In 1913-1914, English papyrologist John de Monins Johnson excavated the Egyptian city of Antinooupolis on behalf of the Egyptian Exploration Society. Antinooupolis (Ἀντινόου πόλις) was founded as a Greek polis by emperor Hadrian in 130 CE in honour of his friend Antinoos, who is said to have drowned nearby in the Nile. Johnson was on a hunt for papyri and papyri he did find. Many of these unearthed papyri were published in the three-part Antinoopolis Papyri series in the 1950s and 1960s, although the famous "Antinoe Theocritus" papyrus was published in 1930. 

In addition to papyri, these excavations yielded other objects such as coins, textiles, hairpins, and metal tools that have been given almost no attention. Included among these "lesser" finds were two socks made of wool, now housed in the British Museum: 

Sock no. 1 above would have been worn by an adult on his or her right foot. There is a separation between the big toe and four other toes. This sock is made of wool and has been radiocarbon dated to 100-350 CE. One interesting thing to note is that the impression of the sandal thong is still visible!

Sock no. 2 above is a child's left-foot sock, and the obvious distinction from sock no. 1 is that it is made of 6-7 different colors. Like sock no. 1, this sock separates the big toe from the other four and is made of wool. This one is a little more intricate in design (click to enlarge). It has been radiocarbon dated to 200-400 CE. 

So, did the ancient Egyptians wear socks? Of course they did. Simple objects like these two socks give us a glimpse into how ancient people lived their lives. And while Johnson and others were apparently not very interested in these "minor" finds, they are now being studied as part of a collaborative project called Antinoupolis at the British Museum, which is being led by Elisabeth R. O'Connell, Assistant Keeper (Curator) in the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan with responsibility for Roman and Late Antique collections. This project will make available unpublished objects from Johnson's 1913-1914 excavations, as well as Johnson's unpublished excavation documentation. So, be on the lookout for more textiles, shoes, lamps, coins, figures, and—my favourite—a wooden clapper!

In 1924, H. Idris Bell published a papyrus roll that was discovered in Philadelphia, on the northeast side of the Fayum in ancient Egypt. Now known by its publication number P.Lond. 6.1912, it was soon recognized that this papyrus was a copy of a letter from the Roman emperor Claudius (41-54) to the Greek embassy in Alexandria. The contents of this letter have contributed to its massive popularity among papyrologists and historians alike, because it gives us a glimpse of imperial policy and regional disputes in Egypt. In fact, it has received more studies than almost any other papyrus discovered in Egypt.

In his letter, emperor Claudius was responding to a letter sent from the Alexandrians in 41 CE who wrote for three main reasons: 1) to congratulate Claudius on his accession to the imperial seat, 2) to ask for certain favors, and 3) to have him settle a dispute between the Alexandrians and the Jews of the city. In the first part of the letter, the emperor addresses the various honors the Alexandrians had offered to him, such as the erection of statues. One of the interesting facets of this part of the letter is Claudius’ description of himself as “not wanting to be arrogant to men of my own day, for sacred things and the like are granted by every age to the gods along as special honors, in my opinion” (ll. 47-50). However, scholars have questioned whether we can take this description of Claudius' character at face value, since it may well have been politically motivated. 

The section of the letter that has received the most attention comes at the end of the papyrus, in columns four and five: Claudius’ response to the feud between the Greeks and Jews. The Alexandrians’ question on this matter is often referred to as “the Jewish question.” Basically, Claudius sternly warns the Alexandrians that if they do not stop fighting with each other, he will be forced to intervene: “I shall be forced to show what a benevolent leader is when turned toward righteous rage” (ll. 80-81). He orders the Alexandrians to leave the Jews alone, because they have been inhabitants of the city “from a long time ago.” Additionally, they are to respect Jewish customs. As for the Jews, they are not to agitate, intrude in the contests, or “bring in Judeans from Syria or sailing down from Egypt.” Claudius was exercising good public policy, holding to a “perfectly judicial attitude” (Bell, 22). We learn from the prefect’s edict at the very beginning of the papyrus that not everyone in Alexandria was present to hear Claudius’ letter read out publicly. So, the prefect ordered that the letter be publicly posted in Alexandria, “so that man by man each understanding the letter you may wonder at the majesty of our god Caesar and for his goodwill toward the city be grateful” (ll. 7-11).

While the papyrus itself is not dated (almost certainly the original letter would have been), the edict is dated to 10 November 41, which offers a terminus ante quem, that is, a latest possible date for the papyrus. Our copy of Claudius’ letter is written on the verso of a long roll, whose recto bears the text of a tax register. There is a question as to why this letter turned up in Philadelphia in the Fayum in a first century tax archive of an official named Nemesion, son of Zoilos. Bell was of the opinion that the contents of the letter may have been of interest to the officials in Philadelphia, who could refer to it on matters related to Alexandrian citizenship.

What follows is an English translation of the section dealing with the “Jewish question.” For a complete English translation, see here; for the Greek text of the papyrus, see here. For further reading, see the following two works:

• Bell, H. Idris. Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. London, 1924.
  
• Tcherikover, Victor A. and Alexander Fuks. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vol. 2. Cambridge, 1960, No. 153.
  

