The workshop and the Pamour family

Since the Pamour family was involved in organising textile production, as seen above, we need to consider how its members related to the workshop. Did the Pamour family oversee the workshop and function as the ‘employers’ of Tehat and her co-worker? First, we should not that the Pamour family clearly had strong links to the workshop. Psais II makes an appearance in the accounts: one account (pkc.44) mentions Shai son of Pamour, clearly to be identified with Psais II son of Pamour I. The same account mentions Pamour – Pamour III seems a reasonable identification⁴⁸⁴ – as well as ‘Heni’ and Kame, who in all likelihood should be identified as Partheni II, wife of Pekysis, and Kame, assistant of Psais III. One of the other accounts, pkc.48, may also refer to Pamour family members: it features, as mentioned above, a ‘father’ Shai, as well as a ‘mother’ Lo, which could be Psais II and his wife Tapollo.

However, the manner in which they occur in pkc.44 does not suggest that the family controlled the workshop. On the contrary: Psais son of Pamour is paid wages for the freight of a blanket, Pamour III is paid in wheat for unspecified work, and Partheni (with Kame) are paid for weaving work. These payments would, if anything, suggest that the Pamour family were

483 Ibid., 271, pkc.48, l.41n.

484 The text also features a Pamour (son of?) Belles, but these two are clearly distinct. See ibid., 36.

172

employed by the account author, not the other way around. Similarly, ‘mother’ Lo is paid for weaving in pkc.48. The only occurrence which suggests supervision is that of ‘father’ Shai in pkc.48, who, as mentioned above, supplies wages and wool to the workshop, which could suggest some form of employer-responsibility. The lack of a patronym in this text is somewhat strange, in light of the designation ‘son of Pamour’ in pkc.44, and so it is not certain that this

‘father’ is Psais II. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that a clear superior-subordinate relationship is implied. Instead, ‘father’ Shai probably brought payments for wages (and supplied wool) for specific work he had commissioned, rather than as a supervisor or employer.

This picture can be compared with orders found in the Pamour letters themselves, some of which also involves ‘father’ Psais. For one, the supply of wool from ‘father’ Shai found in pkc.48 is in agreement with the picture derived from the Pamour letters, where the traders are responsible for buying wool and dyes in the Valley and sending it to the Oasis (see section 7.1). Secondly, we frequently find the Pamour family having to negotiate with the weavers for their work. Philammon, for instance, reproaches Theognostos about neglect, writing in one letter: ‘How many times have I written to you (pl.): “Let my father Pshai give the money and you can pay for clothes and send them”.’ (pkc.82, ll.20–23). The weavers, it seems, will not make the clothes unless Psais II provide the money. Similarly, in another letter, Philammon writes: ‘If you know that there is someone with you who will do my work:Write to me and I will send you 10 mna of dye. You produce the items and send them to me.’ (pkc.81, ll.46–48v).

Theognostos has to ask around for someone willing to perform the work that Philammon requests (presumably for a price). In some instances, transactions took place between Pamour family members. In one letter, Pekysis requests ‘brother’ Shai to pay Heni for work. As translated by Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, his request reads:

ⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲕ ⲡⲁⲥⲁ̅ ϣ̣ⲁⲓ̄ ⲛ̣̄ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲥⲁⲣⲧ ϩⲓⲧⲛⲛⲁⲩⲥ ⲟⲩⲛϯ ϩⲙⲉ ⲙ̣[ⲛ̄] ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ ϩⲓⲱⲥ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲁϣⲥ ⲛ̄[ⲓ̈]ⲉ̣ ϥⲓⲧⲥ ⲛ̣ⲉⲕ ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲕ̣ⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲧⲉ̣ⲥ̣ ⲛ̄ϩⲉⲛ̣[ⲓ] ⲟⲩⲁϫⲉⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲥⲧⲛⲛⲁⲩⲥⲉ̣ [ . ] . ⲧⲉⲥ … [ⲙⲛ̄]ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ̣[ⲥ] ϯ̣ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲁⲣⲟ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ [ . . ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ̣ⲛ̣ϫ̣ⲓ̣ ⲛⲉⲓ̈ ⲛⲁⲙⲏⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲧⲧⲏⲛⲉ [ . ] ⲉⲓ̈ⲛ̣ . . ⲉⲓϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲉ̣ⲥ ⲛⲉⲥ ⲙ̄[ⲡ]ⲕⲁⲥ ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ϩ̣ⲙⲁⲥⲧ ⲙⲁⲣ̣ⲥ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲁϫ̣ⲉⲥ̣ ⲁ̣ⲛ̣ ⲥⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲩⲥ ϯⲛⲁⲧ̣[ⲣ]ⲟⲩⲛ̣̄[ⲧⲥ . .]

