Appendix 1 P. Tebt. I 86 verso In their edition of the Tebtunis papyri Grenfell and Hunt merely accorded the verso of P. Tebt. 86 abrief comment. From what they indicated it was apparent, however, that the text, albeit fragmentary, was of importance for the subject of the Ptolemaic epistrategos. The text is now in the possession of the Rare Books Collection, The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, and I am most grateful to the Director for permission to publish it heret. On the question of date Grenfell and Hunt merely say of the recto 'late second century', no doubt basing themselves on the general date for comparable pieces in the archive. The probability must be that such a date is near the mark. Shelton points out that &.votXWPYJ<nc; of X(.()(.Loypot(.L(.LIX-rei:c; could be a result of the complaints in P. Tebt. 28 (not securely anchored to 114, cf. Grenfell and Hunt ad loc.), and that the appearance of Menches before the dioiketes (P. Tebt. I p. 182) might relate to the same affair, suggesting a date of c. 117 f16 for our text. But as he stresses, this is all speculative. Note also the action against thirteen X(.()(.Loypot(.L(.LIX't"ei:c; of the Arsinoite nome attested in P. Tebt. 58 (111) 2• The important points which emerge are these: (1) the epistrategos is mentioned in a text from the Fayum and must be assumed to have had authority there; (2) the epistrategos cannot be Hippalos because of the date and ouyyev~c; title, so that this is the only unequivocal evidence for an epistrategos other than Hippalos having authority outside the Thebaid; (3) the official had no title other than ema-rpoc't'Y)yoc; and must therefore have been acting in virtue of powers which came from this post. 1 Inv. no. UC 2585 verso. The text has been read forme by Professors A. Henrichs, J. G. Keenan, and J. Shelton, and I have clone no more than check their readings against a photograph. The credit for this edition should therefore go to them, to all of whom I am most grateful. In the notes I have recorded some suggestions of Shelton's which are marked (S). 1 The only firm fact is that the text falls after the introduction of the auyyEV'f)~ title; but as this is in the early 160s (see Mitford, Stud. Calderini-Paribeni II (1957) 184, Inscr. Kourion (1971) pp. 93f.), it gives us no useful help. 124 J. David Thomas [ ] -r[o]ü 'Apcnvoeh·ou XCU!J.QYP(CX!J.!J.OtT ) &vexwp1Jcrcxv [ em8]e8cuxety -rijv emcr-roJ.(Lx~v) &vetcpopocv EV ~L [XCXL ' CXVTLypcxcpOV' ' 't"Yjc;- 7t ] etpet' "H pcuvoc; TOU- oLOLX'YjO"OtVTOc;~ ' ·~oO 0'LO"'Y)c; ' TWL- [ l!-reL] llcxx6lv iö 5 [7tcxpoc x]CU!J.Oj'pCX!J.!lCX't"ewy. Öv !J.Ev -rp67tOV [ ö] g[uy]yev~c; xcxt &mcr-rpcX'f"1JYOc; [&]ycxxetJ.ecrcf- [!levoc; ] ...... -roü evecrT&-r9~ ~'t"o[uc; •••• ]w't"~ ( xcx-ret7tecppo ]v"1Jx6-rcxc; ~!liic; 8Loc TiJy [ •• ] • [ ••••.••• ] y [ [ ] 't'&'t'&A&O"!leVOt etc; ~!liic; [ 10 [ ] xcxt e~. v 7tpoc; t8[(]ouc; -r.[ [ ]v -re-rety!J.tvO~ !OC 1tcxp' e~y[-roü [ ] •• c; &xoJ.ouOoüv '"id 1 E. g. ot] j[o]ü 'Apatvoeh-ou X(J)!L9YP(ot!L(LOtTei:c;) or !vtot Toov] ;[o]ü 'Apatvoe:LTou X(J)!L9YP- (ot!L(LOtU(J)V) (S). a Supplement exempli gratia (S). 5 X(J)!LOYPCX!L!LCXTt(J)~ (v read on the plate). 1 &: ]~cxxcxAe:ali[!Le:voc;: almost certain; therefore the epistrategos is presumably acting in a judicial capacity (S). s XCXTotne:cppo ]V"I)K6Tcxc;: supplied S. 1o e;4.v: seemingly E~~v not ~1.6&lv (S). Read T~[nouc;? 11 Apparently not Tb ]v Te:TotY!Ltvo~. 11 ]c;,c;? • P. Tebt. I 86 verso Reproduced by permission of the Director, the Baneraft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Appendix 2 The northward extension of the Thebaid It may be supposed that we know the area of Egypt to which the term 07Jß1X(c; applied in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods or at any rate that we are sure of its northern boundary. Such confidence can however be easily dispelled. We need only think on the one hand of the papyrus of the Revenue Laws, which enumerates the nomes southwards up to and including the Hermopolite before grouping together the remainder of the country under the heading 07Jß1X(c; 1 ; and on the other hand of the frequent references in papyri even as late as the second half of the second century A. D. to Oxy­ rhynchos as being in the Thebaid2• There are in fact no less than three places which need to be examined as possible northern limits of the The­ baid3. (1) The papyrus of the Revenue Laws already alluded to fixes the limit as the southern boundary of the Hermopolite nome. In addition we know that there was a customs post in existence between the Hermopolite and Lykopolitenomes, whichis clearproofthatthis ranks as aninternal boundary in Egypt4• This boundary apparently went back to the New Kingdom5, and literary sources attest it from the second century B. C. to the first century A. D. Furthermore there is no doubt that for the Romans the term 01Jß1XEc; as an administrative district was confined to this area, since they had a separate name for the administrative area embracing Middle Egypt, namely 1 P. Rev. = SB Bh. 1 (1952), col. xxxi, cf. cols. lx-Ixxii. 2 See below and n. 7. 3 This problern has been strangely neglected; see however the discussion in Bengtson 91-4, and cf. Van 't Dack, CE xxiii (1948) 149, Stud. Hell. ix (1953) 44, n. 2, and my remarks in Proc. XII International Congress of Papyrology (1970) 465f. W. Gr. 8 n. 5 merely notes that the description of Oxyrhynchos in the Romanperiod as in the 07jßcdt; is 'noch nicht aufgeklärt'. Bevan 142, speaks of a province from Koptos south to the border, but I know no evidence which justifies this Statement. ' Agatharchides, GGM I 122, sect. 22 (2nd cent. B. C.), Strabo xvii 1.41 (p. 813) and Pliny, NH v 61. See W. Gr. 8, L. Fiese!, Geleitszölle im gr.-röm. Ägypten =Nach. Gött. Ges. phil. hist. Klasse, 1925, 57 ff. 6 Cf. Bengtson 93. 126 J. David Thomas •E7t't'a VO!J.Ol xcxl 'ApatvoET-YJt; 6• There is therefore no possible doubt that the term 0YJßcx(t;, when used of an administrative area, could be limited to the area south of the Hermopolite and that this could apply throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The question is, must 0YJßcx(t;, when used administratively, be confined to this area only? (2) The fact that the Hermopolite and Oxyrhynchite nomes are alluded to as being Tijt; 0YJßcx(3ot; has already been mentioned. The evidence is substantial for the Oxyrhynchite until weil into the Roman period 7 ; for the Hermopolite it is sufficient to show the use of this designation from the second century B. C. to the second century A. D. 8• This seems to have been the survival of a development which took place during the Saite period9 • This evidence is of coursein flat contradiction to that cited under (1) above. The question to be answered therefore is whether there was a time during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods at which the term 0YJßcx(t; could be applied administratively to the area of Egypt extending at least as far north as the Oxyrhynchite nome, or whether the expression Tijt; 0YJßcx(8ot; when applied to this nome and the Hermopolite is always being used in a different, non-administrative, sense. (3) Egypt was traditionally divided into two parts, "Av(J) X6>pcx and Kch(J) X6>pcx, with the break being at the southern boundary of the Memphite nome, i. e. Upper Egypt embraced all the nomes northwards up to and including the northern Aphroditopolite (nome XXII of the old hieroglyphic lists) 10• This old twofold division is still mentioned in the Ptolemaic period in royal decrees based on Pharaonie models11, and it is usually considered that in appointing two nomarchs to control Egypt Alexander was perpetuat- e At least from the time of Vespasian. The extent of this subdivision of Egypt and the date of its institutionwill be discussed in the second part of this work; in the meantime cf. my remarks, loc. cit. 466-8. 7 See Preisigke, Wörterbuch III Abschn. 16a s. v. The latest examples I have noted are P. Merton 18 (A. D. 161) and P. Oxy. 495 (reign of Commodus); it is unclear why the description drops out after this date. 8 The evidence is SB 7632.4 (159/8), P. Rein. 13.1-2, 21.2 and 26.1-2 (alllate second cent. B. C.), P. Ross. Georg. II 7.2 (108) and P. Flor. 81.1 (A. D. 103); cf. BGU 1222.59 (2nd cent. B. C.; Thebaid)? 8 See Bengtson 93 and Kees, RE VA 1574. to See, e. g., Jones, Cities of the Bastern Roman Provinces1 295f. Wilcken (Gr. 8, esp. n. 3) seems to regard the division into two as between the nomes south of the Hermopolite ( = the Thebaid) and the rest, but this is surely wrong, as the nome lists prove. 11 E. g. the Rosetta stone, SB 8299.3; cf. W. Chr. 109.8-9. Appendix 127 ing this division into an Upper and a Lower Country12• Indeed we find that the term ''Avw X<i>pa.