Documents from Berenike. Volume I. Greek ostraka from the 1996-1998 seasons

Citation preview

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA — 31 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

VOLUME I GREEK OSTRAKA FROM THE 1996-1998 SEASONS

Roger S. BAGNALL Christina HELMS Arthur M. F. W. VERHOOGT

BRUXELLES Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth 2000

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

VOLUME I GREEK OSTRAKA FROM THE 1996-1998 SEASONS

FONDATION EGYPTOLOGIQUE REINE ELISABETH

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA Etudes de papyrologie et editions de sources

publiees sous la direction de Jean BINGEN

D/2000/0705/1

PAPYROLOGICA BRUXELLENSIA

— 31 —

DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE VOLUME I GREEK OSTRAKA FROM THE 1996-1998 SEASONS

Roger S. BAGNALL Christina HELMS Arthur M. F. W. VERHOOGT

BRUXELLES Fonda rioN Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth 2000

Copyright ° 2000 Roger S. Bagnall, Christina Helms, and Arthur M. F. W. Verhoogt

PREFACE

The texts published here constitute the bulk of the written material found in the excavations at Berenike on the Red Sea, conducted by the University of Delaware and the University of Leiden under the direction of Steven Sidebotham and Willemina Wendrich. We are grateful to them for the invitation to work on these documents and much practical assistance. Inscriptions from the site and its environs are published elsewhere in the preliminary archaeological reports (references to which are given in the bibliography at the end of the Introduction). A few scraps of papyrus were also found in 1997 and 1998. Excavations at Berenike are continuing, and we send this publication to press after the 1999 season, in which a modest number of additional texts relevant to the groups appear­ ing here were found. We have decided to do so, rather than wait and produce a thicker volume, both because of the interest of the distinctive material involved and because we hope in publishing later finds to benefit from discussion of this first installment. In a few cases, however, we have used information from the 1999 finds in our commentary. We studied the ostraka initially from color slides (see below) and from drawings made on the site; Helms was able to see the 1997 original ostraka in 1998, although some had suffered severe degradation from the outward migration of salt since their finding. She was also able to read the 1998 finds in the field. The other authors have worked entirely from the images and drawings. The archaeological reports contain full acknowledgment of the financial support which has made possible the excavations. Here we wish to record our thanks for assistance from the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation of Columbia University, which has paid for duplicating and digitizing the color slides of the ostraka. The digital images have been invaluable in our work, particularly with some of the more difficult texts. Rather than print plates in this volume, we have put all of the digital images on the Web for consultation. The URL for these images is (as of January, 2000) http://www.Columbia, edu/dlc/apis/berenike. With the rapid development of Web technology, it is difficult to be sure that this address will remain valid indefinitely; if it should at some point be found not to work, the user is advised to go to the Columbia University Web site and search for Berenike. Higher-resolution images can be obtained on request from the authors. We are indebted to audiences at Princeton University, the Institute of Classical Studies, London, and the University of Michigan for valuable comments and suggestions in response to preliminary presentations of the material, and we thank Peter Brown for the invitation to speak at Princeton, Dominic Rathbone and Jane Rowlandson for the opportunity to do so in London, and Traianos Gagos for the occasion in Ann Arbor. We are also grateful to Jean Bingen, Adam Bulow-Jacobsen, Lionel Casson, Helene Cuvigny, Nico Kruit, and Klaas Worp for reading a draft of this volume and making a number of suggestions to improve the texts and introduction. As usual, the authors’ remaining fail­ ures of inattention or stubbornness are not to be laid to the charge of these benefactors. We recommend O.Ber. I as the abbreviation for this volume. December, 1999

Abbreviations

Papyri and papyrological tools arc cited according to J. F. Oates et al., Checklist oj Editions of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, 4th ed. (BASP Suppl. 7, Atlanta 19*42). An updated version can be consulted on the Web at the following address: scriptorium.lib.dukc/papyrus/tcxts/checklist.html. A list of literature cited by author's name and date of publication is given at the end of (he introduction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

Preface

Introduction

1

1.

