Csaba A. Láda
Amphilochios Papathomas

Enteuxis Concerning Illegal Sale of Cedria^*

Plate 13

The light brown papyrus fragment, acquired by the Vienna Papyrus Collection in 2003, is badly damaged. It obviously comes from papyrus cartonnage, as indicated by the white traces of plaster on the right-hand side of the verso. The right-hand and bottom parts of the text are missing. The left and top margins are preserved, which measure 1.6 and 2.9 cm respectively. Three vertical folds are clearly visible, along which some fibres are missing. There are indica­tions that the sheet was also folded horizontally, but this is less clear than the vertical folds. Numerous small holes dot the surface probably due to damage caused by worms. The writing is in black ink and, contrary to what is characteristic of 3^rd c. BC enteuxeis, runs along the fibres. There are traces of black ink at several places on the verso, at least some of which might be imprints from papyri lying next to ours in the cartonnage. A string of traces running though the middle of the verso at 90 degrees to the text on the recto probably comes from an address written in large letters. However, the traces are so faint that no letters can be identified with certainty. The document was written in a practised professional hand of the middle of the second century BC. However, a later date in the second half of the second century or even in the first half of the first century BC cannot be ruled out completely. For comparable hands, cf. UPZ I 60 (Seider, Pal. Gr. III.1, II Abb. 93, pp. 362–364; 179 or 168 BC); UPZ I 41 (= P.Par. 29; Seider, ibid., III.1, II Abb. 81, pp. 331–333; 161–160 BC) and P.Diosk. 6, Taf. VIII–X (146 BC). The use of the iota adscript in the body of the enteuxis (see l. 4: τ̣ῶι̣ νομῶι; l. 5: τῆι) would also support an earlier date; cf. W. Clarysse, Notes on the Use of the iota adscript in the third Century B.C., CdÉ 51 (1976) 150–166. This seems to be further confirmed by the use of the extremely rare compound verb διακολπιτεύω, which occurs in only one other text from the middle of the second century BC (see comm. on l. 6). Finally, the problem of illegal sale of products falling under the Ptolemaic state monopoly system appears to have been an acute one in the Arsinoite nome in the middle of the 2^nd century BC, as demonstrated by P.Tebt. III.1 709 (159 BC), which seems to provide a further confirmation of our dating. As for the provenance of this papyrus, the fact that it clearly comes from cartonnage suggests the Fayyum or Middle Egypt. A Fayyumic origin is prefered by the geographical designation Ἀρσ̣ι̣[νοΐτης found in
l. 2. A further, external, indication is found in the inventory journal of the Vienna papyrus collec­tion, which mentions Oxyrhyncha as the provenance of this papyrus. Given the poor state of preservation of the papyrus, our translation at a number of places is uncertain.

“To King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra … greetings. I, Peep…es, son of P…kes, Arsinoite, … the contractor for the retailing and the tax upon the … juniper resin …, am being wronged by (?) some ibis-buriers in the nome … who, on the one hand, … numerous burials … of those selling illegally and … of some temples (sacred things?) and distribute to others … they purchased nothing at all from the royal (?) place of sale … until now it has not happened that they are punished … and the damage to me is not inconsiderable … accuse the ibis-buriers falsely …”

Our text preserves the upper left portion of a petition to a king Ptolemy and a queen Cleopatra who could be identified with Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra II (see introd. and comm. on l. 1). The name of the petitioner is preserved only frag­mentarily. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that both the personal name and the patro­nymic are Egyptian and that therefore our petitioner was most probably of a native Egyptian ethnic background. He was apparently a tax farmer from the Arsinoite nome who won the state concession for the distribution of and tax upon cedria (and perhaps other, related, substances) presumably for the Arsinoite nome for the then current year. The subject of the enteuxis consists of a complaint by the petitioner against some unidentified ibis-buriers from the Arsinoite nome who appear to have violated his officially approved concession by obtaining cedria from other sources un­authorised by the state. The complainant seems to allege that they undertook numer­ous burials by going behind his back and that they also supplied others with this product. Apparently, they have not bought any amount at all from the royal shop which he probably managed. He appears to be complaining of a lack of curtailment of or punishment for these illegal activities, which led to “not inconsiderable” financial damage to his business. In the penultimate line of the fragment, he seems to empha­sise that his petition is not motivated by malice against the ibis-buriers. In the lost part of the enteuxis, he probably requested action from the authorities to pressurise the ibis-buriers into ceasing their illegal practices damaging his financial interests.[1]

A particular interest of our text is that it supplies a new attestation of the τέλος κεδρίας (“juniper resin tax”), which so far occurs in only a small number of texts. By this, it provides important new information on a hitherto little known aspect of the extensive Ptolemaic monopoly and tax farming system. For this tax and sales mono­poly, see comm. on l. 3 where both the attestations and references to the secondary literature are provided.

