Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros121The Agents of Hathor in P.Tor.Bot...

The Agents of Hathor in P.Tor.Botti and the Ptolemaic Temple of Deir el-Medina
"وكلاء حتحور" في بردية تور. بوتي والمعبد البطلمي بدير المدينة

Lorenzo Uggetti
p. 475-509

Résumés

Trouvés dans les jarres qui contenaient les archives de Totoês, P.Tor.Botti 34 A, 34 B+C, 35 et 36 furent emballés ensemble. La translittération et la traduction des textes qu’ils contiennent sont proposées, avec celles du P.Tor.Botti 40 qui s’y rapporte, et une explication est proposée pour leur découverte groupée : ils attestent des accords pris en lʼan 100 av. J.-C. entre les aînés des prêtres dʼHathor à Deir el-Médina et les trois fils de Chéstéphnachthis (B), qui portaient le titre dʼ« agents dʼHathor » ; ils percevaient les revenus du temple, payaient aux prêtres leur dû, géraient les frais ordinaires et supplémentaires, et tenaient le livre des comptes. Le montant de 17 talents mentionné dans P.Tor.Botti 34 A pourrait éventuellement suggérer lʼengagement de la famille de Chéstéphnachthis (B) dans la construction ou la décoration du « mammisi » ou du portail du temple de Deir el-Médina.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

UMR 8546 AOrOc. This paper is a considerably revised version of a talk given during the “12. Internationale Konferenz für demotische Studien”, held in Würzburg in 2014: Stadler et al. 2016/2017, pp. 29–30. I thank Ikuyo Kato, MA, for the discussions on the topic during and after the conference, and also before the publication of her intervention: Kato 2019. I thank Prof. Michel Chauveau, Dr. Sandra L. Lippert, Dr. Marie-Pierre Chaufray and Dr. Stéphanie Wackenier for their numerous valuable comments and Faye Wills, MA BA (Hons) PGCE, PhD candidate at LASAR Canterbury Christ Church University, for checking and correcting my English. Any shortcoming remains my responsibility. As far as possible, the papyrological documents are cited following the Checklist of editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic papyri, ostraca, and tablets on papyri.info. Photo samples of P. Turin Suppl. 6085, 6096, 6100, 6102 and 6109 (P.Tor.Botti 34 A, 34 B+C, 35, 36 and 40) courtesy of Museo Egizio, Turin. I thank Dr. Susanne Töpfer, Dr. Marco Rossani, Dr. Federico Poole and Dr. Sara Demichelis for having given me access to the originals in Turin and having provided the high resolution images.

  • 1   Seidl 1962, p. 16; el-Amir 1974, pp. 111–112; Pestman 1989a, p. 8; Vandorpe 2009, pp. 219–220.
  • 2   TM Arch 141.
  • 3   Rubensohn 1907, p. 34; Spiegelberg 1908, p. 7; Seidl 1962, pp. 45–46, no 36; Lüddeckens 1986, p.  (...)
  • 4   Carnarvon 1912, p. 8; Carter 1912, p. 43; Spiegelberg 1932, p. 116, no 50164; el-Amir 1974, p. 11 (...)
  • 5   TM Arch 203.
  • 6   Fisher 1924, p. 45; Reich 1938a, p. 12; Reich 1938b, pp. 7–8; Glanville 1939, p. XX, n. 4; el-Ami (...)
  • 7   el-Amir 1974, p. 112; Lüddeckens 1974, p. 235; Lüddeckens 1986, p. 881, no VI A; Farid 2005, p. 3 (...)
  • 8   TM Arch 440.

1Only a few documents dated to the Ptolemaic period were discovered during archaeological excavations in their original depository: inside jars or boxes, placed in a hidden spot of a building.1 Among the known cases, one can mention the Graeco-Demotic papers of the praktôr Milôn:2 currently kept in Berlin after being discovered by Otto Rubensohn in 1906 on the island of Elephantine, they were contained in a round-bellied jar, which was lying destroyed on the floor of a narrow cellar.3 In 1911, Howard Carter and the Earl of Carnarvon found two Demotic papyri belonging to Paôs and Psenêsis, sons of Paneithês, in a vessel under a Ptolemaic mud-brick tomb in Dra Abou el-Naga.4 On February 22nd, 1922, the University of Pennsylvania Museumʼs mission, led by Clarence S. Fisher, uncovered the Demotic archive of Psenminis son of Bellês and of his wife Tamounis5 inside two jars on the same site, in the corner of a Ptolemaic house leaning against the pylon of a nineteenth dynasty tomb (TT 156).6 A similar discovery in analogous circumstances was made in 1962 in Tuna el-Gebel by Cairo University,7 yielding the bilingual archive of Teôs son of Hôros.8

  • 9   Rubensohn 1907, p. 66; Clarysse 2003, pp. 17–18, p. 24, nos 1–2 and 4, p. 26, no 23.
  • 10   Reich 1936, pp. 14-29; Reich 1938a, pp. 13-18; Reich 1938b, pp. 8–14; Reich 1938c, pp. 8–12 and 1 (...)
  • 11   TM Arch 248.

2Even under these circumstances, the way individual texts were packed together and arranged within their containers has rarely been noted by excavators. O. Rubensohn stated that P.Eleph.Dem. 7 + P.Eleph. 7 and P.Eleph. 8 on one hand, and on the other P.Eleph.Dem. 6 + P.Eleph. 6 and P.Eleph.Dem. 5 + P.Eleph. 26, all from Milônʼs archive, were rolled one inside the other.9 As for the papyri of Psenminis son of Bellês and of his wife Tamounis, Nathaniel J. Reich recorded their distribution between the two jars and the numbering given to them in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, where they were unrolled.10 The fact that different texts received the same inventory numbers (P.Fam.Theb. 7 and 14; P.Fam.Theb. 21 and 23; P.Fam.Theb. 1+31 and 22; P.Fam.Theb. 12, 19, 27, 28, 29 and 32) might be the only indication that they actually belong together. The importance of this kind of information can be proven by a fortunate case, provided by a small group of texts coming from the largest Ptolemaic bilingual archive found intact so far: the one belonging to Totoês son of Zmanrês and to his wife Tatehathyris.11

1. The discovery and the unrolling of the papyri

  • 12   Uggetti 2021.
  • 13   Vitelli 1929, pp. 15–35.
  • 14   Botti 1967. On the publication history of the archive, see Kato 2019, pp. 136–137.
  • 15   Del Vesco, Poole 2018, pp. 110 and 114–118; Uggetti 2021.

3During the 1905 field season of the “Missione Archeologica Italiana” (MAI) in Deir el-Medina, two sealed vases were unearthed, probably on February 14th by Roberto Paribeni,12 containing 61 texts from the 2nd century BC written in Demotic and Greek on papyri and linen strips. Ernesto Schiaparelli, at that time director of both the archaeological mission and the Museo Egizio, sent them to Turin, where the entire batch is now inventoried as P. Turin Suppl. 6068-6125. The documents were published separately: at first, the Greek papyri in 1929 by Girolamo Vitelli;13 then, in 1967, the Demotic texts by Giuseppe Botti.14 Both editors supplied only scant information on the matter, but thanks to the photographic documentation of the MAI, it has been possible to precisely locate the discovery: in the recess of a wall among the ruins of House H (or of a later structure built over it), to the south of the 19th Dynasty Chapel G, at the northernmost edge of the cluster of cult buildings north of the Ptolemaic enclosure wall of the temple of Hathor.15

  • 16   Uggetti 2021.

4Although G. Botti affirmed that both jars entered the Museo Egizio in Turin still sealed, two letters written by Schiaparelli reveal that at least one of them had already been opened in Egypt shortly after the discovery. Different sources state that all the papyri of the archive were wrapped in linen cloths or strips, forming only 33 or 34 scrolls on the whole: accordingly, some of them were rolled up together. A number was assigned to each roll: some of these numbers were written in pencil on photos sent by E. Schiaparelli to Francis L. Griffith for a preliminary study of the Demotic material. Later, Henry F.H. Thompson, Stephen R.K. Glanville and Mustafa M. el-Amir, who saw those images before G. Bottiʼs editio princeps, provided some of the numbers in scattered publications. G. Botti himself recorded many of them in his drafts, but he came across several losses and discrepancies, which in the end induced him to omit this kind of data from his final work.16

  • 17   P. Turin Suppl. 6109 = TM 45107.
  • 18   Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 179.
  • 19   Pestman 1985, p. 169, n. 8; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, pp. 396–398; Kato 2019, p.  (...)
  • 20   el-Amir 1960, p. 225, no 40.
  • 21   Pestman 1985, p. 181, n. *. In his drafts, G. Botti first noted the number 11, then he rectified (...)

5The only exception concerns P.Tor.Botti 35:17 Botti remarked that it enveloped a bundle of papyri and that P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C was one of them.18 Later, without revealing his source, Pieter W. Pestman confirmed this statement and added to the list both P.Tor.Botti 34 A and 36: these four papyri together constituted the scroll number 11.19 The fact of having been wrapped together stresses a strong, not otherwise obvious connection between these documents, which therefore deserve to be studied as a whole. For the sake of completeness, P.Tor.Botti 40 needs to be included in the analysis because it is relevant to P.Tor.Botti 36, even though it was not rolled up with the other papyri: although M.M. el-Amir ascribed also P.Tor.Botti 40 to the scroll number 11,20 P.W. Pestman traced back its origin to scroll number 18.21

  • 22   P. Turin Suppl. 6102 = TM 45106. The inventory number indicated in G. Botti’s editio princeps is (...)
  • 23   P. Turin Suppl. 6085 = TM 45108.
  • 24   P. Turin Suppl. 6100 = TM 47146.
  • 25   P. Turin Suppl. 6096 = TM 45111.
  • 26   “Promissorischer Eid”: see Kaplony-Heckel 1963, vol. 1, pp. 9 and 17; Lippert 2008 (ed. 2012), p. (...)
  • 27   On the existence of only one sanctuary devoted to Hathor in Western Thebes in the Graeco-Roman pe (...)
  • 28   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 15; P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 12–13. See Pestman 1985, pp. 168–170; Allam 2002, pp (...)
  • 29   On the transliteration of this word, see Chauveau 2020, pp. 4–10, pace Hoffmann, Quack 2014, pp.  (...)
  • 30   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 10–11; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 10. See Lanciers 2014, p. 113; Kato 2019, p. 138.
  • 31   P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, ll. 2–3; P.Tor.Botti 40, ll. 1–2.
  • 32   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 12–13; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 11.
  • 33   Łajtar 2006, p. 72.

6P.Tor.Botti 34 A22 and P.Tor.Botti 3623 are legal documents, while P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C24 and P.Tor.Botti 4025 are promissory temple oaths.26All these documents were stored in the archive of Totoês because he belonged to one of the parties involved: nȝ ẖl-ʿy.w n pȝ rpy / n nȝ wʿb.w n Ḥw.t-Ḥr, “the presbyteroi (or elders) of the temple27 / of the priests of Hathor”, usually six in number.28 The list of their members is preceded by the titles they all shared: wn-pr29 n Ỉmn n Ḏmȝ ḥm-nṯr n Ḥw.t-Ḥr ḥnw.t ỉmnṱ, “pastophoros of Amun of Djême, divine servant of Hathor, mistress of the West”.30 Given that his name was mentioned either in first31 or in second place,32 Totoês was one of the most prominent members of this representative body in Deir el-Medina in the year 100 BC, when all these texts were written33.

  • 34   For the letters given to the members of this family, see Uggetti 2020b, pp. 60–62.
  • 35   Zauzich 1973, p. 65: Botti 1967, vol. 1, pp. 174 and 181 transliterated qnb.t.
  • 36   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 5–8 ; P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 6–8. See Łajtar 2006, pp. 72 and 75; Hoffmann, Qu (...)
  • 37   Kaplony-Heckel 1963, vol. 1, pp. 348–350; Botti 1967, vol. 1, pp. 174–175, 178–179, 181–182, 184, (...)
  • 38   Wb II, p. 413.12-26 ; DemGloss, pp. 256–257.
  • 39   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 10; P.Tor.Botti 35, l. 1; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 8 and vo, l. 1; P.Tor.Botti 40, (...)
  • 40   el-Amir 1960, p. 220, no 25; el-Amir 1969, p. 116; Zauzich 1973, pp. 65–66 and 68. Łajtar 2006, p (...)

7The other party was composed of three brothers (in two instances, just of one of them): Harsiêsis (B), Amenôthês and Pikôs, sons of Chestephnachthis (B).34 They are introduced by the following titles: sẖ wn-pr n mn n Ḏmȝ ḥm-nṯr n Ḥw.t-Ḥr ḥnw.t ỉmnṱ ḥm-nṯr wʿb wn-pr ỉȝw.t35 nb.t sḥn nb n sẖ-nsw.t mn-ḥtp sȝ Ḥp, “scribe, pastophoros of Amun of Djême, divine servant of Hathor, mistress of the West, divine servant, priest, pastophoros, (in charge of) every permanent and every temporary function of the royal scribe Amenôthês son of Hapu”.36As in the case of the presbyteroi, their enumeration is followed by the designation of the board they represented, also used in other texts as a collective term to evoke them without mentioning them by name. The term used was transliterated by Ursula Kaplony-Heckel, G. Botti, P.W. Pestman, Willy Clarysse, Jan K. Winnicki and I. Kato as rwḏ, “agent”,37 written with the bowstring sign (catalogued as T 12 in Gardinerʼs hieroglyphic sign list), which has the same phonetic value.38However, in four over five papyri of this small lot, this qualification is determined by the seated man with hand to mouth:39 this prompted M.M. el-Amir and Karl-Theodor Zauzich to suggest the correction ḥs, “singers”.40A closer look at the content of the texts sheds more light on the matter.

