One aspect of the practice of sealing has been discussed, that is to seal in the sense of the German 'Versiegeln'. This is opposed to 'Untersiegeln', that is to put a seal under a text in order to authenticate it. Both meanings 'Versiegeln' as well as 'Untersiegeln', are embodied by one Greek word sgragivzw (1. (en)close with a seal, 2. authenticate a document with a seal).

According to some scholars, 'Untersiegeln' existed already and was even obligatory in the Ptolemaic era. Wilcken put forward this thesis in 1908, basing his case on the photographs of London double contracts (with a scripturia interior and exterior, see this chapter). P. Lond. III 1206 would be an example of a double contract with the scripturia interior sealed, as expected. But P. Lond. III 1204, 1208 and 1209 would not have a "Verschlußsiegel, da sie unterhalb dem Auszug angebracht sind. Dies sind vielmehr Untersiegelungen, durch die der Text des Auszuges beglaubigt wird." (103) This theory, however, is based on a wrong interpretation of the available photographs of P. Lond. III 1204, 1208 and 1209. The photographs indeed give the impression that the seals appear below the text of the scripturia interior. But that is mere coincidence: the seals were detached by modern hands in order to read the text of the scripturia interior and were laid down arbitrarily, the only concern being that they could be seen on the photograph: the seal of P. Lond. III 1206 has been put to the right of the scripturia interior, the other below it. In fact, all four London papyri were simply sealed partly (see this chapter). This is proved by the fact that the seals contain papyrus fibres, which can only be the result of 'Versiegelung', not of 'Untersiegelung'.

Almost 30 years later, Pieper (104) supported the theory of 'Untersiegelung' in the Ptolemaic era,  quoting as evidence three receipts from the Zenon archive (105).  All of them, however, are double documents and simply examples of the sealing of part of a document, as discussed in this chapter. His final proof is a petition also dealt with in this chapter, note 15. The petition mentions a lease contract that is invalid because it is ajsfravgisto", that is not sealed by the witnesses: it is an example of 'Versiegelung' of the scriptura interior of the contract, not of 'Untersiegelung'.

'Untersiegeln' only turns up in Roman times and is always the work of officials, for instance, orders for arrest, issued by the strategos, head of the nome, that bear a seal with the clear inscription "the strategos summons you" (see List No. 206-207). The best examples of 'Untersiegeln' are from the Fayum, the largest oasis of Egypt. It was surrounded by the desert and by lake Moeris. The Fayum could be left by boat through its sole eastern entrance, near Ptolemais Hormou. But if one wanted to export/ import goods to/ from Lower Egypt and the Oases, it was more convenient to make use of the shorter desert roads (106).  They ran from Dionysias/ Soknopaiu Nesos to Alexandreia, from Philopator-Theagenous / Bakchias to Memphis, from Soknopaiu Nesos and Theadelpheia/ Euhemeria/ Dionysias to the Small Oasis and Ammon Oasis, from Philadelpheia to Kerke (the harbour of Philadelpheia) (107)  [see Map].

To get to all those desert roads, one had to depart through the gates (puvlai) of the towns near the desert (108),  such as Soknopaiu Nesos, Philopator-Theagenous, Karanis, Bakchias, Philadelpheia in the northern Fayum, and Dionysias, Euhemeria (?) (109),  Theadelpheia (?) (110)  and Tebtynis in the southern Fayum.

But one had to pay: there was a tax for the protection and upkeep of the guarded desert roads ((i[cnou") ejrhmofulakiva). In addition, a custom duty of "1 and 2 %" (r kai; n) had to be paid, and if one intended to cross the border between Upper and Lower Egypt at Memphis, the tax of the "harbour of Memphis" (limh;n Mevmfew") was levied (111).  The taxes had to be paid by people exporting and importing goods "through a gate" (dia; puvlh") (112) of a desert town. The taxes paid were written in the custom house registers (113),  arranged by tax, and the transporter received the necessary receipts (114).  Most of the receipts and the major part of the custom house registers of the Fayum record export (115).  That is not to say that there was little import. In my opinion, the taxes were levied at the place of departure, usually the place where the transporter lived. E.g., if an inhabitant of Memphis wanted to export goods to the Fayum, he paid his taxes at Memphis and when returning he handed over his receipts to the Memphite custom house. As a consequence, no receipts from Memphis or other non-Fayum towns have been uncovered in the Fayum. Such proof of import of goods into the Fayum were kept at Memphis and are, hitherto, lost to us.

On the other hand, the transporter from the Fayum who wanted to export goods to Memphis or further on paid the taxes at the gate (puvlh) of a town near the desert, got his receipts and travelled along the desert roads. The receipt regarding the tax for the protection of the desert roads had to be shown to the desert guard (ejrhmofuvlax), the receipt for the "harbour of Memphis" if the transporter crossed the border between Upper and Lower Egypt. When he came back, he had to hand over the receipts to the personnel of the gate through which he entered the Fayum, in order that the receipts could not be used a second time. That is probably the reason why several custom house receipts regarding different transporters have been unearthed together (116).

 What about the receipts and custom house registers rarely testifying to import? If an inhabitant of a Fayum town wanted to import goods from Memphis into the Fayum, he had ? in my opinion ? to declare this when leaving the Fayum and once he had got receipts for the several above-mentioned taxes, could pass the desert guard and the custom house of Memphis with his transport animal(s) without problems and had, finally, to hand over the receipts when entering the Fayum with the imported goods (117).

This rather long exposé about custom house receipts should account for the use of seals on the export and import receipts of the Fayum [see Plate]. If the receipts were not to be shown to the proper authorities, the use of seals on them would have been superfluous. The seals were the only means for officials on the desert roads and at Memphis to verify the authenticity of the documents, as they could not consult the custom house registers of the Fayum gates.

Some seals on those receipts were attached simply by being pressed against the surface, the rest were squeezed partly through a small hole torn in the papyrus, so that a blob of clay protruded from the back and served to hold the seal more firmly in its place (118).  Many receipts have been found without a seal, but with a hole, which proves that a seal was once attached to it. Other receipts have no seal and bear the expression "without mark" (cwri;" carakth~ro") or "without seal" (cwri;" sfragi~do"). Still other receipts have no indication that they once bore a seal, whence the question to what degree the use of a seal was obligatory (119).

The images on the preserved seals are not always easily discernible (120).  The seals always mention the regnal year and name of the emperor(s) and often show his or their portrait (121) [see Figure 10]; the seals also seem to have the name of the town where the receipt was issued  (122) and, in the case of the tax  r kai; n  (123) and ejrhmofulakiva (124),  the name of the tax. In the case of the tax levied on the use of the harbour of Memphis, on the other hand, it is noteworthy that the seals (125)  - with one exception (126) -  bear a picture of the sacred animal par excellence in Memphis, the Apis bull (127)  [see Figure 11].

On may ask why the custom house officers did not simply use a stamp, a less time-consuming technique to legalize the receipt. Official red stamps indeed existed (see this chapter) and both seals and stamps have the regnal year, the name of the emperor and sometimes even his portrait. The important difference between them is the fact that the seals always bear some more specific data, such as the place of issue and the tax levied. Stamps never provide such data.