John Bauschatz

Lochos and Ariston*

Plates 7-16

I present here nine Ptolemaic documents from the Duke Papyrus Archive, [1] a small dossier which details some of the activities of two second-century B.C. government officials: Ariston, τῶν πρώτων φίλων, στρατηγός, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων and νομάρχης, and Lochos, τῶν πρώτων φίλων and perhaps also a στρατηγός. [2]

The Documents

The texts presented below derive from a cache of mummy cartonnage purchased by Duke University in 1974 which eventually yielded P.Duk.inv. numbers 324-434. [3] To date, only one text from this extensive group has been published. [4] The documents in the set appear to date to the second century B.C. and to derive from the Herakleopolite nome, though both determinations must be considered hypothetical until more texts are published. [5] While many of the individual papyri in this large group are small scraps of an indeterminate nature, dozens of them are identifiable as official letters and memo­randa, petitions, accounts, lists, tax registers, leases and receipts. [6] The nine texts in the subset presented here - P.Duk.invs. 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 and 336 - are all official letters.


These nine texts are connected by the appearance in them of two officials: Ariston, who held the positions of στρατηγός, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων and νομάρχης, as well as the court rank of τῶν πρώτων φίλων, "of the first friends" (of the king), and Lochos, who also has the rank of τῶν πρώτων φίλων in one of the documents (P.Duk.inv. 336.4) and may in fact have held a number of administrative positions, among these στρατηγός. Ariston appears in P.Duk.invs. 324, 325, 327, 329, 330 and 331; Lochos appears in 336; both men turn up in 326 and 328.

In spite of the fact that he appears in only three of the texts under consideration, it is quite possible that we know more about Lochos than Ariston. Another man of the same name appears in eleven late second-century documents spanning the years 127-113 B.C. and from a variety of different places. [7] The Lochos who appears in them was the son of Kallimedes, had the court rank of a συγγενής ("kinsman" of the king) and held a number of different posts throughout his career: he was an eponymous officer, [8] a ὑπομνηματογράφος (chief secretary), and, most importantly, στρατηγός (governor) of the Thebaid, a nome-level official with a number of civil, military and economic duties. [9] Among Ptolemaic στρατηγοί, the position of στρατηγός of the Thebaid was especially important. The Thebaid suffered through a large-scale revolt between the late third century and early second century B.C., after which it was more heavily policed. The position of ἐπιστρατηγός of the Thebaid was subsequently created to pro­vide more supervision of and support to the various στρατηγοί of the nomes of the Thebaid. [10] The στρατηγός of the Thebaid was a civil and military official superior to virtually all other officials in the Thebaid. [11]

We have less luck when hunting for Ariston. Though the name occurs throughout the time and space of the Ptolemaic empire, only a pair of men with the name may reasonably be considered possible matches for the official in our texts. In UPZ I pp. 596-597.6, 11 (Thebes, 145 B.C.; TM nr. 343479), an Ariston without title is said to have sent instructions regarding some Egyptian contracts. Forty-six years after this, another Ariston appears in UPZ I 108.33, 34 (Memphis, 99 B.C.), this time with the title of στρατηγός "of the same nome" (TM nr. 5880). In addition to holding the title of στρατηγός like Lochos, as well as the court title of τῶν πρώτων φίλων, the Duke documents reveal that Ariston also held the positions of ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων and νομάρχης. [12] As it happens, the combination of titles seen in the case of Ariston is not completely without parallel in the evidence. A number of men held the positions of στρατηγός and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων concurrently in the second century B.C. in the Arsinoite, Herakleopolite and Pathyrite (?) nomes, as well as in the Thebaid. [13] Among these men, only three are also attested as having the title τῶν πρώτων φίλων at the same time: a certain Phanias in the Arsinoite (140-135 B.C.; TM nr. 14490); his successor, Apollonios (135-132 B.C.; TM nr. 5437); and Hermias, son of Platon, in the Thebaid (125-118 (?) B.C.; TM nr. 7867). [14] Further, of these three, there is one who also was evidently νομάρχης at some point in his career: Phanias. Phanias first appears with a title in P.Tebt. III.1 959.1-2 (Oxyrhyncha, 140 B.C.), where he is identified as [τῶν πρώ]των φίλων καὶ | [στρατηγῶι] καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων. He subsequently has the same titles in SB XXVI 16744.1-2 (Oxyrhyncha, ca 140-139 B.C.) and in P.Tebt. III.1 785.1-2 and 786.1-2 (Oxyrhyncha, ca 138 B.C.), while in P.Tebt. III.1 787.1 (Oxyrhyncha, ca 138 B.C.), a petition to Phanias, the title ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων appears to have been omitted by the petitioners. [15] Phanias is mentioned in a pair of later texts, as well. In P.Tebt. I 61B.ii.46-7 (Kerkeosiris, 117 B.C.), it is noted that he was στρατηγός and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων in year 34 (of Euergetes II: 137-136 B.C.), while in 61B.xiii.362 he is referred to as τῶι γενομένωι ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις φίλοις. Finally, in P.Tebt. IV 1113.xviii.359-360 (Kerkeosiris, 113 B.C.) there is a reference to him holding the titles of στρατηγός and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων, this time evidently in year 31 (of Euergetes II: 140-139 B.C.), while in P.Tebt. IV 1113.x.205, a Phanias is referred to as τοῦ νομαρχήσαντος ἐν τῶι λδ (ἔτει). If this Phanias and the man who held the posts of στρατηγός and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων under Euergetes II are to be understood as one and the same - and this appears to be the case [16] - it is clear that he held the post of nomarch concurrently with that of στρατηγός.

When we turn to Ariston, we see that in the Duke documents he is always referred to as (at least) τῶν πρώτων φίλων and στρατηγός whenever his title is preserved. In addition, Ariston also occasionally has the titles ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων or νομάρχης, though never both in the same document; and whenever either of these two titles appears, it always appears in the third position:

At this point, it would be useful to attempt to construct a timeline of Ariston's career, to determine when he held each of the offices mentioned above and whether he potentially held the positions of nomarch and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων concurrently. We will therefore now turn to a consideration of the dates of the papyri discussed here.


