Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt 9050630227, 9789050630221

Table of contents :
ETHNICITY IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
Copyright
PREFACE
CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Problem
1.2 Ethnicity Theory
1.3 Limitation to Hellenes and Egyptians
2 ANALYSIS OF IBE DOCUMENTS: INDIVIDUALS
2.1 Texts from the Zenon Archive
2.2 The Surety Contracts from Ghorân
2.3 The Serapeum Texts
2.4 Documents from the Pathyrite Nome
2.5 Kerkeosiris
2.6 The Remaining Texts on Individuals
2.7 Summary on Individuals
3 EGYPTIANS AND GREEKS: THE GROUPS
4 CONCLUSION
Supplementary Note: the Machimoi
APPENDIX: THE DOCUMENTS
Select Bibliography
Index of Sources
Index of Personal Names
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

ETHNICITY IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

DUTCH MONOGRAPHS ON ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY EDITORS

P.W. DE NEEVE

-

H.W. PLEKET

VOLUME V KOEN GOUDRIAAN

ETHNICITY IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

ETHNICITY IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

BY

KOEN GOUDRIAAN

J.C. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 1988

CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Goudriaan, Koen Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt / Koen Goudriaan. Amsterdam : Gieben. - (Dutch monographs on ancient history and archaeology ; vol. 5) ISBN 90-5063-022-7 SISO 922.l UDC 39(32) "-03/-00" Subject heading: Ptolemaic Egypt ; ethnicity.

© 1988, by J.C. Gieben Printed in The Netherlands

PREFACE The subject of this book suggested itself to me a number of years ago when I was studying the anti-Jewish pogrom at Alexandria (38 AD.) and its background. I felt that this pogrom must have been caused, at least partially, by changes in the relationships between the different ethnic components of the population of Alexandria, the Jews as so often in history being between the devil and the deep sea. The next question that presented itself was how these relations had been in Alexandria and in Egypt in earlier times, in particular before the coming of the Romans. I found the answers given in modern literature contradictory and unconvincing. This was especially true with regard to the problem whether the Ptolemaic government had a policy of systematically favouring the Greeks at the It also became clear that something expense of the native Egyptians. more could be said about the definition of the various ethnic groups in Egypt, provided one should start from the explicit use of ethnic labels. Hence I decided to collect the evidence, which is mainly to be found in the papyrological sources. For the purpose of analysing this material I set my study within the theoretical framework offered by modern anthropological research on ethnic groups, thereby taking the risk of appearing to be too dogmatic to those who are not in favour of the explicit statement of theoretical principles in connection with historical research. It is up to others to decide whether the results justify the method adopted. A crucial point is the idea that ethnicity is a matter of categorization in social interaction. It has no ontological basis in biology, descent or even culture. Consequently the question who the Egyptians and the Greeks were reduces itself to the problem which people counted as such and in which circumstances. When I started this study I had no general theory on the relative positions of the Greeks and the Egyptians - to these groups I restricted the investigation - in Ptolemaic Egypt. Now that it is finished I tend to think that, on the whole, there was no preferential treatment of one of these two components in the population of the kingdom, at least during most of the Ptolemaic period. Neither did the government encourage separateness between the two ethnic groups. The investigation was done independently from J.M~leze-Modrzejewski, "Le statut des Hellenes dans l"Egypte lagide", REG 96 (1983) 241-268, but with his conclusion on p. 256

(there was no "apartheid" in Ptolemaic Egypt) I agree. It is true, after the manuscript was finished (summer 1986) some texts were published which make these contentions slightly more dubious; I refer to CPR IX,l; 2; 4 and 11 (=DOCS. 2; 2a; 2b; 2c). I have refrained, though, from entirely reformulating my findings. Anyhow, I do not think that the attainment of the main purpose of this study, which was to explore the ethnic boundaries between Greeks and Egyptians on the basis of a collection of the sources, is invalidated by the publication of these new texts. The reader should know that this book is not about Greek, Egyptian, Ethnicity and culture are two Graeco-Egyptian or Hellenistic culture. different things, and the rise of a mixed civilization is not synonymous with the "fusion of the races" or with the amalgamation of the ethnic groups which share the same territory. The people(s) on both sides of the Graeco-Egyptian ethnic border may have had large areas of culture in common, but this did not automatically entail the blurring of ethnic divisions. For the perpetuation of ethnic boundaries the maintenance of only a few culture differences suffices. In my study I suggest that as far as Egypt is concerned in some cases use of primary language was the criterium - not so unimportant an aspect of culture, after all. In preparing this book I incurred many debts of gratitude, which I gladly pay off now. With P.W. de Neeve I often discussed the theme of this study. Without his encouragement in an early stage the book would not have been written, his advice emiched it in several respects. J.A. Ankum was consulted on some points of juridical nature. As I am not a papyrologist and do not command the demotic language, the willingness of S.P.Vleeming to give his assistance in handling the demotic source material was particularly welcome. In a later stage I also profited from remarks made by W.Clarysse. I enjoyed the hospitality of the Papyrologisch Instituut of Leyden University during a number of days in spring and summer 1986; its excellent library was an indispensable tool for the It goes without saying that the errors and composition of this book. absurdities the book still contains are my responsibility. Mrs. AM.de Bruin-Cousins improved my English, and she did so in a most charming way. Maria Willems undertook the ungrateful task of typing a difficult and rather technical manuscript. Hans Varkevisser and Annemieke Schoonenboom guided my steps on the creepy ground of modern computerized printing techniques. The Nederlandse organisatie voor

wetenschappelijk onderzoek (NWO) made the edition of the manuscript possible by granting a subvention for the correction of the English text. H.W.Pleket and P.W. de Neeve were so kind as to accept the study for publication in the "Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology". The greatest contribution was made by Nel, Lydia and Joost: they ceded a husband and a father. It is to them that this book is dedicated. Amsterdam, Free University October 1988

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3 4

CONTENT IN1RODUCTION The Problem Ethnicity Theory Limitation to Hellenes and Egyptians ANALYSIS OF IBE DOCUMENTS: INDIVIDUALS Texts from the Zenon Archive The Surety Contracts from Ghoran The Serapeum Texts Documents from the Pathyrite Nome Kerkeosiris The Remaining Texts on Individuals Summary on Individuals EGYPTIANS AND GREEKS: THE GROUPS CONCLUSION

Supplementary Note: the Machimoi APPENDIX: IBE DOCUMENTS Select Bibliography Index of Sources Index of Personal Names Index of Subjects

TablesA-F TableG Genealogical Tables I and II Tables H-J Table K

1 1 8 14 22

38 40 42

58 70

88

90 96 116 121 126 158 161

169 174

27-37

57 68-69 73-77 95

1

IN1RODUCTION

1.1

IM Problem

"... on ignore comment se d6finit un Egyptien": These words, written by the late Claire Pr6auxl) as a comment on the famous text PTebt. 5,207-220 express a resignation which comes as an anticlimax after half a century's work, done by Prfaux herself and by several of her colleagues, on the relationship between the different ethnic groups and on the fusion, or the absence of fusion, of their cultures in Hellenistic Egypt. This work was still being continued in the very years in which Prfaux wrote these words; W.Peremans, for example, was producing a series of articles in which he exploited the material contained in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica, testing the hypothesis that not only in the third, but also in the second and first centuries B.C. the Hellenic or Egyptian character of personal names can be used as an indication of the nationality of those who bore It is a little surprising to see so much energy spent on this them2). important problem without having an answer to one of the most basic questions, viz. who counted as an Egyptian and who as a Hellene. It is my intention in this study to tackle exactly this problem. In order to clarify the problem, however, it is necessary to review briefly the manner in which the question has been dealt with during the last sixty years. On the question of ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt a fundamental debate took place in the twenties and thirties of this century. It was prompted by the appearance in 1925 of Heichelheim's study of the immigrant population in Egypt3). Elias Bickermann opened the debate with an article on the "Heimatsvennerke"; these are geographic indications added to persons' Bickermann names in official documents of the Ptolemaic age4). l) Cl.Prfaux, LE MONDE HELJ..ENISTIQUE. La Grece et /'orient (323-146 av. J.-C.) (Paris 1978) 596. 2) W.Peremans, "Ethnics et classes dans l'Egypte ptol~maique", in: Recherches sur /es structures sociales dans l'Antiquit~ classique" (Paris 1970) 213-223; and the articles in Ancient Society, for which see the Bibliography. 3) Fr. Heichelheim, Die auswlbtige BeviJ/kerung im PtolemlJerreich (Leipzig 1925; repr. Aalen 1963). 4) E. Bickermann, "Beitriige zur antiken Urkundengeschichte I: Der Heimatsvermerk und die staatsrechtliche Stellung der Hellenen im ptolemiiischen Agypten",APF 8 (1927) 216-239.

2

demonstrated that - at least from 200 B.C. onwards - two different kinds of Heimatsvennerke can be distinguished: the "Ethnikon" (the terms used are those coined by Bickermann himself), consisting of an adjective derived from the name of a polis or tribe and used in the case of Hellenic or other immigrants; and the "Herkunftszeichen", characterising the indigenous population, and following the formula ton apo with the name These distinctions are unobjecof an Egyptian village or districts>. tionable, as long as one restricts their validity to the juridical field (the "Urkundenlehre"): Heimatsvennerke as part of one's legally established identity. But Bickermann extended the scope of his results to the problem of the relationship of the different ethnic groups in Egypt. On the one hand he established that the Hellenes and the Macedonians as such did not enjoy any special privilege as compared with the native Egyptiansin this Bickermann's argument ran counter to prevailing opinion6). He observed that often the Heimatsvennerke of immigrants pointed to Greek states no longer in existence. So these Heimatsvennerke could not convey any privilege or obligation of the immigrant vis-a-vis his native town, and Bickermann concluded that in a constitutional sense they were false7>. On the other hand he felt entitled to conclude from the disappearance of the Ethnika in late Ptolemaic times that the Hellenes were at last submerged in the indigenous Egyptian population: "In Agypten wohnten wieder nur die Agypter" or "Als die Romer kamen war das Hellenentum in Agypten tot"B). Consequently, in spite of the title of his article (" ... die staatsrechtliche Stellung"), Bickermann interpreted the Heimatsvennerke mainly as an indication of ethnicity or nationality. He was criticized by Ernst Schonbauer, who took Bickermann's observations on the "falsehood" of some of the Heimatsvennerke as his starting point. According to SchOnbauer, the significance of the ethnics was that they indicated the privileged status of the immigrants as part of the occupying power: "... aus 5) Bickermann,APF 8 (1927) 21.0 f. 6) Compare the status quaestionis in W.Peremans, Vreemde/ingen en Egyptenaren in VroegPtolemaeisch Egypte (Louvain 1937) 9ff. 7) Bickermann,APF 8 (1927) 223ff. 8) Bickermann,APF 8 (1927) 239.

3

diesen Stammesbezeichnungen waren aber Standesbezeichnungen geworden"9). In Schonbauer's interpretation the Heimatsvennerke did not function at all in reference to the political entities outside Egypt whence the persons in question came, but merely in relation to the royal power in EgyptlO). Schonbauer's hypothesis implied support of the idea, first enounced by Mitteisll), that the Ptolemaic government treated the various nationalities in Egypt differently by binding each to its ancestral law, in a way analogous to the system applied in several medieval German speaking countries12): the so-called personality principle ("Persona/itiltsprinzip"). According to Schonbauer, Egypt's population consisted of several hereditary status categories: birth served as the principle of classification13). Although he clearly intended these categories to be understood as ethnic ones, he was interested mainly in their juridical features1 4). In one respect Schonbauer's exposition remained somewhat ambiguous: in his eyes the main status opposition had certainly been the one between the immigrants as the instruments of royal power and the subjected natives; but within the immigrant stratum, too, status distinctions ("Rangunterschiede") 15) existed, at least between the Hellenes as the descendants of the Greek federal contingents in Alexander's army, and the xenoi descending from the mercenary soldiers in the service of the Macedonian kings. Bickermann had demonstrated in 1927 that, prior to the total assimilation of the immigrants with the natives at the end of the Ptolemaic period, there had been a stage in which the different categories of immigrants amalgamated into one single entity, which was 9) E.Schonbauer, "Studien zum Personalitlitsprinzip im antiken Rechte", ZRG 49 (1929) 345403; the quotation is from page 348. 10) On p. 376 he accuses Bickermann or confusing the "innerstaatliche" personality principle or the German Middle Ages with the modem concept of international private law, and so, in his attack on Mitteis c.s., of fighting windmills. 11) Grundzilge 11,pXII ff.; Schonbauer adopted it as early as ZRG 39 (1918) 224ff. 12) ZRG 49 (1929) 354; 367ff.

13) P. 349/351. 14) He regarded the politeumata as the incorporation of the different status groups (p. 351: "besondere Korporationen"; p.355ff. and 364), apparently under the fresh impression or the article by W.Ruppe~ "Politeuma", Philologus 82 (1927) 268-312; 433-454. 15) P350.

4

called, probably at first by the natives, the "Hellenes•l6): Bedeutungslosigkeit

der

Ethnika

war

nur

die

"Die rechtliche

juristische

allgemeinen Nivellierung unter den Einwanderem"l7).

Fassung

der

Hence, according to

Bickermann, basically the Egyptian population could be reduced to the simple dichotomy of Hellenes and natives;

this corresponds to SchOn-

bauer's opposition between natives and occupiers;

but whereas Schon-

bauer regarded this as a juridical phenomenon, Bickermann called attention to the ethnic aspects.

At that moment all the terms were available for

dividing the problem into its logical parts:

"Did a Hellenic nation exist

in Ptolemaic Egypt, and, if so, what made one a Hellene and who counted as an Egyptian?"

And:

"Did the Hellenes, M

~

enjoy a privileged

status; in particular did the monarch favour the Hellenes as his main support in the occupied country Egypt was?" In my view the first of these two questions has never been adequately answered;

instead,

attention was

called to

the

second

question

It was precisely to find an answer to the second of these two questions that Preaux wrote her brilliant 1936 article on "racial or immediately.

royal politics" 18).