1. καὶ βασι̣[λί]σσηι Κλε̣[οπάτραι: Since the width of the column is unknown, the precise wording of the address formula cannot be established with any certainty. Two or three rulers may have been addressed in the formula. Since during most of the second and first centuries a Ptolemy and one or two Cleopatras sat on Egypt’s throne, a large number of joint reigns is possible. Given the palaeographical features of this text, which point towards the middle of the second century BC, a joint reign between Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II appears to be the like­liest. However, the joint reign between Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I, that between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II (164/163) and later joint reigns in the second half of the second and in the first centuries cannot be ruled out. For these possibilities, see CPR XXVIII, pp. 199–200, with references; P. W. Pestman,Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. – 453 ap. J.-C.), Pap.Lugd.Bat. 15, Leiden 1967, 40–84 and W. Huß, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit. 332–30 v. Chr., München 2001, 514–757. If indeed the papyrus comes from the reign of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II, we could consider either the supplement τῆι ἀδελφῆι, θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι or the shorter θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι in the lost part of l. 1. For the longer supple­ment, cf., for example, UPZ I 10.1–2 (160): Βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι | τ[ῆ]ι ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι χαίρειν and P.Erasm. I 1.1–2 (148/147): Βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι | τῆι ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι χαίρειν. To the best of our knowledge, the only papyrological parallel for the shorter supplement is UPZ I 20.1 (163): [Βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι κ]αὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι χαίρειν. Therefore, the first possibility appears far more likely statistically and also because otherwise the width of the column would be insufficient for the thematic changes suggested by the preserved parts of the subsequent lines in the main body of the petition. If this hypothesis is indeed correct, the exact half of the width of the column (33 out of 66 letters in l. 1) would have been lost. In this case, the papyrus seems to have been broken along a vertical fold running through the middle of the sheet. This is consistent with the folding of the sheet into the narrow portions of approximately equal size clearly shown by the three vertical folds running through our fragment.

2. Πεεπ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ης: The reading of the second π is uncertain. Palaeographically, the traces would suit a π best, but the alternative reading of a τ followed by another letter cannot be ruled out completely. The traces of the third letter from the end could suit a θ or an o. To date no personal names beginning with Πεεπ- or Πεετ- are attested in the papyrological and epigraphic evidence from Graeco-Roman Egypt. Nevertheless, no alternative reading of these traces seems possible. The name is obviously Εgyptian. For personal names beginning with Πεε-, see Tris­megistos.People (http://www.trismegistos.org/ref/). Unfortunately, none of the 32 names listed by this research tool suit the traces after the second ε.

Π[ 1–2 ] ̣κέους: The first letter after the lacuna might be an ε, but other readings (e.g. an ο) might also be possible. No personal name starting with a π, ending in -κέους in the genitive and filling the available space is to date attested in the papyrological and epigraphic sources from Graeco-Roman Egypt.

Ἀρσ̣ι̣[νοΐτης: This adjectival form is infrequent in reference to individuals but is attested in Ptolemaic papyri, among others in an enteuxis: P.Tebt. III.1 770.1–2 (210): [Βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι] χαίρειν Ἀσκληπ[ι]άδης Ἁρθωύτου Ἀρσινοΐ|[της τῶν κατοικο]ύντων ἐγ Κροκοδίλων πό(λει) τοῦ Ἀρ(σινοΐτου) νο(μοῦ).

2. [- - - ἐξειληφὼς (vel sim.) τὴν διάθεσιν]: For this reconstruction, cf. P.Giss.Univ. I 10 col. i.4–6 (145–116; see PP VIII 4702): [ 7 ] τ̣οῦ ἐξειληφότος | [τὴν διάθ]ε̣σ̣ιν καὶ τὸ τέλος | [- - -]; P.Tebt. I 39.2–4 (114/113): παρʼ Ἀπολλοδώρου ἐξειληφότος τὴν | διάθεσιν καὶ τὸ τέλος τοῦ ἐλαίου τῆς αὐτῆς | τὸ δ (ἔτος); P.Tebt. IV 1094 (= P.Tebt. I 125) 1–2 (114/113): παρʼ Ἀπο]λ̣λοδώρου τοῦ ἐξειληφότ[ος] τὴν διάθεσ̣[ιν καὶ] | [τὸ τέλος το]ῦ ἐλα[ίου τῆς αὐτῆς εἰς τὸ δ (ἔτος)]; P.Tebt. I 38 (= W.Chr. 303) 10–11 (113): παρʼ Ἀπολλοδώρου τοῦ ἐξειληφότος τὴν διάθεσι[ν καὶ τὸ τ]έλος τοῦ ἐλαίου | τ̣ῆ̣ς̣ α̣ὐτῆς εἰς τὸ δ (ἔτος). This supplement seems to be confirmed by the use of a form of διατίθημι at the end of the preserved part of l. 7 and is also suggested by the context, which implies that the fundemental reason for the petition was the ibiotaphoi’s violation of the petitioner’s exclusive right to distribute cedria in the Αrsinoite nome.

3. τ̣[ὸ] τέλος τῆ[ς] ̣ ̣ ̣ ισσης̣ κεδρί̣ας̣ ̣[: The ο in τ̣[ό] was probably a large one to fill the available space, which tends to be the case in this hand in the combination το; cf. τοῦ in l. 9 and τούς in l. 11.