The archaeological context

3

2.

The groups of ostraka .....

4

Date of the ostraka

7

3.

The place of the ostraka in the customs process

8

4.

The officials ...................................................

11

5.

Goods and measures

14

6.

Personal names

24

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

33

Note on editorial procedure ...

34

Texts, Translations, and Notes

35

Indexes

75

INTRODUCTION

1

The Archaeological Context

Virtually all of the texts presented in this first volume of documents from Bcrenike were excavated from a first-century CE Roman dump that occupies an area approximately 30 by 70 meters on the north side of the settlement. Non­ textual finds from the dump have included rope, basketry, textiles (including sail­ cloth), imported beads, a large assemblage of imported glass, and pottery. The terminal date for the pottery analyzed thus far is ca. 70 CE, and for the glass slightly earlier, between 40-45 and 60 CE. During the 1997 season, surface finds of ostraka led to the digging of trench 19 (3 x 3 meters), which yielded a rich deposit of customs documents belonging to well-defined groups (see section 2, below) just under the area of the surface finds. That deposit constitutes the main body of this volume, though other ostraka were found sporadically in the deeper loci of the trench. An adjacent trench (trench 13, 5x5 meters) had already turned up texts, but far fewer and with a more even dis­ tribution throughout the trench. These texts were not archival; they include a list of names (98) and a receipt for a private transaction (102). The earliest phase of this same trench revealed a Ptolemaic mud-brick wall with some associated pottery (see Berenike Preliminary Report 1997, 46-57), the only architectural remains found so far in the dump; no texts were associated with the Ptolemaic period. From the concentrated deposit in trench 19 we can surmise that loads of ostraka were periodically taken from the customs house and thrown into the dump, perhaps with other miscellaneous debris from customs operations; this may account for the well-preserved reed pen found close to the deposit. The less concentrated, more diverse finds from trench 13 probably give a better sampling of the distrib­ ution of text in the dump. A test trench dug approximately 40 meters from the main trenches revealed fragments of papyrus. There is thus good reason to believe that texts of various types and from various sources are widely scattered throughout the dump, the majority of which remains to be excavated. Three texts were found in an occupational area in a fourth-century context (trench 10): the two jar labels (109 and 110) and an ostrakon which mentions a possibly Palmyrene name, Hierabole (97). This trench contained a group of coral­ head walls and has produced some occupational debris. No interpretation of the building has yet been given by the excavators. The state of preservation of Berenike texts varies widely. Well-preserved ostraka and papyrus fragments have been found in the dry, sandy soil of the upper levels. Salt water in the deeper levels renders many texts partially or completely illegible, as we have occasionally noted in our commentary.

F

4

GREEK DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

2

The Groups of Ostrnka Of the 116 texts presented here, 92 have been assigned to one of seven groups, the remainder constituting a miscellaneous category. Because some of the miscel­ laneous items arc very fragmentary, it is possible that we have failed to recognize them as belonging to a group, but most of them arc clearly of a different formula from any of the identifiable groups. The groups come, as noted in section 1 above, mainly from the layers near the surface in trench 19 dug in 1997, while the miscel­ laneous texts come overwhelmingly from elsewhere in tire dump or occupation areas. Group A: Orders from Sosibios (1-35): This is by far the largest group, with 35 identified texts. Identification (but not reading) is aided by the distinctive hand­ writing, a small hand in which it is often difficult to make out the letters except by comparison across multiple examples. The writer wasted no words and packed the text into two lines in most instances; the second line is often indented. Three orders (2, 8, 18) have three lines; just one (4) has four. He also left large margins of blank surface around his orders. These empty areas contrast strikingly with the cramped writing. In every case except 2, the recipient of the order is Andouros. In 2, Andouros is paired with Peisitheos. Neither Sosibios nor his recipient is ever given a title in this group. Nor is there a date, a place, or a stated purpose. This laconism indi­ cates two important facts: a context in which the missing information was known to the parties involved; and a regularity and routineness to the entire operation. It is probably also legitimate to infer that these orders were not intended to be retained once they had served their immediate purpose. They were, in effect, a kind of token. The names of the individuals mentioned in the orders (the beneficiaries, so to speak), by contrast, are diverse. Even here, however, the parties were probably fairly well-known to Sosibios and Andouros, for even the patronymic could be omitted (19?, 30, 34). Although the word order varies somewhat, these orders typically follow the formula exemplified in 35: Ew TtvXrpi, and (apparently) oi v' oh; i) ttuXt; or something close to that. In each case the formula proceeds with irapere, the name of the beneficiary, and a statement of the goods. As is usual, Claudius Philetos does not give himself any title, nor is there any signature or date at the end. The miscellaneous texts are commented on individually. Here it should be noted that some of them could well belong to one of the groups described above, but we have not thought that the surviving text allowed secure attribution, either from the handwriting or from the contents.

