅

δι’ ὅλης ἡμέρας

20

4

↘

κ̅α̣̅

ὁμοίως

21

4

↗

κ̅ε̅

ὁμοίως

22

4

↘

κ̅ϛ̅

μὴ χρῶ

23

4

↓

κζ

προεΐας

C. The epigraphic parallels and the contents of the prophecies The astragaloi-inscriptions are tables that contained, when they were complete (none is), fifty-six oracular answers corresponding to the fifty-six possible numerical combinations (σχήματα) obtained by casting five knucklebones22 (a knucklebone had four faces numbered 1, 3, 4, and 6: α, γ, δ, ϛ). Such answers obtained by lot23 were called κλῆροι (in Latin sortes). Twenty-one astragaloi-inscriptions are known, all dating to the imperial period;24 the latest postdate the Constitutio Antoniniana. It is generally admitted that this type of oracle was fashionable in the second century and the beginning of the third. The astragaloi-inscriptions are related to another type of cleromantic inscriptions, the alphabetic oracles. They are contemporary and occur in the same limited geographic area.25 In the alphabetic oracles, the answers consist of one line, arranged in such a way that the first letters of each line compose an alphabet in acrostics. It is surmised that the inquirers were directed toward a line by drawing lots on which a letter was written, possibly extracting tesserae from a vessel. While the astragaloi-oracles are in hexameters, the alphabetical oracles are normally in iambic trimeters. However, the meter has undergone accidents in the transmission from the archetype to the local copyists and stone-cutters. 22. There exist two, maybe three inscriptions where seven knucklebones were employed (Nollé 2007: 211–21). 23. Not necessarily using knucklebones: many other methods existed. 24. List in Nollé 2007: 20 f. 25. Map in Nollé 2007: 23.

516

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The astragaloi-oracles were generally inscribed on the four faces of a quadrangular basis or pillar, probably supporting a statue of Hermes. The quadrangular monument of the five-astragaloi oracle in Termessos presents at its top traces possibly left by the statue, a receptacle containing the knucklebones (φιμός) and the area to throw them.26 Less often, they were on a wall, as with the seven-astragaloi oracle from Termessos, where the inscribed wall also presents a niche (for the statue?) and various holes around it, presumably testifying to the presence of a φιμός and a table.27 Although their remains were not always found in situ, it has been remarked that they were originally in places with a lot of traffic.28 The seven-astragaloi oracle at Termessos is inscribed inside one of the gates of the city wall. In other cases, they must have been associated with temples: the oracles from Antiocheia on Kragos were found in the ruins of a temple. Some of the oracular answers are addressed to a stranger (ξένε). These oracles belong to two textual traditions: one, the better attested, found in and around Pisidia, the other being represented only by the inscription of Antiocheia on Kragos (Cilicia). However, there are similarities between the two traditions and also between each of them and the oracular answers from Dios. This type of inscription is not restricted to Asia Minor: two very fragmentary lists of five-astragaloi oracles have been found in Thrace.29 The few remains show that the answers belong to another corpus than the ones from Asia Minor. The astragaloi-oracles are preceded by a heading containing the cast combination, its sum,30 and the name of the divine power who is supposed to give the oracle,31 e.g.: ααααδ η Μοιρῶν “1-1-1-1-4 8 (oracle given by the) Moirai.” In some cases, this heading is followed by a paraphrase of the combination. Then comes the oracle itself, in three or four hexameters. The answers are of three types: (1) go ahead, for the gods are with you; (2) there will be difficulties (or wait for a better moment) but the outcome will eventually be according to your plans; (3) (less frequently) give up. They contain an order or an interdiction, justified by a prophecy formulated in the present or future indicative, on the outcome of the inquirer’s plans. Sometimes only the prophecy is extant. Sometimes, the inquirer is advised to behave piously with the gods and not to rebel against their will (so in 15, 20); it had nothing to do with his actual problem, but the idea that a pious behavior was enough to help things turn out happily must have had a positive effect on his state of mind32 and therefore increased his chances of success. Whereas the authors of astragaloi-oracles made a point of balancing optimistic and negative answers,33 at Dios all the oracles are encouraging, except 16, which is a draft. People turned to oracular gods when they contemplated an important action with risky consequences and doubtful outcome, like going on a trip, buying or selling, marrying, etc. In Egypt, according to a 26. Heberdey 1932: 83 and 87. 27. Heberdey 1932: 84 and 88. 28. Graf 2005: 71–78; Naour 1980: 30 f. 29. See reference in Naour 1980: 29, n. 29. 30. The oracles were arranged by ascending order of the totals (the smallest one necessarily being 4), which allowed easy finding of the proper answer. At Antiocheia Kragou, the total is not in the heading but in the left margin. 31. Absent in TAM III 2, 35 (the seven-astragaloi oracle from Termessos). 32. By eliciting the production of dopamine. This hormone makes one not only more energetic, but also more lucid and helps to take the right decisions. The mere fact that most answers are encouraging had the same effect. The presence of totally negative answers was only aiming at making the oracle sound true. 33. Naour 1980: 32.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

517

long tradition rooted in Pharaonic times and still vivid in the Christian period, people used to bring to a sanctuary two chits of papyrus concerning their personal dilemma, with two opposite answers (the negative one was often expressed by an uninscribed chit). Both oracular tickets were sealed, to prevent human interference with the choice of the god. How this choice was made is unknown and must have differed according to local habits.34 This system allowed a precise answer. The astragaloi-oracles are also pre-written, but belong to the class of manteia called bibliomancy: the inquirer is directed by lot to an answer inside a pre-existing textual corpus, which can be a florilegium of Homeric verses (homeromanteia), or biblical quotations, or proverbs… The book of fate known as Sortes Astrampsychi belongs to this category, although the intricate, clever procedure for using it allowed a precise question to be met by a surprisingly precise and appropriate answer.35 Normally, the answer to a bibliomantic inquiry was purposely vague in order to apply to any kind of question. When it was a piece of poetry or a proverb, it worked as a metaphor of the particular situation of the inquirer and had to be interpreted as such. In some cases, an interpreter must have been present to help to orient the thoughts of the client.36 The astragaloi-oracles have no other literary ambitions than to sound solemn thanks to the meter and a few recherché words. Their themes and vocabulary are vague and lack variation. The same stylistic characters and vocabulary are found in the oracles of the aedes (where the meter has been dropped). The syntax is simple: conjunctions of subordination are almost absent; sentences are juxtaposed and linked by καί or γάρ. The words πρᾶξις (“doing, action, business”) and πράσσειν are recurrent because they can apply to any project, also alluded to as “what you undertake” (ἐπιβάλλεσθαι is also a verb common to both corpora). Ἐπιχειρεῖν at Dios (also “to undertake,” 16) reminds of ἐγχειρεῖν usual in the astragaloi-oracles. In both corpora the metaphor of the road is very frequent, not only because it fits any enterprise, but also because it must have appealed to travellers and foreigners, who were the inquirers in Dios and probably often also in Asia Minor, as we have seen. To the metaphor of the road is linked the image of the gods as guides (οἱ θεοί is the subject of the verbs ὁδηγεῖν, ἡγεμονεύειν, “lead the way” in Asia Minor, and of κυβερνᾶν, “to steer,” at Dios). Proportionally, maritime images are notably more frequent at Dios, for obvious reasons, whether the chresmographs chose them in a corpus or created them themselves (the draft 16 suggests a home-made collection): the inquirer is compared with a sailor in 22, with a fisherman in 18, and a tempest at sea is mentioned in 20. The surprising mention of an Italian boat (22) may echo the involvement of Italy in the Red Sea trade and be an attempt to adapt the oracles to local conditions. In the astragaloi-inscriptions one finds only one allusion to the sea in the 56 answers of the main group (K 14, related to Poseidon), a few more in the text from Antiocheia on Kragos, the only town in this series that is on the sea. Comparisons introduced by ὡς are rare in the inscriptions (only two), whereas three are found in the small series of Dios, all in the ostraca written by hand 4. The comparisons found in the astragaloi-oracles are obviously taken from fables staging animals, while at Dios the inquirer is compared with various professions: apart from the sailor and the fisherman, also the cultivator (21). Two oracles of the main group of astragaloi-oracles and one of Antiocheia on Kragos advise the inquirer not to hurry, as did the bitch who, for that reason, gave birth to blind puppies. The same image is found in answer no. 26 of the mediaeval Sortes sanctorum, a collection of oracles numbering to 56, just like the five-astragaloi inscriptions, 34. A recent bibliographical survey of oracular questions from Egypt is found in P.Oxy. LXXIV 5017–5019, introduction. 35. Browne 1970. 36. In Apul. Met. 9.8, the wandering Syrian priests do not even bother to have a collection of oracles, but pushing the logic of the system to its extreme consequence, make a lot of money with one all-purpose oracular answer. Whatever the question, the response was ideo coniuncti terram proscindunt boues / ut in futurum laeta germinent sata. According to the case, the priests explained that the laeta sata, the rich harvests, were the children issued from the contemplated marriage, or the money brought by a successful transaction, or a successful business trip or a successful expedition against bandits.

518

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

although this number was arrived at through three six-faced dice.37 This striking similarity suggests that the astragaloi-inscriptions and the Sortes sanctorum derive from a common subliterary tradition.38 By their style and cautious vagueness, the answers of the Sortes sanctorum are clearly related to the inscriptions: promises to obtain what one wishes, orders to proceed hastily, or, on the contrary, to abstain from action, metaphors of the road, assurances that God is helping the inquirer. Of course, the Christian god has replaced the pagan deities, but Christian objectors to the use of Sortes sanctorum were perfectly aware that it was a Christian disguise of a pagan practice.39 Sortes sanctorum exist in Coptic; fragments of a Coptic version have been found in the church of St. Kollouthos in Antinoou polis where oracular dual-tickets requests of the well-known Egyptian type have been found too. Several types of popular divination were practiced in this holy place.40 Other Christian oracular systems are kin to the Sortes sanctorum and resort to the same vagueness; there again, the vocabulary can be traced back to the second–third century pagan oracles. I have several times invoked parallels found in one of the versions of a book of fate entitled ῥικτολόγιον ἐκ τῶν τοῦ ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου κεφαλαίων: it consists of 38 entries, numbered from α̅ to λ̅η,̅ each of which containing a “kephalaion,” i.e., a quotation supposedly excerpted from the Gospel of John, followed by an interpretation introduced by the word ἑρμηνεία.41 The inquirer would somehow draw one of the 38 numbers to know what fate had in store for him. As already remarked, the four gods mentioned in the headings of four oracles from Dios have nothing to do with the gods worshipped in the aedes, nor are they related to the contents of the oracles, where, when divinity is mentioned, it is always under the general οἱ θεοί. The astragaloi-oracles show that these discrepancies should not bother us. A few of them have kept a general heading, which was variously formulated and placed the collection of oracles under the authority either of Apollo or Hermes, or both.42 It did not prevent each oracle from being said to emanate from other deities named in its particular heading. Among the gods named in the Dios oracles, Apollo and Kronos appear in the headings of astragaloi oracles, but not Leto and Typhon. However, Leto is the first named in P.Leid.Inst. 8, a concordance table for the Sortes Astrampsychi (see below). The editors suggest that it could be a reminiscence of Herodotus, according to whom the most important Egyptian oracular shrine was that of Leto in Bouto. 37. The phrase Sortes sanctorum is used by scholars with two meanings: (1) any collection of Christian oracular responses used in bibliomancy: for instance, the codex edited by A. van Lantschoot, “Une collection sahidique de sortes sanctorum (Papyrus Vatican copte 1),” Le Muséon 69 (1956) 35–52. This codex contained originally more than two hundred responses. Lantschoot writes, p. 37 : “… chez les Grecs et les Romains, on avait recours aux ‘Sortes homericae’, aux ‘Sortes virgilianae’; on ouvrait au hasard un des livres de ces deux poètes et, d’après que le passage qui s’offrait au regard présentait un pronostic favorable ou défavorable, on réglait sa façon d’agir. L’usage se répandit aussi chez les chrétiens et on vit naître ainsi des ‘Sortes biblicae’, des ‘Sortes apostolorum’, des ‘Sortes sanctorum’. C’est cette dernière appellation qui est généralement employée pour désigner ce mode de divination” [my italics]; (2) a specific collection of 56 Christian oracular responses, the Latin text of which is reproduced, e.g., in C. Chabaneau, “Les sorts des apôtres, texte provençal du XIIIe siècle,” Revue des langues romanes 18 (1880) 172–8, or in J. Rendel Harris, The Annotators of the Codex Bezae (with some notes on Sortes sanctorum) (Cambridge 1901) 117–27. In the Middle Ages Sortes sanctorum was used in meaning (2) only, as is well shown in Klingshirn 2002. 38. Graf 2005: 79–82. One must be aware that Sortes sanctorum (sometimes called Sortes apostolorum) and Sortes Astrampsychi are two different oracular systems (confusion about them, e.g., in Frankfurter 1998: 195): Sortes sanctorum provide vague answers to any question, while Sortes Astrampsychi and their christianized avatars (such as Sortes XII Patriarcharum) provide, through an intricate system of number correspondences and decades of answers, a precise response to a predefined precise question: Skeat 1954: 54. 39. van der Horst 1998: 158. By contrast, divination by apertio libri using the Bible was considered more acceptable. 40. Papini 1998: 393–401. 41. Drexl 1941. On this subtype of oracular books, see Canart and Pintaudi 1989. 42. At Tyraion, the heading is χρησμοὶ Ἀπόλλωνος Πυθίου ἐν πεντ’ ἀστραγάλοις ἰς τὸν Ἑρμῆν (Naour 1980, no. 5.1–2; Nollé 2007: 51), “Five-knucklebones oracles of Pythian Apollo (given) to Hermes.”

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

519

These deities must have been felt as more decorative than effective in the process, since they are omitted in some astragaloi-inscriptions.43 Hand 4 at Dios leaves them out, and theonyms tend to be replaced by allegorical abstractions at Antiocheia on Kragos, where oracles are put under the authority of Ἀνάγκη (Necessity), Ἐποχή (Pause), Κατοχή (Delay), Καιρός (Opportunity), Πόνος (Hard Work), Βίος (Life), etc. At Antiocheia, the words sum up the main theme of the answer. This unsystematic linking of a deity to an answer also recalls the Sortes Astrampsychi: in the medieval witnesses, the decades of answers are often under a patronage (in that case of Biblical characters). This also occurs in two papyri, P.Berol. inv. 2134144 and the already mentioned P.Leid.Inst. 8 (both third cent.). The latter is a table of correspondence giving for each question number, not only the decade number, but the name of the deity to which this decade is related. It is interesting to note that, as in the inscription of Antiocheia on Kragos, the two deities whose names are preserved in the Berlin papyrus and some of the ones in the Leiden papyrus are abstractions: Ἀμεριμνία (Freedom from Care), Ὕπνος (Sleep), Εὔνοια (Goodwill), Προσδοκία (Hope), Ὠφελία (Help), and Πόρος (Means). Gods and abstractions are called in the Leiden papyrus θεοὶ χρηματισταὶ καὶ σημάντορες, a phrase in which the two last words have an unusual meaning (“gods who give oracles and signs”). D. An unsolved problem: the mechanism of inquiry at Dios How the astragaloi-oracles worked is all the easier to understand as the procedure is precisely reported by Pausanias in his description of a cave consecrated to Herakles at Bura in Achaïa (7.25.10): … Ἡρακλῆς οὐ μέγας ἐστὶν ἐν σπηλαίῳ (…) εὔχεται μὲν γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ ἀγάλματος ὁ τῷ θεῷ χρώμενος, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ εὐχῇ λαβὼν ἀστραγάλους – οἱ δὲ ἄφθονοι παρὰ τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ κεῖνται – τέσσαρας ἀφίησιν ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης· ἐπὶ δὲ παντὶ ἀστραγάλων σχήματι γεγραμμένα ἐν πίνακι ἐπίτηδες ἐξήγησιν ἔχει τοῦ σχήματος, “There is a smallish Herakles in a cave. The person who consults the god makes a prayer before the statue, and, after praying, he picks up four knucklebones (plenty of them lie beside the Herakles) and throws them on the table. For each combination of the knucklebones, the board conveniently provides a written interpretation.”45 Despite the formal similarities in the headings, the numerals in the Dios oracles cannot represent a cast of dice or astragaloi, since the range of numbers preserved is between 2 and 26. A set of astragaloi or dice could not produce amounts that different. The inquirer would rather have drawn numbers on papyrus chits or on ostraca (contained in the mysterious receptacle of the podium?),46 or be asked to choose at random a number between 1 and, say, 30. However, the notations on auspiciousness strongly suggest that the numbers refer to the 30 days of a month. In that case, the choice of the oracle may simply have depended on the day of the consultation.47 If there were indeed several series of oracles (at least two, as we have seen), the reason for it could then be that the collection aimed either at covering several months, or at allowing several persons to consult on the same day without obtaining the same answer, which would have made a bad impression.48 It is however difficult to fit the auspiciousness notations into 43. Nollé regards them as later additions, not belonging to the tradition (2007:  110). Ibid. 108–9 for a discussion of the respective roles of Apollo, Hermes, and the gods attached to each oracle. 44. Brashear 1995. 45. Nollé 2007: 15. 46. Such ostraca have been found in the aedes of Xeron Pelagos, excavated in 2012 (see Chapter 18, pp. 305–8). 47. It would mean that what Fate had in store for the inquirer would have been different if he had consulted it on another day. But the inquirer would not know that. 48. Cf. Eus., PE 5.21.1–6: the philosopher Oinomaos is indignant to hear that the oracular response which he has received at Claros had already been given to someone else.

520

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

this hypothesis. Above all, there is also a contradiction between the fact that an oracular answer exists and the instruction “don’t consult” which goes with it. Or did the heading have a double function? According to its use, the numerals would alternatively refer to the day of the month (then one knew that one should not consult on the 2nd or the 26th) or to the number of the oracle obtained by lot. Instead of consulting a table of ἡμερομαντίαι καὶ ὧραι, the user of the book would search in the collection the number of the day. Of course, another possible explanation is that the authors of this collection did not understand perfectly what they were doing. Such mistakes are not infrequent in Sortes-books. We know that some users of the Sortes Astrampsychi had at their disposal a faulty copy. This edition, the so-called first ekdosis, was compiled by someone who had attempted to reconstruct the book without the help of the concordance table which gave the order of the decades of answers before they were shuffled, and the anonymous copyist was not aware that some of the answers were fictitious and corresponded to no question. The result was an edition of the Sortes which could not work properly.49 E. Papyrological parallels If oracular inquiries are well attested in Greek papyrology (taking the form of the well-known dual request-tickets), oracular answers (apart from the Sortes Astrampsychi) are a rarity. Up to now, only four such documents existed, all of unknown provenance. I quote the texts for convenience. In the first three, one recognizes the vocabulary typical of the astragaloi inscriptions, a parallel which has escaped the editors. Those four texts are independent documents, obviously meant to be kept by the inquirer. They are written across the fibers, in three cases on narrow strips of papyrus, which suggests a similarity in the oracular procedure. Except for SB XIV 11658 (the identification of which as an oracular answer is not absolutely certain), the writing is experienced, and in P.Vindob.Sal. 1 it is even aesthetic. The contents are vague, but comforting. In two cases, the oracle is presented as emanating from a god (Zeus, Demeter), whose name comes first. Although there is an attempt at versification, the vocabulary is simple and standardized, as well as the themes: fulfilment of wishes, travel associated with success. – P.Vindob.Sal. 1 (first–second cent.). Strong influence of chancery hand. 8.5 × 4 cm.

4

ὑπὲρ ὧν ἠξίωσας· ὑγιαίνεις. ὃ ἐνθυμεῖς διὰ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἔστε σοί· εἰς ὃ θέλεις οἱ θεοί σε ὁδαγήσουσιν καὶ ὁ βίος σου ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον ἔστε καὶ εὐσχημόνως τὸ ζῆν ἥξεις.

3–4 l. ἔσται “Concerning your inquiry: you are in good health. What you long for night and day will be yours. The gods will lead you to what you want, your life will improve and you will have an honorable life.” Several astragaloi oracles from Asia Minor associate, as here, good news about health and success (e.g., PerTI 8.3–4 = Nollé 2007: 97). The beginning of line 1 recalls the phrases περὶ ὧν μ’ ἐπερωτᾷς or ὅσ’ ἐπερωτᾷς which are recurrent in astragaloi inscriptions. 49. Stewart 1987: 237 ff. In P.Leid.Inst. 8, the concordance of numbers of questions and decades meant to use the Sortes Astrampsychi was faulty.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

521

– P.Aberd. 14 (third cent.?). 7.7 × 1.4 cm. Iambic trimeters. [Ζ]ε̣ύ̣ς σοι δίδωσι πρᾶξιν εὐτυχεστέραν [ π̣ορεύου πρᾶσσε καὶ ἐπιτύγχανε. “Zeus gives you a most successful action. Go, do, succeed.” Cf. K 1.3–4 = Nollé 2007: 123: Ζεὺς ἀγαθὴν βουλὴν σαῖσι φρεσίν, ὦ ξ̣ένε, δώσει· δώσει δ’ εὐφροσύνην ἔργοις, ἀνθ’ ὧν σὺ χαρήσῃ, “Zeus will put good advice in your mind, foreigner, and he will give mirth to your affairs, of which you will rejoice.”

1.

– P.Yale II 131 (third cent. according to the ed., but to me second cent. looks possible as well). 12.5 × 1.7 cm. Iambic trimeters. Δήμητρος ἁγνῆς τοῦτον εἴληφας φίλον τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας σου χρησμόν· ἐγμαθὼν ὅπου τι πράσσεις, ὕπαγε καὶ ἐπιτυγχάνεις. “You have received this propitious oracle of truth from Holy Demeter: When you have learned where you are going,50 go and you reach your goal” (transl. Susan Stephens). 2–3.

Cf. K 11.2 = Nollé 2007: 138 (στέλλε, ὅπου χρῄζεις) and K 48.2 = Nollé 2007: 172 (στέλλε, ὅπου σοι θυμός ⟨ἄνωγε⟩).

– SB XIV 11658 (Byzantine). Published as a Christian oracular answer but, in spite of its shortness, it gives a different ring from the Sortes sanctorum oracular type. Lucia Papini suggests that it could be an amulet.51 Written in a slightly inexperienced but clear hand on reused material (the editor remarks on two lines of documentary writing on the other side). 3.5 × 5.5 cm. + μὴ βλάψῃς τὴν ψυχήν σου· ἐκ θ(εο)ῦ γὰρ τὸ γενάμενον. “Don’t harm your soul, for what happened comes from God.” To these parallels, two new references should be added which have been published since the original submission of this chapter:

50. I would rather translate ὅπου τι πράσσεις “where your action takes place.” 51. Papini 1990: 14.

522

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

– P.Oxy. LXXV 5065 (fourth cent.). Its probable nature as an oracular response was recognized by the editor. 10.1 × 1.7 cm. μᾶλλον χαρήσῃ βραχὺν ἐπιμείνας χρόνον. “You will enjoy more if you wait for a short while” (transl. C. Pernigotti). – P.Kellis inv. P96.150 (Hoogendijk 2016; fourth cent.). It is a sheet from an oracular book in codex format and comes from a house which may have been an astrologer’s, since amulets and horoscopes were found there too. The two pages contain eleven oracles in prose preceded by an incipit consisting of a number followed by the name of a god in the genitive. The numbers go from ιθ to κθ. As in the case of Dios, it is not possible to decide if they refer to days in a month, or a numbered lottery ticket or totalized throws of dice or astragaloi, to mention a few possibilities. F. Conclusion The oracles from Dios are the membra disiecta of an informal oracular book belonging to a tradition, not especially Egyptian, which seems to start in the second century. In antiquity, this tradition is represented by the astragaloi-inscriptions from southwest Asia Minor, by a few papyri, and by collections of Christian oracles of the Sortes sanctorum type. Our ostraca are, with the fragments of Sortes sanctorum found in the church of St. Kollouthos at Antinoou polis, the only remnants of an oracular book found in a shrine:52 such oracular manuals are supposed to be meant for use outside a sanctuary.53 However, this scarcity may be due to our ignorance of archaeological contexts. Other details in their presentation borrow from different oracular systems: the attribution of each oracle to a different deity is attested in astragaloi inscriptions as well as in some versions of the Sortes Astrampsychi (where, to be accurate, the god presides over a set of answers) and their Christian adaptation, the Sortes XII Patriarcharum. The same applies to the use of a monthly table of auspicious and inauspicious moments to consult an oracle, which probably derives from the extensive pharaonic calendars indicating, for each of the three divisions of each day, its degree of (in)auspiciousness (for any daylight occupation, not only divination). Such tables of ἡμερομαντίαι καὶ ὧραι could be applied to any kind of divination: we know that this was the case with the Sortes Astrampsychi. The Dios collection gives an impression of a rush job. The team of chresmographs did not even have papyrus at their disposal and had to resort to local materials, ostraca and steatite.54 They seem to have composed the oracles themselves, following familiar lexical patterns, hence the draft 16 and the awk52. The other parallel that might come to mind is not pertinent: the “archive of Ḥor” are second century BC ostraca with oracular contents found in a chapel of Thoth at Saqqara (W. B. Emery, JEA 52 [1966] 3–5). But instead of being meant for inquirers, as in Dios, they are reports, written and dictated by the priest Ḥor, about messages sent to him through dreams by Thoth, and supposed by him to be of interest to the king. These texts, which have an autobiographical touch and seem “to have been the waste-paper basket of a troubled man, notes discarded after their commission to papyrus” (J. D. Ray, The Archive of Ḥor, p. xiv), are of a completely different nature. The above mentioned P.Kellis inv. P96.150 was found in a house next to the temple of Tutu (Hoogendijk 2016: 600). 53. Frankfurter 1998: 181: “The very notion of oracle rite has therefore clearly shifted into a self-conscious textuality; and it would seem that one of the major functions of this textuality is its independence from the temple structure, its mobility, efficiency, and general practicality (even if restricted to a limited and literate number of specialists).” 54. Papyrus was a rather rare commodity in the praesidia (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 265–67).

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

523

wardness of some of the texts. How these amateur practitioners, whether they were soldiers or civilians, gained from the military authorities the right to exercise their art in the aedes of the praesidium remains a matter of speculation, as well as the mode of consultation: we do not know which chance tool was employed to select an answer, nor how this answer was communicated to the inquirer. Probably the latter had to make a prayer beforehand, as was the case in Bura and as is prescribed in the instructions for use of the Homeric oracle P.Oxy. LVI 3831 (lines 7–11) and of medieval oracular books. It is tempting to imagine that the diviner read the oracles from behind the statues. The space inside the podium is too small for a man to sit on the stairs without his head showing, but there were perhaps curtains hiding it, unless he spoke from the next room through the small door which leads to the stairs. How did the oracles arrive in the filling inside the podium? They must have been found lying in the chapel when it was decided to refit it (phase 7). The whole collection was originally more numerous. Had it been taken away by the diviner, who would then have forgotten part of it? It is striking that a simple draft was originally housed in the shrine. The reason for this may be that such a note, found by anybody, would reveal the all too human origin of the oracles.

VI. General conclusion: once more Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis The shrine discovered in Dios was built on the ruins of previous rooms. The original aedes, of which any architectural trace has vanished, was presumably in the rear part of the fort, as is suggested by parallels and by the discovery of two reused inscriptions in this zone (2 and 3). The new aedes is surely later than 160, maybe than Caracalla (217) or Severus Alexander (235). In the latter case, its transformations (phases 4, 5, 7) would have taken place in rather quick succession, since Dios, like Xeron and Didymoi, seems to have been abandoned around 270.55 At Didymoi, the excavated aedes is also secondary and may have been built in 176/7, when the whole praesidium was reorganized after the collapse of its well (I.Did. 3). Up to now, Dios, Didymoi and, to a lesser extent, Xeron are the only praesidia where the excavation of the shrine has had significant results, inasmuch as it yielded inscriptions and objects. The Dios aedes is the better preserved, because it was heavily sanded up already in antiquity. This chapel is not what we expect of a camp aedes, but Dios was not a military camp stricto sensu: the society inside the praesidia of the Eastern Desert was a mixed one, with soldiers and civilians living there or stopping for a halt. In a proper military aedes, one expects a cult of standards (signa), dii militares, and emperors. Ostracon 14, if οὐηξίλλου is the right reading, contains a weak indication that the Dios aedes also served to keep a vexillum, the display of which is perhaps witnessed by the cavity framed by wooden pegs on the podium. As to the imperial cult, there is no evidence for it at Dios, except perhaps inscription 3, which may come from the first aedes. That an imperial cult was practiced in the chapels of the praesidia is otherwise shown by the name given to the aedes of Aphrodites in a letter found in Didymoi: the author asks his correspondent to send him palms to decorate τὰ πρινκίπια τῶν κυρίων (O.Did. 31, thrown away and therefore presumably written between 176 and 220). In Dios, the dominant cult is that of Sarapis, more precisely Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis, as he is styled in 4. The first aedes was already devoted to that god (cf. 2). In the second aedes, his cult is represented by the remnants of a large statue of the enthroned type, graffiti 4 and 6, and a crude small stela representing a radiated (thus solar) Sarapis, sitting enthroned, holding a scepter or spear in the left hand and having Cerberus56 on his right side. A large clay head of a stylized carnivore found in the sand filling the chapel surely belongs to a Cerberus, which probably sat on the podium beside its master. The group may have inspired the small stela, which is a votive offering made on the spot in steatite. 55. And not 250 as written in the 2010 version of this chapter. See now Brun 2018, § 31 and n. 62. 56. Very schematic: I owe the identification to Gaëlle Tallet (per litt.).

524

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The religious material found in Dios confirms once more the omnipresence of Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis in the Roman settlements in the Eastern Desert from Trajan on. Previous sanctuaries, such as the ones in the metalla of Wadi Samna or Wadi al-Hammamat, were dedicated to Pan-Min, who had reigned over the Eastern Desert since pharaonic times.57 The earliest dated evidence for Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis in the Roman Empire is the dedication made by an Alexandrian architect in the reign of Trajan on an altar found at Mons Claudianus (I.Pan 38). In 118, the imperial slave Epaphroditos consecrated a temple to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis at Mons Claudianus (I.Pan 42); the Serapeum which he built at Porphyrites probably dates to the same year (I.Pan 21). The place of origin of this syncretic, late god is debated. Recently, L. Bricault has defended the view that he was created in Thebes as an interpretatio Graeca of Amun-Ra. His argument is that the earliest witnesses of the epiclesis Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis are situated in Upper Egypt, not only in the Eastern Desert, but also in Thebes and Ombos. Since then, G. Tallet has argued in favor of the opinion that Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis was “invented” in Alexandria. She explains his expansion in Upper Egypt by the penetration by the Roman army.58 Without entering a discussion which goes beyond the subject of this chapter, I would like to add three arguments to G. Tallet’s thesis: (1) There was no direct road between Dios polis (Thebes) and the praesidia of the Eastern Desert. So why a Theban god? (2) The epithet μέγας in the god’s titulature is an argument for the genealogy Megas Sarapis (a phrase attested for the first time in 20/21 in Alexandria, I.Alex.impér. 46) → Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis. This epithet is doubly paradoxical: in other divine titulatures, it usually applies to θεός, not to the theonym itself; although banal, it sounds like a requirement, as if its presence were essential to the definition of that god. (3) In my opinion, CIL III 3 (ILS 4395, Crete, 102–114) can be considered as another early, Trajanic attestation of Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis, yet in the shape of an interpretatio Latina.59 The atmosphere is clearly Alexandrian. Moreover, the successive editors and commentators of this inscription have failed to notice another possible link to Alexandria: the owner of the boat mentioned in this dedication made by an imperial freedman is called Tiberius Claudius Theon, and is therefore a homonym of Tiberius Claudius Theon, known as μισθωτὴς τῆς Λουκείου Ἀνναίου Σενέκα οὐσίας (P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2873, AD 62); he was still conductor of this estate, which by then belonged to the emperor, in P.Oxy. XLII 3051 (89), where he is styled former gymnasiarch and former agoranomos of Alexandria. We also know through P.Oxy. II 290 that this versatile businessman also owned land in the Oxyrhynchite.60 The social and economic links between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchos are well known. In spite of the dates61 and of the banality of the names, I am tempted to believe that these two Alexandrian tycoons are one and the same, or at least that the ship-owner is the son of the conductor.

57. Chapter 29. 58. Tallet 2011. I am grateful to G. Tallet for sending me her manuscript before publication. 59. Ioui Soli optimo maximo / Sarapidi et omnibus diis et / imperatori Caesari Neruae Traiano Aug. Germanico Dacico n. / Epictetus libertus tabellarius / curam agente operis Dionysio Sostra/ti filio Alexandrino, gubernatore / nauis parasemo Isopharia T. Cl. Theonis. On this inscription and generally on the association of I.O.M, Sol and Sarapis, see Reddé 2014. 60. On the papyrological dossier of this man, see Rowlandson 1996: 58 and n. 100. 61. The span is even larger if we take into account C.Pap.Gr. II 8 (55/6), where only the praenomen of the conductor of Seneca’s estate is preserved.

The shrine in the praesidium of Dios

525

The success of Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis in the semi-military Roman settlements (metalla, road stations) is understandable, since he suited the expectations of all social categories living there: he was sufficiently Egyptian for the indigenous work-force;62 he was a Greek and (probably) Alexandrian god for the managerial staff (imperial slaves and freedmen, soldiers), who usually spoke Greek and, in some cases, belonged to the Alexandrian elite, whose upper crust was enrolled in the select club of the naokoroi of Megas Sarapis. One of the first known naokoroi of Megas Sarapis is Sulpicius Serenus, prefect of the Mons Berenices under Hadrian.63 Finally, for the few Western Romans, Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis could implicitly be identified with Iupiter Optimus Maximus, as CIL III 3 shows. At Dios, the common identification of the eponymous Zeus/Jupiter with Sarapis makes the choice of this god as the main deity of the aedes quite natural. More surprising is his possible position as the main god at Didymoi, where one would rather expect to have a cult of the Dioscuri, since they are the patron deities of that praesidium (not only are they eponymous, but they are also invoked in the proskynemata found in letters written at Didymoi). Nevertheless, the Didymoi aedes strongly recalls a Serapeum, not a shrine of the Dioscuri. This impression is given by small votive offerings, like statuettes and terracotta figurines of Isis and Sarapis, Egyptian-style objects such as a sphinx and two offering tables.64 Only one dedication to a god has been preserved, I.Did. 4, unfortunately incomplete: of the god’s designation only the epithet μεγάλῳ is preserved, a singular which excludes the Dioscuri, but which would suit Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis. Two versions of the same inscription, thanking Sarapis for a dream, were also originally displayed in the Didymoi aedes.65 As for the Dioscuri, there is no epigraphic or iconographic trace of their cult in the aedes, except perhaps for a votive schist plate representing an armored cavalryman holding his horse by the bridle. Were all the aedes of the praesidia in the Desert of Berenike dedicated to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis? It is what could be thought in 2010, the date of the first version of this chapter. But in 2012 Michel Reddé discovered a late aedes in Xeron, a praesidium where letterwriters invoked Athena in their proskynemata. And the chapel, called an Athenadion in an ostracon, was clearly dedicated to Athena, with no trace of Sarapis.66 It is interesting to examine how the cult of Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis is articulated with other cults in the Roman desert settlements. At Dios, according to graffito 4, his synnaos theos is the Tyche of the praesidium, an interpretatio Graeca of the genius praesidii. Military genii are often paired with one of the dii militares (Jupiter, Minerva, Mars, and Hercules).67 One observes that, when a site in the Eastern Desert is named after a god, this god is also invoked in the epistolary proskynemata. When the toponym is not a theonym, the god invoked by letter writers in their proskynema is either the genius loci (Mons Claudianus and its satellites68), or, in the Desert of Berenike, another god.

62. L. Bricault observes, however, that dedications to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis never emanate from Egyptians (in the cultural sense of the word): Bricault 2005: 250. As a matter of fact, the only dedication in the Dios aedes made by someone who sounds of popular, civilian, vernacular origin (8) is to Min and Isis. 63. Sulpicius Serenus is the first precisely dated naokoros of Megas Sarapis. The Tiberius Claudius […] in SB V 8010 could precede him, but the suggested date (Nero’s reign) is not certain (cf. P. van Minnen, ZPE 93 [1992] 198, n. 15). 64. J.-P. Brun and M. Reddé, chapter I: “Le fort,” in Cuvigny (ed.) 2011. 65. Chapter 30. 66. Reddé 2015. It seems that an oracular activity of the same type as in Dios took place in this chapel: see Chapter 18, p. 305–8. 67. Speidel and Dimitrova-Milčeva 1978: 1553. 68. A. Bülow-Jacobsen, “Proskynemata in the Letters and Evidence of Tyche/Isis, etc. in the Eastern Desert,” in O.Claud. II, pp. 65–68. Letters sent to Mons Claudianus from neighboring praesidia contain proskynemata to the Τύχη πραισιδίου/ Ῥαϊμα/Καμπῆτος.

526

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Table 31.2. The gods of the praesidia according to the written evidence and the archaeology Mons Claudianus

Porphyrites

Athena

Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis

Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis

Aphrodite

Ø

Ø

Ø

Aphrodite

Athena

Tyche of the Claudianus

Tyche of the Porphyrites

Tyche of the Claudianus

Tyche of the Porphyrites

Dios

Didymoi

Maximianon

Persou

Aphrodites

Xeron

Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis

?

?

?

?

eponymous

Zeus

Dioscuri

Ø

Ø

epistolary prosk.

Zeus

Dioscuri

Sarapis

Athena

genius loci

Tyche of the praesidium

chief god of the sanctuary

In the Eastern Desert, the association of Sarapis and the genius loci otherwise occurs in the auspicious introductory formula of letters collectively written by the quarry craftsmen to the prefect Antonius Flavianus and to the procurator metallorum in the late second century (the Tyche of the addressee is flatteringly associated to the two other deities): e.g., τοῦ κυρίου Σεράπιδ(ος) θελήσαντος καὶ τῆς Τύχ(ης) τοῦ Κλαυδιανοῦ καὶ τῆς [σ]ῆς Τύχης συνεπισχυ[σά]σης (O.Claud. IV 857.4–8). Judging from Ronchi, Lexicon, s.v., Τύχη as interpretatio Graeca of a genius loci is not attested in papyri before the middle of the second century. The same is observed in the O.Claud. Since Tyche is often identified with Isis (cf. 8, introd.), it is not unsafe to surmise that a large female head found in the sand filling, presenting the typical “Libyan curls” of the Hellenistic–Roman Isis, belongs to the standing statue found on the podium, where there were originally the group of a sitting Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis with Cerberus and a standing Tyche. Contrary to simple Sarapis, who is normally worshipped as part of the pair which he forms with Isis (who then often has precedence over him), Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis is a dominant male, quite independent from Isis (when mentioned, his consorts are often anonymously designated as σύνναοι θεοί). People often needed to consult gods to make an important decision or know what Fate had in store for them. It is understandable that the omnipresent (Zeus Helios Megas) Sarapis would provide this service also in the Eastern Desert, where he had overshadowed the other gods. We have already mentioned the dream sent by Sarapis to a soldier at Didymoi; at Mons Claudianus, a quarry is called Chresmosarapis (Sarapis’s oracle).69 In Dios, a team of chresmologoi was allowed to officiate in a chapel of Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis, using a textual tradition better witnessed outside Egypt and especially designed for travellers.

69. O.Claud. IV 657, 658, and 811.

Chapter 32 The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men and imposes a preventive “seal” (tattoo?) The enigmatic ostracon O.Dios inv. 568 comes from the external dump of the praesidium of Dios. It is one of four letters addressed by Herodes to Demetrios.1 Since the three complete letters of the dossier accompanied a dispatch of vegetables, we may suppose that Herodes was living at Kompasi, the station just to the north of Dios. An allusion to the washing of laundry in one of these letters confirms this conclusion: Kompasi was an old gold mine where water was abundant, and it was therefore a center of kitchen gardening and laundry. Dios was founded in 115/6;2 on stratigraphic grounds, Herodes’ letters can be dated to the second century, perhaps to the reign of Hadrian. In the text published here, however, Herodes informs his correspondent of two curious items of news connected with the visit to the region of the prefect of Egypt.

1. The others, so far unpublished, are O.Dios inv. 314 (mentioned on p. 530), 579 (very fragmentary) and 1370, in which Herodes offers excuses for not having been able to send vegetables, because he was ill. 2. Chapter 31, p. 481.

527

528

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 130. O.Dios inv. 568. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

inv. 568 (Fig. 130) US 3447 → 4

8

12 4 l. προβεβηκότας

8.5 × 8 cm

second century alluvial clay

Ἡρώδης Δημ[ητρίῳ χαίρειν.] ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἀ̣[πέλυσε(ν) ἀ]π̣ὸ Καινῆς ἀνθρώπους ρ̅ν̅ τῇ ἡλικίᾳ προβεβηκότες καὶ εἶπε· “ἐὰν ἀνέρχωμαι πάλι περισσοτέρους ἀ̣π̣ολ̣ύ̣σ̣ω̣ καὶ μονομάχας ι̅δ̅.” καὶ ἐκέλευσε σφραγῖδα λαβεῖν ἡμᾶς κατὰ τῆς ἀριστερὰς χερὸς τροχὸν ἵνα σιδήριν μὴ φοβῶμεν. κ̣όμισαι 4–5 ων τριδκ( ) δέσμην. ἐρρ( ). 9 l. χειρός

11 l. φοβώμεθα vel φοβ⟨ηθ⟩ῶμεν (J. Rea)

12 τριδκ

The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men

529

“Herodes to Demetrios [greetings]. The prefect [released] from Kaine 150 men who were overage and said: ‘When I return, I will dismiss more, as well as 14 monomachai’.3 He also ordered us to receive a seal on the left hand (or arm), (in the image of) a wheel,4 so that we will not fear iron. Receive a bundle of … Good health.” 1.

The lacuna of 11–12 letters is filled exactly by this restoration, which does, however, go against Herodes’ usual practice, for in his other letters he calls Demetrios τῷ ἀδελφῷ or τῷ τειμιωτ(άτῳ). Perhaps Δημ[ητρίῳ τῷ ἀδελ(φῷ) χα(ίρειν).]

2.

ἀ̣[πέλυσεν. I owe this restoration to John Rea, who was kind enough to read an earlier version of this study. I had first thought of ἀ[πέστειλε, but ἀ̣[πέλυσε is confirmed by ἀ̣π̣ολ̣ύ̣σ̣ω̣ in line 6, also read by J. Rea, and supported by a possible parallel in O.Dios inv. 631 (infra p. 532).

5.

ἐάν = “when.” Cf. Chapter 40. ἀνέρχωμαι πάλι. One might hesitate over the force of the prefix ἀνα-: does it simply have an iterative meaning? We would in this case have an example of a common redundancy, in which ἀνα- is used along with πάλιν: cf. L. Robert, Le Martyre de Pionios (Washington 1994) 101. If so, the prefect could have been announcing his return to Kaine (whether in coming back from a southern tour or during a future journey from Alexandria to Upper Egypt). Or does ἀνα- bear, as so often in Egypt, the idea of a journey upriver? The verb ἀνέρχεσθαι is used for the prefect in P.Ryl. II 74 (136/7): in this edict, the prefect announces that he has given up his intention of going to the (nomes? regions?) that are upriver from Koptos: [ἐβουλ]ό̣μην μὲν καὶ ⸌εἰς⸍ τοὺς ὑπὲρ Κόπτον ἀνε⟨λ⟩θεῖν̣ [καὶ τὸν διαλο]γισμὸν ἀπαρτίσαι ται (l. τε) τῶν νομῶν. I am less attracted by yet a third hypothesis, that ἀνα- refers to a journey from the valley to the interior of the desert, the way it is used in letters on ostraca talking about movements along the desert tracks; probably some prefects went to Mons Claudianus, to Porphyrites, and to Berenike, but such expeditions were probably exceptional. We are not advanced by supposing πάλι modifies περισσοτέρους ἀπολύσω.

6.

καὶ μονομάχας ι̅δ̅. I am not sure if we should include these words in the prefect’s remarks. It would be curious for him to have put forward such a precise statement of the number of servile messengers that he planned to release. The phrase is perhaps to be put on the same level as ἀνθρώπους ρ̅ν̅. In this case, we should translate, “He said, ‘When I return, I will release more men.’ He also released 14 monomachai.”

10–11. It is usually σίδηρος, not σιδήριον, in principle “iron object,” which is mentioned in passages on the theme of “fear of iron,” which I discuss below. 12.

Before δέσμην, we expect one word in the genitive. But there are two. The second, which is abbreviated, can be read τριδικ( ), which does not seem to correspond to any known word, or rather τριδακ( ), with an alpha without a loop, like the final alpha of σφραγῖδα, and squeezed in against the edge of the sherd. τριδακ( ) might be taken as an orthographic error for θριδάκ(ων), but with the caution that neither the DDbDP nor the corpus of the Eastern Desert offers any example of this spelling; τριδακ(τύλων), “measuring three fingers,” would be without

3. For a different break in the sentence, see comm. ad 6. 4. Or of a circle.

530

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert parallel for measuring vegetables. For the preceding word, I thought of τ̣ε̣σ̣ά̣ρ̣ων (l. τεσσάρων) or τ̣ε̣λ̣ε̣ί̣ων (mature lettuces). However not only would these readings be unsatisfactory as an interpretation of the traces, but in the letters of the Eastern Desert the vegetables in a bundle are rarely counted or qualified (cf. O.Krok. inv. 85, 4–6 and O.Did. 428 quoted p. 581).

1. Who are Herodes and Demetrios? To judge from the address formulas that Herodes uses (comm. ad 1), the two men were situated on the same level in the social hierarchy. We know nothing about Demetrios, other than that he had another correspondent at Kompasi, Leontas, who supplied him with vegetables and with garum. As for Herodes, he says in his letter inv. 314 that he has been recommended to the prefect of Berenike to “go down” (καταβῆναι),5 but he does not know if those who intervened on his behalf were the ἔμποροι or the shipper Serenus; then he boasts, “Many know me as a scribe (γραμματεύς), whose skill you are well aware of ”; actually, several letters sent from Kompasi by other individuals, whose status is no clearer, are written in his hand. Neither the names of Herodes and Demetrios, nor the content of the letters received by the latter, allow us to say with confidence that these two men were soldiers. All the same, this hypothesis seems to me the most likely, even if their names would suit equally well soldiers and the hellenized civilians who carried out small business activities in the praesidia.6 Could our correspondents have been members of the servile personnel of the imperial familia and/or attached to the army? But this personnel (apart from the μονομάχαι) is not very visible in the ostraca of the Desert of Berenike, nor it does seem to have engaged in letter-writing very regularly, most likely because it was more socially isolated than the soldiers. The latter, who had comrades who were detached in other praesidia, had straightaway at their disposition a mutual aid network that they could easily activate. Finally, the second piece of information communicated in the letter suggests that the two men anticipated engaging in combat.

2. What apolysis is at stake? Herodes announces to Demetrios that the prefect has released (ἀπέλυσεν) from Kaine 150 men who were “overage.” This first piece of information presents us with several problems. The first two are semantic: what do “overage” and ἀπολύειν mean in the ostracon? With a person as object, this verb means “authorize someone to leave a place” or to “free someone from an obligation”; in a military context, it refers to the grant of the honesta missio, but it is used also for sending a soldier on a mission, on a detachment, or on leave. The third question that offers itself is the status of these 150 men, which one is tempted to suppose was the same as that of Herodes and Demetrios, because these two are concerned by the news. Well attested in literature, the expression τῇ ἡλικίᾳ (or τὴν ἡλικίαν) προβαίνειν/προβεβηκέναι (the verb is almost always in the perfect), means “advance (or have advanced) in age, to grow (or have grown) old.” Rarely used for children (in which case it means “grow (up), advance in age”)7 or for young people, 5. In the ostraca of the praesidia, this verb refers to a journey from the desert to the valley. Herodes probably wanted a secretarial job in the offices of the military administration at Koptos and needed to ask everyone passing by who might meet the prefect to speak in his favor. 6. These sutlers mostly have Greek, Latin, or hellenized Egyptian names, while the transporters have a native onomastic repertory (Cuvigny [ed.] 2006: 378–80; O.Did., p. 65). 7. Thus, in Diod. Sic. 5.32.2, where it is stated that Gaulish children change their hair color in growing up (προβαίνοντα ταῖς ἡλικίαις). R. Bagnall points out to me that, instead of προβαίνειν, προκόπτειν is also found with ἡλικία. The earliest instances are in the Gospels. Then there is no ambiguity: the sense is always positive.

The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men

531

it almost always applies to adults and means that they have passed their best years, without necessarily having become decrepit old men. A gloss of Herodian shows this well: ἀφηλικέστερος (literally, “rather distant from middle age”) is defined as ὁ τὴν ἡλικίαν προβεβηκώς. There are three papyrological occurrences of this expression, in each case used for civilians: – PSI Χ 1103.10 (192–194), a request submitted to the epistrategos by a metropolite who asks to be exempted from a liturgy because of his age: ἄνθρω[π]ος τῇ ἡλικίᾳ προβεβηκώς· εἰμὶ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὰ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη, τῶν κατὰ καιρὸν ἡγεμ[ό]νων καὶ ἐπιτρόπων ἀπολελυκότων λιτουργιῶν τοὺς ὑπὲρ τὰ ἑξήκοντα καὶ [π]έ̣ντε ἔτη, “Me, a man advanced in age, for I am more than seventy years old, even though the successive prefects and procurators have released from public service those who have passed the age of sixty-five.” We note the use of ἀπολύειν to mean “set free” from liturgical obligation. – PSI XIV 1422.19–21 (301/2, cf. P.Oxy. LXXIX, p. 170), a request to the emperors from a former athlete, who solicits appointment as herald in the Greek language in the procuratorship of the Thebaid: ἐ[π]εὶ γὰρ ἤδη ὑπὲρ πεντήκοντα ἔτη προβαίνω τῇ ἡλ̣ικίᾳ κ̣αὶ εἰς γῆρα̣ς̣ τρέπομ̣[αι], “since I have passed fifty years of age and I am moving toward old age.” – In P.Lond. V 1731 (585), on the other hand, the expression is applied to a young woman who has reached the age of being able to bring suit against her mother: μετὰ τὸ προβεβηκέναι με τῇ ἐννόμῳ ἡλικίᾳ, “once I had reached legal age.” Were, then, the 150 men released by the prefect civilians? Let us review the categories of civilians present in the Eastern Desert, both in the area of the metalla, since this event took place at Kaine, the hub of the roads of Claudianus and of Porphyrites, and in the Desert of Berenike. In the imperial metalla that depended on Kaine, the main non-military groups are the free native artisans and the personnel of familia, that is, in principle, the servile workforce which belonged to the emperor and was put at the disposition of the procurator metallorum. In the Desert of Berenike, some familiares at the disposition of the prefect of Berenike are attested, but the more visible civilians were on the one hand the sutlers, on the other the donkey-drivers and cameleers, organized in dekaniai. The expression “advanced in age” could lead us to consider the possibility that the 150 ἄνθρωποι were liturgists, but the presence of liturgists in the Roman establishments of the Eastern Desert is doubtful; the only free individuals who might have been liable to public service are the donkey-drivers and cameleers, but these transport personnel can just as well have been private entrepreneurs. Nor were the artisans and sutlers a population forced to work; they must have exercised their professions in the desert and quarries of their free will. We can thus exclude the idea that a significant proportion of them, becoming old, would have had to await the grace of the prefect of Egypt to leave the desert. This hypothesis is less implausible in the case of the personnel of the familia, particularly since beyond the 150 ἄνθρωποι, the prefect’s action also concerns some μονομάχαι, who were probably of servile status. Μονομάχης (or μονομάχος), which in the imperial period normally means “gladiator,” refers in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert to a messenger. The μονομάχαι appear particularly in the postal daybooks, along with auxiliary cavalrymen, as carriers of official mail. They generally have a picturesque repertory of names, and must have been slaves attached to the army.8 But various reasons make it more likely that we should consider these 150 men to have been soldiers. First, the fact that Demetrios and Herodes regarded the announcement of demobilization as interest8. The ostraca of Didymoi suggest that the title μονομάχης is specific to the jargon of the Eastern Desert and refers to what was elsewhere (but also in some of the older ostraca of Didymoi) called galearii (O.Did., pp. 8–9).