For the phrase τὸ τέλος τῆς κεδρίας̣ in conjunction with ἐξειληφώς, supplemented at the end of l. 2, cf. the unpublished four Leuven papyri described by W. Clarysse, A Bilingual Archive from the Cynopolite Nome, in: J. Frösén et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24^th Inter­national Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004. Volume I, Helsinki 2007, 185–189 (esp. 185), tentatively dated to 93/92, and SB XX 14426 (93?; see Clarysse, ibid.), ll. 1–5: Πλέμο̣μ̣ρις Ὥρου καὶ Κολλοῦθ`ο̣ς̣´ | Νεφερῶτος οἱ ἐξειληφότες τὸ τέλ(ος) | τοῦ φαρμάκου καὶ τῆς κεδρίας | τοῦ Κυνοπολίτου <εἰς> τὸ ἕ̣[ν]{ο̣ς} καὶ | εἰκοστὸν ἔτος and ll. 7–9: ἀπ̣[έ]σχομεν | παρʼ ὑμεῖν τὸ τέλος το̣ῦ̣ φ̣α̣ρμάκου | καὶ τῆς κεδρίας κτλ. In these parallels, a tax on both φάρμακον and κεδρία is mentioned. On this tax and monopoly, see W. Huß,Die Verwaltung des Ptolemaiischen Reichs (Münchener Beiträge 104), München 2011, 226; id., Die Wirtschaft Ägyptens in hellenistischer Zeit (Münchener Beiträge 105), München 2012, 55–56;
W. Clarysse, ibid.; A. Hanafi, A Tax on Drug and Cedar Oil, in: L. Criscuolo, G. Geraci, Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba. Bilancio di un confronto, Bologna 1989, 421–428 (ed. pr. of SB XX 14426; esp. 422–424) and, most recently, Ch. Armoni, P.Tarich., pp. 20–21. However, in our text φάρμακον does not seem to be mentioned (see below). On the Ptolemaic monopoly and tax farming system in general, see Huß, ibid. (Wirtschaft) 50–65 and W. Haber­mann, B. Tenger, Ptolemäer, in: B. Schefold (ed.), Wirtschaftssysteme im historischen Ver­gleich, Stuttgart 2004, 298–318, with the earlier literature cited in these works.

τῆ[ς] ̣ ̣ ̣ ισσης̣: The most often attested words with this genitival ending in the papyro­logical and epigraphic sources from Ptolemaic Egypt are βασίλισσα and πίσσα. Of these, the first is obviously ruled out by the context, whereas the second would suit the thematic context well: πίσσα and κεδρία are often mentioned together in literary sources, especially in medical authors such as Galenus, Oribasius, Soranus, Paulus, Aetius and Dioscorides, and also in documentary papyri; for the latter, cf. P.Lond. III 1171 (pp. 177–180) recto 11–12 (after 2 Sep. 8): πίσσης ὑγρ̣ᾶς (δρ.) λβ | νίτρου καὶ κεδρίας (δρ.) ιδ and P.Oxy. XIV 1727.28–31 (late 2^nd or early 3^rd c. AD): Ἀνθεστ[ί]ας πίσσης [ ̣ ̣] | … | Ὡρίωνος κεδρίας [ ̣ ̣] | Ἀμμωνίου κεδρίας [ ̣ ̣]. However, this word is unlikely here for two reasons (on the assumption that three substances were listed here rather than two, in which latter case a καί would be needed before κεδρίας):
a) the space would be too long for this word (and too short for πίσσης ὑγρᾶς, attested in later sources, in the reverse order); b) there is no indication at all that πίσσα was included in the tax-farming or monopoly system in Ptolemaic Egypt. For these reasons, an adjective before κεδρί̣ας̣ defining its semantic field would seem the likeliest construction, which appears to be supported by the definite article τῆ[ς]. However, no such adjective is to date attested with κεδρία in the documentary or literary sources.