2. P.Tor.Botti 34 A: a discharge from previous agreements

[Fig. 1; pl. 1]

  • 41   Pestman 1978, p. 195; Huß 2001, p. 653, n. 95; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, p. 396; (...)
  • 42   As already noted by Zauzich 1968, vol. 1, pp. 209–210, no 38.
  • 43   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 5: m-sȝ tȝ nẖb.t n nȝ Pr-ʿȝʿ.w.s..w, “after the titulary of the sovereigns”. (...)
  • 44   A similar process can be found in Roman Soknopaiou Nêsos: P.Dime II 56–69. See Lippert, Schentule (...)
  • 45   Kato 2019, p. 138; Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55, 61 and 64–65.
  • 46   Kato 2019, pp. 139–140 and 145–147.

8The first document in chronological order is P.Tor.Botti 34 A: it bears the date of Tybi 1 of the year 14 of Ptolemy X Alexander I, mentioned together with his wife Cleopatra Berenike III and his son Alexander (the future sovereign Ptolemy XI), which corresponds to January 15th, 100 BC.41 Albeit not made explicit by the text, it is possible to determine that it is a copy,42 because the formula that cuts short the protocol is attested in other Demotic documents that are clearly duplicates.43 The original, if not a reciprocal receipt issued by the presbyteroi,44 was probably given to one of the three sons of Chestephnachthis (B) – Harsiêsis (B), Amenôthês or Pikôs – who formed the first contracting party in ll. 5–10, if it was not directly kept by Amenôthês, who was also the official scribe of the legal document according to ll. 29-30, undersigned by his two brothers in ll. 31–32.45 The body of the text reads as follows.46

Fig. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm (detail).

Fig. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

  • 47   For this writing of the past tense relative form of the verb ỉ.ỉr plus suffix pronoun, used when (...)
  • 48   On the transliteration of the term, see Zauzich 1987, pp. 83–84; Ritner 2002, p. 357; CDD Ḥ, pp.  (...)
  • 49   On this form of the imperfective periphrastic participle of the verb ỉr, with loss of the prothet (...)
  • 50   This formula, in the variant ỉ.ỉr ỉy n-ḏr.t⸗k, is found in discharge receipts from Soknopaiou Nês (...)
  • 51   As in P.Tor.Botti 34 B, l. 21, the horizontal stroke could be read either as n or as an archaic r(...)
[16] twn m n pȝy bȝk r.ỉrtn [16] We are paid in full for this bȝk-document which you drew up
[17] n nsw-tȝyf-nḫṱ.t sȝ r-sȝ-s.t pȝyn ỉt. r pȝy krkr [17] for Chestephnachthis son of Harsiêsis, our father, regarding these 17 talents,
[18] 17 nʿ bȝk nb s nb r.ỉrtn nʿ hy nb he [18] and (for) every bȝk-document and every sẖ-document which you drew up, and (for) every maintenance expenditure and every expense
[19] nb ỉ.ỉrf47 n pȝ rpy n w.t-r tȝ ȝ.t r hn r [19] which he previously made in the temple of Hathor, until
[20] sb.t48 17 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr49 sb.t 14 ỉbd-4 ȝ.t sw ʿrqy nʿ nȝ.w-ỉrn ʿn r hn r [20] regnal year 17 which corresponds to regnal year 14, Choiak, last day, and (for) those which we made ourselves until
[21] sb.t 17 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr sb.t 14 ỉbd-4 ȝ.t sw ʿrqy pȝ ssw hrw nty ry ʿn [21] regnal year 17 which corresponds to regnal year 14, Choiak, last day, the date already mentioned above.
[22] mn md.t ỉwn ʿš m-sȝtn n-ỉms ỉwtn m n [22] There is nothing on account of which we have a claim on you, whereas you are paid in full for
[23] ḥḏ nwb prt mt bs nty nb nkt nb (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr ỉw r-r.t.f50 n [23] silver, gold, grain, copper, clothing, all and everything of which he took delivery, namely
[24] nsw-tȝyf-nḫṱ.t sȝ r-sȝ-s.t pȝyn ỉt. nʿ nȝ ỉ.ỉr ỉr [24] Chestephnachthis son of Harsiêsis, our father, and (for) that which we took
[25] ỉw r-r.t.n ʿn r hn r sb.t 17 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr sb.t 14 ỉbd-4 ȝ.t sw ʿrqy [25] delivery of ourselves until regnal year 17 which corresponds to regnal year 14, Choiak, last day,
[26] pȝ ssw hrw nty ry ʿn pȝ rm n-ỉmn nty ỉwf r sȝ. r tm ỉr r- [26] the date already mentioned above. The one of us who will refuse to act ac-
[27] -(.t) md.t nb.t nty ry ỉwf r dỉ.t ḥḏ 30 000 r krkr 100 r ḥḏ 30 000 ʿn n bʿ.t [27] cording to everything mentioned above, he will give 30 000 deben, that is 100 talents, that is again 30 000 deben, at (the rate of) 24 obols
[28] 24 r qd.t 2 ỉww m-sȝf n51 dỉ.t ỉrf r-(.t) md.t nb.t nty ry ʿn n tre. [28] to 2 kite, whereas one can still assert a claim against him in order to force him to act according to everything mentioned above of necessity,
[29] ỉw.ty mn ỉw.ty sh̭ nb [29] without delay and without any obstruction.

9The purpose of this sẖ-document is to acknowledge that neither party is in arrears on its payments to the other for a time period ending on the previous day. For the three brothers, this discharge regarded three elements:

– The content of any kind of agreement, both bȝk and sẖ, drawn up for their father Chestephnachthis (B) by the presbyteroi, especially a bȝk-document concerning the amount of 17 talents (ll. 16–18);

– Any maintenance expenditure and any expense made by their father for the temple of Hathor (ll. 18–20);

  • 52   Kato 2019, p. 143.

– Any similar activity or investment they did themselves (ll. 20–21).52

10The three sons of Chestephnachthis (B) stated that they owed the elders none of the items of which their father and they themselves had taken delivery on account of the temple (ll. 22–26).

11It is evident from the text that until January 15th, 100 BC, the presbyteroi only drew up documents for Chestephnachthis (B): even if it is stated that his sons also performed some duties in the temple of Hathor, they acted without any legal recognition.

3. P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C: a promissory temple oath

[Fig. 2 and pl. 2; Fig. 3]

  • 53   Uggetti 2016, pp. 157–175.

12The second papyrus to be analysed is P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C: an oath by Amun-of-the-Ogdoad.53 Compared to the previous document, the order of the two parties is inverted: here, it is the presbyteroi who give their solemn pledge to Harsiêsis (B) son of Chestephnachthis (B) and “his brothers”, Amenôthês and Pikôs. Moreover, a third party drafted the oath: the private scribe Amenôthês son of Teôs. Even if he did not revise the dating formula in light of the contemporary political situation – still noting the equivalence between the regnal years of Cleopatra III and those of Ptolemy X Alexander I as if the former were still alive – in ll. 26–27 he indicated the day when the text of the oath was written: January 15th, 100 BC, the same as P.Tor.Botti 34 A. According to Bottiʼs publication, text B is the one on the recto.

Fig. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).

Fig. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

  • 54   For an explanation of the writing of this godʼs name, see Uggetti 2016, pp. 170–171, n. 74.
  • 55   The translation proposed by G.R. Hughes in Kaplony-Heckel 1968, p. 148, seems to be the most suit (...)
  • 56   The reading is doubtful. At any rate, it is worth noting the mention of ḏȝ(.t) in contexts referr (...)
  • 57   The slight variations in the vertical strokes seem to imply a metathesis between yod and s, inste (...)
  • 58   A search for this formulation on the website of the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (query 1) has bro (...)
  • 59   Mistake of concordance of the plural suffix with the antecedent, that is the singular rmṯ in l. 1 (...)
[10] ʿn mn-nȝyw- [10] By Amun-of-the-
[11] -mn.w-ỉw54 nty tp dy ỉrm nr nb [11] -Ogdoad who dwells here and every god
[12] nty tp dy ỉrmf twn n [12] who dwells here with him! We act in
[13] pȝytn ʿš-sn nfr bn-ỉwn šm [13] your interest55. We will not go
[14] n pȝytn ʿš‹-sn› bỉn [14] against your interest
[15] n ȝy (n) sb.t 17 (ỉ.)ỉr sb.t 14 tpy pr.t (sw-)1 r ry [15] from regnal year 17 which corresponds to regnal year 14, Tybi, day 1 onwards.
[16] twn n pȝ ʿš-sn nfr n [16] We act in the interest of
[17] pȝ rpy w.t-r twn [17] the temple of Hathor. We are
[18] m-sȝk ỉrm nȝyk sn.w n tȝy rnp.t [18] entitled to assert a claim against you and your brothers during these 5 years,
[19] 5.t nty wȝn ỉr nk sn r-rw n ȝy (n) sb.t 17 [19] with regard to which we have drawn up for you a fiduciary agreement from regnal year 17
[20] (ỉ.)ỉr sb.t 14 tpy pr(.t) (sw-)1 r ry bn-ỉwn [20] which corresponds to regnal year 14, Tybi, day 1 onwards. We will not
[21] ỉr ȝ.w56 n dỉ.t ỉr pȝ rpy [21] commit any offence(?) to cause the temple
[22] w.t-r ȝys57 bn-ỉw [22] of Hathor to suffer loss. We will not
[23] n ỉr ry.t58 r-rtn n tȝy rnp.t 5.t [23] take sides(?) against you during these 5 years.
[24] pȝ rm nty ỉwf (r) pr n pȝ ʿš-sn [24] The one who will act against the interest
[25] bỉn n pȝ rpy `ỉwn (r) pr´ n [25] of the temple, we will act against
[26] pȝyw59 ʿš‹-sn› bỉn [26] their (sic!) interest.

13On the verso of the same papyrus (text C), Amenôthês son of Teôs made an addition.

Fig. 3. P.Tor.Botti 34 C = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 vo = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).

Fig. 3. P.Tor.Botti 34 C = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 vo = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

  • 60   The word is used as an abbreviated closing formula, especially in letters or in oracle questions: (...)
[1] pȝ rm nty ỉwf pr n pȝ [1] The one who will act against the
[2] ʿš-sn bỉn nȝ rw.w [2] interest of the agents
[3] ỉrm pȝ rpy ỉwn (r) pr [3] and of the temple, we will act
[4] n `pȝyʿš-sn bỉn [4] against his interest
[5] ỉrm nȝyw ỉry.w [5] and (that of) their (sic!) companions.
[6] s60 [6] Written.

14Even if there had been prior arguments between the parties, the discharge contained in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, stating that each of them was satisfactorily paid without any further claim, cleared the way for a new agreement on the same day. By P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, the elders bound themselves not to hinder the three brothersʼ activity, probably also not to act detrimentally to the temple of Hathor, but reserving the right to proceed against Chestephnachthis (B)ʼs sons or anyone else who might act against the sanctuaryʼs interest. The verso expands upon the last sentence on the recto, in order to include the three brothers into the protection granted to the temple against third parties and to broaden its effectiveness, potentially prosecuting more people in case of a legal controversy. P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 19–21 did not specify the previous time span taken into account, while P.Tor.Botti 34 B, ll. 18 and 23 stresses twice that the new concession provided a tenure of five years. The same term is found in two documents written three months later.

4. P.Tor.Botti 36: a fiduciary agreement concerning collection-boxes

[fig. 4 ; pl. 4]

  • 61   Huß 2001, p. 653, n. 95; Depauw 2008, p. 140.
  • 62   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55, 61 and 64.

15The last papyrus enveloped in the scroll number 11 is P.Tor.Botti 36. Dated to Pharmuthi 3 of the year 14 of Ptolemy X Alexander I, that is April 17th, 100 BC,61 this agreement “in front of Hathor” only concerns Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B) and the elders of the goddess’ priests. As in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, the king is in co-regency with both Cleopatra Berenike III and his son Alexander, and the official scribe is Amenôthês himself, as shown by ll. 26–27.62

Fig. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm (detail).