Date of the ostraka Of critical importance for dating is 102, in which one of only two complete dates of the entire corpus published here is found: 6 August 33. Another apparent regnal date by Tiberius occurs in 105, but the year number is lost. In 106 we have a receipt written in Koptos, analogous to those in the Petrie ostraka (O.Petr. 220304), in which a date to the reign of Nero (20 September 61) occurs. In the absence of indications to the contrary, and given the presence of tria nomina with C. lulius and Ti. Claudius, the entire corpus gives the impression of belonging to the Julio-Claudian period. Nonetheless, at least some of the texts may well be as late as the reign of Vespasian. We are indebted to Helfene Cuvigny for the informa­ tion that the excavations at Didymoi (Khashm al-Minayh, on the Koptos-Berenike road) have turned up ostraka mentioning Pakoibis son of Kleitos, who is known in our 26, an order addressed by Sosibios to Andouros. His name in the Didymoi texts is accompanied by the symbol for SeKavoq, decanus. Both the pottery and the texts from Didymoi, according to Dr. Cuvigny, suggest that the earliest phase of occupation there is early Flavian. Obviously Pakoibis could have been active already in later Julio-Claudian times, but the evidence from Didymoi certainly sug­ gests that the date frame for most of our ostraka is later Julio-Claudian to early Flavian. Moreover, a date to Vespasian occurs in an ostrakon found in 1999 in the dump at Berenike, which will be published in the next fascicle. For the moment, therefore, it seems best to leave open the precise dating of these ostraka, placing them approximately in the third quarter of the first century of our era. This is roughly congruent with the archaeological data cited at the start of this introduc­ tion, although the texts seem to suggest a range of dates perhaps a decade later than what the pottery would indicate.

8

GREEK DOCUMENTS FROM BERF.NIKE

3 The Place of the Ostraka in the Customs Process

From the analysis of the groups (section 2 above) and the phrases referring to “those in charge of the iriiXif' (see section 4 below) it becomes clear that the bulk of our ostraka served as passes for goods going through the customs station of Hercnikc on their way (at least mostly) to being loaded on ships destined for voyages from that port to locations along the African or Indian coast. It is also pos- i sible that some of the goods were intended for consumption on board those ships during the course of the voyages. But the predominance in these texts of imported wines known to have been shipped from the Red Sea ports to India (sec section 5, below) indicates decisively that for the most part these goods were export wares. The critical term used in reference to outfitting these ships is i^apTLapbq, “equipping" or “outfitting.” It is a remarkably rare word. LSI cites the Letter of Aristeas 144 for a metaphorical use with Tpoiriw, and this phrase is echoed in Eusebius, Pracp.Evang. 8.9.16.1, the sole attestation yielded by the TLG for the period from the sixth century B.C. to the eighth A.D. The word also occurs in P.Ryl. II 233.13, a second-century letter in which the writer describes for his employer or master “the progress made in the building and fitting of a house.” He tells him that he encloses the account of expenditures to date for submission to the recipient’s iirirpoiroc; (probably “guardian" in this context), iva ex&v viroyvw; sv pci’T)fLT)i ra ayopafa e^aprtapwv deviroirra rd irpbt; top \byov sxrp, “in order that he, having fresh in his mind the prices of the fittings which he buys, may have no suspicion in matters relative to the account.” Here the word thus apparently refers to the goods themselves rather than to the process. Somewhat similar, but specifically maritime, is the use in Periplus 21, where the dative plural (i&'oig efapTtapolf) is rendered “outfits” (meaning nautical outfits, boats) by Cas­ son (1989) 63. The actual operation of outfitting is denoted by s^apnapo^ in an account from the Heroninos archive, P.Prag.Varel 7 (SB VI 9409 (1)).127, ei? e^apnapbv pyxavuv. This seems to provide a more satisfactory sense for the word in our ostraka, where it indicates the purpose of the importation of the goods mentioned. It is also the standard sense of the cognate verb which is far better attested than the noun, and frequently (especially in shipping contracts) refers spe­ cifically to the outfitting and equipping of ships with everything necessary for a voyage (numerous relevant references in WB I and IV; for ships see particularly P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.278; P.Koln V 229.19; P.Oxy. XLIII 3111.11; P.Oxy. Hels. 37.5; SB XIV 11552.8). The question of the customs regulations applicable to goods leaving Egypt has