"But for the riot and uprising against the Judaeans (=Ioudaioi),  rather, if the truth be told, the war, which of the two sides was responsible, even though (75) your envoys strove for great honour from the confrontation, and especially Dionysios son of The[o]n, still I did not want to have a strict investigation, while storing up in  me unrepentant rage against the ones starting again. But I announce frankly that, unless you put a stop to this (80) destructive, relentless rage against each other, I shall be forced to show what a benevolent leader is when turned toward righteous rage. For this I yet again still bear witness that  Alexandrines, on the one hand, behave gently and kindly with the Judeans, the inhabitants of the same city from a long time ago, (85) and not be disrespectful of the customs used in the ritual of their god,  but let them use their customs as in the time of the god Sebastos even as I myself, after hearing both sides, have confirmed; to the Judeans I give strict orders not to agitate for more than (90) they had before, nor as though dwelling in two cities to send in future two delegations, which had not ever been  done before; nor intrude in the gymnasiarchic or kosmetic contests reaping the fruits of their households while enjoying (95) the abundance of benefits without envy in a foreign polis; nor to introduce or bring in Judeans from Syria or sailing down from Egypt, from which I shall be forced to have serious suspicions; or else I shall take vengeance on them in every way as though (100) rousing up some common plague on the world. If after you stand aside from these things you both should wish to live together with gentleness and kindness towards each other, I shall send forth to the highest degree providence for the city as belonging to our household  from bygone times. (105) I bear witness to my companion Barbillus always showing regar[d] for us (you?) before me, and who just now with complete zeal for honour has consult[ed] about the contest about you, and to Tiberius Claudius Archibios my compan[ion.]            Farewell."

In P.Col. 10.254, an interesting 2nd century papyrus from Egypt, we meet Herakleia who purchases a female slave named Berenike. Since Herakleia is herself a woman, this raises questions about women's property in Egypt. How much property could women possess? Was it normal for women to buy slaves? Did women purchase slaves for themselves or on behalf of men? In her article "Women as Property Owners in Roman Egypt" (TAPA 113, 1983: 311-321), Deborah Hobson demonstrated, from her analysis of documentary papyri, that women often owned a good deal of property. Usually, property was kept in the family and women and men were recipients of family property, even though men were the usual recipients of real estate (there are several exceptions). P.Col. 10.254 (text reproduced below) is not unique; there are indeed other papyri that mention women as purchasers of slaves (e.g., BGU 11.2111, P.Col. 8.219, P.Oxy. 1.73). So, we know that women could purchase slaves. 

But what P.Col. 10.254 and other similar papyri reveal is that women had access to full participation in the economy of Roman Egypt. Herakleia visited the appropriate financial office in person and the transaction was made in her name without any objection. In other words, there seems to have been no social stigma attached to Herakleia's purchase of  her own property. The text indicates that Herakleia could "dispose" (i.e., sell, transfer) of Berenike "in whatever way she chooses," underscoring her rights to her property. As the editor maintains, "this is clearly a case of a woman acting independently of men in her own financial interests" (P.Col. 10.254, p. 25). Documentary papyri thus reflect social realities and deepen our knowledge of all sorts of human activity in Egypt, from transportation, business, death, marriage, divorce, and so on. 

Notice in the image at the bottom, in a second hand, the subscription of Petechon, from whom Herakleia purchased Berenike. This is an example of a "slow writer," someone who could write his name and a few practiced lines but nothing more. The contract itself was probably written by a private clerk.

In Book 17 of Homer’s Odyssey, when Penelope and Eumaeus are speaking in private about Odysseus while the suitors feast in the halls of the king's palace, Telemachus sneezes and Penelope laughs:

“At the queen’s last words, Telemachus sneezed aloud [μέγ᾽ ἔπταρεν], and the noise went thundering round the hall. Penelope laughed.” (Od. 17.541-542)

Why does Penelope laugh? Because she was convinced that Telemachus’ sneeze was a prophetic sign that her words concerning the demise of the suitors would come true: "Did you not see how my son sneezed as I finished then? So death for the suitors may still not be unachieved" (17.544-545). Sneezing was widely recognized in the ancient world as a divine omen. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, there is a good description of this:

“As he was saying this a man sneezed [πτάρνυταί], and when the soldiers heard it, they all with one impulse made obeisance to the god; And Xenophon said, ‘I move, gentlemaen, since at the moment when we were talking about deliverance, an omen [οἰωνὸς] from Zeus the Saviour was revealed to us....’” (Anab. 3.2.9)

The idea behind this is that the Greeks and Romans believed that the gods governed all things. So Plutarch can say that “For proof of this I may call Homer for my witness, who affirms that there is nothing done or brought to perfection of which a god is not the cause” (De Pythiae oraculis 22). In the case of sneezing, it was something that could not be controlled and so it was understood as a supernatural cause or influence. Sometimes the omen was not always positive, and the significance and interpretations of sneezes varied depending on a variety of factors. There are many references to sneezing as an omen in both Greek and Roman literature, and I should like to point my readers to the fascinating articles by Pieter W. van der Horst and Arthur Stanley Pease (citations below), in which there is to be found numerous references to the literature. According to van der Horst, "sneezing as a manifestation of a divine power played a much more important part in ancient divinatory speculation than we are often inclined to assume."

So, next time you sneeze, ponder what the gods may be brewing up for you!

1. Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Omen of Sneezing in Pagan Antiquity,” Ancient Society 43 (2013): 213-221.

2. Arthur Stanley Pease, "The Omen of Sneezing," Classical Philology 6 (1911): 429-443. [Online here.]