She suggested that the first Ptolemies should be seen

primarily as the conscious followers of the strongest pharaos of Egypt's tradition;

she

then formulated

the hypothesis that opposition against

royal absolutism could have been expected not only from the Egyptians, but from the Greek part of the population as well: "Pourquoi n'imaginerait-on pas que le developpement des institutions resulte de la lutte de forces diverses contre le pouvoir du roi, lequel s'appuie, selon les cas, sur les Grecs contre les Egyptiens ou sur les Egyptiens contre les Grecs?"l9). 16) Bickermann, APF 8 (1927) 229-231. 'Es scheint mir aber ziemlich sicher dass die eigenartige Erweiterung des Begriffes 'Hellenen' auf alle, auch barbarische Einwanderer, nicht von den Eroberern, sondern von den Unterworfenen ausging" (p.230, with the evidence). Here Bickermann comes very close to a formulation of the ethnicity problem as it as been understood by Post-War anthropologists and as I intend to understand it hereafter. Although Bickermann does not succeed entirely in isolating ethnicity from juridical etc. categories, his article remains fundamental to the problem under discussion. 17) Bickermann,APF 8 (1927) 229. l8) Cl.Prfaux, "Politique de race ou politique royale?", CE 11 (1936) 111-138. The article by E.Kornemann, "Das 'Hellenentum' der Makedonen in Agypten", Aegyptus 13 (1933) 144150, may be left out of account. Though it contains some useful material, it brings no progress beyond Bickermann's results as far as ethnicity theory is concerned; assuming, as he does, as self-evident a hierarchy between the peoples in Hellenistic societies (with the Macedonians in the position, albeit precarious, of Herrenvolk), and accepting overzealously Livy's (XXXVIII,17,11) degeneration theory, he seems not only to reflect current speculation on the nature of Hellenism, but also the beliefs of 1933 Germany. 19) P.117.

5 Summing up the results of separate investigations into various sectors of Egyptian society under the Ptolemies, partly done already before 192720), she joined Bickermann in concluding that there had been no government policy of systematically favouring the Hellenes and slighting the natives: "race" had been of no importance to the administration. Next she analysed two domains where friction between natives and immigrants were bound soon to arise, viz. the institutions of cleruchy and of stathmos (billeting of soldiers). Conditions prevailing in the occupation and cultivation of the soil, for instance, often led to the situation that Greek landlords and Egyptian tenants came to confront one another, with the latter mostly in a disadvantageous position - however, there was no official policy of deliberately creating this situation. More generally, Preaux remarked that "dans les pays ou vivent des races diverses, il arrive souvent que chacune d'elles ait une fonction economique qui Jui est propre. Si l'une de ces fonctions vient a. pericliter tandis que l'autre prospere, les gens qui sont voues a. la premiere auront vite fait de se croire une race lesee"21). Often, it is the psychological effect of an institution, an effect which the government has neither intended nor foreseen, that makes the greatest impact on the governed. Thus, the economic inequality between Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic period "n'est pas l'effet d'une politique d'oppression, ni d'une politique de race. Mais elle peut avoir memes consequences que si elle l'etait"22), that is the effect of widening the gulf between the different ethnic groups. One can perceive already in this article what was to remain the leading viewpoint in the later contributions by Mlle Preaux, viz. the reciprocal exclusiveness, the "etanchCite" of Hellenic and Egyptian culture23). In his well-known 1937 monograph on aliens and Egyptians in early Ptolemaic Egypt24> Willy Peremans pursued Preaux's ideas in somewhat more detail. Though there was no government policy of discriminationthe Greeks and Macedonians fully shared in the taxes and burdens of the 20) P.114££. with notes. 21) P.131.

22) P.130. 23) Summary in LE MONDE HELLENIST/QUE Part II, p.545-683: 'Critique de l'idte de civilisation mixte'. 24) W.Peremans, Vreemdelingen en Egyptenann in Vroeg-Ptolemaeisch Egypte( Louvain 1937).

6 country - in military, bureaucratic and technical competence and in power of investment the Greeks were so far ahead of the Egyptians that the royal administration had no choice but to reckon with this fact. Subsequent research into "the national factor in the history of Ptolemaic Egypt"25) has followed by and large the debates defined in the twenties and thirties of this century. Legal historians have debated the question whether in Ptolemaic Egypt the "Personalitiitsprinzip" was valid; nowadays the opinion is gaining ground that this was not the case, and that, instead, the ~ fQ!:i. principle prevailed26) (in judicial proceedings the character of the tribunal decided which law should be applied: Greek/royal or Egyptian law). Attention has been paid to the nationalist and Much ethnic motivations behind the great second century rebellions 27>. work has been done on tracing the presence of natives in the different sectors of Egyptian society28); opinions have diverged on whether or not 25) Title of a lecture by W.Peremans: 'De nationale factor in de geschiedenis van Ptolemaisch Egypte" (Brussels 1962). I do not intend the following bibliographic notes to be exhaustive; see also Modrzejewski ,APF 24/5 (1976) 318-320; 26 (1978) 185ff; 211 ff.

26) HJ. Wolff, "Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt", RIDA 7 (1960) 218; Das Justizwesen der Ptolemlier (2nd ed. Munich 1970) 196; Das Problem der Konkurrenz von Rechtsordnungen in der Antike (Heidelberg 1979) 47-66, esp.56; "The Political Background of the Plurality of Laws: Ptolemaic Egypt", Proc. XVIth Int.Cong. Pap. (Chico 1981) 313-318; accepted by Prtaux, Le monde hell. 595ff. 27> P. Jouguet, L'impirialisme maddonien et /'hellinisation de /'Orient (Paris 1926) 386-390: "La rtaction indig~ne" (2nd ed. 1m: p.339-348).- Idem, "Le roi nubien Hurgonaphor el les rtvoltes de la Thtbaide", M~/a11ges Navarre (Toulouse 1935) 265-273.- Cl. Prtaux, "Esquisse d'une histoire des r6volutions 6gyptiennes sous les Lagides", CE 11 (1936) 522-552.M.1.Rostovtzeff, 171e Social and Economic History of the Helle11istic World (Oxford 1941) 11,708-710.- MAlliot, "La Th6baide en lutte contre les rois d'Alexandrie sous Philopator et Epiphane (216-184)', RBPh 29 (1951) 421-443.- Fr. Uebel, "Tapax-1) Tv Al)'lnTTl.wv. Ein Jenaer Papyruszeugnis der nationalen Unruhen Oberiigyptens in der ersten Hiilfte des 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts, APF 17 (1962) 147-162.- P.W.Pestman, "Harmachis et Anchmachis, deux Rois indig~nes du temps des Ptoltmtes", CE 40 (1965) 157-170.- W.Peremans, "Ptoltmte IV et les Egyptiens", in: Le Monde Gree: Hommages d C/.Preaux (Brussels 1975) 393-402.- F.de Cenival, "Deux papyrus intdits de Lille", Enchoria 7 (19TI) lOf.- K.Th. Zauzich, "Neue Namen fiir die Konige Harmachis und Anchmachis", GM 29 (1978) 157f.- W.Clarysse, "Notes de prosopograpbie tMbaine: Hurgonaphor el Chaonnophris, les derniers pharaons indig~nes", CE 53 (1978) 243-253.- Cl.Pr6aux, LE MONDE HELLENIST/QUE (Paris 1978) 1,389-398.- W.Peremans, "Les rtvolutions 6gyptiennes sous les Lagides", in: Das ptolemliische A.'gypten (Mainz 1978) 39-50.- W.Huss, "Eine Revolte der Aegypter in der Zeit des 3.Syrischen krieges", Aegyptus 58 (1978) 151-156.- W.Peremans, "Sur la domestica seditio de Justin (xxvii,1,9)", AC 50 (1981) 628-636. 28) Besides the articles by W.Peremans listed above (note 2) and in the Bibliography, see inter alia A.E.Samuel, "The Greek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy", ProcXllth Int.Pap.Congr. (Ann Arbor 1968) (Amsterdam 1970) 443-453.- P.W.Pestman, "L'agoranomie: un avant-poste de l'administration grecque enlevte par Jes Egyptiens?', in: Das Ptol.Agypten

7

the gymnasium, mainstay of the Hellenic way of life, admitted Egyptians29). Speaking generally, historical investigation has been focused upon deciding which one of two phenomena dominated life in ancient Egypt: fusion and mixture of races and cultures, or separateness30). The 20th century decolonization process sensitized historians to the tensions inherent in colonial situations ancient and modem. Of course students of the Hellenistic period repeatedly have tried to determine how to identify Hellenes and Egyptians and how to distinguish them. The most important criteria used have been, in fact, the Heimatsvermerke - following Bickermann - and nomenclature. The investigations of proper names by Peremans and his school have already been mentioned31). Other criteria, too, have been proposed: in his 1962 lecture32) Peremans suggested persons' descriptions ("signalements"), occupation, peculiarities in language and style, palaeographic indications (?) and genealogies. None of these criteria is water tight, however, and so we are back with Pr~aux's complaint that no one knows exactly how an Egyptian was defined.

(Mainz 1978) 203-210.- Fr.Dunand, "Grccs ct Egypticns en Egyptc lagidc", in: G.Ncnci (ed.) Modes de contacts et processus de transfonnation dans /es sociltls anciennes (Pisa-Rome 1983) 45-87.- A.E.Samucl, From Athens to Alexandria. Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt. Stud.hcll.26(Louvain1983) 105-117. 29) Negative: M.Launcy, Recherches sur les Annles Helllnistiques (Paris 1950) II,863-868; Prtaux, Le monde helllnistique (Paris 1978) 565; W.Pcrcmans, AncSoc 7 (1976) 175. Positive: J.Dclormc, Gymnasion (Paris 1960) 427 and 478; cp. P.M. Frascr,JEA 47 (1961) 144f. 30) Whereas Cl.Prtaux (note 18 above) rejects the idea of a mixed civilization, E.Scidl, for instance, has repeatedly stressed the reciprocal influences of the Egyptian and Greek cultures: SDHT 33 (1967) 544; 36 (1970) 529f.; Akten d.XX!l. lntem.Pap. Kongr. (Marburg/Lahn 1971) (Munich 1974) 381-388. 3l) Above, note 2. Some interesting remarks in V.Martin, "L'onomastiquc commc indicc des rapports cntrc indig~ncs ct occupants dans l'Egyptc grtco-romainc", Akten d.Vlll./nt.Kongr.f.Pap. (Vienna 1955) (Vienna 1956) 85-90. 32) Above, note 25.

8 1.2

Ethnicity~

It is here that I suggest a fresh approach 1>. Common to nearly all work done so far on the national factor in Hellenistic Egypt is the implicit belief that "nationality" or "ethnicity" is an objective and stable quality of the persons involved: Someone ~ a Hellene, and so he gilil.Q1 M an Egyptian; his being a Hellene automatically entails speaking a certain language, behaving in a certain manner, sharing a certain culture, being entitled to participate in the gymnasium, bearing a Hellenic name, having a Hellenic pedigree and being given by the authorities a certain type of Heimatsvermerk in recognition of his Hellenic status, and vice versa. Consequently, one has tended to regard mixed marriages, producing children of mixed nationality, as the main factor in changes of nationality. The concept of ethnicity I intend to apply in this study starts from the opposite presupposition: Greek or Egyptian "ethnicity" must be viewed not as objective and innate qualities of a person, but as categories applied in social interaction by actors wishing to divide the participants in the interaction into an "in-group" and an "out-group". This does not happen in every kind of interaction, only in those in which ethnic categorization - i.e. classification of the "out-group" by the Greeks as "Egyptians" and by the Egyptians as "Greeks" - is considered relevant by the actors. The ethnically-coloured kinds of interaction, as well as the criteria singled out by the actors to base ethnic categorization upon, may vary considerably from time to time and from one situation to another. Of course, descent was a major factor in the eyes of the participants in social life in Egypt during the Hellenistic period, as it is for us; but other factors were important, too, e.g. language. For the phenomenon thus indicated the term "ethnicity" should be used, and the term "nationality" should be avoided. "Nationality" has a juridical connotation; it denotes citizenship of a state or membership of the category of the fully privileged inhabitants of that country. It is

l) Nearest to my approach are some remarks by John F.Oates, "The Status Designation T'f\• !'lr~"fll~·. YC/S 18 (1963) 109: "There were no hard and fast rules as to what constituted Hellenic character, but it was not exclusively a matter of birth and might always be a matter of dispute when any one individual ceased to be J3apJ3apo, and became "E>->.11v", and A.E.Samuel, ProcXl/th lnt.Pap.Congr. (Ann Arbor 1968) (Amsterdam 1970) 452 note 17: "... we should not lose sight of the fact that people could and did function in terms of both cultures". Disappointing in this respect is Cl.Prt!aux, "Papyrologie et sociologie", Ann. Univ. Sarav.8 (1959) 13ff.: "La rfponse au besoin de dffmition de soi". mp~

9 questionable whether this concept of "nationality" is at all applicable to the situation prevailing in Ptolemaic Egypt - or, indeed, in any ancient territorial state. In any case, the use of the term "nationality" might easily suggest the idea that in Egypt those of Greek nationality were the fully privileged, the Egyptians the underprivileged. Unequal distribution of rights according to nationality presupposes the existence of an unambiguous definition of nationality. The authorities have to single out criteria for determining membership in the category of the fully privileged; it is only when government policy takes ethnicity into account that the need for objective definition of a person's ethnic status arises; in that case ethnic categories become more rigid. The most obvious criterium, in that So finally we are back again to descent. It circumstance, is descent. should .nm be taken for granted, however, that this was what the Ptolemies did, viz. to favour the Greeks as such on account of their Hellenic descent. Later on in this study attention is paid to the question wether the authorities of Ptolemaic Egypt ever had a policy based on ethnic categories. Consequently it is ethnicity as a social, not as a juridical or political phenomenon that we are concerned with here. The framework that will be applied to the analysis of this phenomenon is the ethnicity theory offered by social anthropology. In recent anthropological research ethnicity has attracted a great deal of attention. In fact, research in this field has its roots in the colonial situation prevailing until the middle of this century; as its pioneer one has to regard J.S.Furnivall, who made a study of the plural, i.e. ethnically divided, economy as it existed in Netherlands India2). Later on theoretical principles were formulated by the Norwegian Fr. Barth3), as well as by other anthropologists, and in more recent years Anglo-Saxon countries saw the birth of some periodicals dedicated exclusively to ethnicity studies4). Understandably the interest centres on fieldwork applied to contemporary ethnicity problems all over the world, but studies of the same phenomenon in more remote historical periods are not 2) J.S.Furnivall, Netherlands India: A study ofplural economy (Cambridge 1939). 3) F.Barth, 'Introduction', in: F.Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. 171e Social Organization of Culture Difference (Boston 1969) 9-38. See also N.Glazer - D.P.Moynihan, Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Cambridge 1975); B.B.Lal, 'Perspectives on ethnicity: old wine in new bottles', Etlmic and Racial Studies 6 (1983) 154-197, and numerous articles in the reviews mentioned in the following note. 4) Ethnic Groups: an Intemational Periodical of Ethnic Studies, ed. by A.L.La Ruffa and J.S.Savishinski, (Ithaca-New York; 1,19n ff).- Ethnic and Racial Studies, ed. by J.Stone, N.& S. Fainstein and H. Giordan (London; 1,1978ff.).

