Gr. ὑπόμνημα περὶ τετελευτηκότοϲ or ὑπόμνημα τελευτῆϲ (?)
The declaration of death is a notification (hypomnema, literally “memorial”[1]) issued by an individual to inform the authorities of the decease of one or more relatives (or slaves) of his [2]. Though such documents do not belong properly to the corpus of the Greek medical papyri, death is a health condition, and they help conveying the view that in Graeco-Roman Egypt death was (also) a matter of bureaucracy, with a lot of paperwork produced around that. They also provide an interesting comparandum with regard to the petitions requesting official inspections in case of death[3]. Therefore, they deserve a mention among the documentary papyri dealing with medical topics.
[1] Cf. Bickermann 1930, 35 ff.; Ellart 2009, 236; see below.
[2] Cf. Wallace 1938, 106; Wilcken 1912, 196; Grassi 1922, 208-11; Montevecchi 1946; Mertens 1958, 65-77; Casarico 1985; Scheidel 1999; Kruse 2002, I, 139-68.
[3] See Medicalia Online s.v. Medical report. The two typologies had different immediate purposes (cf. Heinen 2006, part. 196-8), but the context of both was the same: death as a public fact. This lemma is a result of a paper titled Official Deaths: Death Notifications and Medical Reports in the Greek Papyri from Egypt, which I presented at the international conference “‘In the Midst of Life we are in Death’: Death, Burial and the Afterlife in the Arts and Humanities” held at the University College Dublin on June 24, 2016. That paper as well as this lemma have been redacted also in connection with the Project “Synopsis. Data Processing and State Management in Roman Egypt (30 BCE-300 CE)” conducted by Prof. Dr. Andrea Jördens (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg) and Prof. Uri Yiftach-Firanko (Tel Aviv University) under a grant of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (G-38-111.4/2011). I refer to Yiftach-Reggiani 2017 and Reggiani 2018 for further reference and bibliography on the topic.
The language employed in the declarations of death is strictly connected to their entirely administrative background, namely related to the capitation tax (laographia) that every non-Roman inhabitant of Egypt had to pay yearly.
First of all, the deceased is almost always declared along with a clear indication of his tax status and legal residence. It is stated if he was a full payer of the poll tax (telon, teleios); a fully exempted person, for age limits (see below) or other reasons (apolysimos “released”, en te atelia “in the state of being not liable”); a member of tax-relevant professional guilds (e.g. gerdios “weaver”; hierotekton “sacred architect”; ktenistes “hairdresser”, eriopoles “wool seller”) or other special categories (atechnos “unemployed”, hiereus “priest”, dodekadrachmos apo gymnasiou); or finally a laographoumenos (term of controversial meaning, likely pointing to someone in the process of being registered for the payment of the poll tax).
Even all the personal data are tax-oriented. Neither the age nor the exact date of death are recorded[1]. The former, which acts as a relevant personal identifier in almost all the official and legal documents on papyrus, made its entrance only when the age limits of tax liability were questioned. If one was less than 14 years old, then he fell into the class of the underage (aphelikes), if more than 60 into the overage (hypereteis), both of them totally exempted from the laographia. From this standpoint, it is of the utmost interest the declaration D91, where the dead is recorded as prosbas eis tessareskaidekaeteis, “come into the (category of the) 14-year-olds”. It is one of the only two exact statement of age in such documents, and its purpose is clear.
As regards the date of death, the preference is clearly accorded to the recording of the month rather than the exact day, which appears only three times. This fact has been interpreted since a long time with the inherited tax obligations of the deceased’s heirs: U. Wilcken, first, suggested that if one passed away within the first half of the year, the heirs had to pay any residual instalments left over by the deceased up to the sixth month (Mecheir) only, otherwise they had to pay any possible arrears up to the end of the year, and this idea has been shared by almost all the scholars[2]. Recently, W. Scheidel has challenged this theory after analysing the seasonal trend of death declarations, and advanced some alternative options, one of which keeps the Mecheir-deadline but refers it to a full 12-month year instead of a half 6-month year[3]. Much of these speculations rely on data that are poorly relevant from the statistical viewpoint: but striking are the statements that we can find in D84 and D95, that the deceased(s) had died “having paid everything for his tax dues” and “paid the due taxes up to now” – i.e. no claims are to be expected by the heirs who submitted the declarations[4] (see also below for further evidence).
