[ return to main ]
P.Col.inv. 408 (20 x 10.5 cm )
There is writing on the back, across the fibers in the upper left, apparently another receipt. The tear in column i has also removed an unknown amount of this receipt, the visible extent of which is 4 cm down and 6.5 cm across, with margins of 2 cm above and 14 cm below, consisting of seven lines, but the ink has almost entirely rubbed off. The titulature for Antoninus Pius can be made out, but not the year, nor little else except the day (the 22nd of Pharmouthi, or April 22) and scattered coin denominations (drachmas and dichalkoi).
The complete receipt in column ii shows Chairemon, son of Apollonius, paying taxes on approximately a ninth of an aroura of vineland (somewhere between an eighteenth and a ninth of a modern acre), and paying taxes for his family: the rent of government livestock for his son, Heracleides, and the geometria on a tiny plot of land tended either by his father or grandson, Apollonius. The other receipts are less clear. Chairemon appears as taxpayer again in the first receipt (i.5), but Anoubi( ) is the apparent taxpayer in the third receipt (i.21).
For a discussion of the taxes mentioned in this papyrus, see S.L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, 1938. For other examples, see C.A. Nelson, ed., Financial and Administrative Documents From Roman Egypt (Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen Berlin, vol. 15), 1983; esp. no. 2521 and 2525 with commentary, and the index (for other examples of the symbols used in this papyrus). Another good reference for scribal symbols is pp. 476-7 of O. Montevecchi, La papirologia, 1973. For coins in Egypt, L.C. West and A.C. Johnson, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt, 1944.
(Heracleides?)
Apollonius
Chairemon
Heracleides
(Apollonius?)
2 chalkoi = smallest unit (maybe $3.50 modern U.S.)
1 obol = 8 chalkoi ($14)
1 drachma = 6 obols = 48 chalkoi ($84)
In column ii, Chairemon, paying for himself and two family members, for maybe a tenth of an acre of land and some government animals, dishes out a total of 400 chalkoi, or about $700, for a year of taxes. A day's minimum wage at the time was around three obols (half a drachma or 24 chalkoi), at which one could expect an annual income of over five thousand chalkoi ($8750), but an independent farmer might make more or less than minimum wage over the course of a year, sometimes perhaps a great deal more or less (since farming does not operate on a fixed wage, and the land being tended by this family is very small).
Whatever Chaeremon's usual income may have been, lean years could halve it (or worse), while good years could double it (e.g. if additional income is earned taking side jobs). But since ancient households were typically extended (rather than nuclear), several family members would often be pooling their respective incomes. So it is difficult to determine how much of a burden these taxes would have been. Overall they do not appear overly burdensome to me (only 8%, if Chaeremon alone, or his family together, was earning at least as much as a menial laborer), but since there were many other taxes owed besides these, one's total tax burden may have been onerous indeed (see below). Comments on the nature of the taxes being paid is provided below the translation of column ii.
The "tax on produce" (the "apomoira") is a tax on agricultural production which was previously paid to the local temples, in use for over a thousand years before the Romans claimed Egypt as a possession. It was paid in produce rather than money until sometime after Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. Egypt was ruled by Alexander's Greek general Ptolemy and his descendants, the last and most famous of whom being Cleopatra, defeated by Octavian (later named Augustus), the adopted son of Julius Caesar, in 31 BC. The apomoira was redirected to the Roman government sometime after Egypt became an Imperial possession in 31 BC. It then became just another of three land taxes with minor differences which kept them from being combined into a single tax. For example, for this tax the rate was halved for garden land. Chairemon, however, is paying for vine land, as can be determined from his other taxes, which are for 1/9th an aroura of land (an aroura is an Egyptian unit of area, and is less than a modern acre).
The "naubion tax" was also over a thousand years old by Roman times. Under the old Pharaohs and the Ptolemies it was an amount of labor, assessed by the amount of land you owned, which you owed to the government for the purpose of maintaining the public irrigation system. In fact, the term "naubion" referred to a cubic measure of earth that you would be responsible for moving. Even before Roman times, it was possible to give the government money instead, so laborers could be hired in your place. But by the time Rome was running the show, money was the usual method of paying this tax. So this became yet another land tax, differing from the others only in that some people were exempt from paying it, and in the fact that one could, in theory, choose to work instead of pay.