10

excluded either theoretically or in practice. The distinctive feature of plural society studies - as this research into ethnicity is also called - is the conviction that ethnic structures and relations are "consequential in their own right, and not reducible to class or other economic formations (... ). The perspective is that since both classes and ethnic groups are social constructs with strong institutional underpinnings, it is appropriate to grant to ethnic structure the same Ethnicity must be logical status as is accorded to class structure"S). treated as a dimension of its own, neither coinciding with class, which is an economic category, nor with order and nationality (or citizen rights), both of which are juridical, nor even with religion (although, in fact, religion and ethnicity converge more frequently than the other dimensions )6). Ethnicity can be defined as a type of social organization based on self-ascription and ascription by others; this categorical ascription "is an ethnic ascription when it classifies a person in terms of his basic, most general identity, presumptively determined by his origin and background. To the extent that actors use ethnic identities to categorize themselves and others for purposes of interaction, they form ethnic groups in this organizational sense"7>. "It is important to recognize that although ethnic categories take cultural differences into account, we can assume no simple one-to-one relationship between ethnic units and cultural similarities and differences. The features that are taken into account are not the sum of "objective" differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as significant" (Barth, 14). At the basis of this phenomenon lies a general feature of human existence, viz. the need everyone experiences to bring order and meaning into his social environment, that otherwise would be incomprehensible and 5) J.L.P.Thompson, "The plural society approach to class and ethnic political mobilization", Ethnic and Racial Studies 6 (1983) 127ff.; citation on p.128. 6) It is not my intention here to deal exhaustively with the theoretical aspects of ethnicity; instead, I refer the reader to the literature mentioned in notes 2-5. In an article I am preparing on the 38 A.D. anti-Jewish pogrom of Alexandria I hope to show in more detail the relevance of this approach for a special subject of ancient history. Topics like the difference between ethnicity by consent and compulsory ethnicity will be treated more appropriately there. 7) Barth (see note 3), p.11 and 13f. For a criticism of this definition sec D.Handelman, "The Organization of Ethnicity", Ethnic Groups 1 (1977) 187.

11 intractable, and to act accordingly. This approach of ethnicity, with its emphasis on the categories the actors themselves use to classify their partners in interaction, is intended by Barth to replace a more traditional one that departs from a definition of ethnic groups in objective terms, as culture-bearing unit; in that view "the classification of persons and local groups as members of an ethnic group must depend on their exhibiting the particular traits of the culture. This is something that can be judged objectively by the ethnographic observer, in the culture-area tradition, Differences regardless of the categories and prejudices of the actors. between groups become differences in trait inventories" (Barth, 12). This traditional view also implies analyzing the dynamic relationships between groups in contact in terms of acculturation: "Since the historical provenance of any assemblage of culture traits is diverse, the viewpoint also gives scope for an "ethnohistory" which chronicles cultural accretion and change" (Barth, 12). One of Barth's objections to this method is that it does not account for the ways in which ethnic units perpetuate themselves in the course of the generations, it being generally understood that this happens by biological reproduction: "what is the unit whose continuity in time is depicted in such studies?" (Barth, 12). Since this is exactly the problem with which we are faced in Ptolemaic Egypt - viz. the identity and continuity of the Hellenic and the other "immigrant" groups as distinct from the "natives" or "Egyptians" - we need to examine in some detail still another aspect of Barth's theory. Central to his concept of ethnicity is the question of ethnic boundaries. Ethnic groups are not defined so much by their cultural content as by the boundaries by which they are enclosed; these are social boundaries8). Maintaining group identity when members of the group interact with outsiders entails criteria for determining membership and ways of signalling membership and exclusion; it rests not on a onceand-for-all recruitment but on continual expression and validity of the membership rules (Barth, 15). It is here that cultural features play their There is certainly a degree of truth in the traditional view that part. links ethnic groups and cultures; but contrary to the implications of this view, there is no objective and rigid relationship between the tWo. Not every cultural trait is relevant to ethnicity, as we saw, but only those which are chosen by the actors as symbols of difference, while others are totally ignored. It cannot be predicted beforehand which features are 8) It depends upon the situation whether these coincide with territorial boundaries.

12

significant; sometimes they are basic to every day behaviour, at other times they are margina1 and relevant only to limited spheres of activity. Ethnicity is a phenomenon which allows for much variation (Barth, 14). But at least one thing is clear: the continuity of ethnic units depends on the maintenance of boundaries between them. Individuals may cross ethnic boundaries and so in the course of their lives may be members of 'The cultural successive ethnic groups - ethnic mobility (Barth, 9/10). features that signal the boundary may change, and the cultural characteristics of the members may likewise be transformed, indeed, even the organizational yet the dichotomization form of the group may change" (Barth, 14); between members and outsiders may continue, which means that the ethnic units as such remain in existence. Cultural differences, however, are not totally irrelevant. Ethnic groups only persist as long as there are significant differences in behaviour in more or less important zones of activity. "Where persons of different culture interact, one would expect these differences to be reduced, since interaction both requires and generates a congruence of codes and valuesin other words, a similarity or community of culture (Barth, 16). Hence there are situations in which ethnic boundaries gradually wither away. I suggest that this is what happened in the case of many of the immigrant nations in Ptolemaic Egypt: common life in army units made most ethnic boundaries irrelevant in the end. Not so, however, the boundary separating these immigrants from the natives; and within the immigrant section of the population the Jews were held apart from the rest by religion. The opposite may also be the case. As long as ethnic boundaries remain intact, there will be a tendency for new forms of behaviour to be dichotomized and so reinforce the separateness of the ethnic groups (Barth, 18). In Ptolemaic Egypt, for instance, the circumstance that after some generations the army was recruited less and less from newcomers (mercenaries) and more and more among the population already settled in the country must have brought about among the inhabitants a change in expectations and behaviour vis-a-vis military service. In theory this could have drawn "Hellenes" and "Egyptians" - both groups were, by now, indigenous - nearer to each other; but, in fact, there are indications that just the opposite was the case, at least in Upper Egypt. In the beginning of the Roman era, the opening up of new economic possibilities for Alexandria as a consequence of the imposition of the pax romana

13 may have sharpened ethnic tensions already present in the city. I am now antecipating the treatment of the evidence. Let me restate my approach, in less theoretical terms: The question to be asked is not "Who were the Hellenes, who were the Egyptians", but "In which circumstances did the inhabitants of Egypt label themselves Egyptians and the others Hellenes, and vice versa; which criteria did they use; and do we have indications of ethnic mobility, i.e. of the phenomenon that the same persons or groups of persons were styled "Hellenes" at one moment, "Egyptians" (or, for that matter, "Jews" etc.) at another?" The next step, but only the next, is to ask whether the authorities used the same ethnic labels to base their policy upon. My intention in this study is, therefore a) to review the evidence for the application of the categories of "Greek" and "Egyptian" (singular and plural) to persons in Ptolemaic Egypt, starting from the eJfmK kllH:M. themselves, not from supposed Greek or Egyptian ethnicity. A chronological catalogue of relevant documents has been relegated to the Appendix, b) to analyse, on the basis of this evidence, the connections in which the two categories are used, c) to try to find an answer to the question to what degree Ptolemaic administration took ethnicity into account. The investigation has been limited to the categories "Greeks" and "Egyptians" for reasons discussed below.

14 1.3 Limitation 1Q Hellenes .illli1 Emtians

The catalogue of relevant texts (Appendix) has deliberately been restricted to documents mentioning Greeks and Egyptians; the numerous texts adducing persons' names followed by a Heimatsvermerk (either Ethnikon or Herkunftszeichen) have been left out of account categorically. On this issue I must clarify my position before undertaking the analysis of the included documents. In my opinion the Heimatsvermerke have nothing to do with ethnicity M ~ ~ it is only because Bickermann in his 1927 article took the Heimatsvermerke as the point of departure for his study of ethnicity in Ptolemaic and early Roman Egypt that the two things have come to be linked up with each other. But already Bickermann's paradoxical conclusion that at the moment the Romans occupied Egypt Hellenism was dead 1) should have warned us that something is wrong with his approach; for, as everyone knows, when the Romans reorganised Egypt they availed themselves of the presence of a Hellenic population group living mainly in the nome capitals and granted it the privilege of paying the poll tax at a reduced rate2). Certainly that would have been impossible if, as Bickermann puts it, Greeks and Egyptians had fused altogether. In my view the Heimatsvermerk functioned mainly as an expedient for the correct official identification of the person who bore it. Bickermann pointed out3) that the mentioning of one's patris did not imply that having this origin was still relevant in a legal sense for a person living in Egypt. His main argument was that many of the Ethnika mentioned refer to Greek political entities no longer in existence. He could have added that ethnics like "Jews" or "Mysian" or "Persian" cannot have had any implication of citizen rights from the start. Identification, however, l) Bickermann, APF 8 (1927) 239. 2) E.g. the ~ b' Apcn.\IOELT1(Eil1'1V£'l. Cp. S.L.Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from

A11g11stus to Diocletian (New York 1938) 10911.; 11611.- V.Tcherikover, Introduction to CPI I,

p.6311. There has been much debate about the question whether the Romans had a Ptolemaic precedent for the method they adopted for the laograpllia (poll tax): S.L.Wallace, "Census and Poll-Tax in Ptolemaic Egypt", A/Ph 59 (1938) 418-442; combated by Cl.Pr~aux, L'tconomie royale des Lagides (Brussels 1939) 38111. See the lucid discussion by H.Braunert, "lalA", /JP 9/10 (1956) 302-305 (with bibliography). In any case, there is no proof for a privileged position of a certain ethnic category in connection with the laographia (unless BGU XIV, 2429 a DOC.19a must be interpreted this way). 3) APF 8 (1927) 223ff.

15 must have been of utmost importance in a country as densely populated as Egypt then was: with it.

neither officials nor private persons could dispense

Lack of control of the identities of Egypt's millions would have

made effective administration impossible and legal security illusory. In the cities of the Greek homeland this problem had not been felt equally sharply: phratries and demes watched over one's personal status, and the small size of most of these communities made it impossible to hide in anonymity.

In Egypt everything was different.

Therefore, in addition to

one's name and patronymic, and in the absence of a family name, the bearing of a Heimatsvermerk was made obligatory.

In the case of the

lower population this Heimatsvermerk took the shape of a reference to the i.e. the place where one was due to fulfill one's labour obligations4>. With regard to those immigrants who were employed in frequently changing places and so had to be more mobile, the Heimatsvermerk indicated the city or region of origin, or alternatively and in an indirect way the military regiment to which one belonged5), In this

m

latter case there was no difference between the use of an Ethnikon and the direct mention of one's military regiment and grade, both devices tended to identify a person in terms of the occupational group to which he belonged. The few scraps of evidence we have about the functioning of the

Heimatsvermerke confirm the explanation given here.

In fact,

of the

three relevant texts at our disposal, only one gives a glimpse of the meaning of the Heimatsvermerk ("patris") as an identity mark: BGU 1250 (2nd Cent. B.C.), a fragmentary papyrus containing a complaint against some local officials made by someone who was wronged as a consequence of the complicity of these officials in changing the name and patris of a person who evidently had an obligation or a debt towards the plaintiffti). 4) H.Braunert,T/P 9/10 (1956) 211-328, in particular p.226; 239f; 322-328. 5) For this latter case see PTebt. 32 = W.Ch"st.448, probably 145 B.C., discussed by J.Lesquier, Les institutions militaiTtS de l'Egypte sous les Lagides (Paris 1911) 145-151; F.Heichelheim, Auswdttige BevlJlkemng 8-12; W.Ruppel, Philologus 82 (1927) 268-312; 433-454, esp.299-306; M. Launey, Recherches sur les Annles Helllnistiques II,1064ff. There has been some speculation about a connection between the ethnics and the politeumata, for which PTebt. 32 is considered to be the most important piece of evidence; see SchOnbauer, ZRG 39 (1918) 229ff. and the articles and books just cited. This question need not detain us here. Joining the army could entail a change of one's Heimatsvennerk; see, for instance, the case of Dionysius son of Kephalas, discussed by P.W.Pestman, P.LBat. 22 (1982) 48ff.;

in any case, such a change could happen only with the consent of the authorities.

6) I accept the interpretation by the first editor, W.Schubart.