[1] These indications are instead recorded on different types of documents related to death, such as mummy labels: cf. Boyaval 1981. However, this is not a regular habit (cf. also Youtie 1976, 631).
[2] Wilcken 1912, 196; Westermann-Keyes 1932, p. 82; Wallace 1938, 124-5; Casarico 1985, 17; P.Petaus 9, note ad l. 17; Kruse 2002, I, 139-41. For some observations on death and tax liabilities, cf. also Meerson 2010, 546-8. The idea that law forced the heirs to pay for any residual dues left over by the deceased fits the likely principle that the heir was responsible for the debts of the deceased (Taubenschlag 1955, 218-9).
[3] Scheidel 1999, passim.
[4] One of the main counter-arguments advanced by Scheidel 1999, that “about a quarter of all known texts report the death of individuals who were not liable to pay poll tax” (p. 63), might be explained, as already Mertens 1958, 131 thought, with the fact that it was important to declare the privileged or exempted status of the deceased in order to avoid undue exactions.
1. The text typology: name, occurrences, evidence.
There is no certain attestation of the official name of the declaration of death, but we may infer that it was something close to the terms ὑπόμ(νημα) π̣ε̣ρ̣ὶ̣ τετελευτηκ(ότος) and ὑπόμ(νημα) τελευτ(ῆς) that were inscribed on the verso of D16 and D52. See also the many recordings ἐξ ὑπομ(νήματος) that are listed in P.Lond. II 259, passim, in the section devoted to the register of the dead (see below), meaning that the information was extracted from the declarations of death.
The evidence currently amounts to 106 pieces, dated from the 1st to the early 4th century AD (the earliest to AD 2/3, the latest to 311), coming mostly from the Arsinoites and the Oxyrhynchites (but documents from other nomoi are attested). The practice is clearly Roman, being connected with the census operations and the population control[1]. The pieces of evidence of archival and bureaucratic procedures are described below[2]
.
A special case is represented by a couple of documents that we can define as “notices of death” (N1 & N2 in the final table, below), since they aim at communicating the death of a person as well, but don’t follow the usual procedure. N1 is a paper issued by the keepers of the logisterion (the public accounting office) of Oxyrhynchus, by which they communicate to the strategos that a tax farmer died after having got ill while he was in prison, “so that the fact is made manifest and no further inquiries will be necessary”. Slight differences from the usual declarations of death are for example the lack of indication of the tax status of the deceased and the recording of the exact date of death; the document cannot even be considered as an official request for medical inspection[3] since it is clearly stated that it was submitted in order to avoid later inspections (μή πως ὕστερον ἐπιζ̣[η]|τηθῇ, ll. 24-5). Probably, in the case that someone’s death was attested and certified by some public officers, no special inquests were needed (it might therefore represent a particular case of exetasis: see below); or maybe this kind of notice would lead to the simple intervention of the komogrammateus for the administrative certification of the fact (see below as well). At any rate, the case looks similar to that of N2. This document, unfortunately fragmentary, is the final part of the report of the death of a shepherd, occurred while he was pasturing his flock. The writer, Aurelius Sakaon, who in those years acted as a tax official (sitologos) in his village[4], declares that he was unable to ascertain the cause of death, and that he is reporting such so that the addressee (the strategos?) takes cognizance of the fact. The terminology used in this fragment is of the utmost interest. Sakaon says that he was unable to move the corpse and to perform an inspection (μὴ δυνόμε|νος οὐ ῥ̣ᾳδίως κομίσ̣αι αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα μηδὲ | ἐπιθεωρῆσαι αὐτοῦ τὸν θάνατον, ll. 2-4; the verb epitheoreo is the same used in the medical reports[5]), and that therefore he ignores how he passed away (ἀγνω|ῶν πῶς ἐ̣τελεύτησεν̣, ll. 4-5) ἄνευ ἀσφαλείας (l. 5), “without an official certification”, which probably refers to the lack of an official report stating the cause of death[6]. Then, in the submission clause, he states that he is issuing the petition ἀσφα|λιζόμενο̣ς̣ περὶ τού[τ]ου (ll. 6-7), a formulaic clause that usually indicates the remission of responsibility through an official declaration[7]. We cannot be sure of what is going on here, but certainly the document does not request any medical inspection – perhaps in this case too the official position of the writer was enough to certificate the death?