THE CUSTOMS PROCESS

9

received a ceriain amount of attention from previous scholars, but for want of evi­ dence it has been difficult to make much progress. Our ostraka attest only one small part of the process, and we will not attempt to give a general treatment of the subject here, particularly because we may hope for further evidence from continu­ ing excavations. But a few key points may be noted. Sijpesteijn, in his com­ prehensive treatment of the customs system in Egypt, cites the passage of Strabo (17, 798) in which he informs us that goods coming through the Red Sea ports into Egypt for passage to other points in the Roman Empire were taxed twice, both on entering and on leaving. The tax at each point seems to have been 25 percent.2 Whether the duties on goods passing through Egypt from other points in the Roman world for export to the East were the same is harder to say. It has been argued by G. Thur that the 25 percent duty attested in P.Vindob. inv. G 40822 refers only to goods entering Egypt.3 The existence of passes through the customs station at Berenike for goods leaving the country for export to the East, now estab­ lished by our ostraka, suggests that export was controlled and presumably taxed. It remains, however, to see just what the formula of our ostraka indicates about this process. The critical element here is the verb, which is regularly an aorist imperative of irap(i?/zi, whether singular (-rape?) or plural (irapere). This verb’s existence and role in the process were first discovered and discussed by Sijpesteijn in an 1979 article, and subsequently in his book on customs duties.4 In the article he was con­ cerned with establishing the existence of a formula with this verb in some 20 cases (of which a couple were restored) and correcting mistaken readings of passages in which it occurs. About the significance, he comments only that the verbs are fol­ lowed by names in the accusative or dative, both of which he takes to mean “allow so and so to pass.” In the book he attempts to distinguish two types, those issued by the superintendent of a customs station and directed to “other officials who in one way or another are also connected with customs,” and those issued by unspecified officials and probably directed to superintendents of customs stations. Both have the purpose of ordering that someone be allowed to pass, but Sijpesteijn suggested that the second group was issued by bankers. This is not an economical interpretation of the evidence. What we have is two different formulas, the first of which begins with the name of the officials issuing the pass, usually oi irpdg rjj iriiXy, the second of which omits this initial informa­ tion and begins straightaway with the order yrdpeg/irdpere, followed by the name of the tax which would have had to be collected in the absence of the pass. There 2 Sijpesteijn 1987: 5 with references and bibliography. See also Sidebotham 1986: 102-110 on customs duties in this zone. 3 Tyc/te 2 (1987) 229-45; cited by Sijpesteijn 1987: ix, note from prepublication copy. The text was first published in H. Harrauer and P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Ein neues Dokument zu Roms Indienhandel. P. Vindob. G 40822,” Osterr.Akad.Wiss., Phil.-histor. Klasse, Aiaeiger 122 (1985), pt. 7. 4 Cd'E 54 (1979) 139-42; Sijpesteijn 1987: 11.