532

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

ing, given the fact that these two men are more likely, as we have seen, to have been soldiers rather than non-military. Second, the fact that this demobilization was ordered by the prefect: after all, the release of soldiers, which was an imperial prerogative, was normally delegated to the provincial governor.9 Still, we must stress that the apolysis at stake in the ostracon could not refer to the grant of the honesta missio: unlike release from liturgies, the availability of the right to honorable discharge was not dependent on age, but on the number of years of service. Moreover, the verb ἀπολύειν would not in the case of honesta missio have been followed by a specification of place: the 150 men have not been honorably discharged from service, but authorized to leave Kaine, where, moreover, no camp of a military unit is attested, even though the solemnities and religious rites surrounding the honesta missio seem to have taken place normally in the camp of each unit.10   Another letter found at Dios and dating roughly to the same period suggests to us another solution. Its author, a Dacian soldier, writes to two comrades of the same origin who were stationed at Dios: γίνωσκιν ἡμᾶς (l. ὑμᾶς) θέλω ὅτι οὔπω ἀπελύθησαν οἱ μεσσίκιοι γενάμενοι, “I want you to know that those who have become missicii have not yet been released.”11 Μεσσίκιοι, a direct borrowing from the Latin missicii,12 is derived from missus,13 “having received his discharge,” meaning an honorable discharge (missio honesta) at the end of the required years of service or for reasons of health (missio causaria). We know that the completion of the statutory time of service did not automatically bring about the release of the soldiers. Through the reign of Trajan, cases of auxiliaries who had served more stipendia than the 25 statutory years are not uncommon. The two ostraca from Dios are later than Trajan and date to a period when soldiers generally became veterans at the end of their 25 years of service without further ado, except in cases of military necessity.14 However, unless we wrongly alter the meaning of the words,15 it appears that the missicii of O.Dios inv. 631 continued to serve. Their case is not unique: in an approximately contemporary letter found at Karanis, the missicius Valerius Paulinus, alias Ammonas, informs his brother that he is going to resume service only for the coming year, and that he will then be free for good.16 He has thus been informed of the length of this supplementary period of service, perhaps even at the very moment when he received his honesta missio: this is the view of M. A. Speidel, who connects this papyrus with a certificate of honesta missio dated to 240, in which it is specified that the release will take effect that very day.17 The μεσσίκιοι γενάμενοι of the ostracon are hoping for their 9. Wesch-Klein 1998: 180, nn. 7–8. It was the governor who issued the certificates of honorable discharge (such as, in Egypt, W.Chr. 457 [122] and SB IV 7362.10–11 [188]). 10. On this poorly documented ceremony, see Speidel 2009: 328–33. The new veterans were deleted (expuncti) from the registers of the unit and released from their military oath, at least if expungentur in Rom.Mil.Rec. 47, i.16, invoked by Speidel, does refer to striking off from military rolls (cf. the comm. ad 16). 11. O.Dios inv. 631, unpublished. 12. Missicius is a synonym for veteranus and emeritus (for the history of the interpretation of this word, see Todisco 1999, App. I: “I missicii,” pp. 255–59). In Greek, the semantic calque of missicius is ἀπολύσιμος (which, unlike missicius/μισσίκιος, is also used in the area of public services). 13. Originally applied to persons, these adjectives ending in -īcius derived from past passive participles simply reinforce the meaning of the participles, stressing the durative and, in some cases, legal aspect (M. Leumann, Glotta 9 [1918] 144). 14. On the evolution of the practices concerning the retirement of soldiers, see the very clear summary of Alföldy 1968: 225–7 (= Mavors 3, 61 ff.). 15. In giving to missicius the meaning of “subject to release because he has completed his years of service.” But the meaning of missicius is no longer subject to debate. 16. SB VI 9636.4–5 (136): τὸ̣ν̣ μέλλων ἠνιαυτὸν μ[ό]νον στρατεύομαι̣ καὶ ἀπολύομα⟨ι⟩ (l. μέλλοντα ἐνίαυτον). Paulinus introduces to his brother, in the same letter, another missicius who has been entirely discharged from service, since he is looking to retire to Karanis. 17. Speidel 2009: 328, concerning AE 1998, 1619 (= RMD IV, pp. 610 ff.), the editors of which remark, “vielleicht weist diese

The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men

533

imminent release, which has been delayed in taking effect, and their comrades are attentively following their case. We may thus better explain the expression “advanced in age,” which is hardly sufficient if we were dealing with soldiers. It seems that, for reasons we do not know, numerous veterans had been kept under the standards, and the prefect had decided to proceed to two waves of massive demobilization, beginning with the oldest.18 The number 150 also needs comment. It is very high: it is around the total number of annual discharges expected for the army of Egypt; if we suppose that 2 or 3% of the complement were released each year,19 and that at the time of the ostracon the exercitus Aegyptiacus numbered around 11,000 men,20 the annual contingent of men to be discharged would have been somewhere between 220 and 330 for the whole province. If the prefect could demobilize 150 veterans at one stroke and even announce a second wave, this may suggest that discharges had been suspended for some time. The mention of Kaine in this ostracon is doubly problematic.21 It is very rare that Kaine (modern Qena) is mentioned in the ostraca of the Desert of Berenike.22 The two Roman road systems of the Eastern Desert, that serving Mons Claudianus and Porphyrites from Kaine, and that departing from Koptos for the two commercial ports on the Red Sea, do not seem to have communicated with one another. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, we do not know of any military unit stationed at Kaine, a boomtown with no monuments known from either texts or archaeology, created to serve as hub for the roads of Claudianus and Porphyrites, as a loading station for the monoliths extracted from the metalla, and as a place of residence for the families of the quarrymen who had come from elsewhere in the province, particularly from Syene and Alexandria.23 Nonetheless, O.Did. 465.3–4 suggests (if the restorations are right) that there was, if not a unit stationed at Kaine, nonetheless a garrison there: ἀντίγραψόν [μοι εἰ ἠλλ]άξας ἰς Καινήν. περὶ τῆς ἀλλα[γῆς πέμψ]ον πρὸς τὸν ἀ{τ}κτάρειν, “Reply to me if you have got me transferred to Kaine. About the transfer, send a message to the actarius.” This garrison, the existence of which is in no way surprising, would of necessity have been made up of soldiers detached from various units. Their function must have been to watch over the traffic of persons and supplies that passed through Kaine, to guard the stores of foodstuffs and money, from which each month the salary and rations of the quarrymen were drawn, and to check that the individuals setting out for the metalla or returned from them had the necessary travel authorizations. Logically, the passes issued by centurions and found at Mons Claudianus24 ought to have been written in Kaine, where these centurions may have commanded the local garrison. If we take Herodes’ ostracon literally, the prefect should then have released 150 old soldiers from this garrison. But such a number of discharged soldiers would constitute an enormous group in this local context, indeed perhaps more than the total number of soldiers the garrison of Kaine is likely to have contained. Formulierung darauf hin, daß manchmal ein Statthalter eine Entlassung schon zu einem früheren Zeitpunkt ausgestellt hatte, daß sie aber erst später gültig wurde” (W. Eck and M. M. Roxan, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28 [1998] 105). 18. These were not, by our standards, old men: after 25 years of service, Roman soldiers would be in the middle of their forties. 19. 2%: Holder 2007: 109; 3%: Alston 1995: 46. 20. Alston 1995: 31 (a figure for the beginning of the second century). 21. I do not think that we can avoid the problem by supposing that ἀ]π̣ὸ καινῆς here means ἐκ καινῆς (“again”), an expression relatively common in the papyri. First, ἀπὸ καινῆς is never attested as a doublet for ἐκ καινῆς and, moreover, the latter is used only for works of reconstruction (i.e., for machines, buildings, etc.). 22. There are only two other occurrences, O.Did. 402.19 (an uncertain reading), and O.Did. 465.4. 23. Chapter 14. 24. O.Claud. I 48–82.

534

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Should we then suppose that these 150 men had been drawn not only from the garrison of Kaine, but also from troops detached to Claudianus and Porphyrites and in the fifteen or so praesidia flanking the roads that served these two quarries? We have no reliable number for the strength of the troops at Mons Claudianus except when quarrying there was at its peak, under Trajan: at that time there were 60 soldiers all told. If we suppose that there were about the same number at Porphyrites and some fifteen25 in each of the other small forts in this zone of the Eastern Desert, we would come to a total of about 350 detached soldiers, and this is a maximum. Even then, 150 men, if drawn from the garrisons of Kaine and the desert, seems a very high number. In the present case, we may well believe that it was in the context of a visit to Kaine (and perhaps above all to the metalla26) that the prefect discharged the aged soldiers. Indeed, he puts off to a later visit his promise to carry out further discharges. We do not know if he is talking of coming back to Kaine itself or more generally of visiting the Thebaid, which would provide an opportunity for discharge to the eligible soldiers stationed in the Desert of Berenike.

3. A “seal” on the left hand (or arm) The theme of “fear of iron,” expressed by phrases connecting φόβος/φοβεῖσθαι and σίδηρος, has a whiff of occultism. It crops up mainly in Christian and Byzantine literature, but the oldest occurrence is found in Agatharchides’ Treatise on the Red Sea (an ironic description of hell, where phantoms are afraid of iron, even though they no longer have a body of flesh27). It can be found in two other Egyptian sources that belong to the popular genre of emblematic literature. In the Physiologus (third–fourth century), the diamond “is not afraid of iron,”28 a quality that gives it apotropaic strength (“he who possesses it is victorious against any demonic power”) and even to be a metaphor for Christ. In the fifth century, Horapollon writes that wolves fear neither iron nor the rod.29 We may mention also for atmospherics an astrological manuscript in which it is predicted for men born under the signs of Libra and Capricorn, ἀπὸ σιδήρου φόβον ἕξει, “he will fear the iron.”30 In the magical papyri of Egypt, however, I have looked in vain for “fear of iron,” but these do offer all the same the opportunity for specific connections with the prefect’s order. A long passage in PGM 4 prescribes carving three verses of the Iliad on a lamella (λάμνα) of iron and describes in detail the rituals that must be carried out to charge it with magical power. If prepared in this way, the lamella will serve all sorts of persons and purposes (fugitive slaves, gladiators, victory in races, approval by superiors, neutralization of enemies, happiness, inheritances, trials, love); among all the benefits gained by carrying this lamella, we also read, φοβηθήσεται δὲ πᾶς, ἐν πολέμῳ ἄτρωτος ἔσῃ, “everyone will fear you, and in war you will be invulnerable.” PGM IV does not indicate how one should wear this amulet, but we find this type of instruction in PGM XII.13: φυλακτήριον οἴσεις ἅψας δεξιᾷ χειρὶ καὶ ἀριστερᾷ χειρὶ νυκτός, “you will wear an amulet that you have attached to your right hand, and at night to the left hand.”31 These parallels strongly suggest that the prefect ordered the soldiers to bear magical protection. 25. This is the approximate complement in the praesidia of the Desert of Berenike. 26. Prefectural visits to Claudianus and Porphyrites are attested: I.Pan 37; O.Claud. I 130 and several ostraca, one of which comes from Badiya, published in H. Eristov, H. Cuvigny, and W. Van Rengen, “Le Faune et le préfet. Une chambre peinte au Mons Claudianus,” BIFAO 121 (2021): 183–254. 27. ἑτέρους δὲ φοβεῖσθαι τὸν σίδηρον οὐκέτι δυναμένους τρωθῆναι (ap. Phot. Bibl. 250.443b). 28. οὗτος γὰρ οὔτε σίδηρον φοβεῖται τυπτόμενος (42). 29. οὗτος γὰρ οὔτε σίδηρον, οὔτε ῥάβδον φοβεῖται (Hieroglyphica 2.74). 30. A. Delatte, Codices Athenienses. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum X (Brussels 1924) 113, l. 9 and 117, l. 1. 31. The aim here is to induce an apparition of Persephone and to get her to carry out one’s wishes; the recipe does not specify what sort of phylactery is required.

The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men

535

An order of this sort is as far as I know unexampled in the Roman army. It is difficult to know if the prefect was relying on magic or only on a psychological effect. What might this σφραγίς have looked like? Most often, the term means a seal, with the double meaning of the matrix and of the impression left by a matrix. If a matrix were in question, one would think first of a ring: it is precisely on the ring finger of the left hand that one wore the anulus signatorius. That would presuppose a broad distribution of rings, adjustable for that matter (and would not Herodes instead have spoken of δακτύλιος?), and it is doubtful that the military authorities would have reckoned that distributing some trinkets would have given the soldiers a sense of invulnerability. Might we be dealing instead with an ink impression on the skin made with a stamp?32 The magical texts do not have any reference to a practice consisting of printing a design with ink on part of the body,33 but two recipes prescribe making a design, and precisely on the left hand.34 A simple ink stamp would all the same have been a very short-term protection, a consideration that leads us to consider lasting marks, such as branding with hot iron or tattooing. Both of these, although rarely, may be denoted in Greek by using the words σφραγίς (which then has the generic meaning of “mark”) and σφραγίζειν. Although the branding of camels35 is normally expressed by χαράσσειν (literally, “incise, carve”), χάραγμα, and χαρακτήρ (“carved mark”), there are two certain instances of σφραγίς and σφραγίζειν in this context: BGU I 87 (144), a contract of sale of two camels, described as “stamped with a seal” (ἐσφραγισμέναι) on the right thigh; P.Bas. 2 (190), a contract in which it is stipulated that the cameleers who are to accompany requisitioned camels will not be held responsible for the possible loss of an animal as long as they bring back its “seal”: ἐὰν δὲ πτ̣α̣[ίσ]ῃ τι⟨ς⟩ ἐξ [α]ὐτῶ[ν κατὰ τὴ]ν ὁδόν, οἴσομεν ὑμ[ε]ῖ̣ν τὴν σφραγεῖδα (ll. 11–12). This clause aims to forestall the misappropriation of animals by those to whom they have been entrusted. It cannot, obviously, refer to a lead seal attached to the neck or the ear of an animal, which it would be easy to remove without injuring it, but the brand made by a hot iron, the removal of which presupposes that one take with it a considerable amount of skin.36 In the case of the ostracon, a brand is not very likely. Such treatment was in general reserved for animals and was, when applied to humans (criminals and punished slaves), seen as a degrading mistreatment, despite occasional attestations of its use for religious purposes.37 Permanent marks placed on the skin of humans were normally done by tattooing. 32. I do not know any parallel for this in antiquity. 33. The only text that I have found that identifies a σφραγίς with a talisman is a passage of Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives salvetur, 42.5), where σφραγίς does not actually refer to a seal in the proper sense, but is a metaphor for baptism: ὡς τὸ τέλειον αὐτῷ φυλακτήριον ἐπιστήσας, τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ κυρίου, “because he considered that he had provided a complete talisman, the seal of the Lord” (a bishop believes that it is enough to baptize a young man in order to protect from him from evil, that is, from a Christian viewpoint, from temptation). 34. PGM VIII.65: ὀνειραιτητὸν τοῦ Βησᾶ · οὕτω ζωγράφησον εἰς τὴν εὐώνυμόν σου χεῖραν τὸν Βησᾶν, “request to receive a dream from Bes. Draw Bes as follows on your left hand”; PGM VII.300: “Σαχμουοζοζο, ὁ βροντῶν, ὁ σείων τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, ὁ καταπεπωκὼς τὸν ὄφιν καὶ καθ’ ὥραν ἐξαίρων τὸν κύκλον τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐμπεριλα[μβά]νων Χωνσου οχχα ενσου ο βιβεροησος” γράφε εἰς τὴν εὐώνυμόν σου χεῖρα διὰ ζμυρνομέλανος ἀκόλουθα τοῦ ἴβεως, “[magical formula, mix of voces magicae and invocations in Greek]: write this on your left hand with ink made of myrrh, while going around the ibis.” 35. In the papyri, marking animals is attested almost exclusively for camels. The marks were always applied on the right thigh and/or, more rarely, the right cheek of the animal. 36. This procedure has remained in use in modern armies. Thus, Jean-Pierre Faure informs me that the military mules in Algeria had a registration number cut on a hoof; he remembers having, according to the rules, attached the hoof of a mule to the report of loss of the animal killed by a stray bullet “by way of death certificate” (email of 7/04/2014). 37. Jones 1987, esp. 152 (“As well as being used for punishment, branding like tattooing could have a religious significance, but seems to have been considered orgiastic and fanatical”).

536

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Official use of tattooing in the Roman army is attested only from the end of the fourth century on. According to C. Zuckerman, this was initially a mark of disgrace instituted by Theodosius I to discourage young men from mutilating their hands in order to escape conscription (CTh 7.13.10, law of 381):38 far from being exempted, these young people would henceforth be enrolled despite everything and, moreover, be tattooed like criminals.39 But the use of tattooing recruits – on the arm – became widely used almost immediately: it was well established when Vegetius wrote, around 386, his Epitoma rei militaris, and the terms that he uses leave no doubt about the fact that this mark (which consisted of the name of the emperor) was a tattoo.40 The tattooing of soldiers from this point on lost its ignominious character, even if this practice, made acceptable by the spirit of the times,41 aimed to inculcate into soldiers the idea that their submission to the emperor was of the same order as that of a slave to his master. It is interesting to note that the tattooing of soldiers under the Late Empire seems regularly to have been called σφραγίς in Greek,42 perhaps because this word was less negatively loaded than στίγμα, which was technically more precise in reference to a mark made by tattooing. Christian authors took advantage of this to make edifying connections between this tattooing and baptism, which had been metaphorically called a σφραγίς, a “seal,” ever since the second century.43 Both were marks of property, the soldier belonging to the emperor and the Christian to God.44 The most plausible view, then, is that the prefect ordered the soldiers (those who were stationed in the praesidia?) to be tattooed.45 This would then be the oldest attestation of an official use of tattoos in the Roman army, and its purpose, which is also without any known parallel for tattooing,46 is differ38. Zuckerman 1995: 183–87. 39. The vocabulary of this law gives no technical specifications about the mark placed on the tiro who had mutilated himself; it stresses only its humiliating character (insignitus macula, “mark of a seal of infamy”). The law also does not indicate where on the body these young people would be tattooed: subsequently, soldiers were tattooed on the arm, while fugitive slaves, criminals, and prisoners of war were tattooed on the face, particularly on the forehead. 40. 1.8. QUANDO TIRONES SIGNANDI SINT. Sed non statim punctis signorum inscribendus est tiro dilectus. 2.5. Nam picturis in cute punctis milites scripti, cum matriculis inseruntur, iurare solent. 41. This Zeitgeist is visible particularly in letters and petitions, where private individuals describe themselves as “my insignificance,” “my modesty,” “my humility.” The period tended to exalt the authorities on one side, and self-depreciate everyone else on the other. 42. P.Herm. 7.20 (post 381). 43. J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology. Its origins and Early Developments (Nijmegen 1962) 390. 44. Zuckerman 1995: 185. Cf., for example, John Chrysostom, In epistulam ii ad Corinthios (Migne, PG 61.418): Καθάπερ γὰρ στρατιώταις σφραγίς, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς πιστοῖς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐπιτίθεται· κἂν λειποτακτήσῃς, κατάδηλος γίνῃ πᾶσιν, “just as a seal is placed on soldiers, so also the Holy Spirit is placed upon believers. And if you desert, you will be exposed to everyone’s view.” The only example of σφραγίς used as a talisman that I was able to find is a Christian text on baptism (see n. 33). 45. I thank Rudolf Haensch who, when I presented the ostracon in the fachwissenschaftlichen Kurs organized by the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik in 2013, encouraged me to give priority to the hypothesis of tattooing. 46. Leaving aside religious tattooing, through which an individual devotes himself to a divinity and at the same time puts himself under its protection: this mechanism is spotlighted in Herodotus’s evocation (2.113) of an Egyptian temple of Herakles where slaves could take refuge and become untouchable by dedicating themselves to the god by means of tattooing; but this divine protection was legal and actually had no magical character. This is, however, the only ancient text that Dölger found to cite to illustrate the idea of a talismanic usage of tattooing by the ancients (Dölger 1932: 257–59). A modern example which he cites does, however, offer a pertinent parallel to our ostracon (op.cit. 259): “Die Geschichte der Tätowierung zeigt bis in die Gegenwart hinein, daß man den aufgeprägten Zeichen eine besondere Kraft beimißt, vorausgesetzt natürlich, daß es sich um heilige oder wenigstens wirkungskräftig erachtete Zeichen handelt. In diesem Falle ist die Tätowierung das massivste Amulett, da sie das geheimnisvoll wirkende, übelabwehrende oder glückbringende Zeichen durch die Farbeneinätzung in die Haut auf das innigste mit seinem Träger verbindet. Lehrreich waren in dieser Hinsicht die Beobachtungen, die ich am 17. Juni 1911 in der volkskundlichen Abteilung der Weltausstellung in Rom machen konnte. Unter den Frammenti di pelle umana con tatuaggi fand sich auch die Haut der Handrückenfläche eines 50jährigen Taglöhners aus Genua mit einem eintätowierten Pentagramm” (“the observations I was able to make … in the folklore department of the World Exhibition in Rome were instructive. Among

The prefect of Egypt demobilizes some overage men

537

ent from what it would become in Late Antiquity. It supposes that tattooing was not necessarily seen as degrading,47 a tolerance that could be explained by the presence of Thracian soldiers in the army of Egypt; they came from a cultural sphere in which tattooing was popular.48 There is no obvious reason, as far as I can see, for the choice of a trochos – a circle or a wheel – as an apotropaic motif. If my hypothesis about the status of the persons mentioned in the ostracon is correct, the prefect of Egypt, during a journey around the Thebaid, will have demobilized 150 veterans who had been kept under the colors and who were gathered at Kaine. This high number raises several questions. Within what radius of Kaine had these veterans discharged their supplementary period of service? All of Egypt (improbable)? The Thebaid? Only the Eastern Desert? Only the region of the imperial quarries served by Kaine? The smaller the zone becomes, the larger is the supposed percentage of aging soldiers in the garrisons. Does the ostracon point to the end of a period in which older soldiers had been retained in, or sent to, the praesidia of the desert in order not to reduce the numbers present in the valley? The unaccustomed nature of the measures is an invitation to look for a link with important events. One might think, in that case, of the Jewish revolt of 115–117, which had begun by the time the construction of the fort of Dios was complete (115/6) and which extended to the entire chora in 116.49 The demobilization of the veterans would reflect a return to normality, but as the preventive measure ordered by the prefect, which betrays some disquiet among the men and the authorities, foresees military operations, one might imagine maneuvers of a certain scale against the Beduins of the Eastern Desert, who would have gained from the troubles in the valley. J.-P. Brun, however, offers the objection that the stratigraphy does not support the hypothesis of a dating just after the founding of Dios. The dossier of Herodes and Demetrios should in that case have come from very deep layers in the dump, but this is not the case: although a more detailed analysis of the stratigraphy remains to be carried out, this dossier rather seems to date to the end of the reign of Hadrian or the beginning of that of Antoninus.50 Herodes does not say if the old soldiers would be replaced. It would be logical to think so. Was the situation sufficiently serious that it was thought necessary to revive the morale of the troops, which were perhaps not sufficiently numerous, with magic? Without knowing the date of O.Dios inv. 568 and the circumstances in which it was written, these questions remain unanswered. At most one may recall that in the reign of Hadrian several documents testify to lively tensions between Romans and Beduins in the desert, to the point that a prefect of Berenike, in an unknown year of this reign, conducted in person a punitive expedition against the Agriophagoi (I.Pan 87).

the ‘fragments of human skin with tattoos’ was the skin of the back of the hand of a 50-year-old day laborer from Genoa with a tattooed pentagram”). 47. Unless a collective punishment was intended, following a situation where the soldiers had had a “fear of iron”? But why then a wheel? An allusion to punishment by the trochos? But this does not seem to have been in use under the principate. 48. Jones 1987: 145 ff. This scholar also cites (p. 147) the Attic vase of Dike killing Adikia, the latter being represented as a barbarian woman, whose four limbs are covered with ocelli with a dot in the middle, which are interpreted as tattoos. 49. The only probable trace that I have found of the Jewish revolt of 115–117 in the ostraca of the Eastern Desert appears in O.Krok. I 94, a letter whose author asks his correspondent to return for him his shield, because it belongs to the State and was only lent to him “during the war.” 50. J.-P. Brun, email of 19 May 2014.

Chapter 33 “The wheat for the Jews” (O.KaLa. inv. 228) The ostracon to be published here comes from the dung-heap of the praesidium of Umm Balad,1 situated in the foothills of Jabal Dukkhan, the massif where the quarries of Porphyrites were opened during the reign of Tiberius. The praesidium of Umm Balad is built at the entrance of a narrow wadi that leads to two diorite quarries, situated high up in the mountains and only superficially exploited. At the foot of the steep slope opposite the quarries there is a row of seventeen huts where the workers could rest without having to return to the praesidium 1.2 km away.2 We do not know if the workers passed the night in this village or returned to the praesidium every night, nor if this group of huts had a specific name. The praesidium itself underwent a slight change of name in the course of its history. It was founded under Domitian, probably during the term of office of the prefect Mettius Rufus (89–91/2), presumably under the name Καινὴ Λατομία or Δομιτιανὴ Καινὴ Λατομία, always abbreviated either Δομιτιανή or Καινὴ Λατομία. After the damnatio memoriae of Domitian, only the element Καινὴ Λατομία was in use.3 The exploitation continued under Trajan,4 but it cannot have lasted long, for as we have seen, there are only two quarries. The work must mainly have consisted in preparation of work-platforms, access ramps and the like, rather than in actual extraction.5 Some ostraca from the Antonine period indicate that the site was (re-)occupied later, but, although they are evidence for the presence of stone-masons, there is no mention of actual quarry-work. The site may, at this time, have had a logistical function in connection with Porphyrites, perhaps as a stop-over, “hotel,” or repository. 1. 27° 08’ 51” N/33° 17’ 29” E. Umm Balad was excavated during two seasons financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the IFAO (2001–2003). The dung-heap was excavated by Jean-Pierre Brun and Emmanuel Botte. For a provisional description, see http://www.ifao.egnet.net/archeologie/praesidia/. One ostracon from Umm Balad has already been published by A. Bülow-Jacobsen, “An Ostracon from the Quarry of Umm Balad,” in F.A.J. Hoogendijk and B. Muhs (eds.), Sixty-Five Papyrological Texts Presented to Klaas A. Worp on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (P.L.Bat. 33) (Leiden-Boston 2008) 311–15. 2. 27° 09’ 12” N/33° 16’ 60” E. 3. Chapter 1, pp. 20 f. 4. The merely 41 occurrences of Δομιτιανή, versus the 101 of Καινὴ Λατομία should not obscure the fact that the peak of activity was under Domitian. 5. This is the result of the as yet unpublished study of J.-P. Brun.

539

540

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The ostracon O.KaLa. inv. 228 (Fig. 131) belongs to a group of thirty letters all written by the same Latinizing hand of a certain Turranius to various correspondents at Umm Balad, notably the architect Hieronymos, who receives twelve letters from him. The only stratigraphic layer in the deposit which contains letters of Turranius and which has also yielded dated ostraca is US 1303, from which we have four ostraca, of which one is dated 29 September 96 and another from year 15 of Domitian (95/6). The function of Maximus, the addressee of the present letter, is unknown. All we can say is that he was close to Hieronymos; perhaps he was his right hand. Several letters addressed to Hieronymos also contain greetings to Maximus, sometimes associated with “the stonemasons” (sklerourgoi). The letters addressed by Turrannius to Hieronymos or Maximus are in the same style, perhaps slightly more obsequious when he is addressing Hieronymos. Turranius is a military man, curator of a place where there was one of the wells from which water was brought to Umm Balad, as well as a vegetable garden. There is evidence that this place may have been called Prasou. Many of Turranius’s letters concern the camels which he dispatched regularly to Umm Balad loaded with full water-skins. Here, however, it is not about water, but about obtaining the “wheat for the Jews” in exchange for five artabas of bread.

Figure 131. O.KaLa. inv. 228. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

“The wheat for the Jews” O. KaLa. inv. 228 Fig. 131

4

8

12

6 l. σῖτον

15.5 × 10 cm

541 c. 96 alluvial clay

Τουρράνιο⟨ς⟩ Μαξίμωι τῷ φιλτάτωι χαίρειν. γράφει μοι Σωκράτης λογεῦσαι ἄρτων ἀρτάβας πέντε καὶ ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτῷ ὅπως ἀντὶ αὐτῶν λημψόμεθα τὸν σεῖτον τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. ἔγραψα Δέκμῳ ὅπως λογεύσει καὶ πέμψει μετὰ τῆς ὑδροφορίας ἵνα κάμηλον πέμψωμεν καὶ λημψόμεθα. μελησάτω σοι ταῦτα κ̣α̣ὶ̣ απ̣αος γενέσθαι. ἔρρωσο, κύριε Μάξιμε. Φαρμ(ουθι) ιβ.

9–10 l. λάβωμεν

“Turranius to his dear Maximus, greetings. Sokrates writes to me to collect five artabas of bread and send them to him so that we can receive instead of them the wheat of the Jews. I have written to Decimus to collect the bread and send it with the water-transport, so that we can send a camel (scil. to Sokrates) and take delivery (scil. of the wheat). Take care that this happens […]. Farewell, my Lord Maximus. Pharmouthi 12.” 3.

Two men, both called Sokrates, worked in the region at the same time as Hieronymos. One of these wrote a dozen letters to him in which he calls Hieronymos “brother.” This is probably the architect Sokrates, whose title we find in a dipinto on an amphora in association with the placename Arabarches (on which see Chapter 1, p. 26 f.). The letters of Sokrates the architect twice relay greetings from another Sokrates, who consequently also worked at Arabarches. The second Sokrates was probably the ergodotes of that name who is the author of a letter to Hieronymos written in more respectful, almost humble, style. The Sokrates mentioned in Turranius’s letter was probably the architect of whom we know that he wrote regularly. I also think that if it had been the ergodotes, Turranius would have specified his function. In what follows, I shall assume that Sokrates was in Arabarches and Turranius in Prasou, although the whereabouts of these two sites are uncertain. λογεῦσαι. The bread will not be drawn from a store in the praesidium, but collected, i.e., among individuals whose wheat-ration had already been made into bread. Could these have been the Jews of Umm Balad? They might have belonged to the familia, who received their grain already transformed into bread (see O.Claud. III, pp. 43 f.). Another possibility is that it was collected among the native Egyptian stone-masons (pagani, see below) about whom we know that they had their bread made by their families down in the valley. At least, this was the case under Antoninus, but surely also earlier, as indicated by the chits placed in the baskets or bags of pairs of loaves (ζεύγη) – a type of document found already from Trajan’s time at Mons

542

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert Claudianus (see Chapter 7). I submit this second hypothesis because of the letter O.KaLa. inv. 916, in which Turranius asks that Decimus (mentioned in line 7 here) send him the names of the stone-masons and answer him περὶ των, where one might think of restoring περὶ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ ἄ̣ρ̣των.

5–6.

λημψόμεθα. For the use in this text of future indicative and aorist subjunctive, see Mandilaras, Verb, § 413. According to this, the only incorrect use is the future λημψόμεθα after ἵνα in ll. 9–10. Who are the “we”? Turranius and the garrison that he commands? Or Turranius and the civil and military authorities of Umm Balad? The use of “we” is exceptional in the letters of Turranius, and only one other example is found (O.KaLa. inv. 450), which is not helpful.

7.

The function of Decimus is unknown. He was stationed at Umm Balad, where we have found three letters addressed to him, among which is one from Turranius, already mentioned in comm. ad 3, above. ἔγραψα Δέκμῳ. This letter to Decimus was probably sent at the same time as the one to Maximus. This is not the only time that Turranius writes two more or less similar letters to two different correspondents. In O.KaLa. inv. 811 and 785 he asks the same favor (to send a message to Sabelbi) from both Hieronymos, the architect, and from Cassius, the curator of Umm Balad – one civilian, the other military. This is no doubt also the case of Decimus and Maximus, who must have belonged to two different branches of the hierarchy. Otherwise a letter to the highest ranking would have been enough. The division of responsibilities between the civilian and the military authorities must have been unclear, and it was important not to step on anyone’s toes.

9.

κάμηλον. For a camel transporting grain, a load of six artabas was habitual (Sijpesteijn 1987: 52). Five artabas were too heavy for a donkey, but a comfortable load for a camel. πέμψωμεν. For the plural, see comm. ad 5–6, above. In inv. 782 Turranius uses the first person singular ἀπέλυσα to say that he has dispatched some camels.

11.

I cannot establish a secure reading of the interlinear addition. It is under l. 10 and seems to be an addition to μελησάτω σοι rather than to γενέσθαι or the formula valedicendi. Perhaps Ἀντίπατρος (take care, you and Antipatros, etc.). But this reading supposes an error of grammatical case. Besides, the name Antipatros is attested once only in the O.KaLa., where it is in no way associated with Maximus. That occurrence is O.KaLa. inv. 332, a fragmentary list of names in which he appears along with Billas, who regularly appears in lists of names alongside Jewish names. In my opinion, these people belong, generally speaking, to the familia (see below).

The date of the letter (Pharmouthi 12 = 7 April) suggests that because of the Jewish Passover, the Pesach, the Jewish workers could not eat the ordinary leavened bread. This situation seems to take the administration by surprise, since they have not taken care to send wheat, or unleavened bread, from the valley in order to allow the Jewish workers to respect their religious rites. As it happened, Sokrates, at Arabarches, did have wheat and was willing to part with it in exchange for bread, which would be collected at Umm Balad (comm. ad 3).

“The wheat for the Jews”

543

The interdiction of leavened bread took effect on the 14th or 15th Nissan and lasted until the 21st.6 The letter of Turranius was written during, or shortly before, this period. At the end of the first century of our era, Flavius Josephus established the equivalence between Pharmouthi and Nissan, the first month of the Jewish year, which does not mean that the two months coincide exactly.7 In fact, the Jewish calendar has 12 months of 29 or 30 days, which all begin at a new moon. To avoid displacing feasts in relation to the seasons (as happens in the Muslim calendar), a thirteenth month is intercalated every two or three years, and because of this synchronization with the solar calendar, the Jewish calendar is called “lunisolar.” At the time of our ostracon, the decision whether to intercalate or not was taken empirically on the basis of various observations and parameters. During the first 500 years of our era, but progressively and without uniformity between the communities,8 this empirical procedure was replaced by a regular system based on computations which is still used today: every two or three years, more precisely seven times in a cycle of 19 years, a thirteenth month of 29 days was intercalated, so that the 15th Nissan – a day of full moon – always fell between 27 March and 24 April. But this 19-year cycle was not yet observed in the first century of our era.9 One can only say that the demand of Turranius is quite likely to be related to the celebration of Pesach.10 The practical details of what happened remain uncertain, since (1) we do not know the location of Arabarches and Prasou relative to Umm Balad, and (2) where the Jews for whom the wheat must be found were situated. Were they at Prasou or at Umm Balad, or at least in both places? If they were only at Prasou, it is not obvious why the bread that was to be exchanged for the wheat would be collected, not at Prasou, but at Umm Balad. In my opinion, there were Jewish workers both at Prasou and at Umm Balad, or perhaps only at Umm Balad. If this were the case, Turranius just acted as an intermediary. Turranius asked Decimus to collect the bread at Umm Balad and send it with the “water-transport” (ὑδροφορία). This mention of the water-transport is a problem. In the correspondence of Turranius with Hieronymos and Maximus, the caravan of water-transport normally leaves from Prasou, where there was a well, to Umm Balad, where there wasn’t one. Let us first dispatch a desperate hypothesis: at the time of writing, Turranius was elsewhere,11 and had given instructions to his deputy, who would also have been called Decimus, like the one we know from Umm Balad. This complicated hypothesis does not, in any case, account for the end of the letter after ἵνα in l. 8, and I therefore prefer to think that it is Decimus, at Umm Balad, who is to send the bread with “the water transport.” But where would he send it? There are two possibilities: (1) Directly to Arabarches. This would explain why the water transport leaves from Umm Balad. Coming from Prasou, it would first have unloaded nearly all the water-skins in the cistern at Umm Balad, but some camels continue to Arabarches, which might then be the village at the 6. I thank Ranon Katzoff who initiated me into the subtleties of the Jewish calendar and gave me the reference to Stern 2001. I have also benefited from remarks from Sophie Kessler-Mesguish, prematurely dead. She was a good comrade at the École Normale, as smiling as she was learned. The ostraca from the Eastern Desert several times gave me occasion to find her again. 7. Ant. Jud. 2.311, cf. Stern 2001: 55. 8. Stern 2001: 49. 9. Stern 2001: 182: “Although a fixed calendar had begun to take shape by the fourth century CE, it was not identical with the Jewish rabbinic calendar of today.” 10. Later, Pesach would often be celebrated before the vernal equinox, i.e., in Phamenoth according to the Alexandrian calendar. This change appears to take effect progressively between the destruction of the temple (AD 70) and the fourth century (Stern 2001: 70–73). But we have seen that for Flavius Josephus, who wrote at the end of the first century, Nissan corresponded more or less to Pharmouthi. 11. This is the case in O.KaLa. inv. 813.

544

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert end of the wadi. This hypothesis does not, however, explain why Sokrates proposed the exchange to Turranius and not directly to those in charge at Umm Balad, which was only 1.2 km away. (2) Decimus sends the “water-transport” (hydrophoria) back to Prasou. In this case the expression hydrophoria is elliptic, since it designates camels from the water-transport that return empty to Prasou. This imprecise use of hydrophoria seems to be the only drawback of this hypothesis, and it is the one I prefer. In this case, Prasou was situated between Umm Balad and Arabarches, and we understand why the whole operation is arranged between Sokrates and Turranius, and also why Turranius sends one camel to Arabarches to bring the bread and bring back the wheat, which he will then, at least in part, send on to Umm Balad.

For their week of abstinence from leavened bread, the Jewish workers need five artabas of wheat – in fact, five artabas of bread mean the bread made from five artabas of wheat. These figures permit us to form an idea of the approximate size of the Jewish contingent: one artaba is the well-known standard ration for one man in thirty days, so the five artabas correspond to 150 rations which, divided by seven, suggest that there must have been some twenty Jews to feed, perhaps distributed on several sites. The present ostracon gives one of the two attestations of the ethnic name Ἰουδαῖος in the ostraca from the Eastern Desert in Roman times. The presence of Jews at Umm Balad and at the neighboring sites is also shown by the onomastics: we find in the private letters and in the lists of names several Semitic personal names, of which some are typically Jewish, such as Simeon, Iosepos, Isachis, and Ioudas. Unfortunately, we do not know what kind of work the Jews did. Two men, both called Isachis and resident in Umm Balad, appear in a series of lists of names, all ending with a group qualified as παγανοί (“natives”), which in the local jargon of the Eastern Desert means free, skilled workers of stone or in the forges, who are recruited locally in Egypt. Among the παγανοί there are no Jewish or Semitic names. Unfortunately, the Jewish or Semitic names or groups of names, which precede the paganoi in the lists, are never described, and this group also contains Greek and vernacular Egyptian names which one might as well find among the paganoi. So, were the Jews part of the familia, the other large category of workers in the quarries of the region? The identity of the familia and its relationship with the emperor remain enigmatic.12 The members of the familia, who were not necessarily of servile status, were employed in logistical tasks rather than with the work on the stone. Therefore, if there were Jews at Prasou, they may well have been employed in pumping water and filling the water-skins. But perhaps the Jews were simply free workers who were distinguished from the paganoi because of their strong religious identity.

12. See Chapter 11, pp. 198 f. There exist from Mons Claudianus lists of names, probably from the time of Trajan, which mention numerous Semitic names, some of them Jewish. Unfortunately, none of these lists show a categorization of the workers.

Chapter 34 The oldest representation of Moses, drawn by a Jew around ad 100 – And what do you mean by magic? – The power to change things that are not changed in the course of nature. I once had the appearance of that power. I called it magic but it was trickery. I learned it in Alexandria. Moses too learned this trickery in Egypt. You can take a drugged snake that stiffens itself to the appearance of a stick, then you throw the snake down, it comes out of its trance, it wriggles and hisses. Anthony Burgess, The Kingdom of the Wicked The ostracon O.KaLa. inv 179 was found in 2002, in the rubbish dump in front of the gate of the praesidium of Umm Balad, but it was not till 2013, during pleasure reading, that I realized its significance. The fortlet of Umm Balad (Fig. 132) is situated at the mouth of a valley that cuts into the southwestern flank of the Jabal Dukkhan.1 During the reign of Tiberius, the Romans had opened the porphyry quarries there which are commonly known under the (incorrect) name of Mons Porphyrites.2 It was not porphyry that one extracted from the two small quarries in the valley of Umm Balad, but a granodiorite that for geological reasons is no good, and the exploitation was stopped after a short time. The quarry was opened under Domitian, as indicated by its original name, Domitiane Kaine Latomia,3 and the exploitation ended during the reign of Trajan. Some documents dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius show that occupation continued later, but we do not know why.

1. See Chapter 33, n. 1. 2. One must say simply Porphyrites, as I have shown in Chapter 1, pp. 14–16. 3. Or Kaine Latomia Domitiane. After the damnatio memoriae of Domitian it was only called Kaine Latomia (see Chapter 1, pp. 20 f.).

545

546

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 132. The praesidium of Umm Balad. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Figure 133. O.KaLa. inv. 179. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

The oldest representation of Moses

547

The ostracon measures 7 × 7 cm and comes from the layer US 2311, which belongs to “phase A,” the first of the two principal phases that the archaeologists distinguish in the rubbish-dump. This phase contains only material from the time of Domitian and Trajan, when the quarries were active.5 US 2311 has yielded a letter that was clearly written under Domitian.6 The drawing is very expressive (Fig. 133): a man with a large beard that comes all the way to his knees7 seems to walk springily on the oblique edge of the ostracon while holding a knotted stick. He raises a big hand with the fingers spread out. But the stick seems to have a head and is first of all stiff in the upper part,8 while the lower part is notably sinuous. Thanks to the dialogue between Peter and Simon Magus as imagined by Anthony Burgess, I realized that this drawing represents the scene of Exodus, Chapter 4: Having revealed his name to Moses, God bestows on him the gift of performing miracles which will render him credible to the Hebrews (Ex. 4:1–5): 4

ἀπεκρίθη δὲ Μωυσῆς καὶ εἶπεν Ἐὰν οὖν μὴ πιστεύσωσίν μοι μηδὲ εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου, ἐροῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι Οὐκ ὦπταί σοι ὁ θεός, τί ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτούς; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ κύριος Τί τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἐν τῇ χειρί σου; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ῥάβδος. καὶ εἶπεν Ῥῖψον αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. καὶ ἔρριψεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐγένετο ὄφις· καὶ ἔφυγεν Μωυσῆς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα καὶ ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς κέρκου· ἐκτείνας οὖν τὴν χεῖρα ἐπελάβετο τῆς κέρκου, καὶ ἐγένετο ῥάβδος ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ· ἵνα πιστεύσωσίν σοι ὅτι ὦπταί σοι κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ. “And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee. And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.” The step that the man takes is a step backwards, preparing to flee, at the moment when his stick changes into a serpent. Philo who paraphrases this scene in his treatise De vita Mosis (1.77–78) also imagines this backwards step: ταχέως δ’ ἀποχωρήσας ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῴου καὶ διὰ δέος ἤδη πρὸς φυγὴν ὁρμῶν, “Moses quickly moves away from the animal, and for fear prepares to take flight…”

Strong hand, lifted arm The hand, black and overdimensioned, permits a double, even a triple, interpretation. It illustrates the second prodigy which follows almost directly after in the Bible (Ex. 4:6–7): 4. I.e., layer 11 of square 23. 5. The later “phase B” is heterogeneous and contains Trajanic material mixed with Antonine. 6. O.KaLa. inv. 365 – no year, but the honorific month Domitianos. 7. Unless this thickness is a shorter beard, and what is seen along his body is a μηλωτή (a sheep-skin coat). One could also imagine that this mass of dark hair is a sheepskin coat in which the man covers his face, like Elijah (I Reg. 19:13) when he stands before God: καὶ ἐκάλυψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ μηλωτῇ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἔστη ὑπὸ τὸ σπήλαιον, “he covered his face in his coat, went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.” 8. The tumescent upper part looks like the head of a cobra, which would not be without reason, as we shall see.

548

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ κύριος πάλιν Εἰσένεγκε τὴν χεῖρά σου εἰς τὸν κόλπον σου. καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόλπον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ κόλπου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγενήθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιών. καὶ εἶπεν Πάλιν εἰσένεγκε τὴν χεῖρά σου εἰς τὸν κόλπον σου. καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὸν κόλπον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν αὐτὴν ἐκ τοῦ κόλπου αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάλιν ἀπεκατέστη εἰς τὴν χρόαν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. “And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was [leprous] as snow. And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his own flesh.” The blackness of the hand in the drawing might stress that it has again turned to its natural color after its passage through an immaculate white.9 The meaning of this double episode is given immediately after: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ πιστεύσωσίν σοι μηδὲ εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ σημείου τοῦ πρώτου, πιστεύσουσίν σοι τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ σημείου τοῦ ἐσχάτου (Ex. 4:8). God calls these two prodigies σημεῖα, “signs” which authenticate Moses as his spokesman. At the same time as representing the second miracle, the hand also expresses a violent feeling, holy terror or admiration.10 But perhaps also a threat, for is this big, raised hand not also that of God, since God’s hand is everywhere in Exodus?11 Just before explaining to Moses the “signs” (σημεῖα) that will prove his authenticity to the Hebrews, God says, in these words, how he proposes to persuade Pharaoh to let them go: “For I know that Pharaoh will not let you go, unless by the action of a strong hand12 (ἐὰν μὴ μετὰ χειρὸς κραταιᾶς). And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof (καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα πατάξω τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς θαυμασίοις μου, οἷς ποιήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς).” God even commands Moses to speak in his name and say the following words: “I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm (ἐν βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ), and with great judgments.”13 These divine words will be spoken by Moses, and the raised hand of the prophet will be that of God. The expressions “strong hand” and “raised arm” are found combined once in Exodus (6:1) and also in other books of the Pentateuch, especially in Deutoronomy (nine times). This junctura is mostly related to flight from Egypt, and several times it is associated with the mention of divine signs and prodigies (σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα).14 The drawing is perhaps “primitive art,” but the artist has been able to capture the moment of a metamorphosis and to condense in one figure two successive episodes, what happened inside a short space 9. In the Hebrew Bible (and consequently the KJV translation used here) the hand becomes leprous, a detail which the Septuagint translators (and also Philon) avoided in order to give a favorable impression of the Jews (A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie. L’Exode [Paris 1989] 28). 10. This is the sentiment of Moses according to Philon: ὡς θαυμάζειν μὲν τὰς μεταβολὰς ἀμφοτέρας, ποτέρα δὲ καταπλεκτικοτέρα μὴ δύνασθαι διακρίνειν, τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσορρόπῳ πληχθείσης φαντασίᾳ, “so that he wondered at both these metamorphoses, and could not decide which was the more staggering, his mind being struck by two equally strong sights” (De vita Mosis, 1.78). 11. Note, however, that God’s avenging hand is the right hand (Ex. 15:6). 12. The KJV here has a slightly different text, and the translation followed is that of C. Dogniez and M. Harl, Le Pentateuque d’Alexandrie (Paris 2001). The verb “extend” (ἐκτείνειν) the hand is the same as is used to describe Moses’s gesture in the episode with the serpent. 13. Ex. 6:6 (KJV). 14. C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie. Le Deutéronome (Paris 1992) 144, comm. ad 4:34.

The oldest representation of Moses

549

of time, and to express, perhaps even with some humor,15 the human nature of a hero of a popular tale, giving, at the same time an aura of strangeness to the whole scene.

To be a Jew in the quarries of the Eastern Desert This drawing, so faithful to the text of Exodus, can only have been made by a Jew, and we know that Jews were present at Umm Balad and neighboring sites. Several lists of names show Semitic, and in some cases typically Jewish, names, that are clearly different from the Greek, Latin, and Egyptian names that form the majority of the corpus. The word Ioudaioi which is found in a letter confirms the religious orientation of the individuals whose names are mentioned in these lists. The letter in question (O.KaLa. inv. 228) also comes from phase A of the deposit and also from square 23, although the layer,17 is different. Its author, Turranius, who is probably the Roman curator of the praesidium at Prasou, is trying to collect five artabas of bread which he will send to Arabarches (this is a place-name) in order to obtain some “wheat for the Jews” in return. According to the date of the letter, Pharmouthi 12, this could be in preparation of the Pesach-feast, when Jews must eat unleavened bread.16 We know next to nothing about the status and function of these Jews. Did they perhaps belong to the Imperial familia? This is an, in itself, enigmatic group of workers attested in the Roman quarries of the Eastern Desert, who seem to have been employed in logistical tasks, in opposition to the work of extraction and shaping, which demanded technical skills and was carried out by native workers called pagani. At Mons Claudianus, under Trajan, the two most important communities of pagani were the Syenites17 and the Alexandrians.18 In any case, it is certain that the Jews did not belong to the pagani, since several daily lists (sicklists?) classify the names in two groups which, at first sight, are not very different, as they contain Greek, Latin, and Egyptian names. But Jewish names are found only in the first group, such as two people called Isachis (spelt Ἴσακος in O.KaLa. inv. 256), Iason, Iosepos, and Dousas. In the second group, which is marked παγανοί, there are no Jewish names. According to Fl. Josephus (BJ 6.9.418), after the fall of Jerusalem in 70, Titus sent Jewish prisoners over 17 years of age for forced labor in Egypt. Could it be these prisoners? The time-span is too great, and we cannot imagine that the prisoners from 70 were still able to work at the end of Domitian’s reign or later. Besides, the few letters exchanged between these Jews suggest that they lead an ordinary life of workers in the quarries. One Simon even gives the impression of being rather comfortably off: he asks his correspondent, Joseph, to collect for him on pay-day various debts owed by people with Egyptian names (O.KaLa. inv. 792). O.Claud. IV 872 is perhaps the most important evidence. In this, Jesus informs Verna that “the column is ready and will be at the loading-ramp at the first hour.”19 This Jesus is no humble worker of the familia. We rather imagine that he was an indigenous ergodotes (foreman). 15. To our modern eye the drawing is reminiscent of the falsely crude style of cartoonists such as Jean-Marc Reiser or Claire Brétécher. The artist at Umm Balad would have been amused to depict the emotional turmoil of a simple shepherd who is, somewhat brutally, pushed into the role in which God has cast him. 16. This letter is published in Chapter 33. 17. I.e., people from Aswan, where the presence of the granite quarries had given rise to a local tradition of extracting and shaping the stone. 18. See especially Chapter 11, p. 196. The ostracon published there, dating from c. 110, is a complete catalogue of the population of the metallon. It should be noted that it does not mention a group of Jews. The presence of Jews at Mons Claudianus is attested by some undoubtedly Jewish names, found almost exclusively in lists of names. One Ioudas, in one of these lists, is the only one whose name is followed by a qualification, ἀπελ(εύθερος) (O.Claud. inv. 303). The ethnic Ἰουδαῖος is found once only in a note, where the writer asks his correspondent “to go and see the Jew” without further details (O.Claud. inv. 3400). 19. It is unlikely, as the editor writes, that this ostracon dates from the reign of Hadrian or of Antoninus, for there were no more Jews in Egypt during the reigns of these emperors.

550

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

So, we must turn to the hypothesis that the Jews at Umm Balad and Mons Claudianus were native, free, craftsmen, but that the administration kept them separate from the pagani because of their religious particularity, which they had to take into account, as in the letter of Turranius.20

A transgressive drawing? The artist knew the episode of miracles well, but he broke the second commandment, by which it is forbidden to make images: οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα, ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς.21 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” This prohibition of images is even clearer in Deuteronomy (4:16–18): “Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth.” It is worth noticing that serpents are expressly mentioned. The serpent and the staff would be attributes of the human figure (in itself even more forbidden than the rest for the rigorists) forbidden by certain rabbinic texts because it evoked the imperial cult, to which the Jews, for historical reasons, were especially hostile.22 The reason for this iconophobia was the fear that the Jews, beleaguered as they saw themselves, might turn from their religion to the gods of the peoples with whom they were in contact, and whose images polluted their visual world. At certain times, this prohibition was observed literally. This was the case during the period of the Second Temple (515 BC – AD 70) when art was aniconic. Nevertheless,23 as Josephus and Tacitus testify, from the first century BC, a golden vine-leaf adorned the gate of the temple of Herod, vegetable subjects were seen on ossuaries and sarcophagi, some portraits were commanded by princes,24 and, from the first century AD, the portraits of Roman emperors and Jewish sovereigns appeared on the coins issued by the latter (even if really pious people averted their eyes from these). To this short list one should add the ornamented lamps from the first century of our era, which Victor Klagsbald has cleverly related to the biblical texts.25 20. One might, for instance, ask the question, whether the administration of the quarries allowed the Jews to keep the sabbath. 21. Ex. 20:6 (=Dt. 5:8). It is permitted to cite the biblical texts in Greek, for it was in this language that the artist, an Egyptian Jew, would have known them. 22. Urbach 1959: 238; G.  Sed-Rajna, “L’argument de l’iconophobie juive,” in Fr.  Bœspflug and N. Lossky (eds.), Nicée II 787–1987. Douze siècles d’images religieuses (Paris 1987) 85. 23. P. Prigent, Le Judaïsme et l’image (Tübingen 1990) 4–13. 24. Portraits of the wife and of the brother-in-law of Herod and of the daughters of Agrippa I (Jos. AJ 15.26 and 19.357). 25. Klagsbald 1997, esp. 60–74. Three lamps in one or more copies are concerned: (1) a Judean lamp from the first or second century with an eagle that carries a dove (Ex. 19:4); (2) a Judean lamp from the first century with a trapped dove (Ps 124:7);

The oldest representation of Moses

551

The political, social, and economic upheavals suffered by the Jewish world consequent to the fall of Jerusalem led to a relaxation of the prohibition on images until the onset of the iconoclastic movement in the sixth century. Several rabbinic texts of the second to fourth centuries bear witness to this softening of attitudes.26 However, the consequences for artistic production, such as it has come to us, were not immediate, and it is not until the end of the second century, and especially in the third, that figural representations find their way into Jewish art in the form of sculpted sarcophagi and wall-paintings and mosaics in the synagogues.27 The most famous example of this, and also the oldest, is the painted decorations of the synagogue of Dura Europos from 244/5, where the human figure is omnipresent. Our drawing is a forerunner, for, in the period whence it comes, there are practically no examples of figural Jewish art. It is difficult to know whether this rarity is the result of the religious prohibition, or depends on an internal development in Jewish art. It could also be the result of lacunae in our documentation. The Umm Balad ostracon is the oldest existing representation of Moses in Jewish or palaeochristian art.28 It is also one of the oldest examples of narrative art inspired by the Bible,29 and, in a general way, one of the oldest examples of Jewish art that have come down to us.

