BGU VIII 1856 + 1857 (P. 13788+13789)

A man is dismembered. A donkey and money stolen. More details are not known. Who committed this terrible crime? Why has the man been killed? Was it for the money? Or envy of owning a donkey? A papyrus from the Berlin papyrus collection reports on this criminal case.

The papyrus comes from papyrus cartonnage. Papyrus cartonnage was used during antiquity to shape mummy masks, which later on will be painted. Old, already inscribes papyri whose texts were no longer needed were often used to produce this cartonnage. So were the masks salvaged in Abusir el-Meleq. Abusir el-Meleq is a village in the east of the Nile south of Cairo, where systematic excavations were carried out at the beginning of the 20th century, during which much mummy cartonnage have been discovered. From this cartonnage the papyri could be removed so that the texts could be read again. This is also the case with the fragment we are looking at now.

The upper area of the papyrus is well preserved while the lower third is missing larger pieces. Another papyrus was subsequently glued to the right edge. However, this one is not related to the content of the first papyrus. Both carry a big and neat handwriting, but were not written by the same author. Red traces are visible on the lower right edge of the papyrus on the left. These traces, which are only recognizable in some places, are due to a stamp that was pressed onto the papyrus over 2000 years ago. As the text was an administrative matter, the stamp may have had the meaning that the content had been processed, clarified and thus completed. The papyrus was therefore part of an administrative act.

This is also indicated by the papyrus glued to the right side. This gluing together of individual documents is comparable to filling files in a folder nowadays. The papyrus glued to the right includes 21 lines documenting an unpaid lease. Nevertheless, it contains neither a date nor a location. A woman took over the lease after the passing of her husband. However, she paid neither the rent nor the public dues. The property owner then instructed the meridarch (an administrative official responsible for a district) to collect the outstanding lease. He, however, has not yet complied with the request. As a result, the property owner submits a new request to the meridarch for the outstanding lease to be collected.

However, our focus is on the left papyrus. This text is a fragmentary petition. It comprises 22 lines in Greek writing and originates from the middle of the first century BC. The content of the text revolves around a murder that is reported to the authorities. The siblings of the murdered man made the complaint.

The murdered man had left for an appointment on the day of the incident, but was, as agreed with the siblings, set to return that same day. As he did not return the siblings started a search and found his dismembered body on a path between the villages Tebetny and Kaine. These were located in Heracleopolites, an ancient district in the south of Cairo and the east of the Nile. After the body was found, it was also discovered that the deceased had been robbed of his possessions, consisting of 100 silver drachmas and a donkey. Based on the events, the siblings of the deceased wrote the report we know today. In it, they not only describe the events, but also ask for the perpetrator to be found and punished.

Unfortunately, we do not know whether the perpetrators of this hideous crime were found and convicted. No other documents relating to this murder have survived. However, thanks to this papyrus, we know that the authorities recorded and processes the report. The red stamp and the gluing together of the two documents indicate this. The fate of the stolen donkey also remains unclear.

BGU I 15 Kol. II (P. 6865 Kol. II)

In Ancient Egypt, the donkey played an important role only as a working animal, it never became a sacred animal. Rather, it was a tortured animal that had to carry heavy loads, especially in the Egyptian grain transport. The second column of this papyrus fragment makes it clear that this was not only a literal burden for the donkeys, but also a burden for the donkey drivers.

The fragment comes from the Fayum, a large oasis south-west of Cairo. In ancient times, the area was also known as Arsinoites and was one of the agricultural centres of the country. The papyrus has a light brown colour and was part of a scroll. The verso (back) is blank. On the recto (front) there are two columns, each with a Greek text. The two columns are part of a register, but are by different authors. Both columns are copies of entries from official diaries. In Ancient Egypt, administrative officials were obliged to keep a daily official diary. This was usually a brief report by their secretary, which they then certified with a signature. If necessary, certain sections of the diary were copied.

