Macedonias and Other Toponyms from the Panopolite Nome

I would like to thank Andrea Jördens (Institute for Papyrology, Heidelberg University) for allowing me to publish this papyrus, Elke Fuchs (Institute for Papyrology, Heidelberg University) for providing photographs of it, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and corrections on previous versions of the manuscript. All errors are my own. The dates are Common Era unless specified otherwise.

This paper deals with a series of toponyms from the Panopolite nome written on a fragmentary papyrus, with a special focus on the previously unattested ‘Macedonias’. The papyrus, now kept in the Heidelberg University Papyrussammlung,

The entry of this papyrus on the web page of the papyrus collection in Heidelberg (link embedded in edition header) states the following: “Verzeichnis von Dörfern? 7. Z.; 1. Z.: ἑ]ξῆς ὑποτεταγ[, dann ein größeres Spatium, bevor in Z. 2 die Liste beginnt. Die vollständig erhaltenen Namen Psinabla, Psinpelochin und Bompae weisen auf den Panopolites. Letzte Zeile: Makedonia, danach hochgestelltes Delta?, falls ebenfalls Topoynm (sic!), ist es bisher nicht bezeugt.”

was acquired by K. Reinhardt, the first Dragoman of the German Imperial General Consulate in Cairo, who purchased it in 1896 among various other papyri, parchments, and wooden tablets, which he subsequently sold to Heidelberg University in 1897.

See in more detail for the initial stages of the creation of the papyrus collection Seider 1964: passim. The papyrus and its content are mentioned in passing by K. Geens in her PhD thesis dealing with Panopolis and the Panopolite nome, as will be apparent later (Geens 2014: passim).

The fragmentary light brown papyrus discussed here has eight partially preserved lines written in Greek along the fibers with black ink, which is slightly effaced. The top margin is the only margin preserved. Even if the right side seems to be cut in a rather straight line and the words in ll. 3 to 8 seem to be ending the line, the position of the words in the first line suggests that the original document was wider. The first line starts at a distance of roughly 3 cm from the top margin and introduces a series of toponyms through ἑ]ξ̣ῆς ὑποτεταγ[μέν–, followed by a large blank space of about 3 cm. Just beneath this line, on the left side of the papyrus, there are traces of ink, perhaps part of a stroke of a letter or, more likely, the tail of a descender from the line above. Judging by the available data, one can interpret the document perhaps as part of a tax register for the Panopolite nome or even as a partially preserved itinerarium of the nome. The verso of the papyrus is blank. Unfortunately, nothing else can be said about the width of the document nor about the position of the words in the original text.

Fragmentary as it may be, inv. G 508 provides new information regarding the toponymy of the Panopolite nome. It refers to settlements of the nome located on the left bank of the Nile which, in succession from north to south, were situated as follows: Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis – Psinabla (where the fort of the ala II Herculia Dromedariorum was located)

T.C. Skeat adds that this settlement also “served as a μονή or mansio on the main highway down the left bank of the Nile” (cited from P.Panop.Beatty, page xxxvii). See also Adams 2007: 24, who locates both Psonis and Psinabla on the east bank of the Nile. However, the main road through the Nile Valley was located on the left bank of the river, as outlined by the same author (e.g. Adams 2007: xii, map 1).

– Bosochis – Bompae – Macedonias – Psiko (?) (Fig. 1).

There are very few rural settlements that can be identified on the ground in the Panopolite nome, as emphasized in Verreth 2013: 1155 and, especially, in Geens 2014: 115–129.

It is known that Psinabla was incorporated into the toparchy of Pakerke and Psinabla (Πακέρκη <καὶ> Ψινάβλα),

See the introduction by T.C. Skeat, P.Panop.Beatty, page xxxvii and also Gascou and Worp 1996: 163; Geens 2014: 114.

located a little to the south of a northern toparchy of Toeto and Synoria (Συνορίας <καὶ> Τοετώ),

For the latest analysis of this toparchy, see Gascou and Worp 1996, and for its location in relation to the others, see Geens 2014: 114.

but still north of the middle toparchy (Mέση), which incorporated the settlement of Bompae.