A folkloristic theme, or waiting for the Messiah? The calling of Moses does not have wide-ranging spiritual or theological implications and consequently has not inspired many Jewish or Christian artists. I do not know of any other examples from antiquity.30 It is not until the thirteenth century that Hebrew manuscripts depict the miracle of the stick-to-serpent, and associating the leprous hand remains rare.31 Centuries later, Chagall would use the theme in an etching which shows a strange likeness of style and spirit to the ostracon (Fig. 134). The choice of this scene by the artist from Umm Balad is paradoxical. The protagonist, the mediator between God and his people, the guide of the Hebrews through the desert to the Promised Land, the wise legislator, is the most important figure in the Pentateuch. But here he is depicted before he took on this role, at the very moment of his own metamorphosis. We must, therefore, ask in what spirit the drawing was made. The artist, a humble worker, was perhaps inspired by the fairy-tale character of the episode, the consoling thought of the humble shepherd who is suddenly called to a great destiny, or (3) a supposedly Alexandrian lamp with seven spouts representing the fight between David and Goliath. This lamp has earlier been considered to belong to the third century because it was thought to be Christian, but Klagsbald prefers to assign it to the first century because of the paleography of the accompanying text. It would thus be an example of narrative art inspired by the Bible, as old, if not older than, the drawing from Umm Balad. Since none of these lamps come from stratified excavations, the dates are not precise. The typology of the first two, with their simplified volutes, is in accordance with a dating in the first century. Klagsbald even thinks that they may be earlier than AD 70, since he maintains that the period between the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kochba-revolt was more likely to favor a rigoristic attitude to images (p. 62). I thank Sonia Fellous for the reference to this study. 26. Urbach 1959: 238. 27. R. Haschlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (Leiden 1998) 237. 28. The oldest images of Moses cited by Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971) s.v. “Moses” are found in the painting in the synagogue of Dura Europos, on the lipsanotheca in Breccia (fourth century), and on the mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore (fifth century). 29. Along with the lamp with David and Goliath, if the dating of V. Klagsbald is correct (cf. n. 25). 30. The scene with the metamorphosis of the two staffs on the portal of S. Sabina in Rome (fifth century) does not show the calling of Moses, but Aaron in front of Pharaoh (Ex. 7:8–13). 31. Sonia Fellous, to whom I owe this information, has referred me to one occurrence of this combination from the fifteenth century. The scene is treated very stiffly and dissociates the stick and the serpent: the static person holds a stick in one hand and hides the other in a fold of his garment while a serpent writhes on the ground in front of him (S. Fellous, Histoire de la Bible de Moïse Arragel: quand un rabbin interprète la Bible pour les chrétiens: Tolède 1422–1433 [Paris 2001] 258 and Fig. 161).

552

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 134 (left). Etching by Marc Chagall, part of a cycle of illustrations to the Bible. © Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI. Dist. RMN-Grand-Palais/Philippe Migeat. © Adagp, Paris 2021.   The artist has filled the scene of  the prodigies with elements that anticipate several episodes of  Moses’s life:  The prophet has rays like horns which express the transfiguration of  his face after he has received the tables of   the laws. And what is more, the background is filled with persons who represent, at the same time, stupefied  spectators at the competition of magicians (in which Aaron was substituted for Moses), and the victims of the following catastrophes (the plagues of Egypt). Figure 135 (right). The naturalist Michel Aymerich manipulating a cobra. © Clothilde Rojat

perhaps by the image, also popular among the pagans,32 of Moses as a miracle-maker. This image finds its origin exactly in the story of the calling of Moses, who was seen as a magician to whom God had given the gift of doing miracles by revealing to him the secret of His name.33 There may also have been a local influence on the choice of subject: sticks in the shape of snakes, which were considered a magical protection against snake-bites, are seen everywhere in Egyptian religious iconography, to such a degree that it has been suggested that the biblical episode has an Egyptian origin.34 This hypothesis becomes 32. Cf. Pliny, Nat. 30. 2.11; Apul. Apol. 90. 33. Hence the voces magicae of Jewish origin in the magical papyri. Several Graeco-Egyptian magical prescriptions are preceded by a title which attributes them to Moses (G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History [Cambridge 2008] 202). On Moses as miracle-maker, see the last chapter “Moses and Magic” in J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville and New York 1972). 34. Cf. R. K. Ritner, “‘And Each Staff Transformed into a Snake’: The Serpent-Wand in Ancient Egypt,” in K. Szpakowska (ed.), Through a Glass Darkly. Magic, Dreams, and Prophecy in Ancient Egypt (Swansea 2006)  205–25, esp. 217 (I thank

The oldest representation of Moses

553

more plausible when you know that the “Egyptian cobra”35 (Naja haje L.) becomes motionless when the manipulator caresses its neck (Fig. 135). So, in fact, the first prodigy is nothing but a cheap trick that was well known by the ancients, and which was still practiced in Cairo at the time of Champollion.36 The Egyptian cobra is occasionally cannibalistic and eats other snakes, which is illustrated by the competition of magicians, where the serpent of Aaron eats those of his rivals (Ex. 7:8–12).37 But one cannot exclude a serious interpretation. In spite of the serene tone of the letters from Umm Balad where Jews appear, this drawing dates from a period of high tension between the Jews and the Roman powers, and between the Jews and the pagan population. It was made some thirty years after the destruction of the temple (70). Some ten years later, the great revolt of the Jews from 115 to 117 broke out and led to their extermination in Egypt. In 73 Vespasian had instituted a burdensome capitation-tax which hit the Jews specifically, and which Domitian is said to have collected with particular rigor. At Umm Balad, as at Mons Claudianus, part of the free work-force came from Alexandria.38 Jews and Alexandrians may very well have brought with them to the desert the notorious mutual hostility that reigned between them in the provincial capital under Roman rule. The choice of a subject from Exodus, a book where Egypt, unlike what we see in Genesis, is a land of oppression and suffering for the Hebrews, may not be accidental. While our artist carried out hard labor in the splendid, but rough, landscape of the Arabian desert, not far from the Red Sea, and perhaps under a Pharaoh who may still have been Domitian, the brother of the destroyer of the temple, he wanted, perhaps, to affirm his religious identity and his hope for the arrival of a liberator.39 Fr. Dunand for this reference). On the other hand, I do not think it is necessary to take recourse to the age-old prejudice in Egyptian culture which identifies the Jews as leprous. This originates in Manetho, cited by Josephus (Ap. 1.277–78). According to this, the Jews were in part descendants of the impure and leprous whom the Pharaoh Amenophis was said at first to have relegated to the quarries of the Eastern Desert (Ap. 1.235) and whom he later allowed to settle in the city of Avaris, where they chose as chief a priest from Heliopolis, the future Moses, who converted them to monotheism and had formed an alliance with the Shepherd-people (the Hyksos), who were established in Jerusalem, in order to conquer Egypt (Y. Volokhine, “Des séthiens aux impurs. Un parcours dans l’idéologie égyptienne de l’exclusion,” in Ph. Borgeaud, Th. Römer, and Y. Volokhine (eds.), Interprétations de Moïse. Égypte, Judée, Grèce et Rome (Leiden and Boston 2010) 199–243, esp. 203–10). It is exactly to forget this link between Jews and lepers that the translators of the Septuagint have suppressed the allusion to leprosy in the account of the miracle of the hand. For the artist of the drawing, who knew the sacred text only in the Greek version, the link between the leprous hand and the Egyptian prejudice was probably lost. This does not mean that he did not know about this prejudice, which must have been widespread and which Josephus is at pains to refute several times in his works, in particular in Contra Apionem. 35. Thus called because of its omnipresence in Egyptian art, but it is common in Africa, in the Middle East, and on the Arabian Peninsula. 36. “The haje-snake changes into a stick and pretends to be dead etc. In order to change it into a stick, the performer spits into the mouth of the snake and forces him to close it, presses with his hand on its head, and the snake at once becomes stiff and immobile. It appears to become cataleptic and is only awakened when the performers seize its tail and rub it violently between their hands” (J.-J. Champollion-Figeac, Égypte ancienne [Paris 1839] 20). However, the naturalist Michel Aymerich, who speaks with experience (see Fig. 135), and whom I thank for patiently answering my questions, writes to me: “Perhaps the ancients interpreted as a ‘stiffening’ the passivity that takes hold of the snake when caressed. When thus caressed, the cobra enters a state of lethargy and becomes easy to manipulate, whence the possibility to speak of it as a branch or a stick. But it is not stiff, it is just relatively amorphous […] The snake remains conscious and observes the situation, ready to flee when the moment comes.” As far as he knows, the cobra is the only snake which becomes lethargic when its neck is caressed. Perhaps it is an inherited attitude of submission (emails of 9/4 and 19/07 2014). 37. I thank Anne Boud’hors who put me on the track of the cobra. 38. Two ostraca show that the indigenous workers came from the same two great communities as at Mons Claudianus: O.KaLa. inv. 640 (sklerourgos from Aswan), and inv. 232 (kibariates of the Alexandrians). 39. Sonia Fellous draws my attention to the fact that, in the wall-paintings of the synagogue of Dura Europos, painted at a time when the town was threatened by the Sasanians, Moses is represented eight times. On the perhaps Alexandrian lamp decorated with the fight of David and Goliath, this role of savior is attributed to David (cf. above n. 25). Klagsbald sees in this an allusion to the confrontations between Jews and Alexandrians (1997: 60).

Chapter 35 Πλήρωμα in the identification of soldiers in the navy The prescript1 of a cheirographon found at Mons Claudianus and dated 140 (O.Claud. III 540)2 runs like this: Ἐπιθύμητος … Φλαουίῳ Ἰσ̣ι̣δώρῳ Αὐ⟨γ⟩ούστης κλάσσης Ἀλεξανδρίνης, πληρώματος Παλλάτος, χαίριν. The formula which identifies the soldier after the denomination of the fleet is unusual.3 Normally,4 the name of the ship in which the soldiers of the Roman navy served, or had served, is mentioned in their identification, and this name is preceded by a technical description of the vessel, e.g., liburna, trireme, quadrireme, either abridged or represented by a symbol. Thus, III Vesta means (trireme) Vesta “of the trireme Vesta.” Since ships were identified as centuries,5 the technical description may sometimes in the inscriptions be preceded by the symbol for centuria, e.g., CIL X.1, 3572: 𝈒 III Vesta (centuria triere

1. This study was presented in 1995 at the seminar of Latin epigraphy at the École Normale Supérieure and has had the benefit of remarks by F. Bérard, G. Di Vita-Evrard, and E. Rebuffat, which allowed me to refine several details. I thank them and also D. Hagedorn, P. A. Hansen, and M. Reddé, to whom I owe some improvements and clarifications. 2. It is an IOU by one Epithymetos of the familia to a soldier of the navy for a loan of five drachmas. 3. This is not in the correct order, which is classis Augusta Alexandrina. The attestations from papyri and inscriptions of the designation of the Alexandrian Fleet have been collected by B. Palme, ZPE 101 (1994) 94–95. D. Hagedorn has drawn my attention to the fact that one expects στρατιώτῃ vel sim. after Φλαουίῳ Ἰσιδώρῳ. It is in fact very rare, when naming a soldier, that his name is followed directly by the name of his unit without mention of his rank or function. Looking through the tituli of the Misenates in CIL X.1, I have only found the following case: M. Antonius Longus ex classe praet(oria) Misen(ensi) optio (triere) Vener(e) (CIL X 3461); in CIL VI.1, I found a few examples from the praetorian cohorts and the vigiles (CIL VI 2507, 2657, 2976, 2983: M. Vigellius Primus chortis V uigilum). However this may be, the paleography does not permit reading anything other than Αὐ⟨γ⟩ούστης. Our scribe is clearly not familiar with military habits. 4. That is to say in official documents, especially military diplomata, and inscriptions, mostly funerary, which conformed to regulation formulas as they appeared in the army-registers (Speidel 1986: 475: “The soldiers’ records in the acta of their units had a certain influence on their epitaphs”). The overwhelming majority of these inscriptions concern the praetorian fleets of Misenum and Ravenna. 5. Always, regardless of their size. Starr 1941: 57–58; Reddé 1986: 541.

557

558

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Vesta). More rarely, instead of the technical name + the proper name of the ship,6 one finds the symbol for centuria + the name of the centurio, e.g., CIL X.1, 3386 (centuria) Iulii Quinti.7 There exist only two examples from inscriptions of the formula that is used in the ostracon from Mons Claudianus: CIL XIII.2.1, 7681 and AE 1956, 249.8 It is perhaps no coincidence that the two inscriptions, which refer to soldiers in the classis Germanica, both come from places on the Rhine quite close one to the other, even if one, Cologne, is in Germania Inferior, while the other, Andernach, is in Germania Superior. CIL XIII.2.1, 7681 (Antunnacum/Andernach) is a dedication to the local “Mothers” by Similio miles ex c⟨l⟩asse Germanica P(ia) F(ideli) D(omitiana) pler(omate) Cresimi. In the edition there is the following commentary by Henzen: “Erat miles in nave oneraria sub duce Chresimo.” This false translation of πλήρωμα9 has long since been exposed. The word has never meant a type of ship, but designates, in the language of the navy, either the crew (whether civilian or military) or the cargo.10 The other occurrence is AE 1956, 249,11 a funerary dedication to Aemilio Saelni f(ilio) mil(iti) ex classe G(ermanica) P(ia) F(ideli) pl(eromate) Euhodi n(avarchi) ciui Dumnonio an(norum) (break). This inscription, found in Cologne, is reprinted in the same form in BRGK 40 (1959) 200, no. 216, and by B. and H. Galsterer, Die römischen Steininschriften aus Köln (Cologne 1975) no. 279 and pl. 61.12 It is dated to the late first or early second century (post 96 because the fleet is no longer named Domitiana).13 The editors of these two inscriptions have always interpreted the name that follows pleroma as the name of the captain, but when a captain is named he is always a centurio, and his rank is always indicated (at least by the mention of centuria). In CIL XIII 7681 nothing indicates the rank of the presumed Chresimus. In AE 1956, 249, on the other hand, the name Euhodus is followed by an n, and the resolution n(avarchi) has never been discussed. The editors of BRGK 40 even conclude that a navarchus was an officer in charge of a pleroma, and that this would consequently be the rank of Chresimus. 6. This formula is rarely reversed. In all the inscriptions from Misenum in CIL X.1, I have found only two examples: 3503, militauit dupl(icarius) Sole III, and 3554, ex Cerere III. 7. Starr 1941: 63, n. 29 knows of only two examples where the two formulas are combined, i.e., where the name of the ship and that of the centurion are given (CIL VI.1, 3165 and IX 42). He also quotes CIL X 7288 as a third example where the name of the ship is thought to have been forgotten: one reads tr 𝈒 Zenonis. 8. Quoted by Reddé 1986: 541, n. 374: “One finds twice the word pleroma followed by a proper name in the genitive to indicate the crew to which one belongs …” Reddé does not explain to whom or to what he thinks the proper name refers. 9. Cf. RE XXI.1 s.v. Pleromarius. Nevertheless, this ghost-ship sometimes turns up again: in Starr 1941 (149 and 163, n. 84), in F. Biville (‘pleroma (hapax) navire de transport’), “Les Hellénismes dans les inscriptions latines païennes de la Gaule,” in La Langue des inscriptions latines de la Gaule (Lyon 1989) 103. It is also found in J. Rougé, Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain (Paris 1966) 198: “(πλήρωμα) may denote the crew of a ship as well as the ship itself or its cargo, or even, according to Hesychius, the ship of tragedy.” This glossa of Hesychius (πλήρωμα· ναῦς τραγική) is the only example in the dictionaries of πλήρωμα in the sense of ship. But then, perhaps we should not take this gloss for a definition, as the editor of Hesychius, P. A. Hansen (per litt.), whose opinion I have asked, convincingly explains: “… I find it quite possible to believe, e.g., that a comic writer spoke of a shipload of tragic actors, and that in the particular context ναῦς τραγική became a reasonable translation of πλήρωμα; perhaps the phrase was even found in the text a line or a few lines before or after πλήρωμα. If you emend τραγική to something else which on the surface looks more logical and readily intelligible (…) one would then have to maintain that πλήρωμα really can mean ‘ship’ out of context. This to my mind is an unattractive solution. For the good order of things I add the various Verschlimmbesserungen of τραγική that are listed in Alberti’s still indispensable edition of Hesychius (vol. 2, 1766): στρατηγική Hensius and Voss (Alberti favours this emendation, saying that the supposed error occurs ‘saepius’ [undoubtedly correct, but I still think the idea is wrong here]; Θρᾳκική Perger; φορτική Triller.” 10. The point is succinctly made in the commentary to AE 1979, 189. 11. This is in fact the inscription to which AE 1962, 194 refers. 12. I owe this reference to Fr. Bérard. 13. Kienast 1966: 28.

Πλήρωμα in the identification of soldiers in the navy

559

The resolution n(auarchi), which goes back to the editio princeps,14 is not supported by any parallel, and it is even more unsatisfactory in that, although the functions of a navarchus are not well known, it is common knowledge that he was not in charge of a single ship but probably of a squadron.15 On the other hand, after the name of the ship, the inscriptions of soldiers of the navy often mention the origin of the person concerned in the form of an ethnic adjective preceded by natione, often abbreviated natio(ne), nat(ione), or n(atione): e.g., CIL X.1, 3400a: D(is) M(anibus) M(arci) Gargili Felicis armor(um custodis) (triere) Satyra n(atione) Afer. In the case of AE 1956, 249 one is tempted to resolve the abbreviation n(atione) instead of n(avarchi).16 But natione and civis have the same function in this formula17 and consequently are mutually exclusive. There is no example of the sequence natione civis. One rather expects n(atione) Britanno civi Dumnonio18 (cf. CIL VI.1, 2736: natione Mesacus civis Meletinus vico Perepro, or 2610: natione Trax cives Filipopolitanus) or just natione Dumnonio. Is this just an omission by the stone-cutter? Or perhaps, in his mind, the resolution of the formula was n(ato) civi(tate) Dumnoniorum? Cf., e.g., CIL X.1, 2544: oriundus ex provincia Panno(nia) inferiore natus Castello Vixillo. One could also think of n(ato) ciui Dumnonio.19 One must also take possible aberrations into account, such as natione Offentina (name of a tribe!) Mediolano quoted by Forni (1979: 218). Whatever the resolution, the question must be asked: Who were Pallas, Chresimos, and Euhodos? It is striking that all these names are Greek, something that has a servile connotation in this Roman military environment. We recall that navarchs and trierarchs were sometimes freedmen, but in the Julio-Claudian epoch.20 Besides, these freedmen were Roman citizens, and Kienast observes that these navarchs and trierarchs are always mentioned with the tria nomina.21 It is of course conceivable that in the identification of the soldier one kept only the cognomen of the commander for the sake of brevity (cf. tr(iere) (centuria) Zenonis, quoted in note 7 above). But we must remember that the names of trierarchs in the Classis Germanica (except for the very hypothetical Euhodus we know no other navarchs from this fleet) are not of the same type as our three names (CIL XIII.2.1, 7719: Rufrius Calenius; CIL XIII.2.2, 7941: T. Aurelius Provincialis; CIL XIII.2.2, 8036: C. Sunicius Faustus; CIL XIII.2.2, 8168: Saturninus; CIL XIII.4, 12086a: C. Iulius Bio). Except for the last one, these trierarchs from the German fleet have Roman names, which is habitual after the Julio-Claudian period.22 I am therefore very tempted by another possibility, namely that it is the name of the ship. If so, one might even resolve pl(eromate) Euhodi n(avis). We have seen in the inscriptions from Misenum and Ravenna that it is the technical description of the ship that is used, followed by its proper name. But here 14. F. Fremersdorf, Kölner Jahrbuch 1 (1955) 26 (non vidi). 15. Starr 1941: 39–40 and 48, n. 40; Reddé 1986: 542. The etymological sense has been so weakened that in Greek literature nauarchos often means “admiral” or is translated praefectus classis (cf. D. Magie, De romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis [Leipzig 1905] 140). 16. Fr. Bérard and M. Reddé have warned me against this too easy solution. 17. Th. Mommsen, in the section “Die Heitmatsvermerke der Legionare und der Auxiliarier” in the article “Die Conscriptionsordnung der römischen Kaiserzeit,” Gesammelte Schriften VI (Berlin 1910) 41–55; p. 48: natione Batavus is equivalent to ciuis Batavus. On this question, see two more recent articles: Forni 1979 and Speidel 1986. 18. The Dumnonii formed a civitas, a word that signifies “people” in Celtic countries, cf. CIL VII 775 = RIB 1844 and CIL VII 776 = RIB 1843. These two inscriptions are to be dated, according to the editors of RIB, to 369. 19. Suggested by G. Di Vita-Évrard. 20. Starr 1941: 41 and 108. 21. Kienast 1966: 22, n. 53: “besides it seems that the navarchs and trierarchs had the tria nomina already in the first century. For no navarch or trierarch with a peregrine name can be shown.” 22. Starr 1941: 108 (concerning the fleets of the Mediterranean): “The trierarchs were in the Julio-Claudian period often freedmen; later almost all higher officers were sufficiently Romanized to have Latin names, and in the late second century they were at times Roman citizens by birth.”

560

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

we have another formula, not well attested and in another environment. In the Mediterranean fleet, we know of no other vessels than liburnae,23 and as for the fleet of the Rhine, we have no information at all about the types of ships, perhaps more modest, of which it was composed. Another testimony strengthens the hypothesis that we are dealing with the name of the ship. It is AE 1979, 189: I(oui) O(ptimo) M(aximo) C(aius) Cordius Aqu(i)llinus vot(um) sol(uit) com pleroma(te) Rhedo[n]is et Me[d]aur[i].24 The provenance of the inscription is a cave-sanctuary at the cape S. Maria di Leuca (Salento). According to the commentary in AE we cannot know whether this concerns “a small squadron of liburnae charged with the surveillance of the lower Adriatic” or merchant ships. In any case, the names are considered as names of ships. Rhedon must be the name of an Illyrian god or hero whose image is found on coins,25 and Medaurus is a known Illyrian name of a god. Are these three names appropriate for ships? Pallas is not attested as a ship’s name in any imperial fleet, but is nevertheless “marked” as the name of a ship: the bow of a galley named Pallas is seen on the front of Hellenistic coins from Corfu (P. Gardiner, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Thessaly to Aetolia [London 1883] XLIX and nos. 271–273 p. 131, between 300 and 229 BC). This name had connotations very close to Minerva, which is well attested in the Roman navy. Concerning Chresimus and Euhodus, they are not known as names of ships in the Graeco-Roman world,26 but they might fit into the series of “epithets evoking a particular quality of the ship.”27 Euhodus, “of good voyage,” is particularly appropriate and has the same connotations as Euploia, attested in the Athenian navy,28 since ὁδός is used equally about land- and sea-voyages. The names of ships in the imperial navy are normally taken from Latin,29 and Chresimus, “the Useful” is, from the point of view of military and imperialistic propaganda, suspect in its banality. But perhaps one drew on a different repertoire, less ideological and more diverse, when naming other ships than the “noble” ones.30 If our interpretation is correct, the prescript of the ostracon from Mons Claudianus should be translated as follows: “Epithymetos (…) to Flauius Isidoros [soldier] in the Augustan Alexandrian Fleet, from the crew of the Pallas,31 greetings.”

23. According to the few examples we have, the expression liburna + name of ship is the most commonly used for the identification of soldiers of the Alexandrian fleet (BGU II 455.9; BGU III 741.7–8; P.Mich. VII 442.5–6; P.Ryl. II 79.10 = Ch.L.A. IV 241); it competed with “deviant” formulas, where the name of the ship is preceded by pleroma (O.Claud. III 540) and, in BGU VII 1695, fr. C, by tutela (i.e., the carved image of whatever identified and protected the ship): Safinnius Herminus mil(es) classis Aug(ustae) Alex(andrinae) tutela Tauro. 24. Note that L. De Salvo, Economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’impero romano: I corpora naviculariorum (Messina 1992) 156 n. 461, still retains the reading of CIL IX 1 pleromariis, and understands these pleromarii as equivalent to the lenuncularii pleromarii in Ostia (reference communicated by F. Mitthof). 25. H. Ceka, Questions de numismatique illyrienne (Tirana 1972) 162. 26. The most recent list for the Roman fleets is Reddé 1986: 665–71. However, one can but ask the question if the ship called Χρησμός (the Oracle) in P.Oxy. XXIV 2415.39 was not really called Χρήσιμος (the Useful). There are examples of a syncopated writing Chresmus for the proper name Chresimus (Solin 1982: II, 936). 27. Reddé 1986: 672. 28. L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship on the Ancient World (Princeton 1971) 352. 29. The Greek names (Asclepius, Athenonice, Sphinx, Triton, …) which are taken from religion or mythology are integrated into the Latin language and/or culture. 30. The expression is from Reddé 1986: 124. For what little we know about the auxiliary vessels, lintres, lusoriae, scaphae, etc. see ibidem 124–33. 31. Παλλάτος: read Παλλάδος. Surely Pallas Athena is meant, and not the masculine name Πάλλας, gen. Πάλλαντος.

Chapter 36 Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript O.Krok. I 81 does not look like much. It is the upper right corner of a letter for which no join has been found. Just enough is left to understand that the letter, which was undoubtedly a draft or a copy, was addressed by a certain Papirius, curator praesidii, to an ἔπαρχος. This was probably, as always in the corpus of ostraca from Krokodilo, the prefect of the Desert of Berenike, commander in chief of the network of praesidia. The only interest of this tiny fragment is an unusual formula in the prescript, which is the starting point for these remarks. O.Krok. I 81 Fig. 136

inv. 798 5.3 × 4.5 cm ]υ καὶ ἰδίῳ ἐπάρχ(ῳ) ] Παπείριος κουράτωρ ] τριῶν ἱππέων ]α̣ι̣ ] – – – – –

4

1 επαχρ

Reign of Trajan or early Hadrian

ν

3 ιππεω for lack of space

The phrase ἰδίῳ ἐπάρχῳ is unique, but is easily explained by the simple possessive meaning which ἴδιος takes on in the koine.1 We then understand that it is a Latinism, and if the letter had been written in Latin, it would have been addressed by Papirius praefecto suo, an expression which we find in the Latin letter CEL 158: Domitio Respecto praef(ecto) suo Severus (centurio) salutem.2 1. LSJ, s.v. ἴδιος I, 6. Blass, Debrunner, Grammatik, § 286. 2. The idea that this way of addressing a correspondent was a Latinism was first expressed by A. Bülow-Jacobsen: “There is a strong suspicion that this use of ἴδιος might be a translation of the Latin suus” (P.Oxy. XLIX 3505.1n.)

561

562

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 136. O.Krok. I 81. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

Yet the addition of a possessive to a Roman military rank or function is exceptional, and the only other examples I find in the papyrological corpus are: – O.Krok. I 51 (109), circular letter from an officer to the curators on the road of Myos Hormos, in which he mentions Ἀρτωρίῳ ἐπάρχῳ ἡμῶν. – Rom.Mil.Rec. 74 (117). The first lines of this receipt are edited as follows:3 Λονγεῖνος Λόνγ[ος] σημεαφόρ[ο]ς [σπ]είρης α̅ Λουσιτανῶν (ἑκατονταρχίας) Τιτουληίου Λ[ο]νγείνωι Τιτουληίῳ ἰατ̣[ρῷ] (ἑκατοντάρχῃ) χαίρειν. A military doctor with the rank of centurion is unique but has been accepted in successive reeditions of the papyrus, even after Gilliam had suggested the restitution ἰδίῳ instead of ἰατ̣[ρῳ].4 This conjecture would fit the sense very well, since the writer of the receipt does, in fact, belong to the century which carries the name of the addressee. Admittedly, the traces, as seen on a photograph of the papyrus,5 are not in favor of Gilliam’s restoration, for they would seem to exclude a delta. On the other hand, ϊτ̣[ι]ω̣ is paleographically possible.6 The photograph reveals traces of ink between Τιτουληίῳ and ϊ which might be an iota adscript, so perhaps we should read Τιτουληίωι̣ ἰτ̣[ί]ω[ι. As for the reading ἰατ̣[ρῷ]7 it is far from attractive, since the alpha seems very doubtful to me. – O.Krok. I 94 (c. 118), letter from a soldier to a comrade: ὁ τεσσαλάρις μο[υ]. – O.Krok. II 302 (reign of Trajan), letter from Ischyras at Wadi al-Fawakhir to Parabolos at Krokodilo. He mentions the curator of Krokodilo as ὁ κουράτωρ σου. The case is unique in the Eastern Desert. The two correspondents belong to the group of civilians who lived in symbiosis with the soldiers of the praesidia. – C.Pap.Lat. 221.30 (142): will of an eques alae, stator praefecti, who leaves 50 denarii to “his” prefect (praefecto meo). 3. I have restored accents and breathings which Fink has left out in Rom.Mil.Rec. 4. Gilliam 1966: 92, n. 5. 5. M. Norsa, Papiri greci delle collezione italiane. Scritture documentarie II (Rome 1933), pl. 15. 6. The spelling ϊτιος for ἴδιος is found in PSI IX 1030.14 (109) and P.Tebt. II 397.32 (198). 7. In this case ϊα̣τ̣[ρ]ω̣.

Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript

563

– O.KaLa. inv. 509 (reign of Antoninus?) letter from one Sempronius to the centurion Norbanus. The prescript runs as follows: Σεμπρώνιος Νωρβάνῳ τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ μου (ἑκατοντάρχῃ) χαίριν. There are several anomalies here: the use of a possessive pronoun in combination with a military rank is rare; even rarer is the use of a possessive with τιμιωτάτῳ;8 also the use of τιμιωτάτῳ combined with a military rank9 or function is rare, and besides, the word-order would be proper name + function + τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ;10 – SB XIV 12040.1 (second cent.), a lacunose letter presumably from an officer: ἐ]πειδὴ ἔγραψεν ὁ ἔπαρχος ἡμῶν. – O.Bu Njem 76–79.84 (259), 103 (third cent.): praeposito meo.11 See especially nos. 76–79, notes addressed by a miles to the praepositus of the camp Golas, who had the rank of decurion. The prescript runs as follows: Octavio Festo dec(urioni) p(rae)p(osito) meo Aemilius Aemilianus mil(es) salutem. So, we see that in the Roman army the use of a possessive with a rank is altogether exceptional. Contrary to the usage in the French army, a soldier is not obliged to say “my” centurion, or “my” decurion. He will do this only if he is directly dependent on this officer as a subordinate, as above decurioni and praeposito meo,12 and he does it only rarely. In the expressions “my tesserarius” and “your curator” which we saw in two private letters from Krokodilo, the possessive adjective serves only to distinguish personnel from different praesidia, and this is probably also the case with the soldier who leaves 50 denarii to praef(ecto) meo. But is it always like that? Commenting on ὁ ἔπαρχος ἡμῶν, R. S. Bagnall hesitated between the simple distinction – “our prefect” as opposed to other prefects – and the translation of a conventional Latin formula praefectus noster.13 I prefer the second solution, even though there is no example of exactly praefectus noster, but praefectus nevertheless seems more likely to attract a possessive adjective than other military ranks.14 In the case of O.Krok. I 81, the idea of a simple discrimination could be defended. In fact, I see no other solution for ]υ καὶ than to restore ἐπάρχῳ Ὄρο]υ⟨ς⟩15 καὶ ἰδίῳ ἐπάρχῳ “prefect of the Desert and my prefect.” This anonymous prefect, could he have been at the same time prefect of the Desert and of the ala at Koptos, and would Papirius then have been a horseman in this unit? In 2002, when I published the first version of this chapter, I thought not, because at that time the combination of the praefectura of the Desert and that of an ala seemed not to be attested before the end of the second century.16 How8. The DDbDP gives two late examples: τῇ τιμιωτάτῃ μου Νόννᾳ Παπάι̣ς̣ χαίρειν (P.Ant. II 93.1–2, fourth cent.); τιμιωτάτῃ μου μητρὶ Μαρίᾳ Βῆσας ἐν θεῶι πλῖστα χαίρειν (P.Harr. I 107.1–3, fourth cent.). But both these occurrences are examples of the late usage of placing the proper name after τιμιωτάτῳ. 9. I know of two examples only: Οὔλπιος Δ[ι]ονυσόδ[ωρος] τῶν ἠγορανομηκότων νομικὸς Σαλουστ[ίῳ Ἀφ]ρικανῷ ἐπάρχῳ στόλου καὶ [ἐπὶ τῶ]ν κεκριμένων τῷ τιμιω[τά]τῳ χαίρειν (P.Oxy. II 237, viii.2–3); []νιος (ἑκατοντάρχης/ δεκαδάρχης) Ἰουλίῳ Εὐπολέμῳ [δουπλ?]ικαρίῳ τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ [χαίρει]ν (SB XIV 11699.1–3, corrected by Gilliam, BASP 13 [1976] 57 sq.). 10. E.g., P.Giss. 11.1–3: Παπείρις Ἀπολλωνίῳ στρατη(γῷ) Ἀπολλωνοπολείτου (Ἑπτα)κωμίας τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ χαίρειν. Equally the examples quoted in the preceding note. Of course, this remark only holds good for the period prior to the fourth century. 11. For meo instead of the expected suo, see Cugusi, CEL II, p. 314, comm. ad 214.1. 12. The foot-soldier Aemilius Aemilianus could not belong to the turma of the decurion. 13. R. S. Bagnall, BASP 12 (1975) 143. 14. I have asked myself if it was not because of the prefix prae- which somehow demands a specification. Cf. praepositus meus. 15. There is the same error in the genitive Ὄρου⟨ς⟩ in O.Krok. I 88.11. 16. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 304 f.

564

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

ever, we know now, with the case of Sulpicius Serenus, that this model may have existed already under Hadrian.17 In fact, Papirius might well have called the prefect of Berenike “my prefect,” even if the latter was not the commander of his original unit. We know that all the curators of the praesidia of the Desert of Berenike were under the command of the prefect of Berenike, and Artorius Priscillus, who does not appear to have commanded any unit when he was prefect of Berenike,18 is styled ἔπαρχος ἡμῶν by them (see above, O.Krok. I 51.16). To conclude, I think that the addition of καὶ ἰδί(ῳ) ἐπάρχῳ, which in the context could be considered useless, is to be understood as a courtesy-title. The polite use of the possessive is well known for the first person plural, noster,19 which is part of some stereotyped forms of address, the most common being Caesar noster, Imperator noster, or dominus noster. The rare consularis noster is clearly formed in the same mold, as in CEL 199 (1) and (2).3–4: quid mihi scripserit Antonius Seleucus v(ir) c(larissimus) co(n)s(ularis) noster, … subieci.20 This reverential possessive can also be used in the singular, cf. Tab. Vindol. II 225.14–15: Marcellum clarissi[mum virum] consularem meum. The dictionaries do not take into account this deferential use of meus, but only of noster. The deferential use is an aspect of the affectionate quality of the possessive in Latin which is especially clear when the possessive adjective refers directly to a proper name (Dear NN). This use is much less frequent in Greek, and I shall come back to it later. The choice of ἴδιος to render suus is perhaps explained by the fact that ἴδιος can refer to any grammatical person, both the third, as is customary in the prescript of Latin letters, and the first, which is preferred in Greek letters when the possessives make their appearance there. Furthermore, ἴδιος as a substantival adjective (mostly in the plural), when applied to persons means “familiar, friend, intimate” and has the affectionate quality which is inherent in the possessives in Latin, as we have just seen. Nevertheless, ἴδιος never became very common, for after O.Krok. 81, I can only give two other cases where it has been used deliberately in a Romanized environment to render suus: – SB I 5218.1–3 (156): Ἰούλι̣[ος] Ἀσκλᾶς ἱππε̣ὺ̣ς ἴλης Βουκοντίων τύρμης Κοντιλλιανῆς Ἰουλίῳ Ἀπολιναρίῳ ἰδίῳ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν. In this example the horseman gives his full identification the Roman way followed by ἰδίῳ ἀδελφῷ which is often found in documentary Latin letters.21 – P.Bagnall 8.2–3 (= O.Claud. inv. 7218, 186–187). This document expressly announces itself as a Greek translation of a Latin letter from the prefect of Egypt to a procurator metallorum: Πωμπώνιος Φαυστιανὸς Πρώβ⟨ω⟩ι τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν. In the rest of the papyrological corpus there is a limited number of prescript of letters with ἴδιος where the Latin influence is less obvious. We must distinguish the cases where ἴδιος is directly joined to the name of the addressee, and those where it refers to a title, a function, or some other description attached to the name of the addressee.

17. Chapter 6, pp. 131 f. 18. Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 303 f. 19. OLD s.v. noster (3): “(especially from a slave’s viewpoint).” Cf. this remark by Chastagnol (concerning noster applied to the emperors in the late period): “The adjective noster is naturally used by slaves about their master. The possessive seems to imply not only respect, but also the existence of a bond of confidence between master and servant” (BSFN 40 [1985] 619). 20. CEL II, p. 286, comm. ad 199 (2), i.3–4. 21. The commentary of H. Koskiennemi (Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. [Helsinki 1956] 104, n. 1) is inadequate. It does not take into account of whether or not the noun to which ἴδιος refers expresses a family tie. Here ἴδιος is simply equivalent to a possessive adjective.

Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript

565

Table 36.1. Papyrological attestations of ἴδιος in apposition to the name of the addressee1 BGU I 37

50

Μυσταρίων Στοτοήτι τῶι ἰδίωι πλεῖστα χαίρειν

P.Bad. II 35

87

Ἰοά̣[νν]η Ἐπαγάθοͅ τῷ εἰδίοͅ πλ[εῖστα χαίρειν]

P.Fay. 110, etc.

94–104

Λούκιος Βελλῆνος Γέμελλος Ἐπαγάθῳ τῶι ἰδίωι χαίρειν2

SB XVI 12322

first cent.

Σαραπίων Διοδώρωι τῶι ἰδίωι χαίρειν3

P.Brem. 53

114

[--] Διοσκορᾶι τῷ ἰδίωι [--] χαίρειν

O.Max. inv. 631

Trajan

Μένανδρος Παπιρίῳ τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν

O.KaLa. inv. 462

Domitian/Trajan

Σωκράτης Μάγ̣ν̣ῳ τῶι ἰδίωι χαίρειν

P.Bagnall 8

186–187

Πωμπώνιος Φαυστιανὸς Πρώβ⟨ω⟩ι τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν

P.Oxy. VI 932

second cent.

ΘαῒςΤιγρίῳ τῶ̣ι ἰδίῳ χαίρειν

P.Oxy. XLIX 3505

second cent.?

Παποντῶς Ἀλεξάνδρωι τῶι ἰδίωι χαίρειν

P.Turner 35

222

Οὐαλέριος Λόγγο̣ς̣ Αὐρηλίῳ Φαήσι ἰδίωι [χ]αίρε[ιν]

O.Leid. 330

second–third cent.

Π̣εβώτιος Λελοῦτι τῶι ἰδίωι χαίρειν

P.Ant. III 194

fifth cent.

Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἱμέριος Πιτήρωνι ἰδίῳ χ(αί)ρ(ειν)

1. I have left out P.Grenf. I 60, because, in my opinion, in the prescript to this deed of sale, ἰδίῳ μου is an error for ἰδίου μου, so the expression refers to a tutor, not to an addressee. 2. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 298b, think that ἴδιος here expresses a looser family tie than direct filiation, since Gemellus when addressing his son, Sabinus, always writes τῶι υεἱῶι. This is based on the assumption that Epagathos was the nephew of Gemellus, which has later been proven wrong. 3. The editor believes that Diodoros is probably the son of Sarapion, but the reasons given are not compelling.

The often-quoted locus classicus for this first series is Koskenniemi, op.cit. (above, n. 21), 104. Koskenniemi there makes two important observations: letters addressed τῷ δεῖνι τῷ ἰδίῳ are business letters; in the letters of L. Bellenus Gemellus to Epagathos at least we know that the latter was a παιδάριον, a slave.22 Koskenniemi concludes that ἴδιος in the prescripts is not used about a member of the writer’s family, which would, according to him, be the normal sense of ἴδιος applied to persons in the papyri,23 but has a more restricted sense which cannot be exactly defined: “This implies a limitation in the sense of the word ἴδιος in this particular case, for normally in the language of the papyri, the word just means a family-member (…) Altogether ἴδιος is not used very often in this way, so its exact meaning remains uncertain.” Koskenniemi’s analysis must be completed by two remarks. First, and already quoted, the note by A. Bülow-Jacobsen to P.Oxy. XLIX 3505.1, i.e., that ἰδίῳ is a transposition of the Latin suo; this explains the semantic uncertainty that bothered Koskenniemi. Secondly, this use of ἴδιος should be compared, as Helen Cockle has already done,24 to the occurrences where the word refers to an employee or an agent.25 22. P.Oxy. L 3597.15n. R. S. Bagnall, who kindly shared with me his manuscript of a future lecture, expresses doubts about the systematic translation of παιδάριον as “slave.” In the case of Epagathos, he suspects that it could, just like ἴδιος, refer to a “function and/or relationship rather than (to) a legal status.” 23. This is at least mostly the case when ἴδιος is in the plural. In support, Koskenniemi quotes G. Ghedini, Lettere cristiane dai papiri greci del III et IV secolo (Milano 1923) 136. This is, however, an unfortunate reference, for it is a commentary on P.Oxy. XIV 1680.5 where Ghedini has misunderstood ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις as a masculine plural (“among your own people”), while it is actually a neuter (“at home”). He commits the same error concerning P.Fay. 136.9. 24. P.Oxy. L 3597.15n. 25. Second cent.: P.Gen. I 25.2 (124), Ξένω[ν] Ἀσκληπιάδου διὰ Ἑρμαίο(υ) ἰδίο(υ) Ἀνουβίωνι Σαραπίωνος χ(αίρειν); P.Diog. 46.1–2 (141/2): Ἀπολιναρίωι τῶι κυρίωι π(αρὰ) Ἑρμῆτος ἰδίου; P.Oxy. XVII 2135.11 (188); P.Mich. VIII 503.11 (“lend

566

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Contrary to what has been written,26 this use of ἴδιος is not attested in the Ptolemaic period. I have found no example from this period,27 nor any example prior to the second century AD. R. Scholl thinks he has found a unique attestation in P.Köln V 226, a letter from Chairemon to Syros, in which the address (on the verso) ends in ἀ]πό(δος) Σύρωι ἰδίῳ.28 But the writing of the letter, which can be verified on plate XIV in the edition, does not look Ptolemaic at all and should be placed under the principate.29 The belonging of these idioi to the “house” of somebody is also a juristic question. In other words, do they belong because they are slaves? This is the case of Epagathos, but we must not generalize, for an ἴδιος can also be an Aurelius.30 Ἴδιος as a designation of function does not give any hint about the status of the designated person. To return to the prescripts of the type ὁ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι (τῷ) ἰδίῳ, everything seems to indicate that in Graeco-Roman Egypt one imitated the Latin expression proper name + suo while reserving it for employees and subordinates.31 To address somebody as τῷ ἰδίῳ allowed the writer to mark a social distinction, and at the same time to express a certain affection for a trusted employee.32 In the case of the correspondence of the veteran Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, who systematically calls his son τῷ υεἱῷ and his slave Epagathos τῷ ἰδίῳ, one has the impression that ἴδιος is the default expression that marks the social distinction while maintaining epistolary politeness. There was probably a play on the ambiguity of ἴδιος, which means both “who belongs to me” and “a person close to me” and, because of the semantic weakening in the koine, thus became the standard translation of Latin suo. This causes an understandable uncertainty for editors who hesitate between translations of the type “to his dear NN” and “to NN his slave or agent.” Preisigke’s Wörterbuch notes this sense of “trusted man” in the papyri from Roman times, s.v. 4 (Familienmitglied, Angehöriger, Hausbedienster, Vertrauter), but he does not sufficiently distinguish it from the classical sense amici, propinqui (ThGrL.), of which it is a derivation. It should also be noted that in the sense “friend, close, intimate,” ἴδιος is mostly used as a noun in the plural, while in the sense “trusted man” in the papyri from the Roman imperial period, it is generally in the singular. This use of ἴδιος in the singular as a description of a function is typical of the Roman period, and it is tempting to conclude that this use is derived from the epistolary τῷ ἰδίῳ.

me three cows διὰ τῶν ἰδίων Μωρίωνος”). – Third cent.: P.Oxy. L 3596.3–4, παρὰ Κλαυδιανοῦ κεραμέ̣[ως οἰν]ικοῦ κεράμου ἰδίου Εὐδαίμονος γυμνασιάρχο̣[υ βου]λ̣ε̣[υ]τ̣οῦ; P.Oxy. L 3597.2 (260): Σεπτιμίῳ Εὐδαίμονι (…) παρὰ Κλαυδιανοῦ ἰδίο̣υ κεραμέως, this Claudianus being the same man as the preceding; P.Oxy. XII 1497.4 (279): ὑπὸ Διδύμου ἰδίου τοῦ γεούχου; P.Oxy. VI 974: δὸς Ζωσίμῳ ἰδίῳ ὑπὲρ ὀψωνίων; P.Oxy. XIV 1711; P.Lond. III 965; P.Mert. I 27, r°.5; P.Oxy. XVII 2144, passim, – Fourth cent.: P.Oxy. XIV 1722.2; P.Oxy. XIV 1716.5; PSI VIII 884.1; P.Oxy. XLVIII 3420.14 (ἐδήλωσας οὖν διὰ Ἀμόιν ἴδιόν σου); P.Oxy. L 3598 passim. 26. I. Biezunska-Malowist, L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Seconde partie: Période romaine (Wroclaw, Warsaw, Krakow, and Gdańsk 1977) 12: “As was the case during the Ptolemaic period, slaves were sometimes designated as ὁ ἴδιος…” 27. P.Cair.Goodsp. 4.9 seemed a possible candidate, but the tone of the letter, and the fact that ἴδιος is not simply in apposition to the proper name, suggest that Glaukias is an intimate friend and not a trusted servant (ὑπὲρ ὧν ἠβουλόμεθα ἀ̣πεσ̣τάλ̣καμεν πρὸς σὲ Γλαυκίαν ὄντα ἡμῶν ἴδιον κοινο̣λογησόμενόν σοι). 28. C.Ptol.Sklav. II 154, p. 670. 29. End of first–second century as A. Bülow-Jacobsen confirms. 30. P.Oxy. XIV 1711.1–5: Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀλεξάνδρου μητρὸς Διδύμης ἀπὸ τῆς λαμπρᾶς καὶ λαμπροτάτης Ὀξυρυγχειτῶν πόλεως Αὐρηλίῳ Γελασίῳ ἰδίῳ Αὐρηλίου Ἐθερίου τοῦ κρα(τίστου) δουκηναρίου χαίρειν. Perhaps a freedman? 31. But perhaps not always: thus, in the case of O.Max. inv. 631, Papirius is probably a horseman, so certainly not socially inferior to Menandros. In this case τῷ ἰδίῳ may be a “pure” Latinism. 32. The idioi listed in note 25 often take part in financial transactions, such as extending loans or issuing receipts in the name of their patron.

Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript

567

One can observe the same social differentiation in the case of ὁ ἐμός and ὁ ἡμέτερος when they are directly attached to a proper name. This construction is not natural in Greek, and one suspects again Latin influence, where, in contrast, it is very common to attach especially meus or noster to a proper name. This usage, so common in Latin, where the possessive has an affective quality, is not found in Greek before the imperial period and remains fairly rare. LSJ quotes only one example taken from Arrian (Epict. 2.2.17): ὁ ἐμὸς Ἡράκλειτος. The ThGrL gives two examples only of this use of ἐμός, both taken from Athenaeus.33 In both these cases, the sentimental tie expressed by the possessive is based on a common geographic origin, whence the too restrictive translation of H. Estienne: popularis, eiusdem patriae civis. Neither LSJ nor the ThGrL treats the similar use of ἡμέτερος, though it is attested by authors from the imperial period.34 It is no doubt because of the translation popularis, eiusdem patriae civis that the author of the article Plutarchos in RE considered that Philinos, Plutarch’s Pythagorean friend, also came from Chaeronea, in support of which he quotes the expression Φιλῖνον τὸν ἡμέτερον (Quaest. conviv. 702d),35 but it has been shown that Philinos actually came from Thespiae.36 The use of ἡμέτερος with a proper name is exceptionally found twice, before the imperial period, in Plato.37 In this author we also find two cases of the first and second person singular attached to a proper name, both of them in Alcibiades.38 These few occurrences prior to the imperial period invite the question if the chronological distribution of the use of a possessive with a proper name in Greek is not due to an evolution in literary genres as much as to an influence from Latin. Such a use of the possessive seems characteristic of familiar conversation between educated people, but, before the Roman period, Plato, who stages these “lounge lizards,” was more or less the only one to write in this style. In the papyri, a search for the singular ὁ ἐμός (all cases) delivers four occurrences only, all from the imperial period, and the impression remains that the use of a possessive directly with a proper name is reserved for dependents.39 The hierarchical relation expressed by the possessive can also be observed in the highest spheres of society: SB XIV 11640 is an informal note which can only have been written by the prefect of Egypt, Ti. Iulius Alexander, for it gives interesting instructions concerning Lysimachos, the procurator in charge of the idios logos, in the following terms: τὸν̣ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου λόγου διαλογισ̣μ̣ὸ[ν] Λ̣υ̣σί̣μαχος ὁ ἐμὸς ὑπερ[θέ]σ̣θ̣ω. The editors correctly remark that a civil servant of lower rank would not dare to use the familiar ὁ ἐμός of a superior.40 In fact, the Greek possessive here conforms to the 33. ὁ ἐμὸς Ἰόβας (229c pronounced by Aemilius Maurus), ὁ ἐμὸς Ποσειδώνιος (233d). Cf. also τὸν ἐμὸν Μεγαλοπολίτην Κερκιδᾶν (347d). In Athenaeus we also find the same construction with names of cities (e.g., ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ Ναυκράτει, ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ). 34. I have not made a systematic search for the possessive adjective in the genitive, which appears to be rare. There is this example from Appianus, Hisp. 27: ἐπικουρεῖτε, ὦ Ῥωμαῖοι, κινδυνεύοντι ὑμῶν τῷ Σκιπίωνι. We are in the imperial period and the words are put in the mouth of a Roman … 35. RE XXI.1, 681. 36. C. P. Jones, “A Leading Family of Roman Thespiae,” HSPh 74 (1970) 233: “Plutarch does not name his friend’s city of origin, for the fact that he once calls him Φιλεῖνος ὁ ἡμέτερος cannot be pressed to make him a citizen of Chaeronea.” Jones further points out that the same possessive is used by Plutarch about a Roman, Avidius Quietus (Quaest. conviv. 632a). 37. Protagoras 343a: Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος καὶ Πιττακὸς ὁ Μυτιληναῖος καὶ Βίας ὁ Πριηνεὺς καὶ Σόλων ὁ ἡμέτερος καὶ Κλεόβουλος ὁ Λίνδιος καὶ Μύσων ὁ Χηνεύς. It is obvious that the possessive here has no affectionate value, but only an ethnic one, like ὁ ἐμός in Athenaeus. – Euthyd. 271b: ἐν μέσῳ δ’ ὑμῶν τὸ Ἀξιόχου μειράκιον ἦν. καὶ μάλα πολύ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐπιδεδωκέναι μοι ἔδοξεν, καὶ τοῦ ἡμετέρου οὐ πολύ τι τὴν ἡλικίαν διαφέρειν Κριτοβούλου. 38. 109d: οὐ μὰ τὸν Φίλιον τὸν ἐμόν τε καὶ σόν. 124c: ὁ ἐπίτροπος ὁ ἐμὸς βελτίων ἐστὶ καὶ σοφώτερος ἢ Περικλῆς ὁ σός. 39. In chronological order: BGU I 37.1–7 (50), Μυσταρίων Στοτοῆτι τῶι ἰδίωι πλεῖστα χαίρειν. ἔπεμψα ὑμεῖν Βλάστον τὸν ἐμόν (note that Mystarion uses two uncommon expressions, one after the other, where there is a probable Latin influence); SB XIV 11640 (69), quoted below; BGU II 523.21–23: τὰς οὖν δραχμὰς ἑξήκοντα δὸς αὐτὰ⟨ς⟩ Ἤλιτι τῷ ἐμῷ; P.Oxy. LIX 3992.22 (second cent.): Διογᾶς ὁ ἐμὸς ἀνέπλευσεν. 40. O. Montevecchi and G. Geraci, “Documenta inedita ad Neronis atque Othonis principatus pertinentia in papyris Mediolanensibus reperta,” Akten des XIII internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (Munich 1974) 105.