2. Administrative framework and (non-)medical practice.
The document was addressed at the same time to the basilikos grammateus (the royal scribe, secretary of the strategos, the head of each nomos or region of Egypt) and, in copy, to the komogrammateus (the secretary of the village, keeper of the local archives and registers) or similar officers (the grammateus poleos in the big city of Oxyrhynchus, the grammateus metropoleos in Ptolemais Euergetis, capital of the Arsinoites). A couple of declarations are preserved in two copies, each addressed to one of the two officials (D6 and D74). We have some cases of declarations addressed to special tax officials[8], but it is not clear whether they were intended to replace the komogrammateus or to receive just an additional copy for reference.
In a group of declarations addressed to the basilikos grammateus we find an annotation by which he ordered to the komogrammateus (vel sim.) to conduct an enquiry (exetasis) into the declared death and to provide a signed report (D8; D26-27; D30; D38-39; D41; D42-43; D56; D59?; D67; D74-78; D79; D85-86; D95)[9]. This means that at least one copy of the document was forwarded between the local offices in order to check the situation. We are not informed about this procedure of exetasis (see above for some further considerations): apparently, none of such documents is preserved. We can infer that the inspection was by no means similar to that performed by the public doctors together with the collaborator of the strategos, which was aimed at producing a legal certification of the diathesis (conditions) of the corpse (in case of death) or of the injured (in case of wounds)[10]. The komogrammateus indeed was asked just to ascertain that the deceased was really dead: no special medical competences were required. We may wonder whether it was enough, for him, to put an official subscription to state that he had received the notice, as we possess some instances of the latter coming along with the specification achri exetaseos (D3; D45; D52-53; D64; D71; D73; D80; D88; D92). Since there is no overlap with the documentation bearing the order of the b.g., it seems likely that the k.g. signed his own copy, not the one forwarded to him by the higher official. We simply do not know whether he actually sent the former to his superior.
The original declarations were kept at the public archives, as shown by the progressive numbers added to some of the extant examples, which point to the practice of keeping official documents glued in rolls (tomoi synkollesimoi) where each leaf (kollema) was numbered for cross-references (D14; D29?; D38+39; D58+59; D60+61; D97; D99+100; D101]). At the offices, the collected data were used to update the population and census registers (see below), as is attested by the occurrence of a phrase indicating the official recording of the data (κατακεχώρισται-clause in D2; D29; D31; D46; D57; D65; D72; D99-100?), but authenticated copies must have been issued to the declarers themselves, as might be shown by the official signature added by the local officials to some of the extant documents (D17; D19; D21; D22; D23; D28; D46 – and see D3 where an official subscription is explicitly required by the declarant).
3. Purposes of the declarations of death.
The first aim of the declarations of death was to request that the name of the deceased be added to a special register called the “list of the dead” (taxis teteleutekoton) and, at the same time, cancelled from the official tax registers, which recorded the payments due year by year[11]. The administrative practice of updating population and tax registers with the information about dead persons is shown by several examples. P.Oxy. 24.2412 (Herakleopolites, 28/9 AD) is a list of tax payments (involving especially the capitation tax: see the caption λαογρ(αφίας) at l. 101) where a couple of personal entries are marked as “dead” and a sub-group is titled ἐτελ(εύτησαν) (l. 86). P.Lond. II 257 + 258 + 259 (Arsinoites, 94/5 AD) is a census register (laographia kat’andra) with appended lists of special categories, among which the dead (ll. 65 ff.), with detailed chronological references. SB 16.12816 is a population register (Soknopaiou Nesos, 179 AD) recording variations, by reduction (elassomata: cf. l. 20; the same vocabulary occurs in the aforesaid P.Lond. II 259) of the dead and addition of new adults, affecting the tax liability of the local priesthood[12]. P.Sijp. 26 (Philadelphia, 56 AD) is a general summary population account aimed at stating how many men were liable to the poll tax, by subtracting exempted groups, and the dead taken from the proper register (ll. 16-22)[13].
An additional disclaimer, sometimes provided at the end of the declarations of death, adds further evidence to the aforesaid theory about the hereditary tax duties. Through this disclaimer, the declarer states that by sending the notice he would not be culpable of anything (anaitios: D7, D10) or that he would not undergo any bothers (D2, D24), which in one case are explicitly indicated as related to tax payments (D103).
