The Tehat circle and the Petros circle .1 Tehat, Horion, and Horos .1 Tehat, Horion, and Horos

88

belong to a later point in the history of the household, when Pamour III had moved more permanently to the Valley, and Psais III took responsibility for the household.

which case her father’s name would be Ploutogenes.³³⁶ In letter pkc.43 she writes from outside of Kellis, addressing a son. Much of the Coptic text of pkc.43 is lost, but Tehat appears to be imploring the son, perhaps named Psenpsais, to send something with pack animals and perform charity (perhaps almsgiving).³³⁷ A Greek postscript contains a message concerning a shipment of oil, and greetings from a Leporius and a Makarios. Pkc.50 is also addressed to a son by a female author, but the name of both author and recipient is lost. It deals with freight to ‘the border’ (ⲡⲧⲁϣ) and work related to ‘the storehouses’ (ⲛϩⲱⲣ). The occurrence of a

Hatres working alongside the author and a business associate named Horion are the strongest reasons for identifying the author as Tehat, alongside the similarities of setting to pkc.43 (a female author writing her ‘son’ in Kellis).³³⁸ Tehat is elsewhere greeted by Samoun (pkgr.12),³³⁹ and probably the sister Hat mentioned in two Coptic letters (pkc.93, by Timotheos, and pkc.95, involving Partheni). Timotheos, author of the former, also speaks of freight connected to the ‘border’³⁴⁰, and so should probably be identified with one of the men by that name linked with freight in the letters of Tehat (Timotheos son of Tiberios in pkc.43, or Timotheos son of Toni in pkc.50).

Horion³⁴¹ appears as senior to Tehat and Hatres in his two letters to them. These are by and large long orders for textiles and discussions of other business topics. In addition to

336 KAB 555–560. Perhaps Ploutogenes (spelled Iena) could be identified with Ploutogenes son of Pataias, who received an order for a Dalmatian robe in pkgr.7 (see section 4.1.2), making Tehat daughter of a neighbour of the Pamours with some long-standing interest in textiles. Another plausible suggestion is Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis, komarch in 353. This latter supposition receives support from the occurrence of the name Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis as a previous recipient of pkc.47, an account authored by Tehat. Perhaps Tehat was reusing her father’s papyrus: her preserving some of his documents could explain the presence of other documents of Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis in House 1–3 (pkgr.23–24, pkgr.18). Both possibilities can only be tentative.

337 For the name Psenpsais, see Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 252, pkc.43, ll.1–2n. Read perhaps ⲁϫ[ⲙ]ϣⲁⲓ in pkc.43 (ll.1–2)? Other Egyptian names in Tehat’s writings often lack the initial ⲡ.

338 Ibid., 276, pkc.50, ll.26–27n.

339 The context is fragmentary. Worp first read Θατμε̣[ ... μετὰ τῶν] υἱῶν αὐτῆς, but noted that he had not found the name ‘Thatme...’ to be previously attested (Worp, P. Kellis I, 38, pkgr.12, l.31n.). I here follow Bagnall who reads Θατ με̣[τὰ τῶν] υἱῶν αὐτῆς. Bagnall, P. Kell. IV, 66 n.28. Connections between Tithoes/Shamoun and Tehat are strengthened by recurrences of the names Tapsais, Tbeke, and Tithoes in both circles. See section 4.1.1.

340 Regarding this term, the editors write: ‘The term can also mean a district or nome. We suppose that it means the entry-point to the Oasis, where there would be official and military control.’ Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 164, pkc.91, l.2n.

341 In CDT II, the editors spell it Orion rather than Horion (see ibid., 20 n.7.). I have continued the usage of Horion found in CDT I and in Worp’s volume.