Column II can be dated to July 11, 197 AD and can therefore be placed in the Roman period of Egypt. The column is a 27-lined copy of a letter containing a decree. In this letter, the praefectus Aegypti (the Roman governor) Aemilius Saturninus addresses the strategos of Arsinoites and the so-called Heptanomia (the seven middle Egyptian districts). He criticizes the poor organization of the state grain transport and blames the small number of transporters. On his repeated order, the strategoi employed the prescribed number of donkey drivers, but tolerated that they did not keep the minimum number of three donkeys per driver. Nevertheless, the donkey drivers received maintenance costs for three animals. This not only had a negative impact on the supply of grain, but also on the state treasury. The prefect therefore urges the strategoi to force the donkey drivers to keep three donkeys and to mark the donkeys with stamps so that the number can always be checked.

In Roman Egypt, grain transport was one of the most important state tasks and was closely linked to the tax system. In order to ensure that transport ran smoothly, the state had to keep track of the number of transporters and transport donkeys at all times. In the case of our text, however, an illegal agreement between the donkey drivers and the strategoi led to the latter tolerating the donkey drivers‘ fraud. The motivation of the strategoi is not mentioned in the text. It is likely that they received a share of the “surplus” maintenance costs from the donkey drivers.

Apart from strategoi and transporters, the so-called ‘sitologoi’ played a central role in grain transport. They were the leading officials of the granaries, collected grain from the farmers as a tax in kind and took care of its storage. The grain was then distributed by them to farmers as seed loans or transported to harbours via navigable canals and the Nile. From there, it was transported onwards to supply central Egyptian cities, especially Alexandria and Memphis, as well as the military, quarries and mines in the eastern desert. In most cases, land transport was unavoidable, as only a few granaries were located directly next to navigable canals. The grain transport of the fertile Fayum was particularly reliant on land transport, as it was and still is located far away from the Nile. For the land transport of grain, mainly donkeys and occasionally camels were used. Compared to camels, donkeys had the advantage that they were physiologically suitable not only for desert transport but also for oasis transport, for instance in the Fayum. They also were cheaper than camels.

For Roman Egypt, transporting grain with the help of animals required a lot of effort, as the animals had to be kept and supervised. This state task was therefore transferred to the Egyptian population in the 2nd century AD at the latest and thus became a so-called liturgy. Liturgy originally referred to the services that wealthy citizens contributed to the ancient Greek community. People depended on it because state revenues alone were not sufficient. Initially, the liturgy was not obligatory, but it was quickly seen as a moral duty. Especially in the 2nd century AD, it functioned as a compulsory service.

The liturgy concerning animals used to transport grain was known as ‘τριονία ὀνηλασία’. Through this liturgy, animals from inhabitants of villages in the so-called chora (rural Egypt) could be drafted for one year of civil service. Only people with sufficient wealth (initially 1200 drachmas, later 2000) could be called upon for the liturgy and were appointed by the village scribes. After that, the liturgists gathered with their animals at a certain place where they were assigned their transport task. For grain transport, the liturgists were usually deployed in their home village, but the animals were also often used in other villages and districts if required. This was particularly the case in the Fayum, where 38% of the donkeys used to transport grain came from other districts. After a transport to another district, the donkeys were used to transport further goods to various places along their return journey. This often took a long time, as the goods had to be reloaded onto other means of transport or other goods were added.

The donkeys, which were obliged by the liturgy to transport grain, were part of a set transport corps. If the transport could not be performed solely by these ‘public’ donkeys, the state requested other animal owners to provide their donkeys as support. These ‘private’ donkeys were in fact used for many transports, but usually only in their home town. In very rare cases, rented donkeys were used to transport grain.

According to the terms of the liturgy, liturgists had to provide the state with at least three donkeys. However, this ideal could only be fulfilled in a few cases. In the 2nd century AD, a donkey driver with two to three animals was compensated by the sitologoi with around two drachmas per day or in the form of benefits in kind. In addition, the costs incurred for transport and the costs for the maintenance of the donkeys, e.g. for hay and fodder, were covered by the state. In addition to this payment, the liturgists were possibly granted further privileges, such as tax exemption for the donkey or a monopoly right for the transport of private goods. Despite the compensation, the liturgy was usually a great burden for those affected. The donkey drivers often had to travel a long way home and were not adequately compensated for the transport. To minimise the burden, in some cases several people could share the responsibility for the three donkeys. There were also some cases in which the liturgists tried to circumvent the obligations of the liturgy. In addition to disregarding the minimum number of donkeys and embezzling maintenance costs, as in this text, there are also documented cases in which the liturgists even fled the site with their donkeys. However, some liturgists also tried to take legal action against their appointment to the liturgy. One example for this is the first column of our papyrus fragment. The column is a copy of an entry from an official diary. The text can be dated to 26 July 194 AD. It deals with a trial in which a person complains about being assigned to two liturgies in two different villages at the same time.