Fig. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

  • 63   For this word and the debate about the extension of its meaning, see Wångstedt 1954, p. 149, n. t (...)
  • 64   On the translation of the term as “forecourt” in the specific architectonical context of the temp (...)
  • 65   For the expression ẖr n ṯȝy n, whose Coptic equivalent is ϩⲁ-ϫⲓⲛ (Crum 1939, p. 773), see the not (...)
  • 66   For the reading of this group of fractions, see Nims 1958, p. 241, n. g; Chauveau 1986, pp. 26–27 (...)
  • 67   For the independent conjunctive with the value of an injunctive future, see Spiegelberg 1925, pp. (...)
  • 68   On the term šdy, specifically used in Theban receipts from the reigns of Claudius and Nero for th (...)
  • 69   Despite the arguments advanced by Colin 2016, p. 55, n. 57 for his translation “en dépenses de no (...)
  • 70   On the translation, see Pestman 1963, p. 14, n. b; Jasnow 1982, pp. 18–20, n. f; Colin 2016, p. 5 (...)
  • 71   For this verb, see DemGloss, p. 282; Wb III, p. 204.1-5; Zauzich 1976, p. 82, n. to l. 10; CDD Ḥ, (...)
[13] sntn ny tȝ ʿf.t63 n fṱḥ n pȝ rpy n w.t-r [13] You entrusted to me the collection-box of the forecourt64 of the temple of Hathor
[14] nʿ tȝ ʿf.t 2.t n pȝ dmy r n ȝy n65 sb.t 17 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr sb.t 14 tpy pr(.t) sw-1 r sb.t 22 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr sb.t 19 [14] and the two collection-boxes of the village from regnal year 17 which corresponds to regnal year 14, Tybi, day 1 to regnal year 22 which corresponds to regnal year 19,
[15] ỉbd-4 ȝ.t sw ʿrqy r rnp.t 5.t r ỉbd 60 2/3 1/666 r rnp.t 5.t ʿn mtwy67 ỉr nȝ šdy.w n pȝ dmy [15] Choiak, last day, that is 5 years, that is 60 5/6 months, that is again 5 years. And I shall attend to the collection68 of the village
[16] r-(.t) pȝ sn r rnp.t n nȝ ssw.w nty ry mtwy dỉ.t pȝytn 1/4 n nȝ ḥḏ.w nȝ prt.w [16] according to the custom every year in the period mentioned above. And I shall give your quarter of the money and of the grain
[17] nty ỉww r ỉr ỉw r-r.t.y r w.t-r n nȝ ssw.w nty ry r ỉbd mtwy ỉr pȝ ky 1/2 1/4 [17] of which I will take delivery on behalf of Hathor in the period mentioned above every month. And I shall use the other three quarters
[18] n hy he r.t mỉ-nn r-(.t) pȝ sn r rnp.t ỉrm nȝ ḥḏ.w nȝ nwb.w nty ỉww r dỉ.t st [18] for maintenance expenditures, expenses and69 provisions likewise70 according to the custom every year, and the silver and the gold which will be given
[19] r ḥḏw71 n nwb r tȝ gw.t n w.t-r ỉw bn-ỉwy ỉr hy he ỉw.ty šntn [19] for covering with gold the shrine of Hathor, while I will not make maintenance expenditures or expenses without asking you.
[20] mtwy ỉn pȝ ỉp n w.t-r ỉ.ỉr-rtn n pȝ hrw nty ỉ.ỉrtn r šn.y r-rf [20] And I shall bring the ledger of Hathor before you on the day on which you will demand it from me.
[21] n-ỉmf ỉn-nȝw sb.t 22 (ỉ.)ỉr ỉr sb.t 19 ỉbd-4 ȝ.t sw ʿrqy pȝ mnq n tȝ rnp.t 5.t nty ry pr [21] When regnal year 22 which corresponds to regnal year 19, Choiak, last day, the completion of the five years mentioned above, comes,
[22] mtwy ȝʿ nȝ ʿf.t.w nty ry ỉ.ỉr-rtn mtwtn sn.w n pȝ rm nty ỉ.ỉrtn r mr sn.w [22] I shall leave the collection-boxes mentioned above to you and you will entrust them to whom you will want to entrust them.
[23] nf bn-ỉwy r d sn pȝy ỉw wbf rnp.t mtwy ỉr ntn r-.t.f n ssw nb [23] I will not be able to say: “It is a fiduciary agreement that has been extended for a year.” And I shall act towards you according to it at any date.
[24] pȝ rm n-ỉmn nty ỉwf r sȝ. r tm ỉr r-(.t) md.t nb.t nty ry ỉwf r dỉ.t ḥḏ 3 000 r krkr 10 r ḥḏ 3 000 ʿn [24] The one of us who will refuse to act according to everything mentioned above, he will give 3 000 deben, that is 10 talents, that is again 3 000 deben
[25] m-bȝ w.t-r ỉwf r dỉ.t ky ḥḏ 3 000 r nȝ gll.w n nȝ Pr-ʿȝʿ.w.s..w ỉww m-sȝf n dỉ.t [25] in front of Hathor and will give another 3 000 deben for the holocausts of the sovereignsl.s.h., while one can still assert a claim against him in order to force
[26] ỉrf r-(.t) md.t nb.t nty ry ʿn n tre. ỉw.ty mn ỉw.ty sh̭ nb [26] him to act according to everything mentioned above of necessity, without delay and without any obstruction.
  • 72   Colin 2016, p. 55.

16As made clear in l. 14, the beginning of Amenôthêsʼ appointment was backdated: the deal is said to have entered into force on Tybi 1 of the same year, meaning it includes the three-month period during which he was already charged with the task together with his brothers Harsiêsis (B) and Pikôs. Several times, in ll. 14–15, 21 and also on the verso, it is recalled that the term was supposed to span five years.72

  • 73   Ll. 13–19 were transliterated and translated also by Colin 2016, pp. 55–56.
  • 74   Nur el-Din 1974, p. 21, n. to l. 2; Vleeming 1987, p. 154, n. 32.
  • 75   Birk 2020, p. 116 and p. 422, n. 589.
  • 76   Colin 2016, pp. 43, 56 and 67.
  • 77   Rubensohn 1907, pp. 43–44; Wilcken 1913, pp. 211–213; Clarysse 2003, pp. 17–18, 21 and p. 25, no  (...)

17Amenôthês reported in detail his duties, which mainly consisted in the management of three collection-boxes that the elders entrusted to him (ll. 13–14):73 one in the forecourt of the temple of Hathor and two others in the village, probably Djême (modern Medinet Habu). Another papyrus attesting the management of such collection-boxes, also for a temple of Hathor but in another town (Gebelein), is P.Cair. II 30699, l. 8.74 It seems likely that the two collection-boxes in the village were reserved for the deposit of money and grain respectively, but the one in the forecourt of the sanctuary was probably a real box for money offerings by pilgrims going there, situated next to the main gate.75 In any case, all these donations, made by the common folk, were destined for Hathor. Every month, Amenôthês had to cede to the presbyteroi one quarter of this income (ll. 16–17). Then, he was to use the other three quarters, on a yearly basis, for “maintenance expenditures, expenses and provisions likewise”, no doubt for the upkeep of the Ptolemaic temple of Deir el-Medina, but he was not allowed to undertake major interventions without the consent of the elders (ll. 17–19). There were also gifts of gold and silver, probably as raw metals or as small jewels to remelt, intended for gilding a shrine of the goddess (ll. 18–19).76 Amenôthês acknowledged his financial functions in l. 20, where he affirmed he was keeping the accounts of the Hathor temple, which he would have to produce when requested by the presbyteroi (in a similar way, but on a far smaller scale, like what was demanded from the praktôr Milôn in P.Eleph. 10 and 11 for the great temple of Edfou).77 The end of the text warned that breach of the terms of this agreement would be punished with a penalty of 10 talents for Hathor and another 10 talents for the burnt offerings to the pharaohs.

5. P.Tor.Botti 40: the promissory temple oath relevant to P.Tor.Botti 36

[fig. 5; pl. 3]

  • 78   Uggetti 2016, pp. 169–170, n. 71.
  • 79   Pestman 1985, p. 169.

18Left out of scroll number 11, P.Tor.Botti 40 is nonetheless the promissory oath connected to P.Tor.Botti 36. Like P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, it was to be sworn in the name of Amun-of-the-Ogdoad and, as explicitly noted in the insert above l. 7, in the courtyard of the small temple of Medinet Habu.78 The text is neither signed nor dated, but it was without doubt prepared on the same day as the legal document it correlates with.79

Fig. 5. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm (detail).

Fig. 5. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

  • 80   A parallel for this phrase, also repeated in l. 18, in case of lawsuits is found in P.Cair. II 30 (...)
  • 81   So far, this seems to be the only attestation of this nominalised term where it might not designa (...)
[8] ʿn mn-nȝyw-mn.w-ỉw nty tp [8] By Amun-of-the-Ogdoad who dwells
[9] dy ỉrm nr nb nty tp dy ỉrmf [9] here and every god who dwells here with him!
[10] ỉwn r pr ỉrmk80 n tȝy rnp.t 5.t [10] We will support you during these 5 years,
[11] nty wȝk ỉr sn r-rw nn bn-ỉwn [11] with regard to which you have drawn up a fiduciary agreement for us. We will not
[12] […] bn-ỉwn ỉr [12] [...] We will not appoint
[13] gr rm n rw (r-)bnrk n tȝy rnp.t 5.t [13] anybody else but you as agent during these 5 years.
[14] twn n pȝyk sn nfr twn [14] We act in your interest. We act
[15] n pȝ sn nfr n pȝ rpy [15] in the interest of the temple
[16] n w.t-r pȝ d qnb(.t)81 [16] of Hathor. The litigant
[17] nty ỉwf r ỉy r pȝ mȝʿ w.t-r [17] who will come to the place of Hathor,
[18] ỉwn r pr ỉrmk wbȝf n [18] we will support you against him in
[19] gy nb [19] any way.

19The commitments of the elders of Hathor towards Amenôthês are not that different from those in P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C: they pledge to defend him against any legal action, reassuring him that they would name nobody instead of him during his five yearsʼ appointment, the length of which is repeated in ll. 10 and 13. As in the other temple oath, from the priestsʼ point of view, the interests of Amenôthês and of the sanctuary are considered as naturally convergent.

6. P.Tor.Botti 35: the archival note of the scroll number 11 

[fig. 6]

  • 82   Kato 2019, p. 138.

20As previously remarked, P.Tor.Botti 35 wrapped together P.Tor.Botti 34 A, 34 B+C and 36 in one scroll. The following line recorded its content82, showing a gap in the middle for the passage of the string that was tied around the bundle.

Fig. 6. P.Tor.Botti 35 = P. Turin Suppl. 6109 ro = TM 45107. W. × H.: 30,5 × 14,5 cm (detail).

Fig. 6. P.Tor.Botti 35 = P. Turin Suppl. 6109 ro = TM 45107. W. × H.: 30,5 × 14,5 cm (detail).

© Museo Egizio, Turin

[1] pȝ sn n nȝ rw.w n w.t-r vacat ỉrm pȝ wy ỉrm pȝ bȝk n ʿn [1] The fiduciary agreement of the agents of Hathor, the discharge and the document of oath.

21Pȝ wy refers to P.Tor.Botti 34 A, the discharge that settled once and for all the matter of the earlier agreements, which had taken the form of both bȝk-documents and sẖ-documents, and are now lost, between Chestephnachthis (B) and the presbyteroi of the priests of Hathor. Pȝ sḥn n nȝ rwḏ.w n Ḥw.t-Ḥr refers to the subsequent fiduciary agreement that entered into force the same day, but this time between the elders and the three sons of Chestephnachthis (B), without the involvement of their father. Pȝ bȝk n ʿnḫ is P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, the promissory temple oath relevant to this second document. But this legal document is absent from the archive of Totoês: the bundle instead contained a third fiduciary agreement (P.Tor.Botti 36), stipulated a little over three months later, between Amenôthês alone and the presbyteroi, but retroactively taking effect from the same date as the second one. The plural nȝ rwḏ.w cannot indicate P.Tor.Botti 36, given that from then on, there would have been only one agent of Hathor. This means that the archival note on P.Tor.Botti 35 was written on or soon after January 15th, 100 BC, when the discharge of the first agreements (P.Tor.Botti 34 A), the text of the (no longer existing) second one and its oath (P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C) were written, and that its papyrus support at first served to wrap these together. At any rate, it happened before April 17th, 100 BC, date of P.Tor.Botti 36: when one of the parties of the agreement changed three months later, the scroll was opened, the older agreement was thrown away and replaced by the new one (P.Tor.Botti 36), then just rolled up with the other two documents and, in the end, stored in one of Totoêsʼ jars. Noticeably, the transition from three agents of Hathor to one did not urge the archivist to modify the wording of P.Tor.Botti 35, by correcting rwḏ from plural to singular, but the mention of just one oath on the wrapper might have been the reason why he left P.Tor.Botti 40, the one relevant to P.Tor.Botti 36, out of the package, so that it was found separately by the Italian archaeological mission in 1905.

7. The title of Chestephnachthis (B)ʼs sons

22The tasks enumerated in P.Tor.Botti 36 involve collecting, if not all, then a big part of the sanctuaryʼs income, managing it in order to carry out both current affairs and major works for the temple (also evoked in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 18–19 and 23), and finally recording the accounts of all supervised financial operations. These activities seem to go beyond the competences of a ḥs, “singer”, and are more suited to those of a rwḏ, “agent”. At least three ostraca (O.Leid.Dem. 18, l. 2; O.Mattha 164, ll. 1–2; O.Wångstedt 53, l. 2) provide evidence of pȝ rwḏ / nȝ rwḏ.w n tȝ ʿfṱ(.t) / nȝ ʿfṱ.w, “the agent(s) of the collection-box(es)”: it is possible that this denotes the same charge as in P.Tor.Botti 36. Still, the seated man with hand to mouth at the end of the word is unexpected.

  • 83   Lüddeckens et al. 1981–2000, vol. I.12, pp. 880–881.
  • 84   Lüddeckens et al. 1981–2000, vol. I.9, pp. 680–682. For an explanation of the writing of this nam (...)
  • 85   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55 and 64.

