Swapping lands at Tebtunis in the Ptolemaic period: a reassessment of P. Cairo II 30630 and 30631

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIAANALECTA

————— 231 —————

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIESLEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA

2014

ACTS OF THE TENTH INTERNATIONALCONGRESS OF DEMOTIC STUDIES

Leuven, 26-30 August 2008

edited by

MARK DEPAUW and YANNE BROUX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

LIST OF TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Maha AKEEL

A Demotic Precursor to Arabic ‘In Shaa Allah’ . . . . . 1

Willy CLARYSSE

Demotic Studies in Leuven . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Philippe COLLOMBERT

Omina brontoscopiques et pluies de grenouilles . . . . . 15

Leo DEPUYDT

The Demoticity of Latest Late Egyptian . . . . . . . 27

Mahmoud EBEID

Inaros Son of Petese in the Galleries of Tuna al-Gebel Necropolis 43

Ola EL-AGUIZY

Demotic Graffiti in Oxyrhynchus . . . . . . . . . 61

John GEE

A New Look at the di ¨nÌ Formula . . . . . . . . . 73

Friedhelm HOFFMANN

Doppelte Buchführung in Ägypten. Zwei Wiener Abrechnungen (P. Wien G 19818 Verso und 19877 Verso) . . . . . . 83

Holger KOCKELMANN

Gods at War. Two Demotic Mythological Narratives in theCarls berg Papyrus Collection, Copenhagen (PC 460 and PC 284) 115

Nikolaos LAZARIDIS

Time in Timeless Wisdom: The Use of Tense in Egyptian and Greek Sayings (with Some Advice to Grammarians) . . . 127

Sandra L. LIPPERT

Ostraca, Graffiti and Dipinti from Athribis in Upper Egypt –A Preview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

Brian MUHS

Temple Economy in the Nag’ el-Mesheikh Ostraca . . . . 155

Franziska NAETHER and Micah ROSS

The Categorization of Numeric and Magical Texts as Exem-plified by OMM 170+796+844 . . . . . . . . . . 165

Joachim F. QUACK

Bemerkungen zur Struktur der demotischen Schrift und zur Umschrift des Demotischen . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Foy SCALF and Jacqueline JAY

Oriental Institute Demotic Ostraca Online (OIDOO): MergingText Publication and Research Tools . . . . . . . . 243

Harry S. SMITH and Sue DAVIES

Demotic Papyri from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara. Pleas, Oracle Questions and Documents referring toMummies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

John TAIT

Casting About for the raison d’être of Demotic Narrative Fic-tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Siân THOMAS and John D. RAY

The Falcon King: Ptolemy Philadelphus and the Karnak Ostra-con . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Wolfgang WEGNER

Die privaten Geschäfte zweier Soknebtynis-Priester . . . 345

Andreas WINKLER

Swapping Lands at Tebtunis in the Ptolemaic Period. A Reas-sessment of P. Cairo II 30630 and 30631 . . . . . . . 361

SWAPPING LANDS AT TEBTUNIS IN THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD*A REASSESSMENT OF P. CAIRO II 30630 AND 30631

Andreas WINKLER

University of California at Berkeley

The two papyri treated in this paper were extracted from cartonnage found at an excavation conducted by P. B. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in Tebtunis between the years 1899/1900. The texts were subsequently pub-lished by W. Spiegelberg in the CGC1. The papyri have been understood as belonging to a private archive owned by Soknopis2, son of Sigeris (ProsPtol. 11024), who was a priest of the local temple dedicated to Soknebtunis3, even though he only is an active party in one of the two texts.

The first text, P. Cairo II 30630, is an exchange agreement on agricul-tural temple land. It is unique among other known Demotic texts of similar kind4. The second text, P. Cairo II 30631, is a lease agreement between Soknopis and the Suchos temple in Tebtunis, which involves fields mentioned in P. Cairo II 30630. This text is unparalleled among other known Demotic land leases because of its unusual lease conditions.

* I am grateful to Günter Vittmann for showing me the photographs of the papyri belonging to the DemNB-archive, Maren Schentuleit for comments on an earlier version of this paper, the wonderful people at the Ägyptologisches Institut, Tübingen, John Gait, Elisabeth Frank-Jørgensen, and Ole Herslund for sundry help, Marjaana Kohtamäki for improving my English, and last but definitively not least, Sandra Lippert, whose critical eyes enhanced many of my readings. Needless to say, all possible misspellings and errors are my responsibility alone.

1 W. Spiegelberg, Die Demotischen Denkmäler II: Die Demotischen Papyrus (CGC Nos 30601–31270 and 50001–50022; Strasbourg, 1906 and 1908), 83-87; pls XLII-XLIII; The Greek registration docket is published as SB I 4468. See also A. Monson ‘Sacred Land in Ptolemaic and Roman Tebtunis’, in S. L. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebty-nis und Soknopaiu Nesos – Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum (Wiesbaden, 2005), 80 n. 9 (hereafter Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS).

2 See J. F. Quack, ‘Soknopis als Gott und Mensch’, Enchoria 30 (2006/2007), 75-87 esp. 80, for the reading of the name of Soknopis. Cf. also A. Monson, ‘Priests of Sokneb-tunis and Soknopis: P. BM. EA 10647’, JEA 92 (2006), 209, 213 with further references.

3 Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 80-81. 4 A handful of Greek Ptolemaic land exchange documents or texts which contain

information on such transactions have been published. These include P. Grenf. II 25 andSB XVI 12720. Most of these texts are of Roman or Byzantine date and relate to lands which were inherited.

362 A. WINKLER

5 See, for instance, H. Felber, Demotische Ackerpachtverträge der Ptolemäerzeit – Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Entwicklung und inhaltlichen Aspekten einer Gruppe von demotischen Urkunden (ÄA 58; Wiesbaden, 1997), 3 n. 3, 117 n. 126; G. R. Hughes, Saite Demotic Land Leases (SAOC 28; Chicago, 1952), 31, 33, 39, 92; G. R. Hughes, ‘Notes on Demotic Egyptian Leases on Property’, JNES 32 (1973), 160; Monson, in Lip-pert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 80-83; E. Seidl, Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte (ÄF 22; Hamburg, 1962), 32-33; K. Sethe and J. Partsch, Demotische Urkunden zum Ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrechte vorzüglich der Ptolemäerzeit (ASAW 32; Leipzig, 1920), 10, 176, 369; R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332 B.C. – 640 A.D. (Warsaw, 19552), 264 n. 4.

6 The text runs parallel with the fibres. The papyrus measures ca. 30 x 15 cm and has a dark brown colour according to the CGC. The papyrus is rather well preserved and contains relatively few holes or traces of gypsum. The text is, characteristically for the Ptolemaic Period, written with a brush and contains a Greek registration docket. Four witnesses signed their name on the backside of the papyrus, and the name of its original possessor is written on the left edge of the papyrus.

Both texts are therefore important witnesses to the land tenure regime of the Soknebtunis priesthood during the first century BC. As few other Ptolemaic texts directly related to the agricultural business of the Suchos temple in Tebtunis have been published, these documents have helda prominent position in discussions on the role of the temple in the Fayumic agricultural economy5. Considering their importance and the fact that the readings of the editio princeps can be improved, a new edition is offered below.

P. CAIRO II 306306

(1)Ì.t-sp 25 ibd-3 smw sw 12 (1)Regnal year 25, month 3 of the sum-mer season, day 12

Pr-¨¨ws Ptl[w]mys¨ws iw=w ∂d n=f lgsntrwys¨ws irm (2)Glwptr ty=f sn.t ty=f Ìm.t n ntr.w mr mw.t=w

(under) PharaohL.P.H. Ptol[e]maios, who is called AlexanderL.P.H. and (2)Cleopatra, his sister and spouse, the gods Philo-metores,

w¨b lgsntrws¨ws <irm n> mtw=w sÌ n-im=w (n) R¨-qty

and the priest of AlexanderL.P.H., and those who are registered in Alexandria.

(3)∂d rp¨y m-ntry Ìry Sy Qm Ìry Sy Rsy (4)Nb-Imnty P-di-Wsir (s) P-MnÌ mw.t=f Ta-swr.t

(3)Said the Repoy and m-ntry and the Chief of the Lake of Creation and Chief of the South Lake (4)of the Lord of the West, Petosiris, (son of) Pmenches, his mother is Tasous,

n rp¨y m-ntry (5)Ìry Sy Qm Ìry Sy Rsy Nb-Imnty Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my s Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my (6)mw.t=f Is.t-wly.t

to the Repoy m-ntry (5) and the Chiefof the Lake of Creation and Chief of South Lake of the Lord of the West, Soknopmois, son of Soknopmois, (6)his mother is Esoelis,

SWAPPING LANDS AT TEBTUNIS IN THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD 363

ir=y sb.t irm-n=k ty=k (sic) (st.t) 2.t Ì Ìn¨ py=f ¨w (n) Ìy Ìm (n) Ìy

I have made an exchange with you: your (sic, ‘my’) 2 (arourai) of field and their increase of measurement and their decrease of measurement

(7)Ìn n (?) Ì(.w) trw† Ìr p Ìtp-ntr n Sbk-nb-Tn p ntr ¨

(7)in (the) terrace (?) fields on the tem-ple domain of Soknebtunis, the Great God,

[ny=f] hyn.w rsy n Ì.w n (8)P-syf (s) M¨-R¨ mÌty <p Ì n> M¨-R¨-s-Sbk (s) M¨-R¨ ibty p ↑Ì↑ Ìtp-ntr (?) [imnty] [p] [h]w†n

[its] neighbours (are): south: the fields of (8)Psephis, (son of) Marres; north: <the fields of> Marresuchos, (son of) Marres; east: the ↑field↑ (?) of the [temple domain] (?); [west:] [the] road.

(9)t sb.t ty(=y) (st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìn t qy [t] (st.t) 3.t Ì p Ì ∂wy

(9)The exchange of my two (arourai) of field, which are in the highland, is the three (arourai) of field of the dwy-field.

mtw=k (st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìry Yours are the two aforementioned (arourai) of field

(10)mtw=k sk=w mtw=k ir=w (n) wpy nb wy¨ (n) ny=k iÌ(.w) ny=k grg.w rmt nmÌ (n)-†y-(n) p rt (n) (11)Ì.t-sp 27 s¨ ∂.t

(10)and you are to plough them and you are to perform every (kind) of agricul-tural labour with your oxen and your private equipment, from the growth (of) (11)regnal year 27 until eternity,

mtw=k Ìy ty=k md.t Pr-¨¨ws wn-[n.w-iw=k Ìy=w] mtw=y (12) Ìy t md.t Pr-¨ ¨ws Ì¨=y

and (henceforth) you are to measure your state tax (as) [you (used) to meas-ure it] (and) I am to (12)measure the state tax myself.

mÌ=k †=y di=k mtry Ìt.†=y {…} (?) irm=w (sic)

You have paid me. You have satisfied my heart {…} (?) with it.

ty(=y) (st.t) 2.t Ì (13)ty=k [2.t (st.t) Ì] Ìt.†=y mtry irm=w (sic.)