568

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

usage of the Latin meus + proper name which it imitates. This expression is used about equals or inferiors, but is too familiar to be used about superiors.41 The same Latinism is found, but in the genitive, in a Greek translation of an Imperial letter from Hadrian to the prefect of Egypt, Rammius Martialis, where we find the apostrophe Ῥάμμιέ μου, a translation of mi Rammie. In the same series belongs also P.Bagnall 8, quoted above, which is also a translation from Latin: Πωμπώνιος Φαυστιανὸς Πρώβ⟨ω⟩ι τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν. Concerning ὁ ἡμέτερος the situation is the same. As noted above for ὁ ἐμός, ὁ ἡμέτερος in the papyri seems, as far as we can judge, to be reserved mostly for subordinates or agents,42 while in literature it refers to names of friends, to great men of the same geographical origin or intellectual orientation as the writer, or to tutelary deities. There is no letter addressed τῷ δεῖνι τῷ ἐμῷ, and a single one only to τῷ δεῖνι τῷ ἡμετέρῳ, BGU IV 1079 (41): Σαραπίων Ἡρακλείδῃ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ χαί(ρειν). The text of the letter shows that Heracleides was a παιδάριον. Table 36.2. Ἴδιος as a possessive adjective relating to a trade, a title, a noun SB I 5218

156

BGU VII 15891

166/7

Ἰούλ̣ι̣[ος] Ἀσκλᾶς ἱππε̣ὺ̣ς ἴλης Βουκοντίων τύρμης Κοντιλλιανῆς Ἰουλίῳ Ἀπολιναρίῳ ἰδίῳ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν Χάρης Σαβεί̣ν̣ο̣υ̣ ν̣[ο]μογ̣[ρά]φ[ος] κώμης Φ̣ιλ̣αδε̣λ̣φ[εί]α̣ς̣ γεω[ργῷ] ἰδίῳ Μαρείν[ῳ χ]αίρε̣ι̣ν̣2 Θέων Διογενίδι ἰδ[ίαις] ἀδελφαῖς χαίρειν

P.Oxy. XII 1584

second cent.

P.Mil.Vogl. IV 2573

175/6

Ε[ἰσ]α[ρ]ίων Τούρβωνι τῶι ἰδ[ίωι κυ]ρίωι χαίρειν

P.IFAO II 7

principate

O.Oasis Sarm. 1 etc.

fifth cent.

[-- Σ]υντύχῃ Φιλήτοͅ [-- τῷ ἰ]δίοͅ κυρ(ίῳ) χαίρε⟨ι⟩ν

Σαρμάτῃ ἰδίου (read ἰδίῳ) γεούχῳ Ἰσὰκ Φ̣ι̣λ̣ήας γεωρ(γὸς) χαίρειν

1. Republished by J. A. Straus, CdE 75 (2000) 111–17. 2. This expression embarrassed the first editor of BGU VII 1589, who tried to explain ἴδιος as a derivation of one of its usual meanings, “private” as opposed to “public”: “etwa im Gegensatz zu γ. δημόσιος, προσοδικός.” There is no reason to translate anything other than “my farmer Marinus.” 3. Cf. BL VI, 90.

This second series of occurrences of ἰδίῳ in prescripts of letters, where ἰδίῳ is attached to a noun apposed to the personal name of the addressee, is semantically less complex. Here ἴδιος is equivalent to a possessive and synonymous with μου, and its presence can be explained through the proliferation of possessives in the Greek of the papyri from the third century onwards. Its Latinizing character is clearly seen in the first example, on which I have already commented. In Greek, it used to be enough to address a letter τῷ δεῖνι τῷ ἀδελφῷ, τῷ πατρί etc. The addition of the pronoun μου comes in late. A search in the papyri for the common words for parentage and for γεωργῷ μου yields examples from between the second and the fourth century, and one from the second century is even precisely dated (P.Phil. 16.2 from 161). There are not very many attestations of these ex41. On the other hand, it becomes different when used with a title or function superior to that of the writer. 42. P.Oxy. XVIII 220.2–3 (first cent.): Σωτήριχο̣ς ὁ ἡμέτερος περιέτυχέν μοι; P.Mich. VIII 487.11 (second cent.): ἔπεμψα Ἔρωτα τὸν ἡμέτε[ρο]ν; P.Mich. VIII 493.17 (second cent.): σὺν Ἀντωνίῳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ εἰμί; P.Oxy. LI 3644.3–4 (second cent.), ἔπεμψά σοι Ἁρπουχρᾶν τὼν (sic) ἡμέτερον; P.Lips. I 110.5 (third–fourth cent.): γράφω σο[ι] δειὰ Ἡλιοδώρου τοῦ ἡμετέρ[ο]υ; P.Kell. G. I 6.15–17 (c. 330): ἔσπευσα οὖν̣ [πέμ]ψ̣αι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ[ν ἡμέτ]ερον Σινέα; P.Oxy. LV 3821.3 (c. 341): Ἡράκλειος ὁ ἡμέτερος; P.Ross.Georg. III 9.7–8 (fourth cent.): ὁ ἁδελφὸς Μακάρ[ιο]ς ὁ τοῦ Σ̣[ε]λευίου καὶ Ἄγαθος ὁ ἡμέτερος.

Remarks on the use of ἴδιος in the epistolary prescript

569

pressions, if we compare the much more popular τῷ κυρίῳ μου ἀδελφῷ, πατρί, etc. of which the first securely dated examples are later than 250. The appearance of μου in the prescripts also shows Latin influence, through which the Greek possessives acquire the additional meaning of “my dear” and “my respected.” The latter meaning is well attested, as we have seen, where noster is concerned.43 This usage in letters is part of a common trend of inflation of possessives of reverence, and even of possessives in general, which is characteristic of late Latin.44 As in the case of noster, the connotation of affection slides towards forced affection, deference. To call somebody “my master,” as does Isak writing to Sarmates, is a declaration of allegiance. Guy Wagner noted that the expression ἰδίῳ γεούχῳ in the O.Oasis Sarm. is akin to the expression quoted in WB s.v. ἴδιος: ὁ ἴδιος δεσπότης, “der mein Herr ist (ich bin sein Untergebener).” But this development is by no means unique to ἴδιος, and there are variants of this expression such as ὁ ἐμὸς ἀγαθὸς δεσπότης, ὁ ἀγαθός μου δεσπότης. We should also note the rarer ὁ οἰκεῖος δεσπότης since, in the koine, οἰκεῖος has undergone the same weakening as ἴδιος and is often reduced to a mere possessive.45 The possessive of deference arrives late among the imperial titles in Greek. During the Early Empire the possessive noster, which appears in some unofficial titulatures, has no equivalent ἡμῶν in the contemporary Greek titulature. On the other hand, already under Augustus and Claudius, much more under Nero, ὁ κύριος is found, normally at the end of the title. In the titles, noster and ὁ κύριος have the same meaning (“our master”), but it would be wrong to think that ὁ κύριος in Greek titles is a translation of noster in the Latin ones. Actually, ὁ κύριος is attached to various elements in the titles, while noster is normally placed after Imperator.46 As a matter of fact, ὁ κύριος has roots in a hellenistic tradition which the first emperors hesitated to adopt,47 even in the Eastern provinces where there was no risk of hurting the feelings of those nostalgic for a Republican past. Not until the reign of Hadrian is the possessive ἡμῶν added to ὁ κύριος, and here it is clearly a word-for-word translation of the formula dominus noster which also appears in Latin titulatures of Hadrian, although in the East only.48 It is during the imperial period and under Latin influence that the possessives begin to appear in the prescripts of Greek letters with an affectionate, paternalistic, or deferential connotation. The nuances depend on the hierarchical difference between the correspondents. The first possessive to find its 43. See note 19. 44. J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, HAW 2.2 (Munich 1965) 178 f. Originally it is characteristic of the familiar language, in which possessives are often used, especially suus, where the literary language does not use them because they are unnecessary. In literary prose we find the superfluous possessives from the end of the first century BC (Bellum Africanum, Cornelius Nepos, Vitruvius). They are common in late Latin inscriptions (e.g., CIL XII 1127: Fronto sibi parentibusque suis ex testamento suo). 45. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v.: thus, in Josephus. In the papyri, examples of οἰκεῖος are not prior to the third century. The same is true in late Latin, where the adjective proprius may replace suus, as frequently in Ammianus Marcellinus. See J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, op. cit. (n. 49), § 104c. 46. I have found only one exception in Bureth: imperator Trajanus ṇ(oster) (P.Oxy. VII 1022.25). 47. E. Van ’t Dack, “La papyrologie et l’histoire du Haut-Empire: Les ‘formulae’ des empereurs,” ANRW II.1 (1974) 873. 48. X. Loriot, quoted in BSFN 40 (1985) 619. Ironically, the only attestation of dominus noster for Hadrian, from Egypt, is in a bilingual inscription where the Greek translates the Latin formula by τοῦ κυρίου without ἡμῶν (ILS 8908 = I.Pan 87). This is proof that the reverential connotations of the possessive in Latin had not yet been assimilated into the Greek possessive. But the stone-cutter had a good reason for omitting ἡμῶν in this inscription. The Latin titulature there runs Imp(erator) Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Aug(ustus) dominus n(oster). We notice that the writer of the inscription has not put dominus noster in its usual place, before Imperator Caesar, which it replaces later. The tendency, to which there are exceptions, to put dominus noster first existed already under Hadrian, for we find several Greek titulatures beginning with ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν. It should be noted that even when dominus noster/ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν had become current, there are still Greek titulatures that end in ὁ κύριος, without ἡμῶν. This means that if ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν is a rendering of dominus noster, the final ὁ κύριος without ἡμῶν stems from the Greek-Eastern tradition.

570

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

way into the prescripts is ἴδιος, because it is more apt, by its semantic pliability, to translate the Latin suus with the affectionate qualities that possessives often have in Latin. But, except for some rare cases where it must be understood as a direct translation of suus, ἴδιος, when referring directly to the name of the correspondent and not to an apposite like ἀδελφός or κύριος, is first of all used when addressing a subordinate, as if Greek was unwilling to employ a possessive that was empty of any connotation of material possession. As a parallel, perhaps even under the influence of this epistolary use, developed the use of ἴδιος in the sense “man of confidence of …, man of the house of …” We have noted this social specialization, which is proper to Roman Egypt, of the possessives ὁ ἐμός/ὁ ἡμέτερος when they refer to a personal name as is common in Latin but not in Greek, where we find only a few examples, ill attested by the dictionaries in the literature of the Imperial period, with the exception of a few examples in Plato.

Chapter 37 Πέμπειν/ἀγοράζειν τῆς τιμῆς in Greek letters from Egypt New occurrences of the expression πέμπειν or ἀγοράζειν τῆς τιμῆς, attested in some private letters from the Roman period, have appeared in ostraca from the Eastern Desert and permit a better understanding of the meaning of this expression, which has hitherto been misunderstood. The already known, certain occurrences are: – P.Wisc. II 72.17–22 (second cent.). Letter from Caecilius Gemellus to his sister Didymarion. The sender is certainly military, since he writes that he has arrived in camp, ἰς παρε̣μ̣βολήν, and refers to calendae: καλς ποιήσῃς, ἀδελφή, ἐὰν περισεύῃ σοι ἐλέαι, πέμψον μοι διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου, ἐὰν ἔρχ[η-]ται, εἰ δὲ μή̣, ἀγόρασόν μο̣[ι] τῆς τιμῆς̣ (read καλῶς, περισεύωνται, ἐλαίαι), “Send me please, sister, when you have enough olives, (some of them) through your son, if he comes; if not, buy them for me at the current price.” – SB V 7572.5–6 (Philadelphia, second cent.). Letter from Thermouthas to her “mother” Valeria: πέμψεν μοι τὰ λοδίκια τῆς τιμῆς (read πέμψον, λωδίκια), “Send me blankets [of the price agreed on].”1 The editor adds that τῆς τιμῆς “refers to a price recognized and agreed upon by Thermouthas and Valerias.” – SB XIV 11901.12–13 (third cent.). Letter from Euterpe to her “brother” Didymas, ending in the following demand: ἀγόρασόν μοι σακίον καλὸν τῆς τειμῆς (read τιμῆς), “Buy me a nice sack at the current price.” The editor adds the comment: “Here perhaps ‘current’ rather than ‘right price’ is meant.”2 In support he quotes P.Flor. II 142.5, a note in which Alypios encourages Heroninos to buy two female donkeys at a fair price (τῆς ἀξίας τιμῆς) that satisfies both buyer and seller. – P.Fay. 134.6–8 (beg. fourth cent.). The sender ends his letter with a demand for filtered wine: καὶ καλὸν Μαρεωτικὸν δυν̣[ήσε]ι μοι σειρῶσαι ἐρχό̣μ̣ε̣ν̣ο̣ς̣ [τ]ῆς τιμῆς. The editors translate: “You will be able to strain me good Mareotic wine, when you come, with the value.”

1. Aegyptus 13 (1933) 365. 2. Hellenika 26 (1973) 280 f.

571

572

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

In three out of four examples, τῆς τιμῆς is used with πέμπειν or ἀγοράζειν. The editors have hesitated between two meanings (“the agreed price” or “the market price”) or even three (“at the fair price”).3 More than twenty new examples have since appeared in letters from the Eastern Desert4 and permit us to understand the meaning. The verb combined with τῆς τιμῆς is most often πέμπειν. Twice we find ἀγοράζειν, once διδόναι, and once φέρειν. I only quote those that are sufficiently clear to advance our investigation. O.Did. 320 (Flavian period) allows us at once to exclude “at the agreed price” as a possible meaning, since Iulius, who demands of Antonius to send him half a mation of salt, does not know in advance what the price will be. Both correspondents are military.

4

8

Ἰούλιος Ἀντωνί̣ῳ̣ τῶι̣ φιλτάτωι χ(αίρειν). ἂν ἔχῃς παρὰ σὲ περισσὸ̣ν̣ τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ ἁλός, πέμψο̣ν̣ μ̣ο̣ι̣ ἱμιμάτιν τῆς τιμῆς κ̣[αὶ γρά]ψον μοι π̣ό̣σ̣ο̣υ̣ [ἠγόρακας] ἵνα σοι πέμ[ψω τὴ]ν τιμὴν vac. εἰς Διδύμους ([) ἔρρωσσ̣[ο]

It seems tempting to translate “market price” when considering a variant of our expression, used in the same kind of context. In P.Mich.Mchl 25 (Karanis, 88), Diogenes asks Dorion: πέμψεις δέ μοι μετρητὴν ἐλαίου τῆ̣ς οὔσης τιμῆς μόν⟨ον⟩ καλοῦ. But the analogy is only apparent, for the use of οὔσης, which underlines that the market price is meant, is dictated by some special circumstances, which are mentioned in the beginning of the letter: Dorion has informed Diogenes that oil is incredibly expensive, and this is why Diogenes asks him to buy a small quantity anyway, at the current price, and not to make do with a product of inferior quality. O.KaLa. inv. 396 (reign of Domitian or Trajan) gives a hint:

4

8

Κλήμης Φιλοδεσπότωι τῷ φιλτάτωι χαί(ρειν). καλῶς ποιήσεις πένψας μοι βύνει τῆς τειμῆς. ἂν μὴ θέλῃς τειμὴν λαβεῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, ἄλλο σοί τι πένψω{ι}. ἔρρωσο.

3. Supposing that τῆς τιμῆς would be a short form of τῆς συμπεφωνημένης τιμῆς, τῆς οὔσης τιμῆς, or τῆς ἀξίας τιμῆς. 4. I counted fourteen when I wrote the French version of this chapter. New instances were found since then at Dios and Xeron.

Πέμπειν/ἀγοράζειν τῆς τιμῆς in Greek letters from Egypt

573

It becomes clear from this letter that in the expression τῆς τιμῆς, τιμή does not so much mean “price” as “payment in cash.” The buyer does not promise to pay a specific price (agreed, current, even if it is high), but only to pay his correspondent in cash. In this case, Clemens proposes to Philodespotos to pay for the malt that Philodespotos will send him, and if Philodespotos refuses payment (from politeness?), Clemens will send him something else in return. To ask a correspondent to send something τῆς τιμῆς “against payment” is a way of indicating clearly that one proposes a commercial exchange, and not an operation in the more uncertain realm of barter, gift/return-gift, or in other words that one does not count on family ties, comradeship, or any other moral obligation to obtain something for free. Without this specification the correspondent might be less in a hurry to fulfil his part of the deal. The deal has not been respected in O.KaLa. inv. 608, an irritated letter from one Longinus: καλῶς ποιή[σεις πέμ]ψεις μοι τὴ[ν τιμήν· ἔ]πε̣μ̣σ̣α τὰ δ̣[εμά]χια τῆς τιμ[ῆς], “Please send the payment, for I did not send you the slices of dried fish for free.” We find the same idea expressed with even more precision, since the payment will be made to an account, in P.Oxy. XLVIII 3422.4–5: κνίδια τέσσερα ἀποστῖλέ μοι (…) τῆς τιμῆς λογιζομένης σοι καθὼς δηλοῖς μοι. An ostracon from Mons Claudianus, O.Claud. inv. 5477 (c. 152) gives the choice between cash payment and payment in another way than barter: ἠρώτηκά σε περὶ τριῶν [μα]τίων πέμψαι μοι ἢ τῆς τιμῆς ἢ χρῆσιν, “concerning the three matia I asked you to send them to me either against payment or on credit.” The writer of this note is reminding his correspondent that he had promised either to reimburse him immediately for the three matia of wheat that he needs, or to do it later, e.g., by a deduction from his grain-ration. The meaning which we have found for πέμπειν τῆς τιμῆς encourages a similar interpretation of τῆς τιμῆς when letter-writers use it with ἀγοράζειν. The τιμή in question is not the price that the person asked to render the service will pay to the seller, but the reimbursement that the letter-writer promises him. Another interpretation could be that he asks his correspondent to buy on credit, not for cash. This I find less probable. P.Fay. 134 shows that τῆς τιμῆς was occasionally used with other verbs than πέμπειν or ἀγοράζειν. In this letter, the writer asks his correspondent to filter some good wine and bring it to him, and assures him that he will be paid the price of the wine when he arrives. The same situation is found in O.Did. 412: καὶ ἐὰν ἔρχῃ καὶ ὄνον ἔχῃς καὶ δύνῃ ἡμεῖν τῆς τειμῆς ⟦ο⟧ὑλιστὸν ἐνένκαι λαδικηνοῦ, καλῶς ποιήσις (read ἡμῖν, τιμῆς, ὑλιστοῦ ἐνέγκειν λαδικηνόν, ποιήσεις), “If you come, and if you have a donkey, please, if you can, bring a jar of filtered Laodicean wine – you will be reimbursed.” This expression was unknown in the Ptolemaic period, so could it be a Latinism? There is actually a parallel in a letter from Vindolanda where the editors have understood it correctly (T.Vindol. II 310.13): (salutabis) Virilem veteriṇarium. rogabis illum ut forficem quam mihi promisṣịt pretio mittas per aliquem de nosṭṛịṣ, “(greet) Virilis the veterinary doctor. Ask him whether you may send through one of our friends the pair of shears which he promised me in exchange for money.” There are some examples in the Latin authors of pretio in the sense of “against money, paying the price.”5 In Greek, the use of the article in this expression belongs to the letters on papyrus from the Roman period. On the other hand, there are some rare examples in other contexts of τιμῆς without the article in the same sense. See, e.g., Hdt. 7.119: κτήνεα ἐσίτευον ἐξευρίσκοντες τιμῆς τὰ κάλλιστα, “they fattened animals searching out the best they could buy.”6 5. See the remarks of the editors in Britannia 21 (1990) 39, comm. ad 13. 6. Thus, the editor of the CUF. I think that Andrée Barguet goes too far when translating “at whatever price” (Bibliothèque de la Pleiade, Paris 1964). LSJ translates “at a price,” which is ambiguous.

574

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

There is a case of εὑρίσκειν with τῆς τιμῆς in a private letter from Egypt in the second century, P.Brem. 59 (BL III, 33), but the interpretation of this text is so difficult that the editor gave up translating it. Lines 5–10 run as follows: περὶ ἧς μοι ἔγραψας πορφύρας π̣[ρὸς] τὴν σὴν κεφαλὴν ἐ[ζ]ήτησα παν̣τ̣α̣χ̣⟨οῦ⟩· ο̣ὐ̣χ εὗρον τοιαύτην πρὸς ἣν ἔχει[ς] ὀξεῖαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ σαπρὰ εὗρον τ̣ῆ̣ς̣ τειμῆς. ἐχάρην οὖν μὴ εὑροῦσα, σαπρὰ γὰρ ἐστιν καὶ τὰ σύνεργα. The editor, wrongly, made ὀξεῖαν refer to κεφαλήν (comm. ad 5: “… sie habe keinen Purpurstoff gefunden, der zu dem spitzen Kopf, den er habe, paßt”) which would be worrying as far as the shape of the skull of the correspondent was concerned. In fact, ὀξεῖαν qualifies the underlying πόρφυραν in the sense of “bright” which this adjective has in relation to colors. Not only has the writer not found the right shade, but someone has proposed to her a quality that she found disgusting (σαπρά). As for σύνεργα, it is not as the editor thought the instruments of the weaver, but the woolen yarn, chain and shot, ready to be woven.7 The last difficulty is τῆς τιμῆς. I think we must understand that the writer has found the quality offered too inferior “at the price.” So, I propose the following translation: “As for the purple material for your head, about which you write to me, I have looked everywhere. I have not found any as bright as what you already have, and furthermore, what I found was awful considering the price. Therefore, I am happy not to have found any, for also the materials were awful.”8 In the papyri, I have found only the following examples of τιμῆς without the definite article: – P.Cair.Zen. III 59440.10–12 (third cent. BC): κἂν ἄρα μ[ὴ χ]αίρηις ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ταῦθ’ ἡμῖν δ̣[οὺς] χ̣αλκόν, καθότι καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τιμῆς ἀναδίδωι[ς οἶ]ν̣ον, κἀμοὶ προέμενος [ε]ἰς̣ τὰ ἠξιωμένα. This passage from the request of the young musician, Herakleotes, is damaged and the interpretation is uncertain. In the first edition of the document,9 Bell had proposed, without certainty, the following translation: “and if you are not willing at present to give me cash for this purpose you should, as you do with the rest, allow me wine at a price [qu. a reduced price?], advancing it to me also towards what I asked [i.e., as a substitute to his full claim?].” Edgar proposes a different interpretation: “Apparently Herakleotes asks Zenon, if he is not willing to advance some money, to give him instead of the money a certain quantity of wine valued at a certain price.” T. Reekmans agrees with Edgar: “In case the tutor does not agree to send him cash εἰς ἀναλώματα and εἰς ὀψώνιον, Herakleotes proposes that he give him, as to the other servants of the estate, a quantity of wine equivalent to the sum of money he was owed.”10 Personally, I do not think it is necessary to give another meaning to τιμῆς than “against money.” Herakleotes needs ready money, and in my opinion, he proposes to Zenon the following deal in a somewhat elliptical manner: he renounces his wine-ration, which would of course be compensated by an augmentation of his money-salary, like the other servants who, instead of receiving it automatically as a ration, have to “buy”11 it from Zenon when and as they wish. T. Reekmans has expressed this very well in another paper, that the young musician tried to obtain a “freedom of choice which was limited by a payment in kind.” – PSI V 531.4–6 (third cent. BC): εἰ οὖν σοι δ[οκε]ῖ̣, διδόσθω ἡμῖν ἔλαιον καὶ κικι ⟦τιμῆς⟧[] τηι ὃν τρόπον δίδοται ⸌τιμῆς⸍ ἔλαιον καὶ κικι εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ τῶν Καρῶν καὶ Ἑλληνομεμ̣φιτῶν 7. P.Oxy. XXXI 2593.4n. 8. It is not clear what the first σαπρά refers to, either the material, τὰ σύνεργα (as explained in the following sentence), or the quality of the dyeing. 9. Raccolta di Scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (Milan 1925) 21. 10. T. Reekmans, “Notes sur quelques papyrus du 3e siècle av. J.-C.,” Antidorum W. Peremans (Leuven 1968) 224. 11. This perhaps means that the price of the wine is deducted from their salary in money.

Πέμπειν/ἀγοράζειν τῆς τιμῆς in Greek letters from Egypt

575

τὰ ἐμ Μέμφει. In this letter to Zenon, the priests of the Astarteion of Memphis ask to receive sesame-oil and kiki under the same conditions, against payment, as these goods were furnished to two other temples in Memphis. The price at which the measure of oil and kiki was delivered to these two temples is specified later in the letter. Like Cl. Préaux and J. Bingen, I think they are just trying to obtain the privilege of buying oil at a reduced price.12 – P.Hib. I 123 (third cent. BC): παρʼ ὧν ἔχω πρόβατα· Ἀπολλωνίου α, Σωπάτρου α, Ἀλεξάνδρου α, καὶ παρὰ τοῦ υἱ[ο]ῦ̣ τ̣[ο]ῦ Δεινίου τιμῆς α̣, παρὰ Δημητρίου ἐκ Κόβα α, Ξενόδοτος τιμῆς α, Νίκανδρος α̣. (account of sheep received from several persons, some of which have been bought). – P.Tebt. I 5.184–186 (118 BC): μηδὲ χῆνας μηδὲ ὄρνιθας μηδὲ οἰνικὰ ἢ σι̣τ̣ι̣κὰ γενή(ματα) ἐπιρίπτειν τιμῆς, it is forbidden for civil servants to buy (scil. in the black market) poultry, wine, or grain from the people in the chora. – P.Oxy. VII 1026.6 and 21–22 (fifth cent. AD): πραθῆναι τι̣μ̣ῆς. The editor translates “to be sold for (their) value.” Rather “sold for cash,” since the object of the exercise is to sell some personal effects in order to pay a debt.

12. Préaux 1939: 89; Bingen, CdE 41 (1946) 146. I believe that Reekmans is wrong in considering PSI V 531 a request for conversion of a subsidy to be paid in kind. In P.Cair.Zen. III 59440, as in PSI V 531, he interprets τιμῆς not as “payment of price” for the product (which the applicants would be willing to pay), but as “for the amount of a certain salary, allocation, subsidy etc.” (op.cit. [n. 10] 224, n. 3). This hypothesis seems to me unnecessarily complicated and contradictory to the meaning of τιμῆς elsewhere.

Chapter 38 The names of cabbage in the Greek ostraca from the Eastern Desert: κράμβη, κραμβίον, καυλίον Many names of aromatic herbs and vegetables are found in the ostraca from the Roman praesidia of the Eastern Desert.1 There were kitchen gardens at some wells that permitted the export of vitamins to less fortunate stations in the neighborhood. Even if they had a well, not all praesidia had a kitchen garden. It appears that only sites with an abundant water-supply were allowed to practice gardening. In the northern part of the Desert of Berenike, these were Persou (Biʾr Umm Fawakhir), Phoinikon (Al-Laqita), and Kompasi (Biʾr Daghbagh). The only purpose of a large number of letters on ostraca is to accompany the sending of some vegetables or to acknowledge receipt of them. The vegetable-trade was a strictly private enterprise and had nothing to do with the organization of the feeding of the army. Since the water came from wells that were maintained by the army and by the prefecture of Berenike, it is probable that the gardeners needed to obtain a permit to practice their activity,2 but there is no trace of this in the texts. These ostraca have significantly augmented the number of attestations of cabbage in the papyrological texts and allow us here to make some remarks on the names employed for these plants. The two main ones are κράμβη and καυλίον, while the variant κραμβίον is found less frequently. At first, I was tempted to think that these two terms designated two different kinds of cabbage. The LSJ even offers a solution, for s.v. καυλός it gives the definition: “vegetable of the cabbage kind, cole, kail, cauliflower” with references to three Attic comedy-writers from the fourth century BC. One of these passages (Alexis 132.5) is quoted by Athenaeus 4.170a and the translator of the Loeb edition renders the word by “kale” and adds, in a note, “or cauliflower.”3 The DELG s.v. καυλός gives “tige … d’où nom de certains légumes comme le chou (com.),” referring no doubt to the same Attic comedy-writers. On the other hand, the ThGrL does not give the sense “cabbage” under this word or its diminutives. 1. I thank the many friends and colleagues, both gardeners and scholars, on whom I have tried out this chapter and whose remarks have helped me to improve it: Nicole Blanc, Dominique Cardon, Jean-Louis Perpillou, and first of all Suzanne Amigues, who pointed out some errors. 2. We know for instance that procurers who rented out girls to the garrisons paid a tax, the quintana (Chapter 23). 3. But cauliflower appeared in the twelfth century (J. André, comm. ad Plin. Nat. 19.136 CUF).

577

578

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

In any case, it would be surprising if καυλός meant “cabbage” in the Attic authors, since the Attic word for this vegetable is ῥάφανος,4 and since, on the other hand, καυλός with this meaning appears only in the comedy-writers. Looking more closely at their texts one discovers that καυλοί perhaps does not mean cabbage. In all three texts καυλός immediately precedes the plant-name σίλφιον, the wellknown umbellifer used in cooking and medicine. What is more, the passage in Lebes of Alexis is not a list of vegetables, but of herbs and spices, nineteen in all.5 Only the last one in the list, πράσον, could be understood as a vegetable, but we know that the ancients used the greens of leeks finely chopped, the way we use chives today.6 Besides, Athenaeus who quotes the passage calls it ἡδυσμάτων κατάλογον, “a list of seasonings.”7 The association of καυλός and σίλφιον in all three passages is not accidental, and the relationship is easy to find: the ThGrL states that in Hippocrates καυλός per excellentiam dicitur Caulis silphii, and quotes in support the passage ἢ σίλφιον ἢ ὀπὸς ἢ καυλός.8 The three quoted comic authors all use καυλός for the stalk of silphium, in contrast to silphium in other forms. This is also how Kock interprets it (Euboulos 7.3, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta II, p. 166: καυλοί sunt laserpitii caules edules), followed recently by S. Amigues (Commentary on Thphr., HP 6.3, CUF, vol. III, p. 144, n. 8). In the same way, καυλοπῶλαι in Pollux 7.197 (quoting Critias) are not “greengrocers” (LSJ) or “des marchands de légumes” (DELG). They are mentioned just after the σιλφιοπῶλαι. In Aristophanes, καυλός occurs twice only, both in Knights. In 894–895 it is clearly stated that they are stalks of silphium,9 but what about vv. 824–825? Cleon gorges himself with kauloi, but instead of the expected plant-name the poet substitutes τῶν εὐθυνῶν, “the stalks of accountability:” καὶ τοὺς καυλοὺς | τῶν εὐθυνῶν ἐκκαυλίζων | καταβροχθίζει. This is an allusion to the possibility for extortion that was open to sycophants when the magistrates rendered their accounts. Van Daele (CUF) translates: “Il en profite pour traiter les comptables comme des choux dont il enlève les cœurs et les ingurgite.”10 The translators into English are more careful and understand: “He breaks the choicest stalks off the audits of outgoing officials and gulps them down” (Goold, Loeb); “the choicest parts of the scrutinies” (Sommerstein, Warminster 1981, with the note: “choicest parts: lit. ‘stalks’ as of a vegetable whose leaves are of little use as food;” he does not offer an opinion as to the kind of vegetable). What is the vegetable that has been replaced by τῶν εὐθυνῶν? If it is a vegetable, it is not necessarily a cabbage (see below the passage from Vita Aesopi). But the text 4. Pliny was unaware of this. He thought that ῥάφανος in Theophrastus meant “radish” (ῥαφανίς), and writes “cabbage is not appreciated by the Greeks” (J. André, comm. ad Plin. Nat. 19.136, CUF). 5. R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci II, 96 (fr. 132). T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, II, 343 (fr. 127). 6. S. Amigues informs me (per litt.) that the leek of the ancients was closer to wild leek (allium ampeloprasum, a bulbous plant which they also knew) than to our leek of today with its white stem and without a bulb. One might also, to use more familiar terms, compare it to Welsh onion or chives (allium fistulosum). The ancients had two ways of cultivating leeks, as is clearly seen in Plin. Nat. 19.108 or in Columella 11.3.30. Either they cultivated it for the bulb (which they called the “head”) and encouraged its development, or for the aromatic leaves which were cut and which regenerated. To these two kinds of culture correspond the Latin names porrum capitatum (Gr. κεφαλωτόν sc. πράσον) and porrum sectile vel sectivum. 7. Ath. 4.170a. 8. Acut. 37: these are the three forms in which the plant was sold and consumed: “root, sap, or stalk.” Σίλφιον is in fact the botanical name of the umbellifer, but may also be the bulb which was sold dry, unlike the stalk and the resinous sap which was obtained by incision into the live root. 9. Τὸν καυλὸν οἶσθ’ ἐκεῖνον | τὸν σίλφιον. Cleon had lowered its price and made it accessible for all budgets. Silphium was consumed fresh as a vegetable in its country of origin, while in Greece the stalks where sold dried, grated, and used as seasoning (S. Amigues, “Une panacée mystérieuse : le silphium des Anciens,” in Amigues 2002: 196). 10. In fact, it is not the accountants who are skinned, but the magistrates who render their accounts at the end of their mandate and who could be attacked in court by anyone. Sycophants were specialists in such attacks. It is also awkward to speak of hearts of cabbages. The translator no doubt thinks of our modern, “heads” of cabbage, a form that did not exist in antiquity.

The names of cabbage in the Greek ostraca from the Eastern Desert

579

permits the belief that καυλοί could be stalks of silphium here as well. Cleon profits from the euthynai to harvest these precious stalks, which normally one grated sparingly to season a dish, and gorges himself with them. So, it appears that in literature καυλός alone never means cabbage.11 If it has anything to do with cabbage, it is to designate the stalks, but then the context always contains the botanical name κράμβη, or, in Attic authors, ῥάφανος. Two factors must have favored the unfortunate entrance of the meaning “cabbage” in the dictionaries: – The parallel Latin term caulis does, in fact, have the double meaning of “stalk” and, by metonymy “cabbage.” After the first century of our era, caulis is what older authors call brassica caulis (brassica is the oldest word for cabbage in Latin, undoubtedly a loan-word: J. André, comm. ad Plin. Nat.19.136, CUF). From caulis modern languages derive “chou,” “kale,” “Kohl,” and even ON “kál.” In French there are further the kinds of kale called “caulet” and “cavalier.” – In botanical and medical texts, the diminutive καυλίον means “a little stalk” of all kinds of plants,12 but in the papyri the word has taken the specialized meaning of cabbage without the addition of a botanical name. The Wörterbuch of Preisigke quite rightly gives the following definitions: καυλίον Kohl, Kohlstengel, but καυλός Stengel. Occurrences of καυλός are not numerous in the papyri. In two leases of vegetable gardens from Alexandria,13 we find κράμβης καυλοί, literally “stalks of cabbage,” of which the lessees must give a certain number to the lessors as payment. In the papyri, κράμβη has the specificity that it is always a collective singular, and so, if one wanted to count units, it was necessary to use the periphrasis κράμβης καυλός. The existence of the periphrasis, and the preference for using κράμβη in the singular only, can be explained by the structure of cultivated cabbage in Antiquity. According to Theophrastus (HP 1.3.1; 1.3.4) and Pliny (Nat. 19.137), who give the most exact description, cabbage is an arborescent plant,14 of which one consumed the “stalks,” the καυλοί; according to the season, Pliny calls these “stalks” cymae or cauliculi, where cyma is the spring cauliculus, which was more tender, in other words broccoli in the definition of the dictionary of Trévoux: “petit rejeton que pousse le tronc d’un vieux chou après l’hyver.”15 One could pick these “stalks” in all seasons from the same plant: Cymam a prima sectione praestat proximo vere. Hic est quidam ipsorum caulium delicatior teneriorque cauliculus (…) Post cymam ex eadem brassica contingunt aestivi autumnalesque cauliculi, mox hiberni, iterumque cymae, nullo aeque genere multifero donec fertilitate sua consumatur. In the translation of J. André (CUF): “It produces a broccoli in the spring that follows the first cutting. One calls thus the small stalks, more delicate and tender, that shoot from the stalks themselves (…)16 After the broccoli, the same cabbage-plant produces stalks in summer, autumn, and winter, and then again broccoli in spring, for no plant is more productive until its fertility is used up.” André considers (his edition p. 14) that the reading a prima sec11. The article Kohl in the RE XI.1, 1034 wrongly mentions καυλός among the words for cabbage with reference to Dioscorides 2.146, where the word means stalks of the σμῖλαξ κηπαία, and καυλίον quoting Aristotle Hist.An. 8.2.591b (τὸ καλούμενον καυλίον). What is meant there is an aquatic plant eaten by some fish. 12. And the aquatic plant mentioned in note 11 above, and also in Hsch, s.v.: ὃ κατανέμονται οἱ ἰχθύες. 13. BGU IV 1118.12 (22 BC) and 1120.11 (5 BC). 14. Theophrastus also classifies it, like rue (Ruta graveolens) among the δενδρολάχανα. 15. Translator’s note: “A small side-shoot that is sprouted by the stalk of an old cabbage-plant after the winter.” This sense of broccoli has been retained all through this paper, even if it does not conform to the modern usage. The Dictionnaire de Trévoux is Dictionnaire universel françois et latin which came in eight editions between 1704 and 1771. 16. We see how Pliny’s description perfectly matches the definition of the word broccoli in the dictionary of Trévoux.

580

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 137. A variety of kale: Brassica oleracea italica.

Figure 138. A καυλίον. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

tione of manuscript Q is incontestable, but I am not sure that it is above suspicion. Pliny describes the cycle of a cabbage-plant that has been sown in the autumn (the most favorable time), and André seems to understand that the stalk of the little plant has had the time to be pruned, which allows it to sprout cymae in spring.17 This first pruning, could it be the cutting-off of the upper part of the stalk in order to provoke the formation of side-shoots? An epigram in the Anthologia Graeca (9.412) also mentions a first cut of spring, but there, in the mind of the translator, it is rather the first collection of side-shoots than the pruning: καὶ καυλοὶ κράμβης (…) πρωτοτόμου, “(it is the time) of the first stalks cut from the cabbage.”18 In Pliny’s text, the preposition a before prima sectione is in favor of J. André’s translation, at least if we keep the reading sectione. As a matter of fact, other editions prefer the conjecture a prima satione, which deserves consideration. It can be understood by references to altera satione and to tertia (sc. satio) that come later in the text (19.138) and refer to a sowing at the vernal equinox19 and one at summer solstice. J. André20 convincingly identifies this cabbage of antiquity with asparagus-broccoli or side-shootbroccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica). The drawing (Fig. 137), taken from an old gardening catalogue, perfectly illustrates the descriptions of Theophrastus and Pliny. 17. See his note 2 on p. 151 of the edition: “ces pousses de printemps (cymae) issues de la tige rasée du chou …” In fact, gardeners advise that you begin by pruning the central head of the Brassica oleracea var. italica, an operation that should be carried out some 60–100 days after planting out and which encourages the formation of side-shoots. 18. Could we not, just as well, understand the side-shoots of cabbage that has been pruned the first time (precisely in order to produce side-shoots)? 19. Pliny warns against planting out cabbages resulting from the spring sowing before the end of that season, in order to avoid letting them produce cyma before they form a stalk. 20. See his enlightening commentary on Plin. Nat. 19.136 (CUF).

The names of cabbage in the Greek ostraca from the Eastern Desert

581

Modern gardening handbooks recommend that you prune the central stalk of the broccoli in order to encourage the formation of side-shoots, which should be cut when they are about 10 cm long and before they become woody. Close to the stalk one should leave a little, with a leaf, to allow the formation of new side-shoots. Theophrastus describes this as follows (HP 7.2.4): τῶν δὲ καυλῶν κολουσθέντων πάντα μὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν βλαστάνει πλὴν τῶν ἀποκαύλων ἐμφανέστατα δ’ ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς χρείαν ὤκιμον θρίδαξ ῥάφανος, “when their stalks have been pruned, nearly all kitchen plants shoot again except those that have no stalk at all.21 Basil, lettuce, and cabbage show this well in practice, so to speak” (from the French translation of S. Amigues). This particularity of cultivated cabbage in Antiquity explains why, whenever the subject is selling or consuming cabbage, one does not speak about the plant itself, the κράμβη, but about its side-shoots, its καυλοί, that were cut as they developed. Καυλὸς κράμβης is not attested in the ostraca from the Eastern Desert,22 but on the other hand one often encounters the diminutive καυλίον (Fig. 138) with no further specification. One text, O.QaB inv.146, where the same bundle is first called δέσμην κράμβης and then δέσμην καυλίων, shows that κράμβη and καυλίον do not represent two different kinds of cabbage. Καυλίον is added to κράμβη in two ostraca only, in order to specify how many shoots were contained in the δέσμη κράμβης: – O.Krok. inv. 85, 4–6: ἔπεμψά σοι δέσμην κράμβης ἀριθμῷ καυλία λβ, “I have sent you a bundle of cabbage that contains 32 shoots.” – O.Did. 428: δέσμην κραμβίων καυλοὺς θ̅ καλούς, “a bundle of cabbage (containing) 9 good shoots.”23 We shall come back to the plural κραμβία below. An evolution in the usage of κράμβη and καυλίον can be seen during the period of occupation of the praesidia. Table 38.1 shows how the forms are distributed in the individual corpora: Table 38.1. Distribution of the occurrences of κράμβη and καυλίον in the ostraca of various periods O.Did. Vespasian– Hadrian1

O.Krok. Trajan–early Hadrian

O.Claud. Trajan

O.Claud. Antoninus and later

O.Max. Trajan–early third cent.

O.QaB end second–early third cent.

κράμβη

11

29

3

1

15

2

καυλίον

1

5

2

20

33

7

1. In the late group of ostraca from Didymoi, which may be considered as contemporary with those from Qusur al-Banat, there is only one occurrence of cabbage: καυλείων [δέσμας] (O.Did. 461).

It would seem that the inconvenience of using the periphrastic expression led the letter-writers of the Eastern Desert to replace κράμβη, not by καυλός, but by καυλίον. We know that the suffix -ιον was used to stress the alimentary nature of a thing: the liver as an organ is called ἧπαρ, while ἡπάτιον is the name of a butcher’s cut (Chantraine 1933: 66 f.); ὄροβος means “vetch” (Vicia ervilia), a herbaceous plant used as fodder for cattle, while ὄρβιον/ὀρόβιον, in the papyri, refers to vetch-gruel, a dish for the 21. I.e., of which the stalk has been completely cut away. 22. But see the following note. 23. This is the only attestation of καυλός instead of καυλίον in the ostraca from the Eastern Desert. And it is not even absolutely certain, for it could be that we should rather read καυλίους, an aberrant diminutive to copy the Latin cauliculus. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the writer of the ostracon is a Latin speaker – his betas are written in the characteristic form of b in the older Latin cursive.

582

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

poor, prepared and sold by the orbiopolai, rather like the foul-sellers in modern Egypt. Contrary to ὀρόβιον or φάκιον (a preparation of lentils), καυλίον does not mean a dish (or medical preparation) based on cabbage. The couple that it forms with καυλός is of the same nature as the pair ἧπαρ/ἡπάτιον: a stalk of cabbage vs. cabbage as nourishment. In the rest of the papyrological corpus there is no attestation of κράμβη later than the second century, and no attestation of καυλίον from the Ptolemaic period. It should be said that outside the desert, occurrences of καυλίον are rare: there are only three in the papyri.24 The only occurrence of cabbage in a papyrus later than the second century25 is in P.Oxy. XIV 1656.11, and the word used there is καυλίον. This study allows the conclusion that καυλός, without specification, never means cabbage or broccoli in a general sense (cyma and cauliculus): καυλίον, on the other hand, apart from meaning a sideshoot of any plant, can be the broccoli of cabbage, but only in papyri from the Imperial period. It may be a Latinism, a transposition of the Latin diminutive cauliculus.26

Excursus 1: κραμβίον Besides κράμβη, the ostraca of the Eastern Desert occasionally have the diminutive κραμβίον (with vulgar and phonetic spellings): – O.Krok. II 278: κόμισαι (…) δύσμην κραμπίν (in our ostraca the name of the vegetables that make up the δέσμαι are often in apposition instead of being in the genitive). – O.Krok. inv. 263 (different hand): ἔπεμψά [σοι δέσμην] κραμπίν. – O.Max. inv. 71: τῶν δύο ὀβολῶν λάχανα ὀβολοῦ κραμβεὶν καὶ ὀβολοῦ σεύτλειν Μάξιμος ἔλαβε, “Maximus has received two obols’ worth of vegetables: cabbage, one obol, beets, one obol.” In the preceding examples the diminutive κραμβίον is just a side-form of κράμβη and performs in the same way: it is in the singular and means “cabbage,” generically. This is also the meaning that it should be given in the following three papyrological occurrences, where it has been understood by the editors as a decoction of cabbage, a sense that it has in medical authors: – SB XVI 12675.12 (100 BC?): κρα⟨μ⟩βίν. – P.Oxy. XII 1479.10 (end first cent. BC): [ἀπ]όστειλον ἐν τῷ γόμῳ κραμβεὶν [Πτ]ολλᾶτι. Preisigke translates abgekochter Kohl (“boiled cabbage”). – P.IFAO II 6, r°.2 (principate, Fig. 139): the editor reads ]δι αἰώλια κραμβίου β and understands that it means aoilia of boiled cabbage. But the aoilion is a measure of capacity which is found only in the third century BC, which is only used for earth, and what is more, is bigger than a cubic meter! The letters αιω are highly doubtful, and I have not succeeded in finding a certain solution (I have naturally thought of δεσμίδια κραμβίου27 or καυλία κραμβίου, but they are impossible). 24. P.Giss. 93.4 (113–120?); P.IFAO III 37 (passim, post 136); P.Oxy. XIV 165.11 (fourth–fifth cent.). 25. A reason for this rarity is indicated by R. S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton 1993) 27: like other vegetables, cabbage was not subject to taxation nor was it grown commercially. 26. S. Amigues (email 21/5/2007) thinks that the differentiation in Greek of word-pairs like ἧπαρ/ἡπάτιον is enough to explain καυλίον without taking cauliculus into account. Anyway, the chronology of the occurrences of καυλίον in the sense of broccoli is striking. 27. On the other hand, in the ostracon from Qusayr al-Qadim no. 28, at the end of line 3 the correct reading is δέσμας after κράμβης (BASP 23 [1986] 29, see pl. II). The reading κράμβης κεράμιν (?) proposed in SB XX 14263 should be discarded.

The names of cabbage in the Greek ostraca from the Eastern Desert

583

It seems to me that the reading most compatible with the traces (both on the original and on a scan28) is δέ]σ̣μ̣η̣ μ̣ία κραμβίου β̅, “a bundle of 2 cabbages.” Contrary to κράμβη which, in the language known from the documentary papyri, cannot be in the plural, κραμβίον can. There are two examples from the Eastern Desert: – O.Did. 428, already quoted, δέσμην κραμβίων καυλοὺς θ̅ καλούς. We notice the hesitation in numbering the κραμβία; – O.KaLa. inv. 916, where we read δέσμην κραμβίων.

Figure 139. P.IFAO II 6, r° The neuter plural κραμβία is also found in a glossary: coliculos κραμβία, καυλία (Gloss. II 104.2). These equivalents give the impression that someone had created a diminutive of κράμβη, perhaps on the same model as καυλίον, to designate the side-shoots of cabbage. However, O.Did. 428, where the writer doubles κραμβία with καυλούς, shows that one did not use the two words with the same ease. On the other hand, it is interesting to observe that κράμβη, outside the language of the papyri, may have the sense of a small stalk of cabbage, and can be in the plural. This is probably the case in Athenaeus 1.34c: ὅτι δὲ φίλοινοι Αἰγύπτιοι, σημεῖον καὶ τὸ παρὰ μόνοις αὐτοῖς ὡς νόμιμον ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις πρὸ πάντων ἐδεσμάτων κράμβας ἔσθειν ἑφθάς κτλ. It is obvious in the Edict of Diocletian (6.9) where the Greek κραμβῶν πρωτείων ε’ corresponds to the Latin coliculi optimi n. quinque. Incidentally, it is striking that the Edict, like Pliny, distinguishes between coliculi and cymae,29 and counts the early sprouts by the unit (in groups of five), while the later ones are counted in bundles, which suggests that they were smaller (contrary to J. André,30 I do not believe that κράμβη means whole cabbages in the Edict of Maximum Prices, since the equivalence with coliculi excludes this).

28. Generously provided and expertly treated by Vassil Dobrev, whom I thank. 29. Rendered in Greek ὄρμενον (6.11: cymae optimae fascem unum / ὀρμένου δέσμη μία) 30. In L’alimentation et la cuisine à Rome (Paris 1982) 22: “a bundle [of cymae] was worth as much as five whole cabbages of first choice.”

584

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Excursus 2 In the Vita Aesopi 34.5 (recension G31), καυλός is determined by κράμβης, but also by all sorts of other vegetables: ὁ κηπουρὸς ἄρας τὸ δρέπανον ἀπεθέρισεν καυλοὺς κράμβης, σεύτλου, ἀσπαράγου, κεφαλωτοῦ, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρτυμάτων, “the gardener took his sickle and cut stalks of cabbage, beets, asparagus, leeks, and all the other aromatic herbs.” Curiously, the editors do not put a comma between ἀσπαράγου and κεφαλωτοῦ and understand, like Corinne Jouanno in her recent translation,32 “stalks of cabbage, beets, heads of asparagus and all the other plants that serve as seasoning.” In fact, κεφαλωτοῦ should be put on the same level as the other names of vegetables. It is simply the porrum capitatum (see above n. 6). Even if the nature of the “stalks” of cabbage, from a botanical point of view, is different from that of the “stalks” of beets (which are really leaves) or of the leek (a bulb surmounted by leaves), καυλούς here concerns all the names of the vegetables and herbs, which the translator has not considered.

31. The oldest and most widespread. For the editor, B. E. Perry (Aesopica I. Greek and Latin Texts [Urbana 1952]), it would have been written in Egypt. He bases this on the importance of the cult of Isis. I have already indicated elsewhere another argument in favor of this hypothesis, viz. the fact that Aesop distributes “pairs of loaves” to his fellow slaves. It is only in Egypt that loaves are counted in ζεύγη (Chapter 7, p. 138). 32. Vie d’Ésope (Paris 2007).

Chapter 39 Χίλωμα = Haversack In O.Did. 339 a soldier writes to a comrade: ἀπέσταλκά σοι χίλωμα τὸ σὸν διὰ Δώρου ἱππέος.1 Like all papyrus-editors who come across this word, we had doubts concerning the meaning of χίλωμα. The dictionaries distinguish between χείλωμα (“border”), derived from χεῖλος (“lip” of men or animals, but also “rim”) and χίλωμα derived from χιλόω “put to graze,” which again is derived from χίλος “green fodder.” These two nouns are rare in the authors:2 χείλωμα is attested only in one occurrence in Aquila’s translation of OT (Ex. 37 (38):2). I suppose that in this context it should be considered a derivative of the verb *χειλόω “surround,” of which only the composite περιχειλόω is attested. As for χίλωμα, there is only one attestation in literature (Agatharchides 61, ap. Photius 454a.15, about the nomadic Trogodytes: μαχόμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ τοῦ χιλώματος, where the sense “grazing” is the most appropriate).3 But most attestations of χίλωμα/χείλωμα are to be found in the papyri, and only from between the first and the third centuries. It is also found in several ostraca from the Eastern Desert. Preisigke’s Wörterbuch distinguishes two words: χείλωμα (von χηλός) Kiste, Koffer, and χίλωμα, Futter. For the latter, only one reference is given, P.Lond. II 190.45 but a later correction (BL III, 92 f.) shows that the cheiloma there is a container. In fact, whenever the context of the papyrus or the ostracon is explicit, the word always signifies a container, never fodder. Editors in general opt for the translation “box,” which originates from a remark by Grenfell and Hunt in P.Oxy. X 1294.3n.: “χειλωμάτιον and χείλωμα are (…) receptacles of some kind and may be connected with χηλός.” From this note is derived the definition box, chest in LSJ Suppl. I, s.v. χείλωμα, which is thus derived from χεῖλος and not from χιλός. The same is found in DELG (“-ωμα ‘rim’ (Aq.), ‘box’ (pap.)”). It is difficult to understand how the sense “rim” could have developed into “box”. The translation “box” was first questioned by H. C. Youtie in ZPE 34 (1979) 91 f. (SB XVI 12578). He was publishing a letter accompanying the sending of various provisions, among which we find τὸ 1. In the original version of this chapter, before the publication of O.Did., I restored the name of the horseman ⟨Διο⟩δώρου. The editor, Adam Bülow-Jacobsen, while keeping this option open, has preferred to assume that the man was called Doros or Doras. 2. χίλωμα in Aeschylus, Frag. 275 is considered a falsa lectio of κένωμα (LSJ s.v. χιλός II) as in Aeschylus, Frag. 478Μ (LSJ Suppl. I, s.v. χείλωμα). 3. The two other versions of Agatharchides use the classic word νομή: περὶ τῆς τῆς χώρας νομῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαμάχονται (Diod. Sic. 3.32.2); πολεμοῦσι δὲ περὶ τῆς νομῆς (Str. 16.4.17).