23However, two of the documents presenting the title at issue with this determinative were explicitly signed by Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B): P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 29–30 and P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 26–27. Moreover, P.Tor.Botti 40 shows important graphic similarities with these two documents. For example, in the onomastic catalogue for the Ptolemaic period, the spellings of the names Chestephnachthis (Ḫnsw-tȝy⸗f-nḫṱ.t), written with the feminine ending after nḫṱ and the seated man as a determinative,83 and of Snachomneus (Ns-nȝy⸗w-Ḫmn.w-ỉw), with two divine standards (the one behind Ḫmn.w, the other at the end) and the final element ỉw drawn as two curved lines and a third, vertical stroke,84 can be found only in texts in the handwriting of members of Amenôthêsʼ family. As a consequence, I propose to assign P.Tor.Botti 40 to Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B), too.85 Accordingly, it is very likely that on the verso of P.Tor.Botti 36, signed by him, it was also he who recorded the archival note, displaying an identical orthography of the name Chestephnachthis (see Table 1). Finally, even if admitting that P.Tor.Botti 35 had not been composed by Amenôthês, at any rate its author would have used P.Tor.Botti 34 A and P.Tor.Botti 36 as reference points, since P.Tor.Botti 35 served as their archival note. Thus, the determinative of the seated man with hand to mouth in the spellings of the title giving account of the function of Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B) and his brothers seems only to appear in documents drawn up or influenced by him.

Table 1. The writings of the names “Chestephnachthis” and “Snachomneus”.

Chestephnachthis (nsw-tȝyf-nḫṱ.t) Snachomneus (Ns-nȝyw-mn.w-ỉw)
P.Tor.Botti 34 A Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 36 ro Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 36 vo Image
P.Tor.Botti 40 Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 34 B Image Image

24In the end, the only text surely not by Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B) is the temple oath P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, bearing the signature of the private scribe Amenôthês son of Teôs. In l. 2 of P.Tor.Botti 34 C, he employed the title detained in common by Harsiêsis (B) son of Chestephnachthis (B) and his brothers. Finally, not only the context – the presbyteroi stating that they would argue with whomever interfered with the interest of this office holder and of the temple of Hathor – but also the spelling with the bowstring sign call for the transliteration as rwḏ, “agent”. The comparison with the word bỉn, “bad”, clearly illustrates the identical results attained in Demotic by the graphic evolutions of both the bowstring sign and the bound enemy (Z 6 in Gardinerʼs hieroglyphic sign list), the latter occurring with most of the words burdened with negative meanings.

  • 86   DemGloss, p. 448. For the origin of the determinative, see Pestman 1994, vol. 2, p. 47, no Y 1 c.
  • 87   DemGloss, p. 446; Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 184, n. 1; CDD S, p. 352.

25So, the unusual writings of the term rwḏ, “agent”, with the determinative of the seated man with hand to mouth, could be explained as hypercorrections by Amenôthês son of Chestephnachthis (B). Probably unhappy that the title he was bearing himself had a determinative that could have been confused (or which he was the only one to confuse) with the one used for bad things, he might have preferred to replace it with the more neutral one of the seated man with hand to mouth. Furthermore, this is not the only instance in which Amenôthês took creative liberties with determinatives: on the verso of P.Tor.Botti 36, for the word sḥn, “fiduciary agreement; lease”, instead of the usual determinative, derived from the archaic form of the papyrus scroll with a stroke underneath86, he chose the cobra, used for the homophone sḥn, “crown” (see Table 2).87

Table 2. The writings of the words “agent” and “fiduciary agreement; lease”.

Agent (rw) Fiduciary Agreement; Lease (sn)
P.Tor.Botti 34 A Image
P.Tor.Botti 36 ro Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 40 Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 35 Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 36 vo Image Image
P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C Image Image
  • 88   P.Dime II 56: Thôth 1 – 28; P.Dime II 59: Thôth 1 – 5th epagomenal day; P.Dime II 63: Phaôphi ? – (...)
  • 89   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 48–49, 53–56, 60–61 and 64.

26It is not possible to know for certain why P.Tor.Botti 34 A was drafted on Tybi 1, but P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C implies that, from that same day onwards, Chestephnachthis (B) was no longer involved in the affairs of the temple of Hathor. This might have been due to his death. However, the discharge and the oath for a new agreement are both dated to the first day of the first month of the pr.t-season, which makes it look more like a planned transition. Furthermore, P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 18–20 seems to imply that Chestephnachthis (B) coped with his responsibilities until the previous day, Choiak 30. P.Dime II 56, 59, 63, 64 and 65 are Roman discharge receipts from Soknopaiou Nêsos which cover periods that start and stop roughly at the beginning or at the end of a month, possibly in connection with audit dates.88 Even if based on a different schedule, one might wonder whether a similar system was not also in effect in Ptolemaic Thebes. All these elements might suggest that Chestephnachthis (B) simply retired from his tasks, which his three sons took over. Given that he acted as witness in P. Ackerpacht., pp. 29-32, l. 31, written by his son Harsiêsis (B),89 Chestephnachthis (B) must still have been alive on November 16th, 101 BC, that is two months before P.Tor.Botti 34 A.

  • 90   Uggetti 2020a, pp. 76–79; Uggetti 2020b, pp. 60–65.

27In any case, P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 18–21 shows that not only Chestephnachthis (B), but also his three sons performed their duties until Choiak 30: this implies that they all collaborated and that the title of “agent of Hathor”, attributed there to Harsiêsis (B), Amenôthês and Pikôs, was previously borne also by their father. Such a constellation is also made plausible by the comparable organisation of their family activity as official scribes, their only additional occupation known from other documents: a collegial direction of Djêmeʼs scribal office by Chestephnachthis (B) and Harsiêsis (B) between 114 and 104 BC, then a cooperation of three, including Amenôthês until the years 101 and 100 BC, when Chestephnachthis (B) relinquished that post as well.90

  • 91   P.Oxf.Griffith 72, l. 5: ẖr nȝ ḥḏ.w ‹r.›šde⸗k ẖn tȝ wpy.t ḥsb.t 37 (Sandra L. Lippert, personal c (...)
  • 92   Lippert, Schentuleit 2005, p. 78; Lippert, Schentuleit 2006, pp. 2–3, 9, 18–19 and 236–237. The r (...)

28Soknopaiou Nêsos offers a similar general picture. In P.Oxf.Griffith 72 of March 23rd, 133 BC, the lesônis of Soknopaios and Isis Nefersês delivered a discharge receipt to “the agent of the priests” (pȝ rwḏ nȝ wʿb.w) “for the (amounts of) money (which) you raised from the collection of year 37”91: this implies that collecting money and other items for the management of the temple was one of the agentʼs main tasks. This is confirmed by P.Oxf.Griffith 61, dated to February 1st, 132 BC: a receipt that the priests and their agent gave in return to an individual for the supply of oil for lighting and of wine. In the Roman period, it seems that it was the “scribe of the priests” who acted as a trustee, taking delivery of and managing the incomes on behalf of the clergy, in addition to his duties as an accountant. Compared to the Theban region, the differences are that these charges were not hereditary and the length of the tenures was far shorter: one year, but with the possibility of serving several terms.92

8. Chestephnachthis (B)ʼs family and the Ptolemaic temple of Deir el-Medina

29Another element that deserves attention is the amount of money at the center of P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 17–18: 17 talents. In order to contextualize this, it is useful to look at Greek payment receipts of the transfer tax ensuing from some sales, which provide approximate contemporary values for real estate in Djême. P.Berl.Dem. II 3104 of March 16th, 103 BC and P.Berl.Dem. II 3105 of April 1st, 103 BC give two talents and half a talent respectively as prices for a sixth of the same building, which gives a price for the whole house between 3 and 12 talents.

  • 93   A search for this formula, combining the occurrences of the words sṯȝ.ṱ and tm, on the website of (...)
  • 94   As examples: P.Tor.Botti 17, ll. 24-25; P.Tor.Botti 21, l. 25; P.Batav. 1, l. 25; P.Tor.Botti 24, (...)

30Even if penalties in Demotic legal documents were always too high to be paid and not strictly connected to the value of the goods concerned, the amount of 100 talents, equivalent to 30 000 deben, in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 26–28, is exceptionally large.93 The one in P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 24–25, dealing with similar matters and involving a comparable number of people, amounts to no more than 20 talents. Just considering the archive of Totoês, the second highest fine is 30 talents in P.Tor.Botti 32, ll. 8–9 and Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXIII, pp. 182–183, n3, ll. 11–14, both dealing with hereditary issues, while it was usually of 2 talents in leases.94 This could point to the fact that it was particularly sensitive, not only the agreement itself attested by P.Tor.Botti 34 A, but also its object.

  • 95   Hughes, Nims 1940, pp. 247–248; Hughes 1957, p. 60; CDD H, pp. 4–11.
  • 96   Thissen, Zauzich 2018, p. 151, n. to l. 1.
  • 97   Thissen, Zauzich 2018, pp. 149–151.

31In P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 18–21, as well as in P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 17–19, the words hy and he are mentioned among the tasks already begun by Chestephnachthis (B) and his sons, and which were subsequently to be performed by Amenôthês in the temple of Hathor. George R. Hughes distinguished and explained these terms as follows: “construction, repair work” for hy, “expense” for he.95Recently, K.-T. Zauzich questioned the meaning proposed for hy in the edition of P.Fam.Theb. 30 and suggested equating hy and he and to translate both as “expenditure”.96 Even though he admitted that the best solution for rmṯ.w hy in col. I, l. 19 was still “workers”, he translated hy in col. I, l. 1 and col. II, l. 18 on one hand, and on the other he in col. II, l. 24 in exactly the same way, although they have different spellings and determinatives, just as in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 18 and P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 18–19. While K.-T. Zauzich cites the impossibility of classifying the necropolis tax (col. II, l. 25) under the category “work” as one of his arguments against G.H. Hughesʼ suggested translation of hy, this entry is in reality listed under he (col. II, l. 24). The disagreement between these two scholarsʼ positions can be solved by translating hy as “construction (costs)” for repair works: that would include the bricks, the doors, the locks and the masonsʼ wages and provisions listed for a Theban tomb in P.Fam.Theb. 30.97

  • 98   It is always the case for this term, usually written as gȝ(.t): Colin 2016, pp. 47, 52 and 56.
  • 99   Thissen 1989, p. 22, n. to l. 2. For the date, see Ricketts 1990, p. 51, n. 15; Ricketts 1992, p. (...)
  • 100   Uggetti 2016, pp. 157–175.
  • 101   One of these agents is called Pikôs sons of Chestephnachthis, but conclusive evidence for his ide (...)

32Thus, it is possible that the sum of 17 talents was spent, at least partially, for maintenance or repair of the Ptolemaic temple of Deir el-Medina. One possible project could have been the gilding of the shrine of Hathor mentioned in P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 19, the determinative of which indicates that it was made of wood.98 However, one might also take other kinds of interventions into account, notably on the sandstone structure still standing in situ. Moreover, in the same area, Graffito Medinet Habu 44, ll. 1–3 provides a connection between agents of a god and the inauguration of new buildings: on September 17th, 48 BC, the stratêgos Plênis alias Pamônthês son of Monkorês inaugurated the portico in front of the pylon of the small temple of Medinet Habu;99 besides him, there were the agents of Djême (to be understood here as the god Amun-of-the-Ogdoad, patron deity of the sanctuary),100 who were probably responsible for the job.101

  • 102   Bourguet 2008, pp. 16, 22, 32, 54 and 76. For a summary of the different building phases of this (...)
  • 103   Bourguet 2008, pp. 3, 28, 36, 40, 49, 56, 58, 60, 69, 78, 80, 82, 91, 92, 94, 98, 102, 107, 111, (...)
  • 104   Bourguet 2008, pp. 29–31, 36, 38, 91 and 96.
  • 105   Bourguet 2008, § 171–180.
  • 106   Bourguet 2008, p. 177.
  • 107   Bourguet 2008, p. 173.
  • 108   Daumas 1958, pp. 43–44 considered the surviving inscriptions on this structure not specific enoug (...)
  • 109   Bourguet 2008, p. 167.
  • 110   Both are not surrounded by holes, which could have bolstered beams for a wooden structure, as it (...)

33The reliefs of the three chapels at the rear of the Ptolemaic temple of Deir el-Medina, which form its original core, were executed partly under the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopatôr,102partly under Ptolemy VI Philomêtôr; it was also during the latterʼs reign that their portals as well as the pronaos and the staircase were decorated.103 Columns of hieroglyphs show interventions in the central chapel and in the pronaos at the time of Ptolemy VIII Euergetês II, Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III.104The cartouches on the entrance portal of the sanctuary were left empty,105while its enclosure gate was embellished during the reign of Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos.106Finally, a small mud-brick contra-temple was built and decorated under Augustus.107A structure attached to the lateral wall of the main sanctuaryʼs southern chapel, composed of two vaulted rooms of mud-bricks, is commonly called “mammisi”.108On the right side of the second chamber, the outer stone masonry of the temple was used as support for the engraving of two scenes, which bear the cartouches of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX Sôtêr II:109 the first representing Hathor holding on her knees a royal child with a sidelock of youth; the second, the same child with royal sceptres standing on a smȝ-tȝ.wy-representation.110

  • 111   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 51, 54–55 and 59–63.