My two (arourai) of field (13)are [your two (arourai) of field]. My heart is sat-isfied with it

iw=w mÌ iw† sp nb because they are paid without any remainder.

iw=s mtw=k ¨.wy=y di.t w¨b=w n=k It belongs to you as a claim on me to cause them to be unencumbered for you

(14)(n) md.t Pr-¨¨ws nb md.t Ìw.t-ntr nb sÌn nb sÌ iwy.t nb md.t nb n p t

(14)(from) every state tax, every temple fee, every lease (agreement), every pawn-security document, and anything (else) at all,

n ssw.w i.ir (15)sny Ì.t hn Ì.t-sp 26 ibd-4 smw

(from) the time which has (15)passed until regnal year 26, month 4 of the summer season,

364 A. WINKLER

mtw=k ir ty=w md.t Pr-¨¨ws n-†y-(n) p rt Ì.t-sp 27

and you are to pay their state tax from the growth of regnal year 27.

(16)iw=y s†.†=y r-r=k r.tb=w (n)-†y-(n) p hrw nty Ìry

(16)If I withdraw from you on account of them from the aforementioned day,

iw=y di.t n=k Ìt sp-2 5 bnr di.t-s (n) Pr-¨ ¨ws ¨n

I must give you 5 (deben) real silver besides, what is to be given to Pha-raohL.P.H.,

(17) iw=y ww r-r=k (n).im=w ¨n (17)while I still will be far from you regarding them.

¨nÌy Pr-¨¨ws Ptlwmys¨ws ∂d(=w) n=f lgsntrws ¨ws (18)n ntr.w nty nÌm ¨nÌ ∂.t ¨ws

By PharaohL.P.H. PtolemaiosL.P.H., who is called AlexanderL.P.H., (18)and the gods Soteres, who live forever L.P.H.:

bn-iw=n s†.†=n (r) n sÌ(.w) (n) sb.t nty Ìry (n)-†y-(n) p hrw nty Ìry

We will not withdraw (from) the afore-mentioned exchange documents from the aforementioned day.

Ìt.(w) =n (19)mtry.w (n) t (st.t) 2.t Ì (?) mtw=y bk=w … […] ty Ìn=w

Our hearts (19)are satisfied with the two (arourai) of field (?), and I am to work them … […] there on them.

iw=y tm bk=w (20)iw=y Ì¨=w ny=k Ì.w nty Ìry i.ir-Ìr=k n Ìtr [iw† mn]

If I do not work them, (20)I will give back the aforementioned fields to you compulsorily and without delay.

sÌ Îr-w∂ (s) [Îr-w∂] Written by Haryothes (son of) [Hary-othes].

(21)P-di-Wsir (s) P-mnÌ (21)Petosiris, (son of) Pmenches. (22)∂touv ke ˆEpeìf ib péptwken îv (âna)grafßn

(22)Deposited in the register in (regnal) year 25, 12th of Epeiph.

Vso.7

[…]-Ìtp (?) [.]- Ìtp (?)P-di-Wsir-.?. P-di-Wsir-.?.Pa-n-Is.t Panesis

Sbk-m-Ìb Soknopis

On the left edge

Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my Soknopmois

7 The reading is based on Spiegelberg’s facsimile.


Notes8

line 1(a) Regnal year 25 of Ptolemaios X Alexander and Cleopatra Berenice, Epeiph, day 12 corresponds to the 22nd of July 89 BC according to the Julian calendar9. (b) The present writing of the name lgsntrwys is not attested in the DemNb, 37, where the forms rgsntrws, rgsntrs, and lgstrs are cited only. The last example taken from the DemNb also comes from the Fayum. It seems that the spelling adding the extra after s is common in Lower Egypt, although it is not encountered in Upper Egypt10. However, it is unlikely that it reflects a different pronunciation. It might be added that the ending -wys is usual in documents from Tebtunis. These include P. Cairo II 30617, 30625, 30631, and 31079.

line 2mtw=w is written instead of nty-iw=w.

line 3(a) For the title rp¨y ‘Fürst’ (W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copen-hagen, 1954), 245), which was rendered as ôrpáiv in Greek, see M. Schen-tuleit ‘Die spätdemotische Hausverkaufsurkunde P. BM 262’, Enchoria 27 (2001), 136; Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 81 n. 11. A. von Lieven has connected the title to Geb, who often carries the epithet iry-p¨.t ntr.w ‘Prince of the gods’ with whom Soknebtunis could be iden-tified11.(b) For the title m-ntry, see den Brinker, Muhs, and Vleeming, A Berich-tigungsliste of Demotic Texts, B, §34; S. P. Vleeming, ‘A Hieroglyphic-Demotic Stela from Achmim’, in F. Hoffmann and H. J. Thissen (eds), Res Severa Verum Gaudium, Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004 (StudDem 6; Leuven – Paris – Dudley (Mass.),

8 The corrections listed in A. A. den Brinker, B. P. Muhs, and S. P. Vleeming, A Berichtigungsliste of Demotic Texts (StudDem 7; Leuven, 2005), A, 122-123, are not separately cited when not required for discussion in order to save space. It has been heavily used!

9 T. C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies (MBPF 39; Munich, 19692), 16. 10 Cf. W. Clarysse, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt (P. L. Bat. 24; Leiden,

1983), 147; K-Th. Zauzich, Die ägyptische Schreibertradition in Aufbau, Sprache und Schrift der demotischen Kaufverträge aus ptolemäischer Zeit (ÄA 19; Wiesbaden, 1968), 228.

11 A. von Lieven, Grundriss des Laufes der Sterne: das sogenannte Nutbuch (CNI 31 = CP 8; Copenhagen, 2007), I, 298; cf. also W. J. R. Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in Faijum während der griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Zeit (Bonn, 1974), 16, 180-181.

366 A. WINKLER

2004), 633-634. J. F. Quack, review of F. Hoffmann and H. J. Thissen (eds), Res Severa Verum Gaudium (Leuven – Paris – Dudley (Mass.), 2004), AfP 51 (2005), 186, has recently suggested that the priestly title m-ntry is to be understood as imy-ntr, which appears as in the Book of Fayum §§227 and 1276.(c) For the title Ìry Sy Qm Ìry Sy Rsy Nb-Imnty, see Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 81 n. 11; E. Bresciani and P. W. Pestman,in Papiri della Università degli studi di Milano (P. Mil. Vogliano 3; Milan – Varese, 1965), 185 (hereafter Bresciani and Pestman, in P. Mil. Vogl, III)12.

lines 3 to 5(a) Petosiris, son of Pmenches (ProsPtol. 10981), is only attested here and in P. Cairo II 30631.(b) Soknopmois13, son of Soknopmois (ProsPtol. 11023)14, appears in a handful of documents, which all stem from the archive of the Suchos priest Soknopis, son of Sigeris, and which date to the years between 106 and 89 BC15. The present text is one of the latest attestations of him.

line 6(a) ir=y sb.t … is not to be translated as ‘Vergelten’ (Erichsen, Glossar, 497) but as G. R. Hughes, review of W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen, 1954), JNES 16 (1957), 62-63, rendered it: ‘I have made exchange with you…’ because it corresponds to the Copt. rjb(e)iw ‘replace’ (Crum, CD, 552b)16.

12 Now also M. Schentuleit and G. Vittmann, “Du hast mein Herz zufriedengestellt…” – ptolemäerzeitliche demotische Urkunden aus Soknopaiu Nesos (CPR 24; Berlin – New York, 2009), 25.

13 Cf. Quack, Enchoria 30, 78, for the reading of this particular name. 14 He carries an additional title in P. Cairo II 30626, which connects him to the priest-

hood of Soknopaiou Nesos (Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 81). 15 Besides being mentioned in the texts which are treated here, he also appears in

P. Cairo II 30613 (94 BC), 30614 (88 BC), 30615 (98 BC), 30626 (93 BC), and 31079 (105 BC). It is possible that a namesake (ProsPtol. 6514) is attested in P. Merton D. 1 (142 BC) (S. R. K. Glanville, ‘The Admission of a Priest of Soknebtynis in the Second Century B.C.’, JEA 19 (1933), 34-44); cf. den Brinker, Muhs, and Vleeming, DemBL,B, 639.

16 Already Sethe and Partsch, Bürgschaftsrechte, 365-366, 369. See also S. L. Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte (EQÄ 5; Münster, 2008), 94; P. W. Pest-man, L’archivio di Amenothes figlio di Horos (P. Tor. Amenothes) – Testi demotici e greci relativi ad una famiglia di imbalsamatori del secondo sec. a. C. (CGT I: 5; Milan, 1981), 116.


(b) The second person (=k) in the feminine possessive pronoun in ir=y sb.t irm-n=k ty=k (st.t) 2.t Ì … is probably a scribal error: in most documents where something is bartered, the exchanged object is described as belonging to the issuer of the document, that is, party A17 (cf. infra). The situation in this kind of document can be compared to sales docu-ments (sÌ tb Ìt), in which the object sold is described as belonging to the declarant18, or to donation documents19. In these texts, the donated object is described as belonging to the declarant in the beginning: the document serves as evidence of entitlement of the recipient. The object which the recipient of the document obtains is more likely to be described than that which he gives away20.

Hughes, JNES 16, 62-3 understood ty=k as correct and translated the line together with what is written in line nine, t sb(.t) ty(=y) 2 (st.t) Ì…: ‘I have made an exchange with you. Your 2 (arouras of) land … are the exchange for my 2 (arouras of) Land …’. Considering the phras-ing of the exchange document mentioned above, and the fact that the information provided in P. Cairo II 30631 is in opposition to such an interpretation, the reading of Hughes can no longer be accepted. InP. Cairo II 30631, the field which the priests let to Soknopis is described as two arourai which are in (nty Ìn) the three arourai ∂wy-field (l. 7). Following Hughes’s understanding of P. Cairo II 30630, there are two possibilities for a translation of line 9: 1) ‘* (9)… (as) the exchange for my two (arourai) of field which are in the highland of the three (arourai) of the ∂wy-field’ or 2) ‘* (9)… (as) the exchange for my two (arourai) of field which are in the highland and the three (arourai) of the ∂wy-field’. However, no highland is mentioned in P. Cairo II 30631 (cf. note (d) to l. 7) and the construction ‘… in the highland of the three (arourai) of field

17 Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 82, has understood the situation similarly.