585

586

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

[]χινον χείλομα ἐν ᾧ φοίνικος [μ]έτρα τρία. Youtie remarks that two restorations are possible, [τρί]χινον “of hair”4 and [μόσ]χινον “of calf,” both of which would suggest that χείλομα was a sack. The first of these restorations is the more plausible, first because of the length of the lacuna, as Youtie notes, to which I will add two more arguments: μόσχινος is a very rare word, and I think it is unlikely that a letter-writer would take the trouble to specify that a leather bag, in which he sends some dates, is of calf-skin. He could just have written δερματινόν. Secondly, τρίχινος is often used to describe bags in the papyri. Youtie’s interpretation is further supported by the inventory SB XX 14178,5 a list of various objects belonging to Iulius P…, duplicarius and curator. In lines 29–31 we find σάκκοι λινοῖ, a τρίχινος σάκκος παλαιός, and some χιλώματα. The meaning “sack” is quite appropriate: in the desert and elsewhere, the chiloma is a container in which one put all kinds of objects to be transported, often on horseback. Chests or boxes are uselessly heavy, awkward, fragile, and voluminous and seem excluded for this kind of use. Is χ(ε)ίλωμα-bag etymologically derived from χιλός or from χεῖλος? Semantically it is close to χιλωτήρ, which gives preference to the first hypothesis. Like χ(ε)ίλωμα, χιλωτήρ is attested in the papyri, but only from the Ptolemaic period, and, as we shall see below, it always means “bag” or “sack.” But this is not the sense of χιλωτήρ given by the glossators. Pollux and Hesychius clearly define it as a nose-bag (German Futtersack, French musette-mangeoire), i.e., a canvas-bag hung around the neck of a draft animal as a kind of portable manger when the animal is not in its stable or in the field.6 This meaning is in accordance with the etymology of the word, which is a classic formation of the name of an instrument, and which is considered a verbal noun derived from χιλόω: the χιλωτήρ is originally what is used to feed the horse. However, χιλωτήρ (lemmatized under χειλωτήρ) is glossed in the Lexicon Vindobonense: τὸ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις καπίστριον (Chi 3.1). The CGL (II 573.11) gives the same equivalence: cilo(ter) camus capistrum. So, in these two glosses, χιλωτήρ is identified as the Latin capistrum, which is the headstall without a bit, but with a strong nose-band to which one could fix a lunge by which one could lead the horse without mounting it, or attach it to the manger in its stall. Capistrum (the etymology is disputed) has produced the French chevêtre, the ancient name of this kind of harness,7 now currently called licou. In the Latin authors capistrum always means headstall, which is confirmed by the Greek lexicographers, who give καπίστριον as a synonym for φορβειά. Φορβειά, the classical word for the headstall, is derived from φορβή, “fodder,” and in Homer exclusively fodder for horses and donkeys. This derivation is explained by the attachment to the manger. Nevertheless, modern dictionaries also give the meaning “muzzle” for capistrum,8 for which, to my knowledge, the only evidence is the gloss cilo(ter) camus capistrum. Camus is a loanword from καμός, Doric for κημός, and the most widespread meaning in equestrian terminology, both in the authors and in the lexicographers, is “muzzle,” i.e., the piece of harness that you put on an animal, especially a horse, to prevent it from biting or eating – roughly the opposite of a nose4. Or horse-hair, but in Egypt it is first and foremost goat-hair. On objects of goat-hair (covers, mats, sacks, parts of harness), see D. Cardon in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 622. 5. Arsinoite, second cent. I thank D. Hagedorn for drawing my attention to this reference, which had escaped me. 6. Poll. 1.185: ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ ἐσθίει ὁ ἵππος, κρεμαμένου μὲν ἐκ τῆς κορυφαίας, περιτιθεμένου δὲ τῷ στόματι, χιλωτήρ. Hsch., Chi 489: χιλωτήρ· τὸ τοῖς ὑποζυγίοις ἀπὸ κορυφῆς ἐξαρτώμενον, ἐν ᾧ ἡ τροφή. 7. But the verb enchevêtrer is still used. 8. The definition given by Ernout–Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine creates confusion: “harnais de tête, muselière ; puis ‘licol, lien, courroie’.” But harnais de tête and licol (both “headstall”) are synonymous, and I have found no example where capistrum means “muzzle”, except (perhaps) the gloss camus capistrum. The article in Dict. Ant. of Daremberg and Saglio also leaves the impression that capistrum means “muzzle.”

Χίλωμα = Haversack

587

bag. The lexicographers also define it as εἶδος χαλινοῦ. This might mean a caveson, a piece of metal that surrounds the nose of the horse instead of a bit, and permits one to guide the horse through pressure on the nose. One single gloss in Hesychius also gives the sense of nose-bag, sub kappa, 2516: καὶ ὁ περιτιθέμενος τοῖς ἵπποις, εἰς ὃν αἱ κριθαὶ βάλλονται. This is echoed in the article κημός in the Suda and in Photius, but only in the form καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἵπποις ἐπιτιθέμενον. The neuter definite article, then, does not refer to the lemma κημός, but to the general definition that has been given of kemos, namely πλέγμα κωνοειδές, “a plaited object of conical shape,” surely a muzzle and not a nose-bag. It seems quite possible that the specification by Hesychius εἰς ὃν αἱ κριθαὶ βάλλονται is an interpolation. Let us leave aside the muzzles. The equivalence χιλωτήρ-capistrum has an echo in Hesychius. Although his article on χιλωτήρ gives only the definition of a nose-bag, he has two entries on φορβειά which look as follows (phi 749–750): φορβε⟨ι⟩ά· ἕλκυστρον, περιστόμιον, καπίστριον. φορβειά· ἡ αὐλητικὴ στομίς. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὁ χειλωτήρ. The first gloss concerns the primary meaning of φορβειά and gives three words for headstall: ἕλκυστρον (derived from ἕλκω “to draw”), περιστόμιον which by metonymy means a headstall because its first and etymological sense is “nose-band,” and finally the Latin loanword καπίστριον. The second gloss concerns the metaphorical use of φορβειά in music.9 It should be translated: “Phorbeia: the mouth-band of the aulos-players. It is also what you call the cheiloter.” The definite article before χειλωτήρ forbids the translation “one also says cheiloter.” If we take into account the use by Hesychius of the phrase λέγεται δὲ καὶ + a noun preceded by the article, the gloss signifies that χιλωτήρ and φορβειά can be synonyms.10 The question is, do the glosses that establish an equivalence between χιλωτήρ and words that normally mean “headstall” imply that these words (capistrum, φορβειά) were sometimes used in the narrower sense of “nose-bag,”11 or was χιλωτήρ, the nose-bag, sometimes used to mean “headstall”? I think the second possibility is the more likely: the nose-bag is an object which is never mentioned in the 9. The Suda (kappa 1520) also quotes a similiar metaphorical use of κημός (καὶ αἱ αὐλητικαὶ φορβειαί). 10. This is how it is understood by H. Estienne in ThGrL, s.v. χιλόω: indicans, vocabulum illud φορβειά significare non solum τὴν αὐλητικὴν στομίδα, verum etiam τὸν χειλωτῆρα, i.e. Camum sive Fiscellam quae ori jumentorum circumponitur, injecto fœno aut alio pabulo. There is much confusion in the ThGrL concerning these words. First, the translation of camus is a false approximation, because the word means a muzzle, but it must be said in Estienne’s defense that the Latin word for a nose-bag has not been transmitted to us. Second, but not least, a parenthesis (which means a later addition by Estienne retouched by the editors of the English edition) affirms, in some contradiction to what precedes, that a word χειλωτήρ, distinct from χιλωτήρ, does exist after all, and that it means the mouth-band of the aulos-player: (Hoc ipsum vero χειλωτὴρ aliquando significat et τὴν αὐλητικὴν στομίδα : sed tunc aliam habet originem (…) derivatur enim ea ratione a χεῖλος, et χειλωτήρ nominatur eiusmodi αὐλητικὴ στομὶς, quoniam labris circumponitur sive circumligatur, etc.). This is a gratuitous postulate, since there does not exist any attestation of χ(ε)ιλωτήρ in the sense of mouth-band of an aulos-player. In the same spirit as this unfortunate addition, we are informed, in the article on φορβειά, of a gloss in the Suda and a scholium on Aristophanes: ἡ αὐλητικὴ στομίς, to which Estienne adds: “quae et χειλωτὴρ [Hoc Hesych. quoque adnotavit], sc. Τὸ περικείμενον τῷ στόματι τοῦ αὐλητοῦ δέρμα, ἵνα μὴ σχισθῇ τὸ χεῖλος αὐτοῦ.” The addition in square brackets is an addition in the English edition. Estienne has correctly seen that the gloss in Hesychius means “The chiloter is also called phorbeia,” but he was deluded by the false etymological relation between χεῖλος and a non-existent χειλωτήρ and could not rid himself of the tempting other interpretation of this gloss: “phorbeia; mouth-band of the aulos-players; one also says cheiloter.” 11. This is what H. Estienne thinks, ThGrL, s.v. χιλωτήρ, where he claims support for the idea that φορβειά can mean a nose-bag from a passage in Hippiatrica (15.4) which he has clearly misunderstood: it is simply written that mangers should be placed at a height that permits attachment of the phorbeiai (the headstall and its rope) and that the mares eat while lifting their heads.

588

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

literature, to the degree that we do not even know the Latin word for it, and the situation would be the same for Greek if it were not for the glosses of Hesychius and Pollux. The lexicography for headstall, on the other hand, is diverse. The meaning of headstall would not be inappropriate for χιλωτήρ which, like φορβειά, has the connotation of food. I also wonder if χιλωτήρ has not, falsely, been thought to derive from *χειλόω “to surround,” which generated the χείλωμα of Aquila. All these straps and thongs surround the head and mouth of the horse. Since the headstall consisted of several straps, each with its name,12 and since one could attach various objects, which, as the nose-band, surrounded the horse’s muzzle (muzzle, caveson, nose-bag), the name of this piece of harness was prone to changes by metonymy. As we have seen, the word χιλωτήρ occurs only in the lexicographers and in Ptolemaic papyri. In these documents, it does not have the meaning of nose-bag, nor of muzzle, nor of headstall, but in every occurrence, it might well mean a travelling bag.13 In UPZ I 76.1–5 (second cent. BC, draft letter) we read γίνωσκε, ἀπὸ τῆς κε ⟦⟧ Μένων []ω̣ν̣ χιλωτ̣ῆ̣ρα περιπορεύεται τ̣[ὴ]ν̣ Τρικομίαν, “know that since the 25th, Menon travels the Trikomia with(?) a bag”.14 In P.Dryton 38 (second cent. BC, list of articles for travelling written by a horseman) there is a χιλωτήρ (l. 24), and also a κατώμηλ(ος?) χιλω(τήρ?) ἐν ᾧ βυβλί(α) (l. 9), an expression that might signify a bag carried in bandolier, in this case a documentbag.15 In P.Grenf. II 38.11 (80 BC) it is perhaps not accidental that this list of objects mentions a χιλωτήρ immediately before a μάρσιππος μέγας. The interpretation of χιλωτήρ as a bag/sack is supported by an observation by Susanna Frei-Korsunsky, who shows that the transliteration ciloter is used in the old Latin version of the Gospel of Luke (22.36) to render the Greek πήρα.16 This word of unknown etymology is translated “sac de cuir notamment pour les provisions” (DELG), “leathern pouch for victuals, wallet” (LSJ).17 Πήρα is rare in the papyri. From the Ptolemaic period we find two examples of the composite σακκοπήρα. In P.Dryton 38 (see above) there is a σακκοπήρα containing a himation, and in P.Enteux. 32.7 (218 BC) it contains the coat (ἐφαπτίς) of a soldier. The oldest occurrence of the simple form πήρα is in O.Petr.Mus. 172 (AD 42), a receipt written in Berenike for eight πῆραι containing purple-colored material which had been entrusted to Nikanor’s transport-company. So, the papyrological documentation suggests that a pera was frequently used for transportation of clothes and cloth. We understand why one preferred a leather suit-bag which protected the cloth against dirt, moisture, and moths better than a basket or a canvas bag. It is worth noting that the oldest occurrence of ciloter in Latin (Novius, Atell. 35) may designate a bag for storing clothes, like the paenularium mentioned just before: the fuller (fullo) in question consequitur paenularium, cilotrum petit. If χιλωτήρ was originally a piece of harness (a nose-bag and perhaps also a headstall), but can also mean a travelling bag, then χίλωμα “bag” could perhaps also signify a piece of harness, and it is, in fact, associated with objects belonging to harness for draft animals in P.Mich. XV 717 and in SB XII 11017 (τὰ χιλώ[μα]τα τῶν ὤνων σου).18 12. See the annotated drawing of the headgear of a horse in Vigneron 1968: pl. 15. 13. This has been noted by S. Frei-Korsunsky, Griechische Wörter aus lateinischer Überlieferung (Zurich 1969) 15. 14. According to Wilcken the traces before χιλωτῆρα do not permit reading ἔχων or λαβών. 15. See the note by K. Vandorpe on χιλωτήρ in P.Dryton, p. 285. The mysterious epithet κατώμηλ(ος?), the reading of which seems certain, recalls κατωμάδιος in an extract from an epigram by Moschos (second cent. BC): πήρην δ᾿ εἶχε κατωμαδίην (Anthologia Graeca 16.200). 16. S. Frei-Korsunsky, op.cit. (n. 13) 14 f. 17. Several testimonies do, in fact, associate the pera with leather. Of special interest is the definition of πήρα in De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 390: τὸ ἰατρικὸν ἐγχειρίδιον καὶ δερμάτιον ἀρτοφόρον, ὃ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων φέρουσιν οἱ ποιμένες. The shepherds, who lived out of doors, needed a light and tight container, and leather was the only material with both these qualities. On the doctor’s bag of instruments, see Marganne 2004. D. Hagedorn draws my attention to a payment for a πήρα to a σκυτεύς in P.Kell. IV Gr. 96.1535 f. 18. Read ὄνων. Bags strapped on to the beast cannot be excluded.

Χίλωμα = Haversack

589

We are thus not entitled to suppose that the χίλωμα in Agatharchides (unless it is an error in the manuscript tradition) and the χίλωμα “bag” in the papyri from the Imperial period are two different words. Χίλωμα “bag” should probably be considered a doublet of χιλωτήρ, a classical formation for an instrument: the χιλωτήρ is originally what serves to feed a horse (χιλόω). The semantic evolution of χιλωτήρ “nose-bag” into a bag generally might be explained either by the morphological likeness (a bag of coarse cloth with a bandolier), or because in both cases, so to speak, it signifies a travelling sack containing provisions of food. An adequate translation for χίλωμα could be “haversack,” a word which etymologically goes back to Low-German hawer, i.e., “oats,” which is horse food in colder countries than Egypt.

Chapter 40 “When Heroïs has given birth . . .” ἐάν = ὅταν in temporal clauses referring to the future In principle, in clauses referring to the future, ὅταν introduces a fact that will happen, while ἐάν introduces a fact that may or may not happen. The difference between the two is well illustrated by a passage where Xenophon relates a speech given by the Spartan Teleutias to his soldiers (Hell. 5.1.15): “Therefore, when (ὅταν) you have provisions in abundance, then you will see me also living bounteously; but if (ἤν) you see me submitting to cold and heat and night-watching, expect to endure all these things yourselves.” Teleutias is careful not to discourage the troops and uses different conjunctions to evoke eventualities that are not equally attractive: ὅταν for the abundance (which will surely happen), but conditional ἤν for the hardship (which may happen). Let us now examine a passage in BGU I 261.3-6: γινώσκειν σε θέλω ἐγὼ καὶ Οὐαλερία, ἐὰν Ἡροῒς τέκῃ, εὐχόμεθα ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σέ. This has been translated as follows: “I want you to know, I and Valeria, if Herois gives birth, we are praying to come to you.”1 Rendering ἐάν by if leaves open the possibility that Herois will not give birth to a child, in other words that the mother or the child will not survive. But it is neither in the mentality nor the in the habits of ancient letter-writers to tempt fortune by evoking possible misfortune without a rhetorical precaution. The two writers simply want to inform their correspondent that they await the delivery of Heroïs before coming to see her.2 Editors of papyri have not always understood that in certain contexts ἐάν should be translated “when.” This ambivalence of ἐάν in expressions of conditions is actually proper to the koine, but has passed unobserved except for the Wörterbuch of Bauer.3 Bauer quotes biblical sources only, and noth1. R. S. Bagnall and R. Cribiore, Women᾿s Letters from Ancient Egypt (Ann Arbor 2006) 189. 2. Same circumstances and same inadequate translation in P.Oxy. VII 1069.21–23 (second cent.). 3. s.v. ἐάν in the English edition (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature3 [Chicago and London 2000]. The reference of R. W. Daniels (ZPE 54 [1984] 86, n. 2) to Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, p. 460 (§ 1975) is inappropriate: it only concerns the repetition in the present, where it is well known that ἐάν and ὅταν are synonymous (“all the times that”) already from the classical period, but Jannaris does not treat this equivalence in reference to the future. The New Testament grammar of Blass and Debrunner is equally silent on the subject.

591

592

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

ing from the documentary papyri. Among the examples, Tobit 6.17 is particularly clear. The archangel Raphael instructs Tobit on how to behave at his wedding night: καὶ ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃς εἰς τὸν νυμφῶνα, λέμψῃ τέφραν θυμιαμάτων, “And when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume…” The Sinaiticus has ὅταν. Another example is the Gospel of John 14:3, where Jesus prophesies his own death and return, καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, “And when I go and prepare a place for you (i.e., in the House of God), I will come again, and receive you unto myself.”4 It is first of all in the private letters that we may find this use of ἐάν, and particularly with verbs of movement of persons or transportation of objects. An ostracon from Xeron published by M. Elmaghraby presents a new example: ἐὰν ἐν̣ε{κ}χθῇ, εὐθέως σοι ἀποπέμψω, “when it (the mulokopion) has been brought, I shall send it to you at once.”5 This temporal sense is clear when ἐάν is preceded by εὐθέως/εὐθύς with which it forms the syntagma “as soon as.”6 It may also be found in administrative orders in letter-form, see, e.g., P.Berl.Salmen. 16.3 (86 BC), where ἐάν should have been translated when.7 The same goes for some orders for payment from Kysis, e.g., O.Douch V 575 (fourth century): ἐὰν ἠλθειν (l. ἔλθῃ) πρὸ⟨ς⟩ σὲ τὸν (l. ὁ) ἀδελφ(ὸς) Ἀπόλλων Ἑρμάμων, παράσχου αὐτοῦ (l. αὐτῷ) σίτου κτλ. which should be translated: “when our brother Apollon son of Hermammon comes to you, give him…” Papyrus editors would be well advised, when they meet ἐάν in this kind of text, to consider the possibility of giving it a temporal sense. One cannot always be sure without knowing the context, and the conditional sense cannot systematically be excluded, even with verbs of movement, as we see in P.Bingen 74.8-10: ἠ[ὰ]ν̣ οὖν ἀναβένῃς ἰς Ἀντινόου, γράψις μοι ταχύτερον, ἵνα []έλθω πρὸς σέ. ἠὰν δ’ ἄρα μὴ ὑπάγῃς, πάλιν γράψις μοι, [μὴ] δι’ ἀπόρου ὑπάγω ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ. If the difference between ἐάν and ὅταν8 had become blurred in the language of the private letters, it remained perfectly sharp in juristic documents, which suggests that the slide towards a temporal meaning belongs to the familiar language. Can this semantic evolution be interpreted? Although the distinction between the two conjunctions is strictly observed in legal documents, there is nevertheless one case where ὅταν is replaced by ἐάν, namely when future death is envisaged. Testamentary dispositions are preceded by a euphemistic formula like ἐὰν τελευτήσω, ἐάν τι πάσχω ἀνθρωπινόν, etc. Cf. also the oath in W.Chr. 110A.12–15 (110 BC): διότι ἐὰν τελευτήσῃ ὁ πατήρ μου εἰσάξω τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ υἱὸν εἰς τὴν σύνοδον, “(the agreement by which) if my father dies (i.e., when my father dies), I shall inscribe my son in the association.” The use of ἐάν takes the edge of crude inevitability by presenting it as a possibility. In the letters the situation is different since the future fact introduced by ἐάν is not feared, but wished for, but substituting a temporal conjunction by a conditional one, no doubt originally expressed an attenuation. In the situation presented in BGU I 261, quoted above, the 4. Translator’s note: Interestingly, both the KJV and the MEV translate “If I go…” The modern Danish version has the correct “Og når jeg er gået bort.” In German, the Neue Evangelische has “Und wenn ich hingegangen bin und euch den Platz vorbereitet habe, werde ich wiederkommen und euch zu mir holen.” Luther (1545) choses another solution: “Vnd ob ich hin gienge euch die Stete zu bereiten…” (i.e., Although I go away…) (A. B.-J.). 5. M. G. Elmaghraby, “Two Letters Exchanged between the Roman Forts of Dios and Xeron (Eastern Desert of Egypt) concerning a mulokopion,” BIFAO 112 (2012) 139–45. 6. So, unlike some editors, one should not punctuate “εὐθέως, ἐάν” as N. Litinas has shown in “Punctuation Matters in Some Papyri,” in H. Harrauer and R. Pintaudi, Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak I (Florence 2004) 285–87. 7. In the documents from the same series published by P. Sarischouli in BGU XVIII.1 (2738–2746), ἐάν is translated wenn, which has the same ambiguity as the Greek conjunction. 8. The temporal ἐάν has not replaced ὅταν, and there are even letters where the two conjunctions are employed with the same temporal meaning, e.g., O.Claud. II 245 (second cent.), P.Oxy. VIII 1158.9 and 15 (third cent.). It is useless to search for a subtle semantic difference as in the passage from Xenophon quoted above.

“When Heroïs has given birth . . .”

593

choice of ἐάν might originate in a superstitious wish to force destiny: the certainty expressed by ὅταν could be perceived as hybris that might irritate the gods. There are, actually, cases where the temporal ἐάν is accompanied by a reference to the divinity. Let us take W.Chr. 21.12–13 (a soldier’s letter, second cent.) as an example: εἵνα μεθ’ ὑγίας ἐὰν {αν} [ἐ]γὼ ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς {εἵνα} εὕρω πάντα ἕτυμα, “so that when – if all goes well9 – I come to you, I shall find everything ready.” Even more explicit is P.Amh. II 144.11–14 (fifth cent.): θεοῦ βουλήσει ἐὰν εὕρω πλοῖον ἔλθ[ω] ἐν̣ τ̣ά̣χ̣ι̣ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, “when, God willing, I find a ship, I shall come to you at once.” But in other cases, e.g., the phrase spoken by the archangel Raphael, we may exclude the prophylactic intention: the substitution of ἐάν for ὅταν has become automatic.

9. This translation has been proposed to me by J. Gascou. On the meaning of μεθ’ ὑγιείας, the equivalent of the Insha’Allah of the Muslims, see the remark by J.-L. Fournet in Bülow-Jacobsen, Cuvigny, and Fournet 2004: 30–31.

Chapter 41 Are ostraca soluble in history? The ostraca that will be the object of this chapter1 originate from the excavations in which I have taken part in the Eastern Desert of Egypt since 1987. Until 2012 we excavated Roman sites: Two imperial metalla – Mons Claudianus and the small quarry of Domitiane/Kaine Latomia – and several praesidia scattered along the roads that link Koptos (today Quft) with Myos Hormos and Berenike. The part of the desert traversed by these two roads was known, in Roman times, as “the Desert of Berenike.” Beginning in 2013 I handed over the direction of this archaeological program to Bérangère Redon and Thomas Faucher, who turned the focus towards the Ptolemaic period.

Excavating “soft matter” Between 1987 and 2012 the directors of the archaeological program were philologists: Jean Bingen at Mons Claudianus, and then myself. This is the reason why so many ostraca have been found. On these sites, be they Ptolemaic or Roman, the majority of texts are, in fact, found in the rubbish dumps. But these are not always preserved. And when they are preserved, they do not automatically attract archaeologists who, by habit and training, will normally attack a site with a view to buildings and occupational strata.2 The microstratigraphy of the dumps makes them tedious and complicated to excavate correctly and adds to their lack of enthusiasm. Rubbish dumps consist of many small layers that result from the continued emptying of baskets of rubbish, and these small heaps are mixed by the trampling of men and beasts,3 by precipitation, and by the occasional deposits of rubble when a new cistern was being dug, or the well cleaned out. Besides, the dungheaps contain not only ostraca, but because of the climate of Egypt, also vegetable and animal remains, textiles, all kinds of objects of daily use that were lost or thrown away, and tons of ceramic fragments. To collect, register, classify, and treat this material demands organization, the presence of specialists, and a harmonious collaboration between the participants. Excavating in order to find a special type of material also upsets the deontology of the archaeologists, for whom one of the commandments is: “Thou shalt not dig in order to find.” At Mons Claudianus, 1. This is an expanded version of the paper that I gave at the conference “(Kon)Texte. Perspektiven althistorischer Grundlagenforschung” organized by the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Munich, 28–30 June 2017). 2. Prehistorians are, of course, excepted. 3. The inhabitants of the praesidia kept pigs on the dungheaps.

597

598

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

the intellectual authority of Jean Bingen and his personal supervision of the excavation allowed us to exploit nearly all the rubbish deposits. From 1994 and onwards, while we were working on the praesidia along the road to Myos Hormos and later on those of the road to Berenike, Jean-Pierre Brun spent much of his time on the excavation and the stratigraphic analysis of the dungheaps. He was of the opinion that this rare opportunity of finding texts must not be missed, and that the holistic approach to the site must not stand in the way of a systematic exploration of the dungheaps. He accepted good-humoredly that the praesidia chosen for excavation were chosen with a view to the presence of a dungheap, and he joked about “the by-products of ostraca.” Half-seriously he deplored that he could not run a parallel program which he called “the road without the ostraca.”

Sources that tell too much and not enough4 The ostraca from the Roman praesidia found between 1987 and 2012 have enriched the corpus of documentary papyrology with subjects that are quite different from what documentary papyrologists are used to. In the desert, fiscal and juristic documents are rare. Village-administration and agriculture are absent in spite of the vegetable-gardens that existed near some wells. There are no land-leases, taxregisters, or land-lists. On the other hand, there is much about the Roman army, about officers, even prefects and procurators, next to vernacular Egyptian names, many Latin names, and also many Latin terms, which have been interesting to Latin epigraphists. Before the excavations at Mons Claudianus the word “ostracon” had, first of all, connotations of tax-receipts from Upper Egypt, even if the ostracon-letters from Wadi al-Fawakhir, published in 1942 by Octave Guéraud, and the O.Florida of Roger Bagnall were harbingers of the corpora that were to come. There are two reasons why the desert ostraca are more varied in their contents than those from the valley. First, there must have been a constant shortage of papyrus in the desert, and the ostraca must be a substitute for papyrus. The surviving corpus of texts from the desert is almost exclusively written on ostraca. Second, the most important texts were no doubt written on papyrus, but did not stay in the desert. I think of all the paperwork of the curators who wrote reports, kept accounts of stocks, and the post-journal. All these documents, which must have been written on papyrus, were sent to the prefecture of the Desert of Berenike in Koptos to be checked and archived. All we have left are the documents which the ancients themselves found unimportant and threw away. This documentation has three rare qualities: it is abundant, diverse, and perfectly localized. But it is all trivial, ephemeral microhistory. Is it possible to write history based on such inadequate sources? Can we understand what was really involved from such piteous fragments?

What is in the desert ostraca? Table 41.1 shows the number of ostraca inventoried by site (p. 599): This list includes some dozens of jar-stoppers of plaster or clay and a few papyri. All the texts have been photographed and transcribed on site with the help of powerful lamps and magnifying glasses. When necessary, readings have later been verified on the originals in the store house of the Egyptian Antiquities Service in Dendera, later in Quft. In 2003 we advanced to digital photography. In 2005 Adam Bülow-Jacobsen had the fortunate idea to use a digital camera specially calibrated for infrared, and this 4. I owe this formulation to Michel Reddé, another pillar of the excavation of the praesidia.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

599

Table 41.1. Number of ostraca inventoried by site Mons Claudianus

1987–1993

O.Claud.

9,275

Maximianon

1994–1995

O.Max.

1,549

Krokodilo

1996–1997

O.Krok.

772

Didymoi

1998–2000

O.Did.

970

Domitiane/Kaine Latomia

2002–2003

O.KaLa.

1,026

Dios

2006–2009

O.Dios

1,567

Xeron Pelagos

2010–2013

O.Xer.

1,309

Biʾr Samut (Ptolemaic)

2014–2016

O.Sam.

1,245 (540 Greek, 658 demotic, 22 bilingual)

Abbad (Ptolemaic)

2017–2018

O.Abbad

181 (68 Greek, 97 demotic, 16 bilingual)

gave such spectacular results that we undertook to re-photograph nearly all the ostraca that had been found until then. This technical advance has also changed our modus operandi in the field. The ostraca are now photographed before any attempt at reading, and then read comfortably on the screen of a computer. The originals serve only to verify doubtful points (typically: “is this spot ink or dirt or a fault in the ceramic?”). On the Roman sites in the desert, the documentary types are always the same, and always more or less in the same proportions. Let us take Xeron as an example (Fig. 140):

Figure 140. Types of texts on ostraca at Xeron Pelagos

The most numerous are the tituli, which are generally inscribed in ink on the containers, which are nearly always the double frusto-conical AE3, and from the Antonine period, more and more often the “pilgrim flasks,” alias costrels. Next come the private letters, by both army personnel and civilians. This correspondence was mostly exchanged between neighboring praesidia and often accompanied the sending of small sums of money or objects, notably fresh vegetables. A third category is the pittakia. In this category I count all kinds of short tickets without syntax, and often bearing nothing but a name.

600

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Orders for delivery are abnormally numerous at Xeron because of the presence of some hundred orders to measure out wheat for Barbarians in the 11th year of a reign, probably that of Gallienus. They are written within a few days of each other and found together. These orders document a special operation, which has left no traces except at Xeron: it looks as if the praesidium for a few days served as a granary and distribution center of grain to some Barbarians. These Barbarians, judging by their names, were Blemmyes, even if the Romans had not yet taken the habit of calling them so.5

The uneven interest of the ostraca as sources of history Ostraca do not all have the same potential, and they are not all insignificant. Every time I begin work on an ostracon, I classify it, mentally, according to the intellectual effort that must be applied in order to wrest some sense and significance from it. First there are the exceptional documents that fulfill two conditions that are rarely united: they give instant synthetic information (which is very rare for the ostraca), and they are in good condition. One such is the table of distribution of water to the personnel present at Mons Claudianus on a day during the reign of Trajan, at the time when the many columns for the Forum Traiani were being produced.6 Without having to form “guesstimates” we learn the exact numbers of army personnel, free, Egyptian craftsmen, and employees of the imperial familia who were present. Another is the post-journal from Krokodilo (O.Krok. I 1), also from the Trajanic period. This document provides evidence for the functioning of the official post in the Eastern Desert, which depended on the military infrastructure of the praesidia and their personnel. With such sources it would be easy to write history, but unfortunately texts like these are very rare. During thirty years of work in the desert, we have found only three of such quality.7 What do we do with the rest? Often one has the good luck to find them in series, which generally makes them more understandable. This is why it is so important to find a maximum of ostraca on a site. Let us take the example of the group of ἐντολαί from Mons Claudianus, which date from the reign of Antoninus Pius.8 These ἐντολαί are instructions that the native craftsmen at Mons Claudianus sent every month to the superintendent of victuals (κιβαριάτης), explaining how they wanted to receive their wages. These native craftsmen came from the valley and worked as quarrymen, stonemasons, and smiths. For the administration they were all pagani, but they formed two distinct groups, i.e., the association of the Alexandrians and that of the Syenites. These ἐντολαί show that the families of these workers, who were recruited from the two extremities of the province, had been moved to Kaine, a new town on the Nile that served as caput viarum for the roads leading to Porphyrites and Mons Claudianus. Every month each association chose one worker as κιβαριάτης (responsible for the cibaria). The κιβαριάτης went down from the μέταλλον to the valley to withdraw the grain-rations and the salaries of his comrades, to buy whatever they asked, and to give their grain-ration to their wives, mothers, or sisters who lived in Kaine, in order that they make bread from it.9 The Latinizing term κιβαριάτης shows the intervention of the Imperial administration into this system of self-administration of salaries and provisions, which did not yet exist under Trajan. Elsewhere I have already drawn various conclusions from the ἐντολαί, but the ἐντολαί themselves are not yet published. In fact, there are about 1200 of 5. O.Blem. 17–107. See, provisionally, Chapters 18, pp. 320–22 and 27, pp. 434–36. 6. Chapter 11. 7. The third is the “amphora of the Barbarians,” which is a copy of official circulars that passed through the hands of the curator of Krokodilo (O.Krok. I 87). 8. See Chapters 9 and 10. 9. See Chapter 14.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

601

them, and I have not yet finished exploiting this mass of data. I am somewhat hampered in this work since, for reasons both historical and technical, we do not have a complete, modern database for the ostraca from Mons Claudianus. Independently of this, I fear that this mass of texts with all the details in it will not answer an essential question, namely: how many people worked in the quarries under Antoninus Pius? For the ἐντολαί are not dated, and we cannot even know how many years they cover. One year? Two? Or twenty? There is no longer any need to show the importance, both for epigraphist and for papyrologist, of grouping documents in series. But documents must have some substance. If they are very laconic, even setting them in series does not help much. This problem is especially pronounced with two types of documents, the pittakia and the tituli. Let us take an example from among the pittakia that mention δεκανίαι. These are found everywhere on the road to Berenike, and we have them from Didymoi, Dios, and Xeron.10 Several of the people mentioned in them are also found in ostraca of the same kind from Berenike. This group contains several sub-categories, e.g., the group of pittakia that mention sacks. Here is one that will serve as an example of the degree of uncertainty in which they leave us. O.Xer. inv. 348 US 90804 Fig. 141

6.5 × 4.3 cm

c. 75–150 ad

(δεκανίας) Κρονίο(υ) Ψεντφο̣( ) Κρόνιο(ς) Ἐπωνύχ(ου) σάκ(κος) (ἀρτάβη) α 1 κρονιο Ψενταφο̣( ) ed. pr.

2 κρονιο επωνυχ

3 σακ 

“Kronios, son of Eponychos, from the dekania11 of Kronios, son of Psentpho( ). One sack, one artaba.”

Figure 141. O.Xer. inv. 348. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

10. Those from Didymoi are published in the series of diverse documents concerning dekaniai (O.Did. 1–21), while those from Dios and Xeron are still unpublished. 11. About the resolution (δεκανίας), perhaps better than (δεκανός), see O.Did., pp. 66 f.

602

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

We do not know what it was that was measured in artabas, although it must have been something dry. Wheat, barley, or bread? Nor dο we know what was being done with the sack. Has it been delivered to Xeron by Kronios? Or has it been given to him to transport? Or did it contain rations for him or his pack-animals? And yet, we have the impression that these pittakia mentioning dekaniai are essential to understand the organization of provisioning and transport in the Eastern Desert, both as a whole and on the local level inside the large sites as Berenike or Mons Claudianus. I recognize my own frustration in the lines by Rodney Ast and Roger Bagnall about a series of pittakia found in Berenike concerning the transportation of water, which was also organized according to dekaniai: “Given the prominence of ostraka from the water archive, amounting to more than 70 percent of the texts in this volume, one might expect extensive illumination about the water supply of Berenike. Any such expectations are disappointed. Not once does a receipt tell us where the water came from, on what date it was delivered, how long it took to transport it, or by whose orders it was transported. We are not told what the quotas incumbent on any transporter were.”12 So long as there is not an ostracon that delivers the key to understand this, I fear that the publication of these small tickets will not progress beyond a general impression, which is that for transportation by camel or donkey in the desert, the state conscripted workers from the native population. Contrary to the quarry-men at Mons Claudianus who were highly qualified craftsmen coming from places far away, the donkey- and camel-drivers, at least in the Desert of Berenike, were recruited from the region of the caput viae, namely Koptos. In fact, the personal names found between Didymoi and Berenike are vernacular and belong in the region of Koptos. The organization in dekaniai presumably permitted control over the execution of the tasks and modulation of their payment. Like the institution of the κιβαριάτης, I believe that the δεκανίαι show a state intervention, for this Greek term, which is almost unknown in the Ptolemaic period, but frequent in the imperial period, could be a calque from decuria, which was the basic unit for organizing civil and servile collegia in the Roman world. There are two papyri13 that concern the provisioning of grain for the Roman desert sites prior to its distribution. On the other hand, the sources from the valley are totally silent concerning the provisioning of wine, although this is what has left the most material traces on the sites in the form of thousands of broken amphoras, many of which bear an inscription in ink. These tituli are for the most part inscribed on wine containers, and are direct evidence of the provisioning of wine to the communities that lived on a given site. There is a difference between the tituli from the Roman and from the Ptolemaic sites, and we would like to know why. At Biʾr Samut and Abbad the Greek and demotic tituli frequently have a metrological indication, sometimes preceded by a regnal year. On the other hand, indications of personal names are infrequent. On Roman sites, on the contrary, the tituli picti generally contain a more or less precise indication of the identity of an individual, but never, with extremely rare exceptions, any metrological indication. This difference is probably related to the size of the containers. In Roman times the amphoras are mostly the double frusto-conical AE3 of 6.5 liters, later progressively replaced by the “pilgrim flask,” which was also quite small (and of various capacities). The Roman containers are individual rations. In opposition to this, the common amphoras found in the two fortresses of the third century BC that we have excavated, Biʾr Samut and Abbad, are much bigger. Jennifer Gates-Foster has shown that there were two models. The smaller held 42 liters, the bigger 60 liters (excluding the neck). The indications of capacity written on these big Ptolemaic amphoras vary considerably and are always below the total capacity of the vessel, as if they were not full. It seems strange that wine should have been transported in such overdimensioned containers that were 12. O.Berenike III, p. 29. 13. SB XIV 12169 (96), P.Oxy. XLV 3243 (214/5).

Are ostraca soluble in history?

603

sometimes half-empty. I am tempted to think that the dipinti of Biʾr Samut were written on the spot after stock-taking. When we have been so lucky as to find complete amphoras they carried a number of such notations, incidentally often in demotic, which must have been added successively. The large capacity of the common amphoras from the desert stations of the Ptolemaic period probably reflects a communal organization of the wine provision, so the amphoras brought to the site were not meant for individual consumption. The rarity of private letters from Biʾr Samut may well be related to this, inasmuch as, on Roman sites, private letters, sent between neighboring praesidia, are the second most frequent type of document after the tituli. In the texts from Biʾr Samut, the people do not appear to have any personality or private life, while the everyday life, whether personal, sentimental, or even amorous, of the occupants of the praesidia fills their letters: small worries, declarations of friendship, hostility, jealousy, or worries about the health of the addressee… The presence of women in the praesidia may well be responsible for the middle-class atmosphere. On the contrary, in Biʾr Samut women must have been rare, and of 540 Greek ostraca found there, only four mention a woman.14 Although the tituli picti are directly connected to the organization of supply and distribution, will their publication help to improve knowledge of the system? I am not sure that we shall ever understand where and under what circumstances these amphoras were ordered, filled, and registered. The only way that seems promising to me would be to cross-reference the data of the dipinti, which are mainly prosopographical, with the ἐντολαί and with the wine accounts. But there is an even more frustrating case: the ostracon that could have been an important document if it had been in good condition. The example I have chosen is a fragmentary draft petition found at Mons Claudianus, O. Claud. inv. 6366+7149. We know that Aelius Aristides, in his evocation of the Porphyrites, long imposed on readers the idea that the labor force employed in the imperial quarries of the Eastern Desert was made up of condemned people. The ostraca of Mons Claudianus have shown that this was not the case. It should have been realized long ago that granite quarrying and the shaping of monoliths required skilled craftsmen, and the ἐντολαί have revealed that these highly skilled craftsmen were quite well treated. Next to them was the familia, a group of the same size, but assigned to logistical tasks that did not require very advanced know-how. On the other hand, the condemnation to forced labor in the metalla is attested in Egypt by a few papyri, but there is not the slightest trace of it in the nearly nine thousand ostraca of the Claudianus except, perhaps, this petition. O.Claud. inv. 6366+7149 F.SE – VII r2 NW 5 Fig. 142

18 × 15 cm

post 130–c. 225 ad

The two petitioners seek to assert a right to which they are entitled as citizens of Antinoou polis. It is apparently from their respective mothers that they received Antinoite citizenship. It is now accepted that the privilege of ἐπιγαμία, i.e., the right to marry a person who does not have this right of citizenship while transmitting it to unborn children, had been conferred not only on the male citizens, but also on the females of Antinoou polis.15 This right is contrary to the conceptions of classical Greek law, ac14. Among them there is one Borka, who curiously has a function that one would normally expect to be exercised by a man: she is called ἡ χιλοφύλαξ “the guardian of fodder.” 15. H. Braunert, “Griechische und römische Komponenten im Stadtrecht von Antinoopolis,” JJP 14 (1962) 77–79; M. Zahrnt, “Antinoopolis in Ägypten: Die hadrianische Gründung und ihre Privilegien in der neueren Forschung,” ANRW II.10.1 (1988) 690–92; F. Sturm, “Ha conferito Adriano uno statuto personale speciale agli Antinoiti,” Iura 43 (1992) 86–88; O. Montevecchi, “Adriano e la fondazione di Antinoopolis,” in J.-M. Croisille (ed.), Neronia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos, Collection Latomus 209 (Brussels 1990) 192 (= Montevecchi, Scripta Selecta [1998] 208); F. A. J. Hoogendijk and P. van Minnen, “Drei Kaiserbriefe Gordians III an die Bürger von Antinoopolis,” Tyche 2 (1987) 74.

604

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

cording to which women cannot transmit citizenship, whereas, according to Roman law, a child from a mixed couple obtains the less advantageous status, but the natural child follows the status of his mother: if she is a Roman citizen, so will he be. This explains the number of ἀπάτορες, children without an official father, in the papyri, which allowed veterans’ daughters, Roman citizens, to transmit their status to the children they had with non-citizens. The two petitioners have another particularity: they are, precisely, ἀπάτορες, since they only indicate their mothers’ names. One, Petronas – unless it is a Petron⟨i⟩a – has as his mother Iulia Maxima who, if she had Roman citizenship, did not pass it on to her offspring; the other, Maximus (coincidence or family relationship?), is the son of Mantinoe alias Chairemoniane. Yet the Antinoite ἐπιγαμία should not lead to the concealment of paternal filiation, since it specifically allowed mixed unions and the transmission of Antinoite citizenship by the mother.16 Did the petitioners simply consider it unnecessary to indicate their paternal filiation because it did not affect their right to citizenship? Andrea Jördens has suggested another hypothesis to me: The petitioners would be slaves of two Antinoite female citizens, and they would have received training as quarrymen. She observes that their names – Petronas, Maximus – are dull for citizens of Antinoou polis. It is not known whether the privileges of the Antinoites could extend to their slaves (like the reduced rates of λαογραφία enjoyed by slaves of the privileged categories of the native population), but perhaps our two petitioners, considering that “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” wanted at least to try their luck.17 The statement ἐπεὶ ἡμεῖς ᾿Αντινο⟨ε⟩ῖς (l. 9) nevertheless seems bold on the part of slaves. Were they freedmen, then?18 It is not known whether the freedmen of the Antinoites, like those of the Romans, received citizenship. Apart from the still questionable reading of the name of a prefect of Egypt in line 7, we have no precise clues to date this document. The petitioners’ origo provides a terminus post quem, which is, in absolute terms, the date of Antinoou polis’s foundation (130), but it must be a few decades later: the name Mantinoe assumes that this mother was born after 130 and her son – if it is a son – has a chance of being an adult himself. The southeast corner of the fortified village (= F.SE) was buried under very mixed rubbish, where the extreme dates delivered by the ostraca are 137 and 197.19 The latest dated ostracon from Mons Claudianus is a dedication of the reign of Severus Alexander (222–235), found at the foot of the gate of the fortified village.20 The recipient of the petition, the centurion Callius Alexandros, is not otherwise known. At that time, there were no longer any centurions in residence in the metallon, which was now commanded by a curator praesidii/metalli. The petitioners must have prepared their petition for a visit by the centurion.21 The main question posed by this ostracon is the reason for the presence of these two Antinoites in Claudianus: were they convicts, soldiers, or workers? These possibilities will be discussed in the commentary. The ostracon is incomplete on the right and bottom; it is impossible to assess the extent of the lacunas. The ink is faded in many places, and it cannot be decided in each case whether it has been deleted intentionally or unintentionally. Furthermore, the text contains many changes (deletions, overwritings, and additions between the lines). 16. P.Mich. VI 370 offers an undoubted case of a woman ἀπάτωρ who is an Antinoite citizen by her mother: Τασουχαρίῳ ἀπάτορι μη(τρὸς) Σαραπιάδος Ἀντινοείδι. 17. I thank Andrea Jördens for this hypothesis and for her critical review of the manuscript of this chapter. 18. But we would expect the mention ἀπελεύθερος between the idionym and the name of the patroness. 19. The position of the ostraca in the F.SE stratigraphy, where Antonine material was deposited during a major clean-up over a more recent abandonment layer, cannot be relied upon (J. Bingen, “Fourth excavation campaign at Mons Claudianus. Preliminary report,” BIFAO 90 [1990] 68). 20. O.Claud. inv. 7363 (Chapter 12). 21. On the involvement of the centurions in the governance of Mons Claudianus from the moment when, under Antoninus it seems, the metallon came under the command of a curator, see Chapter 15, pp. 239 f.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

605

Figure 142. O.Claud. inv. 6366+7149. © A. Bülow-Jacobsen

π(αρὰ?) π̣ε̣ 2a 3a

Καλλίωι

Ἀλεξάνδρῳ

(ἑκατοντάρχῃ) ληγε̣[ῶνος Ἀντινο̣[ίδος? -έως?

π̣(αρὰ) Πετρωνας Ἰουλίας Μαξίμας Σαβιν̣[ ⟦᾿Αντινο̣ε̣ ⟧

[

4 [καὶ? Μ]α̣ξ̣ίμου Μα̣ν̣τινό̣ης τῆς καὶ Χαιρημονι[ανῆς τ̣υ̣ρ̣ο̣υ̣ϲ̣ β̣ κ̣ύ̣ριε ἐπι[ ἀπὸ μετάλλου Ἀλαβαστρίνης  οὐκ ἀλαβαστριναι̣[ 6a

κ[

8a

ανα̣δ̣ον κ̣ύ̣ρ̣ι̣ε̣[

ἡγεμόνος του[]κ̣α̣τεπι̣ ̣ε̣μ̣α̣ε̣ι̣[ 8 καὶ Κλαυτιανὰ ἔργα ὅπω[ς γ]ρ̣ά̣ψ̣εις τ̣ῷ τῆς Ἀντινό[ου (πόλεως) νομάρχῃ ἡμεῖν τὰ τείμεια τοῦ σιτη̣[ρ]α̣ι̣σ̣ίου * ἐπεὶ ἡμεῖς ᾿Αντινοῖς  [ κατὰ τὰς δ̣[ c. 15 ][]ϋ[ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1 π/ 2 αλεξανδρω υ corr. l. Ἀντινοεῖς



3 π/

8 l. Κλαυδιανά, γ]ράψῃς

9 l. τίμια, σιτηρεσίου ἡμεῖς: η ex

606

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

“From P... “To Callius Alexandros, centurion of the legion […] “From Petronas (or Petronia), son (or daughter) of Iulia Maxima, citizen(?) of Antinoou, daughter of Sabinus (or – referring to Petronas – of the Sabina tribe) [… and] from Maximus son of Mantinoe also called Chairemoniane […] …, my lord, since(?) […] from the quarry of Alabastrine and(?) not specialists(?) of alabaster [… the] prefect Maecius(?) Laetus(?) […] and the Claudian works, so that you write [to the nomarch of Antinoou polis to grant/restore] the honorable privilege of the wheat allowance… because we [are/being] citizens of Antinoou […] in accordance with the constitutions […] …” 1.

After beginning to write the names of the petitioners, the writer reversed his original intention to dispense with the prescript. It happens that this is omitted in the draft petitions (cf. BGU XI 2012, P.Mert. III 104, P.Oxy. VIII 1117, SB VI 9458, SB XVIII 13094), as well as in private copies (CPR XV 8 and 9).

2.

Καλλίωι Ἀλεξάνδρῳ. First attestation in Egypt of the nomen gentilicium Callius. The F.SE has delivered another Alexandros centurion, but from a distant and deep layer, and whose nomen appears to be Claudius if we bring together O.Claud. II 385 and 386. ληγε̣[ῶνος. At this time, the only legion of the exercitus Aegypti was the II Traiana Fortis, whose name was not necessarily indicated in the gap (cf. O.Xer. inv. 618.8 or the hydrophoric reports of Mons Claudianus addressed to Priscus, ἑκατοντάρχης ληγεῶνος); it could also be reduced to the numeral β.

2a.

I do not know whether the applicant wanted to insert Ἀντινοΐδος after his mother’s name or underline his own quality of Ἀντινοεύς, a nomen gentile which could be placed before or after the tribe- and deme-name.

3.

π(αρά) would not have been abbreviated in an original petition. Πετρωνας. As such, this form cannot be a genitive; it is the nominative of the masculine Πετρωνᾶς, formed on the nomen gentilicium Petronius with the Greek hypocoristic suffix -ᾶς. Neither the feminine *Petrona nor *Petronus exists (the EDCS database provides only one example, C. Petronus C. f. Laetus, RIB III 3546, where the absence of i is considered by the editor as a mistake). It is therefore necessary to assume an error either for Πετρωνᾶ⟨το⟩ς or for Πετρων⟨ί⟩ας, but the presence of a woman is statistically less likely. Moreover, would it have been mentioned first? It is also unlikely that a woman would have been able to claim the Antinoite σιτηρέσιον (l. 9). This institution is not well known. We do not know of any female beneficiaries of grain distributions in Egypt, where the σιτηρέσιον of Oxyrhynchos is best known (none of the requests published in P.Oxy. XL come from a woman). Only one document, ILS 9275, gives a woman as beneficiary of the Roman frumentum publicum. Denis Van Berchem wonders, to account for this, if the privilege was not extended to widows and orphans (Les distributions de blé et d’argent à la plèbe romaine sous l’Empire [Geneva 1939] 43). Σαβιν̣[. It is either the patronym (Σαβίν[ου) of Iulia Maxima, or the tribe-name Σαβίνιος (Σαβιν̣[ίου τοῦ καὶ 7–10?]). In this case, the end of the line was occupied by one of the demenames corresponding to the Sabina tribe, perhaps also by the beginning of the name of the second claimant, if the latter had a double name or a nomen gentilicium.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

607

3a.

⟦᾿Αντινο̣ε̣ ⟧. Perhaps ⟦᾿Αντινο̣ε̣⟨ΐ⟩δ̣ο̣ς̣⟧.

4.