90

these two, three other Coptic letters from him have been preserved (pkc.15–17), all addressed to ‘brother’ Horos. In contrast to Tehat/Hatres, Horion clearly considered Horos to be an authority. The letters to him are adorned with religious language; in one letter he greets Horos as ‘limb of the Light Mind’ (pkc.15, ll.3–4), in another as ‘precious to my spirit, and the beloved of all my limbs’ (pkc.16, ll.1–3). Several of the transactions are related to agape, some form of alms, probably for Manichaean Elect (see section 11.2). Horion refers to previous orders Horos has given, writing in pkc.15: ‘I have received the agon of oil from our son Raz. Look, I left it [with them] for the agape, like you said. You also write: 'Buy 6 maje of wheat'. (ll.14–17).The best-preserved letters to him (pkc.15, pkc.17) concern transactions of money, oil, and wheat, as well as a garment. Several ‘our sons’, such as Timotheos, Rax, and Pateni, assist in these transactions. Most of these familial terms are clearly used in a communal sense (and probably within a (general and probably lay) religious context, given Horion’s pious greetings. It seems similarly unlikely that Horos and Horion are biological brothers.³⁴² The occurrence of Hatres in a letter to Horos (pkc.17) shows that Tehat and Horos, although accorded unequal degrees of respect, were affiliated. Tehat furthermore refers to a ‘father’ Horos in pkc.43 (l.30), unfortunately in a highly fragmented context. It would seem that Horos was an authority of some importance to this group. It may be that Horion addressed Tehat/Hatres directly because Horos was absent, but also – given the difference in business concerns – that Horos was less directly involved with day-to-day textile production than Tehat/Hatres.

Horion’s letters to Horos, and probably also those he wrote to Tehat, can be dated to the mid–late 350s, based on a combination of price-levels, prosopographic ties, and the appearance of a certain Horion in a contract dated 356 (pkgr.14).³⁴³ The editors suggest that he wrote from somewhere close by.³⁴⁴ He speaks of sending goods south of ‘the ditch’

(ⲧϣⲁⲧⲥ) in pkc.15 (ll.24–27), a local geographical marker that suggests that he was located

342 To this can be added that Horion mentions ‘my father’ in pkc.15 (l.10).

343 Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 11–14, 140. It also features a man named Herakles, found in pkc.58.

344 Ibid. Tehat requests Horion (not?) to retrieve money from someone in Thio (pkc.50). For Thio, a village, and its location in Dakhleh, see Bagnall, P. Kell. IV, 75. It may be significant that the name Tehat occurs in the KAB-entry immediately preceding the KAB-entry for Thio (ll.106–108).

somewhere on the road between Kellis and Hibis.³⁴⁵ However, in pkc.58 (ll.22–23) he appears to indicate that he will travel to the Oasis.

The Horos family

The important figure of Horos might furnish us with some vital clues as to the relationship between the Tehat circle and the Pamour circle, where a ‘father’ Horos of some authority also occurs (e.g. pkc.78-79). However, given the frequency of the name, an identification cannot be taken for granted. Supporting evidence needs to be adduced.

First, we should note that there are several other links between these circles. Tehat appears to have had close links with Partheni (see section 6.2). The figure of Hatres recurs in the Maria/Makarios letters, and is in one of them engaged in textile trade in the Nile Valley with Pamour (pkc.24, pkc.26). Furthermore, Horion greets ‘my sons’ Hatres and Theognostos in pkc.17, indicating that both were younger associates or relatives of Horos. It seems implied in this letter that Theognostos is specifically responsible for having a garment mended (pkc.17, ll.41–43),³⁴⁶ and he worked with other business agents of Horos, such as Lautine (pkc.17, pkc.83). It seems clear that Horos I was a leading authority within a distinct ‘sub-group’ of the archive, related to Tehat, Hatres, and Theognostos. This group may originally have been unrelated to the Pamour family, although there were pre-existing trade bonds, evinced by the involvement of Hatres in the Nile Valley trade (see also the occurrence of Psais II and Pamour III in Tehat’s accounts, section 6.2.3). Strong evidence for a link to the Horos addressed in Pekysis’ letters, probably of a later date than those of Horion’s, can be shown. A ‘father’ Horos occurs with ‘brother’ Theognostos in several letters of Pekysis (pkc.78–79, pkgr.72, probably pkc.76), and the two feature together in the letters of Philammon II (pkc.80–82) and