Liturgies corresponded very much to the Roman principle of transferring as many state tasks as possible to the population in the provinces and to the individual. Both column I and column II of the papyrus fragment provide us with important information on liturgies in the Roman period of Egypt. Column II gives us concrete evidence that selected individuals had to provide the state with at least three donkeys to transport grain for a year. Column I and II also clearly show us that some individuals appointed to the liturgy were not willing to bear the burden that came with it.

P.Eleph. 1 (P. 13500)

What motivated a couple from the Greek world to enter into marriage relatively soon after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in the south of that country? This marriage contract does not reveal any personal motives, but it does provide direct information about legal practices, mobility and migration at the beginning of the Hellenistic period.

The papyrus P.Eleph. 1 sheds light on the earliest phase of Hellenistic Egypt and, due to its content, is one of the most fascinating documents that Greek papyrology has to offer. This is because the consequences of an epoch-making event — Egypt became part of the Greek or Hellenistic world for centuries — on a social and legal level can be traced directly and very closely to the people of the time.

“In the seventh year of Alexander, son of Alexander, in the 14th year of the satrapy of Ptolemy, in the month of Dios; marriage contract between Herakleides and Demetria; Herakleides takes Demetria, who comes from Kos, as his lawful wife, a free man a free woman, from her father Leptines, who comes from Kos, and her mother Philotis; (Demetria) brings clothes and jewellery worth 1000 drachmas into the marriage, and Herakleides has to provide Demetria with everything that is appropriate for a free-born woman; and we shall live together wherever it seems best to Leptines and Herakleides, by mutual consent; if Demetria should dishonour her husband Herakleides, she shall be deprived of what she had brought into the marriage; but Herakleides shall prove his accusations before three men who both of them acknowledge; Herakleides shall not be allowed to take another woman home and thereby insult Demetria, or to have children with another woman, or to do Demetria harm under any pretext; if Herakleides should do any such thing, and Demetria can prove it before three men who both of them acknowledge, Herakleides shall return to Demetria the dowry to the value of 1000 drachmas which she brought with her, and shall also pay 1000 Alexandrian silver drachmas; Demetria and those who assist her in demanding payment shall have the right to demand payment as if there were a judgment, both out of Herakleides himself and out of all his property by land and sea; this contract shall be valid everywhere, whether Herakleides should use it against Demetria, or Demetria and her helpers should use it against Herakleides to claim payment, as if the agreement had been made on the spot; Herakleides and Demetria shall have the right to keep the contracts separately under their own custody and to use them against each other; witnesses: Kleon from Gela, Antikrates from Temnos, Lysis from Temnos, Dionysios from Temnos, Aristomachos from Cyrene, Aristodikos from Kos.”

This is the oldest securely dated Greek papyrus, which because of its content has gone down in the history of papyrology as the “Marriage Contract of Elephantine.” The date of issue at the beginning of the text refers to the son of Alexander the Great, Alexander IV, and to the year after the satrapy of Ptolemy was installed. The latter, who as a general of Alexander the Great became the founding father of the Ptolemaic dynasty, is not yet a king here, but — as a relic of Persian imperial administration — a satrap of the still united Alexander Empire with jurisdiction over Egypt. The dates refer to the year 310 BCE: it was now just over 20 years since Alexander the Great had conquered Egypt and thus wrested it from the Persian Empire.

The text illustrates how a Greek immigrant couple entered into marriage in Elephantine on the southern border of Egypt and recorded this process in a contract based on Greek legal concepts. The form of the deed and the use of certain contractual clauses make it clear that the deed was intended to retain its validity and legal force even after further changes of location. As this is a double document in which the text of the contract is recorded in duplicate, it was not necessary to keep it in a fixed location. It also makes sense for each of the spouses to have one copy of the double document and also the right to convene a court of three men in the event of the marriage being dissolved in order to obtain a divorce with a corresponding settlement. This three-man tribunal can be convened anywhere and is therefore, like the double document itself, perfectly adapted to a life with high mobility or at least takes into account the possibility of a change of location.

