History and find spot:When P. BM EA 10405 (layout in transversa) was purchased by the British Museum in 1835, its provenance was not clear. It soon turned out that the papyrus belonged to a bundle of six demotic letters in the property of the British Museum, all referring to a general Herianoupis. These letters came into the possession of the British Museum in different ways:
In 1835 the British Museum acquired three papyri at the auction of Henry Salt's collection at Sotherby's:
- P. BM EA 10406 (Salt 274;
TM 43930; BC 160 Oct 2 - 159 Oct 1);
- P. BM EA 10405 (Salt 823;
TM 43929; BC 159 Jan 1);
- P. BM EA 10231 (Salt 697;
TM 43898; BC 159 Feb 27).
In 1837 the British Museum purchased one letter from the traditional London auction house Phillips, Son & Neale (together with P. BM EA 10225; Phillips 39;
TM 50057; see digital edition in the corpus of the DPDP). But originally this papyrus in all probability also came from the auction of Henry Salt's collection at Sotherby's 1835 and then passed into the auction house Phillips, Son & Neale:
- P. BM EA 10242 (Phillips 40;
TM 43930; BC 159 Jan 20).
Two letters are from the collection of Robert Curzon, 14
th Baron Zouche (1810-1873), and were given to the British Museum by Curzon's daughter Darea in 1917. Since Robert Curzon must have acquired these letters before 1849, it seems certain that these papyri were also originally acquired by Curzon at the above-mentioned auction of Sotherby's in 1835:
- P. BM EA 10786 (
TM 46669; BC 160 Oct 13);
- P. BM EA 10785 (
TM 46668; BC 159 Feb 12).
The digital editions of the letters mentioned above are incorporated in the corpus of the DPDP website.All these six letters were written in the 22
nd regnal year of Ptolemy VI Philometor (160/159 BC). From their contents (especially P. BM EA 10785), it is clear that the general Herianoupis was ordered by Ptolemy VI from Memphis to the royal court at Alexandria in this year. Four of these letters were addressed to the scribe of Herianoupis (P. BM EA 10231, P. BM EA 10242, P. BM EA 10405, and P. BM EA 10406), who continued to manage the general's affairs at Memphis, and could be definitely attributed to the
archive of Herianoupis localised in the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara (Anubeion). The two letters P. BM EA 10785 and P. BM EA 10786 do not show an address. The recipient of P. BM EA 10785 is the prophet of Min. It is not completely certain, but the content of these last two letters makes it very plausible that they can also be allocated to the
archive of Herianoupis (cf. in detail:
Muhs, in: Honi Soit Qui Mal Y PenseMuhs, B., 'Two Demotic Letters from the Archive of Herianoupis, from the Curzon Collection now in the British Museum', in: Knuf, H. / Leitz, Ch. / Recklinghausen, D. von (Hgg.), Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen (Orientalia Lovniensia Analecta 194; Leuven, 1990), 397-404, Taf. 77-78., 397-400;
Martin / Smith, in: Honi Soit Qui Mal Y PenseMartin, C. / Smith, H. S., 'Demotic Letters from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara, from the Curzon Collection now in the British Museum', in: Knuf, H. / Leitz, Ch. / Recklinghausen, D. von (Hgg.), Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen (Orientalia Lovniensia Analecta 194; Leuven, 1990), 85-97, Taf. 29-33).
The writers of the letters P. BM EA 10231, P. BM EA 10242 and P. BM EA 10406 came either directly from Memphis or from the immediate vicinity. The letters P. BM EA 10405, P. BM EA 10785 and P. BM EA 10786 show in their greeting formula the passage: "... to make blessings before Horus-Re, the Lord of Sachebou, (and) Geb, the prince of the gods...". It can therefore be almost certainly presumed that the writers of these three letters came from Sachebou.