34Given that Chestephnachthis (B) started his activity as official scribe in Djême in the last years of the joint reign of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX Sôtêr II111 and that, during the same period, he might have been agent of Hathor as well, one might suppose that he was in charge of the construction and decoration of the so-called “mammisi” of Deir el-Medina, or that he and his sons were responsible for the building of the temple portal, the cartouches of which were not filled.

  • 112   Statue Cairo JE 37075 (Cachette de Karnak 170): Coulon 2006, p. 16; Mekis 2016, pp. 388–390; Birk(...)
  • 113   Klotz 2009, p. 254 and Klotz 2012, pp. 296–297 argued that a group of Greek and Demotic λογεία-re (...)
  • 114   Short Texts I 183.
  • 115   Short Texts I 184, 187, 189, 200 and the Stele Petrie Museum UC 71136: Pasquali 2007, pp. 187–192
  • 116   Short Texts I 186 and 199.
  • 117   Short Texts I 202.
  • 118   Sokar-Osiris in Short Texts I 185; Geb in Short Texts I 186, 196, 197 and 201; Harpokrates in Sho (...)
  • 119   Short Texts I 179, 181, 183, 187-197, 199-202 and the Stele Petrie Museum UC 71136.
  • 120   Short Texts I 182, 185, 186 and 198.
  • 121   Reinach, Weill 1912, pp. 19–24; Farid 1988, pp. 13 and 55–57; Clarysse, Winnicki 1989, p. 46; Tra (...)

35Even if that was the case, they need not necessarily have been the ones who conceived the decorative program, as Ahmes son of Smendes had done for the inscriptions on a portal of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak under the reign of Nectanebo II.112 But it is likely that, in the Ptolemaic sanctuary of Deir el-Medina, Chestephnachthis (B) and his sons played a role similar to the one of Parthenios son of Paminis in Coptos, during the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius to Nero,113 who was in charge of the building of the barque of Isis,114 of enclosure walls for Isis, Geb and Harpokrates,115 of gates for Geb116, of a ceiling in the temple of Coptos117 and of monuments for different deities.118 It is no accident that he held the title of pȝ rwḏ (n) Ỉs(.t) (Qbt) in Demotic,119 προστάτης Ἴσιδος in Greek:120 “the agent of Isis (of Coptos)”.121

Pl. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm.

Pl. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm.

© Museo Egizio, Turin

Pl. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm.

Pl. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm.

© Museo Egizio, Turin

Pl. 3. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm.

Pl. 3. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm.

© Museo Egizio, Turin

Pl. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm.

Pl. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm.

© Museo Egizio, Turin

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Allam 2002
Allam, S., “Elders (Πρεσβύτεροι) – Notables – Great Men – rmṯ.w ʿȝ.yw - ẖl-ʿȝ.yw”, in K. Ryholt (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23-27 August 1999, CNIP 27, Copenhagen, 2002, pp. 1–26.

el-Amir 1959
el-Amir, M.M., A Family Archive from Thebes: Demotic Papyri in the Philadelphia and Cairo Museums from the Ptolemaic Period, 2 vols., Cairo, 1959.

el-Amir 1960
el-Amir, M.M., “The Unpublished Demotic Papyri in the Turin Museum”, AcOr (C) 25, 1960, pp. 203–228.

el-Amir 1969
el-Amir, M.M., “Further Notes on the Demotic Papyri in the Turin Museum (Topographical, Sociological and Legal Studies)”, BIFAO 68, 1969, pp. 85–120.

el-Amir 1974
El-Amir, M.M., “Varia Demotica”, in E. Kießling, H.-A. Rupprecht (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses: Marburg/Lahn, 2. bis 6. August 1971, MBPF 66, Munich, 1974, pp. 111–116.

Arlt 2009
Arlt, C., “Die thebanischen Notare”, in G. Widmer, D. Devauchelle (eds.), Actes du IXe Congrès International des Études Démotiques, BiEtud 147, Cairo, 2009, pp. 29–49.

Birk 2020
Birk, R., Türöffner des Himmels. Prosopographische Studien zur thebanischen Hohepriesterschaft der Ptolemäerzeit, ÄgAbh 76, Wiesbaden, 2020.

Botti 1964–1966
Botti, G., “Archivio da Deir-el-Medinet. Papiro: Suppl. 6096”, publication draft, 30 May 1964-19 May 1966, State Archive of Turin, Sections “Corte”, Collection “Botti”, folder 7, file 4.

Botti 1967
Botti, G., L’archivio demotico da Deir El-Medineh, 2 vols., CMT. Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi 1, Florence, 1967.

Bourguet 2008
Bourguet, P. du, Le temple de Deir al-Médîna, MIFAO 121, Cairo, 2008.

Bresciani 1983
Bresciani, E., “Un documento dellʼanno 15o di Domiziano dallʼarchivio templare di Dime. (P. Vindob. D 4852): le condizioni previste per lo scriba e l’addetto alle spese dei sacerdoti”, in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), Vienna, 1983, pp. 181–184 and pl. 6.

Carnarvon 1912
The Earl of Carnarvon, “Introduction”, in The Earl of Carnarvon, H. Carter (eds.), Five Years Explorations at Thebes. A Record of Work Done 1907-1911, London, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, 1912, pp. 1–11.

Carter 1912
Carter, H., “Ptolemaic Vaulted Graves”, in The Earl of Carnarvon, H. Carter (eds.), Five Years Explorations at Thebes. A Record of Work Done 1907-1911, London, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, 1912, pp. 42–45.

Cenival 1972
Cenival, F. de, Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques, 2 vols., BiEtud 46, Cairo, 1972.

Chauveau 1986
Chauveau, M., “Un compte en démotique archaïque : le Pap. Claude 1”, Enchoria 14, 1986, pp. 21–29 and pl. 13–14.

Chauveau 1995
Chauveau, M., “review of H.J. Thissen, Die demotischen Graffiti von Medinet Habu”, RdE 46, 1995, pp. 250–255.

Chauveau 2018
Chauveau, M., “Démotique”, AEPHE 149 (2016-2017), 2018, pp. 7–11.

Chauveau 2020
Chauveau, M., “Démotique”, AEPHE 151 (2018-2019), 2020, pp. 4–10.

Clarysse 2003
Clarysse, W., “The Archive of the Praktor Milon”, in K. Vandorpe, W. Clarysse (eds.), Edfu, an Egyptian Provincial Capital in the Ptolemaic Period. Brussels, 3 September 2001, Brussels, 2003, pp. 17–27.

Clarysse 2010
Clarysse, W., “Egyptian Temples and Priests: Graeco-Roman”, in A.B. Lloyd (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, Malden, Chichester, Oxford, 2010, pp. 274–290.

Clarysse, Winnicki 1989
Clarysse, W., Winnicki, J.K., “Letter of Portis and the Youths”, in E. Van ʼt Dack, W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur, J.K. Winnicki, The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 B.C. A Multilingual Dossier Concerning A “War of Sceptres”, CollHell 1, Brussels, 1989, pp. 39–49.

Colin 2016
Colin, F., “Documents démotiques de Strasbourg, III 6 : la dorure de monuments sacrés dans l’Égypte hellénistique et romaine”, ChronEg 91/181, 2016, pp. 41–74.

Coulon 2006
Coulon, L., “Les sièges de prêtre d’époque tardive. À propos de trois documents thébains”, RdE 57, 2006, pp. 1–31 and pl. I-VII.

Crum 1939
Crum, W.E., A Coptic Dictionary, Oxford, 1939.

Daumas 1958
Daumas, F., Les mammisis des temples égyptiens, Paris, 1958.

Daumas 1969
Daumas, F., Dendara et le temple d’Hathor. Notice sommaire, RAPH 29, Cairo, 1969.

Del Vesco, Poole 2018

Del Vesco, P., Poole, F., “Deir el-Medina in the Egyptian Museum of Turin. An Overview, and the Way Forward”, in A. Dorn, S. Polis (eds.), Outside the Box: Selected Papers from the Conference “Deir el-Medina and the Theban Necropolis in Contact”, Liège, 27-29 October 2014, AegLeod 11, Liège, 2018, pp. 97–130.

Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005
Den Brinker, A.A., Muhs, B.P., Vleeming, S.P., A Berichtigungsliste of Demotic Documents, 2 vols., StudDem 7, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 2005.

Depauw 1994
Depauw, M., “The Demotic Epistolary Formulae”, in E. Bresciani (ed.), Acta Demotica. Acts of the Fifth International Conference for Demotists. Pisa, 4th–8th September 1993, EVO 17, Pisa, 1994, pp. 87–94.

Depauw 1997
Depauw, M., A Companion to Demotic Studies, PapBrux 28, Brussels, 1997.

Depauw 2000
Depauw, M., The Archive of Teos and Thabis from Early Ptolemaic Thebes: P. Brux. Dem. Inv. E. 8252-8256, MRE 8, Turnhout, 2000.

Depauw 2002
Depauw, M., “Two Notes on the Demotic Participle or how ỉ.ỉr Became Theologically Relevant”, LingAeg 10, 2002, pp. 101–121.

Depauw 2006
Depauw, M., The Demotic Letter: A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions Against Their Intra- and Intercultural Background, DemStud 14, Sommerhausen, 2006.

Depauw 2008
Depauw, M., A Chronological Survey of Precisely Dated Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic Sources, TOP 1, Cologne, Leuven, 2008.

Erichsen 1955
Erichsen, W., “Einige demotische Urkundenvermerke”, in O. Firchow (ed.), Ägyptologische Studien, VIO 29, Berlin, 1955, pp. 76–80.

Farid 1988
Farid, A., “Die Denkmäler des Parthenios, des Verwalters des Isis von Koptos”, MDAIK 44, 1988, pp. 13–65 and pl. 1–14.

Farid 2005
Farid, A., “Two Demotic Annuity Contracts”, in K.A. Daoud, S. Bedier, S. Abd El-Fattah (eds.), Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan, vol. 1, ASAE-Suppl. 34, Cairo, 2005, pp. 323–346 and pl. 1–5.

Farid 2009
Farid, A., “A Demotic Sale Contract of the Whole Property”, in B.S. El-Sharkawy (ed.), The Horizon: Studies in Egyptology in Honour of M.A. Nur el-Din (10-12 April 2007), vol. 3, Cairo, 2009, pp. 261–276.

Felber 1991
Felber, H., “Augustus Ζεὺς ἐλευθέριος im Demotischen und die Etymologie von ⲣⲙϩⲉ”, GöttMisz 123, 1991, pp. 27–36.

Felber 1997
Felber, H., Demotische Ackerpachtverträge der Ptolemäerzeit: Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Entwicklung und inhaltlichen Aspekten einer Gruppe von demotischen Urkunden, ÄgAbh 58, Wiesbaden, 1997.

Fisher 1924
Fisher, C.S., “A Group of Theban Tombs: Work of the Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Egypt”, UPMJ 15, 1924, pp. 28–49.

Glanville 1939
Glanville, S.R.K., Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum, vol. 1: A Theban Archive of the Reign of Ptolemy I, Soter, London, 1939.

Glanville 1955
Glanville, S.R.K., Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum, vol. 2: The Instructions of ʻOnchsheshonqy (British Museum Papyrus 10508), part I: Introduction, Transliteration, Translation, Notes, and Plates, London, 1955.

Hoffmann 2000
Hoffmann, F., Ägypten: Kultur und Lebenswelt in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Eine Darstellung nach den demotischen Quellen, Berlin, 2000.

Hoffmann, Quack 2014
Hoffmann, F., Quack, J.F., “Pastophoros”, in A.M. Dodson, J.J. Johnston, W. Monkhouse (eds.), A Good Scribe and an Exceedingly Wise Man. Studies in Honour of W.J. Tait, GHP Egyptology 21, London, 2014, pp. 127–155.

Hughes, Nims 1940
Hughes, G.R., Nims, C.F., “Some Observations on the British Museum Demotic Theban Archive”, AJSL 57, 1940, pp. 244–261.

Hughes 1957
Hughes, G.R., “review of W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar”, JNES 16, 1957, pp. 55-63.

Huß 2001
Huß, W., Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332-30 v. Chr., Munich, 2001.

Jasnow 1982
Jasnow, R., “Two Demotic Papyri in the Oriental Institute”, Enchoria 11, 1982, pp. 17–22 and pl. 5–6.

Johnson 1976
Johnson, J.H., The Demotic Verbal System, SAOC 38, Chicago, 1976.

Kaplony-Heckel 1963
Kaplony-Heckel, U., Die demotischen Tempeleide, 2 vols., ÄgAbh 6, Wiesbaden, 1963.

Kaplony-Heckel 1968
Kaplony-Heckel, U., “Die demotischen Tempeleide der Berliner Papyrussammlung”, ForschBer 10, 1968, pp. 133–184 and pl. 26–27.

Kato 2019
Kato, I., “A Re-Examination of P. Tor. Botti 34 A. A Demotic Document Made by Agents of Hathor for Elders of the Temple of Hathor from the Archive of Twtw (2nd Century BC, Djeme)”, in F. Naether (ed.), New Approaches in Demotic Studies. Acts of the 13th International Conference of Demotic Studies, ZÄS-B 10, Berlin, Boston, 2019, pp. 135–149.

Klotz 2009
Klotz, D., “Λογεία-Receipts and the Construction of Deir Shelwit”, ZPE 168, 2009, pp. 252-256.

Klotz 2012
Klotz, D., Caesar in the City of Amun. Egyptian Temple Construction and Theology in Roman Thebes, MRE 15, 2012, Turnhout, 2012.