See Geens 2014: 113 citing P.Ammon 2 50, ii, which is a declaration of temple land found at Panopolis and dated to 299. In total there were six toparchies in the Panopolite nome. For an overview see Geens 2014: 112–114.

Thus, it seems that this tax register or perhaps itinerarium of the Panopolite nome included a polis and six settlements from at least two different toparchies.

Fig. 1: Detail of a map of Egypt with the main toponyms of the Panopolite nome. In inset: map of Egypt with approximate location of the Panopolite nome (© Digital Atlas of the Ancient World – https://dh.gu.se/dare/ – last accessed on December 22, 2023, modified by the author).

The toponym ‘Macedonias’ perhaps needs further enquiry. Starting with the reigns of Diocletian and Maximian, a vexillatio legionis V Macedonicae is attested in Egypt, part of the expeditionary force formed together with other Danubian detachments by Caesar Galerius around 293/294, being subsequently camped at Memphis and also operating in the Thebaid.

Zuckermann 1988: 280–281 with references and Kaiser 2015: 254–255 with references.

The Coptic martyrdom of Panine and Paneu makes reference to a soldier in Panopolis, named Philemon, dubbed as a Macedoniarius, a term that Anna M. Kaiser interprets as an allusion to the legio V Macedonica, the unit in which Philemon must have fought. Other papyri, which possibly originate further north in Antinoopolis, designate soldiers from this legion as Macedones.

For an overview of the papyrological sources and other previous references, see Kaiser 2015: 254, n. 86.

In the neighboring northern nome, a part of the legion is attested possibly at Antaiopolis.

Kaiser 2015: 251, n. 56 referring to P.Cair.Masp. 1 67005 which is a 6th c. petition from the Dioscoros archive.

Although it must be viewed with extreme caution, one way of interpreting this toponym is in connection with legio V Macedonica.

Perhaps soldiers and/or veterans with their families had founded or had an already existing settlement renamed as ‘Macedonias’, although it should be mentioned that since its arrival in Egypt and throughout the 4th c. the detachment of legio V Macedonica did not exceed more than about 400 men across Egypt at any given time (Zuckermann 1988: 285–286). A settlement called ‘Macedonica’ is mentioned in the Anonymous of Ravenna’s cosmography (VII.40), located on the main imperial road of Dacia, north of Potaissa, the garrison of the legio V Macedonica from about 168 to the second half of the 3rd c. (for a detailed discussion, including a Latin transcript of the relevant section, see Nemeti 2014: 67–77). However, it has been argued that this could have been a simple mistake by later copyists, who confused the name of the legion with that of a settlement, as emphasized in Fodorean 2016: 86–87.

Regarding the date, the Heidelberg catalog proposes a date in the third or fourth century, which is also adopted by Karolien Geens.

Geens 2014: passim.

P.Heid. Inv. G. 508 15 (h) × 3.5 (w) Panopolite nome (?) TM 999648 3rd – 4th cent.

Fig. 2: P.Heid. inv. G. 508. Photo: Elke Fuchs, © Institut für Papyrologie, Universität Heidelberg.

At first glance, the last three letters of the word before πόλεως read as omicron, iota and upsilon (the last letter being placed slightly above the line), while the letter before omicron could be, for instance, a gamma or a sigma, thus reading ]σ̣οιυ πόλεως or ]γ̣οιυ πόλεως. Either way, none of the readings would make sense in the context of known poleis of the Panopolite nome (cf. Verreth 2013: 1151–1155). One other possibility is that before upsilon there is not an iota but a narrow omicron, thus forcing a reading of the line as ] ̣oο̣υ πόλεως. In this case, the most readily available solution would be Ἀντι]ν̣όο̣υ πόλεως (modern-day El-Sheik Ibada, TM Geo 2774), but the first two partially visible letters are hard to reconcile with -νο-; furthermore, this interpretation would not make sense given the presumed Panopolite context. Perhaps one should think about a toponym of Egyptian origin, indeclinable and previously unattested in Greek. For instance, if one interprets the first letter as the right side of an upsilon (given that this letter is rendered in different ways in l. 1 and ll. 3 and 7), one could read the name of the presumed polis of Kouoou.