κεδρί̣ας̣: For the meaning of κεδρία (cf. κεδρίον; lat. cedria, cedrium), see LSJ⁹ s.v.; OLD s.v. and W. E. H. Cockle, Restoring and Conserving Papyri, BICS 30 (1983) 147–165 (esp. 157 with note 132 on pp. 163–164); cf. also R. Ast, P.Jena II 37.16 n. (p. 152). It is now clear that this product was extracted from the juniper tree rather than the famous cedar (Cedrus Libani); see e.g. A. Lucas,“Cedar”-Tree Products Employed in Mummification, JEA 17 (1931) 13–21 (esp. 14) and A. Lucas, J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London ⁴1962, 309 and 432. The literature is divided as to which species of juniper κεδρία was extracted from: LSJ⁹, OLD and Cockle (p. 164) mention Juniperus excelsa (Syrian cedar), whereas Cockle mentions also Juniperus oxycedrus (p. 157). On these two species of juniper, neither of which was native to ancient Egypt, see R. Gale et al., ‘Wood’, in: P. T. Nicholson,
I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge 2000, 334; 351;
M. Serpico, R. White, ‘Resins, amber and bitumen’, ibid., 432–433; R. Germer, Flora des phara­onischen Ägypten (SDAIK 14), Mainz am Rhein 1985, 6–7, 10–12; ead., Die Heilpflanzen der Ägypter, Düsseldorf, Zürich 2002, 51–55, 63–66 and ead., Handbuch der altägyptischen Heilpflanzen (Philippika 21), Wiesbaden 2008, 51–53 and 276–278. For the use of κεδρία and related products in the process of human mummification in ancient Egypt, see Lucas, ibid.; A. Bataille, Les Memnonia. Recherches de Papyrologie et d’Épigraphie grecques sur la Nécropole de la Thèbes d’Égypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Caire 1952, 209; Lucas and Harris, ibid., 299, 302–303, 309, 311–312. Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt confirm these observations: cf. P.Amh. II 125.1–3 (late 1^st c. AD): λόγο(ς) δαπάνη(ς) ταφῆς. | ὧν ἐγὼ ἐδαπάνη(σα)· | κεδρέας [(δραχμαὶ)] δ and SB XX 15066.7–8 (4^th c. AD): τιμ(ῆς) κητρίας κε̣ ̣[- - -] | τοῖς νεκροτάφοις [- - -]. The process of mummifying animals was essentially similar (Lucas and Harris, ibid., 302–303), which is probably why κεδρία figures in our text in con­nection with the ibiotaphoi. This is explicitly confirmed by historiographic and documentary sources; see Diod. Sic. I 83.5: ὅταν δ’ ἀποθάνῃ τι τῶν εἰρημένων (sc. ζῴων; among them also ἴβεις), σινδόνι κατακαλύψαντες καὶ μετ’ οἰμωγῆς τὰ στήθη καταπληξάμενοι φέρουσιν εἰς τὰς ταριχείας· ἔπειτα θεραπευθέντων αὐτῶν κεδρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς δυναμένοις εὐωδίαν παρέχεσθαι καὶ πολυχρόνιον τοῦ σώματος τήρησιν θάπτουσιν ἐν ἱεραῖς θήκαις [2], as well as the following papyri from both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods: P.Tebt. I 88 (= W.Chr. 67) 10–13 (after 7 Nov. 115): δίδοσθαι δὲ εἰς τὸ κορκοδι<λο>ταφῖον | ⟦πρὸς τη̣ ̣ κροκ⟧ παρὰ τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς | βασιλικῶν γεωργῶν εἴς τε τὰς θυσίας … καὶ κεδρίαν κτλ. and SB XX 15157
(= P.Cairo Cat. 10532 descr.) 6–8 (1^st half of the 1^st c. AD): τὸν στατῆρα καιδρίας | ὁ̣μολώγησεν Ἀ`λ̣ε´ξᾶς «ἐγὼ αὐτὸν ἔχω». δέδωκα | ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ τὴν ταφὴν τῶν κορκωδίλων; cf. also J. D. Ray, The Complaint of Herieu, RdÉ 29 (1977) 97–116 (esp. 107–111) with K.-Th. Zauzich, Einige Bemerkungen zu den demotischen Papyri Louvre E. 3333 und E. 3334, Enchoria 9 (1979) 121–124 and BL Dem. B 686–688. For the meaning of κεδρία, cf. also the Demotic words syf and sfy “fir resin, oil”, which occur in similar contexts to κεδρία (e.g. P.Louvre Dem. E. 3334.9, translated by the editor as “juniper oil”: Ray, ibid., 110–111, n. g), Chicago Demotic Dictionary s.vv.; Erichsen, Glossar, 408, 429; A. Erman, H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache, Leipzig 1925–1953, IV 114 (śfj) and 118 (śft); Crum, Dict. 379a (ϲⲓϥⲉ) (cf. also 317a [cⲉⲓ]); H. von Deines, H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennamen (Grundriß der Medizin der alten Ägypter 6), Berlin 1959, 436–437; W. Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch, Heidel­berg 1965/1977 (= 2008) 209 (ϲⲓϥⲉ) (cf. also 174 [cⲉⲓ]); J. Černý, Coptic Etymological Dic­tionary, Cambridge 1976, 171 (ϲⲓϥⲉ); W. Vycichl, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte, Leuven 1983, 204 (ϲⲓϥⲉ); K. Sethe, ‘Der Name des Gottes Suchos’, ZÄS 50 (1912) 80; A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Oxford 1947, 8–9, n. 1; R. A. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, London 1954, 212; W. R. Dawson, in: J. W. B. Barns, Five Ramesseum Papyri, Oxford 1956, who “believes it to be refined juniper resin” (our emphasis); W. Vycichl, Grundlagen der ägyptisch-semitischen Wortvergleichung, MDAIK 16 (1958) 401, no. 75; W. Helck, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches I–VI (AbhMainz 1961–1969), Wiesbaden 1961–1969, IV 702; Ph. Derchain, Le papyrus Salt 825 (B.M. 10051), rituel pour la conservation de la vie en Égypte (Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, Mémoires, Collection in-8^o, Deuxième série, Tome LVIII, fasc. 1a), Bruxelles 1965, 137, 143–144, 148–149; J. Vergote, De verhouding van het Egyptisch tot de Semietische talen (MAWBL XXVII, Nr. 4), Brussel 1965, 61; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, Band 5), Wiesbaden ² 1971, 28, 35, 397–398; E. A. E. Reymond, P.Ashm., p. 64; R. Germer, Untersuchung über Arzneimittelpflanzen im Alten Ägypten, Diss. Hamburg 1979, 14–19, 29, 171; ead., Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten (SDAIK 14), Mainz am Rhein 1985, 6–7; ead., Die Heilpflanzen der Ägypter, Düsseldorf, Zürich 2002, 63–66; M. Smith, Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7), Oxford 2005, 53, 127–128 n. d, 340 and R. Germer,Handbuch der altägyp­tischen Heilpflanzen (Philippika 21), Wiesbaden 2008, 47–49, 115, 233, 374. For papyro­logists, an interesting ancient use of cedrium was for protecting papyri from damage by book­worms; see B. Leach, J. Tait, ‘Papyrus’, in: Nicholson, Shaw, ibid., 240 and Cockle, ibid., 157.