Łajtar 2006
Łajtar, A., Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. A Study of an Egyptian Temple Based on Greek Sources, JJP-Suppl. 4, Warsaw, 2006.

Lanciers 2014
Lanciers, E., “The Shrines of Hathor and Amenhotep in Western Thebes in the Ptolemaic Period”, AncSoc 44, 2014, pp. 105–125.

Lanciers 2015
Lanciers, E., “The Isis Cult in Western Thebes in the Graeco-Roman Period (Part II)”, ChronEg 90/180, 2015, pp. 379–405.

Lippert 2008 (ed. 2012)
Lippert, S.L., Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte (2008), EQA 5, Münster, 2012 (2nd ed).

Lippert, Schentuleit 2005
Lippert, S.L., Schentuleit, M., “Die Tempelökonomie nach den demotischen Texten aus Soknopaiu Nesos”, in S.L. Lippert, M. Schentuleit (eds.), Tebtynis und Soknopaiu Nesos: Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 11. bis 13. Dezember 2003 in Sommerhausen bei Würzburg, Wiesbaden, 2005, pp. 71–78.

Lippert, Schentuleit 2006
Lippert, S.L., Schentuleit, M., Demotische Dokumente aus Dime II. Quittungen, Wiesbaden, 2006.

Lüddeckens 1960
Lüddeckens, E., Ägyptische Eheverträge, ÄgAbh 1, Wiesbaden, 1960.

Lüddeckens 1974
Lüddeckens, E., “Ein demotischer Urkundenfund in Tuna el Gebel mit einer genealogischen Skizze”, in E. Kießling, H.-A. Rupprecht (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Marburg/Lahn, 2. bis 6. August 1971, MBPF 66, Munich, 1974, pp. 235–238.

Lüddeckens 1986
Lüddeckens, E.,  VI, Wiesbaden, 1986, cols. 876-886, s.v. “Urkundenarchive”.

Lüddeckens et al. 1981–2000
Lüddeckens, E., Thissen, H.J., Brunsch, W., Vittmann, G., Zauzich, K-T., Demotisches Namenbuch, 18 vols., Wiesbaden, 1981–2000.

Manning 2003
Manning, J.G., Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Structure of Land Tenure, Cambridge, 2003.

Martin 1996 (ed. 2011)
Martin, C.J., “The Demotic Texts”, in B. Porten (ed.), The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (1996), Atlanta, 2011 (2nd ed.), pp. 276–384 and pl. 4–5.

Mattha 1945
Mattha, G., Demotic Ostraka from the Collections at Oxford, Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Cairo, PSFP 6, Cairo, 1945.

Mekis 2016
Mekis, T., “Quelques données nouvelles sur les stèles Budapest MBA inv. no 51.1928 et Prague MN P 1636, et sur la famille de Iâhmès fils de Smendès, propriétaire de la statue Caire JE 37075”, in L. Coulon (ed.), La cachette de Karnak. Nouvelles perspectives sur les découvertes de Georges Legrain, BiEtud 161, Cairo, 2016, pp. 383–395.

Montserrat, Meskell 1997
Montserrat, D., Meskell, L., “Mortuary Archaeology and Religious Landscape at Graeco-Roman Deir el-Medina”, JEA 83, 1997, pp. 179–197 and pl. 23.

Muhs 2005
Muhs, B.P., Tax Receipts, Taxpayers, and Taxes in Early Ptolemaic Thebes, OIP 126, Chicago, 2005.

Muhs, Dieleman 2006
Muhs, B.P., Dieleman, J., “A Bilingual Account from Late Ptolemaic Tebtunis. P. Leiden RMO Inv. No. F 1974/7.52”, ZÄS 133, 2006, pp. 56–65 and pl. XV–XVIII.

Nims 1938
Nims, C.F., “Notes on University of Michigan Demotic Papyri from Philadelphia”, JEA 24/1, 1938, pp. 73–82.

Nims 1958
Nims, C.F., “A Demotic ʻDocument of Endowment’ from the Time of Nectanebo I”, MDAIK 16, 1958, pp. 237–246 and pl. 17–20.

Nur el-Din 1974
Nur El-Din, M.A., The Demotic Ostraca in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden, CNMAL 1, Leiden, 1974.

Pasquali 2007
Pasquali, S., “Une nouvelle stèle de Parthénios fils de Paminis de Coptos”, RdE 58, 2007, pp. 187–192.

Pestman 1963
Pestman, P.W., “Les documents juridiques des ‘chanceliers du dieu’ de Memphis à l’époque ptolémaïque”, OMRO 44, 1963, pp. 8–23 and pl. VI–IX.

Pestman 1977
Pestman, P.W., Recueil de textes démotiques et bilingues, 3 vols., Leiden, 1977.

Pestman 1978
Pestman, P.W., “La terre ‘la Pointe’ dans le domaine Pestenemenôphis. Archives de Totoês, prêtre aux Memnoneia”, in E. Boswinkel, P.W. Pestman (eds.), Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues, P.L.Bat. 19, Leiden, 1978, pp. 193–205.

Pestman 1985
Pestman, P.W., “Lo scriba privato Amenothes, figlio di Panas: tre documenti provenienti dall’archivio di Totoes», in P.W. Pestman (ed.), Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte, P.L.Bat. 23, Leiden, 1985, pp. 167–197.

Pestman 1989a
Pestman, P.W., “Familiearchieven in Egypte”, in P.W. Pestman (ed.), Familiearchieven uit het land van Pharao, Zutphen, 1989, pp. 7–13.

Pestman 1989b
Pestman, P.W., “Was de Egyptische vrouw geëmancipeerd of niet? (een verstoorde droom)”, in P.W. Pestman (ed.), Familiearchieven uit het land van Pharao, Zutphen, 1989, pp. 24–29 and 165.

Pestman 1992
Pestman, P.W., Il processo di Hermias e altri documenti dell’archivio dei choachiti (P. Tor. Choachiti). Papiri greci e demotici conservati a Torino e in altre collezioni d’Italia, CMT. Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi 6, Turin, 1992.

Pestman 1994
Pestman, P.W., Les papyrus démotiques de Tsenhor (P. Tsenhor). Les archives privées d’une femme égyptienne du temps de Darius Ier, 2 vols., StudDem 4, Leuven, 1994.

Pestman 1995
Pestman, P.W., The Archive of the Theban Choachytes (Second Century B.C.). A Survey of the Demotic and Greek Papyri Contained in the Archive, StudDem 2, Leuven, 1993.

Reich 1936
Reich, N.J., “The Legal Transactions of a Family: Preserved in the University Museum at Philadelphia (the Demotic Papyri from Drah Abu ’l-Negga Covering a Century of the Early Ptolemaic Period)”, Mizraim 2, 1936, pp. 13–29.

Reich 1938a
Reich, N.J., “The Papyrus-Archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (the Papyri from Dirā’ Abū ’l-Naga) I”, Mizraim 7, 1938, pp. 11–19 and pl. 1–10.

Reich 1938b
Reich, N.J., “The Papyrus-Archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (the Papyri from Dirā’ Abū ’l-Naga) II”, Mizraim 8, 1938, pp. 7–14 and pl. 11–20.

Reich 1938c
Reich, N.J., “The Papyrus-Archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (the Papyri from Dirā’ Abū ’l-Naga) III”, Mizraim 9, 1938, pp. 7–18 and pl. 21–28.

Reinach, Weill 1912
Reinach, A., Weill, R., “Parthénios fils de Paminis, prostatès dʼIsis à Koptos”, ASAE 12, 1912, pp. 1–24.

Ricketts 1990
Ricketts, L.M., “A Dual Queenship in the Reign of Berenice IV”, BASP 27, 1990, pp. 49–60.

Ricketts 1992
Ricketts, L.M., “The Administration of Late Ptolemaic Egypt”, in J.H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multi-cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond, SAOC 51, Chicago, 1992, pp. 275–281.

Ritner 2002
Ritner, R.K., “Third Intermediate Period Antecedents of Demotic Legal Terminology”, in K. Ryholt (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23-27 August 1999, CNIP 27, Copenhagen, 2002, pp. 343–359.

Rubensohn 1907
Rubensohn, O., Elephantine-Papyri, Berlin, 1907.

Seidl 1962
Seidl, E., Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte, ÄgForsch 22, Glückstadt, Hambourg, New York, 1962.

Spiegelberg 1905
Spiegelberg, W., “Papyrus Erbach. Ein demotisches Brieffragment”, ZÄS 42, 1905, pp. 43–60 and pl. III–IV.

Spiegelberg 1908
Spiegelberg, W., Demotische Papyrus von der Insel Elephantine I, 1-13, Leipzig, 1908.

Spiegelberg 1918
Spiegelberg, W., “Demotische Kleinigkeiten: 3. Demotische Urkunden zu der λογεία Ἴσιδος”, ZÄS 54, 1918, pp. 116–120.

Spiegelberg 1925
Spiegelberg, W., Demotische Grammatik, Heidelberg, 1925.

Spiegelberg 1932
Spiegelberg, W., Die demotischen Denkmäler. III, Demotische Inschriften und Papyri (Fortsetzung), CGC 50023-50165, Berlin, 1932.

Stadler et al. 2016/2017
Stadler, M.A., et al., “12. Internationale Konferenz für demotische Studien, Würzburg, 31. August bis 4. September 2014: Abstracts der Vorträge”, Enchoria 35, 2016/2017, pp. 17–32.

Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (query 1)
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae
, online database, <http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/s0?f=0&l=0&ff=2&db=1&w1=592&l1=0&c1=0&w2=3423&l2=0&c2=0&d2=10&d1=1&d3=1&d4=10> accessed 30 March 2020.

Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (query 2)
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae
, online database, <http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/s0?f=0&l=0&ff=2&db=1&w1=5720&l1=0&c1=0&w2=7271&l2=0&c2=0&d2=30&d1=1&d3=1&d4=30> accessed 30 March 2020 .

Thissen 1989
Thissen, H.J., Die demotischen Graffiti von Medinet Habu, DemStud 10, Sommerhausen, 1989.

Thissen, Zauzich 2018
Thissen, H.J., Zauzich, K.-T., “Ein thebanisches Grab und seine Restaurierung”, in K. Donker Van Heel, F.A.J. Hoogendijk, C.J. Martin, Hieratic, Demotic and Greek Studies and Text Editions. Of Making Many Books There is no End: Festschrift in Honour of Sven P. Vleeming, P.L.Bat. 34, Leiden, 2018, pp. 148–156 and pl. XXIX–XXXII.

Thompson 1934
Thompson, H., A Family Archive from Siut from Papyri in the British Museum Including an Account of a Trial Before the Laocritae in the Year B.C. 170, 2 vols., Oxford, 1934.

Traunecker 1992
Traunecker, C., Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb, OLA 43, Leuven, 1992.

Uggetti 2016
Uggetti, L., “The God Djeme”, RdE 67, 2016, pp. 157–175.

Uggetti 2020a
Uggetti, L., “Attention aux scribes ! Variantes, différences et raccourcissements délibérés dans les protocoles des papyrus du IIème–début du Ier siècle”, in G. Gorre, S. Wackenier (eds.), Quand la fortune du royaume ne dépend pas de la vertu du prince: un renforcement de la monarchie lagide de Ptolémée VI à Ptolémée X ?, StudHell 59, Paris, 2020, pp. 71–94.

Uggetti 2020b
Uggetti, L., “Scribes in Ptolemaic Djême: the Family of Harsiêsis and Chestephnachthis”, ChronEg 95/189, 2020, pp. 42–67.

Uggetti 2021
Uggetti, L., “Deir el-Medina Ptolemaic Papyri: The Archive of Totoes, in P. Del Vesco, C. Greco, F. Poole, S. Töpfer (eds.), Deir el-Medina Through the Kaleidoscope. Proceedings of the Turin International Workshop, Turin, 2021 (in press).

Vandorpe 2009
Vandorpe, K., “Archives and Dossiers, in R.S. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford, New York, 2009, pp. 216–255.

Vandorpe, Quack 2018
Vandorpe, K., Quack, J.F., “Drei demotische Papyri aus der Sammlung des Übersee-Museums Bremen”, in K. Donker Van Heel, F.A.J. Hoogendijk, C.J. Martin (eds.), Hieratic, Demotic and Greek Studies and Text Editions. Of Making Many Books There is No End: Festschrift in Honour of Sven P. Vleeming, P.L.Bat. 34, Leiden, 2018, pp. 249–256 and pl. XLI–XLIII.

Vandorpe, Clarysse 2019
Vandorpe, K., Clarysse, W., “Cults, Creeds, and Clergy in a Multicultural Context”, in K. Vandorpe (ed.), A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 2019, pp. 407–427.

Vinson 2006/2007
Vinson, S., “The Demotic ‘Regnal Year’ Group as ḥsb, ‘Reckoning’, Enchoria 30, 2006/2007, pp. 151–154.

Vitelli 1929
Vitelli, G., “Nuovi documenti greci tolemaici del Museo di Torino”, in G. Vitelli, M. Norsa (eds.), Papiri greci e latini. Volume nono, n.i 1001-1096, Papiri greci e latini 9, Florence, 1929, pp. 15–35.

Vittmann 1983
Vittmann, G., “Eine genealogische Inschrift der Spätzeit im Tempel von Luxor”, SAK 10, 1983, pp. 325–332 and pl. XXa.