The amount of the dowry indicates that the lifeworld from which the marriage contract originates is that of wealthy persons: the amount of money mentioned corresponds to the average income of several years at that time. It remains unclear why the couple had moved to Elephantine, whether they had already lived there for some time and spent the rest of their lives there. The reason for their immigration may have been trade, but a connection to the army is also conceivable, as Elephantine was the location of a Greek garrison. Regardless of this, the marriage contract of Elephantine is exemplary of dynamic migration processes that can be traced back to the conquests of Alexander the Great and brought people from all possible regions of the Mediterranean — not only Greeks, but also Macedonians and Jews — in large numbers to Egypt.

BGU XIII 2253 (P. 21448)

We all know that cute donkey from the petting zoo, with the fluffy ears and the friendly „hee-haw“. However, few people know that its ancestry goes all the way back to the wild donkeys of Ancient Egypt. Unlike today, donkeys in Ancient Egypt were not stroked. Instead, the domesticated donkeys were used as beasts of burden and the wild donkeys were hunted.

This piece is about such a wild donkey hunt. This is a receipt for assistance in hunting wild donkeys. In it, the state hunter Dionysios acknowledges to the elders of Soknopaiu Nesos that their workers supported him in the hunt for wild donkeys. A note indicates that Lukios, son of Anubion, received the receipt.

The aforementioned Soknopaiu Nesos is now known, as Dimê It is no longer an inhabited city, but an archaeological site. It is located in Fayum in Egypt, about 3 kilometres north of Lake Qārūn and 35 kilometers west of Kōm Aushīm.

The receipt consists of 15 lines of Greek script written on the recto (i.e. parallel to the fibres) of the papyrus. Thanks to a date in the tenth line, the papyrus can be dated to January 26, February 5 or 15, 191 AD. The place of origin of the piece is already known as Soknopaiu Nesos. The receipt therefore already contains some information, but hardly any about the hunt for wild donkeys.

Donkeys had a difficult life in Ancient Egypt. The donkey was a hated animal, mainly because it was associated with the god Seth and usually seen as his animal form. Seth was regarded as the god of chaos and destruction. The more Seth was feared in the faith, the more the donkeys, as the embodiment of Seth, were hated and despised. Nevertheless, donkeys were needed for transporting goods, working in the fields, etc. Domesticated donkeys were used for this purpose. It is not known exactly when, where and how the first donkeys were domesticated, but mentions of them date back to the 4th century BC. Wild donkeys are therefore very different from domesticated donkeys. Apart from hunting, nothing is known about other use of wild donkeys. There is information about hunts for wild donkeys but it is limited. Most insights into the possible course of such a hunt are provided by depictions in graves and prehistoric wall paintings.

Many of these depictions show a connection between the wild donkey hunt and the pharaoh. The pharaoh had many tasks. In addition to his political role, he also had a very important cultic role. Among other things, the „destruction of enemies“ and the “restoration of order” were among the pharaoh’s most important cultic tasks. The terrestrial as well as the cosmic powers were regarded as enemies. It is therefore not surprising that depictions of the hunt for wild donkeys, i.e. the destruction of the animal form of Seth, can be found in connection with the „destruction of enemies“. Despite the pronounced hatred of the donkey, it was not given a special position in hunting scenes. The donkey, especially the wild donkey, was seen as part of a whole, as part of the desert animals. This is why groups of wild donkeys usually appear in hunting scenes alongside herds of antelopes, gazelles and ostriches.

In these depictions, the pharaoh is often seen standing on a chariot armed with bow and arrow, shooting at the wild donkeys. In order to understand the probability of such a hunting scene, a few facts must be taken into consideration.

For one thing, the Egyptian chariot in question could probably reach a maximum speed of 40 km/h. The Egyptian bow had to be about 30 m to 70 m away from the target for a direct shot.