For this toponym, which is presumed to be located in the Panopolite nome, see Gauthier 1928: 128 with references; the author states: “Localité égyptienne consacrée à la déesse Triphis compagne de Min, située donc probablement dans le voisinage de Panopolis ou dʼAthribis (IXe nome de Haut-Égypte)”; see also Verreth 2013: 365; TM Geo 10877.

Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis (Verreth 2013: 637; Geens 2014: 127; TM Geo 2716) appears exclusively on mummy labels; see, e.g., Torallas-Tovar, Worp 2013: 266, no. 25 for the latest such discovery, where the text reads Ψενβελώχεως, citing other examples, namely SB 1 5208.4–5: Ψεν|βελλῶχιν; SB 1 5212.4: Ψενβελώχεως, (also Worp 2016: 274, n. 10) to which one adds SB 1 5203.4: Ψενβελώχεως; SB 3 7094.2–3: Ψιν|πελ(ώχιος); SB 10 10660.3–4: Ψενπελώχε|ως and SB 12 11188.2–3: Ψιν|πελώχ(εως). Note that in two instances the first vowel is an iota just as in the papyrus under analysis, while the third consonant is encountered as beta on four occasions and four times as pi, including in the papyrus edited here. Most of the mummy labels are undated or the date is proposed to span the second to the third centuries.

Cf. Geens 2014: 127, who also cites the papyrus under analysis in this paper as one of the documents attesting this name.

It has been suggested that this settlement was located some 4 km north of Akhmim, at Kôm as-Saqaf, on the East bank of the Nile in the Metropolis toparchy (Geens 2014: 127). Given the list on the papyrus under analysis, one would search for this settlement somewhere north or around Psinabla.

In the pars Oriens of the Notitia dignitatum, dated ca. 400,

See recently Kaiser 2015: esp. 256, for an overview of the debate revolving around the date of Not. Dig. Or.

one finds that the ala II Herculia Dromedariorum was garrisoned in an auxiliary fort at Psinaula (Not. Dig. Or. XXXI, 54).

For the Not. Dig. Or., the ala II Herculia Dromedariorum and Psinabla, see Worp 1994: esp. 465 and Worp 2016: esp. 271 and Alston 1995: 190. For Lower Egypt and the Not. Dig. Or., see Worp 1991. For a recent overview of the Late Roman army in Egypt, with further readings, see Fischer-Bovet and Sänger 2019.

As recently stressed by Klaas A. Worp, this information is confirmed by papyri such as P.Panop.Beatty 1, passim (298), where we find out that the auxiliary fort was located somewhere between Toeto and Pakerke, and especially by P.Panop.Beatty 2.169 (300), where it is written that the location of the auxiliary fort is in close proximity to the villages of Toeto and Psinabla.

See the discussion in Worp 2016: 271–272.

K.A. Worp attempted to identify the auxiliary fort on the ground using Google Earth, some 20 km south of Tahta (possibly the ancient Toeto) and 40 km north of Girga (possibly ancient Pakerke).

Worp 2016 with previous references and history of the subject. The author proposes the location of Psinabla some 3 km north-east of Jazirat Shandawil and about 2 km south of At Tawayil. The distances are measured as the crow flies. However, the hypothesis regarding the identification of Pakerke with Girga does not stand ground, as this would place Pakerke some 18 km south of Ptolemaiou Hermiou, modern-day Al-Minshah (TM Geo 2023), that is, in the Thinite nome. See also the discussion in Geens 2014: 122 where the author places Pakerke possibly east of Psonis (modern-day Basuna; TM Geo 3011).