Vittmann 1987
Vittmann, G., “Drei thebanische Urkunden aus dem Jahre 175 v.Chr.”, Enchoria 15, 1987, pp. 97–146 and pl. 13–23.

Vittmann 1998
Vittmann, G., Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9. Teil II. Kommentare und Indizes, ÄAT 38, Wiesbaden, 1998.

Vleeming 1987
Vleeming, S.P., “A Dromos Tax”, Enchoria 15, 1987, pp. 147–154 and pl. 24.

Vleeming 2001
Vleeming, S.P., Some Coins of Artaxerxes and Other Short Texts in the Demotic Script Found on Various Objects and Gathered from Many Publications, StudDem 5, Leuven, Paris, Sterling, 2001.

Vleeming 2010
Vleeming, The Berichtigungsliste of Demotic Documents in A.D. 2007-9, Brauneberg, 2010.

Wångstedt 1954
Wångstedt, S.V., Ausgewählte demotische Ostraka aus der Sammlung des Victoria-Museums zu Uppsala und der Staatlichen Papyrussammlung zu Berlin, Uppsala, 1954.

Wångstedt 1965
Wångstedt, S.V., Die demotischen Ostraka der Universität zu Zürich, BEURU 62, Uppsala, Wiesbaden, Haag, Geneva, 1965.

Wilcken 1913
Wilcken, U., “Referate. Papyrus-Urkunden. I/II. P. Eleph. und P. Eleph. dem.”, APF 5, 1913, pp. 200–217.

Zauzich 1968
Zauzich, K.-T., Die ägyptische Schreibertradition in Aufbau, Sprache und Schrift der demotischen Kaufverträge aus Ptolemäischer Zeit, 2 vols., ÄgAbh 19, Wiesbaden, 1968.

Zauzich 1973
Zauzich, K.-T., “Korrekturvorschläge zur Publikation des demotischen Archivs von Deir el-Medineh (Schluß) (Fortsetzung von Heft 2, 1972, 85-95)”, Enchoria 3, 1973, pp. 63–70.

Zauzich 1976
Zauzich, K.-T., “Die schlimme Geschichte von dem Mann der Gottesmutter, der ein Gespenst war”, Enchoria 6, 1976, pp. 79–82.

Zauzich 1987
Zauzich, K.-T., “Das topographische Onomastikon im P. Kairo 31169”, GöttMisz 99, 1987, pp. 83–91.

Zauzich 1996
Zauzich, K.-T., “Anchsheschonqi – eine Lehre für den Schreiber?”, in M. Schade-Busch (ed.), Wege öffnen. Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag, ÄAT 35, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 376–384.

Haut de page

Notes

1   Seidl 1962, p. 16; el-Amir 1974, pp. 111–112; Pestman 1989a, p. 8; Vandorpe 2009, pp. 219–220.

2   TM Arch 141.

3   Rubensohn 1907, p. 34; Spiegelberg 1908, p. 7; Seidl 1962, pp. 45–46, no 36; Lüddeckens 1986, p. 877, no I; Clarysse 2003, pp. 17–18; Vandorpe 2009, p. 219.

4   Carnarvon 1912, p. 8; Carter 1912, p. 43; Spiegelberg 1932, p. 116, no 50164; el-Amir 1974, p. 111; Muhs 2005, p. 128.

5   TM Arch 203.

6   Fisher 1924, p. 45; Reich 1938a, p. 12; Reich 1938b, pp. 7–8; Glanville 1939, p. XX, n. 4; el-Amir 1959, vol. 1, pp. IX–X and vol. 2, p. 21; Seidl 1962, pp. 17–19, no 1; Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 2; el-Amir 1974, p. 112; Pestman 1989b, p. 29; Depauw 1997, p. 156; Depauw 2000, pp. 3–4, n. 4; Muhs 2005, pp. 128 and 130.

7   el-Amir 1974, p. 112; Lüddeckens 1974, p. 235; Lüddeckens 1986, p. 881, no VI A; Farid 2005, p. 324; Farid 2009, p. 261.

8   TM Arch 440.

9   Rubensohn 1907, p. 66; Clarysse 2003, pp. 17–18, p. 24, nos 1–2 and 4, p. 26, no 23.

10   Reich 1936, pp. 14-29; Reich 1938a, pp. 13-18; Reich 1938b, pp. 8–14; Reich 1938c, pp. 8–12 and 16–18; Glanville 1939, p. XX, n. 4; El-Amir 1959, vol. 2, p. 41, n. 1; Seidl 1962, pp. 17–19, no 1.

11   TM Arch 248.

12   Uggetti 2021.

13   Vitelli 1929, pp. 15–35.

14   Botti 1967. On the publication history of the archive, see Kato 2019, pp. 136–137.

15   Del Vesco, Poole 2018, pp. 110 and 114–118; Uggetti 2021.

16   Uggetti 2021.

17   P. Turin Suppl. 6109 = TM 45107.

18   Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 179.

19   Pestman 1985, p. 169, n. 8; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, pp. 396–398; Kato 2019, p. 138.

20   el-Amir 1960, p. 225, no 40.

21   Pestman 1985, p. 181, n. *. In his drafts, G. Botti first noted the number 11, then he rectified it with the number 18: Botti 1964-1966.

22   P. Turin Suppl. 6102 = TM 45106. The inventory number indicated in G. Botti’s editio princeps is wrong and its plate XLIII is misleading, because P. Turin Suppl. 6100 is a separate papyrus indeed, while on that plate the two documents are superposed. See Pestman 1985, p. 168, n. 6; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, p. 396; Kato 2019, p. 137, n. 7.

23   P. Turin Suppl. 6085 = TM 45108.

24   P. Turin Suppl. 6100 = TM 47146.

25   P. Turin Suppl. 6096 = TM 45111.

26   “Promissorischer Eid”: see Kaplony-Heckel 1963, vol. 1, pp. 9 and 17; Lippert 2008 (ed. 2012), p. 105, § 4.1.3.2.1 and pp. 174–175, § 4.2.7.1.

27   On the existence of only one sanctuary devoted to Hathor in Western Thebes in the Graeco-Roman period, that is the one in Deir el-Medina, excluding any continuity of her cult in the chapel in the middle court of the funerary temple of Hatshepsut in Deir el-Bahari, see Lanciers 2014, pp. 105–113.

28   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 15; P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 12–13. See Pestman 1985, pp. 168–170; Allam 2002, pp. 15–26; Clarysse 2010, p. 288; Lanciers 2014, p. 113; Colin 2016, p. 56; Kato 2019, pp. 135–136 and 138.

29   On the transliteration of this word, see Chauveau 2020, pp. 4–10, pace Hoffmann, Quack 2014, pp. 127–147.

30   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 10–11; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 10. See Lanciers 2014, p. 113; Kato 2019, p. 138.

31   P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C, ll. 2–3; P.Tor.Botti 40, ll. 1–2.

32   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 12–13; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 11.

33   Łajtar 2006, p. 72.

34   For the letters given to the members of this family, see Uggetti 2020b, pp. 60–62.

35   Zauzich 1973, p. 65: Botti 1967, vol. 1, pp. 174 and 181 transliterated qnb.t.

36   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 5–8 ; P.Tor.Botti 36, ll. 6–8. See Łajtar 2006, pp. 72 and 75; Hoffmann, Quack 2014, pp. 144-145; Kato 2019, p. 137.

37   Kaplony-Heckel 1963, vol. 1, pp. 348–350; Botti 1967, vol. 1, pp. 174–175, 178–179, 181–182, 184, 194–195; Pestman 1985, p. 169; Clarysse, Winnicki 1989, p. 46, n. 31; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, pp. 396–400; Kato 2019, p. 137.

38   Wb II, p. 413.12-26 ; DemGloss, pp. 256–257.

39   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 10; P.Tor.Botti 35, l. 1; P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 8 and vo, l. 1; P.Tor.Botti 40, ll. 7 and 13.

40   el-Amir 1960, p. 220, no 25; el-Amir 1969, p. 116; Zauzich 1973, pp. 65–66 and 68. Łajtar 2006, p. 72, presented both terms without taking sides.

41   Pestman 1978, p. 195; Huß 2001, p. 653, n. 95; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 1, p. 396; Depauw 2008, p. 140; Kato 2019, p. 137 and p. 146, n. 30.

42   As already noted by Zauzich 1968, vol. 1, pp. 209–210, no 38.

43   P.Tor.Botti 34 A, l. 5: m-sȝ tȝ nẖb.t n nȝ Pr-ʿȝʿ.w.s..w, “after the titulary of the sovereigns”. The same can be found in P.Berl.Dem. II 3112, l. 3 (whose original is the sale on P.Choach.Survey 81 A, both published by Vittmann 1987); P.Tor.Botti 4, l. 1; P.Choach.Survey 31 B, l. 2 (copy of P.Brit.Mus. IV 21); P.Tor.Choach. 2, l. 1 (duplicate of P.Berl.Dem. II 3101 A). Each of them specifies at the beginning that it is a ẖ(e.t), “copy”, of another legal document. Similarly, the trial record of Assiut itself, and also several documents cited in it as proofs: P.Siut 10591 ro, col. I, l. 1; col. VI, ll. 21–22; col. VII, ll. 5–6; vo, col. V, l. 1. On the matter, see Thompson 1934, vol. 1, p. 3, p. 12, nn. 1–2, p. 57, p. 59, n. 1; Erichsen 1955, p. 76; Lüddeckens 1960, p. 223, n. 693; Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 43; Zauzich 1968, vol. 2, pp. 269–270, nn. 350 and 362, and pp. 275–276, n. 426; Pestman 1977, vol. 1, p. 151, n. nn; Pestman 1992, pp. 18–36; Pestman 1995, pp. 120–122, 157–160, 234–236 and 329–335; Hoffmann 2000, pp. 91–92; Arlt 2009, p. 44, n. 74 and p. 46, n. 88.

44   A similar process can be found in Roman Soknopaiou Nêsos: P.Dime II 56–69. See Lippert, Schentuleit 2006, p. 4.

45   Kato 2019, p. 138; Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55, 61 and 64–65.

46   Kato 2019, pp. 139–140 and 145–147.

47   For this writing of the past tense relative form of the verb ỉ.ỉr plus suffix pronoun, used when the subject of the relative differed from the antecedent, see Spiegelberg 1925, pp. 248–249, § 549; Johnson 1976, p. 118.

48   On the transliteration of the term, see Zauzich 1987, pp. 83–84; Ritner 2002, p. 357; CDD Ḥ, pp. 268–273; Vinson 2006/2007, pp. 151–154; Vandorpe, Quack 2018, p. 251, n. to l. 1.

49   On this form of the imperfective periphrastic participle of the verb ỉr, with loss of the prothetic yod, and on other variants like (ỉ.)ỉr in P.Tor.Botti 34 B, l. 15, often used in dates for the equivalence between the regnal years of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Alexander I, see Felber 1991, pp. 29–30, n. 11; Felber 1997, p. 28, n. to l. 1; Depauw 2002, pp. 104 and 114–115.

50   This formula, in the variant ỉ.ỉr ỉy n-ḏr.t⸗k, is found in discharge receipts from Soknopaiou Nêsos: P.Dime II 56–60, 63–65 and 67–68. See Lippert, Schentuleit 2006, p. 3.

51   As in P.Tor.Botti 34 B, l. 21, the horizontal stroke could be read either as n or as an archaic r. The presence in the previous line of r dỉ.t written the usual way, as well as parallels inside the same scribal family of this preposition in front of verbs, as P.Tor.Botti 10, l. 13 and P.Tor.Botti 27, ll. 12–13 by Amenôthês’ father Chestephnachthis (B), suggest to transliterate the sign as n.

52   Kato 2019, p. 143.

53   Uggetti 2016, pp. 157–175.

54   For an explanation of the writing of this godʼs name, see Uggetti 2016, pp. 170–171, n. 74.

55   The translation proposed by G.R. Hughes in Kaplony-Heckel 1968, p. 148, seems to be the most suitable to the context. For a better rendering, the choice has been made to move the positive or negative connotation of the adjectives to the preceding prepositions: so, ẖn pȝ ʿš-sḥn nfr has been translated as “(act) in the interest”, while ẖn pȝ ʿš-sḥn bỉn as “(act) against the interest”. For ʿš-sḥn bỉn in P.Tor.Botti 34 B, ll. 14 and 26, the element sḥn lacks to the expression, while at ll. 24–25 and on the verso (P.Tor.Botti 34 C, ll. 2 and 4), the writing of the same group is complete. P.Tor.Botti 40, ll. 14–15 shows sḥn nfr without the preceding ʿš, but the context confirms that the meaning is the same as in P.Tor.Botti 34 B+C. The same can be remarked for O.Tempeleide 217, ll. 4–5 and O. Berl. Dem. P 12906, l. 4 in Kaplony-Heckel 1968, p. 161, no 10. In Short Texts I 200, l. 6 there is reference to nȝy⸗f mwe.w ẖr pȝ ʿš-sḥn nfr n nȝ nṯr.w, “his thoughts upon the best interest of the gods”.

56   The reading is doubtful. At any rate, it is worth noting the mention of ḏȝ(.t) in contexts referring to gods in P. Erbach, ll. 10–12 and in an ostracon in Brussels, both mentioned by Spiegelberg 1905, pp. 57–58, n. XVII.