Secondly, according to evidence, the wild donkeys hunted were either the African wild ass or the Achdari, a Syrian representative of the Asian half-ass. Both species were very shy and flight-prone animals. The loud and conspicuous chariot would have startled the donkeys, which would certainly have had a head start of 200 to 400 meters. In addition, wild donkeys prefer stony ground, which is unsuitable for horses. This allowed them to reach a speed of 40 km/h to 48 km/h on a flat surface over a longer period. Half-donkeys could even reach speeds of up to 70 km/h. The speed of the donkeys is supported by reports in which people complain about the difficulty of hunting, as the donkeys would be able to outrun racehorses as well as racing camels.

The Egyptian chariot could not possibly get close enough to a donkey to give the shooter a good shooting position. The donkeys had a clear advantage with their head start and speed. Therefore, the depicted chases with a chariot in the wild are rather unlikely. This results in two possible ways of carrying out the hunt.

One is a hunt, in which the game is driven towards the pharaoh. More recent reports also suggest a driven hunt. In this case, a few beaters in front would quietly push the game out of its hiding places. The donkeys then would try to change their hiding place and run in front of the waiting pharaoh, who could have driven towards the donkeys at the right moment.

Second is the hunt in an enclosure. Accordingly, the depictions on the walls would only show an abbreviated hunt. Several references from the New Kingdom and from the beginning of the supplement to the desert hunt in Medinet Habu suggest such a hunting event.

The receipt from Soknopaiu Nesos shows that workers were needed for the hunt. This fact points to a hunting method in which a large number of people is used. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the hunt from the receipt was a driven hunt.

The magnificent and stately depiction of the wild donkey hunt once again emphasizes its ritual significance. The hunt was not considered a pleasure, but was intended to illustrate the pharaoh’s heroism as well as his power over the enemy and his role as a sporting and healthy ruler.

The wild donkey therefore had an important influence on Egyptian culture. Its sacrifice enabled the pharaoh to underpin his position. The domestic donkey also played an important role in trade and the cultivation of the fields for a long time. The donkey, with which so many bad things were associated, therefore played a major role in the survival, prosperity and continued existence of the Egyptians.

It is in this significant context that the rather inconspicuous receipt for support in hunting wild donkeys presented here should be understood.

SM I 10 (P. 21165)

We all know this stressful situation: it all starts with an elevated temperature, you feel weak, then you get hot and cold… You have caught the fever again and your plans for the next few days go down the drain. How nice would it be if you could get rid of the fever in the blink of an eye by using magic or if you could not get sick in the first place? The writer of this magical papyrus probably thought the same. It is a magical amulet that is supposed to protect a person called Tuthus from fever and chills.

The papyrus fragment, dated to the 3rd–4th century AD, probably comes from the Fayum, a large oasis south-west of Cairo. In ancient times, the area was also known as Arsinoites and was one of the agricultural centres of the country. The papyrus has a light brown colour and is characterised by a dark discolouration on the left side. It is also damaged at all edges and has been folded three times horizontally and seven times vertically. This suggests that the papyrus formed a small package, which Tuthus may have worn on a string around his neck (this was often the case with amulets and protective symbols in Ancient Egypt). The magic symbols and the Greek magic words – in a large font slanted to the right – are found on the recto (front). The verso (reverse side) is blank. The amulet is made up of several components:

On the upper edge of the papyrus, there are two parallel lines of magic words. The first three words of the first line, „Adonai“, „Eloai“ and „Sabaoth“, are Hebrew names of god, angels and aeons. As the terms were ascribed a powerful and mighty meaning, they were frequently used and can often be found together on magical amulets.

It is similar with the two following words „αβλαvαϑαvαβλα“ and „ακραμμαχαμαρι“. They are also of Semitic origin and were used very frequently in magical texts. In the case of the former, this is mainly due to its structure. Αβλαvαϑαvαβλα is a misspelling of αβλαvαϑαvαλβα (ABLANATHANALBA). This is a palindrome, i.e. a word that reads the same forwards and backwards. Such words, especially αβλαvαϑαvαλβα, were repeatedly used in magic texts, as it was believed that reading words backwards would break the spell. Palindromes were used to prevent this and increased the spell even further if a person tried to break it by reading it backwards. As αβλαvαϑαvαλβα was regularly used on gems together with solar deities, the word is attributed a solar meaning. Another possible meaning of αβλαvαϑαvαλβα is „Father come to us!“. However, meanings of palindromes should be viewed with scepticism, as they were primarily formed to mean the same thing when read backwards and forwards. The different spelling of the word on the magic papyrus is probably a mistake. It is unlikely that the author intended that the protective spell could be broken. It seems more likely that he was unaware of the palindromic nature of the word. This phenomenon was not uncommon, which is why αβλαvαϑαvαλβα is actually very often misspelled on magical amulets.