18 Zauzich, Schreibertradition, 130. 19 K-Th. Zauzich, ‘Die demotischen Dokumente’, in Textes et langages de l’Égypte

pharaonique – Hommages à Jean François Champollion (BdE 63/3; Cairo, 1972), 101. 20 The lease documents in which Party A is the lessee are exceptions to this rule.

Another exchange transaction is found in P. BM. 10589 (A. F. Shore and H. S. Smith, ‘Two Unpublished Demotic Papyri from the Asiut Archive’, JEA 45 (1959), 52-60, pl. VI), which is described as a sÌ n tm sÌ.t ‘a document not to hinder’. It is a kind of cession document in which the issuers explain that they will not hinder the receiver of the document from the house which they swapped with her. In other words, they cease their former rightsto it. Therefore the house, which earlier was in the possession of the issuers, Party A,is described as belonging to the recipient, Party B, in the beginning of the document. However, the difference is that in the cession document the treated object is already in the possession of the receiver of the document.

368 A. WINKLER

in the ∂wy-field’ does not seem very plausible. The second suggestion fails because this document explicitly states that Soknopmois received two arourai of field, mtw=k (st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìry; cf. also the note to l. 16 in P. Cairo II 30631.

In comparison to other exchange documents, the present formula is somewhat different21:

P. Tsenhor 11 (507 BC)(= P. Cattle Docs. 6)

di=k mtr Ìt.†=y n t sb(.t)22 n ty=y X r.di=y n=k

You have satisfied my heart with the exchange of my X, which I gave to you.

P. Tsenhor 17 (487 BC) (= P. Cattle Docs. 12)

di=y n=k X n t sb(.t) n ty=k Y23 r.di=k n=y

I have given you X as the exchange for your Y, which you gave to me.

P. Vindob. 1015124

(460 BC)di=y n=k X n t sb(.t) n Y I gave you X as the exchange

for Y.

21 Cf. Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, 156; B. Menu, ‘Ques-tions relatives à la détention des terres au premier millénaire av. J.-C.’, in S. Allam (ed.), Grund und Boden in Altägypten – rechtliche und sozio-ökonomische Verhältnisse, Akten des internationalen Symposions Tübingen 18.-20. Juni 1990 (URAÄ 2; Tübingen, 1994), 140-141; B. Menu, ‘Les échanges portant sur du bétail (XXVIe-XXXe dynastie)’, in Recherches sur l’histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Égypte II(BdE 122; Cairo, 1998), 326-327. P. Tor. Botti 32 and P. Tor. Botti 44 (= P. L. Bat. 23.2)are not included because they are not proper exchange documents; in these texts the transaction is labelled as sb, which is a masculine noun, Copt. jibe, ‘change, difference’ (Crum, CD, 552a) (cf. P. W. Pestman, ‘Lo scriba privato Amenouthes’, in P. W. Pestman (ed.), Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23; Leiden, 1985), 183, contra Zauzich, in Textes et langages de l’Égypte pharaonique, 101; E. Lüd-deckens, ‘Papyrus, demotische’, LÄ IV, 890). Also P. Tor. Botti 18 is classified as an exchange document by Lüddeckens. Even if the transaction was an exchange, the text does not contain the word sb.t. Cf. Pestman, L’archivio di Amenothes, 116, who compares the formula to the one found in P. Grenf. II 25. Whereas the Demotic document expressesthat the exchanged objects are distant (wy) from the original possessors, the Greek text uses the perfect form of sugxwre⁄n. See A. F. Shore, ‘Swapping Property at Asyut in the Persian Period’, in J. Baines, T. G. H. James, A. Leahy, and A. F. Shore (eds), Pyramid Studies and other Essays Presented to I. E. S. Edwards (BMOP 6; London, 1988), 201-203 for other transactions which have been recognised as exchanges employing a sales and a cession document.

22 E. Cruz-Uribe, Saite and Persian Demotic Cattle Documents (ASP 26; Chico (C.A.), 1985), 122, considers sb.t as ‘compensation’ rather than ‘exchange’ since the received object is not mentioned in the text. However, P. W. Pestman, Les papyrus démotiques de Tsenhor (P. Tsenhor) – Les archives privées d’une femme égyptienne du temps de Darius 1er (StudDem 4; Leuven, 1994), I, 76, reinterpreted it compellingly as ‘exchange’.

23 Cf. Cruz-Uribe, Saite and Persian Demotic Cattle Documents, 54. 24 E. Lüddeckens, ‘Eine neue Urkunde zum ägyptischen Pfründenhandel in der Perser-

zeit’, NAWG 1965:5 (1965), 103-110; E. Lüddeckens, ‘Nachtrag zum P. Wien D 10151’, Enchoria 1 (1971), 73, plates 5-7; C. J. Martin, ‘The Demotic Texts’, in B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English (DMOA 22; Leiden, 1996), 351-355.


P. BM. 10589(175 BC)

py=t X r.di=n n=t X n sb.t n Y

It is your X, which gave to you, X as exchange for Y.

P. Zauzich 28 (147 BC) (= O. Leiden 324)

sÌn=y n=k X n sb.t n Y I have leased X to you as exchange for Y.

P. Tor. Amen. 14(118 BC)

di=y n=k ty=y X n t sb.t n ty=k Y r.di=k n=y

I have given you X as exchange for your Y, which you gave to me.

P. Gebelen Heid. 32 (104-100 BC)

mtw=y di.t X n=k n ty=w sb.t (n) py=k Y

and I am to give X to you as their exchange for your Y.

The rather large difference in the formulae used might be explained by the fact that exchange transactions seem to have been rare, at least in written form25. From the list of exchange formulae, that encountered in our text is best understood as a counterpart of di=y n=k X n sb.t (n) Y or similar. Therefore, it is to be corrected to *ir=y sb.t irm-n=k ty=y (st.t) 2.t Ì ….(c) Cf. N. Reich, ‘Ein demotischer Kaufpfandvertrag’, Sphinx 13 (1910), 251-255, for the expression ¨w n Ìy and Ìm n Ìy.

line 7The field (Ì) is qualified by a word which seems to be read as trw†.Unfortunately it is written without a determinative. As a masculine word, due to the -† ending, it can be interpreted as the Copt. trwt ‘staircase/(terrace)’ (Crum, CD, 431b), which usually is written with a house deter-minative and is rendered as trt in Demotic (Erichsen, Glossar, 649). Exactly what a terrace-field implies remains obscure. Perhaps it canbe compared to the modern day counterpart. Possibly favouring suchan interpretation is that this field is described as lying on the highland (l.9). Or is the word to be understood as ‘willow’ (Erichson, Glossar, 647)?

line 8(a) Between ibty and the next word there is a small group left unread by Spiegelberg. It could be taken as a part of the place determinativebut it is more plausible to understand it as a p written in ligature witha defective writing of Ì, inserted above the line. It is perhaps a later correction.

25 See Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, 94, 156.

370 A. WINKLER

(b) At first glance, the eastern neighbour seems to read as ntry written with a plant determinative. I read the word as Ìtp-ntr ‘temple domain’26.(c) The western neighbour was understood as ‘W†n-Baum’ by Spiegel-berg but this identification is dubious. What he read as the article p is more likely to be understood as h since the bottom is not closed as is expected of the masculine definite article. The traces fit well, even if one had expected the left stroke to lean more to the right. For the reading of [h]w†n as ‘road’, see C. J. Martin, ‘How to Write a Demotic Legal Doc-ument: P. BM EA 10648’, in G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds), Actes du IXe congrès international des études démotiques, Paris, 31 août –3 septembre 2005 (BdE 147; Cairo, 2009), 205 n. 43.

line 9(a) t sb.t (n) ty(=y) (st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìn t qy (st.t) 3.t Ì … is here understood as a free-standing nominal sentence ‘The exchange of my two (arourai) of field, which are in the highland, are the three arourai of field …’. In this clause, the “price” of the two arourai, which Petosiris swapped, is expressed as the three arourai. Despite the lack of a possessive pronoun, we have to understand that the fields were formerly, or rather before the transaction became effective, in the possession of Soknop-mois; cf. l. 9 in P. Cairo II 30631.(b) This line describes that the fields, described as terrace-fields or sim-ilar, were situated on the highland ((st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìn t qy)27. Ì nty Ìry would, however, be the expected formula instead of a new description of the just mentioned fields. (c) ∂wy is understood as plant in the CDD28 because of the plant deter-minative but no certain identification has been found for it. The field which Soknopmois swapped was thus one in which ∂wy-plants grew.

line 10(a) mtw=k sk=w mtw=k ir=w (n) wpy n wy¨… is the so-called ‘Land Management Clause’ (LMC) normally present in land lease documents29.

26 Ìtp-ntr ‘temple domain’ can be written with a plant determinative as in P. Acker-pacht 23 (=P. BM. 10560; C. J. Martin, ‘A Demotic Land Lease from Philadelphia:P. BM. 10560’, JEA 72 (1986), 159-173).

27 Another highland field in the vicinity of Tebtunis is found in P. Tebt. Botti 1, t qy sn†y ‘the highland of the acacia’.

28 The attestations stem from the texts treated in this paper. 29 Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 133-138; T. Q. Mrsich, Rechtsgeschichtliches zur Acker-

verpachtung auf Tempelland nach demotischen Formular (SÖAW 703 = VKAR 10; Vienna, 2003), 66-71.


The corrections made here in relation to the editio princeps were already proposed for the same clause in P. Cairo II 30631 by Bresciani and Pestman, in P. Mil. Vogl, III, 174-175. Possibly, the scribe forgot to add <mtw=k †y ny=w sn.w ny=w wtÌ.w> ‘and you are to collect their plants and their fruits’, a clause which often appears in Fayumic land leases; cf. note 11 (b) in P. Cairo II 30631. (b) The determinative in wy¨ is the striking arm. wy¨ is derived from the older ¨wy ‘reaper’ (CED, 209), which too is written with the striking arm determinative. wpy (nb) n wy¨ is the common expression for agricultural work30. When a special crop was grown on the field wy¨ was occasionally specified, for instance, as wy¨ mÌ ‘flax farmer’ in P. Acker-pacht 1 (=P. BM Reich 10230) or wy¨ bn.t ‘date farmer’ in P. Adler D 16. In P. Figeac 59 inv.31, on the other hand, a km32 n rly ‘viticulturer’ is mentioned. (c) After mtw=k ir=w wpy n wy¨, one can read ny=k and the same group appears in the corresponding clause in P. Cairo II 30631: 11 where it looks like . Spiegelberg deciphered it as Ì ‘field’33 but Ì is written differently in the current text, namely as . P. Tebt. Botti 1 contains the same or at least a very similar clause. The group which follows after mtw=k sk=w mtw=w ir=w (n) wpy nb(.t) (9) (n) wy¨ is 34. Compared with how Ì is written in this particular text , the similarity is obvious except for the fact that the former group has an additional sign attached to it. I suggest that the reading in all three cases is to be changed into iÌ(.w) ‘oxen’ and that one should add a possessive pronoun in Tebt.Botti 1. In the latter text, the scribe appears to have used the same group for Ì as for iÌ35, the only difference being that he added an animal hide determinative. Although the determinative has a somewhat unusual form, it can be compared to the following writing of iÌ (Erichsen, Glossar, 41)36. It may be noted that the shape of the animal hide determinative differs from the one found attached to the next word grg, where it is

30 G. Botti, ‘Papiri demotici dell’epoca imperiale da Tebtynis’, in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni (Milan – Varese, 1957), II, 79.