It is important to stress that the declarations of death had a fully administrative aim: they applied to every individual, involved a personal declaration issued to administrative officials, and had an exclusive tax purpose. They are therefore very different from the medical reports in case of death, which applied to unexpected deceases, either of criminal origin or not, and involved a petition to a higher authority, the aim of which was to obtain an official legal certification. Both cases involved an impressive lot of paperwork, leaving to us the picture that even death was a fundamental element of the State management.
[1] Cf. Casarico 1985, 3-6; Ellart 2009, passim, where discussion of the compulsory state of such documents is also provided.
[2] Two particular documents are BGU I 45 (AD 203, from Soknopaiou Nesos) and P.Princ. II 29 (AD 258, from Kaminou), two petitions addressed to the strategos of the Herakleides division (Arsinoites) by two privates who report accidents involving severe injury to, respectively, the son of the former (attacked and beaten during agricultural work) and the brother of the latter (fallen from a roof during an attack by Libyans). In both, the writers ask that the case is registered (ἐν καταχωρισμῷ γενέσθαι: BGU 45,16-17; P.Princ. 29,17-18) so that the injured do not die (μὴ ἄρα ἀνθρώπινόν τι | τῷ [υἱῷ] μου συμβῇμὴ: BGU 45,18-19; [μηδὲν] ἀνθρωπ{ε}ι|νὸν αὐτῷ σ[υμβ]ῇ: P.Princ. 29,18-19). Both look to me (as already to the editor of the Princeton papyrus) like soliciting requests: the impression is that the petitioners had already requested some medical inspection for the injured (see Medicalia Online s.v. Medical report), but the practices were somehow delayed, and now the subjects risk their life (that the writers ask that the report be kept on file in case the injured should die [as argued by HENNIG 2014, 20-1, but already envisaged in the translation by YOUTIE 1978, 293] seems less likely, otherwise they would be very strange and unparalleled cases of declaration of death in advance).
[3] So, instead, Ellart 2009, 243. See Medicalia Online s.v. Medical report.
[4] Cf. Parassoglou 1978.
[5] Cf. Ricciardetto 2013, 114, and Medicalia Online s.v. Medical report.
[6] Cf. Ricciardetto 2013, 114.
[7] Cf. Ricciardetto 2013, 114 (“le but de se protéger d’éventuels soupçons d’assassinat”).
[8] eklemptor ousias: D9; misthotes ousias: D11; eklemptor gerdion: D12; hegoumenoi hiereon: D13; praktores cheironaxiou gerdion: D21; misthotai (?):D37. Cf. Ellart 2009, 238, who stresses the tax framework of this fact.
[9] Cf. Ellart 2009, 240-1. Despite geographical and chronological differences, the structure of the order-clause is quite formulaic, and made up of the following elements: addressed official, in dative (the official is never addressed with his proper name, but only with his title; and in just few cases the name of the village is provided); conditional clause expressing the condition to be fulfilled in order to carry on the official process (“if he has died”; the clause is often enriched with the phrase “in truth” and with the explicit reference to the person in question - “the aforementioned”); order to register the deceased (anagrapsamenos) and to deliver a sworn report (meta cheirographias prosphoneson) about the matter. During the second decade of the II century AD this detailed order is replaced by a shorter formula, which points to the standardized administrative process (“accomplish accordingly”) that was previously referred to with the phrase “as usual”. A final statement dealing with the responsibility of the official in case that the order is not fulfilled properly is added. D30, dated 110 AD, seems to attest the transition: the phrases meta cheirographias and anagrapsamenos are scrambled and juxtaposed to the summary formula to akolouthon epitelei followed by the statement of responsibility.
[10] Cf. Medicalia Online s.v. Medical report.
[11] Cf. Ellart 2009, 240.
[12] For discussion of this text see Hobson 1984, part. 848-52.
[13] Cf. Yiftach-Reggiani 2017 and Reggiani 2018 for further details. On the existence of registers of the dead in Rome cf. Ellart 2009, 224 ff., with earlier bibliography.
E. Bickermann (1930), Beiträge zu antiken Urkundengeschichte II, APF 9, 24-46.
B. Boyaval (1981), La date sur les etiquettes de momies, BASP 18, 101-18.
L. Casarico (1985), Il controllo della popolazione nell’Egitto romano, 1. Le denunce di morte, Azzate.
C. Sanchez-Moreno Ellart (2009), Las declaraciones de defunción en el imperio romano: el caso de Egipto, in Formae mortis: el tránsito de la vida a la muerte en las sociedades antiguas, coord. por F.M. Simón, F. Pina Polo y J. Remesal Rodríguez, Barcelona, 217-52.
