Teorías de Marketing Digital 1. Teorías de los 6 grados

edfu? April 13, AD 12

lAcmA inv. m.80.202.188. Sherd, 7.1 x 10.5 cm. convex side inscribed with four lines of greek. http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?

request=record&id=45821&type=101 1 Ἔτ�υς �� Φ�ρ(��ῦθι) ι͞η. τέλ(oς) 2 τ�ριχ( ) �͞� (ἔτ�υς) Τκ̣�̣λῆς

3 Ψεν��υή(ρεως) (δρ�χ�ὰς) δέκ� �ί�ν, 4 (γίν�ντ�ι) ι�. Ἐση(�ειωσ��ην).

“year 41, Pharmouthi 18. (has paid for) tax on tarich( ) of the 41th year, Tkales daughter of Psenpoueris, eleven dr., makes 11. i have signed.”

22-24 are tax receipts from a 41st regnal year, probably written in three consecutive months and issued to the same tax payer, Tkales daughter of Psen-poueris. There is some doubt about the provenance of these texts, their date, and the precise nature of the payment recorded in them, but it seems reason-able to suppose that we are dealing with receipts for embalmers’ and burial tax (see 22.2n. and 24.2n.). further literature on the burial tax (τέλ�ς τ�φῆς) in greek documents from (roman) egypt is given in the introductions to

38 Klaas A. Worp

O.Cair. 89 and 91 (where WO 2.1065 and 1585 refer to the same text) and especially by B. Verbeeck and g. Wagner in their edition of o.Assiut coll.

127 (Thebes, AD 138; = SB 22.15083) in ZPE 81 (1990) 290-295; their list of published tax receipts contains 17 ostraca exclusively from Thebes and cov-ering the period 108 (?)-192. See now also the ostraca SB 20.15120 (Thebes, 177) and O.Heid. 99 (?), 113, 114, 118, 216, 235, and 254; for general remarks on burials in roman egypt, see f. Dunand, “Du séjour osirien des morts à l’au-delà chrétien. Pratiques funéraires en Égypte tardive,” Ktèma 11 (1986 [1990]) 29-37, and h.-J. Drexhage, “einige Bemerkungen zum mumientrans-port und den Bestattungskosten im römischen Ägypten,” Laverna 5 (1994) 167-175. for the burial tax as illustrated by Demotic texts from edfu, cf. B.P.

muhs, “Demotic ostraca from Ptolemaic edfu and the Ptolemaic Tax System,”

in K. Vandorpe and W. clarysse (eds.), Edfu, an Egyptian Provincial Capital in the Ptolemaic Period (Brussels 2003) 75-105, especially 82-91 (early Ptole-maic funerary tax receipts) and 102-105 (late PtolePtole-maic funerary tax receipts).

our texts stand apart in that they are much earlier than the earliest text in the list given by Verbeeck and Wagner 292. moreover, these lAcmA texts seem to come from a place other than Thebes and its surroundings, because their formula for recording the payments does not seem normal:

(1) the date (in all three texts 22, 23, and 24: year 41, month and day);

(2) the name of the tax: 22.1-2: τέλ(oς) τ�ριχ( ); 23.2: . . . . .( ); and 24.2: τ̣ε̣λ( ) τ�φικ( );

(3) the indication of the fiscal year paid for (year 41 in all three texts);

(4) the name of the taxpayer (a certain Τκ�λῆς Ψεν��υήρεως in all three texts);

(5) the amount (22.3: 11 dr.; 23.4: 1 dr., 3 ob.; and 24.4: 3 dr., 4 ob.), and (6) the signature: just Ἐση(�ειωσ��ην) in all three texts.

given the extreme brevity of the information recorded and the reddish color of the pottery, it seems quite possible that they come from edfu (cf.

O.Elkab, p. 31). There are, however, no obvious similarities between the con-tents of these greek burial/embalmers’ tax receipts and their Demotic counter-parts (cf. muhs, tables 3 and 10), except that the payment of an amount of 6.5 kite = 13 dr. (cf. muhs, table 3, no. 21) comes fairly close to the total amount paid in these greek receipts, 15 dr., 7 ob. (= 16 dr., 1 ob.).

1 A 41st regnal year of an anonymous ruler can be assigned to the reign of Ptolemy Viii euergetes ii (= 130/129). using the tables of T.c. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies, 2nd ed. (munich 1969), we find that Pharmouthi 18 in that case equals may 9, 129Bc. however, as D. hagedorn kindly reminds me,

there is the distinct possibility that we are dealing with the 41st regnal year of Augustus (= 11/12) without a mention of the crucial word Κ�ίσ�ρ�ς vel sim.