The "transport of olives" refers to a charge added to another tax on production that was paid in produce rather than money. Only taxes in money are represented in these receipts--but Chairemon would also have paid other taxes "in kind" and still more taxes unrelated to land, which were numerous. It is sometimes joked that the Romans (even the Ptolemies before them) practically taxed the Egyptians to death. In this case, Chairemon must have some olive trees on his vine land, for which he would have to give the government some of the olives produced as part of his taxes owed "in kind." The fee being charged in this receipt refers to the fact that Romans made the taxpayer pay for the expense of shipping the olives off of his land which are owed to the government. If that doesn't sound mean enough, Chairemon has to pay this tax at a fixed rate for the whole 1/9th aroura of land, even though the olive trees cannot take up that whole area--for he is being taxed for grape production when paying the apomoira, twice the rate he would be paying if his land were all olive land. Instead of paying these taxes proportionately, he is paying for a full 1/9th aroura both of grape and of olive land. Today we would call this getting screwed by the system.
The "additional charges" that are first listed represent a special surtax of 20% of each previous tax paid (the apomoira, the naubion, and the transport of olives). In practice, this provided the tax collector's salary. The taxpayer is essentially paying for the cost of taxing him, which is of course inherently true of all tax systems, but here it was made painfully obvious. Whether 20% was excessive cannot be determined, but it seems high, and one can see why tax collectors would not be popular (though their jobs would be, a common irony). It is also worse than this rate, since all amounts are rounded up, in units of 2 chalkoi (the smallest coin in use in Egypt). In other words, although 20% of the total of Chairemon's three taxes is actually only 12.4 chalkoi (or barely more than 1.5 obols), he pays 2 obols, because 20% of each tax is calculated separately, and then rounded up to the nearest even unit of chalkoi, before being added up to a total.
The "acreage tax" (the "eparourion," lit. "tax on the aroura") is a straight land tax, charged at the same rate no matter what was grown on the land. This tax was present under the Ptolemies and made universal under Roman rule. The additional charges added to this serve the same purpose as the others, but this time the rate is not 20% but a more tolerable 7.7%. This and the following rate are actually more typical of Roman practice in other provinces, whereas the 20% rate seems to have been inherited from the Ptolemaic system. In a bitter irony, the 7.7% rate was actually 6.25% for those who could pay in silver instead of copper, but silver money was hard to come by in Egypt, so taxpayers could rarely enjoy the lower rate. Wallace suggests the possibility that this scarcity of silver was engineered, to prevent anyone from stockpiling silver with which to launch a rebellion or to control the affairs of Egypt. Egypt was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, and of such key importance that the emperors made it against the law for a Roman Senator to even enter Egypt (without express permission). Moreover, unlike most other provinces, Egypt was essentially run by what we might call the emperor's personal business managers, rather than what we might call governors. Whatever the reason, the scarcity of silver had another more pathetic consequence on the taxpayers of Egypt: the charge for "exchange" (the "kollubos"). This is a fee paid to money-changers, for the government's own expense of exchanging the copper for silver money. It was charged at a rate of only 1.7%, and on the total sum (rather than being figured separately for each tax), but the mere fact that the taxpayer was essentially forced to pay this additional charge is another example of the unfairness of the system.
The final insult, of course, is that after all this, Chairemon still has to pay the fee for the scribe to write the receipt--even though Chairemon is already providing the material on which the receipt is written. The rate of one obol is actually low. I have seen rates as high as three obols, and it varies widely. But it is not paid for one single continuous session of writing, but per taxpayer. In other words, even though it appears that Chairemon is paying for his son and father (or grandson) at the same time as himself, he must pay the scribe's fee three times, once for his own taxes, once for his son's taxes, and again for his father's or grandson's taxes.
