Greek-Coptic Script-Mixing in Egyptian Personal Names and Toponyms of Greek Documents

Abstract

AbstractThis paper investigates the inclusion of “Coptic-only” letters in the spelling of Egyptian personal names and toponyms in otherwise Greek documents. A diachronic analysis of eighty documentary texts (4th–8th c. CE), primarily on papyrus, shows an increase of evidence in the sixth century, in line with recent literature on the evolution of documentary Coptic. As opposed to earlier papyri, which were mainly everyday texts with highly problematic Greek and interference from Egyptian, many later documents were of higher legal value, penned by bilingual scribes who were proficient in Greek, who could incorporate Coptic characters into their Greek writing, proving that script-mixing could be unrelated to poor linguistic competence. The phenomenon seems to have arisen from an unconscious cognitive process of ad hoc phoneme-to-grapheme conversion, which offered different spelling variants, and was triggered by the Egyptian origin of names, the special phonemes that certain Coptic graphemes represented, and the lack of inflection amidst the Greek text.Keywords: script-mixingnamespellingdigraphiapapyrology AcknowledgementsThis research was conducted as part of my PhD in the context of the ERC-project “Everyday Writing in Graeco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt (I–VIII AD): A Socio-Semiotic Study of Communicative Variation” (EVWRIT). I express my gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers and the editor, as well as my supervisor Klaas Bentein, my co-supervisor Yasmine Amory as well as Joanne Vera Stolk and Michael Zellmann-Rohrer for their suggestions and comments on an earlier version of the paper. Any remaining errors are my own. For granting me permission to publish the parts of the images of papyri found in this article, I would like to thank Andrea Jördens and Elena Obuhovich, and finally Claudia Kreuzsaler, who also kindly brought to my attention one of the documents used for my corpus.Notes1 Earlier, less standardized versions of the graphic (and for the most part also linguistic) variety referred to as “Coptic”, called “Old Coptic”, were used before the third century, and seem to have emerged from a Greek-based glossing system borrowing Demotic-derived signs for certain Egyptian sounds, possibly under the pressure of Roman rule and administration (for an overview of the evolution of the Coptic script, see Quack [Citation2017]).2 Fournet (Citation2020a, 18–20) points to P.Kellis VII 123, a loan receipt in Coptic written in letter form, as the sole exception to this trend.3 For a more detailed discussion of the role of monasticism and the Church in the development of Coptic for legal purposes, see Fournet (Citation2020a, 112–148).4 Cf. Papaconstantinou (Citation2008, 82): “dans la partie sud du pays, entre Syène et Hermopolis”. Some of these points are also mentioned in Richter (Citation2013).5 More detailed information about the dating of the papyri of the corpus can be found in the Appendix.6 See printed illustration of papyrus image in T.Varie, Tav. XII.7 The website can be accessed through http://papyri.info/.8 There are a handful of names that do not have an Egyptian origin, such as biblical/Hebrew or Arabic personal names: P.Bad. IV 93 (Hermopolite, 7th c.), ro, l. 56: Δ̣αϥϵιτ, P.Lond.Herm. 1 (Hermopolis, 546–547?), e.g. 5ro, l. 11: Νωϩϵ, P.Sorb.Copt. 44 (Middle Egypt?, end of 6th–7th c.), l. 2: Αβραϩα[μ], and P.Sorb.Copt. 45 (Middle Egypt?, 7th–8th c.), l. 2: Ραϣι̣τ̣.9 This was already pointed out in the edition of the text in P.Neph., p. 74: “Wo er sich über reine Grußformeln hinauswagt, macht er noch mehr Fehler.”10 The improved reading Ταϩμουρω can be found in BL IX 174.11 Cf. Heuser (Citation1929, 65) for this formation of Coptic names.12 Cf. P.Neph., p. 76, n. on l. 11, where