10

CiREEK DOCUMENTS FROM BERENIKE

is no reason to suppose that the second group were issued or received by different officials from those who handled the first group. It is noteworthy that the first group consists entirely of texts found at Soknopaiou Nesos, while the second conics from diverse provenances. Still more striking, nos. 1-20 in Sijpesteijn's list (Cws/iwn, pp. 102-03), comprising all so-called receipts from AD IS to AD I 13, are all of the Tnpiryu variety, although divided between these two formulas. In all likelihood no. 213, the date of which is lost but is assigned to I/ll, also belongs to this group. No formulas with irapiipu arc found subsequently except one in AD 126 (no, 135, missed in Sijpesteijn’s list on p. 11, n. 20) and a small cluster in the period 142-147 (nos. 188, 196, 198, 203). The consequence of this distribution is that there are no standard customs receipts of the rcrcXdmijrai variety until AD 114, a fact that deserves further investigation.5 Sijpesteijn noticed that this formula was standard after that date, and he also pointed out that after that date most docu­ ments indicate whether import or export is in question.'’ These are actually the same observation, as it is this formula that routinely includes the participle record­ ing importation and exportation. What is less clear at this point is whether the entire process of paying customs taxes changed under Trajan, that is, whether the change in documentation reflects an alteration of the underlying process. Since the publication of P.Customs, a further group of orders with irdpcq and irdpcrc has come to light, in the ostraka from Mons Claudianus (O. Claud. I 4882). These, however, belong to a clearly military milieu, as their editor remarks, and involve allowing individuals (mostly male, but occasionally female) to pass; animals are mentioned in some cases, but never with a specification of goods transported.7 The Berenike texts, belonging as they do to the third quarter of the first century, fit well within the chronological zone of the 21 irapitipi passes from the period up to 113 found elsewhere in Egypt. From the group of passes from other provenances which mention a tax name after the verb, we may infer that the pass was issued as the result of the payment of the tax at one point, and that its purpose was to be shown to someone at a further point at which, in the absence of such a pass, the tax would have been collected. That is, the system must have resembled a form of preclearance, in which tire exporter paid the tax at the gate of departure rather than that of arrival or at some intermediate point. In the case of the Soknopaiou Nesos passes, it seems from the formula that the addressees were normally the eremophylakes. In this case, the pass was issued at the customs house 5 The first actual declaration with rcreXciurfrai is apparently BGU XI 2105 (28 Nov. 114), no. 12S in Sijpesteijn’s list; his nos. 21-127 are all entries in P.Wisc. II 80, without any receipt for­ mula. For customs documents published since Sijpesteijn’s volume, see now A. Jordens’ introduc­ tion to P.Louvre I 27-29 (pp. 138-39). Although she does not discuss the issues of formula that con­ cern us here, none of the new documents she cites offer a formula with irap'mpi. 6 Sijpesteijn 1987: 8, 40. 7 For donkeys, see O. Claud. I 59, 62, 64-66, 70.

THE CUSTOMS PROCESS

11

at Soknopaiou Nesos to allow the bearer to pass through desert police whom he would encounter at some point after leaving the customs house.8 In the case of the Berenike ostraka, the addressees of the passes are officials at Berenike, not at some intermediate point.9 The passes must then indicate that the bearer has satisfied whatever obligations he had for customs duties at an earlier point, probably in Koptos when the goods left the Nile Valley, where travel was relatively easy, and entered the imperially-controlled desert road and station network. There would be little point in their existence if there were not an export tax applicable to their goods, probably at a rate considerably higher than that appli­ cable to goods intended for consumption in Berenike itself. Whether that rate was the fourth (25 percent), we must await further evidence to tell us. Another point on which these ostraka leave us in the dark is the identity of the persons issuing these passes, Sosibios and his ilk. There is evidence for the farm­ ing of the customs dues of this region, as for many other taxes under the early Roman Empire.10 And there is one possible mention of an otherwise unknown word, TEXuvdpiov, evidently derived from the term for tax-farmer (see below, sec­ tion 4). But the passes were not concerned with describing how the individuals mentioned had obtained the right to pass through the gate at Berenike, only that they were entitled to do so. We do, however, know that one recipient of a pass, Pakoibis son of Kleitos (26), appears with the symbol for dekano's in an ostrakon from the station at Didymoi (see above, section 2, end). From this fact it may be legitimate to infer, as would in any case seem plausible, that the persons named were not every individual camel-driver (or donkey-driver) but heads of groups of drivers. 4 The Officials