T. Grassi (1922), Formulari, “Aegyptus” 3, 206-11.
H. Heinen (2006), Amtsärztliche Untersuchung eines toten Sklaven. Überlegungen zu P.Oxy. III 475, in Medicina e società nel mondo antico. Atti del convegno di Udine (4-5 ottobre 2005), a cura di A. Marcone, Firenze, 194-202.
D.W. Hobson (1984), P.Vindob. Gr. 24951 + 24556: New Evidence for Tax-Exempt Status in Roman Egypt, in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli 1983), Napoli, III, 847-64.
Th. Kruse (2002), Der königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung, Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Phillipus Arabs (30 v. Chr. – 245 n. Chr.), I-II, München.
M. Meerson (2010), Seasons of Death for Donors and Testators, in Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology (Ann Arbor, July 29 - August 4, 2007), edited by T. Gagos and A. Hyatt, Ann Arbor, 541-9.
P. Mertens (1958), Les Services de l’État Civil et le contrôle de la population à Oxyrhynchus au IIIe siècle de notre ère, Brussel.
O. Montevecchi (1946), Ricerche di sociologia nei documenti dell’Egitto greco-romano, V. Le denunce di morte, “Aegyptus” 26, 111-29.
G.M. Parássoglou (1978), The Archive of Aurelius Sakaon: Papers of an Egyptian Farmer in the last Century of Theadelphia, Bonn [= P.Sakaon].
N. Reggiani (2018), Identifying People in Official Reports: The Administrative Practice in Roman Egypt (I-III cent. CE), in Accounts and Bookkeeping in the Ancient World, edited by A. Jördens and U. Yiftach, Wiesbaden 2018, forthcoming.
W. Scheidel (1999), The Death Declarations of Roman Egypt: A Re-appraisal, BASP 36, 53-70.
R. Taubenschlag (1955), The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.-640 A.D., Warszawa2 [19441].
S.L. Wallace (1938), Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Princeton (NJ)-London.
W.L. Westermann, C.W.Keyes (1932), edited by, Tax Lists and Transportation Receipts from Theadelphia, New York [= P.Col. II].
U. Wilcken (1912), Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I Bd. Historischer Teil, II Hälfte Chrestomathie, Leipzig-Berlin.
U. Yiftach, N. Reggiani (2017), Synopsis: Data Processing in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Wiesbaden 2017, forthcoming.
L.C. Youtie (1976), Mummy Labels, in Collectanea Papyrologica. Texts Published in Honor of H.C. Youtie, II, Bonn, 627-52.
H.C. Youtie (1978), Critical Trifles VI, ZPE 29, 293-4 [= Scriptiunculae Posteriores, I, Bonn 1981, 465-6].
DECLARATIONS OF DEATH
(CPG II = Casarico 1985)
D# |
Papyrus |
Provenance |
Date AD |
|
|
|
|
1 |
CPG II 1 = P.Oxy. IV 826 |
Oxyrhynchites |
2/3 |
2 |
CPG II 2 = P.Mert. I 9 |
Theadelphia (Ars.) |
12 |
3 |
CPG II 3 = PRG II 11 |
Ankyron (Ars.) |
19 |
4 |
CPG II 4 = P.Fay. 29 |
Euhemeria (Ars.) |
37 |
5 |
P.Mich.inv. 888 |
Philadelphia (Ars.) |
41-54 |
6 |
CPG II 5 a&b = SB XIV 11586-7 |
Philadelphia (Ars.) |
47 |
7 |
CPG II 6 = SB XII 11112 |
Philadelphia (Ars.) |
48 |
8 |
SB XX 15037 |
Arsinoites |
49 |
9 |
CPG II 7 = P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2837 |
Oxyrhynchus |
50 |
10 |
P.Gen. III 137 |
Philadelphia (Ars.) |
50 |
11 |
CPG II 8 = SB XVI 12383 |
Oxyrhynchus |
55/6 |
12 |
CPG II 9 = P.Oxy. II 262 |