With the exception of P.Duk.inv. 326, in the Duke Papyrus Archive catalogue entries for each of the texts in the collection presented here the documents are assigned to the second century B.C. with no further specification. [17] The entry for 326 suggests that the document could date to either 150 or 139 B.C., based on a partially-preserved date at the end of the text: year [ ̣]2, Hathyr 20 (line 10: [(ἔτους) ̣]β Ἁθὺρ κ). The author of the catalog entry evidently decided that the regnal year was 32 ([λ]β), and thus that the document dates to the 32nd year of either Ptolemy VI Philometor (150 B.C., specifically December 18) or Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (139 B.C., specifically December 15). Yet assuming that the general placement of the text in the second century is correct, the regnal year in our text ([ ̣]β) could be 2, 12, 22, 32, 42 or even 52. Depending on how one counts, this gives as many as thirteen distinct possibilities for the year, ranging from 194/193 B.C. to 103/102 B.C. [18] Fortunately, there is a bit of additional dating help elsewhere in the documents. A date is preserved in P.Duk.inv. 329: year 41, Epeiph 22 (line 1: (ἔ̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣) μ̣α Ἐπε̣ὶ̣φ̣ κ̣β̅), or August 11, 129 B.C. In addition, in P.Duk.inv. 330 there is a third date (line 2: [(ἔτους)] μ̣α Τῦβ̣[ι --- ]). In the 41st year of Euergetes II, the month of Tybi would have run from January 23 to February 21, 129 B.C., giving this document the earliest date in the dossier.

Given the evidence from P.Duk.invs. 329 and 330, it is very tempting to restore [(ἔτους) μ]β Ἁθὺρ κ at P.Duk.inv. 326.10, giving us a date of December 12, 129 B.C. (year 42, Hathyr 20) for that document. Unfortunately, the regnal years in all three of these texts are not secure, so any restoration of the date in P.Duk.inv. 326 based on the dates in P.Duk.invs. 329 and 330 must remain hypothetical. However, an examination of three other texts derived from the same cartonnage, all of which are at least semi-securely dated, makes all three of these dates seem more likely. P.Duk.inv. 347, a list of persons, is securely dated to a year 41, Thoth 20. P.Duk.inv. 358, a petition (?), is likewise dated to a year 41, Pachons 2 (?). [19] P.Duk.inv. 374, another petition (?), is dated to a year 40. If we are correct that the texts in the cartonnage containing P.Duk.invs. 324-434 belong as a group to the second century, then all three of these texts were written in the 40th and 41st regnal years of Euergetes II and must have fixed dates. P.Duk.inv. 347 must therefore have the Julian date of October 14, 130 B.C.; P.Duk.inv. 358 a date of May 23, 129 B.C.; and P.Duk.inv. 374, the year 131/130 B.C.

It seems, then, more than likely that all the texts presented here date to within a year, or two, of 130 B.C. This opens the door much more broadly to the possibility that the famous Lochos, στρατηγός of the Thebaid active 127-113 B.C., is the same Lochos present in three of the Duke texts below. Indeed, the man who appears in the Duke texts has a number of impressive powers. In P.Duk.inv. 328, Lochos (without title) sends instructions to a man who was a στρατηγός in his own right: namely Ariston (also with­out title here). In P.Duk.inv. 326 (December 12, 129 B.C.), he sends his agents into another nome to prevent an official from completing his own business. Though he has no title in P.Duk.inv. 326, he is numbered among the first friends, and he is almost certainly also called στρατηγός in P.Duk.inv. 336, a text that appears to refer to the events of P.Duk.inv. 326, and thus likely dates to within a few days or weeks of that text (i.e., ca December 12, 129 B.C.). If Lochos was not στρατηγός of the Thebaid by the end of 129 B.C., he was certainly already acting like a στρατηγός. Already in 1953, Vanʼt Dack suggested that Lochos may have assumed the title of στρατηγός as early as 130 B.C., and Thomas in 1975 as early as 128. [20] That same year, Mooren demonstrated that Lochos' immediate predecessor in the position of στρατηγός of the Thebaid, Paos, was last attested holding the position on July 28, 129 B.C. [21] We can now say with some certainty that Lochos had obtained the position by the end of that same year.


If the Duke documents provide some clarification on the timeline of Lochos' career, it seems reasonable to suggest that they should also reveal a great deal about the career of Ariston. Unfortunately, however, all that can be said with any certainty at this point is that he was active in the years ca 129 B.C. In the three dated documents in which Ariston appears - P.Duk.invs. 326, 329 and 330, all from 129 B.C. - he has the titles τῶν πρώτων φίλων and στρατηγός. In the (chronologically) last of these texts (326), he also has the title ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων, which makes it possible that he only assumed this post at the end of 129 B.C. (and by December 12, the date of this document, at the latest). Yet there is no good reason to assume that the absence of ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων in the list of Ariston's titles in the two earlier texts from 129 B.C. implies that Ariston did not hold the position earlier in the year: the similar case of Phanias (above) makes it abundantly clear that an official need not have been addressed by every one of his titles in every piece of mail he received.

Armed with three chronological pinpoints for the career of Ariston, we will turn now to the question of where he held office, and, consequently, the provenance of our texts. The Duke Papyrus Archive tentatively assigns each of the documents in our sub­group to the Herakleopolite nome, based (it would seem) on the fact that other texts from the series P.Duk.invs. 324-434 can be placed there. [22] To be fair, in one of the texts presented here there is a reference to the Herakleopolite village of Tamphnouthis (P.Duk.inv. 327.12). Aside from this, however, there is very little geographical infor­mation in these documents, and that information which can be extracted generally con­cerns other nomes. Further, none of the officials mentioned in the Duke texts presented here is given a clear provenance. Yet in spite of these limitations, the infor­mation the texts do provide makes the Herakleopolite nome their likely place of origin.

Aside from P.Duk.inv. 327, three of the documents presented below make specific reference to geographical locations. In P.Duk.inv. 329, a man named Herodes travels (line 6) εἰς Πτολεμα̣ΐ̣δ̣[α ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]. There are a number of possibilities for restoration here, as settlements in Egypt including the name Ptolemais were many. Since the papyrus only contains room for about 6 characters in the lacuna, the possibilities are reduced somewhat: we are likely looking at either a Πτολεμαίς with no further distinction (and there appear to have been at least a few of these, all Arsinoite), Πτολεμαὶς Ἀραβῶν (Arsinoite, in the Herakleides meris near the labyrinth), Πτολεμαὶς Δρυμοῦ (Arsinoite, in the Themistes meris near Dionysias), Πτολεμαὶς Ἑρμείου (Thinite, the nome metropolis), Πτολεμαὶς Θηρῶν (on the African coast of the Red Sea), Πτολεμαὶς Καινή (Arsinoite, in the Themistes meris near Euhemeria), Πτολεμαὶς Νέα (Arsinoite, in the Herakleides meris near Karanis), Πτολεμαὶς Ὅρμου (Arsinoite, in the Herakleides meris) or Πτολεμαὶς Περσῶν (Arsinoite). As Ptolemais Hermeiou is located in the far-south Thinite nome, and Ptolemais Theron is on the Red Sea, neither is likely to be the location mentioned here. The options that remain are all to be found in the Arsinoite nome.