We have already observed the absence of titles which might have been given with the names of the authors of the orders found at Berenike. The ostraka are in fact much less forthcoming about official titles than we would like, no doubt 8 There are other issues concerning this process deserving discussion, including the function of the handful of texts using the verb rrotpijfev (Sijpesteijn 1987: 9-11) and the meaning of the noun dprmup/Sokoi' and verb dmav/q3oXc'a> (see most recently P.Louvre 1 37, introd.). These do not, however, impinge on the Berenike ostraka and may be left aside here. A forthcoming Columbia papyrus (P.Col.inv. 386), to be published by Evie Ahtaridis, helps to clarify these questions. 9 That does not exclude the possibility that passes addressed to (and retained by) such inter­ mediate points might have existed. We do not, however, have any such known so far from the East­ ern Desert. 10 See generally Sidebotham 1986: 103-04.

12

GREEK OSTRAKA FROM BERENIKE

because they had no archival function, were sent and received by individuals who knew one another's identity perfectly well, and fullness of expression was point­ less. Nonetheless, there arc a number of useful titles given in sonic of the texts, and together they help us understand the process. 11) Quintancnsis (xovii'rai'ijmo;): 'Ellis rare word is listed in OLD s.v., citing OIL 14.2282 and P.Gen.Lat. l.v.10 (CPL 10b). Fortunately it is written in full in several instances, and preserved undamaged (best in 53 and 55), so that we can be certain that this, and not quintanus or quintanarius, is the term used here. Il is defined by the dictionary as a soldier in charge of a (via) quintana or the market held there, a view that goes back to Mommsen. The association of quintana with markets is indeed strong. The word quintancnsis, however, docs not occur in Latin literature down to A.D. 200 (it is absent from die PHI Latin disk 5.3 as well as from Lewis & Short), and the only previous attestations are the two listed by the dictionary and cited above. The terms based on quint- found in Roman military contexts arc canvassed by R. Marichal, O.Bu Njein, pp. 77-79, with citation of the evidence, in an attempt to establish the sense of the term quintanari (which he sees as “soldats effcctuant I’cxercice du cinquieme jour”). He offers no new interpola­ tion of quintanensis, but he notes that in P.Gen.Lat. 1 the term does occupy a fiveday space in the duty roster. In CIL 14.2282 there is no information to assist in the interpretation. In short, we must interpret the Berenike ostraka without any clear definition from other evidence to help us. The ostraka published in this volume tell us little more than that there could be two quintanenses (86), and that they are in a position to honor the passes issued for passage of wine tlirough the customs gate. That by itself is enough to indicate that these quintaltenses agree widi Mommsen’s association of the term with the market. Further information comes from an ostrakon discovered in the 1999 season, in which one Albius describes himself as KOViPT(aur/aioia>:dv scpldpioi1) in PSI V 535.9 (III BCE); Wilcken 1920: 400-01. 44 P.Tebl. Ill 1079 (111/11 BCE); P.Tebl. Ill 894, 5.13 (114 BCE); There have been Rhodian vessels found on site: Berenike 1995 Preliminary Report, p. 159. 45 Personal communication from R. Tomber. 40P.Oxy. VIII 10S8.51. 47 See LSI with revised Supplement. In the papyri, apparently, only yXvccXaia (olives) occurs; but in the world of voyages to India, that is not conclusive against yXuwfXaiop (oil), which is known from jar inscriptions, see T. Derda, ZPE 94 (1992) 145-49. 4S Personal communication from R. Tomber. She notes, however, "At Berenike it is most common in the mid-4th century and there are only a few sherds in the first-century dumps.”