31 D. Devauchelle, ‘Le papyrus démotique du Musée de Figeac (inv. 59): un prêt d’argent’, CMC 1 (1988), 10-15. See also T. Markiewicz, ‘Security for Debt in the Demotic Papyri’, JJP 35 (2005), 159.

32 Not read in the editio princeps. 33 This reading was also followed by Bresciani and Pestman, in P. Mil. Vogl, III, 174. 34 Botti, in Studi in onore di Calderini e Paribeni, II, 79, erroneously reads it as irm

and in which he was followed by Bresciani and Pestman, in P. Mil. Vogl, III, 174. 35 Perhaps due to similarity in how the words were pronounced; cf. Crum, CD, 64a, 89b. 36 Cf. also the determinative of iÌ in P. Ackerpacht 23: 11 in which both forms are

used simultaneously.

372 A. WINKLER

written as 37. Also enhancing this interpretation is a similar clause from a hitherto unpublished papyrus (Nr. 7576)38, discovered during the Franco-Italian excavation in Tebtunis, in which the following can be read in the LMC: (15)…mtw=k mÌ=w (n) ny=k iÌ(.w) ny=k grg.w (n) rmt nmÌ [… ‘… and you are to stock them with your oxen and your private equipment’39. The mention of oxen is also expected because it appears in several lease documents containing the LMC40.

line 11(a) The traces after wn offer no other reading than that suggested.Only the horizontal stroke of =k is lost due to a hole in the papyrus. Ìy ‘Messen’ (Erichsen, Glossar, 346) is restored because of the parallel in the following line. (b) See K. Vandorpe, ‘The Ptolemaic Epigraphe or Harvest tax (shemu)’, AfP 46 (2000), 197-199, for md.t Pr-¨. This tax was based on the size of the land surface — regardless whether cultivated or not — and not on the harvest. It was the usual tax paid in the Fayum and Lower- and Middle Egypt41.

line 12(a) mÌ=k †=y di=k mtry Ìt.†=y is usually found in sales documents42 but also in Fayumic land leases43. It expresses that the rent, or a part thereof, has already been paid44. These are so-called prodomatic leases through

37 Cf. Martin, JEA 72, 168 n. 9-10. 38 I thank Philippe Colombert for showing me the photographs of this text and allow-

ing me to use it. 39 The formula is slightly different from our texts and can be contrasted with that of

P. Ackerpacht 23 with which it appears to have some similarities and which reads as mtw=k mÌ=w n iÌ grg mtw=k ir=w (n) wp.t nb (12)Ìwt n py=k grg n rmt nmÌ: ‘you are to stock them with cattle (and) equipment and you are to carry out all the tasks (12)(of the) farmer with your private equipment’. The variation regarding the clause might be explained by the age difference as well as discrete local traditions.

40 These texts include P. Ackerpacht 2 (=P. Berlin 3032); P. Ackerpacht 3 (=P. Tor. Amen. 17); P. Acker pacht 6 (=P. Tor. Botti 25C); P. Ackerpacht 8 (=P. Tor. Botti 37); P. Ackerpacht 12 (=P. Bürgs. 9/P. Heid. 723); P. Ackerpacht 14 (=P. Heid. Dem. 12);P. Ackerpacht 16 (=P. Berlin 9069); P. Ackerpacht 17 (=P. Rylands Dem. 26); P. Acker-pacht 19 (P. BM 10597); P. Ackerpacht 23; P. Rylands Dem. 41; P. Berlin 13578. See also P. Heid. Dem. 11.

41 Cf. also Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 143. 42 Cf. J. Partsch, Juristische Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (AHAW 7; Heidelberg, 1927),

34-35; Zauzich, Schreibertradition, 134. 43 P. Ackerpacht 23; P. Cairo II 30613; 30614; 30615; 31079; P. Botti. Tebt. 1 44 It should be remembered that pre-payments also appear in lease documents where

the lessee is the issuer, for instance in P. Ackerpacht 6; P. Ackerpacht 11 (P. Cairo II


which the lessor becomes indebted to the lessee. Yet a pre-payment is not to be associated with an antichresis because the latter relates to an earlier debt45. The clause discussed is as a rule found in documents released by the lessor46. However, not all leases in which the lessor was the issuer contain this clause, as can be seen in P. Cairo II 30631. In the current case, it expresses that Party A is satisfied with the lands, which he received in the barter. (b) After the formula discussed in (a) n.im=w is expected47. However, the text shows the following group

instead, for which no convincing

solution has been found. Perhaps it is best understood as a scribal error. The unread sign is followed by which is to be read as irm=w. It is to be taken as an alternative writing of n.im=w (correctly written on l. 17) due to a phonetic similarity between the words48.

lines 13 and 14iw=s mtw=k ¨.wy=y di.t w¨b=w n=k … is a clause occasionally found in Fayumic leases (P. Tebt. Botti 1). It signifies an assurance that the leased land, or in this case the exchanged land, is unencumbered by any prior claim, whether from a third party or from the state due to tax arrears, which could be imposed on the beneficiary.

line 15The following clause mtw=k ir ty=w md.t Pr-¨¨ws n-†y-(n) p rt Ì.t-sp 27 expresses that the exchange became effective on the 14th of September 88 BC49. The statement implies that Soknopmois was obliged to take over the tax burden of the two arourai, which he received from Petosiris, almost a year after the exchange document was drawn up.

30784+); P. Ackerpacht 13 (=P. Heid. Dem. 13); P. Ackerpacht 22; cf. Felber, Acker-pachtverträge, 199-200.

45 See Hughes, Land Leases, 31; Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 209-210; D. Hennig, Untersuchungen zur Bodenpacht im ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten (PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München; Munich, 1967), 36-41; J. Herrmann, Studien zur Boden-pacht im Recht der graeco-aegyptischen Papyri (MBPF 41; Munich, 1958), 229-244; Markiewicz, JJP 35, 158-160.

46 Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 209-210. 47 Sethe and Partsch, Bürgschaftsrechte, 262. 48 See also R. Jasnow, ‘A Demotic Omen Text?’, in J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on

Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde (EM 1; Groningen, 1997), 212, for a similar occurrence of irm instead of n.im=.

49 Skeat, The Reign of the Ptolemies, 16. Even though the year refers to Ptolemaios X Alexander, Ptolemaios IX Soter II was the king at this date; see W. Huß, Ägypten in helle-nistischer Zeit: 332-30 v. Chr (Munich, 2001), 664-665.

374 A. WINKLER

line 16(a) iw=y s†.†=y r-r=k tb.†=w … is a conditional clause often found in leases50, which shows that the exchange to a large extent is to be under-stood as a lease. Usually exhange documents (sÌ sb.t) are phrased as sales documents (cf. note l. 6 (b)). (b) Cf. P. W. Pestman, ‘A Note Concerning the Reading of Ì∂ sp-2’, Enchoria 2 (1972), 36, for the expression Ìt sp-2 which was not read in the editio princeps; cf. also R. Holton-Pierce, Three Demotic Papyri in the Brooklyn Museum – A Contribution to the Study of Contracts and their Instruments in Ptolemaic Egypt (SO. Suppl. 24; Oslo, 1973), 159-165, for the meaning of this particular clause.

lines 17 and 18In the oath, a change of speakers is to be noted. Now both parties speak, instead of only Party A, Petosiris. Both parties swear by the king. The change of speakers is indicated by the negated future in line 18, bn-iw=n. The situation here resembles that of P. Ackerpacht 2351 except that the new speakers are not introduced in the present text and that the contracting parties do not swear by the king in the lease.

line 18This line states that not only two fields exchanged holders but that also two documents (n sÌ(.w) sb.t) were drawn up simultaneously. Both probably contained the same conditions, the only difference being that the two parties swapped places just as the two exchanged objects. This implies that the same obligations which fell upon Soknopmois in this text were put on Petosiris in the document which Soknopmois issued for him concerning the entitlement to the three arourai of ∂wy-field. That two documents were exchanged in such transactions is also confirmed elsewhere. As an example, a similar situation can be found in P. Tor. Amen. 14: 1552.

line 19(a) Another change of speakers is encountered in the conjunctive. Similar to the previous instance, the scribe did not bother to introduce the new speaker, who must be understood as Soknopmois, declaring his inten-tion to abide by the conditions stipulated above. The speaker cannot be

50 Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 185-195. 51 Martin, JEA 72, 172. 52 (3)di=y n=k ty=y ¨.t … (13)… n t sb.t ty=k (14) ¨.t … r.di=k n=y (15)Ìr-r=s iw=k

ir n=y bk r-r=s: ‘(3)I have given you my jennet … (13)… in exchange for your (14)jennet … which you have given to me (15)for her when you made a document regarding her for me’.


Petosiris because it would not make sense if he first exhorted Soknop-mois to pay the taxes and to work the fields (l. 10) and then declared himself willing to do it.

As already mentioned, the situation is similar to that of P. Ackerpacht 2353 in which following the lessor’s assurance to the lessee, the latter’s pledge is recorded (l. 26) but in the lease the new speaker is clearly written out as opposed to the exchange document. Another difference is that the order is reversed in the lease document. In the lease, party B first states his will-ingness to follow the regulations whereupon a mutual oath is recorded. Due to the appearance of the mutual agreement between the two parties, one would expect the documents to have been kept by a third party, a so-called suggrafofúlaz54, even if the documents were exchanged. (b) The word which follows mtry, beginning with a feminine definite article, is smeared out and therefore difficult to decipher but the most plausible reading of it is (st.t) 2.t Ì. Although less probable the group could possibly be read as t sb.t. (c) I am unable to read the part which follows mtw=y bk=w. Hence, I follow Spiegelberg’s reading ‘Ich arbeite … hier auf ihnen’ with only minor alternations.

line 20 (a) The apodosis is of importance because it states that if Soknopmois fails to fulfil the obligations lain upon him, he must give the bartered lands back to Petosiris. Nowhere is it stated that Soknopmois would get back the lands which he received in the exchange transaction. The trans-fer of property could therefore be cancelled in one way. (b) The scribe is to be read as Haryothes, son of Haryothes (ProsPtol. 7724), as identified by B. P. Muhs, ‘The Grapheion and the Disappearance of Demotic Contracts in Early Roman Tebtunis and Soknopiou Nesos’, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 94 n. 1155, instead of Spiegelberg’s correction in the CGC, which is followed in the DemBL, A, 122, namely Haryothes, son of Harmysis (ProsPtol. 7723). See also M. Depauw, ‘Auto-graph Confirmation in Demotic Private Contracts’, CdE 78 (2003), 76.

