The present paper edits for the first time two Coptic objects from a private collection in Sweden: A tax-receipt for poll-tax (diagraphon) from Western Thebes dated to June 24th, 724 and a wooden board with an unidentified Coptic text

Müller, Matthias

Matthias Müller

Crossref

Chronique d Egypte

Coptic Texts from a Private Collection in Sweden

edoc

421Matthias MüllerChronique d’Égypte XCI (2016), fasc. 182 – doi: 10.1484/J.CDE.5.113219(*) I would like to express my gratitude to the present keepers of the objects for allowing me to publish them. Furthermore, I owe gratitude to Heike Behlmer (Göttingen), Anne Boud’hors (Paris), Jenny Cromwell (Copenhagen), and Sami Uljas (Uppsala) for their help in various ways as well as the editors and reviewers of the Chronique.(1) In preparation, see for the time being his preliminary report, M. RömeR, “Miszellen zu den Ostraka der 18. Dynastie aus Deir el-Bahri und dem Asasif”, The Workman’s Progress. Studies in the Village of Deir el-Medina and other Documents from Western Thebes in Honour of Rob Demarée (Leiden, 2014), pp. 211-218.Coptic Texts from a Private Collection in SwedenIn spring of this year, I had the opportunity to examine three objects in a private collection in Sweden. The present owners acquired them in the middle of the last century, but have no further details about the objects. Since they do not belong to a public collection, the objects are referred to below as PC-SE for Private Collection in Sweden. The three objects are two ostraca and a wooden piece inscribed on both sides. While one of the ostraca is from an 18th dynasty Deir el-Bahari context and will hence be included in Malte Römer’s forthcom-ing edition of these texts  (1), the two other, i.e. the remaining ostracon and the wooden piece, bear Coptic texts. The ostracon is a Theban tax receipt issued by the scribe Psate son of Pisrael. The text on the wooden board seems to be a school exercise, whose content is difficult to identify due to its bad state of preservation.1. Tax receipt for diagraphonThe tax receipt records the payment of 1 solidus for the first instalment of the taxes of the indiction year 7 for the poll-tax (diagraphon) of a deacon called Elias.O. PC-SE Inv. 2 13 × 7,2 × 1 cm Thebes (Djeme)Fig. 1  24.6.724The ostracon is complete except for a chip to the top-right corner and some surface chips, neither of which leads to loss of the text. The back of the docu-ment is blank. Even though unsigned the tax receipt can be attributed to the scribe Psate son of Pisrael, who wrote the largest number of such tax receipts 422Égypte chrÉtienne et arabefrom Djeme and who was active between 713/14-724/25.  (2) Some of distinctive features of his writing can be observed here: he writes ⲉⲓⲥⲥ instead of ⲉⲓⲥ and uses the plural ⲁⲣⲓⲑⲙⲓⲁ instead the singular ⲁⲣⲓⲑⲙⲓⲟⲛ. Accordingly our date, i.e., a Paoni 30th of a 8th indiction can be calculated as June 24th 724 then. A financial administrator (apê) named Peter (Petros)  (3) certified the present receipt. Quite interestingly O. Hamb.Copt.Inv. VI was written on the very same day by Psate but certified by another financial administrator, the apê Êlias.  (4)→ + ⲉⲓⲥⲥ ⲟⲩϩⲟⲗⲟⲕ(ⲟ)[ⲧ(ⲧⲓⲛⲟⲥ)] ⲛⲁⲣⲓⲑⲙⲓⲁ ⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲟⲟ(ⲧ) ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲏⲗⲓⲁⲥ ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟ(ⲛⲟⲥ)5 ϩⲁ ⲡⲉⲕⲇⲓⲁⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲛ ϩⲓ ⲧⲡⲣⲱⲧ(ⲏ) ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃ(ⲟ)ⲗ(ⲏ) ⲛϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉⲃⲇⲟⲙ- ⲏ· γί(νεται) (ἀ)ρ(ίθμιον) α. Π(α)υ(νι) λ ἰνδ(ικτίωνος) η. // + ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲏ ⲥⲧ(ⲟⲓⲭⲉⲓ).1 ⲟⲩϩⲟⲗⲟⲕ ostr. ὁλοκόττινος 2 ἀρίθμια for ἀρίθμιον 2 ⲉⲧⲟⲟ ostr. 4 ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟ ostr. διάκονος 5 