345 Hibis is located ‘south of the ditch’ in pkc.111; see Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 229, pkc.111, l.30n. As Horion in pkc.15 was to its ‘north’, he would presumably be closer to Kellis than Hibis (while placing Hibis south of Kellis is problematic, by modern standards, Makarios similarly describes Hatres as coming ‘south’, travelling from Kellis to the Nile Valley in pkc.24). Perhaps one might suggest that Horion was located in the village of Mesobe, which seems to have been located in the direction of Hibis (see P. Kell. IV, 75.), and consider an identification with Horion, son of Tithoes, who delivered hay at ‘the Spring’ in Mesobe (KAB 241–49). Horion son of Tithoes involved himself in the affairs of Kellis with his brother Pebos (pkgr.23–24), and the latter had close dealings with the Pamour family. One may also note that a N.N. son of Tithoes occurs with Horion in pkgr.14. See section 4.3.2. Still, an identification remains tentative.

346 For Theognostos’ name here, see Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 151, pkc.17, ll.41–42n.

92

Theognostos himself (pkc.84). Furthermore, the find of letters to Horos from both Pekysis and Horion in the same rooms of House 3 furthermore supports identifying them, indicating two

‘discrete archives’ belonging to this Horos.³⁴⁷

Finally, a key to explain the close affiliation between Horos and Pekysis may be found in the figure of Partheni. Partheni was probably Pekysis wife (see section 3.2.1), to whom he wrote several letters. Her name is on the address of pkc.76, and the letter content is also in part addressed to her. However, here Pekysis takes care to greet ‘brother’ Horos first, again giving some indication of his status.³⁴⁸ Partheni was also involved with Tehat as a weaver (section 6.1.3). Furthermore, Theognostos and Partheni had strong ties, evinced by several shared contacts and by Theognostos’ own letter (pkc.83, perhaps pkc.33). Indeed, the editors wondered whether these two may have been spouses, but as Partheni’s husband is more likely to be Pekysis, they instead suggested Theognostos to be her natural brother.³⁴⁹ This seems a plausible explanation. The marriage of Pekysis and Partheni would have been the crucial link to cement the relationship between the Horos/Tehat group and the Pamour family.

Some further considerations regarding the distribution of letters in House 3 can be adduced in order to support the existence of a separate familial group consisting of Horos, Tehat, Partheni, and Theognostos. The large majority of Coptic letters in the northernmost rooms of House 3 (rooms 9–11) are addressed to Tehat/Hatres,³⁵⁰ Horos,³⁵¹ Theognostos,³⁵² Partheni,³⁵³ Pekysis,³⁵⁴ as well as the Petros letters, which feature Partheni and associates of Theognostos (see below). It could indicate that the northerly rooms were used by, or as

347 Letters to Horos from both Horion and Pekysis were found both in room 11 (pkc.17, pkc.78–79) and in room 9 (pkc.15–16, pkc.76; in the latter, Partheni is named on the address, but Horos is the first addressee in the letter body).

348 For the identification Partheni=Heni in this letter, and her role as a weaver attested to by other documents, see section 6.1.3.

349 Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 135.

350 Room 10 (pkc.18, pkc.58); both also feature in letters from room 11 (Hatres in pkc.17, Tehat in pkc.93).

351 Room 9 (pkc.15–16, pkc.76) and room 11 (pkc.17, pkc.78–79).

352 Room 9 (pkc.80) and room 10 (pkgr.67).

353 Room 9 (pkc.75–76, pkc.95, pkc.102).

354 Room 9 (pkc.67, pkc.103, pkc.108).

storage for, Pekysis’ ‘side’ of the family. Some letters to Andreas³⁵⁵ and Psais III³⁵⁶ were also found in these rooms, two figures who are closely affiliated with Theognostos and Partheni in the letters written by Pamour and Pekysis, although here, again, the precise relationship is unclear. However, it must be emphasised that there are also several unrelated letters in these northerly rooms, and that the Greek judicial documents found there cannot be linked to this group.

A serious objection to this reconstruction is the possibility that we are in fact dealing with two older men by the name of Horos. The primary evidence for this is the difference in kinship terminology. Horion and Philammon greet Horos as ‘brother’, as does Pekysis in two letters (pkc.76, pkgr.72). Elsewhere, however, Pekysis greets Horos as ‘father’ (pkc.78–79). It is thus possible that we have both a ‘father’ and a ‘brother’ Horos. It is perhaps supported by the occurrence of a ‘Horos’ twice in pkc.82, but here both are called ‘brother’, and Philammon is probably repeating a greeting to the same man.³⁵⁷

Even so, the ‘father’ of pkc.78–79 could still be identified with the ‘brother’ of Horion.