Αβλαvαϑαvαλβα frequently occurs together with the word ακραμμαχαμαρι (cf. line 1). Ακραμμαχαμαρι (AKRAMMACHAMARI) is composed of the originally different magic words ακραμμα and χαμαρι. As the word was often used in connection with the sun, for example in another magic text as the name of the Greek sun god Helios respectively the sun at the third hour, ακραμμαχαμαρι is also ascribed a solar meaning. However, it was not used exclusively in this context and, like many other magic words, stood for power and strength in a more general sense. The same applies to the first word of the second line „σεσενγερβαρφαρανγης“ (SESENGERBARPHARANGĒS), which was often used together with ακραμμαχαμαρι.

This magic word is followed in the second line by the seven vowels of the Greek alphabet: αεηιουω. They are also common for magical texts and are usually interpreted as the seven classical planets, which are all visible to the naked eye and have been known since ancient times. These are the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

After the seven vowels, the writer again made use of powerful words to unfold the magic. The first word „Iao“, another name of the Hebrew god, was used on many magical Greco-Roman amulets because of its power. It can also be found once more in the second line (penultimate word). The second word „Φρη“ (PHRĒ) stands for Re, which is Egyptian for „the sun“.

On the left-hand side of the magical amulet, below the two initial lines, there is a column consisting of six lines. In the first line, there are again the seven vowels, while the other five lines each contain an angel’s name, which is supposed to serve as a protective spell. The angels mentioned are predominantly archangels, i.e. angels of a higher status. They are mentioned one below the other in the following order: Uriel, Michael, Gabriel, Suriel, Raphael. Among them, Michael, the archangel with the highest reputation, is regarded as the angel of peace as well as the helper and protector of people before God and on earth. The archangel Gabriel stands for mercy and justice and is regarded as the bringer of good news. Archangel Raphael has the power to heal, which is also reflected in the meaning of his name „God heals“ or „Healer of God“. The author of the text trusted in all these powers of the angels and therefore invoked them to protect Tuthus from the fever.

To the right of the column, a so-called „uroboros“ can be seen. This is a serpent, sometimes a dragon, that bites its own tail. Uroboroi were frequently depicted on magic papyri from Hellenistic Egypt. The word is made up of the Greek terms „οὐρά“ (OURA) for tail and „βορός“ (BOROS) for devouring and therefore means „tail devourer“. As it devours and simultaneously begets itself, the uroboros primarily stands for eternity as well as infinity and symbolises the universal cycle of power consumption and power regeneration. Therefore, it also symbolises nature, recurring time, the year and the course of the sun, the moon, the sky and the universe. Self-sufficiency is another characteristic of the Uroboros: its body forms a closed circle, the most perfect of all shapes. It is independent of perception and locomotion, as there is nothing around it. It also needs no food, as it consumes its own faeces and itself. The circle of the Uroboros on the magical amulet is filled with another common magic word: „σεμεσιλαμ“ (SEMESILAM). It extends over two lines and stands for „eternal sun“ or possibly „shining sun“ in Hebrew. Below this word, separated by a line, are the seven vowels once again.

From the uroboros, the line continues to the right. It is intersected by a cross, three S-shaped parallel lines, a straight line and another cross, which are „signa magica“, which means „magic signs“ in Latin. One of these is the so-called „Chnumis sign“ (also known as the Chnouphis sign or Chnubis sign). It consists of a horizontal line that is crossed by three S-shaped lines. The lines represent snakes. The symbol is associated with the serpent-shaped god Chnumis and the creator and Nile god Chnum, who can also appear as a serpent. In Greco-Roman times, the snake symbolised rejuvenation and the continually renewing year, as it sheds its skin. The Nile was also imagined as a snake, as its flood initiated the new year and the associated renewal. Bearers of amulets with depictions of Chnumis or with a Chnumis sign hoped that they would benefit from the regenerating power and thus solve their (health) problems.