διάγραφον 6 ⲡⲣⲱⲧ ostr. πρῶτος 6 ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃⲗ ostr. καταβολή 7-8 ἕβδομος 8 γⲓ αρ  πυ ινδ ostr. 9 στοιχεῖν“+ Here is one reckoned solidus, it came to me from you, Elias, the deacon, for your poll-tax in the first instalment of this seventh year. That is: 1 reckoned (solidus). Paoni 30th, 8th indiction. + Peter the apê agrees”.1 The form of the ⲩ has a slightly unusual flattened form, without a vertical stem, but similar forms of ⲩ are found in O.Hamb.Copt. Inv. VI, 1 (DelattRe & Van-thieghem, “Sept reçus” [n. 4], p. 92).2 The scribe more or less squeezed the ⲉⲧⲟⲟ into the end of the line and wrote the second ⲟ supra lineam. The final ⲧ seems to have been omitted unless it was writ-ten above the second ⲟ in the lacuna.5 A deacon called Elias is known as the scribe of O.Crum 175, an acknowledgement of debt from the Theban region. It is not clear whether the two attestations refer to the same individual.(2) A. DelattRe & J.-L. FouRnet, “Le dossier des reçus de taxe thébains et la fiscalité en Égypte au début du VIIIe siècle”, Coptica Argentoratensia. Textes et documents de la troisième université d’été de papyrologie copte (Strasbourg, 18-25 juillet 2010) (P. Stras. Copt.) (Paris, 2014), pp. 209-245, in part. pp. 231-234.(3) See W. till, Prosopographie, p. 174, to which now O.Ashm.Copt. 4, SB Kopt. II 1012 & 1013 should be added.(4) A. DelattRe & N. Vanthieghem, «  Sept reçus de taxe thébains du Viiie siècle», JCoptS 16 (2014), pp. 89-102, in part. pp. 91-92.423CoptiC texts from a private ColleCtion in sweden8 The scribe wrote the abbreviation for the month name above the visible π into the part of the ostracon where the surface is damaged. The same abbreviation can be found on O.Hamb.Copt. Inv. VI, 8 for Paoni, a text that can be attributed to Psate son of Pisrael as well (see DelattRe & Vanthieghem, “Sept reçus” [n. 4], p. 91-92).9 The apê Peter is known by other tax receipts dated from the 13th to the 8th indiction, i.e., from 714/15 to 724/25. He added his subscription to texts written by various scribes such as Anastasios (O.Medin.Habu Copt. 220, SB Kopt. II 1012), John son of Lazaros (O.Medin.Habu Copt. 275), Psan son of Basilios (O.Medin.Habu Copt. 338, 1013), and Psate son of Pisrael (O.Medin.Habu Copt. 373, O.Vind.Copt. 74). On a certain amount of texts, however, the scribe is not mentioned such as O.Me-din.Habu Copt. 318-322 or O.Vind.Copt. 78.Fig. 1 — O. PC-SE Inv. 2424Égypte chrÉtienne et arabe2. Wooden BoardT. PC-SE Inv. 3 4,3 × 14,2 × 0,7 cm Unknown provenanceFigg. 2-3   6th-8th cent.The wooden piece is broken on all sides with no apparent original edges. On what is taken here to be the back, a larger space of the lower part is left blank. The surface is partly rubbed off and the ink smeared or lost. The backside shows water stains. The wood received a white paint coating before the text was writ-ten onto the surface in black ink. Due to the state of preservation, the text itself does not help to elucidate what was front and back (or whether both sides actu-ally do belong together).A list of wooden boards bearing Coptic texts has been compiled by Brashear and Hoogendijk  (5) up to the year 1990, which has been updated by Worp  (6) and to which one may add SB Kopt. III 1690 and SB Kopt. IV 1848, as well as some recently published boards in Italian and Norwegian collections.  (7) Wooden boards were used for a wide range of text types, as the list illustrates, so the choice of writing material does not help in identifying the text in this instance. However, the script is of a rather upward bilinear type, which might point to a literary text in the wider sense. [ ]ⲙⲙ. . [ ] [ ] ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲛⲉⲧϣⲏϣ [ ] [ ⲛ]ⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁⲩⲉϣⲁϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲛϣⲟⲧ [ ] [ ] ⲙⲙ[ⲟ]ⲛ ⲉⲧⲙ̄ϭⲉⲡⲏ ⲉⲡ[ⲛⲟ]ⲃⲉ [ ]5 [ ] . . . . . . ⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ . [.] ϣⲓⲡⲉ[ ]v. [ ]ⲱ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ . . [ ] [ ]ⲩⲥ • ⲛⲁϭⲱ ϩⲓ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ ]“… into those spread ones … in hardship they recited/uttered words … us not to hasten to sin … (verso) …. If … will remain on God…”(5) W. BRasheaR & F.A.J. hoogenDijk, “Corpus Tabularum Lingearum Ceterarumque Aegyp-tiarum. Einleitung: Holzbretter als Schriftträger in Ägypten”, Enchoria 17 (1990), pp. 21-54, in part. see p. 44 for the Coptic ones. For T. Heidelberg Inv. 1897 and T. Leiden Inv. 156, 157a and 157b of their list see now A. DelattRe & K.A. WoRp, “Trois tablettes de bois du Musée de Leyde”, CdÉ 87 (2012), pp. 361-382 and for T.Vat.Copt. Inv. 112 see now SBKopt. III 1415.(6) K. WoRp, A New Survey of the Greek, Coptic, Demotic and Latin Tabulae Preserved from Classical Antiquity. Version 1.0, Trismegistos Online Publications 6 (Leiden & Leuven 2012), pp. 55-61.(7) A. DelattRe, H. haRRaueR & R. pintauDi, “Neues aus der Schule”, APapyrol 15 (2015), pp. 29-43, in part. pp. 29-31 & 34-43 and A. DelattRe, “Une tablette de bois de la Bibiothèque Laurentienne (PL III/954)”, APapyrol 15 (2015), pp. 45-48.425CoptiC texts from a private ColleCtion in sweden1 The ink is partly smeared and rubbed off. Of the remaining traces, nothing can be read.2 As the text breaks off after the ϣ, several verbs are possible here: beside the chosen ϣⲱϣ “spread, scatter,” the homograph ϣⲱϣ “make equal, level” and “twist (rope)” is also possible. The fragmentary state of preservation makes it impossible to argue with any certainty for any of these.3 Both the ⲧ and the ⲁ at the preserved beginning of the line seem certain. The ⲩ is less so and is surmised only on the ground that the space is sufficient for a narrow letter only. The other option might be to restore the letter ⲓ and assume a first per-son singular form, but seeing that the scribe positioned the letters surrounding the ⲓ in the word ϣⲓⲡⲉ l. 5 rather close to it, preference to the former is given here. The spatium after ϣⲁϫⲉ might be due to the descending stroke of the ϣ in the line directly above. Although the letter is slightly blurred, the general appearance is more that of an ⲛ than an ⲙ. Otherwise, one would have to assume two different ways of writing ⲙ for our scribe, a feature commonly attested not only for Coptic scribes.4 One would assume an avertive expression “[… admonishes or sim.] us lest we hasten to sin”. The sentence (or what remains of it) resembles Old Testament lan-guage. There, however, people are said to rush to evil and hasten to bloodshed (cf. Ps 13:4, Pro 1:16, 6:18 or Isa 59:7 as well as Rom 3:15 from the New Testament).Fig. 2 — T. PC-SE Inv. 3 rectoFig. 3 — T. PC-SE Inv. 3 verso426Égypte chrÉtienne et arabe5 No secure traces for the first ±5 letters of the line can be discerned. However, the scant traces that are visible make it certain that there was text.6 Instead of the conditional particle, the group ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ might also stand for preposi-tion plus infinitive, i.e., “to be.”7 The dot appears in an unexpected position, separating the subject from the verb. Therefore, it might have been unintentionally made. The vertical stroke still visible at the end of the line is rather short and hence, in all probability, it is the corner stroke of a ⲧ, as is written on the font side. Restoring ⲛⲟⲩⲧ or ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲙ is probably ruled out by the (admittedly rather fragmentary) context.Universität Basel Matthias mülleR

https://edoc.unibas.ch/57029/1/20171108134955_5a02fd734d5db.pdf

Coptic Texts from a Private Collection in Sweden

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

edoc