Heracleides is listed as the son of Chairemon, and this could perhaps be Chairemon's grandfather. Names were often repeated in a family, usually skipping a generation or two, so the father of Heracleides might not be Chairemon himself, but Chairemon's great-grandfather. But it is far more likely that Heracleides is Chairemon's son. He is not paying land taxes on this occasion, but rather owes rent on a flock of government animals for the present year (the same amount appears in column i.11, and this may have been the same rent for the previous year). In Ptolemaic Egypt, a great many animals were the property of the king, and when the Romans came these became the emperor's property. In either time, these animals were rented out to sheppherds who made a living off of them. It has not yet been determined what the rate was (nor do we know the rate at which the "additional charge" was levied--the amount here is around 3%, but other examples show that this varied), and we have no way of knowing what happened if the number of animals rose or declined under the tenant's care. We also cannot tell what animals are meant. The term includes all grazing animals, from cattle to sheep to goats, and there was no expectation that the tenant pay in silver, thus a money-changer's fee was not required.
Apollonius is listed as the son of Heracleides, and this could mean the Heracleides above, in which case this would be the grandson of Chairemon (and great-grandson of Chairemon's father, also named Apollonius), or it could be Chairemon's father--if Chairemon's grandfather was also named Heracleides. Chairemon is paying his grandson's or father's "land tax" (the "geometria"), a third tax on land, which was originally (under the Ptolemies and possibly earlier) a simple fee to pay the government surveyor who measured the land for tax purposes ("geometria" means "measurement" and hence "geometry"), which was the same no matter how much land was measured. Measurement was undertaken every five years, and this tax was thus not paid annually, but often in two installments over five years. Based on the additional charge, which is twice what we would expect for the actual amount paid, it is possible that this is one of two installments. This tax was perhaps once paid in produce rather than coin. But when the Romans took over, they kept this tax, but made it proportionate to land area, and paid in coin. Since the produce of garden land was worth less than vine land (like the apomoira), the money rate became higher for vine land (by a factor of two-and-a-half), thus making this tax slightly different from the other two land taxes. Also, for some unknown reason, even though it was due in silver, the surcharge was calculated at the lower rate of 6.25% even if paid in copper, but the money-changer's fee was still due. The amount of land that this payment corresponds to is very small (1/10th aroura if gardenland, 1/25th if vineland).
The other receipts are too fragmentary to determine much from them. The amounts listed do not correspond to anything in this receipt (one exception is noted above) and are hard to interpret. We know Chairemon is the taxpayer in the first receipt in column i, but we do not know who is paying in the second receipt, and it is most likely that some other man whose name begins with Anoubi- is the taxpayer in the third receipt. Is this another member of the family not mentioned in column ii (because he pays his own taxes, apparently)?
The amount for apomoira in i.7 is far too low, for any kind of land. It could be a partial payment. Although it could also be only part of the whole amount, the rest being on the missing half of the line, it was usual to list coins in order of value, which would not allow a significant addition. The naubion tax paid in i.17 is also very small, corresponding to a plot that would have been only 1/12th an aroura in size, or smaller. This could theoretically be the amount due on the 1/10th or 1/25th aroura belonging to Apollonius. Since only his geometria is paid in column ii, his naubion and other taxes would still be owing in that year. If his plot is vineland, then this would be the amount expected (rounded up the nearest even number of chalkoi). It is more likely gardenland, however, since 1/25th an aroura seems too small to even be worth tending and paying taxes on, whereas 1/10th is already close to Chairemon's 1/9th. If that is the case, then Apollonius would have been undercharged on his naubion by 2 chalkoi. But errors of this kind were common. In fact, two such errors are already found in column ii: Chairemon is undercharged on his apomoira by 2 chalkoi, and overcharged on his naubion by 2 chalkoi (thus the errors happen to cancel each other out).
In all other cases, we either have the name of a tax but not the amount, or an amount but not the tax (and no way to tell what it might be), or an "additional charge" without knowing what, or how many, taxes this is an addition to. Nevertheless, I make many conjectures and discuss possibilities in the following line notes.
The thirteenth year of Antoninus fell between 149 and 150 A.D. This is actually the right-hand column, but it clearly precedes the other: chronological sequence suggests this (receipts beginning at i.18 and ii. 1 are all paid in the 14th year, but column i begins with the only payments made in the 13th year); column i begins with one scribe but ends with a new scribe who also appears to have written column ii, and if we assume continuity, this also suggests such a sequence; above all, lines ii. 5, 8, and 9 all show signs of scrunched writing or shifted margins intended to avoid clashing with column i, proving that column i was written first.