16

The text also states that the arbitrary change of names and Heimatsvermerke by officials is punishable by death. The two other texts are PRev.Laws col.7 ( =W.Chrest.258) a prescription of the use of name, patronymic and patris by taxfarmers, and BGU 1213 (3rd Cent.B.C.), a list of titles of laws and ordinances, one of them being "about the changing of patris and name"7). These texts only prove that in some circumstances the use of Heimatsvermerke by the inhabitants of Egypt was the government's concern. Ethnicity is a totally different phenomenon. Being a Hellene, i.e. feeling like a Hellene and wishing to be treated accordingly, is very much different from being a Cyrenaean or a Coan, or, for that matter, an "Athenian of the epigone": it is something more fundamental, more pervasive. Neither the term Hellen nor the term Aigyptios is ever used, in Greek Of course, the identifying value texts at least, as a Heimatsvermerk8>. of these broad categories would have been zero. Moreover, as we shall see, in Ptolemaic times they were not fixed by law, whereas the Heimatsvermerke were. Admittedly, in origin there must have been some connection between Heimatsvermerke of the type Libys, Kar, Ioudaios, etc., and real ethnicity: that is to say, the persons so denoted acted and were treated in a way that reflected the ethnic origin referred to in the Heimatsvermerke. And in a few cases - certainly so in the case of the Jews - this real ethnic identity persisted even into Roman times. The large majority of the immigrant nations, however, soon fused with the Greeks and so disappeared as separate ethnic groups. But this did not mean immediate loss of the correspondent Heimatsvermerke; quite the opposite, they sometimes continued to be carried for several generations. In terms of ethnicity only the Greeks and the Egyptians remained - and the Jews, but in order not to complicate my argument I have limited it to Greeks and Egyptians. As far as Greek texts are concerned there is no difficulty in singling out those documents in which the terms Hellen and Aigyptios occur. But the demotic papyri still present a difficulty, which has to be cleared away. A large part of the demotic documents mentioning Greeks refer to them with the phrase 1:fum. l1Y. n. Kim.. "Greek born in Egypt". According 7)

Cp. also PHamb.168 (before middle of the 3rd Cent.B.C.) and PHal. 1, 11.245-8 (second half of the 3rd Cent.B.C.), containing regulations for the use of names, patronymics, and ethnics or demotics in the city of Alell8Ddira; MA.H.El-Abbadi, 'The Alcll8Ddrian Citizenship", /EA 48 (1962) 109ff. 8) A few apparent exceptions (DOCS. 16, 17 and 21 of my list) will be explained hereafter.

17

to a theory first formulated by U.Wilcken9), this phrase must be considered the equivalent of the Greek expression ~ M.I. eoieones. The theory has found wide acceptancelO), If Wilcken is right, these texts cannot be used in the present investigation, for the phrase in question, Wynn ms n Kmy, would be an Ethnikon (in Bickermann's terminology), not an indication of ethnicity in the sense adopted in this study. I do not think, however, that Wilcken's interpretation can be accepted. The much debated 11) status designation Persis tes epigones cannot be At least from the beginning of the considered as a normal Ethnikon. first Cent.B.C. onwards it indicates a class of people who, in concluding loan-contracts, give up their right of asylum and so are liable to immediate Up execution against their person in case they fail to repay in time. till then Persis tis epigonis was a general designation for those who, as descendants of soldiers, were eligible for entry into the army. Pestman, the most recent student of this subject12), has shown how the transition from the older type of Persians to the new, fictional one took place. Shortly before 100 B.C. people began deliberately to style themselves "Persians of the epigone, thereby giving up their asylum right, evidently This means that they in order to facilitate the borrowing of money. could take the initiative themselves and that assuming the title of Perses t.e. did not imply changing one's patris. That is the reason why, in any case, Persis t.e. has to be treated as an abnormal Ethnikon. Pestman based his reconstruction of this evolution of the Persai t.e. mainly on material from the Pathyrite nome. It is also chiefly on the basis of texts from this nome that one has come to regard the demotic expression Wynn ms n Kmy as the equivalent of Persis tis epigonis. In a number of instances persons called Wynn ms n Kmy in demotic papyri reappear in Greek documents as Persai t.e.: Totoes, son of Pelaias, is a Wynn ms n Kmy in DOC.219 (145 B.C.) but a Persis t.e. in PGrenf. 11,18 9) APF 6 (1920) 368. 10) E.g. by Heichelheim, Die ausw4rtige Bev"1kerung,14; John F.Oates, "The Status Designation: Iltp~ Tfr; t1rL')'O~·. YCS ai JltpoaL Tfr; t1fL')'O~•, pp rf

18 (1963) 65 and 110; E.Bresciani, "Annotazioni demotiche (19'n) 124.

ll) Recently by P.W.Pestman, "A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris I: IltpoaL Tfr; t1rL')'O~·. Aegyptus 43 (1963) 15-53; Oates (preceding note); Bresciani (idem); E.BoswinkelP.W.Pestman, Les archives priv~es de Dionysios, fils de K~phalas. P.L.Bat.22 (1982) 56 ff. 12) P.L.Bat.22 (1982) 56ff., csp.60f.

18 (127 B.C.) and in PStrasb.II,85 (113 B.C.).

HOros, the son of

Nechout~s.

is called JJYnn ms n Kmy in DOC.224 (108/7 B.C.) and 225 (107 B.C.), but Perses t.e. in several Greek documents found in his archivesl3). However, from the fact that some persons are called both Perses tes

epigones and JJYnn ms n Kmy it does not necessarily follow that between these two expressions there must be a one-to-one equation. For such a conclusion one would have to assume14) that demotic instruments are more or less exact copies of their Greek counterparts. But just that is certainly not the case: demotic contracts were drawn up by Egyptian scribes (monographoi), who worked on behalf of the corporations of priests connected with the temples, and who in so doing followed their native traditions15), In describing the identities of the contract partners they habitually added the metronymics of the persons involved to their names and patronymics - contrary to Greek custom - but normally left out the Herlamftszeichen. It is not self-evident that a phrase like JJYnn ms n Kmy, which sometimes is added to a person's name, takes the place of the Ethnikon in Greek documents; it may be simply an error of method to seek in JJYnn ms n Kmy the equivalent of any Greek expression whatsoever. But let us pass from aprioristic argument to concrete evidence. The exact equivalent of Perses tes epigones is not JJYnn ms n Kmy, but Mdy ms n Kmy; and this expression we actually find in two recently published texts: Mdy ms n Kmy "Padiousir, fils de Pensi, dont la m~re est Sekhmetirneforou (?)" in P.dem.Lille 35 B4 (226 B.C.); and a Mdy ms n Kmy "Nanakhtes, fils de Hor, dont la m~re est Taimhotep" in P.dem.Lille 43 verso 1 (of uncertain date, but 3rd cent.B.C.)16). These texts were not known to Bresciani, who as late as 1972 defended the equation with Perses tes epigones and, consequently, had to explain away the already 13) PPr 4145•11152; the Greek documents listed conveniently in Oates, YCS 18 (1963) 107f.; cp.Pcstman, Aemitus 43 (1963) 29ff. 14) This assumption is made explicitly by Bresciani, PP 27 (1972) 125: "Che la lingua dcmotica abbia saputo rcndcrc con csattczza (...) csprcssioni c parole grcchc ~ bcn noto c provato"; she lists expressions which arc either paraphrases or phonctical transcriptions of the Greek originals; Jij>lan ms n Kmy14) is neither. lS) Cp.Pcstman, P.LBat. 14 (1965) 52; Griffith, PAdler, p.67. Sec also Pestmao, "L'agoranomie: un avant-postc de !'administration grccquc cnlcvf par Jes Egypticns?", in: Das ptolemllische Agypten (Mainz 1978) 203ff.

16) F. de Ccnival, CautioMements dlmotiques du dlbut de l'lpoque ptollmaique (Paris 1973).

19 known Mty Kmy of P.dem.Lille 1 (244/3 B.C.)17>. It is also worth noting that the historical development of the use of the Greek term tes epigones and the evolution of the demotic expression ms n Kmy "born in Egypt" do not run parallel. In 1925 Heichelheim found that in the early Ptolemaic period people belonging to the epigone were distributed over a great many nationalities, but that in the late Ptolemaic era, i.e. after about 150 B.C., most of these nationalities had disappeared, leaving only the Macedonians and the Persians 18). In demotic texts, on the other hand, we meet, besides the Uj.inn ms n Kmy and the Mdy ms n Kmy already mentioned, the following nationalities: a Bihm (Blemmyan) in P.dem.Hauswa/dt 6 (Edfu, 220/219 B.C.); two Mhbr (Megabarians, i.e. Ethiopians from Meroe) in P.dem. Hauswa/dt 15 (Edfu, 217 /6 B.C.); another Bihm in P.dem.Ryl.16 (Gebelen, 153/2 B.C.); an Jg! (Ethiopian) in P.dem.Cairo 30664 (Gebelen, about 150 B.C.); a Rm Pr-'y-iq (Rempilak, i.e. Ethiopian from Philae) in P.dem.Ryl.23 (Gebelen, 115-108 B.C.); and a Nhs (Nubian) in P.dem.Ryl.26 (Gebelen, 103/2 B.C.), all of them ms n Kmy, "born in Egypt" 19). Diversity, it appears, was preserved much longer in the "born in Egypt" type than in the epigone of the Greek papyri. This reinforces the impression that we have to do here with two different categorizations. This line of thought is corroborated by the fact that the Perses tes epigones Harpaasis mentioned in P.Grenf. I,23 (118 B.C.) later figures as a "Nubian born in Egypt" in P.dem.Ryl.26 (103/2 B.C.)20); so not all Persians of the epigone were Uj.inn ms n Kmy, and this alone would suffice to refute the equation between these two terms. Incidentally it may be observed that all the "nationalities" in the demotic texts discussed here are African, in agreement with the southern position of the two locations where these papyri have been found, Gebelen and Edfu. Statistically, the numerous Greek texts from Gebelen/Pathyris should have yielded several of these African nationalities; that this did not happen also supports the conclusion that in the ms n Kmy we have an exclusively Egyptian method l7} Bresciani, PP 21 (1972) 127: Mty Kmy • Pmaigyptios (proposed already by Sottas).

l8) Heichelheim, Die au.rw4rtige BevlJlkerung 15. 19) Most of these instances listed by Bresciani, PP 21 (1972) 124; I have not been able to track the Blemmyan of P.dem.Cairo 30663 she mentions.

20) Cp. Pestman, P.L.Bat.22, 1982, 57f.

20 of categorization. As we saw, at least one Perses t.e. was not a U'ynn ms n Kmy, the Nubian born in Egypt Harpa~sis. Inversely, we may look for persons who in demotic texts are called U'ynn ms n Kmy but who cannot have been I know of no absolutely certain instance, but at Persai tes epigones. least in the case of the Wynn ms n Kmy RhodOn (DOC.207) it is very unlikely that he was a Perses tes epigones: At such an early date the label Perses cannot have lost all its ethnic colour, but RhodOn himself as well as his father and mother have Greek names; and would a Greek of the epigone, who might hope for a real military career, accept the office of guard of a prison? In addition, the fact that RhodOn is called both U'ynn and U'ynn ms n Kmy argues in favour of the unofficial character of this designation. A final argument against the identification of the U'ynn ms n Kmy with the Persians of the epigone is the circumstance that we possess several Greek translations of demotic contracts in which one of the contracting partners is described as a Hellen (DOCS. 16, 17 and 21 of my list). In fact, as stated above21), these are the only instances where this term is used in a manner that resembles (but is not identical with) the Heimatsvennerke, and it is reasonable to suppose that the term Actually, we have the demotic counterpart Hellen here translates U'ynn. of DOC.11 (PGiss.36): DOC.221 (P.dem.WLSs.Ges. 16), and here it appears that gyne Hellenis translates s.hm.t. U'ynn ("Greek woman"). Had the term U'ynn ms n Kmy been intended as a demotic translation of Perses tes epigones, one would expect that the scribes, in translating ''back" into Greek, would have written Perses (t.e.). Vice versa, of the numerous Greek papyri mentioning Persai tes epigones, none appears to be a translation of a demotic document. The conclusion of this part of my argument must be that all probabilities are against the hypothesis that Wynn ms n Kmy is to be regarded as the demotic counterpart of Perses tes epigones. The question, then, is how should we interpret the demotic phrase. I suggest that we take it at face value, that is to say, a Wynn ms n Kmy is simply a "Greek born in Egypt", just as a Mdy ms n Kmy is a Persian (or Mede) born in Egyptby the way, they disappear at the end of the third cent. B.C. -, a Bihm ms n Kmy is a Blemmyan born in Egypt, etcetera. The upshot would be that what we meet here is a real ethnicity, i.e. the ethnical categoriza21) See note 8.

21

tion as applied by "native" Egyptians, mainly those of Upper Egypt, to the different immigrant groups which they still kept distinct and among whom the Greeks were by far the most important. In fact, Pestman22) has already suggested that the demotic "ethnics" seem to reflect real ethnicity; and as early as 1927 Bickermann thought that the use of "Hellenes" in order to comprise all non-Egyptian groups (he disregarded the immigrants of African origin) is understandable only if the Egyptians are assumed to have been the first to use it23). His hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the result of this investigation. Therefore, although it has not been proved with absolute certainty that the terms Wynn and Wynn ms n Kmy in demotic texts reflect real ethnicity, from now on I shall treat these texts as if they do and see what consequences this has for our understanding of ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt.

22) P.W.Pestman,Aegyptus 43 (1963) 20£. with notes. 23) Bickermann,APF 8 (1927) 230.