For more than a century, beginning with H. Gauthier, Ψινάβλα/Psinaula (see also Verreth 2013: 641; Geens 2014: 127–128; TM Geo 8201) has been associated with another toponym called Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis, discussed above; H. Gauthier noted that Psinabla could have been an earlier name of Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis,

Gauthier 1912: 94–95, 120 who states that Psinabla “(…) me paraît pouvoir être identifié avec la localité de Psoumbeledj [i.e. Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis] (…)” (cited from page 94). The author also suggests that this could have been a fortification where Nestorius died (Gauthier 1905: 82–84, esp. 83; Gauthier 1912: 120; Geens 2014: 127, with references; Worp 2016: 274, n. 9).

a view which has also been adopted recently by K.A. Worp.

Worp 2016: esp. 274; the author states: “Ensuite, je serais assez enclin à confondre deux camps de l’armée romaine situés dans le nome Panopolite: celui de Psinabla précisément, qui est au centre de notre examen, avec celui qui est désigné, dans des textes coptes, sous le nom de Psoumbeledj.”

Given the presence of both toponyms on the Heidelberg papyrus, it is quite clear now that we are dealing with two distinct settlements, finally ending a more than century-long dilemma.

K. Geens is the first to note this: “It [i.e. Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis] is not identical with Psinabla (…) because Psenbelochis and Psinabla occur alongside each other in P.Heid. inv. 6 509 recto (sic!).” (Geens 2014: 127).

Before the name, traces of a letter are visible.

Bosochis (Verreth 2013, 140–141 with references; Geens 2014: 117; TM Geo 3004), just as Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis, was attested thus far in Greek exclusively on mummy labels, their proposed dating mostly spanning the second to the third centuries (cf. Geens 2014: 117). Before the toponym, the previous letter, just like in the second line, seems to be placed a little above the line; it is most likely an upsilon. Perhaps this settlement was located somewhere between Psinabla and Bompae.

The village of Bompae, thought for more than a century to possibly be modern Sohag (Verreth 2013: 139 with references; Geens 2014: 116–117 with references; TM Geo 3002) is frequently attested in Greek documents, as early as the first century at Oxyrhynchus in an official letter (P.Oxy. 49 3469.9), and as late as August 24, 321 (SB 6 9544.5) in a “Liturgische Vorschlagsliste”.

See also Sijpesteijn and Worp 1977: 275; BL 7, 210 for the correct dating.

Before the toponym, the end of the previous word can be discerned ]ου, with upsilon placed slightly above the line.

This toponym is previously unattested.

This was already observed by K. Geens, while citing the papyrus under analysis in this paper, at the time unpublished: “Μακεδωνία (sic!) is named only in the unpublished P.Heid. inv. G 508 recto (third or fourth century),” cited from Geens 2014: 121.

The raised delta at the end of the preserved line signals an abbreviation, thus the toponym is Μακεδονιάδ(ος), which thus stands as a feminine third declension in the genitive;

It should be noted that Psenbelochis / Psenpelochis and Bosochis are also in the genitive, while Bompae and Psinabla are indeclinable in Greek.

for other similarly constructed toponyms, see e.g. Διονυσιάς/Διονυσιάδος (TM Geo 565; Verreth 2013: 181); Ἀνουβιάς/Ἀνουβιάδος (TM Geo 186; Verreth 2013: 69); Βακχιάς/Βακχιάδος (TM Geo 932; Verreth 2013: 123).

One can observe here traces of two letters and the left side of a kappa, which were possibly all part of another toponym. The first letter should be regarded as psi, of which the upper part of the long vertical stroke and the right horizontal can be discerned, while the second letter is a very effaced iota. Further, one can distinguish a kappa, with its vertical stroke missing in its lower part, and with part of its oblique upper stroke visible. Accordingly, we suggest reading the toponym Ψ̣ι̣κ̣[ώ, previously attested exclusively on mummy labels; C. Arlt proposed that Psiko was located close to Psonis based on the fact that the Demotic hand of one mummy label was identical with the one on mummy labels discovered at Psonis (Arlt 2011: 132, 134–135; Verreth 2013: 640; Geens 2014: 127; TM Geo 3010). In our view, one should seek both Macedonias and Psiko somewhere close to Bompae.