3
The name of Antoninus is so quickly written that many of the letters look the same.
4
No practor (tax-collector) whose name begins with Orsen- is attested in the same century. Orsenouphis is the most probable name, restored here in the dative. The phrase praktori argourikon is formulaic enough to be expected here, but it may have been abbreviated differently, and if the village name was abbreviated, there would have been sufficient room for Orsenouphis to have associates mentioned (e.g. kai metochois prakt(orsin)). Hephaistias is restored here because the village typically comes before the taxpayer (cf. i. 21, ii.4-5), and this village appears in i.21 and ii.4.
5
Chairemon is also the taxpayer at ii.5, hence Apolloniou is restored here. The last two letters that appear on this line are unusually formed. The m is drawn like a sloppy capital M, and the v is drawn with lines extending outward at the top. If indicating abbreviation, this would only mean the omission of n. The rest of the line is restored based on information in column ii: Chairemon there pays his taxes for the 13th year (ii.5) in the 14th year, so here he would have to pay the same taxes for the 12th year (148-149 AD), restored according to the correct amounts (though mistakes appear to have been made in ii.6). Line i.6 may or may not support this restoration. The order or the abbreviations may also have been different, especially since this receipt is written by a different scribe. That the year was written with numerals rather than spelled out (as at ii.5, 8, and 11) is supported by this scribe's use of numerals in i.10, and the lack of space.
6
The expected additional charge for the restored three taxes is two obols (ii.6). The line ends with an obol symbol, closely followed by a half-obol symbol, which very strangely ligatures to some other character that has been torn away. If this missing character were a dichalkon symbol, we would have an amount close enough to what is expected to be explained by a simple arithmetic error (being only a single dichalkon short). However, from what can be seen, the ligatured character appears to be more like the beginning of a numeral of a second half-obol symbol, but this is unusual. In fact, anything following a half-obol symbol is unusual in such a context, other than a symbol for a dichalkon or a symbol for 'total' (cf. i.11, etc.), but neither suits what is depicted here, leaving this unknown character very mysterious (hence the dot).
The rest of this line is restored from information in column ii: Chairemon must have also paid his eparourion tax for the 12th year, and the usual fees for exchange and writing the receipt (cf. ii. 7); the line most likely ended with the name of another whose taxes Chairemon was paying (as in ii.8 and 10), since i.7 begins with another apomoira tax, which is much too small to be that of Chairemon (cf. ii.6). Apollonius, son of Herakleides, is conjectured on the following grounds: in column ii, Chairemon pays the taxes for two other people: Apollonius son of Herakleides (ii.10-11) and Herakleides son of Chairemon (ii.8), of whom only Apollonius clearly has land whose apomoira would be very close to the amount found here (cf. ii.11-12 with line note). See following line note.
7
Possibly the apomoira for the 1/50th aroura of vine land owned by Apollonius for the 12th year. If this is correct (and it is far from certain), then the symbol for one dichalkon would follow, matching the amount owed for 1/50th an aroura of vine land. Alternatively, if Apollonius owns 1/20th an aroura of garden land instead, we would expect a half-obol symbol. The only evidence against this is that this scribe previously followed an obol symbol very closely with a half-obol (i.6), whereas here we have a gap. Apollonius would also have owed the usual taxes, which are restored here on the assumption that he owns 1/50th aroura of vineland. The order and the abbreviations may have differed.
8
The 21st of Pauni in the 13th year of Antoninus was June 15, 150 A.D. The line is cut off where a small, low-starting down-stroke begins for an unidentifiable character. What the date refers to, and what follows in the rest of the line, cannot be determined, but from the following lines Apollonio Herakleidou can be conjectured (see also line note for i.22 for an alternative).
9
apomoir(a) tr[iskaidekatou (etous): this reading is very uncertain. The letters after apo- are drawn too swiftly to distinguish, but that is typical of this scribe (cf. i.3). This line might also be read apo ko(mes) Tr- where the last two letters are the beginning of the name of some village, although no candidates seem likely, and all the other receipts certainly seem to refer only to Hephaistias. If this is an apomoira tax for the 13th year, it could be that of Apollonius, and on that assumption the rest of the line is restored, giving the expected taxes and amounts for 1/50th aroura of vineland (see i.6 and ii.11-12 with line notes). There is not enough room for all the taxes expected, but they appear to be continued in the next line.