53 Cf. Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 162, 201-203; Hughes, Land Leases, 25-26; Martin, JEA 72, 172.

54 Cf. note above. 55 However, see the note by Zauzich, Schreibertradition, 213 n. 78. Cf. also C. J. Martin,

‘A Family of Scribes in Ptolemaic Tebtynis’, in Z. A. Hawass, Kh. A. Daoud, and S. Abd El-Fattah (eds), The Realm of the Pharaohs, Essays in Honor of Tohfa Handoussa (CASAE 37; Cairo, 2008), I, 327.

376 A. WINKLER

line 21Cf. Holton-Pierce, Three Demotic Papyri, 179-188; Muhs, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 96, for a discussion of the Greek registration docket56.

Vso.(a) The long stroke above the names is to be found on the other side of the words ∂d on the vso.-side. For a comprehensive discussion, seeA. Farid, ‘A New Suggestion on the Sign Heading the Witness List in Demotic Legal Texts’, BIFAO 103 (2003), 203-218, esp. 204-208.(b) The first name could possibly be read as -Îp ‘-apis’ instead.(c) Since the name of the receiving party is written on the left hand edge it was perhaps visible as the papyrus was rolled together57.

P. CAIRO II 3063158

(1)Ì.t-sp 32 ibd-2 smw sw 19 (1)Regnal year 32, month 2 of the sum-mer season, day 19

Pr-¨ ¨ws Ptlwmys ¨ws [p ntr nty] [nÌm] (under) PharaohL.P.H. PtolemaiosL.P.H. [Soter]

w¨b (2)lgsntrwys¨ws irm n nty-iw=w sÌ n-im=w R¨-qty

and the priest of (2)AlexanderL.P.H., and those who are registered in Alexandria.

∂d (3)[rp¨y] m-ntry Ìry sy Qm Ìry sy [Rs-nb]-imnty Pa-n-Is.t (s) Pa-n-Is.t ¨ (4)[p] [mr]-sn Sbk-nb-Tn p ntr ¨ Ì.t-sp 32 irm n w¨b.w Sbk-nb-[Tn] p ntr ¨ p 5 s.w (5)[n]ty ny=w rn(.w) sÌ Ìry

Said (3)the [Repoy] m-ntry and Chief of the Lake of Creation and Chief of the South Lake of the Lord of the West, Panesis, (son of) Panesis Senior (4)[the] [Le]sonis of Soknebtunis, the Great God, of regnal year 32 and the Priests of Sokneb[tunis], the Great God, of the five phylae, (5)whose names are written below

56 The process is also thoroughly treated by P. W. Pestman, ‘Registration of Demotic Contracts in Egypt; P. Par. 652nd Cent. B-C’, in J. A. Ankum, J. E. Spruit, and F. B. J. Wubbe (eds), Satura Roberto Feenstra (Friburg, 1985), 17-25.

57 See M. Cannata, ‘Papyrus BM. EA. 10075 and Papyrus Bodleian MS. Egypt. A. 41(P): Two Halves of a Ptolemaic Contract of Sale Reunited’, JEA 92 (2006), 195-196 n. 80, for papyri which carry an archival remark.

58 The text is written parallel with the fibres and measures ca. 30 ≈ 16 cm. It has a dark brown colour according to the CGC. The text is rather well preserved but contains a large crack on its left side from line 1 to 14, due to which some of the text has been lost. The crack continues in a darker miscolouring to the bottom of the text. About 1 cm. is missing from the right side in the first 11 lines. The description is largely made from the picture from the DemNB-archive. It seems that the papyrus has suffered some damage since it was photographed for the CGC.


n rp¨y m-ntry [Ìry sy Qm (6)Ìry] [s]y [Rs-nb]-imnty Sbk-m-Ìb (s) S-wr mw.t=f Ta-Rnn.t

to the Repoy m-ntry, [Chief of the Lake of Creation (6)and Chief of] the [South Lake of the Lord] of the West, Sokno-pis, (son of) Sigeris, his mother is Thermouthis:

sÌn=n n=[k] (7) [t (st.t) 2.t] Ì nty Ìn t (st.t) 3.t Ì p Ì ∂w (Ìr) p Ìtp-ntr (n) [Sbk]-[nb-Tn] p ntr ¨

We have leased to [you] (7)[the two] (arourai) of field, which are in the three (arourai) of field of the ∂w-field on the temple domain of [Sok][nebtunis], the Great God,

(8)[ny=f h]yn.w rsy [ty=k] (st.t) 4.t Ì mÌty (p Ì n) Pa-n-Is.t p Ìm (s) Pa-t ibty [p] [ Ìtp-ntr] imnty p Ìtp-ntr

(8)[its] [neighbours] (are): south: [your] four (arourai) of field; north: (the field of) Panese Junior, (son of) Patous; east: [the] [temple domain]; west: the tem-ple domain,

(9)<i.ir> Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my (s) Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my sb.t n-im=w irm [P]-[di]-[Wsir](s) P-mnÌ

(9)<which> Soknopmois, (son of) Sok-nopmois exchanged with [Pe][t][osiris] (son of) Pmenches.

(10)[tw]= [s] t (st.t) 2.t Ì nty Ìry Ìpr Ìr-r=k

(10)[See] the two aforementioned (arou-rai) of field have come into your cus-tody,

mtw=k sk=w mtw=k ir=w [wpy] nb n wy¨ (11)[(n) ny]=k iÌ(.w) ny=k grg.w rmt nmÌ mtw=k †y ny=w sn.w [ny=w] wtÌ.w

and you are to plough them and carry out every agricultural labour (11)[with] [your] oxen and your private equipment and you are to collect their plants (and) [their] fruit

(n)-†y-(n) (12)p rt Ì.t-sp 33 s¨ n ssw.w ¨nÌ n Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my iw sny (13) ty=f rnp.t 3.t iw=f mwt

from (12)the growth of regnal year 33, during the lifetime of Soknopmois, and (13)(until) three years after his death have passed,

r mn-mtw P-di-Wsir [(s) P-mnÌ] irm (14)Sbk-m-Ìb-p-my md.t nb n p t mtw=w (n)-†y-(n) p hrw r Ìry

whereas Petosiris, [(son of) Pmenches,] and (14)Soknopmois have nothing at all to do with them from today and onwards

bn-iw rÌ [rmt nb n (p) t ir sÌy] <n-im=w bnr=k>

[None at all] will [have the control over] <them besides you>

(15)mtw=k ir ty=w md.t Pr-¨ ¨ws (n)-†y-(n) p rt nty Ìry Ì.t-sp 33

(15)and you are to pay their state tax from the aforementioned growth of regnal year 33

iw=n ir n=k [p] sÌn [nty Ìry r-tb] (16)

Ìpr bn-pw n rmt.w (n) rn=w ir t md.t Pr-¨ ¨ws n n Ì.w nty Ìry

since we are making [the] [aforemen-tioned] lease for you [because] (16)the mentioned men did not pay the state tax for the aforementioned fields

[n ssw.w i.ir] sny (17)r-hn Ì.t-sp 32 for the [time which has] passed (17)until regnal year 32

378 A. WINKLER

mtw=k p i.ir t md.t Pr-¨ ¨ws and you are the one who has paid the state tax,

mtw tm rÌ rmt nb n p t ir [sÌy] n-im=w bnr=k (18)(n)-†y-(n) p hrw r Ìry

and none will have the [control] over them besides you (18)from today and onwards.

iw=n nÌm n Ì.w nty Ìry n-tr.†=k g iw=n tm ir [r-Ì] md.t nb nty Ìry

If we take the aforementioned fields away from you or if we do not act [according] to every aforementioned word,

iw=n (19)di.t-s n=k Ìt 1500 Ìt krkr 5 Ìmt 24 2 p bnr di.t-s (n) Pr-¨ ¨ws n Ìtr <iw† mn> n-im=w ¨n

we will (19)give you 1500 (deben) silver, (making) five talents, (in proportion) of 24 copper (oboles) to two (kite), apart from what still is to be given to Phar-aoh compulsorily <and without delay> from them.

Below the text:

(1)sÌ Pa-n-Is.t (s) Îr- [… (1)sÌ M¨-R¨-s-Sbk (s) ↓Îr-.?.(?)↓

(1)sÌ [M¨-R¨ (s) Sbk-m-Ìb (?)]

(2)sÌ P-syf [… (2)sÌ M¨-R¨-s-Sbk (s) ↑Îr-w∂↑

(2)sÌ [Wn-nfr (?)] (s) [..- Sbk (?).]

(3)sÌ M¨-R¨ (?) (s) [.] [… (3)sÌ Pa-n-Is.t (s) Pa-[n-Is.t] (?)

(3)sÌ Pa-n-Is.t (s) Pa-n-Is.t

(4)sÌ M¨-R¨ [… (4)sÌ [Î¨py-iw (]?) (s) Pa-n-Is.t

(4)sÌ P-di-Is.t (s) Wn-nfr

(5)sÌ M¨-R¨ (s) Pa-tmy (5)sÌ Wn-nfr (s) […](6)sÌ P-di-[Rnn.t] P-my […

(6)sÌ [Sbk-Î¨py] (?) (s) […](7)[…]

(1)Signed by Panese (son of) Îr-[…

(1)Signed by Maresuchos (son of) ↓Îr-.?.(?)↓

(1)Signed by [Mares], (Son of) [Soknopis (?)]

(2)Signed by Psephis [… (2)Signed by Maresuchos (son of) ↑Haryotes↑

(2)Signed by [Onnophrios (?)], (Son of) […- Sbk (?)]

(3)Signed by Mares [… (3)Signed by Panese, (Son of) Panese

(3)Signed by Panese, (Son of) Panese

(4)Signed by Ma[res.?.] (4)Signed by […] (Son of) Panese

(4)Signed by Petesis, (son of) Onnophrios

(5)Signed by Mares, (son of) Patemis (?)