The Arsinoite crops up again in P.Duk.inv. 326, a letter in which an official named Konnos writes to Ariston to report on his visit to the Arsinoite in search of some wood. Konnos travelled to two different villages in the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite: first to the village of Kerkesephis, and then to the village of Samareia, where he ultimately found the wood he was looking for, but ended up being prevented from obtaining the wood by the agents of Lochos. The same trip to the Arsinoite seems to be referenced in P.Duk.inv. 336: the writer of this letter notes that Lochos had confiscated "the other wood" (line 5: τὰ ἄλλα ξύ̣λα) and later makes mention of the Arsinoite nome (line 7). [23] There is an additional geographical reference in P.Duk.inv. 326, as well. Shortly after his arrival in the Arsinoite, Konnos reports that he attempted to locate a certain man (line 2: [ --- ]η̣νις), but was unable to find him, as he was "in the lower districts" (line 3: ἐν τ̣οῖ̣ς̣ κάτω̣ τ̣όποις̣). There are at least two different ways to understand this phrase. On the one hand, Konnos might simply be referring to the northern part of the nome in question, as the phrase κάτω τόποι could simply indicate regions in just such an area. [24] On the other hand, the phrase is also used to refer to specific "lower districts" (κάτω τοπαρχίαι) in certain Egyptian nomes. There were no such districts in the Arsinoite (which itself had subdivisions known as merides), but there were lower (and upper) toparchies in a number of other nomes, including the Herakleopolite and Oxyrhynchite, both of which bordered the Arsinoite. [25] Given the proximity of these nomes, it is tempting to suggest that the missing man was in the κάτω τοπαρχία of one of them. Ultimately, though, it does not make much of a difference to our understanding of the events: whether [ --- ]η̣νις was in the Herakleopolite, Oxyrhynchite or the northern Arsinoite, the key fact is that he was not to be found in the southern Arsinoite where Konnos was looking for him.

Clearly, much of the activity recorded in these papyri took place in the Arsinoite nome. Was this the base of operations for Ariston, Konnos and many of the other men who appear in the Duke texts? It seems unlikely. To begin with, the texts referring to Konnos and his wood-finding mission (326 and 336) make it clear that he had to cross into the Arsinoite to find the wood, which suggests that this nome was not his normal sphere of operations. After all, if Konnos were an Arsinoite functionary, why would he have informed his boss, Ariston, the Arsinoite στρατηγός, that he had crossed into the Arsinoite before heading off in the direction of two villages, instead of simply letting him know that he had gone to the villages? It makes more sense to situate both of these men in a nome adjacent to the Arsinoite. Of such nomes, either the Herakleopolite or the Oxyrhynchite would have been their most likely base of operations, since the villages Konnos visited in the Arsinoite - Kerkesephis and Samareia - were located in the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite, which is in the southern section of the nome and thus closer to the Oxyrhynchite (to the southwest) and Herakleopolite (to the southeast) than any other nomes. [26] The mention of Tamphnouthis in P.Duk.inv. 327 perhaps makes the Herakleopolite more likely than the Oxyrhynchite, but in the absence of further geographical information from the Duke texts, selection between the Oxyrhyn­chite and the Herakleopolite is still difficult. If another man could be confirmed as holding the position of στρατηγός in either the Herakleopolite or Oxyrhynchite nome in 129 B.C., the one somewhat firmly attested year in which Ariston was στρατηγός, the task of determining Ariston's provenance would be much simpler. Unfortunately, we do not know the identity of either the Herakleopolite or Oxyrhynchite στρατηγός in that year. Further, there is also a general dearth of papyri from the Oxyrhynchite nome in the second century B.C., which means that barring good evidence from the Herakle­opolite, any determination of Ariston's provenance will be at least partially based on an argument from silence. [27]

Yet there is perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel: we know that men in the Herakleopolite nome could hold the offices of στρατηγός and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων con­currently in the second half of the second century B.C. In P.Tebt. III.1 810, a declaration on oath from Herakleopolis dating to 134 B.C., a Polemarchos (TM nr. 12548) has the titles [ ± 18 κ]αὶ στρατηγῶι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων (lines 12-13). [28] Though it is certainly not the case that the assignment of Ariston and his subordinates to the Herakleopolite nome is clear-cut, the circumstantial evidence - the suspected provenance of the Duke cartonnage, the mention of Tamphnouthis in P.Duk.inv. 327, the proximity of the Hera­kleopolite to the Arsinoite, the reference to the κάτω τόποι, the parallel of Polemarchos and the lack of comparable evidence from the Oxyrhynchite - strongly suggests that Ariston was στρατηγός, νομάρχης and ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων in the Herakleopolite nome, and perhaps the successor of Polemarchos in these offices.

1. Letter to Ariston

The recto of this papyrus contains 15 lines of text written across the fibers, and 3 lines along the fibers on the verso in a second hand and in two columns. A large upper margin of 4 cm is preserved on the recto. The papyrus is broken on all three other sides. The name of the addressee, Ariston, is written in large letters on the verso (line 18).

The document appears to be an official letter from [ --- ]os, son of Philinos, to Ariston. Though much is obscured by lacuna, it is clear that the letter concerns at the very least an amount of grain connected in some way with reeds (kalamoi), as well as some wrongdoing.


" …os (?), son of Philinos, to Ariston, greetings … me (?) … to Artemidoros, the … therefore, the reed … needing more attentively … to see to it that those responsible, being sought out, provide (?) … (x artabas?) of grain to us, and (see to it that?) the other … will be … so that … may be given … the appropriate … us … Artemidoros…"

verso: (in a second hand) "To Ariston, of the „first friends" and στρατηγός … "

4. κ̣αλαμο ̣ ̣ [ ̣]ο̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ --- ]: Three possible restorations suggest themselves, though none of them is secure: καλαμοκόπων, "reed-cutters" (BGU VII 1529.2-3 [Philadelphia, 210-204 B.C.? 193-187 B.C.?]; P.Sijp. 53.13 [Arsinoite, I B.C.-I A.D.]); καλαμοπωλῶν, "reed-sellers" (P.Cair.Zen. III 59398.5 [Philadelphia, 258-257 B.C.]); and καλαμουργούντων, "the people setting poles" (from καλαμουργέω: e.g., P.Tebt. I 120.141 [Arsinoite, after 97 B.C. or after 64 B.C.]).

6. προνοηθ[η ̣ ̣ ̣ ]: The verb, likely either an imperative (προνοήθ[ητι]) or infinitive (προνοηθ[ῆναι]), should be followed by either a purpose clause (ἵνα/ὡς/ὅπως + subjunctive) or an object clause of effort (ὡς/ὅπως + future indicative). The latter construction is more likely here, as a future indicative seems to be present at the beginning of line 7 - perhaps [ἀπο]ί̣σο̣νται or [κομ]ί̣σο̣νται - as well as line 8 ([ --- ]ιέσται, which could be restored as [e.g.,] [ --- ]ι ἔσται, "will be", or perhaps [περ]ιέσται, "will remain").

7. ἐφ' ἡμ̣ᾶ̣ς ̣ ̣ πύρου̣: The two illegible characters probably contain the abbreviation for (ἀρτάβας) and an amount.