these spellings and the documents in which they appear are listed.13 This final spelling is found in SB XX 14391 (Taamorou?, ca. 192–193), 1, l. 1. See also Cauderlier (Citation1988) on this document, esp. pp. 318, 320–321 for Taamorou, and TM Geo 3053 on Trismegistos (TM Places) for different spelling variants and their attestations.14 Cf. examples like the one in the stela ÄMUL inv. 5142 = O.Lips.Copt. I 55, ll. 1–3: ϵἷς θϵὸς ὁ βοηθὸς | ϩωρ Ἰωάννης | ὁ ἅγιος Μιχαήλ.15 P.Gron. 6 is tentatively dated to the fifth century.16 All writings are used for the same individual except for the final instance (l. 529), which seems to refer to another person.17 Three texts in our corpus which are dated to either the fifth or the sixth century, CPR IX 63, P.Jena II 19, and SB XX 14709, were not included in the discussion of fifth- or sixth-century documents because of their uncertain dating.18 Stolk, Mihálykó, and Grassien (Citationforthcoming) also observe the use of hori in the spelling of Greek, again most commonly in names, although, as expected from the nature of their corpus, not in Egyptian, but primarily in religious names (e.g. Ἰωϩαννης in P.Mon.Epiph. 601, l. 3).19 Cf. the spelling errors of Egyptian writers in §4. a.20 This name is a combination (“Doppelname”) of the two names ⲡϣⲁⲓ and ϩⲁⲓⲧⲉ (Heuser Citation1929, 123–124).21 The spelling Πϵϭωϣ is also found in P.Bal. II 392 (Apa Apollo Monastery, 6th–8th c.), l. 5 and P.Lond. IV 1419 (Aphrodito, 716–717), l. 961.22 P.Cair.Masp. II 67128 (547), l. 28; P.Cair.Masp. III 67329 (May–June 524), col.1, ll. 10, 12, 15, 17; P.Lond. V 1686 (565), l. 28; P.Ross.Georg. IV 24 (early 8th c.), l. 21, a peculiar case discussed in 5.2.3.23 P.Cair.Masp. II 67134 (547/548, see BL VIII 72), ro, l. 4; P.Cair.Masp. III 67325 (Aphrodito, 554/555–559/560), fol.1, v, l. 20; P.Cair.Masp. III 67326 (538/539? see BL XIII 57), l. 9; P.Cair.Masp. III 67327 (540 according to BL VIII 74), ll. 9, 16, 24, 33, 39; P.Lond. V 1689 (527), l. 13; P.Lond. V 1702 (542/543 according to Fournet Citation2008, 331), l. 3; PSI VIII 935 (538/539? see BL VIII 403), l. 3.24 CPR XXX 1 (Hermopolite, ca. 643–644), P.Amh. II 154 (Hermopolite, ca. 630–650), P.Apoll. 63 (Apollonopolite, 2nd half of 7th c.), P.Apoll. 73 (Apollonopolis, 2nd half of 7th c.), P.Apoll. 98 (Apollonopolis, 2nd half of 7th c.), P.Cair.Masp. III 67128 (Aphrodito, 547), P.Cair.Masp. III 67319 ro (Aphrodito?, 552/553 or 567/568), P.Lond. IV 1481 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), P.Lond. V 1686 (Aphrodito, 565), P.Lond. V 1692a (Aphrodito, 554), P.Mich. XIII 671 (Aphrodito, 547–559), P.Michael 41 (Aphrodito, 554), P.Ross.Georg. IV 24 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), SB XX 14669 (Aphrodito, 524, before the summer), SB XX 14705 (Aphrodito?, 6th–7th c.), ChLA XLI 1194 = P.Cair.Masp. III 67329 (Aphrodito, May–June 524).25 P.Amh. II 154 (Hermopolite, ca. 630–650), P.Cair.Masp. II 67128 (Aphrodito, 547), P.Cair.Masp. II 67170 (Zmin, 565), P.Cair.Masp. III 67325 (Aphrodito, 554/555–559/560), P.Herm. 34 (Hermopolis, 7th c.), P.Lond. V 1677 (Antinoopolis, ca. 568–570/573), P.Lond. V 1692a (Aphrodito, 554), P.Lond. V 1695 (Aphrodito, 531?), P.Laur. II 29 (Hermopolis, 6th c.), P.Michael 41 (Aphrodito, 554), P.Ross.Georg. III 41 (Aphrodito, 6th c.), ChLA XLI 1194 = P.Cair.Masp. III 67329 (Aphrodito, May–June 524).26 It is also used to mark proper names and toponyms in Coptic documents, e.g. extensively by the skilled scribe of the record of arbitration hearings known as P.Budge (P.Col. inv. 600).27 Apart from its aforementioned uses, the superlinear stroke is commonly used as a signal related to syllabic formation in Coptic (Layton Citation2000: 30–32, 34), which is not the case for the djandja in Φαμϫαϊ, and thus a graphic purpose such as directing the attention of readers to the Egyptian toponym remains more likely.28 It