The city of Sachebou with its cult of Re or Horus-Re, Lord of Sachebou (
Leitz, LGG 5Leitz, Ch. (Hg.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 5 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 114; Leuven, 2002)., 271) is attested several times by texts and inscriptions from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman-Period. Some attestations explicitly mention that Sachebou was situated directly at the canal of the „two mullets” (ꜥꜣḏ.wj) in the 2
nd Lower Egyptian Nome Letopolites (e.g. P. Westcar - P. Berlin 3033, 9.9-11, 9.16-19; Merikare, P. Heremitage 1116A, 8.2, §81-83; P. Brooklyn 47.218.84, x+8.2; Karnak, Tempel of Opet, outer walls, north face, basement, 2
nd register, 4
th scene, 238 L; for further inscribed evidence:
Goyon, in: Hommages SauneronGoyon, G., 'Est-ce enfin Sakhebou ?', in: Vercoutter, J. (ed.), Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron, 1927-1976 (Bibliothèque d'Ètude 81; LeCaire, 1979), 43-50.;
Thissen, Serapis 6Thissen H.-J., 'Ein Demotischer Brief aus dem Anubeion', Serapis 6 (1980), 165-170., 166, note to line 2). In addition to the cult of Re or Horus-Re, cults for Harpocrates and Geb, the prince of the gods, are attested in inscriptions for Sachebou. Furthermore, some of these texts reveal a close relationship between the priesthoods of both cities (e.g. Amenher, the high priest of Ptah of Memphis, also held the position of prophet of Harpocrates of Sachebou at the same time, stela KHM Wien, Äg.Slg. Inv. 153, Saqqara, BC 127,
Maystre, Grand PrêtresMaystre, Ch., Les Grand Prêtres de Memphis (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 113; Göttingen, 1992)., 393-395; Teos, servant of Ptah and Wab-priest of the gods of Memphis was at the same time priest in the temple of Geb and guardian of Herpokrates in Sachebou; stele Leiden F 1955/7.1,
TM 55509, Memphis, BC 205-108,
Meulenaere, OMRO 44Meulenaere, H. de, 'Trois Monuments de Basse Epoque', Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 44 (1963), 1-7., 5-7). Even if the considerations on the localisation of Sachebou, which were proposed by Goyon (
Goyon, in: Hommages SauneronGoyon, G., 'Est-ce enfin Sakhebou ?', in: Vercoutter, J. (ed.), Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron, 1927-1976 (Bibliothèque d'Ètude 81; LeCaire, 1979), 43-50.;
Goyon, RdÉ 23Goyon, G., 'Les ports des pyramides et le grand canal de Memphis', Revue d'égyptologie 23 (1971), 137-153.), were very controversial for a long time, this city can now be located where he suggested it should be. The new studies by Cagnard, based on archaeological surveys, as well as recent palaeogeological and geomorphological analyses of the area and the harbours of the western Nile Delta from Memphis to Alexandria, which clarified in particular the major changes in the course of the Nile, its branches and the construction of the connecting canals from the Old Kingdom to the Roman Period, now make a location of Sachebou near or under the modern city of Zat el-Kom more than probable (
Cagnard, in: Géographie et archéologieCagnard, L., 'Perspectives de recherche archéologique dans la région de l'ancienne Khem/Létopolis à travers une étude préliminaire de géographie historique', in: Cassier, C. (ed.), Géographie et archéologie de la religion égyptienne. Espaces cultuels, pratiques locales (Cahiers de Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 17; Montpellier, 2017), 9-48., 1;
Cagnard, LétopolisCagnard, L., Létopolis et la IIe province de Basse-Egypte (publication in preparation).;
Bunbury, The NileBunbury, J., The Nile and Ancient Egypt. Changing Land- and Waterscapes, from the Neolithic to the Roman Era (Cambridge, 2019)., 63-76;
Bunbury et alii, in: The NileBunbury, J. et alii, 'Development of the Memphite Floodplain Landscape and Settlement Symbiosis in the Egyptian Capital Zone', in:. Willems, H. / Dahms, J.-M. (edd.), The Nile. Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt (Bielefeld, 2017), 71-96.;
Butzer et alii, JAS 40Butzer, K. et alii, 'Urban geoarchaeology and environmental history at the Lost City of the Pyramids, Giza. Synthesis and review', Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013), 3340-3366.;
Lehner, GOP 3Lehner, M., 'Capital Zone Walk-About 2006: Spot Heights on the Third Millennium Landscape', Giza Occasional Papers 3 (2009), 97-151.;
Stanley et alii, JCR 20Stanley et alii, 'Geoarchaeological Interpretation of the Canopic, Largest of the Relict Nile Delta Distributaries, Egypt', Journal of Costal Research 20 (2004), 920-930., esp. 924). Zat el-Kom, the ancient Sachebou, is located about 5.5 km northwest of Letopolis (ancient Chem, today's Ausim), the ancient capital of the 2
nd Lower Egyptian Nome, and about 10 km north of Abu Roash, which was situated on the border of the 1
st to the 2
nd Lower Egyptian Nome. From the Early Dynastic period onwards, geomorphological evidence could be found of two natural Nile branches (one western and one eastern) at the western desert edge of the Delta, which had probably already formed in the Neolithic Period and could be traced from present-day Dashur to Alexandria until Islamic times. Their course changed differently during this period. The eastern branch of the Nile, which shifted to the east side of Memphis until the New Kingdom and was marked by a front wall in Roman times, today flows towards the desert edge near Helwan. The western branch of the Nile moved only slightly eastwards and has not longer changed its course since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. Since the Old Kingdom, it connected the necropolises of Dashur, Saqqara, Abusir, Giza and Abu Roash. In the Islamic period, this western branch of the Nile silted up, but is still preserved in the depression of the modern Bahr Libeini canal. In the 2