The line with the signa magica ends on the right in an elongated oval filled with further magic words. The term in the first line and the first word in the third line are parts of a formula used in other magical amulets. The Greek letter „Zeta“ (Z) can be seen three times in the middle line, each time crossed by a horizontal line. This could be a symbol of the planet Zeus and Jupiter respectively.

On the right-hand side, there are five lines of magic words with a border around them. The border is in the shape of a „tabula ansata“. The term is Latin for „tablet with handles“ and refers to a rectangular inscription tablet with lateral attachments, which was popular in antiquity. Its purpose was to emphasise the inscription. The words of the magic papyrus bordered by the tabula ansata already appear in the first two lines in the same or in a slightly modified form: αβλαvαϑαvαβλα, αχραμμαχαμαρι, σεσενγενβφαραγης, Iao, and Sabaoth. The first word in the last line of the tabula ansata is made up of „ωρι“ (ŌRI) for „great is Re“, referring to the ancient Egyptian sun god, and „φερ“ (PHER), which was used as the beginning of several magic words.

Below the signa magica, the oval and the tabula ansata is a prayer addressed to the gods and angels, which can be translated as follows: „Protect Touthous, whom Sara bore, from all shivering and fever, tertian, quartan, quotidian, daily or every-other-day. Eloai angel Adônias Adônaei, protect…“ The time indications do not refer to the hoped-for protection, as one might think, but to the fever. This probably refers to the so-called swamp fever/intermittent fever (malaria), which spread in the Mediterranean region in ancient times. Already back then, there were different types, which were differentiated according to the frequency of fever attacks. The naming of the mother in the prayer is also worth mentioning. In Egyptian magic, it was customary to give the name of the mother rather than the father after the recipient of the spell.

The magic papyrus is a very detailed and meaningful example of the magical amulets that were popular in Ancient Egypt and during antiquity. They were worn on the body (like our magic papyrus, often as a necklace) and were intended to bring luck, protection and healing to the wearer. To do this, the magician sought help from deities, angels and other saints and charged the amulet with magical formulas. This becomes very clear in the case of our amulet: the writer repeatedly invokes mighty and powerful words, deities and angels, elements of astronomy as well as symbols of regeneration and eternity to unfold the magic and activate the protective spell. Amulets with spells against fever and chills were quite common. There were also many for clear vision or with love spells. Even newborns were given magical amulets for protection. However, they were intended to protect not only in this world, but also in the afterlife and therefore were buried with the dead. Amulets have survived to this day and are still (occasionally) worn as lucky charms. Ancient amulets such as this magic papyrus are therefore important, as they allow us to trace the development and long tradition of magical and protective amulets.

BGU III 953 (keine Inv.Nr.)

We have probably all written a shopping list at some point. Very few people think that this piece of paper could be found and examined many centuries from now. Nikon, the author of this order of herbs, certainly felt the same way. Unfortunately, the precise examination of the papyrus, which would certainly yield a lot of information, is no longer possible. Unfortunately it burned, along with other papyri, in a fire in the port of Hamburg in 1899.

Ulrich Wilcken and Heinrich Schaefer found this piece and several others during an excavation commissioned by the General Administration of the Royal Museums in Berlin from January to March 1899. The excavation took place in Ehnâs-Heracleopolis, which was located west of the Nile in Middle Egypt near today’s Ehnasya el-Medina, 15 kilometres west of Beni Suef. Ulrich Wilcken copied the list and some other papyri on site, which means that at least their contents are known. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that these copies were made by Wilcken with the idea that he could improve them later (when dealing with the pieces in more detail), which is why they cannot simply be viewed as perfect copies of the writings contents.

After these copies were made, many of the finds were loaded onto a ship in the spring of 1899. The ship was supposed to bring the approximately 80 boxes of papyri (two boxes of which already contained 250 layers of smoothed papyri wrapped in plant paper) safely to the port of Hamburg. From there it was planned to bring most of the load to Berlin. Unfortunately, shortly after the ship arrived, a fire broke out, causing the entire cargo to burn.

Thanks to Wilcken’s copy, we know that the papyrus consisted of six lines. The first line probably referred to the sender or the person who ordered, namely Nikon. The following five lines each consisted of an herb and a quantity, which was located to the right of the product and written out in full. In addition to the copy made, Wilcken dated the piece to the 3rd/4th century AD.