In the papyrological literature κεδρία and κεδρίον (cedria, cedrium) are usually translated with “cedar oil”; we deliberately avoid this expression in our translation for two reasons: as it is clear from our discussion above, first, this substance has nothing to do with the cedar tree; secondly, it is doubtful whether this product had a similar composition to oil in our common sense of the word. In our translation, we follow the interpretation provided by Lucas, Harris and Cockle in their works cited above; cf. also H. Cadell, P.Sorb. I 34.1 n. (p. 106). However, we are fully aware that the word κεδρία was associated with the cedar tree by the ancients who wrote and read this papyrus.

It is unclear what followed after κεδρί̣ας̣. The supplement τ̣[οῦ Ἀρσινοΐτου νομοῦ could be considered on the basis of passages like the above-mentioned Leuven papyri and SB XX 14426.1–5. Although the word φάρμακον is to date attested together with κεδρία in two published documents and in up to four unpublished Leuven papyri (see above), the recon­struction κ̣[αὶ φαρμάκου in our text is far less likely for several reasons. First, the reading of a κ is unlikely before the lacuna. Secondly, both published parallels, i.e. SB XX 14426.1–5 and P.Harr. I 89.4–5 with BL III 80 (115 AD; see R. Ziegler, Bemerkungen zu verschiedenen Urkunden, ZPE 106 [1995] 194): διάγραφε διὰ Ὥρου καὶ μετόχων | φαρμάκ(ων) καὶ κεδρίας συνα(γομένας) (δραχμὰς) τ, δ (ὀβολούς), as well as the unpublished ones from Leuven, are later than our preferred date for our papyrus. Finally, the order of these two words in the published parallels is the reverse of what we would have with this hypothetical supplement (as far as the four unpublished Leuven papyri are concerned, Clarysse mentions the “tax on the kedria and the pharmakon” [p. 185], but this does not necessarily have to be the precise word order found in the Greek texts of the Leuven papyri).

3–4. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ (?) - - -] | τινω̣ν: For a similar writing of τι in τινω̣ν, cf. the same letters in διατιθε̣[ in l. 7; for the ι, cf. τ̣ῶι̣ in l. 4. Tινω̣ν seems to suit the context well, especially towards the beginning of a petition where we should probably reconstruct ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό + genitive. For the reconstruction, two possibilities offer themselves: either [- - -. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό] | τινω̣ν κτλ., assuming that the complaint was made against individuals whose specific names were unknown, or [- - -. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ PN καὶ (or μετ᾿) ἄλλων] | τινῶ̣ν κτλ. where unknown individuals are also complained against. For a parallel petition concerning the illegal sale of two different kinds of oil by an unknown person, see P.Tebt. I 38 (= W.Chr. 303) 11–14 (113): τῆς ἐγλήμψεως εἰς τέλος καταλελ[ειμμέν]ης χάριν τῶν | παρεισφερόντων εἰς τὴν κώμην καὶ παραπωλούντων κολ[πιτ]ικὸν ἔλαιον καὶ κίκι, ὅθεν | τῆι ια τοῦ Μεχεὶρ προσαγγελέντες μοι Θρᾶικά τινα οὗ τὸ{ν} [ὄνο]μα ἀγνοῶι τῶν ἐκ Κερκε|σήφεως παρεισενηνοχότα ἔλαιον κτλ.

4. ἰβιο̣τάφ̣ω̣[ν: The ἰβιοτάφοι were the ‘buriers of ibises’, an animal sacred to Thot in Egyptian religion. The ibis cult was widespread in Hellenistic Egypt; see W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus, Leipzig, Berlin 1905–1908, vol. I 109–10, 247–50, 268 and vol. II 40, 72; A. Traversa, Ibiotáphoi, ibioboskoí, e un cartonage inedito della collezione Osloense, SymbOslo 36 (1960) 49–64; J. D. Ray, O.Hor., pp. 136–144; K. A. D. Smelik,The Cult of the Ibis in the Graeco-Roman Period. With Special Attention to the Data from the Papyri, in: M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 78), Leiden 1979, 225–243; W. Clarysse, J. Quaegebeur, Ibion, Isieion and Tharesieion in Two Oslo Papyri, SymbOslo 57 (1982) 69–85 (esp. 71–72); H. Harrauer, CPR XIII, pp. 100–102; K. Vandorpe, Les villages des Ibis dans la toponymie tardive, Enchoria 18 (1991) 115–122; H. Koskenniemi,Neue Texte zum Ibiskult aus dem 2. Jh. v. Chr., in: A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20^th International Congress of Papyrologists. Copenhagen, 23–29 August 1992, Copenhagen 1994, 245–257. For the ibis cult specifically in the Fayyum, see
W. J. R. Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in Faijum während der griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Zeit, Bonn 1974, 39–40, 57, 86–87, 113–114, 120, 169, 186, 215; see also pp. 37–38, 77, 97, 168–169, 185, 199, 223, where the cult of Thot is discussed; D. J. Crawford, Kerkeosiris.An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period, Cambridge 1971, 87–89, 93, 101–102, 169–180, 194–196; cf. also M. Zecchi, Geografia religiosa del Fayyum. Dalle origini al IV secolo a.C., Imola 2001, passim (see index, p. 287).