12. π̣ρ̣οσ̣ήκο̣ντα̣: Most likely in the phrase τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον, "the appropriate account", which is usually construed with a form of the verb ποιέω, e.g.: P.Diosk. 6.46-47 (Herakleopolite, 146 B.C.): ὅπως καὶ ἀπ̣[ὸ] τούτου ὁρμηθέν|τες ποιησόμεθα τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον; P.Erasm. I 1.22-23 (Oxyrhyncha, 148-147 B.C.): βουλομένου μου τὸν προσ|ήκοντα λόγον πρὸς αὐτοὺς ποιήσασθαι.

15. [ --- ε]ι̣λαμενο[ --- ]: There are a number of possibilities here, though perhaps a form of δια- (e.g.: BGU VIII 1803.4 [Herakleopolite, 64-44 B.C.]) or ὑποστέλλω (e.g., P.Yale 1 42.22 [Alexandria, 187 B.C.]), ἐντέλλω (e.g.: P.Grenf. II 14C.6 [Arsinoite, ca 225 B.C.]) or ἐπαγγέλλω (e.g.: BGU VIII 1747.21 [Herakleopolite, 63 B.C.]) is most likely.

16-18. cf. P.Duk.inv. 329. It is possible that the lacuna and traces at the beginning of line 17 contain στρατηγῶι, perhaps followed by καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων or καὶ νομάρχηι, with some or all of the words in abbreviation. On Ariston's titles, see above.

2. Letter to Ariston from Horion

This papyrus contains 19 lines of text written along the fibers on the recto, and one line written across the fibers on the verso. Only the bottom of the recto appears to have been broken off, as margins of 2 cm (top), 3.5 cm (left) and 0.5 cm (right) are preserved. The papyrus is comprised of two joining fragments, both of which have been heavily abraded in places, leaving little writing in sections and making the text very difficult to read, aside from the name and title of the addressee and addressor.

"To Ariston, of the first friends and στρατηγός and νομάρχης, from Horion, agent of … Agroitas (?), λαάρχης. … your…"

verso: "To Ariston. (?)"

2. Ὡ̣ρίω̣ν̣ο̣ς τ̣οῦ παρὰ̣ ± 6 Ἀ̣γ̣ρ̣οίτου λαάρχου̣: Attestations of laarchai, "commanders of (native Egyptian) men", are few and far between in the Ptolemaic period. The title, its associated office (the λααρχία) and a couple of derivatives (λααρχικός, λαάρχημα [?]) appear in a handful of texts from the second and first centuries B.C. (e.g.: PSI Congr.XVII 23r.i.15 [Arsinoite, 85-84 B.C.]: Κερκεσούχων λααρχ(ικῶν) κλ(ήρων) (ἀρτάβαι) υν; P.Stras. II 91.1-2 [Tebtynis, 86 B.C.]: Ἰσιδότωι τῶν (πρώτων) φίλων καὶ | λαάρχωι; P.Tebt. I 63r.193 [Kerkeosiris, 116/115 B.C.]: ὑπὸ τὴν Χ[ο]μήνιος λααρχίαν; 64A.145 [Kerkeosiris, 115 B.C.]: ἐν τῶι λααρχή(ματι?) ἐ[κτεθήτω(?)]). The same scarcity applies to men with the name Agroitas (or possibly Agroites): in fact, only one man with the name is securely attested for the second century (UPZ II 225.10 [Thebes, 131 B.C.]: Ἀγροίται Γατ[ά(?)]λου). On laarchai, see Fischer-Bovet, Army and Society (n. 8) 164-165 and J. Lesquier, Les Institutions militaires de l'Égypte sous les Lagides, Paris 1911, 99.

3. Letter to Ariston from Konnos

Together the two non-joining fragments of P.Duk.inv. 326 contain 14 lines of text: 10 lines of text written across the fibers on the recto, with 4 along the fibers on the verso. The amount of papyrus lost in the gap here cannot be greater than ca 5 cm. The papyrus is mostly preserved, lacking an indeterminate amount of text between the two main fragments. Margins of 1.5 cm (top), 1 cm (bottom) and 3 cm (left) are preserved, as well as an occasional small margin at right when the scribe stops short of line end.

In spite of the gap in the middle of the text, the general gist of the document is clear. Konnos had heard from Ariston about some wood, evidently receiving instructions to obtain it. Konnos subsequently travelled to the Arsinoite nome, where he learned that someone ([ --- ]η̣νις, 2) was in the lower regions (line 3: κάτω̣ τ̣όποις). This person was discovered, and he spoke with Konnos about the wood. Konnos then travelled to Kerke­sephis and made a discovery, then turned to Samareia on account of the wood (evidently) being there. After he went there the agents of Lochos arrived. Konnos was unable to transport any of the wood until Lochos' agents left.

The text highlights the importance of timber to the Ptolemies. [29] It also provides a few tantalizing clues about the dates and provenance of the papyri in the Ariston/ Lochos group (on which, see the introduction) and is the only text in which Ariston appears with the title ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων.

"Konnos to Ariston, greetings. Concerning what you wrote to me about the wood, I went into the Arsinoite, and I asked where [ --- ]enis was, and with difficulty it was made clear to me that he was in the lower regions. … (I/they) found him and I spoke with him about the wood … via a note to Kerkesephis and I/they found (the wood?) … I turned to Samareia since the wood … was not being carried off… and I found the wood in the same Samareia, 15 desmai (?). (But after?) I went into Samareia, those from Lochos arrived … of Samareia, so as for me to not be able to remove any (of the wood until?) those from Lochos went away. For this reason I am writing to you so that you may know. Farewell. Year 42 (?), Hathyr 20."

verso: "To Ariston, of the first friends and στρατηγός and man in charge of the revenues."

2. [ --- ]η̣νις: Names with Nominatives ending in these four letters are common. As no similar names appear in the rest of the texts under consideration here, a secure restoration is impossible. That said, in another Herakleopolite text from 130 B.C. (SB XIV 12089), an official named Horenis writes to another named Sosibios to report on some grain thefts in his vicinity.

3. τ̣οῖ̣ς̣ κάτω̣ τ̣όποις̣: On the meanings of the phrase κάτω τόποι, see the introduction. According to M. R. Falivene, The Herakleopolite Nome: A Catalogue of the Toponyms with Introduction and Commentary (Am. Stud. Pap. 37), Atlanta 1998, 37-39, the "lower districts" of the Herakle­opolite corresponded to the katô region of the Agema toparchy. On the provenance of this text, as well as the rest of the dossier, see the introduction.