10.
The 2nd of Phaophi in the 14th year of Antoninus (a leap year) was September 30, 151 A.D. There is an unusual feature in this line: the month is written on a slant upwards, so that the day (b) ends up directly above the e in epa- and the numeral mark actually crosses the bottom of the tr- in the line above. It appears that the epa- was written first and, lacking the room to fit the month and day, the scribe tried to fit this information in by writing up between the lines. The hurried and scrunched nature of this move has rendered the month difficult to read. Phaophi is most probable, but Phamenoth (February 26) and Pharmouthi (March 28) are still possible.
Apollonius' taxes for the 13th year (see above line note) would be paid in the 14th year, so this date may represent the date of the receipt. Against this interpretation is the location of the date in the middle of the receipt for one man's taxes (rather than at the beginning as expected). However, based on what precedes and follows, and the fact that we expect Apollonius to pay taxes for the 13th year, the restorations proposed for this and the preceding line make the most sense. Moreover, as noted above, it seems evident that the date was originally left out, and the line begun with a large indentation for the purpose of adding the date later--but the scribe ran out of room when he finally added it. One possible explanation for this unusual practice is that the scribe realized, while still recording the taxes being paid, that he had forgotten to include this information at the beginning, and so left some space here, finished tallying the taxes, and then went back to include the date. There may be other explanations, but none offer themselves at present. See also the following note.
11
The amount of four drachmas is very large, yet perfectly matches the payment for the rent of animals in ii.8-9. Since that payment was for the 14th year, we should expect the same or similar amount to be paid for the 13th year. The latter half of line 10 and the rest of this line have been restored with this assumption in mind. Note that the conjectured surtax perhaps should be higher (see line note ii.9).
12-13
The 14th year of Antoninus spans 150 and 151 A.D. This may instead be the 13th year, since we only have the first letter, but the order seems unlikely: the above receipt ended with what may be a payment in the 14th year (i.10), and the taxes included below appear most likely to be for the 13th year, which would be paid in the 14th year.
14-15
prakto(rsin): written very quickly, the letters beyond the first three are indistinguishable. The usual formulaic order (cf. i.20, ii.3-4) suggests what is lost and partly restored here. Unfortunately, we have lost the taxpayers name in this receipt, and there is not enough to base a conjecture on. It is certain from the following line that some tax name was given and possibly the year for which the tax was owed.
16
The line appears to read as given. However, it is more usual to list the symbolikon (charge for writing the receipt) last, and the second a is sloppily drawn, and could be read as a g or even a d or e. Moreover, it is not clear what a single drachma could be a payment for. The first candidate would be an early installment on the geometria for Apollonius (cf. ii.11-12 with line note) or possibly Anoubis (i.21-22), but we would expect the additional charges to be listed after the tax, and before the kollubos (fee for exchange), rather than seeing a double-additional charge on the second installment (1.22 and ii.12 with line notes), and there are other questions (see line note for i.22). It may be some other tax, or for some person we don't have in the extant portion of this papyrus. At any rate, the exchange fee is probably as restored, since there is not enough room in the preceeding line to add much more to the total.
17
The naubion paid here is for 1/12th aroura or less of land. The following additional charge can only be for the naubion. The following tax is uncertain. There is lost ink forming one of the strokes of the previous dichalkon symbol, and a blank space an entire character wide before the -ai appears. It is possible that the ink forming the el- has been lost, making this the abbreviation for the transport-of-olives fee (cf. ii.6). If so, this would be the elaias for 1/8th to 1/6th aroura of land, in which case the naubion tax would have to be in error (the correct amount would then most likely be a half-obol, for 1/6th aroura). On the other hand, the a could be an e, and the i could be an abbreviated p, which would make this the eparourion tax. If so, this would the the eparourion for 1/80th to 1/53rd aroura of land. If this is in error by one dichalkon, we would have the right amount for 1/50th aroura, the amount of land owned by Apollonius, for whom the naubion is also one dichalkon.