(5)Signed by Onnophrios, (Son of) […]

(6)Signed by Peter[muthis] (son of) Pmois […

(6)Signed by [Soknopis] (?), (Son of) (7)[…]


Notes

line 1 Regnal year 32, Payni, day 19 of Ptolemaios IX Soter II corresponds to the 28th of June 85 BC59, which means that this document is almost four years younger than P. Cairo II 30630 and is drawn up approximately three years after the exchange recorded in P. Cairo II 30630 took place.

lines 3 to 7The issuer of the document is the temple of Soknebtunis, which is rep-resented by its priesthood. The situation with a priesthood as the lessor has parallels in other land leases, which have been treated by Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 104-106. These texts include P. Ackerpacht 9(=P. Cairo II 30783+), 11 and 14 and record how the temple let fields to individuals for a defined period of time. Analogous with the situation described in the above mentioned land lease documents, the emissaries of the temple in P. Cairo II 30631 were its highest ranking officials.The temple was not only represented by the lesonis60 Panesis, son of Panesis Senior (ProsPtol. 5418), who acted as the main declarant, but also by all the priests. This is not a unique situation because the lease propos-als which were directed at the temple in Soknopaiou Nesos addressed not only the god and the lesonis but also all of the priesthood61.

line 7(a) The restoration in the beginning of the line is based on what is writ-ten in l. 10, which explicitly states that the lease concerns two arourai belonging to the three arourai of ∂w-field mentioned in P. Cairo II 30630, that is, the fields which Petosiris received from Soknopmois. (b) In the editio princeps, the beginning of this line was erroneously read as Ìn t qy because of a false join. The small piece containing a horizontal

59 Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies, 16. 60 J. A. S. Evans, A Social and Economic History of an Egyptian Temple in the Graeco-

Roman Period (YCS 18; New Haven, 1961), 185-186; S. L. Lippert and M. Schentuleit, ‘Die Tempelökonomie nach den demotischen Texten aus Soknopaiu Nesos’, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 72-73; A. Monson, ‘Priests of Soknebtunis and Soknopis:P. BM. EA 10647’, JEA 92 (2006), 208; W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten (Berlin – Leipzig, 1905), I, 38-52; S. Pfeiffer, Das Dekret von Kanopos (238 v. Chr.): Kommentar und historische Auswertung (AfP Beiheft 18; Munich – Leipzig, 2004), 76; G. Vittmann, Der Demotische Papyrus Rylands 9 (ÄAT 38; Wiesbaden, 1998), 290-291; K. Th. Zauzich, ‘Lesonis’, LÄ III, 1008.

61 Cf. E. Bresciani, L’archivio demotico del tempio di Soknopaiu Nesos (nel Fayum) nel Griffith Institute di Oxford. Vol. 1, P. Ox. Griffith nn. 1-75 (TDSA 49; Milan – Varese, 1975), 54-75, 127-135 (P. Ox. Griffith 42-55).

380 A. WINKLER

stroke probably belongs to l. 9. The horizontal stroke there belongs to the Sbk-ligature in l. 9 and not to the sign which was read as Ìn. The first sign in this line is instead to be read as Ì. The following sign was understood as t but is to be read as nty. 62 was deciphered as ‘highland’. It may be compared to qy and Ìn inP. Cairo II 30630 from which it becomes clear that it is to be read as Ìn.

line 9In view of the erroneous false join in line 7, the correction of [r.ir] made by Hughes, JNES 16, 63, [r.ir] A (s) B sb.t n-im=w irm C (s) D: ‘for which A, (son of) B, made an exchange with C, (son of) D’, must be modified slightly; i.ir is not lost but the scribe forgot to add it; cf. l. 6 in P. Cairo II 30630 for ir sb.t.

line 10The traces of the first badly preserved word were not read in the editio princeps, but there can be little doubt about its reading as tw=s ‘siehe’ (Erichsen, Glossar, 612)63. However, only the final =s is preserved. tw=s is not commonly used within documentary texts but it is found, for instance, in P. Loeb 34 + 67:15.

line 11(a) The reading of this line was already improved by Bresciani and Pest-man, in P. Mil. Vogl, III, 174-176, who corrected srs into grg and sy into rmt nmÌ64. See also note 10 (c) to P. Cairo II 30630.(b) For the phrase mtw=k †y ny=w sn.w ny=w wtÌ.w and sn as ‘plant’ rather than tree, see Bresciani and Pestman, in P. Mil. Vogl, III, 175-176; Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 155-156.(c) The same formulation mtw=k sk=w mtw=k ir=w wpy nb n wy¨(n) ny=k iÌ.w ny=k grg.w … is only known to me from the two texts treated here and P. Botti Tebt 1. The only difference is that the scribe forgot to add the possessive article before iÌ.w in the latter text.

lines 12 and 13Spiegelberg did not decipher s¨ , and what here is read as iw sny65, he interpreted as iw=f ¨rq. He translated the line as ‘so wie (?) es zur

62 The facsimile is made without a filling dot. 63 See Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, 274-279, for a discussion on this particle. 64 See also Martin, JEA 72, 168 n. 9-10; Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische

Rechtsgeschichte, 56-57. 65 I am grateful to Wolfgang Wegner for reading this word which is hardly discernable

on the CGC-photos but clearer on the DemNB-archive photos that he used.


Lebenszeit des Soknopmois war — und es sind (13)3 Jahre her, daß er starb…’. Nevertheless, this clause does not treat the conditions of the farming but the length of the lease; s¨ n ssw.w n ¨nÌ is to be understood as ‘throughout the lifetime …’ (cf. Erichsen, Glossar, 487) and iw sny (13)ty=f rnp.t 3.t iw=f mwt is lit. ‘(until) his three years in that he is dead have passed’. Soknopmois was not dead when this document was issued. Had he been dead, the following clause would have been superfluous(cf. note below). Instead, this clause should be understood as giving Soknopis the entitlement to keep the land for as long as Soknopmois was alive and for three additional years following the death of the latter.

lines 13 and 14(a) has here been read as the circumstantial converter r, despite its atypical form.(b) In the editio princeps, not all words were read and the following transla-tion was suggested: ‘… und Petesok[… (Sohn des) …, setze mit] (14)Soknopp-mois jedes Wort der Welt fest …’ The first name is to be read as Petosiris and not as Petesok …, and having identified the group read as … mtw by Spiegelberg as mn-mtw, there is no reason to follow the editio princeps. (c) bn-iw rÌ [rmt nb n (p) t ir sÌy] <n-im=w bnr=k> was not readin the CGC. The ink traces and numerous parallels allow the inter-pretation offered here. It corresponds to clause 6a in Demotic sales doc-uments66, which ensures the beneficiary of the document from unjust claims by a third party. It is possible that the line switch caused the scribe to overlook the last part of the clause.

line 15iw=n was interpreted by Hughes, JNES 32, 160, as an independent first present but this can hardly be the case. Here, it is instead to be considered a circumstantial first present with a causal meaning.

line 17 (a) Hughes, Land Leases, 92, argued that <ir> should be emended between i.ir and t md.t Pr-¨¨ws. However, the construction i.ir ir and i.ir are synonymous67. Thus, his suggestion has not been followed because it is a hypercorrection. (b) sÌy is not read in the editio princeps.

66 Zauzich, Schreibertradition, 137-138; den Brinker, Muhs, and Vleeming, DemBL, B, §6.

67 M. Depauw, ‘Two Notes in the Demotic Participle or how i.ir Became Theologically Relevant’, LingAeg 10 (2002), 107.

382 A. WINKLER

line 18Instead of [ir] t […] suggested in the first edition, the following reading is proposed ir [r-Ì].

line 19 The DemBL, A, 122, transliterates the clause before the final words n Ìtr <iw† mn> n-im=w ¨n as di.t-s (n) n Pr-¨ ¨ws.w following Spielberg’s own corrections in the CGC. What is interpreted as n is, however, nothing but a graphic duplication of the absolute pronoun –s which, for instance, can be seen in the writings listed by Erichsen, Glossar, 39968.

The signatures below the text69 are written in three columns of which Spiegelberg understood the middle one as containing the signatures of the four witnesses of the document. On first inspection, only the last two names seem to mention filiations. Between the names of the two first witnesses, Maresuchos and Maresuchos, a name is squeezed in, which perhaps is to be understood as the father of the first Maresuchos. Between columns two and three, slightly above the second line, another name, Haryothes, is inserted. It is possible that he is to be understood as the father of the second Maresuchos. Why the patronymics are not written directly after the names, as is usually the case, is unclear. Perhaps, they are later additions, implying that the first two witnesses initially only wrote their own names and added the patronymic later, suddenly regarding it as important.

Of the names in the first column, Psephis and the second Mares are listed in the DemNB, whereas the reading of the first Mares is highly uncertain. The reading of the two last names seems fairly certain.

In the third column, the names have suffered from heavy damage.As a result, they are occasionally hardly discernable. This is especially true of the two first names in this column.

I cannot read what has been understood as the seventh name. Although it looks misplaced in relation to the others, it is not very likely that itis what remains of the scribe’s name. One would expect the scribe to be Haryothes, son of Haryothes70, but the impression given by the scanty traces does not seem to fit such a reading.

68 See, for instance, P. Cairo II 30625: 13; 30630: 16; 31079: 24; P. Ackerpacht 1: 11; P. Tebt. Botti 1: 14.

69 Cf. Depauw, CdE 78 (2003), 82. 70 See C. Arlt, ‘Egyptian Notary Offices in the Ptolemaic Fayyum’, in S. L. Lippert

and M. Schentuleit (eds), Graeco-Roman Fayum – Texts and Archaeology (Wiesbaden,


COMMENTARY TO BOTH DOCUMENTS

P. Cairo II 30630 is one of few preserved Demotic exchange documents and also the latest known document of this kind71. It records an exchange of temple land between two priests. The issuer of the contract Petosiris, son of Pmenches, bartered two arourai of highland field, also described as being a terrace (?) field, with Soknopmois, son of Soknopmois, who in turn gave him three arourai of field, described as lying on the ∂wy-plant fields. If the smaller field was not more valuable per aroura, the question arises as to why it was swapped for a larger one. Although it is not mentioned in the text, it could be suggested that Soknopmois was indebted to Petosiris72. As a result, he would have been forced to hand over a larger plot to his creditor in return for a smaller one. That the exchange did not become effective from the first day on which the con-tracts were drawn up but almost a year later may favour this interpreta-tion. That the delay depended on administrative reasons is also possible.

The conditions for the exchange do not resemble those of a salesor donation document as is usually the case73. Similar stipulations are, however, found in Fayumic land leases. This implies that the former pos-sessor had an interest in how the new tenant cultivated the soils. That is, the exchange came with restrictions, which one would not expect from a transfer of privately owned property with alienable rights. Furthermore, the exchange is said to last forever, s¨ ∂.t (cf. infra), but if the conditions were not met, the agreement would be unilaterally broken. This means that the party violating the regulations was supposed to lose what he obtained in the barter without getting back that which he had traded (l.20).