Despite the widespread nature of the ibis cult, there are to date only a handful of attestations of the word ἰβιοτάφος in Greek papyri and inscriptions from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, which nevertheless cover virtually the whole of the Ptolemaic period: SB XVI 12551.2 (227/226?; see BL IX 286–287): Στοτο̣ῆτ[ι]ς ἰβιοτάφος; P.Count 3.42 (229): ἰβιοτάφοι δ ε β (γίνεται) ια; P.Tebt. III.2 963.1–2 (early 2^nd c.): [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ συ]γγενῆι παρὰ | [ 9 ο]υ ἰβιοτάφου; P.Grenf. II 15 col. ii.6–7 (139): ἐπρίατο Ψενθώτης Κελῆτος | τῶν ἐκ Π[αθύ]ρεως ἰβιοτάφων ὡς (ἐτῶν) ξ; P.Stras. II 91.3–6 (86?): παρʼ Ἁρμιύσιος τ̣οῦ Φ̣[α]τρείους | καὶ τῶν μετόχω[ν] ἰβιοτάφ̣ω̣ν̣ | καὶ [ἱ]ερ[α]κ̣οτάφων τοῦ̣ ἐ̣ν Τεβ|τύνει Ἑρμαίου; P.Fouad 16.2–4 (68; s. BL VI 40): παρὰ Τεῶ̣[τος] τοῦ Ἁρπ̣α̣ή[σι]ος ἰβιοβοσ[κο]ῦ καὶ | ἰβ<ι>οτάφου τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς Ὀξυρύγχων πόλει | Σαραπιείου. On ἰβιοτάφοι, see also PP III 6925, 7027, IX 7006a, 7017 and P.Count I,
p. 60 (note on ll. 81–84), p. 111 (note on l. 42). Cf. also P.Tebt. III.2 1002.9–10 (2^nd c.): [- - - ἰβι]οταφίου [- - -] | [- - - ἰβί]ω̣ν τροφῆ̣[ς - - -], which seems to attest the ibis cult and a burial place of sacred ibises in Oxyrhyncha, and therefore fits in neatly with the assumed provenance of our papyrus provided by the inventory journal of the Vienna Papyrus Collection (for this text, cf. Smelik, ibid., 229).

5. τῆι μ[έν]: In the lost parts of the subsequent lines τῆι δέ is to be expected. The clause with τῆι μέν would tell the reader what the ibiotaphoi being complained against did themselves (numerous burials using κεδρία), whereas the following clause with τῆι δέ would say what they did in addition to it, together with others (cf. l. 7: ἱερῶν̣ τινων [τ]ε̣ καὶ ἑτέροις διατιθε̣[).

συν[ : Given the context, the most likely supplement appears to be a verb starting with συν of which π̣λ̣είστας τ̣α̣φά̣ς would be the object, but of course a preposition introducing the pos­sible associates of the subject(s) cannot be ruled out.