This line could thus show the land taxes of Apollonius for the 13th year, leaving us unable to explain the data in i.9-10. Either one or the other must represent the taxes for some unknown taxpayer, and there is no decisive way to choose which. If we reverse the decision made here, and assume that this is for Apollonius and i.9-10 for someone else, then we would eliminate the restored material for Apollonius there, and restore lines i.16-17 accordingly.
18-20
The 13th of Pauni in the 14th year of Antoninus was June 7, 151 A.D. The usual formulaic order (cf. ii.1-4) suggests what is lost and partly restored here. A tiny dot of ink trailing the edge of the torn papyrus is probably the numeral stroke.
21
Here the full village name is given (instead of the abbreviation at ii.4), but written quickly enough to miss a stroke. The taxpayer's name here is clearly Anoubis, a name appearing nowhere else on this papyrus. Perhaps he is included on a list of what are mostly Chairemon's tax receipts because he is a family member who pays his own taxes (unlike Apollonius and Herakleides, cf. ii.8 and 10 with line notes). The rest of the line cannot be restored, but it must have ended with the name of a tax and possibly the year for which it was owed. It may also have mentioned the father of Anoubis.
22.
One drachma with an additional charge of 1/8th is identical to what appears for the geometria of Apollonius in ii.11-12, which is followed by the same amount for exchange. If Anoubis has the same size plot of land (1/50th aroura of vine land or 1/20th aroura of garden land), this would be his geometria due in the 14th year, and the regular land taxes of either i.9-10 or i.16-17 (see line notes) could refer to his land. The symbol for the symbolikon (fee for writing the receipt) is riding the torn fibers on the edge of the papyrus, and the usual stroke for one obol above it has probably been lost.
ii.
1-3
The 26th of Epeiph in the 14th year of Antoninus was July 20, 151 A.D. There does not appear to be enough room for the last two restored letters in [A]utokrato[ro]s which are lost due to a tear, and they may have been omitted or abbreviated. The final w can only be guessed by observing the end of a stroke which curves back and under the t. Rapid writing has led the scribe to blur and skip strokes in other places, such as in Seba{s}tou (ii.3) and eparouriou (ii.7).
4
Aratus is a fairly certain reading for the first practor: the formation of ar- is identical to that in Kaisaros (ii.2) and that of -at- is almost identical to that in Autokratoros. Arreius is also fairly certain: the unusual formation of r is identical to that in argurikon (and see also tessares in ii.1, 8, and 11), and the pinched upstroke to form i is shown in Antoninou (ii.3), tris (ii.5), and (less clearly) in Apolloniou (ii.5), but the ei dipthong is clearly formed the same way in Epeiph (ii.3). Neither man is elsewhere attested as practor in the 3rd century, but the names and spellings are not unknown in Egypt (Aratos: P.Mert 1.5.6, P.Oxy 16.2036.r.11; Arreios: P.Fam.Tebt. 1.15.4.94, SB 16.12549.1). The village name of Hephaistias is abbreviated here, and the f is written very rapidly, the verticle stroke not even passing through the mere dot of a circlet.
5
Chairemon, son of Apollonius, is attested nowhere else. As taxpayer, he pays not only his own taxes, but those of what appear to be two close family members (ii.8 and 10). Apolloniou is written so swiftly that the final letters become burred and indistinct, and at least one stroke is missed. The year for which the taxes were owed (usually the year previous to when they were paid) is greatly scrunched up to avoid writing over line i.4.
6
The apomoira (see commentary) was one of three standard annual land taxes in Egypt. It was charged at a rate of ten drachmas per aroura (about 2756 m2, or about 2/3rds of an acre) of vineland, or half that rate for garden land. Chairemon is paying for 1/9th aroura of vineland, or 306 m2 (about 1/13th of an acre). He is actually undercharged by one dichalkon, but is overcharged by the same amount on the naubion (the second of the three annual land taxes), and thus his total is unaffected by these common mistakes. The naubion was charged at half a drachma per aroura. Chairemon also pays the elaias, a fee for the transport of olives off his land, which are being paid to the government as a tax in kind. His vines were probably grown among olive trees. The elaias was effectively charged at a rate of four obols and a dichalkon per aroura. The abbreviation mark for elaias ligatures to the half-obol symbol, giving the appearance of a short obol stroke, but a half obol is exactly what Chairemon owes for 1/9th aroura. The surtax or 'additional charges' for these three taxes were levied at a standard rate of 1/5th each (not 1/5th the total).
