P. BM EA 10052, Anthony Harris, and Queen Tyti

Archiv für …, 2008

Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists , 2013

n os 70-144). Papyrologica Parisina [1]. Paris: Presses de l'université Paris-Sorbonne, 2011. xxiv + 189 pages + 11 plates +1 CD-ROM. ISBN 978-2-84050-726-0. The third volume of P.Sorb. contains texts from the Ptolemaic period only. The three editors each sign for one of three third century BC archives: Hélène Cadell (re-)edits a small set ("dossier") of private documents related to one Zenodoros, a Cyrenaean and lochagos from the Oxyrhynchite nome (70-74); Willy Clarysse (re-)edits a larger batch ("archives") of documents mostly addressed to (occasionally from) the lower-level nomarch Aristarchos (75-102); and Kenokka Robic (re-)edits the largest batch ("archives") of texts, mostly petitions and letters associated with the epistates Demetrios (103-144). The texts are fully illustrated on the accompanying CD-ROM, which also contains a searchable version of the text (slightly "off " compared to the printed text). The best pieces are also illustrated on the color foldouts at the back. The endpapers illustrate 77.3-9. The edition of the sometimes difficult texts maintains a high standard throughout. There is no indication in the texts when the papyrus breaks off, and this information has to be gleaned from the descriptions or the illustrations. There is an occasional typographical glitch: when the editor inserts a line number (5, 10, etc.) or an arrow indicating the direction of the fibres (→,↓), the text sometimes indents (not so on the papyrus). The lengthy introduction to texts 70-74 is largely devoted (pp. 4-21) to a discussion of the regnal years of Ptolemy II and the co-regency with his son (268/7-260-59 BC). 71, mentioning a kanephoros of Arsinoe II, is from 268/7, and P.Bryce dem., mentioning another, could be from 269/8, allowing Arsinoe's death to occur in 270, as traditionally held. 70 (270 BC) is the sale of Argyris, a Syrian slave woman aged 40, in Oxyrhynchus. The buyer is Zenodoros; the seller is a resident alien (parepidemos) from Libya, Simon. 71 is a loan of fodder (chortos) by Zenodoros to another Cyrenaean, Polyanthes. The debtor will return 1.5 times as much fodder to the horse stable of Zenodoros in Takona in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Of this sixwitness contract both scriptura exterior and scriptura interior are preserved. 72 (266/5) re-edits P.Sorb. 1.14, a receipt for a sizeable amount of rent in kind paid by Zenodoros for a kleros owned by another soldier, from Asine. 73 (after 266) re-edits P.Sorb. 1.15, another six-witness contract mentioning a lease of a kleros. 74 (270-266) is a six-witness contract of lease. The note on the back (τὸ ἥμυσυ τῆς συγ-|[γ]ρ̣ α̣ φ̣ ῆ̣ ς. Σήσαμος) is explained in n. 84 (p. 44) as if the text was written twice on the same papyrus, which was then cut in half, one half for Zenodoros, one of the contracting parties, the other for an official responsible

The papyri that I would like to present in this paper carry the inventory numbers P. BM EA 10385 and 10393. 1 They were part of the collection of Egyptian antiquities assembled by Henry Salt and auctioned in 1835 at Sotheby's, where they were acquired by the British Museum (Bierbrier 2012, 484-85). Neither papyrus has been published, but Revillout translated the Greek part of 10393 in 1880 (Revillout 1880, xx). 2 This was subsequently amended by Wilcken, who found it difficult to understand and suggested that it contained two registration statements (Wilcken 1927, 618 no. 129, cited as P. Forshall 41). His concerns are well-founded and he was correct in his assessment that there are two separate Greek texts. The reason for this is not because it was registered twice, but because the Greek belongs to two different, albeit related, papyri. The fragments must have been mixed together and because of the similarity in the hand of the demotic text (see below) they were assumed to all belong to the same papyrus. An attempt was made at some point, presumably on the basis of the colour, texture and fibres, to put them together. It was not just the fragments of these two related documents that were placed in the one frame, however, because there is also a small additional piece that belongs to an unrelated text. This is in a slightly different hand, but to the untrained eye this would not have been apparent. As this fragment has a right-hand margin it was assumed to be the beginning of the text and was mounted on the right-hand side of the frame accordingly. That it did not belong with the rest was pointed out by Herbert Thompson in his manuscript catalogue of the demotic papyri. Thompson drew attention to the fact that the hands were different and that it only contained the beginning of five lines of text, whereas there were six lines on one of the other fragments. 3 Thompson also noted that the Greek subscriptions had to belong to two different texts and suggested that one of these could be P. BM EA 10385. The reason for this proposal, which is certainly correct, was that 10385 has the same date as the Greek subscriptions on 10393 and the demotic was written by the same scribe. 1 I would like to thank Neal Spencer, Keeper of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan of the British Museum, for permission to publish these papyri, and Ilona Regulski for her constant help and assistance on my visits to the Museum and for providing new digital images. Bridget herself and Helen Sharp examined the papyri in their frames and kindly discussed with me what could currently be gleaned from the state of the fibres. Thanks are also due to Francisca Hoogendijk (Leiden), who examined the Greek dockets and provided revised readings and apparatus criticus, and to Maren Goecke-Bauer (Munich) for the mark-up of the images. I am also most grateful to Brian Muhs (Chicago) for bringing to my attention and sending me photographs and bibliographic details of a hitherto rather neglected Memphite papyrus in Trinity College Dublin (IE TCD MS 1658). 2 The papyrus is there referred to under its original inventory number of P. Forshall 41.