Oxyrhynchus |
61 |
13 |
CPG II 10 = P.Lond. II 281 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
66/7 |
14 |
CPG II 11 = BGU XI 2087, ii |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
41-68 |
15 |
CPG II 12 = PSI XIV 1433 |
? |
69 |
16 |
CPG II 13 = P.Stras. 200 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
70 |
17 |
P.Oxy. LXV 4478 |
Oxyrhynchus |
74 |
18 |
CPG II 14 = BGU II 583 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
a. 76 |
19 |
CPG II 15 = P.Oxy. XLIX 3510 |
Oxyrhynchites |
78/9 |
20 |
CPG II 16 = P.Stras. 522 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
87 |
21 |
CPG II 17 = P.Oxy. XLI 2957 |
Oxyrhynchus |
91 |
22 |
PSI XV 1522 |
Oxyrhynchus |
91/2 |
23 |
CPG II 18 = PSI XV 1522 |
Oxyrhynchus |
91/2 |
24 |
P.Monts.Roca IV 68 |
n.d. |
I-II |
25 |
CPG II 19 = BGU III 773 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
100 |
26 |
CPG II 20 = BGU IV 1068 |
Apollonias (Ars.) |
101 |
27 |
CPG II 21 = P.Lond. II 173 |
Karanis (Ars.) |
101 |
28 |
CPG II 22 = PSI VIII 952 |
Oxyrhynchites |
102 |
29 |
CPG II 23 = P.Med. 35 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
108 |
30 |
CPG II 24 = SB XIV 11706 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
110 |
31 |
CPG II 25 = P.Mich. inv. 2841 |
Karanis (Ars.) |
111 |
32 |
CPG II 26 = P.Oxy. XII 1550 |
Oxyrhynchus |
116 |
33 |
SB XX 15038 |
Tebtunis (Ars.) |
117 |
34 |
CPG II 27 = P.Iand. 31 |
Theadelphia (Ars.) |
96-117 |
35 |
SB XX 15011 |
Tebtunis (Ars.) |
117-138 |
36 |
CPG II 28 = P.Mich. IX538 |
Psenyris (Ars.) |
126 |
37 |
CPG II 29 = PSI inv. 624r |
Toka (Oxyrhynchites) |
126/7 |
38 |
CPG II 30 = PSI IX 1064 i |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
129 |
39 |
CPG II 31 = PSI IX 1064 ii |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
129 |
40 |
CPG II 32 a&b = P.Phil. 6-7 |
Philadelphia (Ars.) |
129 |
41 |
P.Narm. 7 |
Narmouthis (Ars.) |
135 |
42 |
CPG II 33 = P.Ryl. II 105 |
Sentrempaeis (Ars.) |
136 |
43 |
CPG II 34 = P.Stras. 70 |
Theadelphia (Ars.) |
137/8 |
44 |
CPG II 35 = P.Lond. II 208a |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
138 |
45 |
CPG II 36 = P.Stras. 312 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
139 |
46 |
CPG II 37 = PSI X 1141 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
141 |
47 |
CPG II 38 = BGU I 17 |
Philopator (Ars.) |
142 |
48 |
PSI Com. 13 ? |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
146/7 |
49 |
P.Cair.Mich. II 16 |
Karanis (Ars.) |
158/9? |
50 |
CPG II 39 = P.Oxy. IX 1198 |
Teis (Oxyrhynchites) |
150 |
51 |
CPG II 40 = P.Mich. X 579 |
Oxyrhynchus |
c. 150 |
52 |
CPG II 41 = P.Tebt. II 300 |
Tebtunis (Ars.) |
151 |
53 |
CPG II 42 = P.Osl. III 97 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
151 |
54 |
CPG II 43 = BGU XIII 2229 |
Bakchias (Ars.) |
152/3 |
55 |
CGP 44 = P.Oxy. XXXI 2564 |
Oxyrhynchus |
153 |
56 |
CPG II 45 = SPP XX 8, p. 10 |
Karanis (Ars.) |
153 |
57 |
CPG II 46 = P.Ryl. II 106 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
158 |
58 |
CPG II 47 = BGU XIII 2230 i |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
160 |
59 |
CPG II 48 = BGU XIII 2230 ii |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