[ --- ] ̣ρες: A couple of possibilities suggest themselves here: [οἱ φ]ῶ̣ρες or [οἱ πράκτ]ο̣ρες. The first is perhaps more likely, as φῶρες, "thief-catchers", seem to have occasionally been involved in procuring wood: see J. Bauschatz, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, New York 2013, 152-153. The Ptolemaic πράκτωρ, a debt collector, would have been less likely to get involved in the business being described here. On πράκτορες, see DNP 11, 2007, 777-778.

5. Κερκεσῆ̣φ̣ιν, Σαμαρείαν: As noted in the introduction, both villages were located in the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite nome. They also were relatively close to each other, so much so that, by the late third century A.D. at the latest, they formed an administrative unit: see BGU I 94.4, 6, 24 (Ptolemais Euergetis, A.D. 289). The exact locations of the two villages are unknown, though a significant amount of information about each survives. Data on the population, administration and location of the two can be found at fayum2/1063.php?geo_id=1063 (Kerkesephis) and /2077.php?geo_id=2077 (Samareia).

[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ --- ]: Perhaps τὰ ξύλα, among other things, has dropped out here.

6. ἀπε̣ν̣ήν̣[εχθαι (?)]: The restoration is very tentative, but it seems to fit the sense: Konnos went to Samareia because he learned that the wood had not been taken away.

7. δ̣έ̣(σμας?) ιε̣: The restoration is uncertain, but fits the context. Wood could be measured in desmai (or desmoi): O.Bodl. I 271.3 (Thebes?, 125-100 B.C.): ξ]ύλων δεσμ(αὶ) φ; P.Vet.Aelii 16.27-29 (Ankyron polis, A.D. 225): ἀ[πὸ δὲ τῆς] | ξυλίας δώσομέν σοι ξύλ̣[ων] | δέσμας πεντήκον̣[τ]α̣; P.Oxy. XXIV 2424.16 (Oxyrhynchite?, A.D. II-III): [δ]εσμοὶ ξ̣[ύλ]ων.

τα[ ̣]λ̣[ --- ]: A temporal conjunction meaning "after" or "when" (ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, ὅτε) likely belongs in this section of the text.

9. μη̣θὲ̣[ν ? ἀπε]λθεῖν (?): Perhaps τῶν ξύλων plus a Greek word meaning "until" and taking an accusative/infinitive (such as πρίν) should be placed in the lacuna: μη̣θὲ̣[ν τῶν ξύλων πρὶν ἀπε]λθεῖν.

10. [(ἔτους) μ]β (?) Ἁθὺρ κ: On the date, see the introduction.

4. Letter to Ariston

The recto of this papyrus contains 14 lines of text written along the fibers; the verso is blank. The document consists of two non-joining fragments. A large upper margin of 3 cm is preserved, as is a left margin of 1.5 cm and an occasional margin of 0.5 cm at right. The papyrus is broken at bottom.

Little of this papyrus is preserved aside from the title of the addressee, but it does provide a firm geographical link to the Herakleopolite nome via mention of the village Tamphnouthis (line 12). There is also a possible connection between the events described here and those of P.Duk.inv. 326, as both texts concern the procurement of wood. If the same episode is alluded to in both texts, they were likely written around the same time.

"To Ariston, of the first friends and στρατηγός, from Pol- … the wood … these … this being around the village of Tamphnouthis in the same…"

5. [τ(?)]ὰ̣ ξύλ̣α: See also P.Duk.inv. 326 and 336.

12. Ταμφν̣οῦθ̣ιν: This village appears in only one other text: BGU VIII 1814.8 (Herakle­o­polite, 60-55 B.C.), a petition to the Herakleopolite στρατηγός Paniskos (TM nr. 11404). According to Falivene (Herakleopolite Nome [P.Duk.inv. 326, n.3] 209), Tamphnouthis was per­haps near Tebetny, which was located in the Peran toparchy of the Herakleopolite nome.

13. πτ̣ ̣ ̣ καζωι: It would seem at first glance that πτ̣ ̣ ̣καζωι should be a Dative to accompany τῶι | αὐτ̣ῶι, but no clear possibilities suggest themselves.

5. Letter to Ariston from Lochos

P.Duk.inv. 328 contains 9 lines of text, six on the recto and the remainders of up to three on the verso, in two columns. The writing is across the fibers on the recto, but along the fibers on the verso. The papyrus has margins (on the recto) of 3.5 cm at top and bottom and 4 cm at left. The text is broken at right, and perhaps also at bottom.

This letter, from Lochos to Ariston, apparently concerns a delivery of grain, though much has been lost. This is a pity, as P.Duk.inv. 328 is the only text in the dossier explicitly written by Lochos and addressed to Ariston. Were it better preserved, it would tell us more about the relationship between the two men. We might also gain a clearer picture of the document's origins. Though it is likely that it ended up in the Herakleopolite, along with the rest of the texts presented here, the fact that it was written by Lochos makes it possible that it originated in the Thebaid (provided that our Lochos is indeed the well-known στρατηγός of the Thebaid, of course), or perhaps the Arsinoite (as Lochos was clearly operating there: see P.Duk.inv. 326 and 336).

"Lochos to Ariston, greetings and salutations … contributed in the districts … Philon for the sake of this … we have authorized him to deliver … Therefore, you will do well (?) to see to it that none of the men … without the authorization of … and…"

verso: " … To Ariston … "

3. Φίλων χά̣ριν τούτου: It is quite possible that Φίλων (the Nominative singular of the name) should be restored as φίλων (the Genitive plural of the noun/adjective). In fact, context suggests that the latter restoration may be correct, as χάριν generally takes a preceeding Genitive. Yet this is far from regular practice in papyri from the Ptolemaic period: one often finds the preposition taking a following Genitive, at least in the second and first centuries (e.g.: BGU VI 1256.13-16 [Philadelphia, 147 or 136 B.C.]; VIII 1825.13-14 [Herakleopolite, ca 61-60 or 53-52 B.C.?]). If the name is correct, Philon is likely the man referred to in line 4 (αὐτῶι).

4. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις: The restoration is quite likely, as the phrase (or a variation on it) is regular before φροντίσας in the instruction section of official letters (e.g.: P.Cair.Zen. I 59053.5-8 [Alexandria, 257 B.C.]: καλῶς ἂν οὖν ποιήσαις φροντίσας | ὅπως γένωνται ἡμῖν τά τε στε|γ̣άσματα τοῖς πλοίοις καὶ τὰ | λοιπὰ χρηστά; P.Col. IV 98.2-4 [Philadelphia?, III B.C.]: καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις φροντίσας | ὅπως ἂν παραδοθῆι αὐτοῖς | τὰ ἱερεῖα; P.Horak 26.7-11 [?, 260 or 222 B.C.]: σὺ οὖν καλῶς ποιήσεις | φροντίσας ὅπως χρήσι|μόν τε λάβηι καὶ τῶι | μέτρωι μὴ παρακρου|σθῆι).