The date can then be converted to April 13, AD 12. it is not easy to choose between these two dates only on the basis of palaeographical criteria, but an early date is unlikely because of the amount of money involved, and especially because of the signature in l. 4, Ἐση(�ειωσ��ην). A check in the DDBDP reveals that to date this occurs only in texts from roman egypt (the same observation can be made for the signature σεση�είω��ι). in order to allow a further study of the phenomenon of the omission of the word Κ�ίσ�ρ�ς in ostraca attributed to the reign Augustus, i append a list of texts featuring a regnal year not provided with an element Κ�ίσ�ρ�ς vel sim.³

2 Should we resolve τ�ριχ( ) as τ�ριχ(ευτῶν), τ�ρίχ(�υ/ων), or τ�ριχ(ηρᾶς)? given that we are dealing with payments for a tax on burials vel sim., and that the normal task of τ�ριχευτ�ί = “embalmers” is burial, i prefer the first option. We would be dealing, then, with a payment of a tax supporting their activities.

for the name Ψεν��υῆρις, cf. NB Dem. s.v. The name Τκ�λῆς does not appear there, but it looks as that of a female, i.e. Τ- + κ�λῆς; cf. the masculine counterpart Πκ�λῆς (five attestations in the DDBDP). There is no reason to think that in egypt a female person could not be paying for embalmers’/burial taxes; see the table of documents given by Verbeeck and Wagner 292.

3-4 it remains an unsolved question whether the eleven drachmas are paid in copper or in silver. if the former, the sum is insubstantial, but eleven silver drachmas represented a sizeable amount of money.

3 nB: The HGV was searched only for ostraca written between the years -31 and 14.

This produced a total of 278 ostraca.

40 Klaas A. Worp

Excursus: Ostraca featuring a regnal year without Καίσαρος

Reference Year HGV year date

O.Amst. 37 12 19/18^a (by Theban banker)

O.Mich. 2.732 12 alternative years: 70^a, 41^a, or 19^a O.Mich. 1.5 20 alternative years: 10^a or 34^p

O.Bodl. 2.1974 20 ca. 10^a

O.Mich. 1.299 21

---O.Mich. 2.742 21

---WO 2.666 22 alternative years: 9^a or 35^p

O.Mich. 2.713 22 alternative years: 9^a or 35^p O.Mich. 2.712 22 alternative years: 8^a or 36^p O.Mich. 2.743 22 alternative years: 60/59^a, 9/8^a or

35/36^p

O.Mich. 2.761 22 alternative years: 92^a, 59^a or 8^a O.Mich. 2.762 22 alternative years: 92^a, 59^a or 8^a

O.Mich. 4.1119 22 9/8^a

O.Edfou 3.389 23 8/7^a

O.Mich. 2.744 23

---O.Mich. 2.745 23

---O.Fay. 12 24 6^a

O.Tebt. 6 25 6/5^a

O.Tebt. 14 descr. 26 5^a

SB 16.12410 26 4^a

O.Mich. 1.17 26 4^a

O.Mich. 2.714 28 3^a

O.Edfou 3.390 and 392 29 2/1^a

O.Mich. 3.994 29 1^a

O.Bodl. 2.2536 34 alternative years: 83^a or 5^p

O.Stras. 605 38 8/9^p

Datings by “anonymous” regnal years on ostraca purportedly or possibly stemming from reigns later than Augustus are found in:

Reference Year HGV year date

O.Edfou 1.57 = CPJ 2.230 2 56^p or later (so CPJ 2.230 commentary)

O.Elkab 205 5 19^p or 44^p

O.Mich. 1.296 15 29^p or 96^p

O.Mich. 1.298 17 31^p

And in the list above:

O.Mich. 2.731 11 alternative years: 24^p, 20^a or 42^a O.Mich. 2.747 12 alternative years: 26^p, 18^a or 40^a O.Elkab 204 = O.Bodl. 2.408 13 alternative years: 27^p, 53^p, or 17^a O.Mich. 1.5 20 alternative years: 34^p or 10^a

WO 2.666 22 alternative years: 35^p or 9^a

O.Mich. 2.713 22 alternative years: 35^p or 9^a O.Mich. 2.712 22 alternative years: 36^p or 8^a

O.Mich. 2.743 22 alternative years: 35/36^p or 9/8^a, or 60/59^a

42 Klaas A. Worp