Furthermore, the argument for two ‘Horos’ here is not, in the end, persuasive. Even where Pekysis calls Horos ‘brother’, he accords him a prominent place: ‘brother’ Horos is greeted first in pkc.76, even though the rest of the letter is addressed to Shai and ‘Heni’/Partheni, and he is the first adult named in pkgr.72. Moreover, Pekysis is often inconsistent in his usage of familial terms: he uses both ‘father’ and ‘brother’ for Philammon (cf. pkc.76 and pkgr.72) and for Antinou (cf. pkc.78 and pkc.79), ‘brother’ and ‘son’ for Andreas (cf. pkc.73 and pkc.79), and he calls Psais Tryphanes ‘father’ (pkc.78), although this man labels Pamour III his ‘brother’

(pkgr.73). That we are dealing with different men in these instances is unlikely. The latter example, in particular, shows that we need to be careful when trying to build generations based on the use of kinship terms alone. Horion’s and Philammon’s use of ‘brother’ Horos can probably be explained by them being more equal to him in age and/or status than Pekysis (see

355 Room 9 (pkc.88, pkc.105, pkc.107). Andreas (the younger) could be a son of Pekysis and Partheni, although I hold this for unlikely. He is at any rate closely linked to Partheni, Pekysis, and Theognostos (e.g. pkc.71, pkc.73, pkc.84, pkc.86). See above, section 3.2.3.

356 Room 9 (pkc.73, pkgr.71, both featuring Theognostos), and room 10 (pkc.86).

357 See the remarks in Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 134, pkc.82, l.11n.

94

section 7.1.1). On balance, it seems more likely that the letters relate to one Horos who is accorded different degrees of respect.

Loose threads and uncertainties remain. In particular, there is evidence for another Horos from other letters; in particular, a ‘brother’ Horos addressed by Apa Lysimachos (pkc.30). This letter was found in room 6, and so had a different find-spot from the other letters to Horos. I therefore consider it likely that he should be identified as different from the man discussed above, perhaps rather to be identified with a Horos located with Lysimachos and Pamour III in the Nile Valley in a different letter (pkc.72, l.35).³⁵⁸ It cannot be excluded that he should be related to the Horos previously discussed.³⁵⁹ The fact that the name Horos is not otherwise found in the letters of Pamour III is also quite perplexing, but could perhaps be explained by Pekysis’ closer ties to this side of the family. Finally, the exact relationship between Horos, Tehat, and Theognostos/Partheni is unresolved. One could, perhaps, suggest Tehat to be Horos’ wife, and Partheni and Theognostos (and perhaps Hatres?) to be their children. However, Tehat’s reference to ‘father’ Horos in pkc.43 must then be taken in a strong metaphorical sense (or to refer to a different Horos). It would also make Horos a great deal older than Pekysis, which seems unlikely in light of his ambiguous familial terminology.

These questions will have to remain unresolved. Still, we can certainly speak of these figures as an interconnected subgroup of the Tehat circle, and as a key link between Pamour/Pekysis and the textile workshop of Tehat.

3.3.2 The Petros circle

Less clearly related to the other circles are the letters from a certain ‘son’ to his ‘mother’

(pkc.38–41). As the author and recipient are intentionally unnamed by the author, and as most of the letters (pkc.38–40) deal with a certain brother Petros, they were grouped together as

358 Considering Lysimachos’ invocation of ‘brotherhood’ in pkc.30, this man may well be an Elect.

359 This could support a differentiation between a ‘father’ Horos (Pekysis’ pkc.78–79) and a ‘brother’ Horos of Pekysis’ other letters and those of Philammon and Theognostos (pkc.30, pkgr.72, pkc.77, pkc.80–82, pkc.84). The letters of Horion still relate to the former, providing a link between the Horos/Tehat group and Pekysis, but the nature of this relationship would be less clear. Another, more radical solution would be to take all occurrences to refer to the same man; called variously ‘brother’ and ‘father’, sometimes travelling in Egypt with Lysimachos, at other times in the Oasis with Theognostos. This seems less likely.