22 2 ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENTS : INDIVIDUALS We can proceed now to the systematic interpretation of the documents listed in the Appendix. For the sake of analysis they must be treated in groups in view of the necessity to take account of the different periods and regions to which the papyri refer. In the first place it can be expected that the importance of the ethnic factor may have varied considerably from time to time and from one district to another; it is unsafe to apply data referring to one situation only to Egypt as a whole. Secondly, the character of the evidence differs from one find-spot to another; for the interpretation of ethnicity it makes a difference whether one has to do with the official archives of a village clerk (e.g. the Menches archive in the Tebtynis papyri), or with family and personal archives of the types found at Pathyris 1> and in the Serapeum of Memphis. The documents can be grouped as follows: Zenon archive: 1 102; 103; 104; 105; 106 203;204;205 Arsinoa: 2;2a;2b;2c Magdola: 4; 5 (and cp. 7) 108 212a GhorAn: 206; 207; 208; 209; 210; 210a (probably); 212 Memphis: 8; 9; 10 lllb; 113 217 11; 12 Pathyris: 216; 218; 219; 220; 221; 222; 223; 224; 225; 226; 229;230;231;232;233;234;235;(236) Tebtynis: (13; 14); 15; 16; 18; 19 112

Soknopaiou Nasos:17 115

Memphite/Heracleopolite nome: 219a; 219b Tanis (Amontephnachthis): 227; 228 l) We do not have any public records from Pathyris and Crocodilopolis; cp. Pestman,

P.L.Bat.19, 206. For analyses of the family archives of the Pathyrite nome see Seidl, Ptolemllische Rechtsgeschichte (2nd. ed. 1960) 25-31; Pestman, P.L.Bat. 14 (1965) 47-51.