Μαντινόης. This curious anthroponym combines the name of Mantinea with that of Antinoos.22 Antinoos was originally from the city of Bithynion, which a legendary tradition reported by Pausanias made a colony of Mantinea, a city of Arcadia (8.9.8). This author gives a vivid idea of the importance of the cult of Antinoos in Mantinea’s culture a few decades after the young man’s death: temple, mysteries, competitions, painted and sculpted portraits, and a chapel remarkable for its stone decoration in the gymnasium (I would imagine that Egyptian porphyry was used there). On the legend of the foundation of Bithynion by the Mantineans, see Robert 1980: 132–46: to this legend, he links the toponym Μαντίν(ε)ιον present in several Byzantine hagiographical sources evoking the Bithynion region. According to Robert, this toponym necessarily existed before late antiquity. Linking the flourishing agricultural and forestry economy of the Bithynion territory with local coins representing Antinoos with the attributes of Pan and Hermes as protectors of the herds, Robert concludes (1980: 134): “Antinoos is not a boy from the city or the plain, but he was apparently from a village in the meadows or forests and the new god protects the herds (...)” Robert goes so far as to postulate that Antinoos was originally from this Mantineion (1980: 138). As, in Antinoou polis, several of the known deme-names of φυλὴ Ὀσιραντινοΐς, of which Antinoos deified was eponymous, aim to present this Bithynian as an Arcadian by referring to cities in Arcadia (Παρρασιεύς, Κλειτοριεύς), Wilcken assumed the existence in this tribe of a deme-name Μαντινεύς not yet attested (P.Würz. 8.9–10n.). The anthroponym Μαντινόη is specific to Egypt, where it appears in three other documents, and even four if we include P.Oslo III 129.16: there, the reading of the anthroponym Ἀντινόην, which is unparalleled in Egypt or elsewhere, is not justified by a vacat according to a photo kindly provided by Jens Mangerud, so it is probably necessary to restore Μ]α̣ντινόην. Note that Ἀντινόη, the female counterpart of the name Ἀντίνοος, is attested, but only as a name of mythological figures that are each time linked to Arcadia: according to a local tradition, Mantinea was founded by the hero Mantineus, then moved and refounded by Antinoe, daughter of Cepheus, whose tomb Pausanias tells us he saw in this city (8.8.4; 9.5). Pausanias also evokes, on the margins of the chora of Mantinea, the tombs of the daughters of Pelias, who took refuge in Arcadia after their father’s murder and one of whom was named Antinoe (8.11.3). Finally, a scholion in the Argonautica made an Antinoe the wife of Lykourgos, king of Arcadia (Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera, ed. Karl Wendel, 1935, A 164). Chances are that the name Antinoos, which is not frequent, has something to do with these legends. Was it a name readily given to the children in Bithynion? This does not seem to have been the case either, nor in Arcadia: the index of IK31 (the inscriptions of Klaudiou polis, the new name of Bithynion from Claudius), does not include any Antinoos. The only significant geographical concentration of this name is in Epirus: Pierre Cabanes assumes that Ἀντίνοος/Ἀντίνους is a Molossian name or an epichoric of Southern Thesprotia (L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine [Paris 1976] 554). Wouldn’t Hadrian’s favorite’s name come from a scholarly renaming that was made during his lifetime and that would reflect the Emperor’s Arcadian fantasies? The end of line 4 should contain Maximus’s tribe- and deme-name, or perhaps only his Antinoite quality.

22. I thank Paul Schubert for bringing me back to this idea, which I had dismissed too quickly.

608

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

5.

The scribe does not seem to break words at line-ends. Therefore, the beginning of line 5 should contain a whole word, the second and third letters of which are τ̣υ or π̣υ, the fourth being ρ̣ (spontaneous reading), φ, or an overwritten ο. One would gladly expect Maximus’s demename there, but the traces, unless one assumes too many mistakes (Σεβα]|σ̣τ̣ί̣ο̣υ ⟨Ἡ⟩ρ̣α̣κ̣λ̣ε̣ί̣ο̣υ)̣ , do not correspond to any Antinoite deme- or tribe-name. Another unsatisfactory hypothesis is Ἰ̣τ̣υρ̣έ̣ω̣ν̣ (l. Ἰτουραίων), which would make the petitioners soldiers in a cohort of Ituraeans. But to my knowledge, this would be the only case where soldiers on duty would provide in such detail their identity as citizens of a Greek city: in the case of the legionary G. Iulius Saturninus, in P.Oxy. XXII 2349, Alexandrian citizenship was obscured by the change of name, but appears in the reminder of the name prior to enlistment, Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου Φυλαξιθαλάσσιος ὁ καὶ Ἀλθεαιοὺς Διονυσίου τοῦ καὶ Θεοπόμπο[υ] (ll. 2–6). It is true that, unlike this Alexandrian, our petitioners, assuming they are military, have kept their peregrine name. But could serving soldiers benefit from privileges that their citizenship guaranteed them in civilian life? Maybe σ̣ο̣ι̣ in front of κύριε. The ε of κύριε seems to have a diaeresis as one would expect from the one on ἐπι. But the first point can also be the end of the hasta of the rho of Χαιρημονι[ανῆς, and the second a separator like that in front of ἐπεί in line 9. κύριε is an incise in the body of the petition, the beginning of which is necessarily located before this vocative. Finally, ἐπι[ should perhaps be understood as ἐπεὶ [.

6.

 οὐκ. It is difficult to imagine anything other than καί in front of οὐκ, but the traces do not lend themselves well to this restoration. ἀλαβαστριναι̣[ or ἀλαβαστριναρ̣[, but since there are no derivatives *ἀλαβαστρίναιος or *ἀλαβαστρινάριος, it is better to consider that it is ἀλαβάστρινα. Then maybe ἔ̣[ργα, as we have Κλαυτιανὰ ἔργα in line 8. LSJ, s.v. ἀλαβάστρινος, quotes only P.Ryl. II 92.1 (second– third cent.), which is a list of individuals of uncertain status sent εἰς ἀλαβάστρινα, εἰς ἀντλίαν, εἰς ἅλας. The gloss of LSJ is: “of alabaster, ἔργα,” giving the impression that this last word appears in the papyrus, which is not the case. So, we can’t invoke P.Ryl. II 92 as a parallel for the phrase ἀλαβάστρινα ἔργα. Moreover, in both occurrences of ἀλαβάστρινα, at lines 1 and 18 of this papyrus, the iota is missing, and Jean Gascou points out to me that the document could just as easily have εἰς ἀλαβαστρῶνα. The two people sent to the salt works (εἰς ἅλας) are women, therefore probably convicts, cf. Ulpian, in Dig. 48.19.8.8: in ministerium metallicorum feminae in perpetuum uel ad tempus damnari solent. simili modo et in salinas, “it is customary to sentence women to work in the mines for life or for a limited time; it is the same (when they are convicted) to the salt works.” If one could be sure that Πετρωνα is a woman, it would be likely that the applicants were convicts.

7.

ἡγεμόνος. “By the governor, by order of the governor,” or “during the time of (ἐπί) the governor” according to the passage in the lacuna.23 The following traces, without this being the only possibility, could be the name of the prefect: with a cognomen in -tus? In this case, I propose with all due reservations Μ̣α̣ι̣κ[̣ί]ο̣υ̣ Λ̣α̣ί̣του (200–203). In that case, Gascou proposes to explain the aspect of the first letter by considering that the mu was written over a kappa corresponding to the initial of Quintus Maecius Laetus’s praenomen, which the writer would have given up writing; the top of this kappa would also have been crossed out with a small line. 23. This last possibility was suggested to me by Carl-Loris Raschel.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

609

κ̣α̣τεπι̣ ̣ε̣μ̣α̣ε̣ι.̣ One could also think of πρᾶ̣γ̣μ̣α̣ ε̣ι̣[ or πρά̣γ̣μ̣α̣σ̣ι̣ [ (τε would then be the particle). 8.

ὅπω[ς γ]ρ̣ά̣ψ̣εις. This is the subject of the petitioners’ request: that the centurion write to the nomarch.

9.

σιτ̣η̣[ρ]α̣ι̣σ̣ίου. If my reading is correct, this is the third mention of a wheat allowance in Antinoou polis, the other two being P.Mich. ΧΙΙ 629 (c. 166–169) and P.Oxy. XL 2941 (c. 154). This last text is a hypomnema addressed to the nomarch of Antinoou polis by a citizen who has been designated responsible for a bread distribution in connection with σιτηρέσιον. A. Jördens thinks that the unparalleled pompous phrase τὰ τίμια τοῦ σιτηρεσίου may have a specific meaning.

10.

κατὰ τὰς δ̣[. The following letter is η or ι: διατάξεις is likely. This term normally refers to imperial constitutions. It is used in connection with the privileges of the Antinoites in W.Chr. 27, a fragment of acts of the βουλή of Antinoou polis: οἱ νόμοι καὶ διατάξεις, ἡ διάταξις Πρόκλου (in this case, an edict of the prefect Valerius Proculus); in the petition W.Chr. 29 (196) addressed to the βουλή of Antinoou polis, the two applicants invoke the exemption from liturgy outside their city which has been granted them κατὰ διάταξιν θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ.

Several elements make the hypothesis that the two petitioners are convicts attractive: the mention of the Alabastrine metallon, probably the calcite quarries north of Antinoou polis, with that of “Claudian works” (καὶ Κλαυτιανὰ ἔργα), and especially the mention of the prefect of Egypt (ἡγεμόνος). It is known that in a province, only the governor is empowered to pronounce the sentence ad metalla; it is also the governor who releases the convicts at the end of their sentence, as shown by three acts of release from prison sentences issued by the prefect of Egypt and preserved on papyrus;24 two of them indicate that the released prisoner had served a five-year sentence in the alabaster quarries.25 It should be noted that the two released men, Niger son of Papirius and Petesouchos son of Petesouchos, were not subjected to a damnatio ad metalla: this sentence, considered the most severe after the death penalty, was for life; their sentence was dependent on another legal qualification, the damnatio in opus publicum, which was, in their case, for a limited period (ad tempus).26 From the pieces of information that I was able to extract from the petition of the two Antinoites emerges a possible scenario: the petitioners, convicts, will have been transferred, on the order of the prefect, from the quarries of Alabastrine to Claudianus. As this is a draft, they must have been on site. The penultimate line seems to indicate that they are asking for a privilege (ἡμῖν τὰ τίμια) in their capacity as citizens of Antinoou polis. This privilege could be, if my reading is correct, the σιτηρέσιον, the frumentatio, of which we would then have a new attestation for the city of Antinoou polis.27 If they were convicted ad tempus in opus publicum, they would have kept their citizenship.28 24. O.Claud. III, p. 35, n. 119. 25. Ch.L.A. X 421 (139): Petesouchos son of Petesοuchos, alabaster quarries not located; SB I 4639 (209), Niger son of Papirius, alabaster quarries in the Arsinoite. 26. Mommsen 1899: 949 and n. 4; Jördens 2016: 125 f. 27. P.Mich. XII 629.5–6 (166–169): petition to the epistrategos from a citizen of Antinoou who names himself, after the tribe and deme, as τῶν ἐκτὸς σειτηρεσίου ἀναγορευομένων (“of those proclaimed outside the wheat distribution”); P.Oxy. XL 2941–2942. 28. Mommsen 1899: 953 (for Roman citizenship, but it is likely that the rule also applied to the citizenship of a Greek πόλις).

610

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Let us assume that the petitioners are convicts. How can this testimony be unique? The only solution I can think of is that, if there really were convicts at Mons Claudianus, they were put into the familia. The present case could also explain the presence, among the receipts for advances to the familia (published in O.Claud. III), of two men whose description is numerus of Alabastron, arithmos of Claudianus.29 Can we even imagine that the familia was massively constituted of convicts, who would have been sent there from the whole East? This hypothesis would explain two anthroponymic peculiarities of this category: in addition to the “servile” names, there are also gentilicia and names indigenous to Asia Minor, in particular Cilician.30 If they are not convicts, what can these two citizens of Antinoou polis be doing at Mons Claudianus, and how can the prefect’s intervention be explained? In the commentary on line 5, I examined the fragile hypothesis that would make them soldiers. Or would it simply be σκληρουργοί who, dissatisfied with the quality of the σῖτος provided monthly by the emperor, would try to get their civic wheat sent to them there? The official wheat was often of bad quality, according to the ἐντολαί.

Private letters: the eye-level view of history Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Shakespeare (Macbeth, V, 5) We have often experienced a thrill of pleasure when we discover a beautiful ostracon fresh out of the ground, before the words δέσμη κραμβίων (bunch of cabbage) or κεφαλωτόν (leek) jump out at us, revealing that it was a commonplace “vegetable ostracon,” a notion quickly adopted in our jargon on the site. Vegetable ostraca tend to be more numerous and better preserved than texts of administrative interest, because their authors were more numerous, because they systematically wrote on this type of support, and because the modest size of these sherds reduced the risk of them being broken. Private letters in general are, after amphora tituli, the best represented type in the ostraca of the praesidia, whereas they are practically absent from the Ptolemaic corpora of Biʾr Samut and Abbad, which is not unrelated to the differences I have already noted in the content of the dipinti (pp. 602 f.). These letters circulated almost exclusively between immediately neighboring forts, something we have been able to establish thanks to a formula of courtesy, the proskynema in front of the genius loci of the praesidium from which one writes.31 This epistolary stereotype, which is absent for chronological reasons from the ostraca of Umm Balad, was thus cruelly lacking for our understanding of the social networks around this site. It is likely that correspondence was exchanged with the families who remained in the valley, as evidenced by the long letter P.Mich. III 203, written by the soldier Saturninus, 29. O.Claud. III 528 and 587 (between 145 and 149). 30. Anthroponymy of the familia: O.Claud. III, pp. 30–33. Would robbery and piracy have remained endemic in this region during the imperial era? This is suggested by Ph. De Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge 1999) 207, although there is only one source that reports disturbances in AD 52 (Tac. Ann. 12.55): a robber named Troxobor had federated some wild tribes of Cilicia and, from the mountain which he controlled, went down to raid the plain and the coast, kidnapping natives, but above all merchants and sailors (Tacitus does not say so, but it was obviously to demand ransom for them). 31. A. Bülow-Jacobsen, “Toponyms and Proskynemata,” in Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 51–59.

Are ostraca soluble in history?

611

who was stationed at Pselchis in Lower Nubia, to his mother, who lived a thousand kilometers away in the village of Karanis in the Fayyum. But in the desert, we know nothing of this correspondence, which was presumably on papyrus (in both directions), and was, therefore, either burned or piously preserved. The necessities of daily life in the praesidia provided many occasions to write small notes. These letters generally concern the sending of provisions or objects. They serve as sending slips, acknowledgments of receipt, or purchase orders. The objects in question are very often, as we have just seen, vegetables: the letters have revealed the existence of a market gardening economy around certain wells, where supply was struggling to satisfy demand. The utilitarian nature of this correspondence does not prevent the observation of editorial norms that have an essential social role: to maintain its network of relationships by cultivating the good will of its members. These desert letters belong indeed to a surprisingly stable genre from antiquity to the nineteenth century, called “popular epistolography,” which usually combined two functions: a downto-earth business, such as sending a salad, which triggers the act of writing, and the consolidation of social ties, through very standardized courtesies that, far from being banal to receivers, maintain good relations.32 The letter is therefore not only addressed to the addressee named in the prescript of the letter, but also to a wider circle. This is why the wishes for good health for the addressee at the end of the letter are very often accompanied by greetings for those who live with him, which come not only from the letter writer, but also from those with him. The private letter could set in motion a kind of collective ritual. Since the sender was perhaps illiterate, perhaps did not even know Greek, sending a letter was often the work of several people, and once it had arrived, the letter was surely read by more than one. Despite their stereotypical and uninformative nature, the contribution of private letters to our knowledge of the Roman army’s outposts is not negligible. They reveal the presence within the fort itself of a proportion that cannot be quantified of non-military personnel, including women, who lived in symbiosis with the soldiers. Several of these letters, those concerning the rental of prostitutes to the garrisons, have allowed me to highlight an original organization of prostitution in the praesidia network: with the trade in fresh vegetables, prostitution is indeed the most recurrent subject. The army found it beneficial, since it was good for the morale of the isolated garrisons, and the State as well, since prostitution was subject to a tax, called the quintana.33 I think that this non-military population of the forts corresponds to the socio-professional category of sutlers, even if, apart from procuring, the economic activities of this milieu are not clearly visible. Moreover, it is not always easy to know the status of the people in the letters, precisely because of the symbiosis between military and civilians. Private letters often mention only names, rarely ranks, trades, or functions, which can be guessed more or less accurately through fragile clues. We are badly in need of civil status documents for a sociological approach: the individuals named in the letters of the desert appear to us as without roots and without geographical ties. At least the links between them are visible and even quantifiable. That is why I suggested to Bérangère Redon to do a network analysis of this environment, which she published in O. Krok. II. During her study, Redon produced a series of commented graphs that visualize the coexistence of three main circles and the interaction between their members represented in the form of points the size of which is proportional to the intensity of the relationships they maintain. I reproduce one of these graphs with her permission (Fig. 143). One of these social circles has as its central character a certain Ischyras, who is one of the most prolific letter writers in the corpus of Krokodilo. Thirty-nine letters are written in his characteristic angular 32. A. Bruneton-Governatori and B. Moreux, “Un modèle épistolaire populaire. Les lettres d’émigrés béarnais,” in M. de la Soudière and Cl. Voisenat (eds.), Par écrit. Ethnologie des écritures quotidiennes (Paris 1997) 79–103. 33. See Chapter 23.

612

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Figure 143. The most active people in the sutlers’ network according to the ostraca from Krokodilo (after O.Krok. II, p. 12).

hand. He was based at the praesidium of Persou, which has now disappeared, but was located at Biʾr Umm Fawakhir. These letters, which mainly talk about sending or receiving food or small amounts of money, are on the whole quite boring. One of them, O.Krok. II 293, however, stands out. Jean-Luc Fournet has published it, along with the other letters from Ischyras, in O. Krok. II, but the interpretation of this difficult document was the result of a joint reflection. The ostracon was found in 1996, but until 2016 we had not understood it. In the prescript, Ischyras, greets two addressees, Didyme and Kapparis, but then addresses the woman, Didyme, only. For the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that the sutlers of the praesidia tended to live in couples. Often the letters exchanged in this environment are addressed by one couple to another couple. These letter-writing couples are always middle-aged people (at least for one of the members): we know this because they are respectfully called fathers and mothers in the prescripts and greetings. Ischyras himself had a certain Zosime as his companion. Among the names in the graph in Fig. 143, Menandros and Gallonia were also a couple; as for Philokles, he apparently formed a ménage à trois with Sknips, a mistress who circulated in the praesidia to manage the affairs, and the young Hegemonis, whom he kept by him with their baby. The main source of profit for these sutlers seems to have been prostitution. Thus, Ischyras asks Menandros to send Maxima to him, because, he says, “we need her here.” This means that Ischyras has concluded a contract to rent Maxima to Persou. The social

Are ostraca soluble in history?

613

importance of couples is explained, in my opinion, because these couples of pimps, established in different forts, did each other a favor by prospecting the possibilities of contracts and chaperoning, so to speak, each other’s prostitutes. It was necessary to ensure the docility of the girls, while protecting them against maltreatment by the clients; ἐπίτροπος was the technical term for these protectors-controllers. Prostitutes call pimps “father” and “mother.” Were their own daughters prostituted in this miserable environment? Or are these “girls” just slaves who are taught to consider their exploiters as parents?34 In the letter O.Krok. II 193, Menandros comforts his “daughter” Gallonia, who is boarding with Didyme and Kapparis in Krokodilo, where she is sad; he tries to cheer her up, saying that “Didyme is (your) mother and Kapparis (your) second father.” Let us observe that in Menandros’s letter, as is often the case, Didyme is named before her companion. But let’s get back to O.Krok. II 293. After the usual χαίρειν, Ischyras begins with a formula as ambiguous in Greek as in French and a skit that seems to have come straight out of Lucian’s Dialogue of Courtesans:35 “Hurray for Maxima! Having seen your decrepitude (σαπρία) while bathing with you, she felt sick and, once out of the bath, she told everyone about your decrepitude.” Our first idea was for a long time that Didyme had a skin disease. In Greek Jewish literature, σαπρία refers to the putrefaction of living bodies, putrefaction sent by God to Job, or to King Antiochos (2 Ma. 9:9). But this meaning is not compatible with the rest of the letter, which shows that σαπρία is to be taken here in its figurative sense of old age, hence the translation “decrepitude.” Ischyras continues: “But know that Zosime is not like you, and she’s not used to leaving her man.” Zosime is Ischyras’s companion, and he presents her as an example of virtue, suggesting that Didyme, despite her supposed decrepitude, has extramarital affairs. After a passage that we could not decipher, a surprising statement arrives: μάμα εἶ λύκω̣ν καὶ ἀδελφὴ σιβύλλης καὶ σατῇ δοκῖς ὅτι τὸ νηωλώ̣χιν. I proposed to interpret the neologism νεολόχιον as “young bride” by connecting it to the Homeric and poetic term ἄλοχος, “bed partner, wife.” We will then understand this wobbly sentence: “You are the grannie of the wolves and the sister of the sibyl and you think you are a young bride?!” The allusion to the sibyl of Cumae, who had received the gift of life, but not of eternal youth, is quite clear. But how can we explain “grannie of the wolves”? Could there be a connection with one of the masks of new comedy listed by Pollux, that of one of the three types of old woman who is called τὸ λυκαίνιον, “the she-wolf ”? Because of the Latin lupa (“prostitute”) and the names taken from λύκαινα, which are readily devolved in the literature to light women or hetaerae, it is accepted that the she-wolf of Pollux is an old prostitute turned into a skinny, mean, and rapacious procuress.36 If we follow this trail, Didyme would not only be, in the words of Ischyras, an old comedy wolf, but even older by two generations: a grandmother wolf! 34. This comedy is timeless. I read in the beautiful and terrible testimony of Germaine Aziz, Les Chambres closes. Histoire d’une prostituée juive d’Algérie (Paris 2007) 129: “Madame Nana’s practice is not common whoring, but another form of prostitution. We belong to the decor of which we are part, to which we are welded, just like the patroness who is our mother of all. Aren’t we “her daughters”? Her little bird’s eyes, from the bottom of the fat cushion of a face, never lose sight of us.” I found another modern example in a testimony reported by Le Monde (11 Nov. 2016) of a former Nigerian prostitute: “Before going to Europe, we are submitted to a voodoo ritual to make us faithful to the mamas (…) To be released from this voodoo and be free, we must pay 60 000€ to our mamas.” In O.Xer. inv. 439 (Chapter 25), the prostitute Sarapias calls ἄπ⟨π⟩ας μου, “my sponsor,” the ἐπίτροπος whom the absent pimp has mandated to ensure the proper execution of the contract. The use of “nursery words” is frequent between pimps, prostitutes, and clients; this trend is probably related to the infantilization of prostitutes and the regressive fantasies of clients. 35. DMeretr. 11.14: to detach the young Charmides from a mature hetaera with whom he is in love, the courtesan Tryphaina describes the older woman’s tired body and adds perfidiously: “All you have to do is ask your mother, if she has ever bathed with her!” 36. O. Navarre, “Les masques et les rôles de la comédie nouvelle,” Revue des Études Anciennes 16 (1914) 27 f.

614

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

The letter ends with a fierce point: “Know that Kapparis, your son, wrote to me how he considers you his mother.” One would look in vain in the O.Krok. for a junior Kapparis who could have been the son of Kapparis and Didyme. It is indeed the companion of Didyme that it is about. With this poisonous remark, Ischyras suggests that Didyme is so much older than Kapparis that they are like a son and his mother. This age difference could explain the frequent placement of Didyme’s name first in the letters addressed to the couple. This text is not, as we first thought, a stupid consolation letter addressed to an unfortunate woman gnawed by a canker or psoriasis, and of whom the uncharitable Maxima had made fun. It is designed to hurt. Didyme’s fickle behavior, as a cougar-woman, may have jeopardized social or economic balances in the environment of the sutlers. We had come to this point when I came across Epigram 67 of Book XI of the Greek Anthology, the one containing the satirical epigrams: Υ τετρηκόσι’ ἐστίν· ἔχεις δὲ σὺ τοὺς ἐνιαυτοὺς δὶς τόσσους, τρυφερὴ Λαῒ κορωνεκάβη, Σισύφου ὦ μάμμη καὶ Δευκαλίωνος ἀδελφή. βάπτε δὲ τὰς λευκὰς καὶ λέγε πᾶσι “τατᾶ.” “Y is four hundred, but you are twice as old, delicate Lais, Hecuba the crow, oh grannie of Sisyphus and sister of Deucalion. Why don’t you dye your white hair, and then you can call all the men ‘Daddy’?” The poet makes fun of an old woman who plays the role of a young woman and to whom he jokingly attributes an age of eight hundred years. With this parallel, everything falls into place. The kinship of Ischyras’s letter with the scoptic epigrams is obvious: this genre, which appeared in the first century BC, was precisely in vogue at the time when Ischyras was writing (end of Trajan’s reign or Hadrian’s first years). Our letter-writer borrows not only the theme of the ridiculous old coquette, but also the processes: ambiguity, irony, surreal exaggerations, grotesque mythological allusions, and the finishing stroke. Before I came across the epigram of Myrinos, the letter of Ischyras had reminded me of two other literary references. I have already mentioned the Dialogue of Courtesans; the story of the bath scene also recalls an episode of the Vita Aesopi, a popular novel of the time, probably written in Egypt. The philosopher Xanthos returns home with the slave Aesop, whom he has just bought. Feeling in the mood for fun, he decides to play a joke on his wife and tell her that he is bringing a slave of great beauty from the market, while Aesop is repulsively ugly. When he arrives home, he asks Aesop to wait for him outside, on the pretext that his wife, a sensitive and delicate little person, might, if she saw his σαπρία, claim her dowry and run away.37 Even if, in the novel, σαπρία denotes not old age, but ugliness, the behavioral and narrative scheme is the same: visually discovering someone’s σαπρία provokes a reaction of extreme disgust. However, the connection between Ischyras’s letter and these two works does not have the same implications as the echo it makes to the epigram: it does not testify to the culture of Ischyras, but to the knowledge of everyday language shown by Lucian and the author of the Vita Aesopi. Jean Bingen liked to say that epigraphy shows men as they want us to see them, papyrology as they are. But people are infinitely complex. It is difficult to make a coherent picture of Ischyras from the traces he left in his letters and those of others: he occasionally quarries stone with a small team, but lacks tools; 37. ἵνα μὴ ἐξαίφνης τὴν σαπρίαν σου ἰδοῦσα τὴν προῖκα ἀπαιτήσασα φύγῃ (Vita Aesopi, rec. G, 29).

Are ostraca soluble in history?

615

his partner Zosime is the θρεπτή (slave raised at home and treated as a daughter) of the soldier Bellicus, who was stationed in Krokodilo; he is the pimp (or ἐπίτροπος) of the prostitute Maxima; he writes Greek fluently, with a firm and personal hand, but with many spelling mistakes. However, when I reread his letters, I realized that, when it came to vilifying women, he had a rare and sophisticated vocabulary: next to the neologism τὸ νεολόχιον, I noticed the rare ἀπονύχισμα, “nail clipping,” and the compounds ἡ κεφαλοτόμος, “head cutter,” and ἡ σκατοφάγος, “shit-eater.” This occasional stonemason, with a violent and coarse tongue, therefore also had a culture drawn from who knows where, and which he knew how to mobilize with sadism. I can imagine him quite happy with his epistle and the effect it would have. We have seen that, in popular circles, the arrival of a letter gives rise to a ritual: relatives gather together, the company’s scholar reads it publicly and one listens carefully. The auditors note with approval the presence of epistolary formulas of politeness and hope to be mentioned by name in the final greetings. It is an understatement to say that the letter of Ischyras explodes all these codes. It is even presented as a particularly malicious device. It is likely that Didyme is illiterate. And Ischyras knows that Kapparis is too: we have indeed found two letters from Kapparis, and they are written by different hands, which shows that Didyme’s companion had to ask acquaintances to write in his place.38 If Kapparis had known how to read, he would probably have gagged when he arrived at “your decrepitude” and not gone any further. But the unknown reader would probably continue reading this letter aloud, presumably in a hesitant and monotonous voice, because, between the difficulty inherent in the scriptio continua, spelling mistakes and rare words, it must not have been easy for him. One can even imagine that this reader did not quite understand what he was reading and that the listeners were offering interpretations. Between the comments of the audience, perplexed, scandalized, or mocking, and the fury of the two victims of this public humiliation, Ischyras’s letter may have caused a certain uproar at the praesidium of Krokodilo. Ischyras is a choice object for the historical current called microhistory, which is interested in the strategies of the common people. In ancient history, written sources are rare. In the first circular announcing the organization of the (Kon)Texte symposium, Christof Schuler wrote: “Wir erhoffen uns davon Impulse zur kritischen Reflexion unserer Arbeit und Anregungen für die künftige Entwicklung unseres Forschungsprogramms.” In my opinion, we should invest, while there is still time, in the finding of new texts, looking for them where they are. These sources are also difficult: poor and fragmented, the texts lay innumerable traps for those who try to establish and interpret them. One does not improvise using such sources, which need to be prepared by their publishers; the latter, by commenting on the texts they establish, already do part of the historian’s work. Damaged, laconic, allusive, anecdotal, or bizarre, the ostraca drawn from the garbage bins of the Eastern Desert are sometimes discouraging, especially if they are approached with historical a priori questions. But history is not limited to the study of socio-economic structures or institutions. It has become such a polymorphic discipline that we generally find a way to exploit these small documents, however unglamorous they may be, while admitting that they will always retain an amount of uncertainty. It is the papyrologist’s art to know how to accommodate these remains.

38. O.Krok. II 160 (by Philokles) and 177.

Abbreviations Greek and Demotic papyri and ostraca are cited according to the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets at http://papyri.info/docs/checklist. To the Checklist should be added: O.Blem. = Demotic and Greek ostraca published in H. Cuvigny (ed.), in collaboration with M.-P. Chaufray, J. Cooper, J. Gates-Foster, Blemmyes. New Documents and New Perspectives, Including O.Blem. 1–107, Cairo (forthcoming). O.Dios = mostly unpublished ostraca from Dios (Iovis in the Itinerarium Antonini, on the road to Berenike). O.KaLa. = mostly unpublished ostraca from Kaine Latomia (Umm Balad, in the foothills of Porphyrites). Publication in preparation by H. Cuvigny and A. Bülow-Jacobsen. O.MyHo. = unpublished ostraca from Myos Hormos. O.QaB = unpublished ostraca from Qusur al-Banat (praesidium on the Myos Hormos road). O.Xer. = mostly unpublished ostraca from Xeron Pelagos (Aristonis in the Itinerarium Antonini, on the road to Berenike). Bechtel HP = Fr. Bechtel, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Halle 1917. Blass, Debrunner, Grammatik = F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearbeitet von Albert Debrunner, Göttingen 1921. BRGK = Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Berlin. BSFN = Bulletin de la Société française de Numismatique. Bull. = Bulletin épigraphique (in REG since 1888). Bureth = P. Bureth, Les titulatures impériales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d’Égypte (30 a.C.–284 p.C.), Brussels 1964. CdE = Chronique d’Égypte. CIH = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, pars IV: Inscriptiones Ḥimyariticas et Sabaeas continens, Paris 1889–1932.

617

618

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

CRAI = Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. DELG = P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris 1968–1980. Dem.NB = E. Lüddeckens et al., Demotisches Namenbuch, Wiesbaden 1980–2000. EDCS = M. Clauss et al., Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss/Slaby . FHN = T. Eide, T. Hägg, R. H. Pierce, and L. Török, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region Between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD, I–IV, Bergen 1994–1998. GGM = C. Müller (ed.), Geographici Graeci Minores, Paris 1882. Gignac, Grammar = F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, I: Phonology, II: Morphology, Milan 1976, 1981. GLM = A. Riese (ed.), Geographi Latini Minores, Hildesheim 1964. GVI = W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften, I: Die Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955. al-Hamdānī = D. H. Müller, al-Hamdânî’s Geographie der arabischen Halbinsel, 2 vols., Leiden, 1884 and 1891. Ibn Isḥāq, text = Sīrat Rasūl Allāh : das Leben Muhammed’s, nach Muhammed Ibn-Ishâk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik Ibn Hischâm, Aus d. Handschriften zu Berlin, Leipzig, Gotha u. Leyden, hrsg. von Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1859 and 1860. Ibn Isḥāq, translation by Guillaume = The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, with Introduction and Notes by A. Guillaume, Oxford 1955. I.Akôris = É. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques et latines d’Akôris, Cairo 1988. I.Alex.impér. = Fr. Kayser, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires) d’Alexandrie impériale : Ier–IIIe s. apr. J.-C., Cairo 1994. I.Col.Memnon = A. and É. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon, Cairo 1960. I.Did. = Greek and Latin inscriptions published in H. Cuvigny (ed.), Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte II (Cairo 2012) 39–56. I.KoKo. = A. Bernand, De Koptos à Kosseir, Leiden 1972. I.métr. = É. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en Égypte, Paris 1969. I.Pan = A. Bernand, Pan du désert, Leiden 1977. I.Portes = A. Bernand, Les Portes du désert, Paris 1984. I.Syringes =J. Baillet, Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes, Cairo 1920–1926. I.ThSy. = A. Bernand, De Thèbes à Syène, Paris 1989. al-Jāsir = Ḥāmid al-Jāsir, al-Muʿjam al-jughrāfī li-l-Bilād al-ʿarabiyya as-saʿūdiyya, Nuṣūṣ wa-abḥā˚ jughrāfiyya wa-ta’rīkhiyya ʿan Jazīrat al-ʿArab, 19, ar-Riyāḍ, 1397 h./1977 m., 2 vol. LGPN = P. M. Fraser, E. Matthews, K. J. Osborne, and S. G. Byrne (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford 1987–2018. Lupa = database Ubi erat Lupa . Mandilaras, Verb = B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri, Athens 1973. Masson, OGS I, II, III = O. Masson, Onomastica Graeca Selecta I, II, Paris s.d.; III, Geneva 2000. Mayser, Grammatik = E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften, Berlin and Leipzig 1923–1970.

Abbreviations

619

Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary = J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, London 1914–1929. 3 MP = Catalogue des papyrus littéraires grecs et latins . MSR = Fr. Hultsch, Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae, vol. I–II, Leipzig 1864–1866. OnomThrac = D. Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum. Répertoire des noms indigènes de Thrace, Macédoine orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie, Athens 2014. Peripl.M.Rubr. = Anon., Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, L. Casson (trans.), Princeton, 1989 = Casson 1998a. RdE = Revue d’Égyptologie. RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1890-1980. RIÉth = É. Bernand, A. J. Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des inscriptions de l’Éthiopie des périodes pré-axoumite et axoumite, I: Les documents. II: Les planches. III: Traductions et commentaires, A: É. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques, Paris 1991–2000. RMD = M. M. Roxan, then P. A. Holder, Roman Military Diplomas, I–V, London 1978–2006. Ronchi, Lexicon = G. Ronchi, Lexicon theonymon rerumque sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum pertinentium quae in papyris ostracis titulis Graecis Latinisque in Aegypto repertis laudantur, Milan 1974–1977. ThGrL = H. Estienne, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (editio nova auctior), London 1816–1828.

Bibliography Adams, C.  E.  P.  (1999) “Supplying the Roman Army: Bureaucracy in Roman Egypt.” In The Roman Army as a Community, ed. A. Goldsworthy and I. Haynes: 119–26. JRA Suppl. 34. Portsmouth, RI. Adams, J. N. (2003) Bilinguism and the Latin Language. Cambridge. Alföldy, G. (1968) “Zur Beurteilung der Militärdiplome der Auxiliarsoldaten.” Historia 17: 215–27 (repr. in Mavors 3, 51–65). Alliot, M. (1946) “Les rites de la chasse au filet, aux temples de Karnak, d’Edfou et d’Esneh.” RdE 5: 57–118. Alpers, M. (1995), Das nachrepublikanische Finanzsystem: Fiscus und Fisci in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. Alston, R. (1995) Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. London and New York. Amigues, S. (2002) Études de botanique antique. Paris. Andreau, J. (1989) “Recherches récentes sur les mines à l’époque romaine. I. Propriété et mode d’exploitation.” Revue numismatique 6e série 31: 86–112. Andreau, J. (1990) “Recherches récentes sur les mines à l’époque romaine. II. Nature de la main-d’œuvre; histoire des techniques et de la production.” Revue numismatique 6e série 32: 85–108. Arjava, A. (1991) “Zum Gebrauch der griechischen Rangprädikate des Senatorenstandes in den Papyri und Inschriften.” Tyche 6: 17–35. Ast, R. (2020), “Marcus Laelius Cosmus. Italian merchants and Roman trade at Berenike under the Julio-Claudian emperors,” in Merchants, Measures and Money. Understanding the Technologies of Early Trade in a Comparative Perspective. Proceedings of Two Workshops Funded by the European Research Council (ERC). Weight & Value 2, ed. L. Rahmstorf, G. Barjamovic, and N. Ialongo: 141–57. Kiel, Hamburg. Ast, R. and Bagnall, R. S. (2015) “The Receivers of Berenike. New Inscriptions from the 2015 Season.” Chiron 45: 171–85. Austin, N. J. E. and Rankov, N. B. (1995) Exploratio. Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople. London. Bagnall, R. S. (1977) “Army and Police in Roman Upper Egypt.” JARCE 14: 67–86. Bagnall, R. S. (1996) “The Painted Garden of Koptos.” CdE 71: 145–52. Bagnall, R. S. (1997) “A Kinder, Gentler Roman Army?” JRA 10: 504–12.

621

622

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Bagnall, R. S., Bülow-Jacobsen, A., and Cuvigny, H. (2001) “Security and Water on Egypt’s Desert Roads: New Light on the Prefect Iulius Ursus and praesidia-Building under Vespasian.” JRA 14: 325–33. Bagnall, R. S. and Harrell, J. A. (2003) “Knekites.” CdE 78: 229–35. Bagnall, R. S. and Sheridan, J. A. (1994) “Greek and Latin Documents from ’Abu Sha’ar, 1990–1991.” BASP 31: 109–20. Ball, J. (1942) Egypt in the Classical Geographers. Cairo. Balty, J.-Ch. (1988) “Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries A.D.” JRS 78: 91–104. Barnard, H. (2005/6) “Eastern Desert Ware from Marsa Nakari and Wadi Sikait.” JARCE 42: 131–46. Barnard, H. (2007) “Additional Remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware.” Ägypten und Levante 17: 23–31. Barnard, H. (2008) Eastern Desert Ware. Traces of the Inhabitants of the Eastern Deserts in Egypt and Sudan during the 4th–6th Centuries CE. BAR I. S. 1824. Oxford. Barnard, H. and Duistermaat, K. (eds.) (2012) The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert (between the Red Sea and the Nile in Egypt and Sudan) from Prehistory to the Present. Los Angeles. Bastianini, G. (1980) “Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30a al 299p. Aggiunte e correzioni.” ZPE 38: 75–89. Bastianini, G. (1988) “Il prefetto d’Egitto (30 a.C.–297 d.C.): addenda (1973–1985).” ANRW II.10.1: 503–17. Bélis, M. (2003) “Les textiles de Qumrân: catalogue et commentaires.” In Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshka, ed. J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneberg, vol. 2: 207–76. Fribourg–Göttingen. Belli Pasqua, R. (1995) Sculture di età romana in «basalto». Rome. Bernand, É. (1994) “Réflexions sur les proscynèmes.” In Mélanges François Kerlouégan, ed. D. Conso, N. Fick, and B. Poulle: 43–60. Paris. Bernard, G. and Christol, M. (2008–2010) “Solidarité ou diversité des provinces africaines à l’avènement de Vespasien: les Histoires de Tacite et les relations militaires entre les Maurétanies, l’Afrique proconsulaire et l’Hispanie dans la seconde moitié du Ier siècle ap. J.-C.” L’Africa romana 18/3: 2201–26. Bingen, J. (1989) “Normalité et spécificité de l’épigraphie grecque et romaine d’Égypte.” In Egitto e storia antica dall’ ellenismo all’ età araba, ed. L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci: 15–35. Bologna (= “Normality and distinctiveness in the epigraphy of Greek and Roman Egypt.” In id. Hellenistic Egypt. Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture, ed. R. S. Bagnall: 256–78. Edinburgh). Bingen, J. and Jensen, S. O. (1992) “Mons Claudianus. Rapport préliminaire sur les cinquième et sixième campagnes de fouille (1991–1992).” BIFAO 92: 15–36. Birley, E. (1978) “The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895–1977.” In ANRW II.16.2: 1506–41. Blümner, H. (1887) Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste, IV. Leipzig. Bonati, I. (2016) Il lessico dei vasi e dei contenitori greci nei papiri. Specimina per un repertorio lessicale degli angionimi greci. Berlin. Bonneau, D. (1993) Le régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine et byzantine. Leiden. Boulvert, G. (1970) Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire romain. Rôle politique et administratif. Naples. Brashear, W. (1995) “New Magical and Divinatory texts in Berlin.” In Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. M. Meyer and P. Mirecki: 221–29. Leiden. Breeze, D. J. (1974) “The Career Structure Below the Centurionate.” In ANRW II.1: 435–51. Brélaz, C. (2003) “Publicité, archives et séquence documentaire du contrat public à Rome.” In Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain, ed. J.-J. Aubert: 27–56. Geneva. Briant, P. (1982) État et pasteurs au Moyen-Orient ancien. Paris.

Bibliography

623

Bricault, L. (2005) “Zeus Hélios Mégas Sarapis.” In La langue dans tous ses états. Michel Malaise in honorem, ed. C. Cannuyer: 243–54. Brussels. Brixhe, Cl. and Hodot, R. (1988) L’Asie Mineure du nord au sud. Inscriptions inédites. Nancy. Brown, V. M. and Harrell, J. A. (1995) “Topographical and Petrological Survey of Ancient Roman Quarries in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” In The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity — ASMOSIA III, ed. Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, and Y. Bassiakis: 221–34. London. Browne, G. M. (1970) “The Composition of the Sortes Astrampsychi.” BICS 17: 95–100. Brun, J.-P. (2007) “Amphores égyptiennes et importées dans les praesidia romains des routes de Myos Hormos et de Bérénice.” In Amphores d’Égypte de la Basse Époque à l’époque arabe, II, ed. S. Marchand and A. Marangou: 505–23. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 8. Cairo. Brun, J.-P. (2018) “Chronology of the Forts of the Routes to Myos Hormos and Berenike during the Graeco-Roman Period.” In Brun et al. (eds.) 2018. Available at . Brun, J.-P. et al. (eds.) (2018) The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. Paris. Available at . Bruun, Chr. (1990) “Some Comments on the Status of Imperial Freedmen.” ZPE 82: 271–85. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (1996) “Archaeology and Philology on Mons Claudianus 1987–1993.” Topoi 6/2: 721–30. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (2013) “Communication, Travel, and Transportation in Egypt’s Eastern Desert during Roman Times (1st to 3rd Century AD).” In Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, ed. F. Förster and H. Riemer: 557–74. Cologne. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (2016) “Stomoma. Why, what, whence, and how?” In Libera curiositas. Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié, ed. Chr. Freu, S. Janniard, and A. Ripoll: 183–89. Turnhout. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (2019) “The Ostraca from Umm Balad.” In PapCongr. XXVIII: 503–11. Available at . Bülow-Jacobsen A., Cuvigny, H., and Fournet, J.-L. (1994) “Myos Hormos: New Papyrological Evidence.” BIFAO 94: 27–42. Burkhalter, F. (1999) “Les fermiers de l’arabarchie: notables et hommes d’affaires à Alexandrie.” In Alexandrie: une mégapole cosmopolite: 41–54. Cahiers de la Villa Kérylos 9. Paris. Burkhalter, F. (2002) “Le ‘tarif de Coptos’. La douane de Coptos, les fermiers de l’apostolion et le préfet du désert de Bérénice.” In Autour de Coptos: 199–233. Topoi Suppl. 3. Lyon and Paris. Cagnat, R. (1898) Cours d’épigraphie latine (3e ed.). Paris. Canart, R. and Pintaudi, R. (1989) “PSI XVII Congr. 5: un système d’oracles chrétiens (Sortes sanctorum).” ZPE 57: 85–90. Caskel, W. (1966) Ǧamharat an-nasab. Das genealogische Werk des Hišām ibn Muḥammad al-Kalbī, 2 vols. Leiden. Casson, L. (1989a) The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Princeton. Casson, L. (1989b) “South Arabia’s Maritime Trade in the First Century A.D.” In L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel, ed. T. Fahd: 187–94. Leiden. Cavallo, G. (2005) “Osservazioni paleografiche sul canone e la cronologia della cosiddetta ‘onciale romana’.” In Il calamo e il papiro. La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, ed. G. Cavallo: 151–61. Papyrologica Florentina 36. Florence. Chantraine, H. (1975) “Zur Nomenklatur und Funktionsangabe Kaiserlicher Freigelassener.” Historia 24: 603–16.

624

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Chantraine, P. (1933) La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris. Clarysse, W. (1984) “A Roman Army Unit near Thebes.” PapCongr. XVII: 1021–6. Naples. Clarysse, W. and Paganini, L. C. D. (2009) “Theophoric Personal Names in Graeco-Roman Egypt. The Case of Sarapis.” APF 55: 68–89. Clarysse, W. and Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1988) “A Military Roster on a Vase in Amsterdam.” Anc.Soc. 19: 71–96. Ciulei, G. (1983) Les triptyques de Transylvanie: études juridiques. Zutphen. Cockle, W. E. H. (1996) “An Inscribed Architectural Fragment from Middle Egypt Concerning the Roman Imperial Quarries.” In Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt, ed. D. Bailey: 23–28. JRA Suppl. 19. Ann Arbor. Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, The Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley. Conti Rossini, C. (1921) “Expéditions et possessions des Ḥabašāt en Arabie.” Journal Asiatique 18: 5–36. Corbier, M. (1980) “Salaires et salariat sous le Haut-Empire.” In Les Dévaluations à Rome, II: 61–101. Rome. Corbier, M. (2006) Donner à voir, donner à lire. Paris. Cuvigny, H. (2006a) “Introduction.” In Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 1–35. Cuvigny, H. (2006b) “Les documents écrits de la route de Myos Hormos à l’époque gréco-romaine (inscriptions, graffiti, papyrus, ostraca).” In Cuvigny (ed.) 2006: 265–94. Cuvigny, H. (ed.) (2006) with contributions from J.-P. Brun, A. Bülow-Jacobsen, D. Cardon, J.-L. Fournet, M. Leguilloux, M.-A. Matelly, and M. Reddé. La route de Myos Hormos, L’armée romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Egypte (2nd ed.). Cairo. Cuvigny, H. (2009) “The Finds of Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. R. S. Bagnall: 30–58. Oxford and New York. Cuvigny, H. (ed.) (2011) with contributions from J.-P. Brun, A. Bülow-Jacobsen, D. Cardon, H. Eristov, H. Granger-Taylor, M. Leguilloux, W. Nowik, M. Reddé, and M. Tengberg. Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte. I. Les fouilles et le matériel. Cairo. Cuvigny, H. (ed.) (forthcoming) with contributions from M.-P. Chaufray, J. Cooper, and J. Gates-Foster, Blemmyes. New Documents and New Perspectives. Including O. Blem. 1–107. Cairo. Cuvigny, H. and Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (1999) “Inscriptions rupestres vues et revues dans le désert de Bérénice.” BIFAO 99: 133–93. Cuvigny, H. and Vagenheim, G. (2005) “Un ‘faux’ sur porphyre: avatars et aventures de la stèle de Théra honorant le gymnasiarque Batôn (IG XII.3, 331 [153 av. J.-C.]).” ZPE 151: 105–26. Dana, D. (2003) “Les Daces dans les ostraca du désert Oriental de l’Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces.” ZPE 143: 166–86. Daniel, R. W. (1994) “Neither Do They Put New Wine in Old Skins.” ZPE 101: 61–66. Daris, S. (1988a) “Documenti minori dell’esercito romano in Egitto.” ANRW II.10.1 (1988): 724–42. Daris, S. (1988b) “Le truppe ausiliarie romane in Egitto.” ANRW II.10.1: 743–66. Daris, S. (1992) “Le carte dello stratego Damarion.” Aegyptus 72: 23–59. Daumas, Fr. (1952) Les moyens d’expression du grec et de l’égyptien comparés dans les décrets de Canope et de Memphis. Cairo. Davies, R. W. (1989) Service in the Roman Army. Edinburgh. Delattre, A. and Fournet, J.-L. (2014) “Le dossier des reçus thébains et la fiscalité en Égypte au début du VIIIe siècle.” In Coptica Argentoratensia. Textes et documents de la troisième université d’été de papyrologie copte, ed. Anne Boud’hors et al.: 209–44. Paris. de Planhol, X. and Rognon, P. (1970) Les zones tropicales arides et subtropicales. Paris.

Bibliography

625

De Romanis, F. (1996) Cassia, Cinnamomo, Ossidiana. Rome. Desanges, J. (1978) Recherches sur l’activité des Méditerranéens aux confins de l’Afrique (VIe siècle avant J.-C.-IVe siècle après J.-C.). Rome. Desanges, J. (1984) “Rome et les riverains de la mer Rouge au IIIe siècle de notre ère. Aperçus récents et nouveaux problèmes.” Ktèma 9: 249–60. Desanges, J. (1988) “Les relations de l’Empire romain avec l’Afrique nilotique et érythréenne, d’Auguste à Probus.” In ANRW II.10.1: 3–43. Desanges, J. (1989) “Arabes et Arabie en terre d’Afrique dans la géographie antique.” In L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel, ed. T. Fahd: 413–29. Leiden. Desanges, J. (2008) = commentary to Pline l’Ancien, Histoire Naturelle. Livre VI, CUF, Paris. Devijver, H. (1972) “The Career of M. Porcius Narbonensis (CIL II 4239).” Anc.Soc. 3: 165–91. Devijver, H. (1974) “The Roman Army in Egypt (with special reference to the militiae equestres).” ANRW II.1: 452–92. Devijver, H. (1975) De Aegypto et exercitu Romano. Leuven. Dijkstra, J. H. F. (2008) Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298–642 CE). OLA 173. Leuven. Dijkstra, J. H. F. (2012) “Blemmyes, Noubades and the Eastern Desert in Late Antiquity: Reassessing the Written Sources.” In Barnard and Duistermaat (eds.) 2012: 238–47. Dijkstra, J. H. F. (2014) “‘I, Silko, Came to Talmis and Taphis:’ Interactions between the Peoples beyond the Egyptian Frontier and Rome in Late Antiquity.” In Inside and Out: Interactions between Rome and the Peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. J. H. F. Dijkstra and G. Fisher: 299–330. Leuven. Dölger, F. (1932) “Der Sinn der Sakralen Tätowierung und Brandmarkung in der antiken Kultur.” In Antike und Christentum: Kultur und Religiongeschichtliche Studien 3, ed. F. Dölger: 257–59. Münster. Domaszewski, A. von (1908, 1967) Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres (2nd ed. by B. Dobson). Cologne. Domergue, Cl. (1983) La mine antique d’Aljustrel (Portugal) et les tables de bronze de Vipasca. Paris. Domergue, Cl. (1990) Les mines de la péninsule Ibérique dans l’antiquité romaine. Rome. Donderer, M. (1996) Die Architekten der späten römischen Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Erlangen. Donkin, R. A. (1998) Beyond Price. Pearls and Pearl-Fishing. Philadelphia. Dorion, H. and Poirier, J. (1975) Lexique des termes utiles à l’étude des noms de lieux. Québec. Drew-Bear, Th. (1994) “Nouvelles inscriptions de Dokimeion.” MEFRA 106: 747–844. Drexhage, H.-J. (1991) Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians. St. Katharinen. Drexl, F. (1941) “Ein griechisches Losbuch.” Byz.Zeitschr. 41: 311–18. du Bouchet, J. (2004) Recherches sur les noms de la rue en grec ancien. Manuscript thesis, Paris. Duncan-Jones, R. (1990) Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge. Durling, R. J. (1999) “Excreta as a remedy in Galen.” In Tradition et Traduction. Hommage à Fernand Bossier, ed. R. Beyers et al.: 25–35. Leuven. Dušanič, S. (1977) “Aspects of Roman Mining in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Mœsia Superior.” In ANRW II 6: 52–94. Dušanić, S. (1989) “The Roman Mines of Illyricum: Organization and Impact on Provincial Life.” In Mineria y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterraneas y europeas, II: 148–56. Madrid. Eich, P. (2005) Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin.

626

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Empereur, J.-Y., and Picon, M. (1998) “Les ateliers d’amphores du lac Mariout.” In Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie hellénistique et romaine, ed. J.-Y. Empereur: 75–91. BCH Suppl. 33. Athens. Fant, J. C. (1993) “Ideology, Gift and Trade: A Distribution Model for the Roman Imperial Marbles.” In The Inscribed Economy. Production and distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum, ed. W. V. Harris: 167–98. Ann Arbor. Fears, J. R. (1981) “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology.” In ANRW II.17.1: 3–141. Fitzler, K. (1910) Steinbrüche und Bergwerke im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten. Leipzig. Forni, G. (1979) “L’anagrafia del soldato e del veterano.” In Actes du VIIe congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine: 205–28. Bucharest and Paris. Fournet, J.-L. (1989) “Les emprunts du grec à l’égyptien.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 84: 55–80. Fournet, J.-L. (2002) “Coptos gréco-romaine à travers ses noms.” In Autour de Coptos: 47–60. Topoi Suppl. 3. Lyon and Paris. Fournet, J.-L. (2009) Alexandrie: une communauté linguistique ? ou la question du grec alexandrin. Cairo. Fournet, J.-L. (2018) “The Eastern Desert in Late Antiquity.” In Brun et al. (eds.) 2018. Available at . Foxhall, L. and Forbes, H. A. (1982) “Σιτομετρεία: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity.” Chiron 12: 41–90. France, J. (2001) Quadragesima Galliarum. L’organisation douanière des provinces alpestres, gauloises et germaniques de l’empire romain (Ier siècle avant J.-C. – IIIe siècle après J.-C.). Rome. Frankfurter, D. (1998) Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton. Frœhner, W. (1890) “Variétés numismatiques.” Annuaire de la Société française de numismatique 14: 469–78. Gara, A. (1976) Prosdiagraphomena e circolazione monetaria. Milan. Gascou, J. (1999) “Unités administratives locales et fonctionnaires romains. Les données des nouveaux papyrus du Moyen Euphrate et d’Arabie.” In Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Eck: 61–73. Munich. Gascou, J. (2008) Fiscalité et société en Égypte byzantine. Paris. Gendron, S. (2006) La toponymie des voies romaines et médiévales. Les mots des routes anciennes. Paris. Geraci, G. (1971) “Ricerche sul proskynema.” Aegyptus 51: 3–211. Gilliam, J. F. (1966) “An Egyptian Cohort in AD 117.” In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1964/1965: 91–97. Antiquitas 4. Bonn. Glaser, E. (1890) Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Propheten Muhammad, II. Berlin. Gnoli, R. (1971) Marmora Romana. Rome. Golvin, J.-Cl., ʿAbd el-Hamid, S., Wagner, G., and Dunand, Fr. (1981) “Le petit Serapeion romain de Louqsor.” BIFAO 81: 115–48. Graf, F. (2005) “Rolling the Dice for an Answer.” In Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination, ed. S. I. Johnston and P. T. Struck: 51–97. Leiden and Boston. Guéraud, O. (1942) “Ostraca grecs et latins de l’Wâdi Fawâkhir.” BIFAO 41: 141–96. Haensch, R. (1996) “Die Verwendung von Siegeln bei Dokumenten der kaiserzeitlichen Reichsadministration.” In Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique, ed. M.-Fr.  Boussac and A.  Invernizzi: 449–496. BCH Suppl. 29. Athens.