5-6. [ --- ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ δεῖνος] | γνώμ[ης (?) ]: Phrases like this are also common at the end of official letters in cases where the permission of one official is required before another takes action, or when someone has acted improperly (e.g., P.Grenf. II 14a.19-20 [Arsinoite, 232 B.C.]: ὁ δὲ παρὰ σοῦ οὐκ ἔφη δύνασθαι | ἄνευ τῆς σῆς γνώμης ἀποδοῦναι; P.Tebt. I 6.35-37 [Kerke­osiris, 139 B.C.]: [ἑ]τέρους δὲ παραιρε[ῖν ἀ]πὸ τῶν τελουμένων καὶ | [λο]γευομένων κ̣[αὶ καθι]στ̣α̣μένους ἄνευ τῆς αὐτῶν | γ[νώμη]ς ἀφροδίσια̣).

7-9. If it is correct that the remainders of two lines of text can be found to the left of Ariston's name, it is virtually guaranteed that they contained abbreviations of his titles (on which, see the introduction; cf. e.g. P.Duk.inv. 329).

6. Letter to Ariston

The recto of this papyrus contains 12 lines of text written along the fibers, the first of which may be in a second hand. On the verso are preserved three lines written along the fibers in the primary hand of the recto, in two columns. Margins of 2 cm (top) and 3 cm (left) are preserved. There is also occasionally a small bit of space preserved at right, though the scribe often writes to the very end of the line. The papyrus is broken at bottom.

The papyrus contains a letter from two men to Ariston. They write to report that a third man, Herodes, had arrived at Ptolemais and been upset to discover that a delivery of grain had not occurred. Among other things, the letter preserves the second some­what firm date for the date of the Lochos and Ariston papyri.

(In a second hand) "Received year 41, Epeiph 22 … Chairemon (?) …"

(In the first hand) "Chairemon and P[ --- ] … to Ariston, greetings. If you are well and your other affairs are in order, it would be as we wish. We ourselves are also well. Herodes, the son of …, arriving at Ptolemais …, and, not by chance being vexed at you not having received the grain until now, and wanting to go into your districts … for them … artabas … and … and … "

verso: "To Ariston, of the first friends and στρατηγός."

1. ἐλ(ήφθη) (ἔ̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣) μ̣α Ἐπε̣ὶ̣φ̣ κ̣β̅: The abbreviation for ἐλ(ήφθη) here - a lambda written on top of an epsilon - is similar to that found in a number of other papyri: see (e.g.) BGU XX 2847.1 (Herakleopolite, 49 B.C.); P.Mich. III 179.1 (Oxyrhynchus, before a.d. 64); PSI III 169.1 (Thinite, 118 B.C.). On the date, see the introduction.

̣ μ̣α̣υ̣ Χα̣[ι]ρ̣[ήμων --- ]: Given the context, it seems reasonable to restore Χα̣[ι]ρ̣[ήμων, as his name would be likely to appear at the beginning of the docket. ̣ μ̣α̣υ̣, on the other hand, is difficult to understand. The text is abraded, so perhaps these characters are in erasure.

5. τ̣[οῦ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣του: In the catalogue record for this papyrus, it is suggested that Herodes may have been the son of the διοικητής. The διοικητής was the chief financial official under the Ptolemies (on whom, see E. Berneker, Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens, München 1935, 80-89 and Thomas, Aspects [n. 12] 187-194). The restoration τ̣[οῦ] δ̣ι̣[ο]ι̣κ̣ή̣του would fit the space and the traces, and the involvement of a financial official in the business discussed in this text would not be surprising. The διοικητής in question would likely have been either Apollonios (TM nr. 5436), who held the position of διοικητής until at least July 10, 130 B.C., or his successor, a man who appears to have held the position sometime between 131 and 124 B.C. (on both men, see Mooren, Aulic Titulature [n. 9] 137). That said, it seems a bit strange to call Herodes the son of the διοικητής if he were visiting on official business, as he would likely have had his own title.

6. Πτολεμα̣ΐ̣δ̣[α ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]: On the possibilities for restoration here, see the introduction.

7. Letter to Ariston

This small scrap of papyrus contains 4 lines of text on the recto written along the fibers, and traces of two lines on the verso. Only a very small strand of papyrus extends out to the full 13.9 cm. An upper margin of 2 cm appears to be preserved on the recto, and the first two lines of text have been written in this margin in a second hand. There is also a left margin of 2.5 cm. The papyrus is broken on the other two sides.

The text is valuable for its (likely) preservation of a third date among the Lochos and Ariston papyri, but little else.

1-2. X [ --- ] | [(ἔτους)]: The large "X" written in the upper margin is likely a receipt mark. A similar marking in a second hand can be found in BGU XX 2847.1 (Herakleopolite, 49 B.C.): X ἐλ(ήφθη) (ἔτους) γ Ἐπ⟨ε⟩ὶφ κη κατὰ̣ Σ̣αδ̣α(λ-). It seems likely that the abbreviation for ἐλ(ήφθη) is also lost in the lacuna between lines 1 and 2. Cf. P.Duk.inv. 329.1 (above).

3. Ἀρι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ καὶ Τ̣ ̣ [ --- ]: Or possibly Ἀρισ̣τ̣ο̣ν̣ί̣κο̣υ̣ τ̣ ̣[ --- ]?

8. Letter to Ariston

The recto of this papyrus contains 9 lines of text written along the fibers, save for the last two, which appear to have been written perpendicularly to the main text. An upper margin of 3 cm is preserved. The papyrus is broken on all three other sides. The verso is blank.

"To Ariston, of the first friends and στρατηγός and νομάρχης, from (?) -ereus … of the written…"

5. [ ± 6 ] ̣ ̣ υων[ ± 8 ]: Perhaps [ --- δει]κ̣ν̣ύων?

9. Official Letter

The recto of this papyrus contains 15 lines of text written along the fibers. On the verso there are traces of ink. The papyrus appears to be broken on all sides, though it is possible that the longest lines of text preserve a small right margin. Two lines of the document are preserved on a small fragment which does not join with the main text. In addition, at least one line of text appears to have been lost at the top of the larger fragment.

Though this letter contains no information about the addressor or addressee, the fact that it seems to concern the same series of events described in P.Duk.inv. 326 (and 327?) suggests that it was written to, or by, Ariston. The latter possibility is especially tantalizing. If correct, this document may contain Ariston's official response to the letter of Konnos in the form of instructions to another official. It also may contain con­firmation that the Lochos of the Duke texts was one and the same with the late second-century στρατηγός of the Thebaid if the restoration of the title of στρατηγός in line 5 is correct.