should be noted that, in this and other documents, superlinear strokes are also used for other purposes, mainly above numerals, but the present investigation focuses on names.29 Cf. Pedone (Citation2022, 183) for a similar assumption about the toponym Piah Se in P.Cair.Masp. III 67329.30 Occurrences are found in the following (connected/ligatured letters are underlined): CPR IX 45 (Hermopolite, 639–644/658–664), vo, l. 12: Παπκουιϩτο; CPR XXX I (Hermopolite, ca. 643–644), ro, col. 3, l. 45: Πϵυρϵϩ; P.Amh. II 154 (Hermopolite, ca. 630–650), ro, l. 3: Πιαϩοθ; P.Cair.Masp. II 67138 (Aphrodito, 541–546), fol. 2, ro, l. 7: Παραϣ; P.Cair.Masp. II 67141 (Aphrodito, before 547/548), fol. 5, ro, l. 8: Καϫ[ιβ]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67142 (Aphrodito?, 547/548), col. 1, ll. 11, 19: Παμουϩλ̣ι̣υ̣, Παπϫαλα̣ϭηυ; P.Cair.Masp. II 67288 (Aphrodito, 6th c.), col. 3, ro, l. 5: Παϭιλη; P.Lond. IV 1471 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.): Καϩ Ψικϵς, P.Lond. IV 1481 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.): Πιαϩ Βηλϵι, Πιαϩ Παυϵλ; P.Lond. V 1673 [Ibion?, 6th c.], fol. 1, ll. 37, 51: Βϵϭβουϭου (twice); P.Lond. V 1695 (Aphrodito, 531?), ro, l. 7: Πιαϩ Πϵτο.31 Images of P.Lond. V 1709 are available at http://bipab.aphrodito.info/pages_html/P_Lond_V_1709.html.32 P.Lond. IV 1419 (Aphrodito, 716–717), P.Lond. IV 1420 (Aphrodito, 706), P.Lond. IV 1421 (Aphrodito, 705), P.Lond. IV 1422 (Aphrodito, 707–708), P.Lond. IV 1425 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), P.Lond. IV 1431 (Aphrodito, 706–707), P.Lond. IV 1435 (Aphrodito, 716), P.Lond. IV 1449 (Aphrodito, 711), P.Lond. IV 1471 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), P.Lond. IV 1474 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), P.Lond. IV 1481 (Aphrodito, early 8th c.), [P.Lond. IV 1573 (Aphrodito, 709–710): a mainly Coptic document].33 Cf. Crum (Citation1939b) for the replacement of Coptic letters with Greek combinations in a number of eighth-century Coptic documents written in a Greek hand.34 A similar example of a digraph able to follow and distinguish between both legal Greek and Coptic conventions in his documents is Daniel son of Heracleides (Fournet Citation2020a, 84–86).35 Perhaps Coptic for “great, strong” (cf. SB XX, p.156, n. on l.59; Worp 1990, 110).36 The image can be viewed at https://dpul.princeton.edu/papyri/catalog/m039k824g.37 This is not meant ethnically, as a sign of identity, but rather linguistically.38 One such example is the case of late antique Greek notarial signatures in Latin script, where Latin letters are clearly used intentionally for their legal prestige and association with Roman law (cf. Apostolakou Citation2020).39 An example is Thortchophanō with a djandja in PGM VII 511, for which see Betz (Citation1986, 132) and Pachoumi (Citation2017, 16). I thank Sofía Torallas Tovar for bringing this text to my attention.40 Some examples include the name of a race-horse (Βϵλϩμου) to be cursed in P.Oxy. LXXIX 5205 (Oxyrhynchus, 4th/5th c.), l. 3 or the name of the bearer (ⲉⲡⲓⲙⲁⲭⲉ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ [matronym/patronym]) of the amulet in P.Oxy. LXV 4469 (Oxyrhynchus, 5th c.), ll. 21–24. (The use of Coptic in the transcription of ll. 21–25 is preferred by Maltomini “in the interests of continuity”; cf. the relevant note on p. 128.) I thank Michael Zellmann-Rohrer for pointing me to the second text.41 In a different light, a scenario involving scribes trying to account for the possible disorientation of readers (occasionally supported by the addition of superlinear strokes to names with these spellings) is also noteworthy, as it points to the expectation of biscriptal reading skills.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the European Research Council, Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [starting grant number 756487].