GOODS AND MEASURES

21

near Crete.49 Arc the rare wines meant to satisfy a more refined taste than would be satisfied by the presumably “industrial” produce of Laodicea, Campania or the Arsinoitc name? An unidentified 6«i0opo? oivoq (fine wine) was sold to the Indian court at Ozone.50 Rare wines may also have served as rations for the officer class onboard (the ephesion is found in a list of miscellaneous goods that may be rations). The merchant ships sailing to India, in particular, were large, with presumably large crews and amenities for the long voyage.51 Although it is perhaps not an import, another wine measure also occurs, in the ciri/r( ) riroX( ) (43). This should refer to a wine-measure beginning in IItoX(sce below on the ETtipr/vta'). In the Nicanor texts we find a lot of Ptolemaic keramia (irroXc/xatKti) of wine shipped to Berenike in quantities of up to 25.52 The ptolemaikon is not found elsewhere. In O. Claud. I 10, we find Kepapia UroKEpairiKa oluou ku, 21 Ptolemaitic keratnia of wine. One would suppose that irroXEpcdKdi; derived from the name Ptolemaios, ■KToXspairiKot; from a city named Ptolemais, but it seems uneconomical to multiply measures beginning in IlroX-, particularly when those using them abbreviated them without concern for ambiguity. Probably both terms refer to a city Ptolemais, in fact. Whether that Ptolemais was the city of Upper Egypt or Akko is hard to guess. The overall pattern that emerges with respect to wine imports at Berenike is one of early, rare or unattested measures/wines, sometimes linked to the Nicanor archive.

3. Rations and other Goods The formula Eiripijvia (rations)53 followed by a measure occurs three times in the archive of Sosibios. The formula is attested only here and in the Nicanor archive, where epimenia are twice measured in gomoi (beastloads), which are then seemingly described in keramia or chytrai.54 As epimenia is a broad term and could even include fish, these indications do not immediately tell us whether liquid or dry goods are intended.55 The syntax of these entries is also not entirely clear. In O.Petr. 227 we read emprpnMy ydpoyq &vo Kspa(pi.a) q3 rat KvOpaq auu..... sy auredq Suo (yin.) (3. In O.Petr. 246 we find BirLp.pviip\y......... ] tcvBpaq avpOov 5uo (7(1/.) K(uflpm) (3. Although the reading of the first instance is doubtful, it looks as if the intention is to say “two loads of provisions,” followed in the accusative by an appositive phrase describing the contents. 49 O.Petr. 247. 50 Periplus 49. 51 Casson 1989: 35. 291 n. 22. 52 See O.Petr. 224, 235, 238, 242, 268, 283, 287, and 295. The word is written out in full in 238, 268, and 295; elsewhere it is abbreviated. It is also abbreviated in O.Bodl. Il 1969.4, also part of the Nicanor archive. 53 Provisions or monthly rations, P.Oxy. Ill 531.17 (Il AD); generally, provisions for a ship, Polybius 31.12.13 (LSI). 54 O.Petr. 246 and O.Petr. 227. 55 P.Lond. II 190.16. LSI.