23

The following documents form a miscellaneous group: 3 (Peri Th8bas, 242/1); 6 (Psenyris, III); 7 (Philadelphia, 179/8); 19a (Heracleopolite nome, I BC); 20 (Ombos,72); 21 (Hermoupolis Magna, 55). 101 (Hibeh, 293-290 B.C.); lOla (Hibeh, 270-250); 107 (?, 246-221); 109 (?,III); 110 (?,III); 111 (Rosetta, 196); llla (?, 169/8); 114 (Apollinopolis Magna, c.160). 201 (?,342); 202 (Tenis, 316/5); 211 (Thebes, 226); 213 (Edfu, 213-211); 214 (Lower Egypt, early Pt.); 214a (Memphis, 197 B.C.); 215 (Thebes, 176/5). For analytical purposes another important distinction must be made, namely between those documents in which Greeks and/or Egyptians are alluded to as groups and those in which individuals are characterized as Greek or Egyptian. In the latter case it is possible - at least theoretically - to compare the ethnical labelling of these persons with the roles they play in their respective societies, with the functions they have and with their family connections. By this method it may be possible to discover a pattern in the incidences of the ethnic labels, which, in its tum, may throw light on the composition of the ethnic groups, too. Consequently, it seems preferable to start with the study of the second type of documents, those in which individuals are involved2). I have grouped the persons called "Hellen"/'Wynn" and ''Aigyptios" in the tables A-F below. Table A contains the data on the Zenon archive; table B those mentioned in the GhorAn papyri (all of them contracts of suretyship); table C concerns the persons in the Serapeum papyri; table D those in the Pathyrite nome in the second half of the Ilnd Cent.B.C.; in table E the "Greek farmers" of Kerkeosiris (Tebtynis papyri) are listed; the remaining Greeks and Egyptians have been referred to table F. With regard to the persons to be included in or excluded from the tables, decisions had to be taken which were based on the following considerations. The safest way would have been to restrict the tables to the persons who are explicitly called Hellenes or Egyptians and to exclude from them those individuals who might be considered Greeks or Egyptians 2) Documents involving groups are: 1; 2; 2a; 2b; 2c; 3; 4; 6; 7; 13; 14; 17; 18; 19; 19a; 101;

~~~--~~~~~~~~~~m~

bclowcb.3.

24

by implication. This is, however, not the strategy I have chosen. In fact, the Hellenes and Egyptians by implication can be divided into three classes: a. Cases in which the ethnic labelling, though expressed in an indirect way, is virtually certain. In DOC.12 the formulation "the aforementioned people signed in demotic writing because there are not enough (?) Hellenes in this region" can only be interpreted to mean that the fifth witness, who signs in Greek, is a Greek, whereas . the other four are Egyptians. In DOC.113 a mother makes arrangements - or so she claims - to subject her daughter to the Egyptian custom of circumcision. I take this to mean that both mother and daughter are thereby characterized as Egyptians. And in DOC.217 the most reasonable interpretation seems to be that the dream is about the ethnic polarity in the Serapeum3). b. In DOCS. 8,9 and 10 Ptolemaios the son of Glaukias complains about the injuries he has suffered because he is a Hellene; though the label Aigyptios is absent from these documents there can be little doubt that the persons accused by Ptolemaios are considered by him to be Egyptians. The parallel with DOC.5, where both labels are used, reinforces this inference. In DOC.107 Androbios disregards the interests of a priest out of contempt for him on account of his being an Egyptian; hence Androbios must consider himself a Hellene 4>. In the ~ DOC.108 a group of villagers are withheld from giving testimony against a mighty neighbour by the circumstance that they are Egyptians; therefore they classify the feared Apollod6ros as a 3) I have excluded, albeit hesitantly, the three sisters of Ammilnia-Senminis in DOC.11/221. Of the four ladies mentioned in the beginning of this document only the first, Ammonis, is called a "Greek woman"; and although the second sister, Apollonia-Senmonthis, figures as a Jfyim in DOC.220, I do not think we are entitled to extend the term "Greek woman" in DOC.11/221 to the three younger (?) sisters. This case should be compared with the situation in DOC.224, where three persons are mentioned in the same role as debtor but where only the first is called "Greek born in Egypt". In DOC.224, it is true, there is no indication of a family connection; but with respect to DOC.11/221 we should not succumb to the prejudice that relatives are always in the same ethnic category. The family branch with which the four sisters are reconciled counts some members who fulfill the avowedly "Egyptian" function of temple scribe: this fact is a warning against such a preconception. 4) The third party, Peles, is not actively involved in this piece of ethnic quarrelling and therefore cannot be classified.

25 Hellene5>. c. The vast majority of the documents, and particularly the demotic ones, are simple private contracts; sometimes two parties are called Greek, "Hlzu[' (DOCS. 222; 226), but mostly only one of them. Does this imply that the other party (parties) is (are) Egyptians? This is one of the most serious problems encountered in the course of this investigation, and I shall have to dwell on it later. For the moment, in these cases, where ethnical polarization is absent, we must adhere strictly to the rules of logic. Not being called a Hellene and being called a non-Hellene (i.e.: an Egyptian; see DOC.12) are two different things which ought not to be confused. In any case it is inadvisable to include these uncategorized persons in the tables below. The method I have adopted, then, is to include the persons of the classes a and b and to exclude those of class c. The Greeks and Egyptians by implication are indicated by a zero, resp. an 8 in column V. It should be noted carefully that in these cases we have to do with Greeks or Egyptians of a slightly more dubious character than in the case of the remaining majority. Explanation of the tables: Column I : number of the document Column II year Column III name of the person (double names only if they occur in the listed documents) Column IV Prosopographia Pto/emaica ColumnV form of ethnic labelling: 0 = Greek by implication 1 =Wynn 2 = Ujinn ms n Kmy 3 =Hellen 4 = Greek (reconstructed) 8 = E~tian by implication 9 = A1gyptios/ enchOrios part played by this person in doc. in question Column VI 5) It is tempting to classify the other persons in this papyrus, too: the petitioner Tetosiris as an Egyptian, the hekaJontarouros as a Greek; but this would be wrong from a methodical

point of view. One could argue that the mentioning of 'Hellenes' gives an ethnical colouring to the apparently polarized situation in DOC. 17, too; in that case Epiodoros, as well as the unnamed priest, would be Egyptians, Areias a Hellene. I am not quite sure, however, that Epiodoros intends to say that the Hellenes are favoured 1:f. mm, and the priests harmed a,t ~- Therefore I take no account of this text here, though there is a certain amount of subjectivity in this decision. In DOC.110, although mention is made of 'another Egyptian', it is not stated that being a Hellene or an Egyptian has something to do with the conflict which is the subject of the petition. Moreover, we are unable to identify the implied 'fust' Egyptian.

26 Column VII Column VIII Column IX ColumnX Column XI

known from other documents:

x = known - =not known x = the person involved appears from the listed or from another document to have had a double name x = his/her father appears from this or from another document to have had a double name x = elsewhere this individual is called a Perses (tes

epigones)

remaining remarks concerning functions and family connections; these remarks are not exhaustive; sources are indicated.

27 TABLE A II

III

203 256/5 Dionysios

IV

v

VI

VII VIIIIX

73a1461

1

creditor in a loan contract

x

x

XI sitometrls (PCairo Zen.

59421)

204 252/1 Zenon

80 etc.

1

receives security

manager of the dioikltls Apol-

lOnios etc. 205 Ill

Zenon again

1

receives royal oath

x

103 257 (Anosis?)

(786?)

9

against him a complaint is made bya group of peasants

x?

a scribe (migrated from the Saile nome to the Fayum) (the identification with Anosis is not certain)

105 c.250 Paris

4782 ?• 4895

9

object of the request of one of Zenon's associates

x?

machimos (DOC.

105); guard of a threshing floor (?) (PCol.Zen.14)

28 TABLED

II

III

206 243 Philoxenos

IV

v

VI

VII VUI IX

4(j()3

1

accepting security for a subordinate whom he has imprisoned

x

=4624

207

243 RhodOn

4934 ~14250

1/2 guarantor in a suretyship contract

x

XI

commander of the guardsmen of the Themistos district; see also P.dem. Lille 4 guard of the prison (?) in the Themistos district

208 229

-

1

secondary guarantor in a suretyship contract

209

Kedja

1

guarantor in a suretyship contract

laundryman

1

guarantor in a suretyship contract

mule driver

229

212 226 Chairophan!s

29 TABLEC

x

IV

v

VI

VII VIII IX

7334

3

victim of ethnic violence

x

9 161 Ptolemaios

3

the same

x

10 156 Ptolemaios

3

the same

x

0

object of a dream in which he "speaks Greek"

x

113 163 Tathemis

8

has to undergo circumcision

lives with Harmais, the associate of Ptolemaios Glaukiou, in the Serapeum of Memphis

Nephorys

8

claims she is preparing the circumcision of her daughter

mother of Tathemis

8

attacks Ptolemaios Glaukiou on account of his being a Hellene

medicine (DOC.8) or klystis DOC. 9); serves in the Serapeum as one of the cleaners and bakers

II

ill

8 163 Ptolemaios

217 160- Apollf>nios 158

8/9 163 Harchebis 161

3820= 7324

14183

XI katochos in the

Great Serapeum and brother of Apollf>nios (DOC. 216)

12958=? 8 14228

the same

9 161 Psosnaus

13585= 14267

8

the same

yoke-carrier; belongs to the cleaners

Imouthes

12618= 14206

8

the same

baker; belongs to the cleaners; may be identical with one of the accused of UPZ I,5 and 6 {163 BC)

Mys

x?

cloak-seller; one of the cleaners and bakers; may be identified with one of the accused of UPZ 119 (156 BC)

30 TABLE C (continued) II

9

lll

161 Harembasnis

Stot, and there is not much to be added to their conclusions. Most documents are in Greek, but a few are in demotic. The majority of this group of over a hundred documents refer to a small circle of persons, the central figure of which seems to be Ptolemaios Glaukiou. They are, therefore, considered to constitute Ptolemaios' archive2), which by extraordinary good fortune has survived to modern times. These fascinating papyri offer a detailed insight into the life of this group of persons during a good dozen years (about 164-151 B.C.), and, through their eyes, into the conditions prevailing in that large and lively sanctuary which the Serapeum was. The cult of Serapis and of the lesser gods associated with him attracted a lot of people. Pilgrims came flocking to the temple area from every direction in order to worship, to be healed and to handle a In this antique Lourdes, great deal of more secular affairs as well. dealings of people with each other were not always as holy as the sacred ground would have required, nor did the Graeco-Egyptian and reconciliatory character the cult of Serapis was supposed to have prevent the Greeks and the Egyptians from mutual suspicions. Consequently Ptolemaios and his associates, though spending most or all of their time within the temple precinct, did not enjoy the quiet one would like to associate with life in a sanctuary. True, Ptolemaios was a katochos, a recluse, i.e. he was confined to the Serapeum except for very special occasions, benefiting from the protection the god offered him and fulfilling some duties in the service of the god in return. In fact, Ptolemaios had been assigned to the shrine of one of the lesser divinities in the sanctuary, Astarte. The exact nature of the katoche, the recluse status, is much debated. Mystical factors - Ptolemaios admonished in a supranatural way, e.g. in a l) L. Delekat, Katoche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfeilassung (Munich 1964). See also N. Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Stt1dies in the Social History of the Hellenistic

World (Oxford 1986) 69-87: "The recluse Ptolemais'. This book came to my notice after I had finished the manuscript.

2) For theories about the fmding place of Ptolemaios'archive and of the so-called Anoubieion documents and about the manner in which they came lo be united, see Sethe, Abh.K/Jn.Ges.G/Jtt. 14 (1912/3) 89; Wilcken, UPZ l,p.2f.; Delekat, 132-5.

43 dream, to stay in the presence of the god - as well as considerations of a more pedestrian nature - the katocM as a means of escaping difficulties and dangers threatening in the outside world, e.g. impending bankruptcymay both have played a part3). Ptolemaios was of good descent. His father had been a cleruch and a soldier in a Macedonian army corps who had died during, and perhaps as a consequence of, the rebellions of the 160's. For whatever reason Ptolemaios had entered the Serapeum, he did not find absolute safety there. Repeatedly he was harassed by a group of lower temple officials, Egyptians. The other members of his "household" were: Apollfinios, his younger brother, who, in the years of his childhood, was free to leave the temple area and to attend to Ptolemaios's external affairs; later, he too was a katochos for a short time, then he was enrolled in the army. The dreams reported in DOC.217 seem to imply that he had a love affair with one of the Twins, making her with child and endangering her position as a priestess. Next Harmais, Ptolemaios's companion and himself a member of the temple personnel (mostly he is considered to be an Egyptian, though he is nowhere expressly stated to be so). Then there are two young girls, Thauas and Taous, sisters who, after maltreatment by their mother, had taken refuge with Ptolemaios, an old acquaintance of their father's. They were appointed to be Twins, an age-old Egyptian priesthood whose task was to mourn for the dead Apis, symbolizing Isis and her sister Nephthys. A large number of the papyri in Ptolemaios's archive concern these two girls and reveal, inter alia, Ptolemaios's dealings with the temple hierarchy on account of the Twins' prebends. And finally TatMmis, to all appearances a sister of the Twins and under the special care of Harmais; she, too, fell a victim to her mother's greed and arrogance, and DOC.113 relates the troubles this woman caused Harmais and TatMmis on the occasion of the girl's preparation for marriage. There have been some doubts about the identity of the persons mentioned in UPZ 1,2 (DOC.113) and in P.dem.Bo/ogna 3173 (DOC.217). 3) Recently the understanding of the katoche as a phenomenon of a dominantly religious nature has become much more dubious as a consequence of the reconsideration by W.Clarysse, "UPZ I 6a, a reconstruction by Revillout", Encl1oria 14 (1986) 43-49, of the demotic text UPZ I 6a, an important testimony to the katocM. Clarysse suggests that one of the two fragments of this text is in reality no fragment at all but only Revillout's restoration. The text may be a petition by one of Ptolemaios's companions parallel to those by Ptolemaios himself (UPZ 1,5 and 6), not a witness account as is usually thought. Since Revillout first published this text the person concerned is mostly supposed to be Harmais; but in fact bis name does not occur in the papyrus.

44

According to some, the Harmais mentioned in DOC.113 is identical with Ptolemaios' companion, and Apo116nios in (DOC.217) is none other than the son of Glaukias, Ptolemaios' younger brother; other scholars deny this. Because the closeness to each other of the persons alluded to in the various Serapeum papyri is relevant to our understanding of the functioning of ethnicity in this environment, something must be said now on this subject. The main obstacle to the identification of the Harmais mentioned in UPZ 1,2 (DOC.113) with Ptolemaios' assistant, mentioned in UPZ 7 = DOC.8, was the discrepancy observed between the duration of Harmais' sojourn in the Serapeum according to UPZ 2 (five years) and the mention of an 8 years stay in UPZ 6a from the same year4). But as Clarysse has pointed out now5) there is no need to identify the petitioner of UPZ I 6a, whose name is not mentioned at all, with Harmais. Hencenothing stands in the way of recognizing in the devious Egyptian woman Nephorys, whom Harmais has to deal with, the mother of the Twins Taous and Thaues, whose affairs fill so large a part of the Serapeum documents. In that case, Tathamis, the girl who has to undergo the Egyptian rite of circumcision, must have been an older sister of the Twins. Turning to P.dem.Bologna 3173 ( = DOC.217), we see that in a recent treatment6) of this text Mrs. Bresciani has denied the identity of the Apoll6nios of the second dream with the younger brother of Ptolemaios, and of Thaues {1.3) and Taous {1.14) with the Twins, Ptolemaios' pupiJs7), on the ground that each of the names occurs too frequently to allow such a conclusion8). She would prefer to disjoin the papyrus entirely from the Ptolemaios archive, though she recognizes its provenance from the Serapeum and dates it, exactly as her predecessors did, to the middle of the second 4) K. Sethe, 'Ein unbeachtetes Dokument zur Frage nach dem Wesen der KllTO)(TJ im Serapeum bei Memphis', Papyrus-Insntut Heidelberg (1921) 5; Wilcken, UPZ I p.116; 134. 5 ) Clarysse, Enchoria 14 (1986) 49. Harmais figures in the following texts: UPZ 2,2; 6,19; 7,25; in several accounts: UPZ 89,20; 92 1,2/3; 93,16; 94,1 and 9; 98,35ff.; and in a dream of Ptolemaios, UPZ 78,21. Perhaps the Harmachis mentioned in the dreams of the Petersburg ostraka 1127 and 1128 (see UPZ I,p351) is the same person.

6) Egitto e Jlicino Orienk 1 (1978) 95 ff., spec.p.102.

7) The key texts for the relationship between Ptolemaios and the Twins are UPZ 18-20. 8) Additionally, she points to 1.7, where Thau&' sister is called Q~wty-ir-ty-s (Thotortais). Botti explained away this name as a scribe's error.

45 Cent. B.C. Above all, Bresciani refuses to believe that the four dreams reported in this papyrus constitute a series of dreams of one single person. In her opinion, they are unconnected and may have been intended for insertion in the case-list of a Dreambook. Her argumentation is untenable. As Bresciani herself acknowledges, the dreams in oriental dreambooks are formulated in a casuistic way ("If a man sees in his dream...then it bodes (no) good")9). DOC.217 contains dreams actually dreamt by a concrete individual which deal with his or her relatives. And the numbering of dreams is characteristic not of dreambooks but of the well defined type of dream reports jotted down by someone with the purpose of submitting them to the judgment of the dreamreaderlO); the four dreams in DOC.217 must have been dreamt by the same person. It follows, then, that all persons mentioned in the papyrus must belong to the same circle. Hence we have a dreamer and his elder brother (1.14), an ApollOnios, a Thaues and her sister 11) and a Taous. All this is too much to be accidental, and the inescapable conclusion is that with this dream, too, we are in the company of Ptolemaios and his associates. The "author of the dream" can hardly have been any other than ApollOnios the son of Glaukias12). It does DQ1 follow, however, that ApollOnios was the writer of our papyrus. Revillout and Sethe had earlier formulated the hypothesis that ApollOnios was able to read and write demoticl3). This hypothesis was rejected by Wilcken14), but in 1933 Reich tried to defend it againl5). However, Reich had no positive proof of it apart from our papyrus - which may equally well have been written down by one of ApollOnios' Egyptian acquaintances because the dreamreader he wanted to consult spoke Egyptian - and some speculation about 9) Bresciani (1978) 102; for dream.books cp. Delekat (1964) 136 ff. 10) Wilcken, UPZ I, p.351. 11)