"N.N. to N.N., greetings (?). If you are well, … is …, it would be as we wish … We are well … those from Lochos, of the first friends and στρατηγός (?), detained the other wood … in the Arsinoite nome … Therefore, you will do well to please … to the … (so that) … may be paid off/filled up…"

2.-3. ε̣ἰ̣ ἔ̣ρρ[ωσαι (?) --- ] | [ --- ] ̣ ἐστιν: The general sense here is, "If you are well, and everything else is as you want it to be ... " The papyri illustrate a number of different ways to express this wish (e.g.): Chrest.Wilck. 223.1 (Arsinoite, III B.C.): [εἰ ἔ]ρρ[ωσαι κ]αὶ τὰ λοιπά σοι κατὰ γνώμην ἐστίν; P.Cair.Zen. II 59263.1 (Alexandria, 251 B.C.): εἰ αὐτός ⟦τ̣ο̣ς̣⟧ τε ἔρρωσαι καὶ τἆλλά σοί ἐστιν κατὰ νοῦν; P.Duk.inv. 329.3 (above): εἰ [ἔρρωσαι (?)] καὶ τἆλλά [σοι κατὰ] λ̣[ό]γον ἐστίν.

4. [ --- ] ὑ̣γιαίνομεν ̣ε ̣[ --- ]: Perhaps [ --- ] ὑ̣γιαίνομεν δ̣ὲ κ̣[αὶ αὐτοί. --- ] (cf. C.Jud.Syr.Eg. 1.5-6 [Pathyris, 103 B.C.]; P.Diosk. 13.2 [?, 152 B.C.?]; P.Heid. III 228.5-6 [?, 200-151 B.C.]) or [καὶ αὐτοὶ δ'] ὑ̣γιαίνομεν ̣ε ̣[?] (cf. Chrest.Wilck. 11A.4 [Pathyris, 123 B.C.]; P.Cair.Goodsp. 4.4-5 [?, 152 or 141 B.C. (?)]; P.Tebt. III.2 895.121 [Berenikis Thesmophorou, 175 B.C.]).

5. [τοὺς παρ]ά̣: cf. P.Duk.inv. 326.9-10 for the restoration.

6. [καὶ στρατηγ]ο̣ῦ̣ (?): The restoration must remain tentative, given the fact that Lochos is nowhere else called στρατηγός in any of these documents, but it seems more than likely. On the identification, see the introduction.

τὰ ἄλλα ξύ̣λα: See also P.Duk.invs. 326 and 327.

8. [ --- ] Ἀρ[σιν]ο̣ΐτηι ν̣ομῶι π̣ρ[ --- ]: cf. P.Duk.inv. 326.1-2.

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -


The University of Arizona
Department of History
Social Sciences 215
1145 E. South Campus Drive
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

John Bauschatz

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -


Tafel 7

Tafel 8

Tafel 9

Tafel 10

Tafel 11

Tafel 12

Tafel 13

Tafel 14

Tafel 15

Tafel 16

* I would like to thank the anonymous readers at Tyche for their many helpful suggestions. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Joshua Sosin and Megan O'Connell at Duke University for their assistance in obtaining images of the papyri in this article.

[1] Duke Papyrus Archive: Images of all the texts presented here were accessed via the Archive. I have not seen the papyri first-hand.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all abbreviations for editions of papyri are those of the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets (
docs/checklist). All translations are my own.

[3] Acquisition of the Duke papyri:

[4] P.Duk.inv. 360 ( was published in J. Bauschatz, Three Duke Petitions, ZPE 152 (2005) 194-196.

[5] On the dates and provenance of the documents in the dossier, see below.

[6] With few exceptions, P.Duk.inv. numbers 376-434 are small fragments of documents, many of them with only slight traces of writing. Official letters/memoranda: 332r, 333, 334, 335, 337r (?), 340, 342v, 343, 344 (?), 345r (?), 346v (?), 348v (?), 365 (?), 367 (?), 368 (?), 369v (?), 370r, 371, 372 (?), 373r (?); petitions: 338, 339 (?), 357, 358 (?), 359, 360, 374 (?), 384 (?); accounts: 341v (?), 345v (?), 351 (?), 369r (?), 375r, 378v (?), 383 (?), 387v, 397 (?), 416 (?), 423 (?); lists: 341r, 342r, 347, 348r, 349, 350, 352-355, 356r(b), 410 (?), 425 (?); tax register: 356v (?); lease: 362 (?); receipt: 361.

[7] Trismegistos number (TM nr.) 10061: I.Délos 1526.5-7 (Delos, 127-126 B.C.?); I.Prose 22A.7-8, B.13, C.33-34 (Philae, 124-116 B.C.); P.Adler 2.4 (Pathyris, 124 B.C.); P.Dion. 21.30 (Akoris, 113 B.C.), 34.2 (Hermopolite, 116 B.C.); P.Dryton 23.9 (Pathyris, 124-116 B.C.); P.Ehevertr. 39 + P.Ryl.Dem. 20.3 (Pathyris, 116 B.C.); P.Ryl.Dem. 17 + P.Ryl. II 249.2 (Pathyris, 118 B.C.); SB VIII 9972.1-3, 9973.1-4 (both Cyprus, both 127-124 B.C.); UPZ II 187.6-7 (Thebes, 127-126 B.C.). Lochos possibly appears in a literary source, as well. If we emend the text of Diodorus 34/35.20.1 from Ἡγέλοχος to ἦγε Λόχος, we see that Lochos, στρατηγός, was sent by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II against Marsyas, στρατηγός of the Alex­andrians. This campaign likely occurred in 127/126 B.C., which fits nicely within the window of Lochos' other attested activities. On this emendation see I.Prose II p. 62. Aside from Lochos, son of Kallimedes, the name Lochos occurs only very rarely in the second century B.C.

[8] That is, the men under his command referred to themselves as "under the command of Lochos". On eponymous cavalry commanders in Ptolemaic Egypt, see S. Fischer-Bovet, Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge 2014, 158-159.

[9] On the career of Lochos, see above all W. Peremans, E. Vanʼt Dack, Prosopographica, Louvain 1953, 40-45; also J. D. Thomas, The epistrategos in Ptolemaic Egypt. Part 1: The Ptolemaic epistrategos, Wiesbaden 1975, 115-116; P. M. Meyer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemäer und Römer in Ägypten , Leipzig 1900, 80 and OGIS pp.135-139. Titles: eponymous cavalry commander: P.Adler 2.4, P.Dion. 21.30 and 34.2, P.Dryton 23.9, P.Ehevertr. 39 + P.Ryl.Dem. 20.3, P.Ryl.Dem. 17 + P.Ryl. II 249.2; ὑπομνηματογράφος: SB VIII 9972.2, 9973.3; στρατηγός: I.Prose 22A.7-8 and C.33-34 (he is specifically called στρατηγός of the Thebaid in the latter instance), SB VIII 9972.2-3 and 9973.3-4 (where he is called στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ of the Thebaid: see Thomas, epistrategos [above] 115-116); συγγενής (of the king): I.Délos 1526.5-6, I.Prose 22A.7 and C.33, SB VIII 9972.1, 9973.2, UPZ II 187.6-7. Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II also calls Lochos ἀδελφός ("brother") in I.Prose 22B.13, and he is referred to as ὑπέρμαχος ("champion") in SB VIII 9972.1 and 9973.2. On ὑπομνηματογράφοι, see P.Tebt. III.1 703 intro­duction, pp. 68-70; on the title συγγενής and other court appellations, see L. Mooren, Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography , Brussels 1975 and id., La Hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque : Contribution à l'étude des institutions et des classes diri­geantes à l'époque hellénistique , Louvain 1977; on the στρατηγός, first and foremost H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit III, München 1964-1967, and N. Hohlwein, Le stratège du nome, Bruxelles 1969; also E. Vanʼt Dack, Les stratèges dans les archives d'Assiout, Studia Hellenistica 5 (1948) 45-55; and L. Mooren, On the Jurisdiction of the Nome Strategoi in Ptolemaic Egypt , PapCongr XVII (1984) 1217-1225.