Bibliography

627

Hagedorn, D. (1995) “Κυνηγίδες.” ZPE 109: 187–92. Harrauer, H., and Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1985) “Ein neues Dokument zu Roms Indienhandel, P. Vindob. G 40822.” Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften inWien 122: 124–55. Harris, J. R. (1961) Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals. Berlin. Heberdey, R. (1932) “Zu den kleinasiatischen Astragalenorakeln.” Wiener Studien 50: 82–95. Helgeland, J. (1978) “Roman Army Religion.” In ANRW II.16.2: 1470–504. Hellmann, M.-Chr. (1992) Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l’architecture grecque, d’après les inscriptions de Délos. Athens. Hellmann, M.-Chr. (2002) L’architecture grecque, I. Paris. Hengstl, J. (1972) Private Arbeitsverhältnisse freier Personen in den hellenistischen Papyri bis Diokletian. Bonn. Hirschfeld, O. (1905) Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diokletian. Berlin. Hirschfeld, O. (1913) Kleine Schriften. Berlin. Hirt, A. M. (2010) Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World. Organizational Aspects, 27 BC–AD 235. Oxford. Holder, P. (2007) “Observations on Auxiliary Diplomas from Vespasian to Commodus.” In Militärdiplome, ed. M. A. Speidel and H. Lieb: 105–63. Stuttgart. Honigman, S. (2002) “Les divers sens de l’ethnique Ἄραψ dans les sources documentaires grecques d’Égypte.” Ancient Society 32: 43–72. Hoogendijk, F. A. J. (2019) “Page of an Oracle Book: Papyrus Kellis 96.150.” PapCongr. XXVIII: 595– 622. Barcelona. Husson, G. (1983) Oikia. Le vocabulaire de la maison privée en Égypte d’après les papyrus grecs. Paris. Hyland, A. (1990) Equus. The Horse in the Roman World. New Haven. Jacquemin, A. (1990) “Architekton-ergolabos/ergones.” Ktèma 15: 81–88. Jamme, A. (1962) Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib). Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man III. Baltimore. Jones, C. P. (1987) “Stigma. Tattooing and Branding in Greco-Roman Antiquity.” JRS 77: 139–55. Jördens, A. (2016) “Die Strafgerichtsbarkeit des praefectus Aegypti.” In Recht haben und Recht bekommen im Imperium Romanum. Das Gerichtswesen der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine dokumentarische Evidenz, ed. R. Haensch: 89–163. JJP Suppl. 24. Warsaw. Kajanto, I. (1965) The Latin Cognomina. Rome. Kajanto, I. (1968) “The Significance of Non-Latin Cognomina.” Latomus 27: 517–34. Kayser, Fr. (1993) “Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat.” ZPE 98: 111–56. Kienast, D. (1966) Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bonn. Klagsbald, V. (1997) “L’aigle et la colombe. Lampes historiées en terre cuite de l’époque romaine.” In id., À l’ombre de Dieu: 60–74. Leuven. Klein, M. (1988) Untersuchungen zu den kaiserlichen Steinbrüchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der Östlichen Wüste Ägyptens. Bonn. Klemm, D., Klemm, R., and Murr, A. (2001) “Gold of the Pharaohs – 6000 years of gold mining in Egypt and Nubia.” Journal of African Earth Sciences 33: 643–59. Klemm, R. and Klemm, D. (2013) Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts. Heidelberg. Klingshirn, W. E. (2002) “Defining the Sortes Sanctorum: Gibbon, Du Cange, and Early Christian Lot Divination.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10:1: 77–130. Kobishchanov, Y. N. (1979) Axum. London.

628

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Kolb, A. (2000) Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. Berlin. Koželj, T. (1987) “Les carrières de marbre dans l’antiquité. Techniques et organisation.” In Marbres helléniques. De la carrière au chef-d’œuvre: 20–33. Brussels. Kramer, J. (2011) “ἀραβάρχης, ἀλαβάρχης/arabarches, alabarcha.” In id., Von der Papyrologie zur Romanistik: 175–84. APF Beiheft 30. Berlin and New York. Kraus, Th. (1993) “Steinbruch- und Blockinschriften.” In Simitthus I. Die Steinbrüche und die antike Stadt, ed. F. Rakob: 55–64. Mainz. Kruse, Th. (2002) Der Königliche Schreiber, II. Leipzig. Krzywinski, K. (2012) “The Eastern Desert Tombs and Cultural Continuity.” In Barnard and Duistermaat (eds.) 2012: 140–55. Launey, M. (1950) Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, II. Paris. Le Bohec, Y. (1991) “La genèse du limes dans les provinces de l’empire romain.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 69: 307–30. Le Bohec, Y. (1996) “Écuyers et marins militaires sous le Haut-Empire romain.” Ktèma 21: 313–20. Le Feuvre, Cl. (2018) “Αὖτις δὲ περιπλομένου ἐνιαυτοῦ (Hesiod Op. 386): On the Formation of ἐνιαυτός.” In Vina Diem Celebrent. Studies in Linguistics and Philology in Honor of Brent Vine, ed. D. Gunkel et al.: 191–201. Ann Arbor and New York. Leguilloux, M. (2004) Le cuir et la pelleterie à l’époque romaine. Paris. Leguilloux, M. (2005) “Les équidés dans l’armée romaine d’Égypte. Le cas des praesidia du désert Oriental.” In Les Équidés dans le monde méditerranéen antique, ed. A. Gardeisen: 267–74. Lattes. Leguilloux, M. (2018) “The exploitation of Animals in the Roman praesidia on the Routes to Myos Hormos and to Berenike: on Food, Transport and Craftsmanship.” In Brun et al. (eds.) 2018. Available at . Lesquier, J. (1918) L’armée romaine d’Égypte d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Cairo. Leveau, P. (1973) “L’aile II des Thraces, la tribu des Mazices et les praefecti gentis en Afrique du Nord.” Ant.Afr. 7: 153–92. Lewis, N. (1945) “The Meaning of σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ and Kindred Expressions in Loan Contracts.” TAPA 76: 126–39. Lhôte, E. (2007) “Typologie des anthroponymes en –υς.” In Φωνής χαρακτήρ εθνικός. Actes du Ve congrès international de dialectologie grecque, ed. M. B. Hatzopoulos: 271–94. Athens and Paris. Lhôte, H. (1967) “Problèmes sahariens. L’outre, la marmite, le chameau, le delou, l’agriculture, le nègre, le palmier.” Bulletin d’archéologie marocaine 7: 57–89. Liebenam, W. (1900) Städteverwaltung in römischen Kaiserreiche. Leipzig. Löfström, J. and Schnabel-Le Corre, B. (2005) “Description linguistique en toponymie contrastive dans une base de données multilingue.” In Le traitement lexicographique des noms propres. Available at . Loewe, B. (1936) Griechische theophore Ortsnamen. Tübingen. Lucas, A. (1962) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed. London. Magie, D. (1905) De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis. Leipzig. Malaise, M. (1972) Les conditions de pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie. Leiden. Malaise, M. (2000) “Le problème de l’hellénisation d’Isis.” In De Memphis à Rome, ed. L. Bricault: 1–19. EPRO 140. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne. Malinine, M. (1935–38) “Nouveaux fragments du calendrier égyptien des jours fastes et néfastes.” In Mélanges Maspero I: 881–99. Cairo.

Bibliography

629

Marganne, M.-H. (2004) “Le médecin, la trousse et le livre dans le monde gréco-romain.” In Da Ercolano all’Egitto. IV. Ricerche varie di Papirologia, ed. M. Capasso: 115–30. Papyrologica Lupiensia 12. Galatina. Mascellari, R. (2015) “Lex.Pap.Mat. III, 2.” Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico Vitelli 12: 151–59. Masson, O. (1976) “Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaïque d’après les témoignages de l’épigraphie.” Ant.Afr. 10: 49–62. Maxfield, V. A. (1996) “The Eastern Desert Forts and the Army in Egypt during the Principate.” In Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt, ed. D. M. Bailey: 9–19. JRA Suppl. 19. Ann Arbor. Maxfield, V. A. (2000) “The Deployment of the Roman Auxilia in Upper Egypt and the Eastern Desert,” In Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit, ed. G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, and W. Eck: 407–42. Stuttgart. Maxfield, V. A., and Peacock, D. P. S. (2001a) Mons Claudianus. Survey and Excavations, 1987–1993, II.1, Excavations. Cairo. Maxfield, V. A., and Peacock, D. P. S. (2001b) The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. I. Topography and Quarries. London. Maxfield, V. A., and Peacock, D. P. S. (2006) Mons Claudianus. Survey and Excavations, 1987–1993, III, Ceramic Vessels and Related Objects. Cairo. Menu, B. (ed.) (1994) Les problèmes institutionnels de l’eau en Égypte ancienne et dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne. Cairo. Meredith, D. (1952) “The Roman Remains in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” JEA 38: 94–111. Meredith, D. (1953) “The Roman Remains in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (continued).” JEA 39: 95–106. Meredith, D. (1954) “Eastern Desert of Egypt. Notes on Inscriptions.” CdE 29: 103–23. Meredith, D. (1956) “Inscriptions from Amethyst Mines at Abu Diyeiba (Eastern Desert of Egypt).” Eos 48 (2), 1956 (= Symbolae R. Taubenschlag dedicatae): 117–20. Meredith, D. (1958) Tabula Imperii Romani. Map of the Roman Empire Based on the International 1/1,000,000 Map of the World. Sheet N.G. 36. Coptos. Oxford. Meredith, D., and Tregenza, L. A. (1949) “Notes on Roman Roads and Stations in the Eastern Desert I.” Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts 11: 97–126. Michel, N. (1997) Une économie de subsistances. Le Maroc précolonial, I. Cairo. Mitthof, Fr. (1994) “Quittung eines Soldaten an πρεσβύτεροι κώμης über verschiedene Lieferungen. Eine Neuedition von P. Alex. Inv. 463.” ZPE 102: 207–12. Mitthof, Fr. (2001) Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungs- und Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Reiches im 3. bis 6. Jh. n.Chr. Papyrologica Florentina 32. Florence. Mommsen, Th. (1899) Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig. Mrozek, S. (1975) Prix et rémunération dans l’occident romain (31 av. n.è.–250 de n.è.). Gdansk. Mrozek, S. (1977) “Die Goldbergwerke im römischen Dazien.” In ANRW II.6: 95–109. Mrozek, S. (1989) “Le travail des hommes libres dans les mines romaines.” In Mineria y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterraneas y europeas, II: 163–8. Madrid. Müller, W. W. (1978) “Weihrauch. Ein arabisches Produkt und seine Bedeutung in der Antike.” In RE Suppl. XV, 700–77. Munich. Murray, G. W. (1925) “The Roman Roads and Stations in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” JEA 11: 138–50. Nachtergael, G. (2002) “Papyrologica I.” CdE 77: 249–58. Nalesini, O. (2009) “History and Use of an Ethnonym: Ichthyophagoi.” In Red Sea IV. Connected Hinterlands, ed. L. Blue et al.: 9–18. BAR I. S. 2052. Oxford.

630

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Naour, Chr. (1980) Tyriaion en Cabalide: épigraphie et géographie historique. Zutphen. Nappo, D., and Zerbini, A. (2011) “On the Fringe: Trade and Taxation in the Egyptian Eastern Desert.” In Frontiers in the Roman World. Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, ed. O. Hekster and T. Kaizer: 61–77. Leiden. Nibbi, A. (1979) “Some Remarks on Ass and Horse in Ancient Egypt and the Absence of the Mule.” ZÄS 106: 148–68. Noeske, H.-Chr. (1977) “Studien zur Verwaltung und Bevölkerung der dakischen Godbergwerke.” Bonner Jahrbücher 177: 271–416. Nollé, J. (2007) Kleinasiatische Losorakel. Astragal- und Alphabetchresmologien der hochkaiserzeitlichen Orakelrenaissance. Vestigia 57. Munich. Oleson, J. P. (1984) Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: the History of a Technology. Toronto. Olsson, Br. (1950) “κολπιτεύω ‘faire de la contrebande’.” Eranos 48.3: 157. Papini, L. (1990) “Struttura e prassi delle domande oraculare.” Anal.Pap. 2: 11–20. Papini, L. (1998) “Fragments of the Sortes Sanctorum from the Shrine of St Colluthus.” In Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, ed. D. Frankfurter: 393–401. EPRO 134. Leiden. Parke, H. W. (1985) The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor. London. Patlagean, E. (1977) Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance: 4e–7e siècles. Paris. Peacock, D. P. S. (1993) “The Site of Myos Hormos: A View from Space.” JRA 6: 226–32. Peacock, D. P. S., and Blue, L. (2006a) Myos Hormos–Qusayr al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. I. Survey and Excavations 1999–2003. Oxford. Peacock, D. P. S., and Blue, L. (eds.) (2006b) Myos Hormos–Quseir al-Qadim, Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. II. Finds from the Excavations 1999–2003. Oxford. Peacock, D. P. S., and Maxfield, V. A. (eds.) (1997) Mons Claudianus 1987–1993. Survey and Excavation. I. Topography & Quarries. Cairo. Peacock, D. P. S., and Maxfield, V.A. (eds.) (2007) The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavations at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. ΙΙ. The Excavations. London. Peña, J. T. (1998) “The Mobilization of State Olive Oil: Late 4th c. Ostraca.” In Carthage Papers. The Early Colony’s Economy, Water Supply, a Public Bath and the Mobilization of State Olive Oil: 116–238. JRA Suppl. 28. Portsmouth, RI. Perpillou-Thomas, Fr. (1993) Fêtes d’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine d’après la documentation papyrologie grecque. Leuven. Perpillou-Thomas, Fr. (1995) “Artistes et athlètes dans les papyrus grecs d’Égypte.” ZPE 108: 225–51. Petrikovits, H. von (1975) Die Innenbauten römischer Legionslager während der Prinzipatszeit. Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 56. Opladen. Pflaum, H.-G. (1960) Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain, I. Paris. Pflaum, H.-G. (1982) Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Supplément. Paris. Pierce, R. H. (2012) “A Blemmy by Any Other Name…” In Barnard and Duistermaat (eds.) 2012: 226–37. Pintozzi, L. A. (2007) “Excavations at the praesidium et hydreuma at Siket.” In Berenike 1999/2000, ed. S. E. Sidebotham and W. Wendrich: 358–67. Los Angeles. Porter, B., and Moss, R. L. B. (1937) Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, V: Upper Egypt: Sites. Oxford. Porter, B., and Moss, R. L. B. (1951) Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. VII. Nubia: the Deserts and outside Egypt. Oxford.

Bibliography

631

Power, T. (2007) “The ‘Arabians’ of Pre-Islamic Egypt.” In Red Sea III. Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea, ed. J. Starkey, P. Starkey, and T. Wilkinson: 192–210. BAR I. S. 1661. Oxford. Power, T. (2011) “The Material Culture and Economic Rationale of Saracen Settlement in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” In Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides. Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, ed. A. Borrut et al.: 331–44. Turnhout. Préaux, Cl. (1939) L’économie royale des Lagides. Brussels. Préaux, Cl. (1951) “Ostraca de Pselkis de la bibliothèque Bodléenne.” CdE 26: 121–55. Radici Colace, P. (1997) “Lexicon Vasorum Graecorum: dalla filologia all’archeologia.” In Atti del II Seminario Internazionale di studi sui lessici tecnici greci e latini, ed. P. Radici Colace: 313–27. Messina and Naples. Raepsaet, G. (1987) “Transport de pierres en Grèce ancienne. De la carrière au chantier.” In Marbres helléniques. De la carrière au chef-d’œuvre: 34–45. Brussels. Ranson, G. (1961) Les espèces d’huîtres perlières du genre Pinctada (biologie de quelques-unes d’entre elles). Mémoires de l’institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique 67/2. Brussels. Rathbone, D. (1983) “The Weight and Measurement of Egyptian Grains.” ZPE 53: 265–75. Rathbone, D. (1997) “Prices and Price Formation in Roman Egypt.” In Économie antique. Prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques, ed. J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat: 183–244. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. Rathbone, D. (2001) “The ‘Muziris’ Papyrus (SB XVIII 13167): Financing Roman Trade with India.” Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie 46: 39–50. Rathbone, D. (2002) “Koptos the emporion. Economy and Society, I–III AD.” In Autour de Coptos: 179–98. Topoi Suppl. 3. Lyon and Paris. Rathbone, D. (2007) “Military Finance and Supply.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, II, ed. Ph. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby: 158–76. Cambridge. Rathbone, D. (2009) “Earnings and Costs: Living Standards and the Roman Economy (First to Third Centuries AD).” In Quantifying the Roman Economy, ed. A. Bowman and A. Wilson: 299–326. Oxford. Redard, G. (1949) Les noms grecs en -ΤΗΣ, -ΤΙΣ et principalement en -ΙΤΗΣ, -ΙΤΙΣ, étude philologique et linguistique. Paris. Reddé, M. (1986) Mare nostrum. BEFAR 260. Rome. Reddé, M. (2009) “Trois petits balnéaires du désert Oriental d’Égypte.” In Le bain collectif en Egypte. Βαλανεῖα. Thermae, ed. M.-Fr. Boussac, Th. Fournet, and B. Redon: 213–20. Cairo. Reddé, M. (2014) “Du Rhin au Nil. Quelques remarques sur le culte de Sarapis dans l’armée romaine.” In Le myrte et la rose. Mélanges offerts à Françoise Dunand, ed. G. Tallet and Chr. Zivie-Coche: 69–75. Montpellier. Reddé, M. (2015) “L’aedes du praesidium de Xèron Pelagos (Égypte).” In Limes XXII. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies: 655–660. Sofia. Reddé, M., and Golvin, J.-Cl. (1986) “Quelques recherches récentes sur l’archéologie militaire romaine en Égypte.” CRAI 1986: 182–85. Reddé, M. and Golvin, J.-Cl. (1987) “Du Nil à la mer Rouge: documents anciens et nouveaux sur les routes du désert Oriental d’Égypte.” Karthago 21: 5–64. Redon, B. (2016) “Samut North: ‘Heavy Mineral Processing Plants’ are Mills.” Egyptian Archaeology 48: 20–22. Reekmans, T., and Van ’t Dack, E. (1952) “A Bodleian Archive on Corn Transport.” CdE 27: 149–95.

632

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Reinach, A. J. (1910) Rapports sur les fouilles de Koptos (janvier–février 1910). Paris. Remijsen, S. (2007) “The Postal Service and the Hour as a Unit of Time in Antiquity.” Historia 56: 127– 40. Robert, L. (1980) À travers l’Asie Mineure. Athens and Paris. Röder, J. (1967) “Die antiken Steinbrüche der Mareotis.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 1967: 118–31. Röhle, R. (1968) “Das Problem der Gefahrtragung im Bereich des römischen Dienst- und Werkvertrages.” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 34: 183–222. Roth, J. (1999) The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC–AD 235). Leiden. Rouland, N. (1977) Les esclaves romains en temps de guerre. Brussels. Rowlandson, J. (1996) Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt. Oxford. Ryckmans, J. (1957) “Petits royaumes sud-arabes d’après les auteurs classiques.” Le Muséon 70: 75–96. Saliou, C. (2012) “Le déroulement du chantier à Rome et dans le monde romain.” In Arqueología de la construcción, III. Los processos constructivos en el mundo romano: la economía de las obras, ed. S. Camporeale, H. Dessales, and A. Pizzo: 15–29. Madrid and Merida. Satzinger, H. (2014) “The ‘Barbarian’ Names on the Third-Century Ostraka from Xeron.” In Inside and Out: Interactions between Rome and the Peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. J. H. F. Dijkstra and G. Fisher: 199–212. Leuven. Schneider, P. (2016) “Did Rome Engage in Pearling in the Red Sea? A Re-examination of the Two Dedications by Publius Iuventius Agathopus.” ZPE 198: 121–37. Schörle, K. (2015) “Pearls, Power and Profit, Mercantile Networks and Economic Considerations of the Pearl Trade in the Roman Empire.” In Across the Ocean: Nine Essays on Indo-Mediterranean Trade, ed. F. De Romanis and M. Maiuro: 43–54. Leiden. Schwartz, J. (1953) “Les Palmyréniens et l’Égypte.” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie 40: 63–81. Sharabati, D. (1981) Saudi Arabian Seashells: Selected Red Sea and Arabian Gulf Molluscs. London. Shelton, J. C. (1977) “Artabs and Choenices.” ZPE 24: 55–67. Shelton, J. C. (1981) “Two Notes on the Artab.” ZPE 42: 99–102. Sidebotham, S.E. (1993) “Fieldwork in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, 1993.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48: 263–7. Sidebotham, S. E. (1996) “Newly Discovered Sites in the Eastern Desert.” JEA 82: 181–92. Sidebotham, S.E. (1997) “Caravans across the Eastern Desert of Egypt: Recent Discoveries on the Berenike-Apollinopolis Magna-Coptos Roads.” In Profumi d’Arabia, ed. A. Avanzini: 385–93. Rome. Sidebotham, S. E. (2011) Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route. Berkeley. Sidebotham, S. E., Barnard, H., Harrell, J. A., and Tomber, R. S. (2001) “The Roman Quarry and Installations in Wadi Umm Wikala and Wadi Semna.” JEA 87: 135–70. Sidebotham, S. E., Gates-Foster, J., and Rivard, J.-L. (eds.) (2019) The Archaeological Survey of the Desert Roads between Berenike and the Nile Valley: Expeditions by the University of Michigan and the University of Delaware to the Eastern Desert of Egypt, 1987–2015. Boston. Sidebotham, S. E., Hense, M., and Nouwens, H. M. (2008) The Red Land: The Illustrated Archaeology of Egypt’s Eastern Desert. Cairo. Sidebotham, S. E., and Zitterkopf, R. E. (1995) “Routes through the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” Expedition 37/2: 39–52. Sidebotham, S. E and Zitterkopf, R. E. (1997) “Survey of the via Hadriana by the University of Delaware: the 1996 Season.” BIFAO 97: 221–37. Sidebotham, S. E, Zitterkopf, R. E., and Helms, Chr. (2000) “Survey of the via Hadriana: the 1998 Season.” JARCE 37: 115–26.

Bibliography

633

Sidebotham, S. E., Zitterkopf, R. E., and Riley, J. A. (1991) “Survey of the Abu Sha’ar-Nile Road.” AJA 95: 571–622. Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1987) Customs Duties in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Zutphen. Skeat, T. C. (1954) “An Early Mediaeval ‘Book of Fate:’ The Sortes XII Patriarcharum.” Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 3: 41–54. Solin, H. (1982) Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch. Berlin and New York. Somaglino, Cl. (2017) “La toponymie égyptienne en territoire conquis: les noms-programmes des menenou.” In Du Sinaï au Soudan. Mélanges offerts à Dominique Valbelle, ed. N. Favry et al.: 231–44. Paris. Southgate, P. C., and Lucas, J. S. (2008) The Pearl Oyster. Amsterdam. Speidel, M. A. (2009) “Honesta missio. Zu Entlassungsurkunden und verwandten Texten.” In id., Heer und Herrschaft im römischen Reich der Hohen Kaiserzeit: 328–33. Mavors 16. Stuttgart. Speidel, M. P. (1981) “Princeps as a Title for ad hoc Commanders.” Britannia 12: 7–13 (= M. P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies I, 189–95. Stuttgart). Speidel, M. P. (1986) “The Soldiers’ Homes.” In Heer- und Integrationspolitik. Die römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle, ed. W. Eck and H. Wolff: 467–81. Cologne and Vienna. Speidel, M. P. (1988) “Nubia’s Roman Garrison.” ANRW II.10.1: 767–98 (= M. P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies II, 240–74. Stuttgart). Speidel, M. P. (1989) “The Soldier’s Servants.” Anc.Soc. 20: 239–47 (= M. P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies II, 342–52. Stuttgart). Speidel, M. P., and Dimitrova-Milčeva, A. (1978) “The Cult of the Genii in the Roman Army and a New Military Deity.” ANRW II.16.2: 1542–55. Sprenger, A. (1875) Die alte Geographie Arabiens als Grundlage der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Semitismus. Bern. Starr, C. G. (1941) The Roman Imperial Navy. 31 B.C.–A.D. 324. Cambridge. Stern, S. (2001) Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE– Tenth Century CE. Oxford. Stewart, R. (1987) “Another Look at P.Iand. 5.71 and P.Rain. 1.33.” ZPE 69: 237–42. Stoll, O. (2001) “Ordinatus Architectus. Römische Militärarchitekten und ihre Bedeutung für den Technologietransfer.” In id., Römisches Heer und Gesellschaft: 300–68. Mavors 13. Stuttgart. Straus, J. (2004) L’achat et la vente des esclaves dans l’Égypte romaine. Munich and Leipzig. Swinnen, W. (1968) “Philammon, chantre légendaire, et les noms gréco-égyptiens en –ammôn.” In Antidorum W. Peremans: 237–62. Studia Hellenistica 16. Leuven. Syme, R. (1968) “The Ummidii.” Historia 17: 72–105 (= id., Roman Papers II, 659–93). Szilagyi, J. (1963) “Prices and Wages in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire.” Acta Antiqua 11: 325–89. Tallet, G. (2011) “Zeus Hélios Megas Sarapis. Un dieu égyptien ‘pour les Romains’?” In L’oiseau et le poisson. Cohabitations religieuses dans le monde grec et romain, ed. N. Belayche and J.-D. Dubois: 227–61. Paris. Thissen, H.-J. (1979) “Demotische Graffiti aus dem Wadi al-Hammamat.” Enchoria 9: 63–92. Thomas, J. D. (1982) The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. II. The Roman Epistrategos. Cologne and Opladen. Thomas, J. D. (1999) “Communication between the Prefect of Egypt, the Procurators and the Nome Officials.” In Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Eck and E. Müller-Luckner: 181–95. Munich.

634

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Thomas, J. D., and Davies, R. W. (1977) “A New Military Strength Report on Papyrus.” JRS 67: 50–61. Thomas, R. I. (2007) “The Arabaegypti Ichthyophagi: Cultural Connections with Egypt and the Maintenance of Identity.” In Red Sea III. Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea, ed. J. Starkey, P. Starkey, and T. Wilkinson: 149–60. BAR I. S. 1661. Oxford. Thomas, R. I. (2012) “Port Communities and the Erythraean Sea Trade.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 18: 169–99. Thür, G. (1987) “Hypotheken-Urkunde eines Seedarlehens für eine Reise nach Muziris und Apographe für die Tetarte in Alexandreia (zu P. Vindob. G. 40822).” Tyche 2: 229–45. Todisco, E. (1999) I veterani in Italia in età imperiale. Bari. Tomber, R. (1993) “Early Roman Pottery from Mons Claudianus.” Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3: 137–42. Tomber, R. (2006) “The Pottery.” In Mons Claudianus, Survey and Excavation III. Ceramic Vessels and Related Objects, ed. V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock: 3–235. Cairo. Tomlin, R. S. O. (1998) “Roman Manuscripts from Carlisle: the Ink-Written Tablets.” Britannia 29: 31– 84. Török, L. (2009) Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC–500 AD. Leiden and Boston. Traunecker, Cl. (1992) Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. OLA 43. Leuven. Traunecker, Cl. (2000) “Le calcaire des temples romains de la région coptite.” In Pierres égyptiennes. Chefs-d’œuvre pour l’éternité, ed. Chr. Karlhausen and Th. De Putter: 103–5. Mons. Tregenza, L. A. (1950) “A Latin Inscription from Wadi Semna.” Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University 12.2: 85–9. Tregenza, L. A. (1951) “The Curator Inscription and Other Recently Found Fragments from Wadi Semna.” Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University 13.2: 39–52. Trigger, B. G. (1965) History and Settlement in Lower Nubia. New Haven. Trousset, P. (1992) “La notion de ripa et les frontières de l’empire.” In Le fleuve et ses métamorphoses, ed. Fr.-M. Piquet: 141–52. Paris. Trousset, P. (1993) “La frontière romaine et ses contradictions.” In La Frontière. Séminaire de recherche sous la direction d’Y. Roman: 25–33. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 21. Lyon. Turcan, R. (1987) Nigra Moneta. Lyon. Urbach, E. E. (1959) “The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts.” Israel Exploration Journal 9: 149–65. Valat, D. (2008) “Interférences onomastiques et péri-onomastiques dans les Res Gestae d’Auguste.” In Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie, ed. Fr. Biville, J.-Cl. Decourt, and G. Rougemont: 241–57. Lyon. Valbelle, D. (1985) Les ouvriers de la Tombe. Deir el-Medineh à l’époque ramesside. Cairo. Vallois, R. (1944) L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos, I. Paris. van der Horst, P. W. (1998) “Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles.” In The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. L. V. Rutgers et al.: 143–74. Leuven. Vandorpe, K. (1996) “Seals in and on Papyri of Greco-Roman and Byzantine Egypt.” In Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique, ed. M.-Fr.  Boussac and A.  Invernizzi: 231–91. BCH Suppl. 29. Athens. Van Rengen, W. (1995) “A New Paneion at Mons Porphyrites.” CdE 70: 240–45. Van Rengen, W. (2001) “La surveillance militaire des routes dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte: un laissez-passer de Myos Hormos.” In Rome et ses provinces. Hommages à Jean-Charles Balty, ed. C. Evers and A. Tsingarida: 233–36. Brussels.

Bibliography

635

Van Rengen, W. (2018) “Some Topographical Problems around Myos Hormos: Philotera-Philoteris.” In Brun et al. (eds.) 2018. Available at . Vigneron, P. (1968) Le cheval dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine, I. Nancy. Villeneuve, Fr. (2007) “L’armée romaine en mer Rouge et autour de la mer Rouge aux IIe et IIIe siècles apr. J.-C.: à propos de deux inscriptions latines découvertes sur l’archipel Farasan.” In The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest, ed. A. S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini: 13–27. BAR I. S. 1717. Oxford. Wagner, G. (1987) Les Oasis d’Égypte à l’époque grecque, romaine et byzantine d’après les documents grecs. Cairo. Wallace, S. L. (1938) Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton. Weaver, P. R. C. (1972) Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge. Weinreich, O. (1916–1919) “Aion in Eleusis.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 19: 174–90 (= Ausgewählte Schriften 1, 442–61. Amsterdam 1969). Weiß, P., and Speidel, M. P. (2004) “Das erste Militärdiplom für Arabia.” ZPE 150: 253–64. Wesch-Klein, G. (1998) Soziale Aspekte des römischen Heerwesens in der Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart. Wheeler, E. L. (2000) “Legio XV Apollinaris.” In Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire, I, ed. Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff: 259–308. Lyon. Whitcomb, D. S., and Johnson, J. H. (1979) Quseir al-Qadim 1978. Preliminary Report. Cairo. Whitcomb, D. S., and Johnson, J. H. (1982) Quseir al-Qadim 1980. Preliminary Report. Malibu. White, K. D. (1984) Greek and Roman Technology. London. Whittaker, C. R. (2004) Rome and its Frontiers: the Dynamics of Empire. London and New York. Winter, J. G. (1933) Life and Letters in the Papyri. Ann Arbor. Wissmann, H. von (1963) Map “Das vorislamische Arabien.” In A. Grohmann, Arabien. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft III.1.3.3.4. Munich. Wissmann, H. von (1964) Zur Geschichte und Landeskunde von Alt-Südarabien. Sammlung Eduard Glaser III. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 246. Vienna. Wissmann, H. von (1968) “Zaabram.” In RE Suppl. XI, 1304–12. Wissmann, H. von (1970) “Ophir.” In RE Suppl. XII, 906–80. Wissmann, H. von, and Höfner, M. (1952) Beiträge zur historischen Geographie des vorislamischen Südarabien. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistesund sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1952/4. Wiesbaden. Wollmann, V. (1989) “Nouvelles données concernant la structure socio-ethnique de la zone minière de la Dacia Superior.” In Mineria y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterraneas y europeas, ed. Cl. Domergue, II: 107–18. Madrid. Yon, J.-B. (2018) L’histoire par les noms. Histoire et onomastique, de la Palmyrène à la Haute Mésopotamie romaines. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 212, Beirut. Youtie, H. C. (1951) “The Heidelberg Festival Papyrus: A Reinterpretation.” In Studies in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton, F. C. Bourne, and J. V. A. Fine: 178–208. Princeton. (Reprinted in H. C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae I, 514–45. Amsterdam 1973.) Yoyotte, J. (1952) “Une épithète de Min comme explorateur des régions orientales.” RdE 9: 135–37. Zitterkopf, R. E., and Sidebotham, S. E. (1989) “Stations and Towers on the Quseir–Nile Road.” JEA 75: 155–89. Zuckerman, C. (1995) “The Hapless Recruit and the Mighty Anchorite Apa John.” BASP 32: 183–94.

Indexes

639

1. Sources A. Greek and Latin authors Anthologia Graeca [Myrinos] 11.67 614 Apul. Met. 9.8 517 n. 36 Aristoph., Aves 137–45 414 Aristoph., Equites 824–25 578 f. Aristoph., Vespae 597 452 f. Hippiatrica 15.4 587 n. 11 Hippol., Chronicon 207 405 Hdt. 7.119 573 Hsch. π 2582 558 n. 9 Hsch. φ 749–50 587 Liv. 40.56.11 314 LXX, Dt. 4:16–18 550 LXX, Ex. 4:1–5 547 LXX, Ex. 4:6–7 547 f. LXX, Ex. 4:8 548

LXX, Ex. 6:6 548 LXX, Ex. 20:6 550 Paus. 7.25.10 519 Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.77–78 547, 548 n. 10 Philostr. VA 3.35 413 Plin., Nat. 6.102–3 51, 242 Plin., Nat. 6.150 403, 409, 411 Plin., Nat. 19.137 579 Plin., Nat. 26.95 394 Plin., Nat. 36.55 17, 20, 82 n. 5 Plin., Nat. 37.149 19 n. 46 Pollux 7.197 578 Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4.18.8 381 n. 5 Ptol., Geogr. 4.5.27 14 f., 59

Ptol., Geogr. 6.7.5, 6.7.23 395 Sortes sanctorum 14 512 Sortes sanctorum 26 511 Sortes sanctorum 36 510 Sortes sanctorum 49 507 Stat. Silvae 2.2.85 217 St.Byz., Ethnica, s.v. Ζαδράμη 406 Strabo 2.5.12 426 Strabo 17.1.2 426 Strabo 17.1.4 425 f. Strabo 17.1.45 242 n. 50 Strabo 17.1.53 426 n. 67 Suet. Ner. 26 376 n. 9 Vita Aesopi rec. G 29 614 Vita Aesopi rec. G 34.5 584 Xen. Hell. 5.1.15 591

B. Greek and Latin ostraca, papyri and tablets Ch.L.A. III 200 376 f. Ch.L.A. XVIII 662 (re-edition) 358–63 O.Amst. 9 Chapter 13 O.Blem. 83 432 O.Claud. I 141 74 O.Claud. II 365.5 265 O.Claud. IV 841.66 75 O.Claud. inv. 1538+2921 (edition) Chapter 11 O.Claud. inv. 4524+5700 (edition) 329–31 O.Claud. inv. 4888 424 f.

O.Claud. inv. 5477 573 O.Claud. inv. 6366+7149 (edition) 603–10 O.Claud. inv. 7955 (edition) 67 O.Did. 40 see P.Bingen 108 O.Did. 41 429 O.Did. 44 429 O.Did. 46 428, 450 O.Did. 320 572 O.Dios inv. 145 (edition) 313 f. O.Dios inv. 480 (edition) 325–27 O.Dios inv. 626 (edition) 339–41 O.Dios inv. 807 (edition) 311 f.

O.Dios inv. 972 (edition) 331 f. O.Dios inv. 1246 (edition) 315–18 O.Florida (provenance) 2 n. 5, 223 O.KaLa. inv. 269 (edition) 27 O.KaLa. inv. 396 (edition) 572 f. O.KaLa. inv. 765 26 f. O.Krok. I 18 345 O.Krok. I 41.47 101 f. O.Krok. I 49.2–9 420 f. O.Krok. I 70 331; re-edition: 351–53 O.Krok. I 81 561 f. O.Krok. I 87 44, 421 f. O.Krok. II 267 379 f.

640

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

O.Krok. II 293 612–15 O.MyHo. inv. 512 418 O.MyHo. inv. 543 418 O.Petrie Mus. 112 47 O.Porph. inv. 553 167 n. 5 O.Xer. inv. 348 (edition) 601 O.Xer. inv. 464 (edition) 350 f. O.Xer. inv. 465 423 O.Xer. inv. 570 428 O.Xer. inv. 601 428 O.Xer. inv. 603 428 O.Xer. inv. 620 428 O.Xer. inv. 809 (edition) 306 O.Xer. inv. 810 (edition) 307 O.Xer. inv. 829 (edition) 308 P.Aberd. 14 521 P.Abinn. 6.12 456 P.Bagnall 11 (edition) 368–71 P.Bagnall 12 (edition) 372 f. P.Bas. 2 113, 116, 535 P.Bingen 108 (edition) 128–32 P.Brem. 59.5–10 574 P.Cair.Zen. III 59440.10–12 574 P.Fay. 134.6–8 571, 573 P.Giss. 80.9 (P.Giss.Apoll. 17) 453 P.Hib. I 123 575 P.IFAO II 6, r°.2 582 f. P.Kellis inv. P96.150 522 P.Leid.Inst. 8 518 f.

P.NYU II 19.21 (corr.) 393 P.Oslo III 129.16 (corr.) 607 P.Oxy. IV 747 194 P.Oxy. VII 1026.6 and 21–22 575 P.Oxy. XII 1479.10 582 P.Oxy. LX 4087–4088 346 f. P.Ryl. II 78 276 f. P.Ryl. II 92.1 608 P.Sarap. 84a, ii.6–9 263 PSI V 531.4–6 574 f. PSI VI 623.16–25 265 f. P.Tebt. I 5.184–86 575 P.Tebt. III 703.277–78 453 P.Vindob.Sal. 1 520 P.Wisc. II 72.17–22 571 P.Worp 51 (edition) Chapter 16 P.Worp 52 459 P.Yale II 131 521 Rom.Mil.Rec. 74 562 Rom.Mil.Rec. 78 328 f., 334, 341 Rom.Mil.Rec. 80 367, 368 n. 6 SB V 7572.5–6 571 SB XIV 11658 521 SB XIV 11901.12–13 571 SB XVI 12578.3 585 f. SB XVI 12675.12 582 SB XVIII 13167.2–4 264 f. SB XVIII 13335 (corr. edition) 135– 37

SB XVIII 13340–13341 (edition) 138–39 SB XVIII 13342 (edition) 139 SB XVIII 13343 (edition) 139 SB XVIII 13344 (edition) 139 SB XVIII 13346 (corr. edition) 139 SB XVIII 13347 (corr. edition) 140 SB XVIII 13348 (edition) 140 SB XVIII 13349 (corr. edition) 140 SB XVIII 13350 (edition) 141 SB XVIII 13351 (edition) 141 SB XVIII 13352 (edition) 141 SB XVIII 13353 (edition) 142 f. SB XVIII 13354 (edition) 143 f. SB XVIII 13355 (corr. edition) 144 SB XVIII 13356 (edition) 145 SB XVIII 13357 (edition) 145 SB XX 14263.3 582 n. 27 SB XXII 15541 (edition) Chapter 13 SB XXIV 16060 (edition) 176–78 SB XXIV 16061 (edition) 179 f. SB XXIV 16173 (edition) 165–67 SB XXIV 16187 (edition) 397–99 SB XXVIII 16941 (edition) Chapter 5 SB XXVIII 17083.12–13 75 SPP XXII 92.3–6 335 Tab.Luguval. 1 345 f. W.Chr. 416 333

C. Greek and Latin inscriptions AE 1954, 85 88 AE 1956, 249 558 f. CIL III.2 TC IX, X, XI 169–72 CIL III 3 (ILS 4395) 524 CIL XIII.2.1, 7681 558 CIL XIII.2.1, 7749 377 CIL XIV 2282 377 I.Did. 7 (edition) 475–77 I.Did. 9 (edition) 114–16 IGLS II 349 155 IK I 117 (Erythrai) 151 f. I.Kanaïs 59bis (re-edition) 473–75 I.KoKo. 41 14

I.KoKo. 54 and 55 149 I.KoKo. 60 201 ILS 2483 (I.Portes 56) 69, 249 ILS 9219 152 f. I.Memnon 20 (re-edition) 96 f. I.métr. 116 201 I.Mylasa 214 68 n. 173 I.Nysa 40 154 I.Pan 37 65 I.Pan 51 16 f. I.Pan 53 81–88 I.Pan 69 17 n. 36, 470 n. 28 I.Pan 80 69, 244 n. 69

I.Pan 87 96 n. 8, 422 I.Portes 56 see ILS 2483 I.Portes 67 see OGIS II 674 I.Portes 86 98, 100, 127, 130–32 I.Syringes 1733 118 Milet VI.2 935 153 f. OGIS II 674 (I.Portes 67, Koptos Tariff) 243, 252 RIÉth I 277 (Monumentum Adulitanum) 406–9 SEG XLII 1574 65

Indexes

641

2. Persons Aemilius Celer, prefect of Berenike 107, 115, 118 Annius Decmus, centurion 239 Antinoos 607 L. Antistius Asiaticus, prefect of Berenike 105 Antoninus Pius 20, 88, 188, 198, 207 f., 227, 235 f. 238, 244, 269 n. 9, 415, 425, 427, 461, 468, 485, 601 Antonius Flavianus, prefect (of Berenike?) 12, 108, 119 f., 240 f., 526 Apollonios, architect, s. of Ammonios, f. of Hieronymos 136 f., 162, 190, 237, 472 Archibios, curator of Mons Claudianus 439–461 Arruntius Agrippinus, prefect of Berenike? 99, 106, 255, 422 M. Artorius Priscillus 101–3, 106, 117, 131 f., 257, 266, 279, 421, 564 Athenodoros, tabularius of the procurator metallorum 85 f., 137, 203 f., 439 Avidius Cassius 103 n. 41, 334 n. 18 Baratit, hypotyrannos of the Barbaroi 319 f., 332, 429 f., 436 Caesellius, prefect of Berenike 109 Callius Alexandros, legionary centurion 604–6 Caninius Dionysios, centurion 63 f. Caracalla 115, 118, 131, 245, 341, 488, 492, 523 L. Cassius Taurinus, prefect of Berenike (the same as Cassius Taurus?) 99, 106, 422, 481 f.

Cassius Taurus, prefect of Berenike (the same as Cassius Taurinus?) 44, 99, 106, 422 Chryseros, ergodotes in Mons Claudianus 161 Claudius 47, 101, 103 n. 35, 131, 230 n. 10, 236, 415, 569 Claudius Barbula, centurion 239 Claudius Cerealis, prefect of Berenike 107 Claudius Lucilianus, prefect of Berenike 108, 113–16 Ti. Claudius Theon, Alexandrian businessman 524 C. Cominius Leugas 16, 21, 201 n. 54, 207 n. 80, 241, 470 f. Commodus 39, 108, 115, 120, 240, 278, 329, 341, 355, 357, 475 Cosconius --tulus, prefect of Berenike 105, 309 Cosmas Indicopleustes 406, 435 n. 116 Deiotaros, prefect of Berenike 108 Diadumenianus 428 Diadumenus (Augusti libertus, perhaps procurator) 75 Dinnis, curator of Dios 268, 271, 311 f. Diourdanos, curator (?) of Raïma 257, 439–61 Domitian 20 f., 26, 63, 137, 237, 312, 333–35, 349, 369, 471, 476, 540, 547, 553 Elagabalus 127, 131, 214 n. 9, 428 Enkolpios, procurator metallorum,

eponym of a caesura 32, 43, 237 Ennis (Anis) Pienchis, ergodotes in Mons Claudianus 161 Epaphroditos, eponym of a caesura 29, 32, 38; prob. same as next: 43 Epaphroditos Sigerianus, contractor of quarries (same as prev.?) 43, 149 f., 190, 237, 469 f. Favonius s. of Pachnoumis, native stonemason at Claudianus 144 f. Fortunatus, tabularius 269, 284 f. Gadarat, king of Aksum 408 Gaion, caesarianus 179 f., 417 Gallienus 244, 319, 416, 429, 431, 470 n. 28 Glabrio, cognomen of a consul 355–57 Hadrian 416, 422, 466, 468, 470, 472, 527, 537, 568 f., 607 Herakleides, architect 31, 136, 149, 162, 186, 190, 193 Hieronymos, architect 31, 41 f., 149 Hieronymos, architect, s. of Apollonios, f. of Hieronymos 62 f., 135–37, 204, 540–43 Hieronymos, architect, s. of Hieronymos 135–37, 144 Ischyras, sutler in Persou 247, 265, 468, 562, 611–15 Iulianus, prefect of Berenike 109 P. Iulius Rufus, prefect of Berenike 105 Iulius Silvanus, curator of Claudianus

642

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

122 f., 239 L. Iulius Ursus, prefect of Egypt 50, 52, 243, 301, 482 L. Iunius Calvinus, prefect of Berenike 105 P. Iuventius Rufus 105, 118 f., 121, 241, 468 Kallistratos, tesserarius 203 f. Licinnius Licinnianus, prefect of Berenike 107, 278 Macrinus 428 Q. Maecius Laetus, prefect of Egypt 606, 608 Marcus Aurelius 87, 101, 103 n. 41, 269, 278, 329, 466 n. 5, 468 Mettius Rufus, prefect of Egypt 20 n. 49, 201, 539 L. Mussius Aemilianus 431 Narcissianus, tabularius 269, 284 f. Nepheros, curator of Tiberiane 203, 328, 439 Nero 46 f., 56 n. 140, 101, 230 n. 10, 237, 376 n. 9, 415, 467 f., 569 Nikanor, head of a camel-transport company 47, 243, 257 n. 137, 265, 588 Petronius the Barbarian 129 f. Philip the Arab 416, 429 n. 82, 484

Philokles, sutler and pimp 73, 95, 247, 318, 348, 373, 385 f., 393, 468, 612 L. Pinarius Natta, prefect of Berenike 102, 105, 131 Plotina 36 Pomponius Faustianus, prefect of Egypt 119 f., 240 Probus, procurator metallorum 14, 100 n. 24, 119 f., 240 Rufus Aristoteles, deputy curator of Mons Claudianus 120–23 M. Rutilius Lupus, prefect of Egypt 190, 481 f. Salvius Menandros, prefect of Berenike 109 Sansnos, ergodotes 162 f., 186, 189, 193, 202, 210 Sarapias / Serapias (one of several prostitutes) 315–18, 375, 379–81, 384 n. 9, 385, 389–94 Serapion, ergodotes 148 f. Servius Sulpicius Serenus, prefect of Berenike 93, 96–103, 107, 131 f. 300, 422, 436, 525 D. Severius Severus 102, 105 Severus Alexander 119, 213–16, 415, 425, 430, 488, 492, 523 Simmias 48, 73 Sokrates, architect 26 f., 541 f., 544 Sokrates, ergodotes at Claudianus: 160;

at Umm Balad: 150 n. 8, 541 Sulpicius Severus, prefect of Berenike? 107 Tertullus, procurator metallorum 117, 121, 123 Tiberius 16 f., 46 f., 76, 82 n. 5, 90, 102, 105, 131, 243, 286, 335, 467–72 Titus 549 M. Trebonius Valens, prefect of Berenike 105 Turranius, curator (of Prasou?) 63, 540–44 Ulpius Himeros, procurator metallorum 84–87 Valerius Apolinaris, prefect of Berenike 109, 127–32, 428 Vespasian 46, 50, 93, 102 n. 32, 242 n. 51, 243, 416, 426, 553 Vettius Gallianus, prefect of Berenike 101, 108, 115, 118, 130, 132, 428 Vibius Alexandros, prefect and epistrategos 11 f., 117–123, 240 L. Volusius Maecianus, prefect of Egypt 269 and n. 9, 278, 284 f. Volussius Vindicianus, prefect of Berenike 107, 272 f., 277–81, 284 f., 288 f. Zoskales, king in the region of Adulis 408 n. 59

Indexes

643

3. Places and ethnic names Abbad (Ptolemaic fort) 599, 602, 610 Abu Diyayba (amethyst mines) 10, 472 Abu Ghusun 51 f., 321 Abu Qurayya see Dios Abu Shaʿr 59, 235 Abu Shaʿr al-Qibli 242 n. 55 Abu Zawal 53–57, 75, 239, 249 n. 92, 253 f. See also Raïma Adedou Kome (al-Hudayda) 404 Adulis 406, 408, 410, 435 n. 116 Aenum 72 Agar, Arga (village in Arabian Peninsula) 401 Agriophagi 96 f., 422, 434, 436 Ajuala (= Abu Hor, Paptoulis), temple in Nubia 449 Akantha (well, praesidium) 60, 63, 253 n. 119 Akanthion (well) 63, 69 Akoris 236 Aksum, Aksumites 401 n. 17, 406–10, 435 n. 116, 490 Alabarches, Arabarches (metallon) 14, 21, 26 f., 60, 541, 543 f. Alabastrine 13, 236 n. 20, 606, 609 Alabastron 11, 610 Al-ʿAras 253 f. Al-Duwayj see Phalakron Alexandria (origin of quarrymen) 195 f. Al-Faysaliyya see Xeron Pelagos Al-Hamraʾ 47, 302 Alilaioi (South Arabian tribe) 409 Al-Laqita see Phoinikon Al-Muwayh see Krokodilo

Al-Qurayya 57, 253 f. Al-Saqiya 57, 254, 425 Al-Zarqaʾ see Maximianon Ammon (quarry) 27, 41 Anoubis (quarry) 27 f., 41 Antinoou polis 69, 119 f., 240, 244, 518; citizenship, nomarch: 603 f., 607–10 Aphrodite (quarry) 29, 41 Aphrodites Hormos 71 Aphrodites Orous 48 f., 76, 321 Apis (quarry) 28, 41 Apollon (quarry) 28 f., 41 Apollonios 51 (= Apollonos Hydreuma?) Apollonos, Apollonos Hydreuma 51 f., 69 n. 175, 243, 249, 335, 389 f.; controlled (the road to) Smaragdos: 17 n. 36, 272, 279 Apollonos polis Mikra/Parva (Qus) 231, 481 Arab see Ἄραψ (Ind. 4A) Arabia = east bank of the Nile: 424, 444, 446; = Eastern Desert of Egypt: 402 n. 21, 417 n. 16, 426; = western part of Asia, including Eastern Desert of Egypt: 417; Southern Arabia: 410, 411 n. 85; under Aksumite rule: 401 n. 17, 408 f. Arabitai (tribe of the Arabian Peninsula) 406 f., 408 n. 60 Arcadia (in Peloponnese) 607 Aristonis (ghost name) 50, 301, 321 Arsai (South Arabian tribe) 399 Arsinoes Eukairon Hydreuma 65

Arsinoites (referring to the origin of native craftsmen) 186, 195 f. Asaraei (tribe of the Eastern Desert) 436 Augouste (quarry) 29, 41 Bab al-Mukhaniq 23 f., 250 n. 96 Badiya (Prasou?) 21 n. 51, 59 f., 62 f., 234 n. 5, 250, 425, 534 n. 26 Baitios (wadi in Arabian Peninsula) 402 f. Barbaros (quarry) 29, 41 Batrachites (quarry) 19 Bazion (St John’s Island, Jazirat Zabarjad) 10, 14, 17, 78 Beja 423 n. 49, 436 f.; language: 322 n. 50 Berenike “Berenike of the Trogodytes” not an ancient place name: 48 n. 108, 70 n. 182. See Desert of Berenike, road from Edfu to Berenike, road from Koptos to Berenike Berkou 25 n. 60, 60, 63 Bessian 331, 352 Biʾr al-Hammamat 109, 256 n. 126, 303 f., 308, 321, 466, 469 Biʾr Bayza 49 f., 321, 479, 484 Biʾr Daghbagh see Kompasi Biʾr Karim 72 f. Biʾr Samut 7, 17 n. 31, 51, 65, 76 n. 204, 77 f., 322, 435, 599, 602 f. 610 Biʾr Sayyala (Simiou?) 47 f., 73, 303 f., 321, 469 Biʾr Umm Disi 63 Biʾr Umm Fawakhir (Persou II) 46, 73, 303, 469, 612