Thotortais (1.7) is embarrassing. indeed; see page 44 note 8.

12) Wilcken did not doubt the identity of Apollllnios in 1.9, but he refuses to adopt the conclusion that the dreamer of 1.12 was the same Apollllnios, too (UPZ I, p.350f.). 13)

Revillout, Rev.Eg.1 (1880) 160f.; Sethe,Abh.Kl>n.Ges.G6tt. 14 (1912/3) 61.

14) UPZ I, p.116; 350f. 15) Miuaim 1 (1933) 147 ff.

46 ApollOnios, once confined to the Serapeum by his dependence on the recluse Ptolemaios, having seized the opportunity to attend the temple school, as though the priests offered an education free of charge for whoever wanted. Reich also points to the copy of the Dream of NektonabOs (UPZ 81), made by ApollOnios as the handwriting shows16). He argues that ApollOnios and his brother were fond of Greek literature and that UPZ 81 proves that they must have been equally eager to acquire some knowledge of demotic literature. In reality, it proves exactly the opposite. Interested as they were in Egyptian dream literature, ApollOnios and Ptolemaios had to resort to Greek translations. They may have been able to speak and understand Egyptian with some fluency, but it is extremely unlikely that they could write demotic17>. Summing up: Ptolemaios (DOCS. 8, 9 and 10), Harmais (DOCS. 8 and 113), ApollOnios (DOCS. 10 and 217), Tathemis (DOC.113) and the Twins (DOC.217) all belong to the same narrow circle, one might perhaps even say to the same household. This household unites Greeks and Egyptians. As for the other persons mentioned in the Serapeum documents: Diphilos, who together with Ptolemaios in DOC.9 is a victim of the cleaners' The case of the "Egyptian violence, is not known from elsewhere18). speaking" Petearpisis (DOC.217) is rather difficult; in fact, his name, Therefore it which reads P3-di-Hr-(n)-Pi, is interpreted divergently19). seems inadvisable to accept Delekat's suggestion that he may be identical with the Harpaesis who in UPZ 80 haunts Ptolemaios' dreams, threatening to burn him to coal20). With regard to the attackers of DOCS. 8, 9 and 10, Harchebis and Psosnaus are not mentioned outside our texts. The sakkophoros (porter) Stotoetis may be identical with one of the persons mentioned in an 16) Wilcken, UPZ I, p.116. 17) I return to the linguistic situation in the Serapeum below. Rejection of Reich's hypothesis also by Delekat (1964) 95 note 5. 18) There is no reason to identify him with the Diphilos of UPZ 130 and 131 (115 B.C.) l9) Botti, followed by Delekat (p.152): Petearpisis; Bresciani: Petearenfoi.

20) Delekat (1964) 140f.; 152. This Harpafsis, according to Wilcken, may be identified with Ptolemaios'acquaintance mentioned in UPZ is difficult to tell. That individual is accused by Ptolemaios of having made himself guilty, along with other members of the temple personnel, of disturbing the domestic peace of his residence and of defiling the temple. In DOC.10 Ptolemaios appears to expect danger mainly from the side of the priests and pastophoroi23), so probably we are not wrong if we look for his attackers in circles near to the clergy. Mys and Harembasnis we meet again in each other's company in UPZ 119 of 156 B.C.24), a report on the examination of witnesses about some disorders and acts of violence that had taken place in the Serapeum and in which these two persons had been actively involved2S). During these incidents Harembasnis was accompanied by his brother Pachratas26). Is he the same as the son of Nephorys and the (half-)brother of the Twins who took part in the dirty tricks of his mother?27) In any case, the impression which 21) UPZ 98; either "inurrryfrrv;/ "ino&frrv; the associate of Kel (1.24; 103) or the son of Gegetos (1.34; 113). 22) See note Wilckeo on UPZ 5,14 = 6,12 for the justification of his reading jl.E'rd" lµ.oV 1r«OTocp6pwv.

23)

UPZ 15,13.

24)

Mys: UPZ 119,39; Harembasnis: UPZ 119,3;20f.;27;30;38;43. This identification, like the other ones, is not absolutely certain. The examination must have taken place in the office of the police-commander (archipliylakitis) in the Anoubieion, a temple complex at a small distance from the Serapeum. This office is also the most likely finding place of the papyrus. Of more importance than this finding, however, is the location of the incriminating acts: it is the Serapeum, just as in the case of the attacks reported in UPZ 1,7 and 8. Moreover, Mys in 119,39 is expressly called a KO'll'po~iicJTric; (one who clears out manure), which corroborates the hypothesis that he is the cleaner of UPZ 7 and 8. Wilcken (note on UPZ 8,33) denies categorically the identity of the Harembasnis of UPZ 8 with the one in UPZ 119, without stating his reasons. From the fact that in 119,20 Harembasnis and his brother take some policemen with them (['11'apa>.aj36VTa-;) (.)aKLm-;), one could argue that they ranked higher than the ordinary cleaners of UPZ 7 and 8. But I would prefer to point to the resemblance of the situation described in UPZ 5/6 to the one in UPZ 119; in both cases the wrongdoers seem first to have held up the semblance of legitimacy by taking some policemen with them, later to return in order to commit their acts of crime and violence. Therefore Mys, Harembasnis and ImouthCs all may have belonged to a group of hotheaded "activists" of proletarian extraction who caused the authorities a great deal of trouble. 25) The details of the affair remain obscure as a consequence of the fragmentary state in which the papyrus has been preserved. There are no indications that Ptolemaios and Harmais were victims in these incidents, too.

26) Ila"fKpa~, Ila("Y)xpci~: UPZ 119,4; 20; 22; 24; 41. 27) UPZ 18,23; 19,S+verso; 20,18 (restored).

48 Ptolemaios tried to conveye in his complaints and which is reinforced by other evidence from the Serapeum texts is that of a bunch of hooligans who, partly under the mask of some petty temple functions and in the name of the "Egyptian cause", terrorized the temple area and thereby even attempted to compromise the authorities. Two problems remain. Which characteristics make it necessary to classify Ptolemaios and Apoll6nios as Greeks, and which stamp Petearpisis and, by implication, the cleaners and Tathemis with her mother as Egyptians? And which role was played by ethnicity in the life of the temple community?

In particular, can we regard it as the deciding factor in the

tensions and violence observable in the Serapeum papyri? The first of these questions is relatively easy to answer.

As far as

proper names are concerned, they divide neatly between the two nationalities: all "Greek" persons have Greek names, all "Egyptian" people Egyptian ones (with the possible exception of the Carian name Mys).

As for the

professions of the persons involved, in the case of the Egyptians all known occupations are low-status civilian ones, nor do these Egyptians rank high in the temple hierarchy. Glaukias, the father of Ptolemaios and Apoll6nios, on the other hand, had been a soldier in the distinguished corps of the syngeneis ton katoikOn of the Heracleopolite nome28); he - possibly a died "in the time of the rebellion"29) in oct. 164 B.C.30) violent death31).

Ptolemaios, therefore, belonged to the epigone32), but

apparently he had not been able to live up to the standards appropriate to the military status of his family. The katocl1e - or the troubles he had come to - prevented him from being a soldier and a catoec himself, whereas in 158/7 B.C. his younger brother Apoll6nios was actually enlisted in the army (UPZ 14). One is inclined to associate the military profession with Greek culture, and the evidence we have on Glaukias' family at least does not contradict this. Ptolemaios wrote Greek. True, his Greek style and his versatility in Greek writing proved on analysis by Ulrich 28) UPZ 14,7£. with Wilcken's comment, and UPZ l, p.105. 29) UPZ 14,9: tv ,.~ ~ Tapa~ xp6-..;.

30)

UPZ9,4.

3l) UPZ 9,4£. and 14,8 f.: µ.£TaU - DOCS. 11/221; 12; 216; 218; 219; 220; 222-226; 229-235; table D The papyri from Pathyris constitute the most voluminous group of documents examined here as source for ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt; with two exceptions all of them are demotic. Yet the interpretation of the evidence yielded by this relatively abundant material presents some serious difficulties. Though the number of names of undoubtedly Hellenic persons we have at our disposal is on the same level as that delivered by PTebt. 1107, most of these persons are not known from other documents. More seriously, because nearly all Pathyrite documents are contracts, the suggestion offers itself that one should look for the pattern in the distribution of the label U}'nn over the contract partners. Such a pattern, however, does not emerge, and the impression one gets is that of complete arbitrariness in the application of the term Wynn. We have met this problem before, when deciding which persons should be included in the list of Greeks (p.23ff. above), and in connection with the evidence from the Ghontn papyri. In most contracts only Let us consider the factual evidence first. one of the partners is called Wynn, but in DOC.222 and also in DOC.226, both loan contracts, the debtor as well as the creditor are specified as Greek. We have four cases in which one party in a contract consists of several persons: In DOC.229 two men join in a lease of land; both are labelled "Greek born in Egypt". In DOC.11/221 four sisters together draw up a reconciliation act with another branch of their family; this time, only the first one of the sisters is called Greek. In DOC.219 the "Greek born in Egypt" acts for himself and for his brother; the ethnic identity of the brother is not indicated. In DOC.224 H6ros has three debtors; the second and third have Egyptian names and there is no indication of nationality; the first one is a Wynn ms n Kmy, but the space for his name has been left blank. And in DOC.223 the Greek born in Egypt agrees to a contract concluded by his father, who is identified by patronymic and mother's name, but not by his ethnic identity. H6ros himself is a Greek born in Egypt according to DOCS. 225 and 226, but in DOC.224 he is not ethnically labelled2). The same variation can be observed in the l} Cp. now N. Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford 1986) 88-103: 'A Greek stationed among Egyptians: Cavalry officer Dryton and his family" and 139-156: 'Peteharsemtheus son of Panebkhounis', with my remark on page 42 note 1. 2) Cp. Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 107: 'lack of consistency'.

59 case of Apolll'mia-Senm6nthis: a Greek lady herself in DOC.220, she is only the sister of a Greek woman in DOC.11/221. Neither is there any regularity to be perceived in the role the Greeks play in the contracts: they act as purchaser but equally as seller, as creditor and as debtor. In DOCS. 229 and 230 we meet Greeks as tenants; in the Pathyrite documents we have no counterpart to this (Greek landlords), but undoubtedly that is due to chance. More significant is the fact that in the 4 marital contracts (three marriage contracts and one deed of divorce) it is consistently the male partner who is Greek3). It seems impossible to make sense of this. Confronted with this state of affairs we have the choice between two alternative courses. We could impute the observed irregularity to the They might have used ethnic labels to arbitrariness of the scribes. identify the contract partners in a manner completely at their own discretion, without being restricted by a rule, and without any connection with the practice prevailing in the society in which they lived. In that case one should drop any attempt at comprehension of what is going on on the ethnical level both in the 20-odd Pathyrite contracts and in Pathyrite society itself. We can also start from the hypothesis that, though a pattern does not immediately reveal itself, the notaries (and/or the contracting parties) must in each case have had their reasons for using ethnic labelling. Every contract can be regarded as an interaction; and just as for some interactions in everyday life in Pathyris ethnicity must have been relevant, but not so for others - perhaps the great majority -, precisely so should ethnicity in the contracts be interpreted. The rules governing society were imperative for the scribes, too, and so they were reflected more or less in the contracts. That we do not see a pattern in them is, in this view, a consequence of the paucity of our evidence. Basically whoever wants to understand ethnicity in the city of Pathyris can rely on the documents discovered at its site - in fact they are his only hope of ever acquiring insight into this phenomenon. It will not come as a surprise that I prefer the second approach. Let us therefore return to the evidence. The first observation to be made is, of course, that the majority of the demotic texts do not attach any importance to ethnicity at all and that in the Greek documents ethnicity is almost completely absent (apart from the witnesses in DOC.12, an extraordinary though very valuable case, and from DOC.11, which is a 3) Cp. the Ghorln docs.: four times out of five the Greek acts as guarantor.

60 Greek translation of a demotic text). In a considerable minority of demotic texts, however, ethnicity does play a role. This circumstance, combined with the fact that in some cases (ApollOnia/SenmOnthis in DOC. 11/221; HOros in DOC.224) a person is known from other documents to have been Greek though his Greek identity is not expressed in the document under discussion, proves that ethnic labelling is voluntary, not obligatory. This does not imply that there are no Clik.t for its incidence, i.e. for the question which persons can be labelled Greek and which persons cannot. In fact, the basic rule is that in demotic texts only Wynn are labelled. Though this is not very surprising - the demotic texts proceed from the scribes' offices attached to Egyptian temples - it cannot be taken as completely self-evident. Only outsiders are labelled, because only in their case is ethnicity a distinctive feature. This means, in its turn, that the demotic texts do not reflect the standpoint of a neutral observer - or a neutral state - but that they consistently represent the viewpoint of the Egyptians, i.e. most probably of the temple clerks, a fact that has never been disputed but deserves to be stressed here as very significant. In the rest of this analysis I leave the texts that are silent about ethnicity out of consideration. In the texts that do mention Greeks, however, attention will also be paid to the non-labelled persons: the absence of labelling in these cases acquires enhanced significance through the fact that they are in close contact with labelled persons, no matter how we are to explain this phenomenon. As we have seen, there is not much of a pattern to be discerned in the nature of the contracts and the parts played in them by the Greeks, with the possible exception of the deeds of marriage and divorce, where Greeks are exclusively in the male role. But perhaps the qualities of the persons involved present a clue? Some formal characteristics lend themselves to a numerical presentation:

61

a.

20 number of persons indicated as Wynn (ms n Kmy) : 16 number offroper names preserved for this population : number o l?ersons in this population who can be identified with g4) persons mentioned in other documents :

b.

Of the population of 16 Greeks known by name : 14 are males, only 2 are females (total 16) number of persons known to have double (Gr./Eg.) names: 4 number of persons known only by a Greek name: 0 12 number of persons known only by an Egyptian name: (total 16) number of patronymics known : number of double patronymics : number of Greek patronymics : number of Egyptian patronymics :

13

3

0 10 (total 13)

In order to decide whether these numerical relationships constitute a significant deviation from the known Pathyrite population as a whole, an up-to-date prosopography for the Pathyrite nome would be needed. In its absence, all I can present here is a comparison with the data on those persons in the documents under consideration who are .nQl labelled "Greek"5): 15(19) - Total of persons not labelled Greek : - number of double names : 3 (5) number of Greek names: 0 (zero) number of Egyptian names: 12(14) total 15(19) - Total of patronymics of persons not labelled Greek - number of double patronymics : number of Greek patronymics : number of Egyptian patronymics :

11(16) 2 (3) 0 (zero)

9 (13)

total 11(16)

4) These persons are: DOC.219 DOC.220/11/221 DOC.11/221 DOC.12 DOC.222 DOC.222 DOC.223 (?) DOC.224/5/6

Totoes Apoll6nia/Senmfmthis, and her sister: Amm6nia/Senminis Amm6nios the son of Areios Petearsenouphis Petesouchos Psenanouphis H6ros, the son of Nechoutes

5) The Egyptians of DOC.12 have been left out of consideration.

62 Persons' names repeated from other occurrences are not counted here; if they were, the result would be as the bracketed numbers indicate6).

The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics must be a purely negative one. There is no significant relationship whatsoever between the use of the ethnic label Wynn ms n Kmy and the character of the proper names. Both among the persons labelled "Greek" and among those not so labelled there is a minority with double names and a majority with Egyptian names; persons having only a Greek name are absent from both categories. Of course this may be explained by pointing to the fact that we are concerned with demotic texts, but it is no use speculating about the Greek names some may have had in addition to the Egyptian ones that have been handed down to us. Besides, a relatively well-known person as H6ros the son of Nechout~s really seems to have had only an Egyptian

6) The persons concerned are: ~.:

~:

11/221

(Apollonia/Senmonthis) Herakleia/Senapythis Herais{fisris

patronvmic: (Ptolemaios/Pamen&) the same the same

Nechoutes Sennouphis

Thrason/Patous the same

Siepmous Kalibis

Aromgous Harapathos

216 219 223

(Areios/Pelaias= patronymic Hermophilos/Phibis inDOC.12) Horos (Pelaias) (Horos = patronymic Thotortaios to Psenenouphis) Lc:On/Phmois Lc:On/Phentenmout

224

(Horos) Petosiris Esthot&

(Nechout&) Pates Gounsis?

22S 230

Psenanouphis Senpelaia Senamounis Senmonthis Nechouthis

(Gounsis) Panobchounis Nechout&

231 232 233

Kai& (Panobchounis)

Some patronymics recur several times; I have counted them (with and without brackets) for each DOCUMENT in which they occur according to the above list.

63 name7), Pereman's hypothesis8) that nomenclature is a reliable indication for ethnicity not only in the third but also in the second and first Cent.B.C. appears to find no confirmation in the evidence from Pathyris presented here. We come on firmer ground if we study the professions of the persons involved and those of their relatives. In the years around 150 B.C. a large army camp was founded in Krokodilopolis, with an annex in the nearby Pathyris; several of our Hellenes belonged to the soldiers who, from that moment on settled in the Pathyrite nome. This holds true for Amrn6nios Areiou (DOC.12), for Amrn6nios alias Harpaesis (DOC.216) and Equally for persons close to the for H6ros the son of Nechoutes9). "Greeks": the father and the grandfather of the four sisters of DOC.219/ 11/221, as well as Dryt6n, the husband of the second of these sisters, Apoll6nia; Petearsenouphis (DOC.222) was a "Greek born in Egypt among the descendants of soldiers" (i.e. he belonged to the epigon€); H6ros (II), the brother of the "Greek" Totoes (DOC.219); and Panobchounis, the son of Totoes and the father of Senpelaia (DOC.230) and Nechouthis (DOC. 233). Nearly all these persons were "men receiving pay" (misthoporoi) 10), and several of them served in the company under the command of Diodotos: Dryt6n, H6ros the brother of Totoes, and Ptolemaios/Pamen6s, the father of the four ladiesll), Of course the question immediately arises why some of these soldiers are called Hellenes whereas others are not. We are not in a position to solve it. Moreover, some of the contracting partners of the Pathyrite "Hellenes" were soldiers, too - whether this implied Hellenic identity or not we are unable to tell -:the horseman of DOC.234 and the misthophoros Le6n alias Phmois of DOC.223. A complicating fact is that one of the Egyptian witnesses of Dryt6n's third testament (DOC.12), 7) The data on HOros most conveniently in Oates,