Despite the fact that the exchange was labelled as valid forever, one of the exchanged grounds, or rather a part of it ((7)[t (st.t) 2.t] Ì ntyÌn t (st.t) 3.t Ì p Ì ∂w), was let by the priesthood of Soknebtunis in P. Cairo II 30631 to a third party, Soknopis, son of Sigeris, at a later

2008), 20; Martin, in Hawass, Daoud, and Abd El-Fatah (eds), The Realm of the Pharaohs, 327; Muhs, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 94.

71 Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, 156. 72 Cf. Partsch, Juristische Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit, 32-40; Monson, in Lippert and

Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 82; E. Seidl, Bodennutzung und Bodenpacht nach den demotischen Texten der Ptolemäerzeit (SÖAW 291:2; Vienna, 1973), 27; for other debts of Soknopmois. Cf. also Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 209-210; Hughes, Land Leases, 31-34; Markiewicz, JJP 35, 158-159. See also Hennig, Bodenpacht, 39-40; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 229-244.

73 See footnote 19.

384 A. WINKLER

date74. This happened approximately three years after the exchange men-tioned in the first document became effective. The grounds which Sokno-pis let were those which Soknopmois gave to Petosiris. He let the fields which must have been treated in the lost second exchange document i.e. the document that Soknopmois would have issued for Petosiris. The rea-son for the lease of the exchanged lands is provided: the former tenants did not pay the obligatory taxes (l.15-17). These had been handed in by the new tenant instead. It was previously believed that they were not paid because the former possessor, Soknopmois, had died75. This is not cor-rect, however; the reason why the taxes were not paid is never stated and the death of the former tenant is only mentioned in relationship to the length of the lease (cf. infra)76.

It must be assumed that the temple entitled the first tenants of the land, which was exchanged in P. Cairo II 30630 and the lost parallel document, for the same amount of time as the exchange was said to have lasted, that is, forever s¨ ∂.t77. To confer something for this time span of time has been understood as being equivalent to 99 years78: the two expressions are interchangeable. They are, for instance, equated in the so-called self dedication texts, e.g. in P. BM 10622. The correspondence is furthermore found in a number of other texts, such as P. BM Reich 1024079. It is a promissory note for the right of being a choachyte, which runs for 99 years, in which the issuer explicitly states that neither he nor his children will have the right to break the agreement ‘until forever’

74 One may assume that the remaining aroura of the original three was let to another person.

75 Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 83. 76 The lease is therefore not a ‘perpetual lease’, as claimed by D. Crawford, Kerkeo-

siris: an Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge, 1971), 96 n. 3. 77 It is worth considering whether a Pathyrite papyrus, P. Rylands Dem. 32, is the

remains of such a deed because the temple is represented by the lesonis and the priesthood. Their names are written below the text similar to, for instance, P. Cairo II 30631, P. Cairo II 30611 and 30704. The temple donates lands (wrÌ) to a person, who most probably is a priest, and his rights to the lands are said to last for ‘forever’. It is probable that the grounds are farm lands (F. Ll. Griffith, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the Rylands Library, (London – Manchester, 1909), III, 160) rather than building plots (correct Depauw, CdE 78 (2003), 79) because they are described as p nty tg ‘being planted’. Furthermore, wrÌ is in many instances in Pathyrite documents grounds which were cultivated as, for instance, in P. BM 10071 (C. Andrews, ‘The Sale of a Pathyrite Vineyard (P. BM 10071)’, in Baines et al. (eds), Pyramid Studies, 193-199).

78 J. G. Manning, Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Structure of Land Tenure (Cambridge, 2003), 189; P. W. Pestman, Recueil de textes démotiques et bilingues (Leiden, 1977), II, 108; H. Thompson, ‘Two Demotic Self-Dedications’, JEA 26 (1941), 71.

79 See also Hughes, JNES 32, 158, for P. Phil 24, a lease of choachyte rights valid forever (s¨ ∂.t).


(l.4). Simultaneously, the addressee is asked to return the lands after 99 years80. This could indicate that 99 years are to be taken at face value. Such a claim may also be supported by a statement in the lease docu-ments81 P. BM Andrews 22: 14-15 and P. Survey 43: 6, in which it is said that the lessee and his offspring are allowed to build a house on the plot and to remain there (Ìpr n.im=f ) until the completion of 99 years82. The mention of the lessee’s children may indicate that the lease rights were inheritable.

However, to let something for 99 years can also be understood as expressing an intention to communicate that the lease was supposed to run for the entire lifetime of the lessee since very few live to such a great age. This seems to be supported by the content of P. Cairo II 30631. In this text, the new lessee is allowed to keep the lands for as long as the original tenant lived and for three additional years following his death83, that is, for an unspecified period of time. The lease would be valid for at least three years since nobody could know how much longer Soknopmois would live. This interpretation is in line with how B. Menu translated the

80 Other published demotic texts which contain a cession for 99 years includeP. Loeb 34 + 67 (lease of lands), P. BM. Andrews 22 (=P. BM 10782), and P. Survey 43 (=P. Recueil 10/P. Warsaw 149.288) (building plots on the temple domain). Cf. also Pestman, Recueil de textes, II, 108.

81 Even if it has convincingly been argued that the word sÌn is to be understood as‘to transfer’ or ‘to entrust’, it is still translated as ‘lease’ here for the sake of simplicity; cf. Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 117; Manning, Land and Power, 189; Pestman, Recueil de textes, II, 102. See also Mrsich, Rechtsgeschichtliches zur Ackerverpachtung auf Tem-pelland, 103-104; Seidl, Bodennutzung, 28,

82 It is to be noted that the children of the person devoting himself/herself to a god in the so-called self dedications are also said to become the servants (bk) of the god.

83 Why an additional three years were given is not stated. The addition of three years could be interpreted in two different ways. It may be a sort of compensation for the three years during which the taxes were not paid. The number of years match but it does not change the fact that Soknopis was obliged to pay the taxes for all additional years. Hughes, Land Leases, 33, understood the situation in a similar fashion. Another explanation forthe three years may be found in the Codex Hermopolis. In the legal codex, three years is a common figure for a respite in relation to reimbursement for damages or similar (cf.G. R. Hughes, in G. Mattha, The Demotic Legal Code of Hermopolis West (BdE 45; Cairo, 1975), 76 n. l. 17). Therefore, it is plausible that the three years were based on legal practice being independent of the numbers of years for which Soknopis had paid thetaxes. He received the entitlement to the lands because he had acted justly and fulfilled the ignored duties, and would only obtain three additional years irrespective of for how for many years he had paid. One can assume that he paid the taxes for the three yearsbut this is not explicitly stated in the document. It is possible that three years was a com-monly assigned period for different legal procedures. Furthermore, the number three could be interpreted in relation to number symbolism since the figure stands for plurality (cf.H. Goedicke ‘Zahlensymbolik’, LÄ VI, 128).

386 A. WINKLER

expression s¨ ∂.t based on the servitude documents of P. Rylands Dem. 4-7, in which a servant swears to his new master to stay with him for the coming year and forever. Yet the contract between the servant and his master seems to have been renewed on an annual basis. Thus, she pro-posed to translate s¨ ∂.t as ‘continually’ and not as ‘perpetually’84. This indicates a duration which is without a fixed end. Based on this, it can be assumed that the original barter of lands would have lasted for an indefinite period of time, perhaps only being limited to a lifetime rather than lasting forever. This implies that the traded lands were not inherit-able, and the transaction would have been resolved as soon as one of the parties had died. Such conditions resemble those of the cleruchic lands85, because these were given to soldiers as a compensation for their service and they could cultivate these lands or sub-lease them to a third party for as long as they stayed in service86. Initially the cleruchic lands were not inheritable87. From the stipulated conditions in P. Cairo II 30630 other

84 B. Menu, Recherches sur l’histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Égypte (Paris, 1982), 187-189. I am grateful to Alejandro Botta for turning my attention to P. Rylands Dem 7.

85 B. Anagnostou-Canas, ‘La colonisation du sol dans l’Egypte ptolemaïque’, in Allam (ed.), Grund und Boden, 361, 369-373; W. Clarysse, The Petrie Papyri: Second Edition (P. Petrie2); The Wills (CollHell 2; Brussels, 1991), I, 37-39; Crawford, Kerkeosiris, 55-56; Manning, Land and Power, 178-181; B. P. Muhs, Tax Receipts, Taxpayers, and Taxes in Early Ptolemaic Thebes (OIP 126; Chicago, 2005), 9; C. Préux, L’économie royale des Lagides (Brussels, 1939), 463-480; M. Rostowzew, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kollonates (AfP Beiheft 1; Berlin – Leipzig, 1910), 6-13; J. Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt – The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrynchite Nome (Oxford, 1996), 43-48; J. C. Shelton, in J. G. Keenan and J. C. Shelton (eds), Tebtunis Papyri IV (ESS GRM 64; London, 1976), 10-15; A. Stollwerck, Unter-suchungen zum Privatland im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten (PhD thesis, Univer-sität zu Köln; Cologne, 1971), 14-15; Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 236-237; F. Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern (ADAW 1968:3; Berlin, 1968), 3-4. See A. Monson, ‘Royal Land in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Demo-graphic Model’, JESHO 50 (2007), 363-397, for a discussion on the privatisation of state owned land in Ptolemaic Egypt.

86 Seidl, Bodennutzung, 11; Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 265. 87 J. Bingen, ‘Les cavaliers catæques de l’Héracléopolite au Ier siècle’, in E. Van ’t

Dack, Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven – 22-26 May 1982 (StudHell 27; Leuven, 1983), 9-11; Uebel, Kleruchen, 41 n. 2-3. See also P. Moscow 123, which stems from the first century BC (M. Malinine, ‘Partage testamentaire d’une propriété familiale (Pap. Moscou 123)’, RdE 19 (1967), 67-85) andP. Lüddeckens D. 1 from the third century BC (E. Lüddeckens, ‘Urkunde eines Soldaten über Verkauf seines Ernteertrages’, in W. Helck (ed.), Festschrift für Siegfried Schott zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1967 (Wiesbaden, 1968), 80-86). It is to be noted that Sethe and Partsch, Bürgschaftsrechte, 130, understood the expression r.di=w n=f (4) Ì r nÌÌ: ‘dem man ein Acker für einer Ewigkeit gegeben hat’ in P. Bürgs. 7 (=P. Cairo II 30659 + 31191) as referring to a cleruch.


parallels can be drawn with the cleruchic lands. These too could be exchanged as is shown by SB XVI 1272088 or be used as security for vari-ous transactions89, just as the declarant in our text promises he has not made … di.t w¨b=w n=k (14) (n) md.t Pr-¨¨ws nb md.t Ìw.t-ntr nb sÌn nb sÌ iwy.t nb …90. Since there is no mention of a rent in either of the two documents, it is possible that the status of the lands may be compared to the so-called ên âfései g±91.