Just as we measure milk and flour in different units today and usually write them down on our shopping lists, you will also notice different measurements on Nikon’s order. In the second line of the list, the measure of five weight staters is used, which corresponds to approximately 8g. Staters were actually coins, but in addition to being used as a means of payment, they were also utilized as weights. Since the weight of coins has changed over time, but not staters as a unit of measurement, it is no longer possible to convert them reliably to today’s weight. In addition to the stater, the ounce is also used as a unit of measurement in Nikon’s order. This unit of measurement appears in lines two, four and six and corresponds to approximately 30g each. In the fifth line, the obol is listed as a unit of measurement.

To the left of the units of measurement were written various herbs. Andrea Jördens and Antonio Riccardetto translated these from Greek as follows: In the second line of the list, there is talk of Malabathron or Cinnamomum malabathrum, in the third of Costus or Costus arabicus and in the fourth, of Cassia or Cinnamomum iners (a type of cinnamon). The fifth speaks of Sesel, which can be understood as both Tordylium officinale and Blupleurum Fruticosum (“Shrubby Hare’s Ear”). Andrea Jördens assumes the second meaning. Back then, this herb as well as the others in the order, was apparently obtained from the southern and eastern trade. Finally, balsam woods are mentioned in the sixth line.

Two of the five herbs are easily identifiable as medicinal herbs, as there are some recipes for remedies from this period. On the one hand, the Costus arabicus, whose root was used as a versatile medicine, for example as a remedy for “knocks” (presumably fever).

On the other hand, the herb “spiral ginger” or Bupleurum fruticosum also appears in some recipes. It is believed that the present order is of spiral ginger, which may have been imported from Nubia. In addition to the use of the branches of this herb in worship, it sometimes was used for eye remedies, for uterine pain, for sunburns, to promote menstruation and so on. After Jean-Claude Goyon examined the Blupeurum in detail, he attributed to it a pain-relieving and antispasmodic effect due to its coniine content.

The three other herbs, however, are not necessarily known as medicinal plants. Although, some mentions and descriptions can be linked to two of the three plants. Some texts mention a spice that could be associated with cassia or cinnamon. For example, it is mentioned as a raw material imported from Punt (Somalia). In the Ebers Papyrus it is described as looking like “beans of Crete”, which unfortunately hardly helps with identification. However, some recipes mention parts of the plant, such as the root, the sawdust or flour and the wood. These parts can be associated with the cinnamon tree. The plant is used in different ways. The wood, for example, can be used to make the smell of clothes or the house more pleasant. The “sawdust” can be applied externally with other ingredients, to revitalize the vessels. Moreover, the roots are known as a chewing agent against tooth abscesses and to promote gum growth. When describing the embalming of the deceased, there might be a mention of cinnamon, which prepares the corpse with other fragrant herbs. The balsam wood, which is mentioned in the sixth and last line of the order, is unfortunately not specified in more detail. Most people talk directly about balsam or the “sap of the balsam tree”, which suggests a kind of resin product. The balsam wood or the balm is preferably used in products for the eyes. It is usually mixed with black eye make-up (mixture with galena) and other mineral substances.

A medical benefit of Malabathron cannot be ruled out, but a specific recipe or documentation of a specific application is not yet known of.

About the value of the individual plants in the 3rd/4th century AD nothing more precise can be said, although the import of the listed merchandise alone certainly had its price.

Although most of the herbs on the list have a medical use, their quantity and their different applications indicate that this is actually only an order and not a recipe nor a prescription. This means that we can deny Wilcken’s assumption that it may have been a recipe for a magic potion.

The importance of this single list may not seem very significant by today’s standards. But this piece harbours many unsolved mysteries. Is it actually a list, and if so, for what purpose? Who was Nikon? Had he perhaps invented a new cure? Was he researching something specific? Although this piece raises so many questions, it is valuable. It could give us, in conjunction with other lists and recipes, an impression of how rare and valuable some herbs were. It could also give us a clue which trade relationships were necessary for their procurement and perhaps how their meaning and value has changed over time. Therefore, this piece forms another small part of an infinite mosaic of information about the past.