[…]⁴⁸⁵ you, my brother Shai, for wool I have sent. I Have 40 and 15 on it. If you want it then take it for yourself. Or, if you want, give it to Heni to cut […] pay her. … After all that, I greet you (fem.) and my children. Truly, we did not receive these things from you (pl.). […] if yes, and you (fem.) give to her the half that remains, let her cut it also and send it. I will have it brought […] (pkc.76, ll.25–38, abbreviated)

485 Possibly: ‘I will make you pay’. See Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 98, pkc.76, l.25n.

Pekysis had sent brother Shai wool from the Valley, which he in turn should either make use of himself, or pay Heni for ‘cutting’ it (i.e. cut out a garment) (ll.25–30). Shortly after, Pekysis turns to a woman – presumably Partheni, his wife, who is also on the address – and returns to the issue of ‘cutting’ a garment (ll.34–38). He is now addressing Heni/Partheni directly regarding what she should do with the wool that he has previously discussed with Shai.

Evidently, she and another woman could share the work. To this can be compared another passage from the accounts, where the author states: ‘Heni spent three days, Kame spent three, while they were weaving. I have received 200 talents and 2 maje of wheat’ (pkc.44, ll.4–

5). The money and wheat are probably for wage to the weavers (see section 7.1.3). Both passages involve ‘Heni’, work shared with another woman, and wages. Along with the other above-mentioned links to the Pamour family in pkc.44, it seems that we are dealing with the same process and the same people. Perhaps the difference in prosopography between the Tehat/Horion letters and the accounts can be ascribed to the accounts stemming from a slightly later period, when the Pamour family had become more involved with the workshop.

Still, these passages also suggest that the Pamour family were not ‘employers’ of the weavers in the workshop, in the modern sense. Instead, they commissioned and paid them for individual work – even if the weavers happened to be family members.

Still, there were individuals who had particular responsibilities for relaying materials, orders, and payments to the (other) weavers, found in both groups. In the Pamour circle, this appears chiefly to be Psais III and Theognostos. In the accounts, this seems to be the account author (Tehat) and her co-workers: the recipient and/or Shai son of Hor. This brings us to the question of whether these co-workers may be identified with Psais III or Theognostos, both of whom carry names that can be linked with ‘Shai son of Hor’. Both Psais III and Theognostos were often present in the Oasis (although, for Theognostos, not always in Kellis). Psais III was involved with paying for textile materials and work, as we have seen. Furthermore, there are direct prosopographical ties between the Coptic accounts and the Psais III letters, such as Loudon, Ammon, Lo, and Kame.⁴⁸⁶ Psais III received wool and warp from the Valley on behalf of the weavers (pkc.79, ll.30–36); Shai son of Horos provided warp and weft to the weavers (pkc.47, ll.4–10). Pamour ordered Psais III to retrieve threads from Kame (pkgr.71); Kame

486 For Ammon and Loudon, see sections 6.4 and 4.3.1. For Psais III’s ties to Kame and Lo, see pkgr.71 and pkc.103.

174

features as an employee in the accounts (pkc.44). Regarding Theognostos, he was also involved in paying weavers for textile work (pkc.81–82). He was closely linked to Psais III, and presumably shared in his acquaintances. Most intriguingly, the passage quoted above from Pekysis’ letter pkc.76 suggests that the ‘Shai’ mentioned is, in fact, a son of Horos. The incipit of this letter is short; it only greets ‘brother’ Horos and his ‘children’. Shai and Heni/Partheni who occur in the letter body could well be among Horos’ ‘children’, who Pekysis does not here bother to greet individually.⁴⁸⁷ This Shai could, in turn, be identified as Theognostos (a.k.a.

Louishai), who was particularly closely linked with Heni.⁴⁸⁸ As pointed out in section 3.3.1, Theognostos was also frequently associated with Horos (for instance in pkc.17, where he is called ‘son’) – while Psais III is more often addressed by Pamour/Pekysis, and should perhaps be identified as a natural brother of theirs. This makes it somewhat more likely that Theognostos is the recipient of Tehat’s accounts. However, despite these tantalising links, the question cannot be entirely resolved. Theognostos is never explicitly described as son of Horos. Furthermore, it is generally Pamour and Psais II that provide Theognostos/Psais III with resources in the Pamour letters, while in pkc.44 it is the account author who pays Psais II and Pamour. In the end, the evidence is not strong enough to make a decisive identification of either Psais III or Theognostos with either Shai son of Hor or the account recipient, although there is extensive overlap in their tasks.

To recapitulate, Psais II does not appear to be superior of the account writer, and the relationship between the traders and the workshop, as visible in both the Pamour letters and the accounts, suggests rather a relationship of mutual cooperation. While there are many strong links, the co-workers in the accounts cannot be decisively identifed with members of the Pamour circle. Still, there is much overlap in the type of work they perform. It seems reasonable to conclude that the two groups had forged strong ties of cooperation, and a high degree of interdependence, involving both familial and economic links.

487 In the other two letters by Pekysis to Horos (pkc.78–79) he calls Horos ‘father’, and Theognostos, Psais III, and Andreas are greeted as ‘brothers’. This might support an identification of these, or at any rate some of them, as Horos’ ‘children’.

488 This was already tentatively suggested by the editors. See Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 98, pkc.76, l.26n.