159/60 |
60 |
CPG II 49, i = BGU I 254, i |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
160 |
61 |
CPG II 49, ii = BGU I 254, ii |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
160? |
62 |
CPG II 50 = P.Stras. 528 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
145-60 |
63 |
CPG II 51 = P.Oxy. XXXVI 2761 |
Oxyrhynchus |
161-9 |
64 |
CPG II 52 = P.Lond. II 338 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
170 |
65 |
CPG II 53 = P.Fay. 30 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
171 |
66 |
CPG II 54 = P.Oxy. I 173 |
Oxyrhynchites |
174 |
67 |
CPG II 55 = SPP XX 8, p. 11 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
175/6 |
68 |
CPG II 56 = PSI VI 691 |
Oxyrhynchites? |
176 |
69 |
P.Prag. I 19 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
177-80 |
70 |
P.Gen. III 139 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
178 |
71 |
P.Oxy. LXV 4479 |
Oxyrhynchus |
179 |
72 |
CPG II 57 = P.Stras. 530 |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
180 |
73 |
CPG II 58 = BGU XIII 2231 |
Karanis (Ars.) |
184 |
74 |
CPG II 59 a&b = P.Petaus 3-4 |
Ptolemais Hormou (Ars.) |
184 |
75 |
CPG II 60 = P.Petaus 5 |
Ptolemais Hormou (Ars.) |
184 |
76 |
CPG II 61 = P.Petaus 6 |
Ptolemais Hormou (Ars.) |
185 |
77 |
CPG II 62 = P.Petaus 7 |
Ptolemais Hormou (Ars.) |
185 |
78 |
CPG II 63 = P.Petaus 8 |
Ptolemais Hormou (Ars.) |
185 |
79 |
CPG II App.2 = P.Petaus 9 |
Kerkesoucha Orous (Ars.) |
185 |
80 |
CPG II 64 = P.Tebt. II 301 |
Tebtunis (Ars.) |
190 |
81 |
CPG II 65 = P.Oxy. I 79 |
Sesphtha (Oxyrhynchites) |
180-92 |
82 |
P.CtYBR inv.606 |
Narmouthis (Ars.) |
192 |
83 |
CPG II 66 = P.Mert. II 84 |
Oxyrhynchus |
201 |
84 |
CPG II 67 = P.Flor. III 308 |
Hermopolites |
203 |
85 |
CPG II 68 = P.Fay. 237 |
Euhemeria (Ars.) |
II-III |
86 |
CPG II 69 = P.Leeds 10 |
Arsinoites |
II-III |
87 |
CPG II 70 = P.Amst. I 32 |
Arsinoites |
c. II-III |
88 |
CPG II 71 = P.Oxy. VII 1030 |
Oxyrhynchus |
212 |
89 |
CPG II 72 a&b = SB VI 9627a-b |
Ptolemais Euergetis (Ars.) |
215 |
90 |
CPG II 73 = BGU XI 2021 |
Arsinoites |
215 |
91 |
P.Oxy. LXXIV 4992 |
Oxyrhynchus |
223/4 |
92 |
CPG II 74 = P.Stras. 306 |
Theadelphia (Ars.)? |
225 |
93 |
CPG II 74bis = P.Oxy. LII 3689 |
Teis (Oxyrhynchites) |
226 |
94 |
CPG II 75 = P.Amst. I 31 |
Oxyrhynchites? |
227/8 228/9 |
95 |
CPG II 76 = SB XVI 12712 |
Onomphthis (Hermopolites) |
229 |
96 |
CPG II 77 = SB I5137 |
Herakleopolites |
237 |
97 |
CPG II 78 = SPP XX 36, ii |
Mouchenomthos (Herakleopolites) |
237 |
98 |
P.Oxy. LXXIV 4998 |
Oxyrhynchus |
253/4 |
99 |
P.Oxy. LXXIV 4997 |
Oxyrhynchus |
254 |
100 |
P.Oxy. LXXIV 4996 |
Oxyrhynchus |
254/5 |
101 |
CPG II 79 = P.Bour. 26 |
Memphis |
III |
102 |
CPG II 80 = SB I 5176 |
Soknopaiou Nesos (Ars.) |
III |
103 |
CPG II 81 = P.Oxy. XLIII 3141 |
Oxyrhynchus |
299/300 |
104 |
P.Mich.inv. 2320 |
|
300-301 |
105 |
CPG II 82 = P.Oxy. XIII 1551 |
Oxyrhynchus |
304 |
106 |
P.Oxy. LXV 4480 |
Oxyrhynchus |
311 |
NOTICES OF DEATH
N# |
Papyrus |
Provenance |
Date AD |
|
|
|
|
1 |
CPG II App.3 = P.Oxy. XLIII 3104 |
Oxyrhynchus |
228 |
2 |
P.Sakaon 50 = P.Thead. 57 |
Theadelphia (Ars.) |
317 |
Nicola Reggiani