Adams, C. (2007) Land Transport in Roman Egypt. A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province. Oxford. Alston, R. (1995) Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. A Social History. London & New-York. Arlt, C. (2011) Deine Seele möge leben für immer und ewig: Die demotischen Mumienschilder im British Museum. Studia Demotica 10. Leuven – Paris. Fischer‐Bovet, C. and P. Sänger (2019) “Security and Border Policy: Army and Police,” in K. Vandorpe (ed.), A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt. Hoboken: 163–178. Fodorean, F. (2016) Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources. Stuttgart. Gascou, J. and K.A. Worp (1996) “The Panopolitan Village Συνορία,” ZPE 112: 163–164. Gauthier, H. (1905) “Notes géographiques sur le nome Panopolite,” BIFAO 4: 39–101. Gauthier, H. (1912) “Nouvelles notes géographiques sur le nome Panopolite,” BIFAO 10: 89–130. Gauthier, H. (1928) Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques, vol. V. Cairo. Geens, K. (2014) Panopolis, a Nome Capital in Egypt in the Roman and Byzantine Period (ca. AD 200–600). Trismegistos Online Publications. Special Series 1. Leuven. Kaiser, A.M. (2015) “Egyptian Units and the Reliability of the 'Notitia dignitatum, pars Oriens',” Historia 64.2: 243–261. Nemeti, S. (2014) Finding Arcobadara. Essay on the Geography and Administration of Roman Dacia. Cluj-Napoca. Seider, R. (1964) “Aus der Arbeit der Universitätsinstitute. Die Universitäts-Papyrussammlung,” Heidelberger Jahrbücher 8: 142–203. Sijpesteijn, P.J. and Worp, K.A. (1977) “Chronological Notes,” ZPE 26: 267–286. Torallas-Tovar, S. and Worp, K.A. (2013) “New Wooden Labels from Various Collections,” ZPE 184: 257–270. Verreth, H. (2013) A Survey of Toponyms in Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period. Trismegistos Online Publications 2. 2nd Edition. Köln – Leuven. Worp, K.A. (1991) “Observations on Some Military Camps and Place Names in Lower Egypt,” ZPE 87: 291–295. Worp, K.A. (1994) “The Notitia dignitatum and the Geography of Egypt. Observations on Some Military Camps and Place Names in Upper Egypt,” in A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen 1992. Copenhagen: 463–469. Worp, K.A. (2016) “Localisation d’un camp de l’armée romaine à Psinabla,” Eirene 52.1–2: 271–276. Zuckermann, C. (1988) “Legio V Macedonica in Egypt. CPL 199 Revisited,” Tyche 3: 279–287, pl. 12.

Macedonias and other toponoyms from the Panopolite nome Papyri.info 999648 999648 pylon.6.5 pylon;6;5 Heidelberg Papyrussammlung P.Heid. inv. G 508 Papyrus Panopolites (?) III - IV

Panopolites Ägypten

This file encoded to comply with EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema version 8

Französisch Englisch Deutsch Italienisch Spanisch Latein Griechisch Liste Ortsnamen

Pylon 6 (2024) Art. 5

Macedonia and other toponoyms from the Panopolite nome Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing (DC3) pylon.6.5 pylon;6;5 999648 999648

English Greek Latin Macedonia and other toponoyms from the Panopolite nome

ἑξῆς ὑποτεταγμέν- οου πόλεως ΨενπελώχεωςΨιμπελώχεως Ψινάβλα υ Βοσώχεως ου Βομπαὴ Μακεδονιάδος Ψικὼ