nd Lower Egyptian Nome, the Nile branched off in antiquity at the level of today's Ausim (Letopolis) into the Canopic branch (today silted up), the Rosette branch (formerly the Bolbitinic or Saitic branch) and the Damiette branch (formerly the Bucolic or Phatni(ti)c branch, today silted up). At the level of Ausim to Zat el-Kom, geomorphologically numerous horizontally running connecting channels between the old Canopic and the Rosette branches to the present-day Bahr Libeini could be verified. Some of these channels had been artificially constructed since the Middle Kingdom and especially in the Ptolemaic-Roman period. Others had a natural origin and were expanded from the Middle Kingdom onwards. Zat el-Kom (Sachebou) is located on one of these naturally formed ancient west-east running canals at exactly the point where this canal (originally flowing from the Canopic branch) meets the present Bahar Libeini and witch today, after modern straightening, is still used as a navigable connection from the Rosette branch to the Bahr Libeini. Possibly this might also be the canal of the „two mullets” (ꜥꜣḏ.wj) named in the Egyptian texts. Thus, archaeologically and geomorphologically, not only the location of ancient Sachebou but also today's Bahar Libeini can be safely considered as fast shipping connection between Memphis and Sachebou described in Papyrus Westcar and used until Ptolemaic-Roman times (
Bunbury, SQ 30Bunbury, J., 'Geomorphologcal Development of the Memphite floodplain over the past 6,000 years', Studia Quaternaria 30.2 (2013), 61–67., esp.65).
The content of the letters from the Archive of general Herianoupis excludes a connection with a temple administration or a state agricultural administration. The letters address concerns that are on a legal level (release of a prisoner, P. BM EA 10242; disputes over wages for field work, P. BM EA 10405; clarification of a matter for which the sender of the letter does not wish to travel to Alexandria, P. BM EA 10785; confirmation of a maintenance payment, P. BM EA 10786; accusation of corruption, P. BM EA 10231; complaint about various workers and their accounts, P. BM EA 10406). Since general Herianoupis was written to concerning the legal clarification of these disputes, he must have held a judicial function in a Memphite local court. It cannot be clarified whether the general's judicial authority also included the area of Sachebou, or whether the cases described in the letters from Sachebou were disputes that had occurred in the legal district of Memphis and consequently had to be judged by a Memphite court, which I would rather assume. In any case, these letters allow us to draw conclusions about the position and the great scope of the administrative powers of general Herianoupis.
Materiality:The papyrus sheet has the typical vertical rectangular letter layout (
transversa charta) and is in a good state of preservation apart from a tear in the upper margin. All margins are largely preserved. Viewed from the recto, the left edge of the papyrus has been slightly cut at an angle so that the papyrus sheet narrows towards the bottom. The maximum height of the papyrus is approx. 32.2 cm, its maximum width at the upper edge approx. 10.5 cm, its minimum width at the lower edge approx. 9.3 cm.
Textlayout:The recto begins with the opening formula, which names the writer of the letter. The actual text of the letter follows at a distance of one line, beginning with the polite greeting (for the layout:
Depauw, Demotic LetterDepauw, M., The Demotic letter. A study of epistolographic scribal traditions against their intra- and intercultural background (Demotische Studien 14; Sommerhausen, 2006)., 155-156). On the verso the recipient's address is written about 20 cm from the upper edge of the papyrus.
Text summary and date:The letter (P. BM EA 10405; BC 159 Jan 1; year 22 Ptolemy VI Philometor) of Petheus, son of Totoes, is addressed to the scribe of general Herianupis, who, as already mentioned, was ordered to Alexandria by the king in this year. It refers to discrepancies in the allocation of grain for the payment of fieldwork. Petheus informs in his letter that he had paid for the planting work to be done in his field, in consultation with the peasant Psenesis and in the presence of the planters, a fixed amount of barley and emmer valued at 1 silver(deben). This payment was handed over to the peasant Psenesis who was probably responsible for all the work on this field and the payment of workers employed for it. Now, it seems that a dispute has developed concerning this matter, and Petheus is accused of having cheated in the apportionment of grain. At the time Petheus writes this letter, the peasant Psenesis had already sent a certain Pais north to Alexandria to complain directly to the general Herianoupis about Petheus' alleged fraud and to insist that Petheus be sued and ordered to make further payments for the planting work done. Petheus, however, has discovered this clever move by the peasant Psenesis and in his letter assures the correctness of his payment to the peasant and requests that the complainant be punished for the unlawful accusation.
palaeography
corpus