[10] On the ἐπιστρατηγός (literally "[man] in charge of the στρατηγός") see Thomas, epistrategos (n. 9).

[11] Thomas, epistrategos (n. 9) 32.

[12] The appellation τῶν πρώτων φίλων was an important court title: Mooren, Aulic Titulature (n. 9); Hiérarchie (n. 9). The official with the title ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων was concerned with state income and payments to soldiers: E. Salmenkivi, A Note on the Ptolemaic ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων , Arctos 37 (2003) 123-132. The Ptolemaic νομάρχης was the highest-ranking agricultural official in a nome: R. Seider, Beiträge zur ptolemäischen Verwaltungsgeschichte. Der Nomarches. Der Dioiketes Apollonios , Heidelberg 1938, 11-42; A. E. Samuel, The Internal Organization of the Nomarch's Bureau in the Third Century B.C. , in: id. (ed.), Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles, New Haven, Connecticut 1966, 213-229; J. D. Thomas, Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: The Dioiketes and the Nomarch , in: H. Maehler, V. M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin , Mainz 1978, 192-194; S. Héral,Deux equivalents démotiques du titre de νομάρχης, CE 65 (1990) 304-320; W. Clarysse, Nomarchs and toparchs in the third century Fayum, in: C. Basile (ed.), Archeologia e papyri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del convegno inter­nazionale. Siracusa, 24-25 maggio 1996 , Siracusa 1997, 69-75; D. J. Thompson,Irrigation and Drainage in the Early PtolemaicFayyum, in: A. K. Bowman, E. Rogan (eds.), Agriculture in Egypt: from Pharaonic to Modern Times, New York 1999, 109-110.

[13] A Ptolemaios (?) did so in the Pathyrite; an Apollonios, an Eirenaios, a Phanias and a Sarapion (?) in the Arsinoite; a Ptolemarchos in the Herakleopolite; and Hermias, son of Platon in the Thebaid. See Salmenkivi, A Note (n. 12) 129-130 for more details.

[14] Salmenkivi, A Note (n. 12) 130.

[15] The editors of the text restore the first three lines of the papyrus as follows: [Φανίαι τῶν πρώτων φίλων] καὶ στρατηγῶι | [παρὰ τῶν ἐξ Ὀξυρύγ]χ̣ων τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος | [βασιλικῶν γεωργῶν].

[16] TM nr. 14490; Mooren, Aulic Titulature (n. 9) 100.

[17] Catalogue records for each of the papyri presented here can be reached via the links given before each text (below).

[18] Year 12 of Ptolemy V Epiphanes: 194/193 B.C.; year 22: 184/183 B.C.; year 2 of Ptolemy VI Philometor: 180/179 B.C.; year 12: 170/169 B.C.; year 2 of the joint rule of Philometor with Cleopatra II (= year 13 of Philometor): 169/168 B.C.; year 22 of Philometor and Cleopatra II (restored): 160/159 B.C.; year 32: 150/149 B.C.; year 32 of
Euer­getes II (restored): 139/138 B.C.; year 42: 129/128 B.C.; year 52: 119/118 B.C.; year 2 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and of Cleo­patra III and Ptolemy IX Soter II: 116/115 B.C.; year 12 of Cleopatra III (= year 9 of Ptolemy X Alexander I): 106/105 B.C.; year 12 of Ptolemy Alexander I (= year 15 of Cleopatra III): 103/102 B.C.

[19] The Duke Papyrus Archive record for this text ( ttp scriptorium/papyrus/records/358.html) lists the year as 51, not 41. Upon closer inspection of the image, however, the relevant section of the document (line 10) reads μ̣α, not ν̣α.

[20] Vanʼt Dack, Prosopographica (n. 9) 43; Thomas, epistrategos (n. 9) 116.

[21] Mooren, Aulic Titulature (n. 9) 92.

[22] E.g.: P.Duk.inv. 342r, a second-century list of land, mentions a number of villages and toparchies of the Herakleopolite; P.Duk.inv. 344, a memorandum (?), mentions the Herakle­opolite village Peenemou; P.Duk.inv. 361, a tax receipt, records a payment at a bank in Herakle­opolis.

[23] Wood is also mentioned in P.Duk.inv. 327 (5: [τ(?)]ὰ̣ ξύλ̣α), though the events of this document cannot be securely connected with those of P.Duk.inv. 326, as the former is too frag­mentary.

[24] See U. Wilcken, Urkunden-Referat, APF 11 (1935) 293.

[25] There were also κάτω τοπαρχίαι in the Apollonopolite, Diopolite, Hermonthite, Lato­polite and Pathyrite nomes.

[26] One might also suggest that Konnos had crossed from the Memphite or Aphroditopolite nomes, which bordered the Arsinoite to the north and east, respectively, as a trade route through Bousiris connected these three nomes with the Herakleopolite: see M. Falivene, The Herakle­opolite Nome: Internal and External Borders , PapCongr XX (1994) 204. Unfortunately, as we do not know who held the position of στρατηγός in the Memphite or Aphroditopolite in the years ca 129 B.C., it is impossible to situate Ariston and his subordinates in either of these nomes.

[27] On the chronological distribution of papyrological evidence, see W. Habermann, Zur chronologischen Verteilung der papyrologischen Zeugnisse , ZPE 122 (1998) 144-160. According to his calculations, papyri from the Oxyrhynchite nome and dating to the second century B.C. are extremely rare: 148-150.

[28] Given the proximity of Polemarchos to Ariston, who likely held these same posts in 129 B.C., it may be reasonable to restore [τῶν πρώτων φίλων] in the lacuna. See Mooren, Aulic Titulature (n. 9) 108 for other possible restorations.

[29] Timber in antiquity: R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford 1982; G. E. Rickman, Trees (review of Meiggs, Trees and Timber [above]), CR (n.s.) 34 (1984) 120-122; A. H. S. El-Mosallamy, Trees in Graeco-Roman Egypt, PapCongr XIX (1992) 513-542.