57   The slight variations in the vertical strokes seem to imply a metathesis between yod and s, instead of the most frequently attested form ȝsy. For the meaning of the expression ỉr ȝsy, “to suffer loss”, see DemGloss, p. 10; CDD ȝ, pp. 81–82.

58   A search for this formulation on the website of the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (query 1) has brought up no attestations. However, the signification of this formulation could be similar to ṯȝy ry.t, “take sides”, in P. Brit. Mus. EA 10508, col. IX, l. 3: see Glanville 1955, p. 25; CDD R, p. 13.

59   Mistake of concordance of the plural suffix with the antecedent, that is the singular rmṯ in l. 1. The same on the verso: P.Tor.Botti 34 C, l. 5.

60   The word is used as an abbreviated closing formula, especially in letters or in oracle questions: Depauw 1994, p. 89; Zauzich 1996, pp. 376–380; Depauw 2006, pp. 167–168; CDD S, p. 410.

61   Huß 2001, p. 653, n. 95; Depauw 2008, p. 140.

62   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55, 61 and 64.

63   For this word and the debate about the extension of its meaning, see Wångstedt 1954, p. 149, n. to l. 2; Nur el-Din 1974, p. 21, n. to l. 2; Vittmann 1983, pp. 328–329, n. f; Vleeming 1987, pp. 147–154; Vittmann 1998, p. 300; Muhs, Dieleman 2006, p. 59, n. d; Martin 1996 (ed. 2011), p. 374, n. 8; Colin 2016, p. 55.

64   On the translation of the term as “forecourt” in the specific architectonical context of the temple of Deir el-Medina, that never had a frontal dromos, see Uggetti 2016, pp. 169–170, n. 71.

65   For the expression ẖr n ṯȝy n, whose Coptic equivalent is ϩⲁ-ϫⲓⲛ (Crum 1939, p. 773), see the note by Mark Smith in Vleeming 2010, p. 29.

66   For the reading of this group of fractions, see Nims 1958, p. 241, n. g; Chauveau 1986, pp. 26–27, n. to l. 11,2; CDD Numbers, p. 300.

67   For the independent conjunctive with the value of an injunctive future, see Spiegelberg 1925, pp. 73–74, § 152; Nims 1938, pp. 77–78; Johnson 1976, pp. 188–189.

68   On the term šdy, specifically used in Theban receipts from the reigns of Claudius and Nero for the “collection of the god”, see Spiegelberg 1918, pp. 116–120; Mattha 1945, p. 154; Wångstedt 1954, pp. 40 and 122–126; Wångstedt 1965, p. 21, no 11, n. to l. 2; Clarysse, Winnicki 1989, p. 46; Klotz 2009, p. 252; Klotz 2012, pp. 296–297; Lanciers 2015, p. 380.

69   Despite the arguments advanced by Colin 2016, p. 55, n. 57 for his translation “en dépenses de nourriture”, I opt for the alternative “en dépenses et en nourriture” he proposed in the same note: this includes other operating expenses than those for provisions and justifies the addition of mỉ-nn after ẖr.t, “and provisions likewise”, especially if compared to the formula hy nb he nb, “every maintenance expenditure and every expense”, used in a similar context in P.Tor.Botti 34 A, ll. 18–19.

70   On the translation, see Pestman 1963, p. 14, n. b; Jasnow 1982, pp. 18–20, n. f; Colin 2016, p. 55.

71   For this verb, see DemGloss, p. 282; Wb III, p. 204.1-5; Zauzich 1976, p. 82, n. to l. 10; CDD Ḥ, p. 327; Colin 2016, pp. 42–46, 50–52, 55–58 and 70; Chauveau 2018, pp. 10–11. As in O. Stras. Inv. D. 156 = DDS III 6 (Colin 2016, p. 70), ll. 6 and 9, the gilded object is introduced by the preposition r.

72   Colin 2016, p. 55.

73   Ll. 13–19 were transliterated and translated also by Colin 2016, pp. 55–56.

74   Nur el-Din 1974, p. 21, n. to l. 2; Vleeming 1987, p. 154, n. 32.

75   Birk 2020, p. 116 and p. 422, n. 589.

76   Colin 2016, pp. 43, 56 and 67.

77   Rubensohn 1907, pp. 43–44; Wilcken 1913, pp. 211–213; Clarysse 2003, pp. 17–18, 21 and p. 25, no 18; Manning 2003, p. 84.

78   Uggetti 2016, pp. 169–170, n. 71.

79   Pestman 1985, p. 169.

80   A parallel for this phrase, also repeated in l. 18, in case of lawsuits is found in P.Cair. II 30619, l. 7: Cenival 1972, vol. 1, pp. 95–96.

81   So far, this seems to be the only attestation of this nominalised term where it might not designate a process or legal proceedings, but the person bringing a case to court: Kaplony-Heckel 1963, vol. 1, p. 349; CDD Ḏ, p. 6.

82   Kato 2019, p. 138.

83   Lüddeckens et al. 1981–2000, vol. I.12, pp. 880–881.

84   Lüddeckens et al. 1981–2000, vol. I.9, pp. 680–682. For an explanation of the writing of this name, see Uggetti 2016, pp. 170–171, n. 74.

85   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 55 and 64.

86   DemGloss, p. 448. For the origin of the determinative, see Pestman 1994, vol. 2, p. 47, no Y 1 c.

87   DemGloss, p. 446; Botti 1967, vol. 1, p. 184, n. 1; CDD S, p. 352.

88   P.Dime II 56: Thôth 1 – 28; P.Dime II 59: Thôth 1 – 5th epagomenal day; P.Dime II 63: Phaôphi ? – Pachôns 30(?); P.Dime II 64: Pachôns 30 – Thôth 2; P.Dime II 65: Thôth 30 – Thôth 30. See Lippert, Schentuleit 2006, pp. 236–237.

89   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 48–49, 53–56, 60–61 and 64.

90   Uggetti 2020a, pp. 76–79; Uggetti 2020b, pp. 60–65.

91   P.Oxf.Griffith 72, l. 5: ẖr nȝ ḥḏ.w ‹r.›šde⸗k ẖn tȝ wpy.t ḥsb.t 37 (Sandra L. Lippert, personal communication).

92   Lippert, Schentuleit 2005, p. 78; Lippert, Schentuleit 2006, pp. 2–3, 9, 18–19 and 236–237. The role of the “scribe of the priests” as temple accountant, as well as the relationship with the presbyteroi of a temple, is also detailed in P. Vindob. D 4852: Bresciani 1983, pp. 181–184. I thank Sandra L. Lippert for having drawn my attention to both P.Oxf.Griffith 61 and 72, for the reading of P.Oxf.Griffith 72 and for all the precisions concerning Soknopaiou Nêsosʼ temple staff in the Graeco-Roman Period.

93   A search for this formula, combining the occurrences of the words sṯȝ.ṱ and tm, on the website of the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (query 2) has given no higher amounts.

94   As examples: P.Tor.Botti 17, ll. 24-25; P.Tor.Botti 21, l. 25; P.Batav. 1, l. 25; P.Tor.Botti 24, l. 16; P.Tor.Botti 25 A, l. 23 and B, ll. 24-25; P.Ackerpacht., pp. 23–25, l. 24; P.Ackerpacht., pp. 26–28, ll. 22–23; P.Ackerpacht., pp. 29–32, ll. 26–27.

95   Hughes, Nims 1940, pp. 247–248; Hughes 1957, p. 60; CDD H, pp. 4–11.

96   Thissen, Zauzich 2018, p. 151, n. to l. 1.

97   Thissen, Zauzich 2018, pp. 149–151.

98   It is always the case for this term, usually written as gȝ(.t): Colin 2016, pp. 47, 52 and 56.

99   Thissen 1989, p. 22, n. to l. 2. For the date, see Ricketts 1990, p. 51, n. 15; Ricketts 1992, p. 279, n. 27; Chauveau 1995, p. 253; Den Brinker, Muhs, Vleeming 2005, vol. 2, p. 512; Depauw 2008, p. 156.

100   Uggetti 2016, pp. 157–175.

101   One of these agents is called Pikôs sons of Chestephnachthis, but conclusive evidence for his identification with one of the three sons of Chestephnachthis (B) is lacking: see Uggetti 2020b, p. 61, n. 91.

102   Bourguet 2008, pp. 16, 22, 32, 54 and 76. For a summary of the different building phases of this temple, see Montserrat, Meskell 1997, p. 182.

103   Bourguet 2008, pp. 3, 28, 36, 40, 49, 56, 58, 60, 69, 78, 80, 82, 91, 92, 94, 98, 102, 107, 111, 114, 116, 127, 136, 138, 148 and 150.

104   Bourguet 2008, pp. 29–31, 36, 38, 91 and 96.

105   Bourguet 2008, § 171–180.

106   Bourguet 2008, p. 177.

107   Bourguet 2008, p. 173.

108   Daumas 1958, pp. 43–44 considered the surviving inscriptions on this structure not specific enough to call the latter “mammisi”.

109   Bourguet 2008, p. 167.

110   Both are not surrounded by holes, which could have bolstered beams for a wooden structure, as it was the case for the Hathoric head over the gold-sign in the middle of the southern outer wall of the Ptolemaic temple of Dendara: Daumas 1969, p. 71. As a consequence, it is not possible that the wooden shrine mentioned in P.Tor.Botti 36, l. 19 could correspond to a structure which should have been built inside the mud-brick vaulted rooms enclosing them.

111   Uggetti 2020b, pp. 51, 54–55 and 59–63.

112   Statue Cairo JE 37075 (Cachette de Karnak 170): Coulon 2006, p. 16; Mekis 2016, pp. 388–390; Birk 2020, pp. 224–225, 410, 412 and 499.

113   Klotz 2009, p. 254 and Klotz 2012, pp. 296–297 argued that a group of Greek and Demotic λογεία-receipts on ostraca from the years AD 47-68 showed devoteesʼ collection of money for the construction or renovation of the temple of Deir Shelwit under Claudius and Nero. Nevertheless, E. Lanciers (2015, pp. 379–390) confuted this theory and convincingly invited to consider these payments not as sums exacted from the local populace, but as annual taxes paid in regard to priestly offices. So, it cannot be drawn an exact parallel between the functions of Chestephnachthis (B) and his sons and those of Psenamounis son of Pekysis, who acted as collector of the abovementioned contributions and called himself in the Demotic ostraca O.Zürich 11 and O.Mattha 187 as pȝ rwḏ n pȝ nṯr, while in the Greek texts PSI III 262, O.Cair. 76, O.Wilck. II 412, 414, 418, 420 and 421 as προστάτης (τοῦ) θεοῦ, both translatable as “the agent of the god”.

114   Short Texts I 183.

115   Short Texts I 184, 187, 189, 200 and the Stele Petrie Museum UC 71136: Pasquali 2007, pp. 187–192.

116   Short Texts I 186 and 199.

117   Short Texts I 202.

118   Sokar-Osiris in Short Texts I 185; Geb in Short Texts I 186, 196, 197 and 201; Harpokrates in Short Texts I 195; Min-Ra in Short Texts I 201.

119   Short Texts I 179, 181, 183, 187-197, 199-202 and the Stele Petrie Museum UC 71136.

120   Short Texts I 182, 185, 186 and 198.

121   Reinach, Weill 1912, pp. 19–24; Farid 1988, pp. 13 and 55–57; Clarysse, Winnicki 1989, p. 46; Traunecker 1992, pp. 23, 33–35, 257, 330 and 339; Vleeming 2001, pp. 170–197, nos 179–202; Vandorpe, Clarysse 2019, p. 413.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 896k
Titre Fig. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,8M
Titre Fig. 3. P.Tor.Botti 34 C = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 vo = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 394k
Titre Fig. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 5. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 880k
Titre Fig. 6. P.Tor.Botti 35 = P. Turin Suppl. 6109 ro = TM 45107. W. × H.: 30,5 × 14,5 cm (detail).
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 328k
Titre Pl. 1. P.Tor.Botti 34 A = P. Turin Suppl. 6102 ro = TM 45106. W. × H.: 20,5 × 28,5 cm.
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Pl. 2. P.Tor.Botti 34 B = P. Turin Suppl. 6100 ro = TM 47146. W. × H.: 8 × 28,5 cm.
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 605k
Titre Pl. 3. P.Tor.Botti 40 = P. Turin Suppl. 6096 ro = TM 45111. W. × H.: 9 × 21 cm.
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,2M
Titre Pl. 4. P.Tor.Botti 36 = P. Turin Suppl. 6085 ro = TM 45108. W. × H.: 33,5 × 32,5 cm.
Crédits © Museo Egizio, Turin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/docannexe/image/10213/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,9M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Lorenzo Uggetti, « The Agents of Hathor in P.Tor.Botti and the Ptolemaic Temple of Deir el-Medina
"وكلاء حتحور" في بردية تور. بوتي والمعبد البطلمي بدير المدينة »
Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (BIFAO), 121 | 2021, 475-509.

Référence électronique

Lorenzo Uggetti, « The Agents of Hathor in P.Tor.Botti and the Ptolemaic Temple of Deir el-Medina
"وكلاء حتحور" في بردية تور. بوتي والمعبد البطلمي بدير المدينة »
Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (BIFAO) [En ligne], 121 | 2021, mis en ligne le 08 septembre 2021, consulté le 06 février 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bifao/10213 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/bifao.10213

Haut de page

Auteur

Lorenzo Uggetti

Research associate of UMR 8546 AOrOc

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search