the Petros letters in CDT I. In addition to ‘mother’, the principal addressee, the son addresses an unnamed ‘brother’ (pkc.40, l.20) and a ‘father’ (pkc.38, l.8; pkc.39, l.44?) within the body of the letters. Other ‘brothers’ (Timotheos, Herakles) and ‘fathers’ (Pini, Dios, and Ormaouo) are named.

The letters often concern transactions of produce (pkc.38–40), handled by the mother.

In pkc.41, however, the son requests her to make two headscarfs for him to sell. There are also references to other letters being written, sent, and received, as well as to papyrus and to an amulet. The mother and her associates are located in Kellis (pkc.40, l.15). The son is probably situated somewhere in the Oasis, as he seems to be not too far away from the mother. Several pieces of evidence led the editors to suggest that Petros and Timotheos were (Elect) monks, and, more cautiously, that the son may have been situated in a monastic context.³⁶⁰ These identifications would put the correspondence in the 360s or 370s.

A letter which could stem from the same author, written by another unknown author, is addressed to the ‘brothers’ Ploutogenes and Hor. In CDT I, the editors noted similarities between this letter (there referred to as P51C) and the other Petros letters, and suggested identifying the two authors.³⁶¹ However, in CDT II, where this papyrus is designated pkc.91, they state that while it is ‘somewhat reminiscent of the “Petros” letters in both style and format, and also has the same find site’,³⁶² the lack of prosopographical connections and the son-to-mother frame leads them to place it (tentatively) with the Ploutogenes letters instead.

The precise relationship of the son/mother to the rest of the house is unknown. Several of the associates and ‘fathers’ named there do not recur elsewhere. However, those that can be identified can be quite firmly linked to the group of Theognostos, Partheni, and Tehat, a link supported by the find spots of these documents, as argued above. Partheni probably appears by name, as (H)eni (pkc.38), although the reading is somewhat uncertain. Better attested are two rare names, ‘father’ Pini and ‘brother’ Hom: these occur only elsewhere in documents connected to Theognostos, Partheni, and Psais III.³⁶³ The presence of Petros in

360 Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 235. See section 11.4.3.

361 Ibid.

362 Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 163.

363 A ‘brother’ Hom is present in Petros letter pkc.39 and in Theognostos’ letter pkc.84 (to Psais III), and the name occurs in account pkc.45 (which features Heni, as well as Pollon, another contact of Theognostos’). A ‘father’ Pini

96

pkc.18 provides a tie between the Petros letters and Tehat/Horion, as does the mention of

‘our brother’ Herakles (pkc.38; see pkc.58, pkgr.14). Furthermore, in pkc.41 the son asks his mother to make two headscarfs for him: it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the term for headscarfs (ⲫⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲓ) is otherwise only found in one of the Coptic accounts, where a Herakles again is involved in the weaving of one (pkc.48). These indications strongly suggest that the

‘mother’ can be identified with Tehat, or a woman in her immediate circle, and the ‘son’ with one of the younger men in the circle of Theognostos/Partheni. It would explain how pkc.91, linked with Psais/Andreas, might be written by the same author.³⁶⁴ Still, no precise identification can be made. The absence of other central actors from the Tehat circle and the Pamour family, and the presence of several otherwise unknown names, remains puzzling. I have therefore chosen to leave the question open.

3.3.3 Summary

To sum up, in addition to the Pamour family, we find two identifiable circles in the House 3 material, that of Tehat and that of Petros. The former can be directly linked to the Pamour family through several important figures, such as Horos I, Theognostos, and Partheni, tied by the marriage of Partheni and Pekysis. The link between the Petros circle and the Pamours is mostly indirect, but it, too, is closely tied to Partheni and Theognostos. It seems probable that the ‘son’ (author) and ‘mother’ (recipient) should be identified with figures from their group, but no direct identification can be made.

In document Limbs of the Light Mind (sider 107-115)