644

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Blemmyes 318–22, 399, 426, 434–36, 437 n. 128, 449, 600; the same as Trogodytai: 436 Canauna (region in Arabian Peninsula) 409 f. Casani (South Arabian tribe) see Kassanitai Chemtou 121 Chresmosarapis (quarry) 40 f., 148, 183, 185, 191, 197, 526 Cilicia 145, 610 Clari (South Arabian tribe) 409, 411 Contrapollonos polis Magna 2, 223 f., 475 Contra Pselchis 449 Contra Suene 446, 448 Contra Tafis 449 Contra Talmis 449 Dabod see Parembole Dacia 106; Dacian soldiers 107, 247 f., 252, 256, 318, 439, 532; mines and miners: 86 n. 20, 87 n. 26, 167, 169, 172 f., 231 Dakka see Pselchis Dawʾat (confederation of tribes in Southern Arabia) 413 Dawwi 47, 251, 321, 469 Dayr al-Atrash 60–62, 250 n. 95, 344 Debai (South Arabian tribe) 402 f., 409, 411 Desert of Berenike (Mons Berenicidis, Mons Berenices, Ὄρος Βερενίκης) 10, 44, 69 f., 76, 106, 130, 235, 241, 267, 300, 416 Desert of Koptos (ḏw Gbtyw) see Koptos Didymoi 48, 103 n. 41, 245 f., 251 f., 254 f., 301, 303–5, 368, 416, 473– 77, 481, 484, 523, 525 f., 599; aedes: 114 f., 218, 473 Dionysos (quarry) 29, 41 f., 77 Dios (praesidium) 49 f., 245, 250 f., 261–64, 304 f., 311 f., 321, 416; plan: 480; dedication: 481 f.; aedes: 482–526; well: 91–94, 110–12 Dioskoros (quarry) 29 Dioskoureia (well) 66 f., 185, 191 Dodekaschoinos 444, 446, 448–50 Domitiane see Kaine Latomia Domitiane Elisaroi (South Arabian tribe) 403 f. Epikomos (quarry) 29, 41

Epiphanes (quarry?) 30, 42 Ethiopians 426, 431 Euploia (quarry) 30, 41 f. Eutyches (quarry) 30, 41 f. Farasan islands 19 n. 40, 70, 244, 400 Fons Traianus Dacicus 21, 65 “footpath station” (near Porphyrites) 59, 63 Gasandoi (South Arabian tribe) see Kassanitai Germanike Latomia 14, 21, 25 f., 60 Ghozza 25, 63 Hadramawt 403, 408, 411 n. 85 Harpokrates (quarry) 29, 41 Hemesenian soldiers 318, 416 Heptanomia 117–20, 130 n. 8, 240 f. Hera (quarry) 30, 41, 183, 185, 191, 193 Hermopolitan (referring to the origin of workers) 240 Hermou polis 119, 120, 236, 240 Hieronymos (quarry) 30, 41 Himyar, Himyarites 401, 403, 404 n. 32, 408 Hippos, Hippou Petra? 73 Homeritai see Himyar “Hydreuma” (small fort at Mons Claudianus) 237 Hydreuma Traianon Dakikon see Fons Traianus Dacicus Iambia 399. See Yanbuʿ Ichthyophagoi 17, 418 f., 434; on the Red Sea Coast of Southern Arabia: 409 f. India 252 Iovis see Dios Kabalsi? 51 f., 78. See Abu Ghusun Kaine (Qena) 59, 68, 120, 199, 217, 235 f., 240, 254, 415; home town for the quarrymen families: 227–32; Roman garrison and army officers in K.: 252, 450, 529–30, 532–34, 537 Kaine Latomia (quarry at Mons Claudianus) 31, 41 Kaine Latomia see Kaine Latomia Domitiane, Umm Balad Kaine Latomia Domitiane 20 f., 539 Kainon Hydreuma 52 f., 69, 76, 243, 302, 322

Kampe (praesidium) 53, 57, 77, 417, 440 f., 442, 525 n. 68 Kanopos (quarry) 31, 41 Kanopos (site near Didymoi?) 74 Kanraitai (South Arabian tribe) 410 f. Kardameton (well) 60, 64 f., 68 Kasandreis (South Arabian tribe) see Kassanitai Kassanitai (South Arabian tribe) 403–5, 407–9 Kattiou (well) 67 Kentos, Kentosi (village in Arabian peninsula) 402 Khasm al-Minayh see Didymoi Kinaidokolpitai 244, 397–414 Kinaioi 406 Kinana (South Arabian tribe) 403, 410–13 Kinda (South Arabian tribe) 399, 402, 405, 411–13 Kochlax (quarry) 32, 41 Kompasi 49, 321, 499, 527, 530, 577 Kopar (village in Arabian Peninsula) 401 Koptos minerals exported through Koptos: 19 n. 46; garrison: 97; Desert of Koptos: 10, 70, 241, 267, 471; Coptite cults: 472 n. 41; origin of the donkey and cameldrivers in the desert of Berenike: 602; customs: 264, 418; seized by Blemmyes: 434; head of two desert roads: 10, 242 f., 321, 416, 533 Krepis Heras 42 Krepis Megale 42 Krokodilo, Korkodilo 44–46, 242, 246, 301, 303 f., 308, 416, 466, 468 f., 599; tutelary god: 303, 381 Lakkos 53, 57 Laton polis 2, 223 f. Leon (quarry) 32, 41 f. Leuke Kome 244, 400, 407, 408 n. 60, 410, 418 Leukos Limen (ghost name) 407 n. 49 Louter (quarry) 31 f., 41 Madianitai (tribe in Arabian Peninsula) 405 f. Mantinea 607 Margarites (pearl fisheries) 14, 17 f., 19, 78 Maron (quarry) 32, 41 f. Maronos Makra (quarry) 32, 41 f. Maximianon 46 f., 72 f., 223 f., 246,

Indexes 250, 259, 268, 301, 304 f., 397, 425, 435 n. 113, 466, 468, 484, 526, 599; tutelary god: 304 Medjay 77, 436, 471 Megabaroi 426, 436 Megale latomia (quarry) 33, 41 Melan Oros 13, 60–62 Memphites origin of native craftsmen: 186, 195; a stone: 82 Meroe 426 Mese (quarry) 33, 41 Mese Isis (quarry) 33, 41 f. Mithras (quarry) 33, 41 f. Mons Claudianus 13 f. (name in Greek), 14 (titles of curators commanding it) Mons Berenicidis 10, 69, 76, 235, 267, 300, 427, 436 Myos Hormos 71–73, 235 f., 241–44, 249, 257 n. 137, 301, 418 f., 426 Myrismou (quarry) 27, 33, 41, 183, 193, 197 Nabataean 302, 397, 418 Neilammon (quarry) 34, 41 Neroniane (quarry) 34, 41 Nikotychai (quarry) 34–36, 41, 147 f. Nitriai (praesidium) 44 Novum Hydreuma see Kainon Hydreuma Nubades 319, 320 n. 49 Ophiates 14, 16 f., 20, 82 Ostreon 75 Palmyra, Palmyrene soldiers 94, 115, 204, 245, 318, 405 n. 36, 416, 431, 448 Panieion (= Al-Kanaʾis) 51 Paptoulis (Ajuala) 449 n. 18 Parembole (Dabod?) 44, 421 n. 37, 422, 427, 444–46, 448, 450 Parthian soldiers 318, 416 Patkoua (praesidium in Dodekaschoinos) 44, 78, 312, 421, 427, 448 Persou 46 f., 239 n. 31, 246, 248, 302 f., 304, 308 f., 466–69, 472, 526; remains of the praesidium: 469 n. 19 Persou-and-Tamostymis 46 Phalakron 50 f., 275, 301–3 Philammon (quarry) 37 f., 41 Philoc(aesar?) (quarry) 38 f., 41 Philosarapis (quarry) 38 f., 41 Philotera(s) 72 f., 418

Philoteris 72 f. Phoinikon 48, 75, 87 f., 243, 256, 309, 318, 321, 428, 450, 469, 577; tutelary god: 303, 466 n. 7 Plotina (quarry) 36, 41 Porphyrites (metallon) 10, 14–17, 19–21, 23, 43, 57–60, 62, 86, 137, 193, 203, 207, 252, 258, 446, 534, 539, 603 ; not “Mons Porphyrites”: 14–16; name of a district including Claudianus? Preeminence over other metalla: 11, 119 f., 235–41, 244; wells: 248 f.; cults: 367 n. 3, 470–72, 524, 526; visit of the prefect of Egypt: 534 n. 26; ostraca from Porphyrites: 19, 237 f., 240; discovery: see C. Cominius Leugas (Ind. 2). See road from Kaine to Porphyrites Porphyrites (quarry at Mons Claudianus) 36, 41 Prasou 60, 62, 64, 137, 540 f., 543 f. Proembesis (ancient name of Biʾr Samut?) 51 Pselchis 119, 163 n. 54, 218, 327–29, 334, 341, 449 n. 20, 611. See Contra Pselchis Ptolemais Hermeiou 201, 231, 434, 471 Pylai (Ptol. site near Biʾr Samut) 77

645 Κλαυδιανή/Κλαυδιανοῦ) 68, 232, 235 f., 533, 600 road from Kaine to Porphyrites (ὁδὸς Πορφυρίτου) 68, 252–54 road from Koptos to Berenike (ὁδὸς Βερενίκης) 9, 265, 302, 426; list of praesidia: 48–53, name: 69; outfitting with way stations under Vespasian: 243; replaces road from Edfu to Berenike: 69, 242 road from Koptos to Myos Hormos (ὁδὸς Μυσόρμου/Μυσορμιτική) 69 (name), 88 (interval between praesidia), 231, 302 f., 469 (map) Rome (quarry) 36, 41

Qattar (praesidium) 23, 59, 62 f. Qena see Kaine Qus see Apollonos polis Mikra Qusayr al-Qadim see Myos Hormos Qusur al-Banat (praesidium) 244 n. 71, 256 n. 126, 305, 308, 321, 435 n. 113, 469, 484, 581

Sabaʾ, Sabaeans 405, 407 f., 410 n. 73 Sabelbi (praesidium) 60, 62 f., 78, 542 Salaeis (well near Mons Claudianus) 68, 78 Sapar (Ptolemaic site near Biʾr Samut) 77 f. Selene (quarry) 36, 41 Senskis 17 n. 36, 78 Serapis? (quarry) 37, 41 Simiou (praesidium) 47 f., 73, 321; tutelary god: 303 f. Smaragdos 10, 17, 70; not “Mons Smaragdus:”15; exploited by desert dwellers: 17, 435 Sozousa (quarry) 37, 41 Syene 250, 424, 426, 446, 449 n. 17, 450; origin of quarrymen:162, 166, 186, 196, 228, 230 n. 11; onomastics of quarrymen from Syene: 230 n. 11; κατὰ Συήνην ὄρος 70 n. 183 Syka, Sykou 75

Raïma (praesidium) 53 f., 56 f., 78, 122, 129, 192, 238 f., 246, 249, 253, 257, 424, 439 f., 454–56, 458 f.; tutelary god: 304 n. 27, 472 n. 42, 495, 525 n. 68 Ramnos (Ptolemaic site near Biʾr Samut) 77 Ridisiya see Contrapollonos polis Magna road between Claudianus and the well of Akantha 66, 68 f. road between Claudianus and Umm Balad 63 road from Edfu to Berenike 51, 76 n. 204, 241 f., 475 road from Kaine to Claudianus (ὁδὸς

Tabis (polis in Arabian Peninsula) 402 Talʿat al-Zarqaʾ see Wadi Abu Shuwayhat Tamostymis 14, 46 f., 78, 471 Thebai (Θεβαι, polis in Arabian Peninsula) 402 Thonis Megale (praesidium in Dodekaschoinos) 44, 78, 422 Thracia, Thracian soldiers 247, 311, 318, 331, 372, 516, 537 Tiberiane (metallon) 10 f., 14, 18, 20, 82 n. 5, 86, 203 f., 236, 424 Topazion see Bazion Traiane (quarry) 37, 41, 183, 185, 191, 197

646

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

Trogodytai 78, 418, 426, 434, 436 f.; same as Blemmyes: 436 Trogodyticum Hydreuma 53 Umm Balad (metallon) 20–27, 57–64, 136 f., 150 n. 8, 204, 238, 248, 415, 417, 539–53; use of its granodiorite: 20 and n. 48. See Kaine Latomia Domitiane Umm Shejilat (metallon) 23, 25, 63 Umm Towat (metallon) 21–24, 26. See Germanike Latomia Vetus Hydreuma (ghost toponym) 53 via Hadriana 60, 68 f., 75, 234 n. 6, 236 n. 14, 242, 244, 267 Wadi Abu Qurayya see Kainon Hydreuma Wadi Abu Shuwayhat (= Talʿat alZarqaʾ, way station) 54 n. 130; =

Kampe?: 57 Wadi al-Fawakhir 46 f., 233, 435, 468 f. See Biʾr Umm Fawakhir, Persou Wadi al-Hammamat (metallon, Persou I) 46, 62, 78, 96, 149, 150, 160, 178, 196, 201, 207, 209 n. 88, 241, 243, 419 n. 26, 422, 465, 467 f., 469 n. 20, 470–72 Wadi al-Kashir 53 Wadi ʿAllaqi 449 Wadi Barud see Tiberiane Wadi Belih 59 f., 63 Wadi Fatira al-Bayda (quarry) 75 Wadi Ghozza 25, 63 Wadi Jamal see Apollonos Hydreuma Wadi Jirf see Xeron Pelagos Wadi Lahma/Lahami 53 Wadi Samna see Ophiates Wadi Umm Diqal (well) 65 Wadi Umm Sidri 59

Wadi Umm Wikala 10, 16. See Ophiates Xeron, Xeron Pelagos 50–52, 250, 267 f., 275, 303, 311, 318, 369–72, 389–94, 416, 423, 427 f., 599 f.; aedes: 73, 305–308; tutelary god: 302, 304, 526; ostraca from the praetorium: 427 f.; final occupation: 244 f., 319–21, 429–33 Xeron Pelagos (near Claudianus) 74 f., 88 Yanbuʿ (Iambia?) 399 nn. 7 f., 400 f., 407, 409 n. 60 Zaaram, Zabram, Zambram, Zadrame (capital of the Kinaidokolpitai) 401 Zeus (quarry) 30, 41

Indexes

647

4. Greek and Latin words a. Lexical ἀγαθός. ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ 115, 219, 474, 498, 500 f. ἀηδία 137, 391–94 ἀκόλαστος 373 ἀλαβάστρινος 605, 608 ἀλαβαστρών 608 ἀλάβης 421 n. 33 ἀμείνων 504 ἀναγκαῖος 286 (referring to mail) ἀναμετρητὴς μαρμάρων (surveyor of marbles) 205 ἀνθρακῶν 188 ἀντάποχον 333 ἀντικουράτωρ 121 ἀντλεῖν, ἀντλία 249 ἄπα 393 ἀπάτωρ 604 ἀπόδεσμος 277 ἀποκαθιστάναι 124 f. ἀπολύειν 530–32 ἀπολύσιμος 532 n. 12 ἀπονύχισμα 615 ἄππας 392 f. ἄπρακτος 506 f. ἀριθμός (subdivision of the familia) 11, 119, 236, 610 ἀρτάβη 341 f. (size), 431 (of 12 matia) ἀσκός see goatskin (Ind. 5) ἀσκοφορία 199

A. Greek1 ἀτραπός 503 ἀφιέναι 379 f. ἄχυρον see chaff (Ind. 5) βαλανίτης 19 n. 46 βαρβαρικόν 424 f. βασανίτης 15, 20 n. 46, 62, 419 n. 26, 422, 465 n. 2 βασίλειον (in Southern Arabia) 409 n. 60 βατραχίτης 19, 20, 27 βῖκος 286 βοηθός 85 n. 12 γραμματεῖον 372 f. γραμματεύς 430, 530 δαπάνη 165 f. δειλαίνεσθαι (middle) 510 δεκανία 429, 601 f. δεκανός 188 (δεκ. καμήλων), 429 δερματοῦσθαι 289 δεσπότης 203 (form of address), 569 δημόσιος. τὰ δημόσια = τὰ πούπλικα 331, 335, 351, 352 n. 59 δησέκτωρ 215–18 διάταξις 609 δίπλωμα 269 n. 14, 270, 276; δίπλωμα τῆς ἐπιθέσεως (postal

1. This index includes Greek words given in transcription in the text.

dispatch note): 256, 264–66 δισεκτορία 217 δισέκτωρ 217 δρομάς 204, 248 δυστυχής 500 n. 17 ἔλασμα 94, 96 ἐνάρετος 216 ἐντολή (list of instructions to the quartermaster) 138, 165, 175–80, 228, 235, 238, 274, 328 – from Porphyrites 167 n. 5, 238 ἐξουσία 452 f. ἔπαρχος καὶ ἐπίτροπος 102 n. 31 ἔπαρχος κάστρων Θηβῶν 118 ἔπαρχος Ὄρους 76, 98 f., 101, 105–8, 127, 130–32, 279 ἔπαρχος Ὄρους καὶ εἴλης 101, 103, 107 f., 114 f. ἐπιβάλλειν 433; middle voice: 502, 512, 517 ἐπιγαμία 603 f. ἐπίθεσις 176, 178, 262, 264 f. ἐπιμελητής 95 (ὑδρευμάτων, κτηνῶν); of the Paneion: 190, 206 f. ἐπιμήνια (monthly provisions) 348 ἐπιστάτης (= ἐργεπιστάτης) 151, 153 n. 20, 157, 159. ἐπιτηρητής 66, 253

648

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

ἐπιτιθέναι 265. See also ἐπίθεσις ἐπιτροπική (sc. ἐπιστολή) 373 ἐπίτροπος (private) 341; guardian and protector of a prostitute: 393, 613, 615 ἐπίτροπος Βερενίκης 280 ἐπίτροπος Ὄρους 76, 86 n. 13, 98–100, 102, 278 ἐπίτροπος Σεβαστοῦ see procurator Augusti (Ind. 4B) ἐπίτροπος τοῦ κυρίου (Καίσαρος) 100 n. 24 ἐπίτροπος τῶν μετάλλων see procurator metallorum (Ind. 4B) ἐπιχρεία 124 ἐργάτης 158, 197, 217, 240, 258 ἐργεπιστάτης 151, 153, 157, 159 ἐργοδιώκτης 157, 159 f., 196 n. 31 ἐργοδοσία 153 f., 159 ἐργοδοτεῖν 153–59 ἐργοδότης 41, 145, 148–53, 155–63 ἐργοδότρια 158 ἐργολαβεῖν, ἐργολαβία, ἐργολάβος 153–60 ἑρμηνεία 518 ἑρμηνεύς 430 ἔτος (symbol for ἔτους) 327 εὐλαβεῖσθαι 509 f. εὔλυτος 502 f. εὐτυχῶς 501 εὐχαριστία 115 (εὐχαριστίας χάριν), 215 f. (ὑπὲρ εὐχαριστίας + gen.) ζεῦγος (of bread) 137–42, 161, 368, 541 f., 584 n. 31 ζήτησις 189 ἡγεμονικός. ἐπιστολὴ ἡγεμονική 261–63, 284 ἡλικία. τῇ ἡλικίᾳ/τὴν ἡλικίαν προβαίνειν/προκόπτειν 528, 530 f. ἡμερομαντίαι καὶ ὧραι 514, 520, 522 ἡμιολία. σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ 375, 384 f. θησαυροφύλαξ 54, 188 θρεπτή 615 ἴδιος 561–70; meaning “friend, close intimate”: 561, 566; meaning “trusted man”: 566, 570

κάδος 129, 249, 428 καμός, κημός 586 f. καπίστριον 586 f. κάρδαμον 64 κάση (cassis) 143 καταβαίνειν 227, 239 καταβατόν 63 κατάλογος 195 κατασπᾶν, κατάσπασις 74 καταφέρειν 228 κατώμηλος 588 καυλίον 577, 579–83 καυλός 577–84 κέλλα see cella (Ind. 4B) κεράμιον 95, 145, 162, 185, 187, 202, 208–12 κεφαλοτόμος 615 κεφαλωτόν (sc. πράσον) 578 n. 6, 584 κημός see καμός κιβαριάτης 163, 166 f., 175–80, 198, 203, 227–29, 232, 235, 553 n. 38 κιβαριάτωρ see cibariator (Ind. 4B) κιβάριον see cibarium (Ind. 4B) κίναιδος 399 n. 4 κλάσμα 142 κλῆρος 218, 309 κνηκίτης 21–23 (porphyry from Umm Towat?) κολοφώνιον 163, 329, 334, 428 f. κολπιτεύειν 413 f. κολπίτης 399, 413 κολπιτικός 413 κονδούκτρια, κονδούκτριξ 373 f. κονδούκτωρ 372–74, 385; ἡ κονδούκτωρ: 373; κ. ὑδρεύματος: 48, 327, 368. See μισθωτής and conductor (Ind. 4B) κοπή 43 κόπρος 56 κουιντάνα see quintana (Ind. 4B) κουρεύς 206 κράμβη 313, 316, 577, 579–84 κραμβίον 577, 581–83 κράτιστος 87, 101, 106–9, 113, 116–18, 272, 288–89, 421 κρηπίς 42 f., 192 f., 201 n. 54, 217 κτηνοιατρός 95, 183 κυκλεύειν 315, 380, 383 κυκλευτικόν 315, 380 f., 389 κῦμα 509 f. κυριακός 43, 116, 189, 198 κύριος κύριε, term of address: 93, 123, 129, 163, 218 (κύριε

Καῖσαρ), 372, 541, 605; ὁ κύριος qualifying sovereigns: 569 λάκκος 57, 64, 123, 137, 249, 455 λατομία 13, 28, 30 f., 33, 34, 37, 39, 41–42, 43 (subdivision of κοπή), 75 f., 192, 201 n. 54, 415 n. 2 λῃστής 420 λίβελλον 240 λύκαινα, λυκαίνιον 613 λύω. λελυμένος (qualifying mail) 276, 284–86 μαλάβαθρον 252 μαργαρίτης 19 (rock crystal, not pearl?), 78. See Margarites (Ind. 3) μαρσίππιον, μάρσιππος ἁπλοῦς/ διπλοῦς 368–71 μάτιον 344 f., 351, 430–33 μεταλλάρχης 10, 16, 105, 241 μέταλλον 19 n. 43, 68, 75 f., 123 f., 415 n. 2 (meaning different from λατομία), 238, 444, 605 μητρόπολις (in Southern Arabia) 409 n. 60 μηχανικός 155 μίλιον 75 μῖμος 391, 393 f. μισθός 166 n. 2, 382 μίσθωμα 315, 380–83 μισθωτής μ. κουιντάνης: 376; μ. τῶν μετάλλων: 149, 237, 367 n. 3; μ. οὐσίας: 524; μ. πραισιδίου 368; see also conductor (Ind. 4B) μοκροτου 404 n. 29 μονομάχης/-χος (messenger) 49, 256 f., 274 f., 280, 295–97, 308, 429, 455, 528, 531 ναύκληρος 498 νεολόχιον 613 ξενία 193 f., 251 ξυλοκρουστός 429 ξυλοπρίστης 188 οἰκεῖος (= possessive adj.) 569 οἰκονόμος 54, 246, 362, 453. See dispensator (Ind. 4B) ὄνομα. ὑπὲρ ὀνόματος 432 f. ὄργανον 250 ὄρμενον 583 n. 29

Indexes ὄρος “desert”: 10, 70; not part of a toponym in Ptolemy’s Geography: 15; Ὄρους as modifier in complex toponyms: 48 f.; “bedrock:” 93 f.; τὸ κατὰ Συήνην ὄρος: 70 n. 183 ὀψώνιον 166 n. 2, 328, 574. See wages (Ind. 5) παιδάριον 565, 568 παῖς 137, 144, 167 πάππας 393 παραλημπτής 418 πήρα 588 πιττάκιον (in the Koptos Tariff) 252, 376 πλατεάριος 205 f. πλατεῖα 205 f. πλῆθος 196 πλήρωμα 557–60 πορεία 60, 66, 116 n. 6, 257, 340, 374, 391 πορφυρίτης (origin of the noun, rarely an adjective) 14, 68 πορφυριτικός 16, 68 πόσις 163 ποτάμιον 250 πούβλικα, πούπλικα see δημόσια and publica (Ind. 4B) πρᾶγμα ποιεῖν 391 f. πραισίδιον see praesidium (Ind. 4B) πραιτέριτος see praeteritus (Ind. 4B) πράσον 62, 578 πράσσειν 504 f., 517 προβολή 340 προκουράτωρ (= deputy curator) 340 f. πτῶμα 318 ῥακάδιον 55 f. ῥάφανος 578 f., 581

ῥίπα

444; see also ripa (Ind. 4B)

σαβανοῦν 289 σάκκος 138, 586, 601 σαπρία 613 f. σίγνον see signum (Ind. 4B) σιδήριον 93, 95 f.; “iron:” 528 f. σιρός 142 f. σιτηρέσιον 605 f., 609 σκάτος 56 σκατοφάγος 615 σκληρουργός 25, 46, 137, 151, 162 f., 168 n. 9, 191–93, 195–97, 201–7, 227, 467, 540, 610 σκοπελάριος 185, 188 σκόπελος 66, 188, 250, 448 σκυτεύς 206, 588 n. 17 στάβλον 95, 188 σταθμός (“station”) 76 n. 204, 234 n. 6, 244 n. 69 στατιωνάριος see stationarius (Ind. 4B) στόμωμα 93–96, 193 στόμωσις, στομωτής 95–96, 167, 168 n. 9 στομωτήριον (steelworks) 191, 193 στρατιώτης 201 (working as quarryman), 248 (“foot soldier”) συμβολή 165 f. σύν/χωρίς 375 f., 382–86 συνοικία 230 f. σφραγίζειν 276, 284, 288 σφραγίς 287, 528 f., 535 f. σφυροκόπος 96, 196 f., 207 σχεδία (“fishing boat”) 418 ταβελλάριος 85 n. 12 (recurrent mistake for ταβουλάριος) τετάρτη (tax) 418 τηρητής 95, 183, 188 τιμή in military food receipts from Pselchis: 333–35; τῆς τιμῆς:

649 571–75 τιμιώτατος 563 τόκος σὺν τόκῳ: 375 f., 384 f.; χωρίς/ἄνευ τόκου: 385 τροχός 290, 528, 537 τυραννίς 434 f. τύραννος 435 ὑδρεία 64 ὕδρευμα 15, 42, 48, 51–53, 64–69, 75 f., 201, 234 n. 6, 327, 368; “water-table”: 93; name of garrisons before the building of praesidia: 9, 47, 243 ὑποτύραννος 319, 332, 429 f., 434–36 φαρμαξάριος 196 f. φιλοτραιανός 33 φιμός 516 φορβειά 586–88 φόρετρον 316, 374 φρούριον 234, 244 φυσητής 184, 187, 192, 195–97, 211 χαλκεύς 93, 96, 150, 167, 184, 190, 195–96 χείρ. διὰ χειρὸς ἔχειν 452 f. χειραγωγεῖν 453 χέννιον 295, 297. χιλοφύλαξ 603 n. 14 χίλωμα 141, 585–89 χιλωτήρ 586–89 χορτάριον, χόρτος 348. See hay (Ind. 5) χωρίς/σύν 375 f., 382–86 ψωλοφάγος ωευρευεξ

394 319 f., 430–32

b. Personal and *geographical names Ἅβως 145 *Ἀλ̣αβίτης 421 Αλαφθαν 93 f. *Ἀλεξανδρεύς 195 f. (quarrymen), 498 (naukleros) Ἀντινόη 607 Ἀντίνοος 607 Ἄππας 392 f.

*Ἀραβαιγύπτιοι 15, 419 *Ἀραβίτης 421 n. 33. See Arabitai (Ind. 3) *Ἄραψ 17, 407, 417 n. 15 Ἄρης, var. Ἄρειος 226

*Βερνικησία ὁδός Βόθυνος 140 Βουβᾶς 372

*Βαρβαρικὴ χώρα 434 *Βερενικίς 69 f.

*Ἰουδαῖος

69, 301

Ἔννις 160 f. 541, 544, 549 n. 18

650 *Κολπίτης 413 f. Κρηνίτης, Κρινίτης

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert 294, 297

*Μααδηνοί (South Arabian tribe) 411 n. 85 Μαντινεύς (hero and deme) 607 Μαντινόη 605, 607 Μαρεις 145 *Μυσορμίτης, Μύσορμος 15 n. 25, 71 Νειλάμμων 34 Νεκρῦς 225 Νεστόριος 499 Νικοτύχη, Νικότυχος

148

Ὁνῆς, Ὅνης

139

Παπυρᾶς 224 Πεβῶς 145 Πελάγων 452 Σαραπ-/Σεραπ- (spelling) 148 f., 491 Σεραπιάς (name of prostitutes) 393 f. Σισίννιος 499 Σπινθήρ 189 Σωλᾶς 446 Σῶρος 144

*Τατουδιός

49

Φακᾶς 140 Φαρικός 225 f. Φθαῦς, Φθοῦς 145 Φιλάμμων 37 f. Χέννος, Χένος, Χεννᾶς 295, 297 *Χινδηνοί (South Arabian tribe) 399, 411 n. 85 Χρυσέρως 160 f. Ψεντούανσις

313 f.

B. Latin a. Lexical adiutor 99 (of the prefect of Berenike) aedes see chapel (Ind. 5) aedituus 207 ala Gallica 108, 364 n. 6 ala Herculiana 92, 97 n. 10, 101, 107 f., 115, 117 f., 238, 298, 344 ala I Pannoniorum 106 ala Vocontiorum 97, 107, 131, 272, 300, 422 angulum 250 basilica Ulpia 190 caesura 29, 32, 38, 43 camus 586, 587 n. 10 capistrum 586 f. cauliculus 579, 581 n. 23, 582 caulis 578 f. cella 194 n. 24, 195, 383 n. 8, 251 centuria 202, 356, 358, 557–59 CEP = c(aesura) Ep(afroditi) 29, 38, 43 cibariator 150, 163 and n. 53 cibarium, cibaria 212, 328–31, 334 f., 349, 459 classis Augusta Alexandrina 118, 557 n. 3 clavicula 425 cohors I Lusitanorum 128, 204, 473–77 cohors II Thracum 119 cohors II Ituraeorum 84 f. (?), 119, 218, 328, 421, 446

cohors III Ituraeorum 84 f. (?) conductor 100, 157, 206, 327, 376 f., 385 f., 524; cond. faenarius: 367; cond. metallorum: 43, 237 n. 24; cond. praesidii: 367–74. See also μισθωτής (Ind. 4A) congius 208 contubernium 251, 428 coxa 250 cura. curam agere 99 n. 17, 356–58, 482, 524 n. 59 curator Claudiani 238 f. curator fani/templi 207 curator praesidii 49, 101, 200, 248, 250, 332, 385, 416, 446, 493, 561, 604; rank: 73, 234; elsewhere than in Egypt: 234; with Egyptian name: 318, 327 f.; responsible for stocks of commodities: 341, 351 f., 367; as postmaster: 261, 267–69; responsible for water-lifting machines: 129 cyma 579 f., 582 damnatio ad metalla 609 damnatio in opus publicum 609 damnatio memoriae 20–21 (Mettius Rufus, Domitian), Caracalla or Severus Alexander: 488, 492 decipere (δήκεπτος) 457 decuria (servile) 429, 602 desecare 217 desector 213–19

dispensator 246, 356, 359, 361 f. disponere, dispositus 312, 314 dromadarius 186, 204, 248, 328, 338 duplicarius 44, 99, 239, 252 n. 109, 266, 304, 346, 446, 459, 586 ergodota 152 familia 93 f., 145, 162, 166, 185– 87, 195, 197, 211–12, 328–30, 531, 541 f., 544, 549, 557 n. 2; administrative divisions: 11, 236; occupations and status: 197, 199, 202, 207, 246, 269, 610 (convicts?); number: 121, 198–200; anthroponymy: 145, 180, 610 n. 30 familiaris 257 frumentum publicum 606 galearius 531 n. 8 genius loci 245, 471 f., 525 f. honesta missio 530, 532 horreum 250, 327 hospitium 194, 236, 240, 244 immunis 207 latro 420 legio II Traiana Fortis 278, 606 liber litterarum allatarum 99, 256, 270, 308, 419

Indexes liber litterarum missarum 12, 271 librarius 493 locatio conductio operarum 157 f., 166, 383 locatio conductio operis 150, 158, 166 militia equestris 97 f., 101–3, 106, 131–32 missicius 532 modius 341–47, 351 mons (meaning “desert”) 10, 70 numerus (subdivision of the familia) 11, 86, 236, 240, 610 opus Caesaris

457

paganus 162, 166, 168 n. 9, 175, 185, 191, 195–200, 207, 211 f., 227–29, 232, 246, 328, 544, 549 f. porrum (capitatum, sativum, sectile) 578 n. 6, 584 praedisponere, praedispositus 314 praefectus castrorum 116 praepositus 103, 193, 200, 237, 563 praesidium 64, 75 f., 201 f., 218, 234 n. 6, 243, 245, 249 f., 253, 258, 368, 481, “garrison:” 501; size of garrison: 247 f.; military barracks before the praesidia:

243; built under Trajan in the northern part of the desert?: 253; interchangeable with metallon in the title of curator Claudiani: 14, 238; genius praesidii: 525 f., 610 praetentura 103 praeteritus 123 f., 356, 358, 361 praetorium 194, 250, 427 f., 485 pretium. pretio 573 princeps 130, 444–46, 450, 458 f. principalis 121, 459 f. principia 251 (πρινκίπια τῶν κυρίων), 456 procurator 98–104, 367 n. 2 procurator Augusti (ἐπίτροπος Σεβαστοῦ) 93, 97 f., 100 f. and n. 39, 103, 128 f. 131, 241, 248, 278, 423 procurator Caesaris (ἐπίτροπος τοῦ κυρίου Καίσαρος) 100 n. 24 procurator metallorum (ἐπίτροπος τῶν μετάλλων) 11, 14, 40 f., 43, 82, 86, 88, 100 and n. 24, 105, 119, 121, 127, 148 f., 161, 163, 203, 236 f., 239 f., 424 f., 461, 526, 531, 564 prodisponere, prodispositus 314 publica (neut. pl.) 326 f., 331–35, 348–53, 374 n. 25 quintana 374–77, 383–87, 611; “camp market,” “market taxes:”

651 376 f.; origin of French “cantine:” 376 n. 9 quintanensis 254 f., 370, 376 f., 387 ripa 103 n. 36, 132 n. 18, 444, 448 f. salve 359, 361 f. sesquiplicarius 44, 99, 203, 346 n. 41, 446, 459 signifer 73, 234, 335, 446 signum (military standard) 305, 523; εἰς τὰ σίγνα 455 f. statio 252 f., 308 stationarius 66, 252–54 stipendium see pay (Ind. 5) strator 186 f., 202 subtessarius 186, 200, 203 tabularius 86 n. 14, 119, 203 f., 269, 284, 439; tab. metallorum: 236, 240 f. tesserarius 162, 186, 200, 203 f., 210, 424, 429, 563 Tibereum marmor 17, 18 fig. 2, 20, 82 n. 5 tiro 162, 211, 536 nn. 39 f. vectigal maris Rubri 418 vexillum = vexillatio: 124, 214, 501; “standard:” 523, 488 victus (in victum) 333–35, 349, 374

b. Personal and *geographical names Annius 161 n. 44 (frequent in Syene) Babullius (Βαβούλλιος) 186, 188

*Berenicis 69 Dignitas (Διγνιτα) Egnatuleius 278

456

Ennius 160, 161 n. 44 Ummidius 186, 188 Volus(s)ius 278

652

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

5. Subjects acclamations 148, 216, 218 f., 501 alabarch 26 nn. 63 f. alabarchy 387 alabaster quarries 11, 15, 218, 236, 606, 608 f. Allath 302 amphora AE3 (amphore égyptienne 3) 208 (capacity), 271, 599, 602 amulets 521, 534, 536 n. 46 animal lines xxii, 57, 59, 253 Apollo 154, 303 f., 321, 470 n. 28, 502, 514, 518, 519 n. 43; name of quarries: 28 f. apprentices 167, 211, 230 n. 8 architects (ἀρχιτέκτων, i.e., engineer) 149, 152–55, 157–59, 198, 200–2, 205, 207, 210, 471 f.; military arch.: 490 f. See Apollonios, Herakleides, Hieronymos, Sokrates (Ind. 2) article (in Greek place-names) 76 f. associations (professional, religious) 38, 163, 166, 196, 592, 600 Athena 73, 302–5, 321 f., 391, 466– 69, 472, 525 f., 560 n. 31 Athenadion 73, 305–6, 525 bags 141, 586; postal bag: 270 f., 273 f., 277, 440; leather bag containing coins: 370. See μαρσίππιον, σάκκος, χίλωμα (Ind. 4A) baldachin 488 Barbarians, Barbaroi 97 f., 121 n. 27, 122, 243, 255, 415–37; in Claudianus and Umm Balad: 424 f.; language: 319, 322; anthroponymy: 320, 428, 432 f., 435 n. 112; women: 433. See Baratit (Ind.

2); Blemmyes, Medjay, Megabaroi, Trogodytai (Ind. 3) barbers see κουρεύς (Ind. 4A) barley 123, 142, 186, 207, 231 n. 14, 258, 327 f., 333, 335 n. 23, 338–40, 343–51, 358, 368, 428, 430, 445 f.; price: 351 baskets 56, 141 f., 373 bath 193 f., 206, 250 f., 259, 473, 613 f. Beduin see Barbarians bekhen stone 17, 46, 201, 241. See βασανίτης (Ind. 4A) bibliomancy 517, 518 n. 37 bilingualism (Latin-Greek) 311, 398; “Greek of the Romans” 70; Greek written in Latin alphabet 311 f. blacksmiths 67, 93, 96, 151, 162 f., 167 f., 185–88, 190–92, 196, 198 f., 209, 211, 328, 461. See στόμωσις, φαρμαξάριος, χαλκεύς (Ind. 4A) branding 535 bread 54, 60, 161, 186, 198, 207 f., 232, 258, 316, 327, 434, 446, 540–44, 609; in pairs: 137–44, 368; baked by women: 227–29, 433; metrology: 346 f.; Jews’ unleavened bread: 542 f.; in Porphyrites: 19, 240. See ζεῦγος (Ind. 4A) camels 56 (dung), 63, 116, 186, 188 (dekanos of camels), 204 n. 63 (water requirement); 242, 253 n. 19 (imperial camels), 257, 343 n. 27 (food), 535 (branding), 541; camelfriendly terrain: 59 and n. 149, 267; water-carrying: 66–68, 75, 199,

208, 248, 253 n. 119; maximum load: 210, 235 n. 9, 433 n. 101; hauling blocks: 199, 246; hired/ requisitioned: 113, 116, 257, 535; belonging to desert dwellers: 409, 422, 428, 444, 449. See Nikanor (Ind. 2) camel-drivers 25 f., 48, 113, 116, 189, 207, 258, 264 f., 301, 374, 429, 531, 535, 602 cavalrymen number: 200 f., 204, 246–48, 419; mail carrying, escort: 63, 99, 248, 255 f., 261–63, 267 f., 271, 274 f., 285, 308 f., 312, 391, 427 n. 75; food and water rations: 162, 331, 333, 337–41, 345, 348 f., 361, 367; fight: 419, 422; Dacian: 252; Bessian: 331 centurions administration of metalla: 14, 54, 63, 74, 136, 162 f., 186, 188, 190, 193 f., 200–3, 237–40, 470, 604, 609; in the desert of Berenike: 44, 99, 272, 276, 278, 280, 284 f., 309; replaced by a curator in Mons Claudianus: 238 f.; issue passes: 252–54; stationed at Berenike 278; posted in Kainè (?): 533; centurio princeps: 446; legionary centurion: 254, 278, 280, 448, 605 f.; captain of a war-ship: 558; epistolography: 561, 563 Cerberus 305, 485 chaff 54, 258 f., 331, 338–40, 343–5, 347 f., 350–52 chancery handwriting 213, 219 chapel (aedes) in a praesidium 245, 250 f., 305, 484. See Athenadion,

Indexes oracle, Philoterion; Didymoi, Dios, Xeron Pelagos (Ind. 3) charcoal ink substitute: 33, 67, 120, 214 n. 5; fuel: 188, 423 chickens 247 Cilician personal names 145, 610 cisterns 65, 123, 137, 199, 243, 248, 249, 299, 305, 416, 454–57, 480; see λάκκος (Ind. 4A) cobblers see σκυτεύς (Ind. 4A) cobras 552 f. combination of professions 155 n. 28 consular date 355–57 contracts (business contract, employment contract) 167 n. 7. See locatio conductio operis/operarum (Ind. 4B); see also public contracts convicts 201, 604, 608–10 costrels (“pilgrim flasks”) 468 f., 599 counter-receipts 333 decurions in Mons Claudianus: 162, 186, 190, 193 f., 200 f., 203; in the desert of Berenike: 44, 99, 248, 272, 277–79, 280, 284 f., 289, 297, 420; issue passes: 252, 254 deputy curator, vice-curator 121–23, 341 desert dwellers see Barbarians diet 227 f. (workers in quarries), 338 (soldiers) Dioscuri 48, 304 f., 321, 525 f. displacement of population 230–32 donkeys 123; decurion’s donkeys: 186, 203; load: 210; water needs: 211; food: 344 n. 34, 347; donkey caravan: 257, 390; transportation of prostitute: 267, 316; conductor’s donkeys: 374 donkey drivers 48, 121, 186 (of the centurion), 254, 256 n. 130, 267, 278, 389, 391, 424, 602 dopamine 516 n. 32 dreams (oracular) 40, 156, 249, 305, 477, 522 n. 52, 525, 535 n. 34 dromedaries see δρομάς, dromadarius (Indd. 4A, 4B) dung (used in medicine or magic) 56. See also camels, dung; pigs, dung Eastern Desert Ware 429, 435–37 elephants iv, 3, 48, 72, 241 emerald mines 15 n. 26, 17 nn. 30 and 36, 243 f., 279, 427, 470 n. 28. See Smaragdos (Ind. 3)

epidemic 431. See plague epistolary prescript 561–70; addressee named first: 203, 239 epistolography. “popular epistolography” 611 epistrategos 101, 102 n. 34, 106, 108, 117–19; acting epistrategos: 117 f., 130–32 escorts 63, 255 f., 308 f., 338 fish 228, 236, 256 n. 125, 275, 329, 338, 368, 417, 573 fishermen 199, 418 f., 423, 507, 517 fishmongers 417, 421 foremen see ἐργοδότης (Ind. 4A) forum of Trajan 190, 237, 600 freedmen 82, 173 n. 32, 549 n. 18 (Jewish), 566 n. 30; imperial freedman: 86, 87 n. 26, 100, 163, 205 n. 71, 237, 279, 289, 367, 524 frontier 450. See ripa (Ind. 4B) garbage 238, 245, 259, 318, 416 gate (of praesidium) 425 (blocking). See clavicula (Ind. 4B) Geʾez graffiti 490, 493 f. gladiators see μονομάχης/-χος (Ind. 4A) goatskins, waterskins 66, 75, 123, 185, 187, 189, 193 f., 199, 207, 444, 448; ratio of goatskin:keramion: 208–10 gold mines 49 n. 111, 54, 63, 170, 231, 303, 409, 435, 449 n. 14, 469, 527 granaries see horreum (Ind. 4B) graywacke 20 n. 46, 62, 196 n. 32, 465 n. 2, 468 f. hauling of blocks 198 f. hay 343, 347, 348, 367 horsemen see cavalrymen horses 66, 186, 202 f., 422, 525, 586–89; diet, rations: 338, 343–48; water ration: 211; ill-suited to the desert: 248, 348 hunters, hunting 187, 189, 239, 456, 471 hyrax 56 imitation on ostracon of stone inscription 213 f., 500 f. imperial cult 305, 523, 550 infantry 200 f., 204, 210, 211 n. 96, 247–48 (their function in desert garrisons). See στρατιώτης (Ind. 4Α)

653 ink (red) 38, 213 f. intelligence see military intelligence Isis 17 n. 36, 33, 37, 46 (Isis Tamestome), 276, 284–86 (festival of Isis:), 304 f., 449 n. 17, 466, 468–70, 472, 495, 525 f., 584 n. 31 Jewish calendar 543 Jewish names 549 Jewish revolt of AD 115–117 189–90, 237, 421 n. 35, 470 n. 25, 537, 553 Jews 470 n. 27, 541–53; prohibition of images: 550 f. Jupiter 96, 423, 472; Iuppiter Optimus Maximus: 524 n. 59, 525 Kronos 505, 514, 518 laundering, laundry 49, 189, 318, 527 leeks see πράσον (Ind. 4A) Leto 152, 502, 514, 518 letters (private) 245–47, 301, 416, 592, 599, 603, 610 f., 615. See epistolography liturgy (public service) 151, 206, 253, 258, 531 f., 609 Mandoulis 449 manure 55 f. market gardening 49, 56, 155 n. 28, 303, 611 market tax 377 meals (number per day) 138, 344 (donkeys) military intelligence 309, 311, 399, 414 n. 92, 421 f., 443–451 military supply 338 f., 346. See barley, chaff, hay, wheat ration, wine ration; cibarium, publica (Ind. 4B) mime 391, 394 Min 78, 465, 468, 470 f., 472 n. 41, 495, 525 n. 62 model of administrative form 356 monogram pi-rho 286, 291 Monumentum Adulitanum 406, 408 (date) network analysis 611 f. nomads see Barbarians oil 124, 165 f., 208, 255, 328 f., 338, 348, 423 (price), 572, 575 olives 318 oracles 38, 40, 50 n. 115, 153, 251, 305–8, 500–23, 526, 560 n. 26

654

Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert

ore mills 49 Pallas (goddess) 302, 560 Pan 16 (associated with Sarapis), 90, 201, 303 f., 321, 465–72, 607. See Min Paneion 10, 16, 46 f., 51, 82, 89–90, 207 n. 80, 242 n. 51, 418, 465–70, 474 f., 499; in Mons Claudianus: 186, 190, 206 f., 472 pan graves 436 Pantheon (in Rome) 237 papyrus (as writing medium) scarcity in the desert: 92, 234, 255, 259, 270 f., 335, 419, 522, 598, 611; epigraphic texts on papyrus: 213 n. 3; papyrus scraps pieced together: 359 pass (travel) 66, 68, 235, 252–55, 278, 358, 369 f., 377, 418, 533 pay workers’ wages: 150, 166, 167 f. (pay scale), 169–71 (comparison with Dacian miners’ wages), 171– 73, 227, 232, 238, 328, 424, 574. Soldiers’ pay: 168, 329, 333–35, 337 f., 342 n. 22, 353, 374 n. 25. See ἐντολή, ἐπίθεσις, κιβαριάτης, μισθός, ὀψώνιον (Ind. 4A). pearl oysters 17, 19. See Margarites (Ind. 3) Periplus Maris Erythraei 410 (date) Pesach 542 Philotera (goddess) 72 f., 304, 321 Philoterion 72 f., 304 pigs 55 f. (dung), 245, 247, 265, 459 pigsties 247 pimps, procurers 48, 315, 316, 318, 373, 375, 379, 381, 383–86, 389, 394, 615; couples of pimps: 247, 612 f.; procuress: 75 n. 201, 267, 389 n. 1, 613. See Philokles (Ind. 2) piracy 407, 410, 414, 610 n. 30 plague (Antonine) 103, 302, 334 n. 18, 416 possessive adjective/pronoun with a title: 459, 561–64, 568 f.; with a personal name: 564, 567 f., 570 postal daybook/log/register 273 f.; types: 269–71, 308–11 prefects (territorial) 10–12, 102 f., 131 f., 240 prefect of Berenike 10–12, 99–104, 116, 118–21, 130–32, 241–43, 248, 255, 256 n. 130, 278, 305, 338, 530 f. Prosopography: 105–9.

See ἔπαρχος Ὄρους, ἐπίτροπος Ὄρους (Ind. 4A) prefect of Egypt 89, 127, 131, 240, 257, 278, 425, 482, 531, 537, 567 f., 604–6, 608–9; honorific epithet: 113, 116, 286, 289; visit to the desert: 65, 243, 527–29; letters from: 119 f., 261, 263, 266, 268 f., 277, 284, 424, 564 proskynema epigraphic: 46 f., 431, 449 n. 18, 465, 467 f., 470, 485, 497; epistolary: 73, 245 f., 301, 303 f., 465 f. (date), 472, 525, 610 prostitutes 263, 304, 315–18, 375, 380, 389–95, 613; transport: 267, 316; contract of hiring: 373, 381–84 prostitution 247, 251, 373 f., 379–85, 611 f.; tax on prostitution: 100, 374. See pimp, quintana (Ind. 4B) public contracts 258, 374, 382 (n. 7: definition) public post, official mail service 267 f., 274, 276 f., 301, 308–14, 440–45; speed: 273 f., 308. See cavalrymen, postal daybook; μονομάχης (Ind. 4A), curator praesidii (Ind. 4B) quarry-names 27–42 rainfall (in the Eastern Desert) 110, 111 n. 53, 445 rasura 20 n. 49, 492 rendering of Arabic graphemes in Greek and Latin 404, 412 f. rhodophoria, rose 284–86 saqiya 129, 249 Sarapis 38, 40 f., 304, 321; associated with Pan: 470, 472. See Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis scriptura actuaria 311 seals 276 f., 418, 528 f., 534–36; lead seal: 277, 284. See σφραγίζειν (Ind. 4A) Semitic personal names 94, 144, 180, 544, 549 Semitic place-names 54, 68, 78 Serapeum 65, 150 n. 7, 207, 251, 472, 495, 524 f. shaduf 54, 249, 454–57 ships proper names: 41, 557–60, “Italian ship”: 512, 517 sibyl 613

silphium 578 f. slaves of soldiers 211 n. 96 slipway (in quarries) 205 f. slumification of forts 318, n. 45. See garbage smuggling 243 f., 413 f., 418, 426, 450 n. 25 soldiers 200 f. Sortes Astrampsychi 305, 514, 517–20, 522 Sortes sanctorum 517 f. steatite tablet 505 f. steel 12, 93–96, 111 f., 191, 193. See στόμωμα, στόμωσις, στομωτήριον (Ind. 4A) subscriptions 254 f., 273, 298, 319, 358, 361 f., 376, 418, 431 f. suffix -ιον (referring to food) 297 n. 63, 581 f. sundials 500 sutlers 337, 348, 530 n. 6, 531, 611– 14. See Philokles (Ind. 2) tattoos 535–37 tax farmers, tax farming 255, 376, 382, 385, 387. See alabarch, alabarchy; μισθωτής (Ind. 4A), conductor, quintana, quintanensis (Ind. 4B) Techosis (goddess) 49, 303, 304, 314, 321 temple of Venus and Rome 237 f. tolls 206, 243, 265 toponyms 12 f. (their form, generic/ specific, appellative/proprial constituents, open/solid compounds, transfer), 15 (complex toponyms in Greek), 46 (in -ώ). See also Semitic place-names trials (military) 424 Tyche 41, 57, 93, 148, 251, 303–5, 321, 495, 525 f. Typhon 514, 518 uncial (“Roman uncial”) 213 veterinarians 95, 162, 186, 211 wagons 62 f., 187, 192, 198, 212, 242 f., 251, 456 f., 459 watch-towers see σκόπελος (Ind. 4A) water rations: 185 f., 210–12; collective rations to share: 145, 212; metrology: 208–10; transport (hydrophoria): 67, 201, 543 f., 602;

Indexes shortage: 54, 454–60; for sale: 302 wells names of: 64–68; inauguration of: 65; yield, repair: 91–95; watersupply, refilling: 110–12, 249. See ὕδρευμα (Ind. 4A) wheat 123, 143, 207 f.; for native workers: 138, 165 f., 177 f., 180, 227–29, 235, 328, 351 n. 54 (rotten), 540–44; for soldiers: 243, 258, 329–31, 334 f., 338–42, 345–49, 356–62 (in arrears); for Barbarians:

319 f., 428, 430–33; price: 168, 350 f.; metrology: 342 f., 346 f., 351; Antinoite wheat allowance: 606, 609 f. wine 255, 377 n. 11, 573 f., 602 f.; for native workers: 136, 163, 165 f., 177 f., 228; for soldiers: 234, 328 f., 334, 338, 348; for Barbarians: 428 f. women female parents of Claudianus workers: 138, 227–30, 232; in bath: 206, 613; Barbarian: 433; convicts:

655 608; see also prostitutes; prostitution wood 185, 199, 205, 207, 242 f., 423 f. Zeus 41, 216, 303–5, 488, 525 f. Zeus Helios Great (Megas) Sarapis 136, 190, 215 f., 237, 251, 305, 472, 485, 489–91, 494 f., 523–26; from Megas Sarapis to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis: 524