7
The eparourion (here written very quickly, making many letters indistinguishable, and losing at least one stroke) was the third of the three standard annual land taxes, charged at a rate of six drachmas and four obols per aroura, with a surtax of 1/13th or 1/16th (always rounding up to the nearest dichalkon, the smallest coin denomination). The kollubos, 'exchange fee', was charged for exchanging copper coins into silver (money taxes could only be paid in silver, which was scarce in Roman Egypt), at a rate of 1/60th the total. The symbolikon is the fee charged for writing a receipt. Various rates appear in the papyri, from as low as two chalkoi to as high as three obols. One obol is a relatively low fee. The obol stroke appears here above the semilunar s making a combined symbol.
8
eis meaning 'for, on behalf of' with a proper name is unusual but not unheard of (cf. BGU 9.1896.2.33, CPR 8.2.r.2.68, P.Mich 2.122.r.1.36, P.Oxy 12.1549.1.14). Chairemon is paying the taxes of Herakleides (abbreviated), son of Chairemon. It is probable that this is in fact Chairemon's son, or less likely his grandfather (the father of Apollonius in ii.11). No land taxes are listed for Herakleides, but instead he is paying the phoros probaton, a 'rent of animals' from the government, which could include cattle, sheep, goats, or other livestock, at unknown rates. The rate of the surtax is also unknown. Unlike the land taxes, which are paid for the previous year, the phoros in this case is paid for the present year. The year is crunched up and written tightly, almost illegibly, to avoid clashing with line i.7. Note the f is, as in ii.4, written so quickly that the verticle stroke misses the circlet entirely.
9
There is a short ligature to the half-obol symbol after the prosdiagrafominvn which may be an obol mark, or it may be another abbreviation mark as in ii.6. The end of this line was damaged by folding. It appears to read epi tes or possibly peri tes (if the p has been cut in half). As the following word(s) in ii.10 are illegible, there is no clue as to what this introduces.
10
The beginning of the line shows only traces of ink marks, and the sense cannot be made out. The -ou is a fair guess. The month of Pachon can be read only by realizing that the majority of the p has rubbed off. The day falls directly on a crease and cannot be made out. What appears to be a numeral stroke may be the end of a g, or the numeral stroke for a very small i. The 10th (or 3rd) of Pachon in the 14th year of Antoninus was May 5 (or April 28), 151 A.D.
10-11
Chairemon is now paying taxes for Apollonius, son of Herakleides, who might be Chairemon's father (ii.5) or grandson (ii.8). The only tax paid here is the geometria, a fourth land tax ostensibly for the cost of surveying the land, which was levied roughly every five years and charged at a rate of fifty drachmas per aroura of vineland, or twenty drachmas for garden land. Half-payments are known, but a half payment is unlikely to come with a full surtax (see below), although there are examples known (P.Mich. 4.225.194.r.3291). But the extremely small size of the land associated with Appollonius (either at i.9-10 or i.16-17) also makes a half-payment unlikely. It is possible that this is the full geometria for a tiny plot of 1/50th aroura (55 m2, or less than 1/73rd of an acre) of vineland or 1/20th aroura (138 m2, or 1/30th of an acre) of garden land. Both areas seem astonishingly small. Another interpretation is that this is a half-payment (for 1/10th aroura of garden land, or 1/25th of vineland), the first installment (sans surtax) being given at i.16, with the amount in i.22 perhaps being a similar half-payment for another plot of the same size, or one of three visible quarter-payments (on 1/5th aroura of garden land or 1/12th of vineland), with the surtax paid in two installments, but any of these possibilities would be hard to fit with i.17 which seems to confirm that such a small plot is being taxed. The year is written rapidly and one or two strokes are missed. The symbol for etous at the end of the line is lazily written sideways.
12
The ink has completely rubbed away at the beginning of the line, but it is easily reconstructed. The usual surtax on the geometria was 1/16th, but 1/8th is paid here (as at i.22). One might conjecture that this is the 1/16th on the full amount, of which the drachma is an installment, but there seems to be no clear precedent for that, and the appearance of a drachma with a 1/8th surtax in i.22 suggests that this is already a full rate.