6. διακολπ̣[ι]τευόντων: Hitherto only a single text has been known attesting this verb in the papyrological documentation (which text is relevant to other aspects of our papyrus as well): P.Tebt. III.1 709.6–14 (159): ἔν[εστι (?) δὲ] | αὐτῶι λαμβάνειν χιρογραφίας ὅρκου βασιλικοῦ παρὰ τῶν | μονογράφων περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρῆσθαι ἰδιωτικοῖς φορτίοις | τῶν τῆι ὠνῆι συνκυρόντων μηδὲ παρὰ τῶν δ[ια]|κολπιτευόντων συναγορᾶν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῶν βα[σ]ι̣λ̣ικῶν | πρατηρίων. ἐν οἷς ἂν οὖν ὑμῶν χρείαν ἔχηι τῶν πρὸ[ς] | ταῦτα ἀνηκόντων, καλῶς ποιήσετε ἀντιλαμ|βανόμενοι προθύμως, καὶ ἐάν τινας ὑμῖν παραδί|δωι ἀντιπωλοῦντάς τι ἢ διακολπιτεύοντας. Our papyrus clearly confirms the existence of this compound verb. Although there is no entry for διακολπιτεύω in LSJ⁹, see the Rev. Suppl. s.v. and DGE s.v., where the only attestation men­tioned is this Tebtunis papyrus. A TLG online search for διακολπιτεύω has yielded no results, suggesting that this word is not attested in the literary sources. However, the simple form κολπιτεύω occurs in the Etymologicum Magnum but with no explanation; see ibid., 521.23 (ed. Th. Gaisford, Etymologicon magnum seu verius Lexicon saepissime vocabulorum origines indagans, Oxford 1948): Κλοπιτεύειν: Κολπιτεύειν, ὑπερθέσει τοῦ λ. In the papyrological sources three attestations of the simple form of this verb exist; see (1) SB XVI 12671.4–5 (236 or 211): Πετοπῶρ̣ο̣ν `τὸν κολπιτεύοντα ἔλα<ι>α καὶ ὄπια (alternatively ἐλαϊκὰ φορτία)´ τὸν φονεύσαντά μου τὸν | υἱόν (cf. also the short discussion of this participle in the first edition of the text by H. Harrauer, K. A. Worp, Mord und Schmuggel in Oxyrhyncha, ZPE 40 [1980] 139–144, esp. 141); (2) P.Diosk. 5.8–14 (146?): εὑρόντ[ε]ς βύρσας ὀνέας | ἐννέα παρεδώκαμεν | Ἀπολλωνίωι καὶ Ἐπιμάχωι̣ | τοῖς π[α]ρὰ σοῦ καὶ | σοὶ δὲ Δίδυμον | τὸν κεκο̣λ̣πειτευκό̣τ̣α | αὐτά; (3) P.Phil. 35.22–24 (late 2^nd c. AD): τάχα ἡμῖν ἐνπέσῃ τι κολπι|τευόμενον μή πως ἐπερία (l. ἐπηρεία?) μοι | γένηται κτλ. See also the adjective κολπιτικός attested in three papyri: P.Rain.Cent. 51.3–9 (1^st half of the 1^st c.): Ἀνομπεὺς καὶ Πετ̣α̣λ̣ί̣ων τῶν | ἐκ Θερύθεως λινεψῶν, μὴ καθηκόντως | εἰς Σῆστιν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις | ἡμῶν τόποις μεταβεβη̣κ̣ό̣τ̣ες, | τὴν ἐργασίαν ἐπανείρηνται κολπ̣ι̣τ̣ι̣κῶι | τρόπωι καὶ τὰ ὑποκείμενα ἡ̣μ̣ῖν | βασιλικὰ καταλέλυκαν; P.Tebt. I 38 (= W.Chr. 303) 11–12 with BL III 240 and IX 354 (113): τῆς ἐγλήμψεως εἰς τέλος καταλελ[ειμμέν]ης χάριν τῶν | παρεισφερόντων εἰς τὴν κώμην καὶ παραπωλούντων κολ[πιτ]ικὸν ἔλαιον καὶ κίκι κτλ.; P.Tebt. IV 1094 (= P.Tebt. I 125 descr.) 2–3 (114–113): τῆ]ς ἐγλήμψεως ἐν οὐ τ[ῆι τ]υχούσ̣[ηι ἐνδείαι - - -] | [χάριν τῶν παρ]ε̣ι̣σ̣φ̣[ερόντων εἰς τὴν κώμην καὶ παραπωλ]ο̣ύ̣ν̣των κολπιτεικὸν [ἔλαιον καὶ κίκι - - -]. On the meaning of the adjective κολπιτικός, see D. B. Sandy, The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt (BASP Suppl. 6), Atlanta 1989, 25–26 and LSJ⁹ Rev. Suppl. s.v.

The verb διακολπιτεύω is translated with ‘smuggle’ in LSJ⁹ Rev. Suppl. s.v. and ‘hacer contrabando’ in DGE s.v. However, for a more nuanced interpretation of the meaning of this verb, which we follow in our translation, namely ‘sell under the counter’, i.e. without state authorisation, see N. Lewis, Papyrus in Classical Antiquity, Oxford 1974, 126 with n. 16. The verb (δια)κολπιτεύω obviously originates from the noun κόλπος meaning ‘busom, lap’, ‘fold of a garment’ (cf. B. Olsson, Κολπιτεύω »faire de la contrebande«, Eranos 48 [1950] 157). The original literal meaning of this verb must have been ‘buy or sell under the cloak’ (i.e. illegally), as identified correctly by J. G. Keenan in P.Tebt. IV 1094.3 n. (p. 21).

κατ̣[ : καπ̣[ cannot be ruled out completely.

7. [τ]ε̣: The lacuna is wide enough for only one letter, on the right-hand side of which the right end of a horizontal stroke is visible, which suggests an ε. Since [δ]έͅ would be difficult to accommodate in the sentence structure, [τ]ε̣ seems to be the likelier supplement.

διατιθε̣[ : The reading of the ε is virtually certain. A number of alternatives are possible, for example: διατίθε̣[σθαι, διατίθε̣[νται and διατιθέ̣[μενοι (vel sim.).

ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ: For this supplement, cf. P.Tebt. III.1 709.10–11 (159) mentioned above (comm. on l. 6).

8. πρατηρίου: Apart from P.Tebt. III.1 709.11 (see comm. on l. 6), there are only two attestations of this word in Ptolemaic papyri: P.Tebt. III.1 701a.7 (139/138 or 132/131; cf. HGV): [- - -] ἐὰν ἀγοράζωμεν βασ̣ι̣λικῶν πρατηρίων ἐα̣[- - -] and UPZ I 112 col. iii.14–16 (204; see BL IX 363): τοῖς δὲ βουλομένοις ὑπερβάλλειν μετὰ τὸ τὸν | θαλλὸν δοθῆναι, ἐξέσται ἐν αὐτῶι τῶι πρατηρίωι, οὐκ ἐ|[λάσ]σονος δὲ τῶν ἐπιδεκάτων.