It has been suggested that the building plots in P. BM Andrews 22 and P. Survey 43 were ‘let’ and not sold to their tenants because the temple, being their proper owner92, had interest in keeping them93. J. G. Manning has proposed that it is plausible to regard the conveyances of such plots to priests as work related94. Consequently, it would be possible to suggest that they were only given to priests in their capacity as holders of such offices95. Thus, it could be comprehended as a kind of prebend. This would also fit the original state of the lands traded in P. Cairo II 30630; the priests received lands as recompense for their sacerdotal service96. Even if it is known that temple land could be acquired and cultivated by non-priests in Upper Egypt97, evidence from Kerkeosiris suggests that

88 Cf. O. Montevecchi, ‘Petizione a Pankrates con allegata schematografia di terreni’, Aegyptus 63 (1983), 4-17.

89 Cf. Crawford, Kerkeosiris, 56. 90 Cf. also the discussion by Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 87-88. 91 Cf. T. Christensen, ‘New Evidence on Land in the Apollonopolite Nome’, in

I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M. Manfredi and G. Menci (eds), Atti del XXII congresso internazionale di papirologia: Firenze, 23 – 29 agosto 1998 (Florence, 2001), I, 204-205; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, ‘Régime foncier et statut social dans l’Égypte ptolemaïque’, in Terre et paysans dépendants dans les sociétés antiques (Lyon, 1979), 164-167; J. Shelton, ‘Ptolemaic Land ên âfései: an Observation of the Terminology’, CdE 46 (1971), 133-139; Shelton, in Keenan and Shelton (eds), Tebtunis Papyri IV, 3-4.

92 Pestman, Recueil de textes, II, 106, 108. 93 Manning, Land and Power, 189-190. It is of interest that these leases are issued by

the lessor just as is the case in P. Phil. 24, contrary to how short term leases in Upper Egypt were phrased, in which the lessee was the issuer. Perhaps the lessee had already imbursed the lessor by doing a service.

94 Manning, Land and Power, 189-190. The idea of C. Andrews, ‘New Light on Ptole-maic Egypt from some Demotic Land-Transactions in the British Museum’, in Allam (ed.), Grund und Boden, 99, on how to interpret the lease situation in these two papyri can hardly be correct.

95 Since the lessor was of higher rank than the lessee in these texts, he might be regarded as a representative of the temple; cf. Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 104-105.

96 Cf. Otto, Priester und Tempel, I, 281; II, 37-42 contra M. Rostowzew, review of Otto, Priester und Tempel (Berlin and Leipzig, 1905-1908), GGA 171 (1909), 624-625. See also L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (Hildesheim, 19632), I, 95-96.

97 Manning, Land and Power, 190-193.

388 A. WINKLER

priests mostly cultivated temple land there98. Perhaps the only require-ment which the temple laid upon the tenants, besides staying in office, was that they paid the taxes, without demanding any rent from the land as was done with lands which were let on a short term99. This suggestion concurs with that of Monson, who argues that the priests had the right to decide who was cultivating the temple lands100.

Hughes proposed that the main interest of the temple was to have the fields under cultivation so that the state could receive its revenues101.He even suggested that lands were ‘bought for taxes’102. Such a sugges-tion does not oppose the proposal made above. However, if the temple only had an interest in keeping the lands cultivated, it would not have constrained the length of the lease to the lifetime of Soknopmois. Instead,

98 Crawford, Kerkeosiris, 99; Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 84;A. M. F. W. Verhoogt, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120-110 B.C.) (P. L. Bat. 29; Leiden 1998), 110.

99 Cf. P. Ackerpacht 9; P. Ackerpacht 11 (=P. Cairo II 30784+); P. Ackerpacht 14.In P. Loeb 34 + 67, which runs for 99 years, there is also a mention of rental payments. That there is no mention of crops in P. Cairo II 30631 might further speak in favour of such an interpretation.

100 Monson, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), TuS, 89. 101 Hughes, Land Leases, 33. Hughes, JNES 32, 160, also compares the current cir-

cumstances to the situation in P. Adler D 16 from Pathyris, in which a person receives a part of a fruit garden because he has paid a fee to the state which was supposed to bepaid by the original possessor of the orchard. Hughes understood this payment as asort of penalty payment because of the presence of the word qns in di=y n=k py=(y) wrÌ k[m …] (7)qns w† n Pr-¨ ¨.w.s, which he translated as: ‘I have given you my unused garden plot [because you have had its] penalty paid’. Perhaps, however, it can be restored as di=y n=k py=(y) wrÌ k[m r.di=k p] (7)qns (n) w† n Pr-¨ ¨.w.s: ‘I have given you my (half) garden plot, [because you have given] the qns-fee as a payment to the state’. In a handful of receipts from Pathyris qns is not to be understood as a penalty but rather as a licence fee for the right to cultivate fruit. The Demotic term corresponds to the Greek próstimon, which both designate a penalty or a licence fee (cf. M. C. Betrò, ‘Due tavolette demotiche e il P. Gr. Amherst II 31’, EVO 7 (1984), 41-60; U. Kaplony-Heckel, ‘Pathyris I – Demotische Kurz-Texte in Cairo’, Enchoria 19/20 (1991), 50, 77-78). Therefore, the qns-fee in P. Adler D 16 is not a penalty but a licence for the entitlement to cultivate the garden. Similarly a garden is sold with its qns in P. Rylands 29 Dem: (7)…wrÌ km irm py=s (sic) qns, that is, the garden is sold together with its cultivation rights (cf., however, Vandorpe, AfP 46, 184-185). It is tempting — although far from sure — to see a similar use of the word qns in p †y qns n md.t Pr-¨¨.w.s. in P. Ackerpacht 21 (=P. Rein. 1/P. L. Bat. 22: 1) and P. Ackerpacht 22 (=P. Dem. Rein. 5/P. L. Bat. 22: 5) even if †y qns is usually understood as ‘taking by force’. Felber, Ackerpachtverträge, 150; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, 613. P. W. Pestman and E. Boswinkel, Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas (P. L. Bat. 22; Leiden, 1982), 89 n. u, understood p †y qns in the traditional way as ‘who takes by force’. It could perhaps be understood as ‘the one who collects the qns-fee as state tax’.

102 Perhaps one can compare the situation to the lands which were let by the acceptance of ‘public duties’; see Hennig, Bodenpacht, 7.


it is more likely that it would have allowed Soknopis to keep the field for as long as he was able to cultivate it.

As mentioned above, the conditions in the exchange agreement suggest that the first possessor had an interest in how the new tenant worked the land because he probably was still responsible for it vis à vis the temple. He thus had similar obligations as a lessor who let his land on a short term. The possessor was responsible for the tax payment, as opposed to the short term tenant103. Nevertheless, according to P. Cairo II 30631, both former tenants neglected the tax payments.

Line 11-12 in P. Cairo II 30630 also underlines the responsibilities of the first tenant: mtw=k Ìy ty=k md.t Pr-¨¨ws wn-[n.w-iw=k Ìy=w] mtw=y (12)Ìy t md.t Pr-¨¨ws Ì¨=y. This phrase suggests that Soknopmois was in the end responsible for assuring that the taxes on the land reached the temple, which then forwarded them to the state. Line 20 in the same document makes it clear that if Petosiris could not fulfil this obligation, he would be forced to return the fields to their previous possessor.Such a clause would be unnecessary if the traded lands were regarded as private property, which could be sold or freely swapped.

Soknopmois was held liable for the tax payments for the exchanged lands throughout the duration of the lease, both when he cultivatedthe land and during the time the land was in the possession of Petosiris. This is indicated by the fact that his lifetime set the length of Soknopis’s lease (P. Cairo II 30631) and by the overall structure of P. Cairo II 30630 as a lease document. Furthermore, as mentioned in P. Cairo II 30631: 16-17, neither one of the previous possessors had paid the taxes. Lines 13-14 in the same papyrus also suggest that this would have been the case.

I propose therefore that Petosiris neglected the agreement between him and Soknopmois, who then got the lands back from Petosiris. However, he too was unable or unwilling to pay the taxes for some reason. As a result of his negligence the temple confiscated the lands and then let the fields to Soknopis but only for as long as the first possessor, Soknopmois, lived. This was probably done so that the temple, following the death of Soknopmois, could take the lands back and use them as recompense for another priest who would work in the temple.

The two papyri indicate that the temple was still the owner of theland during the first century BC as opposed to the temple only being appointed by the state to ensure that the taxes from the lands kept flow-ing. The two texts also suggest that the temple used its lands or part of

103 Cf. Stollwerck, Untersuchungen zum Privatland, 119-127.

390 A. WINKLER

what was labelled as temple land to pay its personnel holding the land under conditions which were similar to those of the cleruchic holdings. The temple land cannot therefore be viewed as private property with alienable rights104.

A final issue is to be addressed. If the readings proposed here are cor-rect, a problem regarding the relation of the two papyri arises. The lands that Soknopmois received in P. Cairo II 30630 are not the same lands that Soknopis leased in P. Cairo II 30631 but those which must have been treated in the lost exchange document which was issued by Soknopmois for Petosiris. Therefore, it is surprising that the document treating the two arourai which Petosiris conferred to Soknopmois (P. Cairo II 30630) was preserved together with the document which concerns the lands which Soknopmois exchanged with Petosiris, and which the temple later con-fiscated (P. Cairo II 30631). Possibly these two are preserved together by mere chance. However, had it been the lost exchange agreement (that which Soknopmois issued for Petosiris), one could easily imagine that it accompanied the lease as a kind of documentation of the land similarly to how earlier sales documents were supposed to be handed over when property was sold105. A possible conjecture is that Soknopis also leased the two arourai of lands which are treated in P. Cairo II 30630. However, in this case this lease agreement would not have been entered at the same time as with that described in P. Cairo II 30631, because then the lands would have been mentioned in that text as well.

104 The Ptolemaic period P. Cairo III 50109 from Tebtunis might, however, indicate that lands existed on the temple domain which were inheritable and therefore to be regarded as private property. L. 9 reads i.ir pÌ r-Ìr=n (n) rn […, ‘which came to us in the name of’ in relation to what likely is temple land. Cf. P. W. Pestman, ‘“Inheriting” in the Archive of the Theban Choachytes (2nd cent B.C.)’, in S. P. Vleeming (ed.), Aspects of Demotic Lexicography (StudDem 1; Leuven, 1987), 64-67, for pÌ as denoting inheritance.

105 Cf. Zauzich, Schreibertradition, 141.

Swapping lands at Tebtunis in the Ptolemaic period: a reassessment of P. Cairo II 30630 and 30631

Documents

Transcript of Swapping lands at Tebtunis in the Ptolemaic period: a reassessment of P. Cairo II 30630 and 30631