22

GREEK OSTRAKA FROM BERENIKE

In the Bcrcnikc lexis, the usage is not exactly parallel, as yb/io? is not used. Instead, in most cases we seem to find, immediately following an abbreviated in/i( ), the names of measures, 'flic easiest to understand is the rhixlion, found in crrig( ) pMia) (20), which surely must refer to wine, since rhodia were almost exclusively used for wine and beer.'6 The term rxip( ) is used twice with irniX( ), discussed in the previous section (20. 43). A third ration (4) is still more remarkable: srrig( ) «0( ). No measure beginning in xid- is attested elsewhere. An explanation on the basis of wine export is difficult, for the important Kibyra, in Phrygia, is well inland, while Kibyra on the Pamphyhan coast was curtly described by Konrat Ziegler as “im Alt(crtum) unbcdcutend" (Kleine Pauly 3.207 s.v.). Non-geographical explanations, however, are not attractive because they are so dis­ tant from the other cm/op-ia examples: (1) From Latin cibaria (food, rations), seemingly pleonastic; (2) from Greek kibotos (chest, box), for the vagueness of which it is hard to sec a motivation, as neither the nature nor the size of the con­ tents would he specified; (3) from Greek xi/JSi/Xo?, “adulterated,” not a designa­ tion one would expect to find except in the muttering of disgruntled recipients! There is, however, another explanation, namely that we are dealing here with MpopqXoi' KipvpariKoi’, a compound of water and quince-flavored honey in which Kibyra specialized, and which is repeatedly referred to by Alexander of Tralles and Paul of Aegina. The latter specifies (Epit. medic. 3.6.2.20) airo Ki/3vpaoi/7io? (Gk.) Tiflr.pioi; (Rom. Tiberius) Tiftn/c (7Wiv, (the god) “Tutu") Tparog (?)

(P.?-///“die Schlange"; DAB 204) 4'i/Xif (Rom. Eelix) 4'iXyro? (Gk. “worthy of love")

Xswa? (Semitic ?) Xcoodn;? (prob, variant of Xeofluriy?) Vepouxu; (prob. Eg.) 'Pw(ld>nj? (P3-ir-Dhwtj “The son of Thot”) 'Pciwijot? (prob. Eg.) Vt'.i’oo'ipu; (P3-3r-Wsir "Der Sohn des Osiris”; DNB 232) *1'ivoaiptrimo)i xct(ipeii')' [irapeq TJi/Jepiov KXavSiov Awpiuvoi; [.

] g traXi.K(a) 8vo, (yiferai) lraX(i.Ka) (3.

To Andouros, quintanensis, let pass of Tiberius Claudius Dorion, for italika, total 2 ital.

two

1 Above line 1 there is a vertical trace, perhaps without meaning. 3 Probably in the lacuna a name in the dative is lost; the end of the patronymic survives.

61. BE97-19-A-097

4

'AvSovpaii Kovivravr](')‘ [•7rdpei Kovii'Tai'7i(aic!!)]' ira[pes

To Andouros, quintanensis, let pass ...

63. BE97-19-A-113

'Ai>[iovpM KouLVTavT](mu)' trapes Tifispiov KXau&ou]

,.l To Andouros, quintanensis, let pass of Tiberius Claudius Dorion, for —

64. BE98-19-A-003

4

'Ai'3oupu(i) Kovivr(avriaiq>y trapes T'lfiepigty') [K]X[au]6(tou) Awpi'wi'og ’ApudfSg) [rjeaaapa, (yiveraL) ot(vov) XaSiK^va) 3.

To Andouros, quintanensis, let pass of Tiberius Claudius Dorion, for Haryothes son of NN, four ladikena, that is, 4 ladikena.

3 Persumably a patronymic stood in this line. 4 This should read \a8uaivd, but we have not managed to reconcile the traces to that reading.

65. BE98-19-A-006 ’AvSoupa^t) [Kovivr(oa>r]auS)' irdpeq] Ti/3[epiov KXavSiov Aupiuvoq]

To Andouros, quintanensis, let pass of Tiberius Claudius Dorion...

GREEK OSTRAKA FROM BERENIKE

55

66. BE98-19-A-012+013

[’A|p5oup[a>(i) Koviv]ravT](aiu)y Trapse; T[i@epiov KXavSiou] Ampim[po(ipo6(tTou) Xoyo(i') si? s^aprliopov).

Herakles son of Hermias, 4 koilopomata of Italian wine for the account of Gaius lulius Epaphroditos, for outfitting.

85. BE97-19-A-107

[-----------o]ivov [measure, amount e'u; top Patou] TouXtov ['Eirapo8lTov Xoyo(u)] sl