μ̣η̣[θὲ]ν ἁπλῶς: At first sight, the space for μ̣η̣[θέ]ν appears to be too narrow for five letters, but see the tightly written preceding word πρατηρίου where six letters in the latter part of the word are accommodated in the same amount of space. The phrase μηθὲν / μηδὲν ἁπλῶς is extremely rare in Ptolemaic papyri and only attested in five texts: SB XXIV 15973.4 (132): μηδʼ εἰς τὸ ἐγκύκλιον τέλος μηδʼ ἄλλο̣ μ̣η̣θ̣ὲ̣ν̣ ἁπλῶς; SB XXIV 15974.7–8 (132): μηδʼ εἰς τὸ ἐνκύκλιον τέλος μηδʼ ἄλλο μηθὲν | ἁπλῶς; W.Chr. 331 (= P.Tebt. I 27 cols. i–iii) 79–80 (113): ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἥγησαι τοῦ μηθὲν ἁπ[λ]ῶς τῶ[ν] | χρησίμων παραλειφθῆναι; P.Tebt. II 490.2–3 (92 or 59): μὴ κατε̣γγύα μηδὲν τὸν Κόμωνος | τοῦ̣ Κόμ̣ω̣νος `πρὸς´ μηδὲν ἁπλῶς; BGU VIII 1821.19–20 (after 1 Jan. 57; see C. Bennett, M. Depauw, The Reign of Berenike IV., ZPE 160 [2007] 211–214): ἐμοῦ μηδὲν ἁπλῶς βασιλικὸν | ὀφείλοντος. We have preferred the sup­plement μ̣η̣[θέ]ν in the main text because it is slightly more frequent than μηδέν and because its attestations are chronologically closer to the likely date of our papyrus.

συνη̣γ̣ο̣[ρα-: The traces and the context suggest a form of συναγοράζω. The context is in­sufficient to reconstruct the precise form of the verb. For this verb in a similar context to our text, cf. P.Tebt. III.1 709.10 (see comm. on l. 6 above).

8–9. [- - - ἕως / μέχρι] | τοῦ νῦν: The last word of l. 8 could have been ἀπό, ἕως or μέχρι. We prefer ἕως or μέχρι as they would suit the sense of l. 9 better. The petitioner seems to re­quest that the authorities from now on curtail or punish the activities of the ibis-buriers and probably also of those supplying them illegally.

9. ο]ὐ̣: The reading is far from certain. The ο seems to have been rubbed off the surface. The fibres at the edge of the lacuna are badly damaged and the ink is smudged. It is also possible that some alien ink was imprinted in this area from another papyrus in the cartonnage. What makes the reading of the υ difficult is the faint curving traces towards the bottom of the line, which seem to be too low for a normal υ in this hand. However, it is not impossible that an unusually large υ was written by the scribe here, for which cf. the υ in τοῦ at the beginning of the line. Both the available space and the sense seem to require οὐ here.

[συ]μ̣βαί̣νει: For the writing of the first ι connected to the following letter, cf. the ι in τινω̣ν and τ̣ῶι̣ in l. 4 and in διατιθε̣[ in l. 7.

κολούε[ιν: The only possibility of interpreting this string of letters seems to be to under­stand it as a form of the verb κολούω (‘cut short, dock, curtail, put down, abase, check, chastise, punish’), which meanings seem to suit the context well. This verb is to date unattested in the documentary evidence from Graeco-Roman Egypt, but it is well documented in the literary sources.

10. καὶ διάφορά μο[ι οὔ] τ̣ε τὰ τυχόντα γ̣ίν̣[εται (?) - - -]: P.Cair.Zen. III 59355.109–110 (after 6 July 244; cf. HGV): καὶ οὐκ ὀ[λίγα] | ⟦τα⟧ [δ]ιάφορα γέ[γονε]ν seems to offer the best parallel to our passage; further cf. W.Chr. 11 B fr. a.8–9 (after 25 Sep. 123; cf. HGV): καὶ διάφορα ⟦τ⟧ οὐκ ὀλί[γ]α τῶι βασιλεῖ καὶ τῶι ἱερῶι | ἀναφέρεσθαι; P.Enteux. 92.11 (221): [- - -] ̣ιν τὰ γενόμ[εν]ά μοι διάφ[ορ]α; P.Tarich. 5 fr. g, col. ii.6 (189?): εἰς τὸ τῶι βασιλεῖ δ̣ιάφ̣ορα γίνεσθαι.

11. ἰ̣β̣ι̣ο̣τ̣άφ̣ου̣ς συ̣[κοφ]αντεῖ̣ν: The subject of this infinitive could be the petitioner, who is trying to assure the authorities that he is not accusing the ibis-buriers falsely. It is possible that he is trying to preempt potential counter-accusations by the ibiotaphoi of him acting maliciously against them. As UPZ I 112 col. i.3–6 (204; see BL IX 363): ἀ[γ]οράζετε δὲ | [τὰς ὠνὰς δικαίως καὶ] μέλλετε μη[θ]ένα συκοφαντήσειν | [τῶν ὑποτελῶν (?) μηδὲ] δ[ια]βαλ{λ}εῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τοῦ βελτίστου | [πραγματεύσεσθα]ι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους shows, the state tried to protect tax-payers from oppression by tax-farmers (on this passage, cf. C. Préaux, L’économie royale des Lagides, Bruxelles 1939, 457). It is possible that our petitioner had a document like UPZ I 112 in mind when he formulated this enteuxis.

12. ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣υ̣αῖς: Possible supplements could include κ]α̣τ̣[ασκ]ε̣υ̣αῖς or ἀ̣π̣[οσκ]ε̣υ̣αῖς, which the traces at the beginning of the word seem to allow; for the former, cf., for example, P.Dion. 10.7 (109) and for the latter, UPZ I 110.199–200 (164) with comm. on p. 489.