YC/S 18 (1963) No.187 and p.105-108;

Pestman,.At8)7ltw 43 (1963) No.130; PPt 4145 • 11152.

8) See above pp.1 and 7. 9) HOros (PPt 4145=11152): "a man who receives pay" (P.dem.Adler 2; 4; 7; P.dem.Cairo 30652; P.dem.Adler 16; 18) "amongst the men of Lochos" (P.dem.Adler 2); "inscribed to the hypaethron of Amur• (P.dem.Adler 2; 7; 16); "emolled in the camp of Pathyris" (P.dem . .Adler 4); "a man of Swan ( =Syene)" (P.dem.Ad/er 15); his military career covers at least the years 123 B.C. (P.dem.Adler 2) - 95 B.C. (P.dem.Adler 16). lO) For nnt iw=f fp hbs-..•, "man receiving pay", as Egyptian equivalent for misthophoros see S.P.Vleeming, P.L.Bai.23 (1985) 204-7.

11) See Pestman, P.LBat. 14 (1965) 47 note 4.

64

Patous the son of HOros, was an infantry soldier. So though there is a certain correspondence between army service and Hellenic identity, this is far from amounting to a one-to-one relationship. This situation has its counterpart in the partial correspondence between the priesthoods and Egyptian nationality.

Of the four Egyptian

witnesses to the testament DOC.12, three were clergymen (SchOtes Phimenios, Nechoutes Thotortaiou and Patous HerieOs) and belonged to priestly families12). Among the non-labelled contracting partners, too, several were priests or temple scribes: Nechoutes, the distant relative with whom the four sisters of DOC.11/221 were reconciled; the isionomos Siepmous in DOC.216; and the brothers EsthOtes (DOC.224) and Psenanouphis (DOC.225), the sons of Wm (Gounsis), who are "singers of Hathor", like their remaining five brothers (see P.dem.Adler 1, of 103 B.C.). But among our Hellenes, too, there is one person who is very probably, and one who is possibly a priest; Psenanouphis the son of HOros, an isionomos (DOC.223), and Harsi8sis the son of Herieus, respectively. Though the association between the temple personnel and Egyptian identity cannot be denied, the facts do not follow a simple patternB). Nor can the priestly and the military circles be regarded as mutually exclusive. Within the body of evidence considered here we observe in two instances the existence of family ties between members of the supposedly "Egyptian" clergy and those of the supposedly "Hellenic" soldiery. In both cases a female member of a Hellenic line of soldiers is the connecting link between the two circles: Sennouphis, an aunt both of HOros (DOCS. 224; 225; 226) and of AmmOnios (DOC.12), is married to Panereus, one of the seven sons of Wn~ (Gounsis) and a singer of Hathor (P.dem.Adler 7) 14); and the scribe Nechout8s, the partner of the four sisters in DOC.11, is also a relative of theirs through his mother Tamenlls, a daughter of Hermokrat!s/Panas, the founder of the family15), Outside Pathyris, in 12) For the data see notes to DOC.12. 13) This conclusion is valid for the Persai tis epigonis, too: this qualification is applied to Greeks (Ammlinios Areiou, DOC.12; Totoes, DOC.219; Petesouchos, DOC.222; Hliros the son of Nechoutes, DOC.225/6) as well as to Egyptians (three of the four Egyptian witnesses in DOC.12); see Pestman, P.L.Bat.19 (1978) 35 f.; 22 (1982) 58 note 4. These facts confirm my rejection of Wilcken's theory that the demotic formula JJYnn ms n Kmy is the equivalent of the Greek phrase P.t.e. (seep. above). 14) Below, p.68 Genealogical Table I. 15) Below, p.69 Genealogical Table II.

65 the Middle Egyptian city of Tanis, Dionysios Kephalatos, a contemporary of our Pathyrite Greeks, was both priest and soldier16), In sum, there is a certain parallelism between the professions of soldier and priest, on the one hand, and Hellenic and Egyptian identity on the other, but this parallel is far from being absolute. In the last resort, ethnicity is an independent dimension of life in society, and every attempt to reduce it to one of the levels historians are more familiar with - citizenship, class, status, occupation - is bound to fail. In order not to conclude this part of my exposition on a negative tone, I will try to formulate a hypothesis about the development of the ethnical partitioning between Greeks and Egyptians in Pathyris in the years c. 150-88 B.C., the period that is well documented as a consequence of the presence in Pathyris of a large military contingent17). When these soldiers were for the first time stationed in Pathyris, they came from elsewhere; e.g., DrytOn originated probably from Ptolemais and had served in Diospolis Parva before he was transferred to the Pathyrite nome. As Greek speaking outsiders these soldiers and their families came into contact with the predominantly native Egyptian society of Pathyris and surroundings: from the standpoint of these natives there was every reason to label them JJ.Ynn. As time went on the old population and the newcomers familiarized to a certain degree. The soldiers did not devote themselves exclusively to their military duties, but engaged intensively in civilian affairs, as the many lease and sales contracts prove. Some of them took up a civilian profession; AmmOnios Areiou (DOC.12), for instance, was a soldier in the early part of his career, but later on he succeeded his father as agoranomos18). It also happened that, though the father stuck to the old military profession. the son or grandson did not: both Totoas (DOC.219) and his son Panobchounis were soldiers, but in the next generation Peteharsemtheus seems to have remained a civilian during the whole of his life19). The daughters and sisters of the soldiers married members of long established local families. Decisive in this connection is 16)

Cp. Boswinkel·Pestman, PLBat.12 (1982) 3ff. and my pp.88f. below.

l7) A summary of the role played by this military contingent is given by Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) 49-Sl. l8) Pestman, P.L.Bal. 19 (1978) 236f.; "L'agoranomie", Das pto/em. Agypten (1978) 206ff. 19) Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) 98/9 note 312.

66

the question which one of the two cultures had the greater power of attraction: the Greek or the Egyptian sphere. The case of the agoranomos Ammllnios Areiou alias Pakoibis may serve as an illustration. In his reconstrcution of Ammllnios's career and family background Pestman concludes that Ammllnios, who wrote both Greek and demotic, was of Egyptian extraction, but had learnt to write Greek afterwards. In Pathyris, it follows, an Egyptian family had taken possession of the function of the agoranomos, which originally had been intended as a competitor to the native scribes' offices attached to the temples. An important element in Pestman's argument is the difficulty of acquiring a knowledge of demotic writing at an advanced age20). This has some probability, but it is not absolutely conclusive; we know at least one instance of a Greek learning demotic as his second written language21). More interesting still are the tacit implications of Pestman's argument. For an Egyptian to seize the function of agoranomos was an advancement; adopting a Hellenic in addition to one's native name was a device frequently applied22) in order to partake in the prestigious Hellenic society. The Hellenic sphere - he seems to suggest - absorbed ambitious Egyptian elements, and this process was of more importance than the assimilation of "Hellenes" to the Egyptians. In my opinion, in reality just the reverse was the case. As we have seen all persons having double names we are able to classify in ethnical terms are Hellenes, so if there is any sense in the nomenclature argument, it would be that the Greek name is the primary one and the Egyptian name added secondarily. But this in itself has no consequence for ethnicity; quite a lot of the JJ.Ynn we know had Egyptian names only but nonetheless counted as Greeks. Adopting an Egyptian name or giving one's children Egyptian names and learning demotic are, surely, symptoms of adaptation to the native environment, but they do not automatically entail the crossing of the ethnical border. Hllros the son of Nechoutes moved in Egyptian circles and had many of his contracts drawn up in demotic, but his Egyptian contemporaries still located him firmly on the other side of the ethnical border, among the Wynn. From DOC.12 it may appear that 20) Pestman, "L'agoranomie", 210. Cp. also

P.LBat.22 (1982) 3, in connection with Dionysios

the son of Kephalas. 21) UPZ 1,148; see R.R6mondon, "Probl~mes du bilinguisme dans l'Egypte lagide (UPZ I 148)", CE 39 (1964) 126-146.

22) Pestman does not express himself on this issue here, but in P.LBat.19 (1978) 33 and in "L'agoranomie", 206ff. he seems to imply that having a double name points to Egyptian extraction.

67 being familiar with the Greek language was decisive in this respect. It also informs us that Greeks were rare and hard to find: in my opinion, this should be taken at face value, as evidence of the fact that the vast majority in Pathyris were Egyptians. The relative frequency with which the label .fillm. is used in demotic contracts would be unexplainable if the Greeks had been numerous. In that case the identificatory value of the label would have been zero. One may compare DOC.20, an ostrakon from Ombos (Upper Egypt) of a slightly later date, where the addition "Hellen" serves to distinguish two homonyms. Consequently all indications point to a situation in which the native majority gradually absorbed the Greek outsiders but for the time being continued to set apart the minority which adhered most tenaciously to elements of Greek culture - let us say mainly to Greek as primary languageby hinting in contracts to their identity as U)inn. This section concludes with two Genealogical Tables, demonstrating the family relationships between the persons mentioned in the documents. Table I unites the relevant data on the families of HOros, of AmmOnios and of Peteharsemtheus, all of which are somehow interconnected; table II concerns the descendants of ApollOnios/Nechthyris and the DrytOn family, with ApollOnia/SenmOnthis as the central figure23). There is not much logic in the distribution of Hellenic identity over the members of these families. With some imagination it might be said that in the families of table I Hellenic identity becomes weaker as the generations proceed, but one may take this suggestion for what it is worth.

23) Genealogical Table I is based, for the Hllros and Ammllnios parts of it, on Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) 47f. note 5; "A Greek testament from Pathyris" /EA 55 (1969) 158; P.L.Bat.19 (1978) 209; and 'L'agoranomie', 208; and for the Peteharsemtheus family on P.L.Bat.14 (1965) 57. For Table II one may compare Preisigke etc., ErlJstreit (see doc.11) 29; Winnicki, Eos 60 (lm) 353. -names i11 italics: Wynn/Helli11es -unmarked names: contract partners not labelled as "Greeks' -(names) between brackets: these persons do not figure personally in our documents and are mentioned only to clarify the relationship. The Nos. of the DOCS. have been added.

68 GENEALOGICAL TABLE I

-+-

tJ Esth6tes (224)

•.1.1, and all I can do is add some ultimate precisions. Modrzejewski analyses the text as follows: m;JiQn, l a.207-22]) They have equally (/cai) decreed concerning lawsuits in which Egyptians are opposed to Greeks, i.e. (kai) the lawsuits launched by Greeks against Egyptians or by Egyptians against Greeks, of all categories except for the tillers of Crown land, those subject to tribute and the remaining persons involved in the royal revenues, as follows:

i fL211-2141 The Egyptians who have concluded Greeks contracts with Greeks will be tried before the chrematistai, whether they act as plaintiffs or as defendants.

~

(/.214-2171 But those who, "tout en ~tant de statut grec"">, have concluded Egyptian contracts, shall have to defend themselves before the /aokritai in conformity with the laws of the country.

~

a.217-2201 As far as lawsuits of E~tians against Egyptians are concerned, the chrematistai have to refram from encroaching u~on them; they have to permit these trials to be held before the /aokritai, according to the laws of tl1e country.

~

Basically this decree is "une mesure circonstancielle, un peu maladroite dans sa rMaction, parfaitement claire dans ses intentions"5). It aims at defending the tribunals of the natives (the laokritai) against encroachment by the royal tribunals, the chrematistai-6). This goal must 2) PTebt.5,W9ff. "(Evcilv 'll"avrwv 'll"XT)v -r(i)v "(Ew(P"fOilvrwv) Pa(m.\U. I submit that this may be explained by supposing a) that it was completely self-evident who counted as Greeks and Egyptians, respectively, and b) that ultimately such a definition was unnecessary, because ethnicity 7) For case 6 see Modrzejewski, 705 with notes 2 and 3; and for case 7 Modrezejewski ,706 (attempts to insert AL"fV11'1"lol.'; after ovyyparpovra~ in 1.215 and so to exclude case 7). 8) Cl.Prtaux, LE MONDE HELLENIST/QUE I,397f.; cp. also Prtaux, "La signification de l'tpoque d'Everg~te 11",Actes Ve Congr. Pap. (Brussels 1938) 345-354. 9) Prtaux, LE MONDE HELLENIST/QUE, 596. Exactly this remark was the starting point for the present investigation.

99 was .in llil ~ taken as the basis for assigning lawsuits to one type of tribunal or another. The criterium for ethnic identity was self-evident in a context where so talk was said about the lam:uage of the contracts which led to the litigation. It can only have been the (native or primary) language of the persons involved. We can apply here what was suggested by our analysis of those documents in which individuals are concerned 10). The crucial point is that the decree regulates those cases in which a person has concluded a contract in a language not his own: this is the situation in both section 2 and section 3. Basically that situation could occur whenever an individual had someone belonging to the opposite language group and ethnicity as his contract partner. Other things being equal, in such cases there may often have been a slightly better chance for Greeks to ~ their language and law on the Egyptians, as a consequence of their superior social position, than for the Egyptians to impose theirs. On the other hand, people could have all kinds of opportunistic reasons for adopting the language and the juridical system of the other nationality, for instance the fact that the regulations for the guardianship of women were easier in Egyptian than in Greek law. In fact, in a previous chapter we discussed several contracts 11) drawn up by Greeks according to Egyptian law. Apparently the propensity of Greeks to make use of the advantages of Egyptian law was greater than vice versa. Consequently the social pressures the Greeks exercised to induce their Egyptian partners to adopt a contract of their (the Greeks') choice in many circumstances may have been counterbalanced by the advantages the same Greeks expected from Egyptian law. Once the contract had been made in one of the two languages, the next question was which one of the two tribunals would be competent in case of litigation. As Modrzejewski and Wolff explain, the decree tried to check expansion of the royal tribunals (the chrematistai) at the expense of the laokritai. This expansion placed the Greeks in an advantageous position, because the chrematistai used the Greek language as vehicle and were considered a Greek court. The risks of being brought before a tribunal of the "other" side were greater, of course, for a defendant than for a plaintiff, for a 10) Above, pp. 66f.; 92f. This solution was suggested by J.F.Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 109.

ll} DOCS. 222; 226; '1:29.

100 potential plaintiff bad the possibility of refraining from suing his opponent. This means that, as far as mixed lawsuits are concerned, the cases 1 and 4 are the only ones that really matter. In cases 1 and 4 the decree imposes strict equality on both nationalities by basing its regulation on the language of the documents and not on the ethnic identity of the litigants. I think this makes it necessary to interpret "hypechein" in l.213 as shorthand for "hypechein kai lambanein" 12): "to defend and to sue". Greeks wishing to sue an Egyptian on the basis of an Egyptian document had to do this before an Egyptian tribunal. Otherwise, we should have expected to find a definition of Hellenic identity in this prostagma and likewise the mention of Hellenic identity in demotic documents would have been obligatory. The Pathyrite texts analysed above definitely show that it was not. With regard to lawsuits between persons of the same ethnic group the following remarks can be made. If Greeks made use of Egyptian law, they had to take the Egyptian tribunal into the bargain (case 7)13); Egyptians who in their reciprocal dealings used their own law were not to be deprived of the right to be judged before a native tribunal (case 8). If Egyptians in their mutual transactions used Greek law - this may have been rare - the trial must have been before the Greek tribunal, but because the chrematistai were in any case attracting trials between Egyptians this needed no regulation (case 6)1 4); and case 5 needed no regulation at all. The conclusion is that in fill cases the language of the document was decisive; consequently there was no need for the government to define "Greek status". Let us examine now those texts in which ethnic categorizations of a less pervasive nature occur. In DOC.6 (third cent. B.C.), a letter from a village administrator, Jews and Hellenes are united with respect to the levying of a rare type of tax. Though no other groups seem to be mentioned in the letter, there must have been Egyptians in the village, too, and the 12) I return to the point of view of Wenger, APF 2 (1903) 494, against Modrzejewski, 703, and Wolff, 61!. 13) I agree with Modrzejewski, 706, that in 1.215 the word AL"(Vll"floL~ should !JQL be added, and that suits between Greeks 11!14 !i!uJg_ are included in the regulation of section

3.

14) For this reason I do not think that the wording of section 4 implies that lawsuits between Egyptians based on Greek contracts belonged to the competence of the laokritai; contra Modrzejewski, 705 note 3.

101

administrative operation concerned only a part of the population. Tcherikover (comm. ad Joe.) suggests that military settlers are meant; as we shall see in a moment, this interpretation is very probable. In DOC.3 (242/1 B.C.), a report by a lower official on labour spent on the dyke system, the category "among the Greeks", together with "those on naval service", forms part of a series of exempted groups in which also figure the elderly, the cat-buriers, those who have fulfilled their duty in the Pathyrite nome, fugitives, choachytes and... the defunct. The blatant lack of logic this report seems to display - perhaps this is what we may expect from a subaltern official - may be alleviated a little by supposing that the term "He//€nes" here is shorthand for strateuomenoi He//€nesGreek soldiers15). The combination with the men on naval service makes this explanation probable, and the He//€nes would in fact be a prqfessional category, along with the cat-buriers and the choachytes. We must bear in mind that this document transports us to Upper Egypt, where Greek civilian immigration was exceptional. In the one and only person in this category we may, in fact, discern a distant forerunner of the Uj.rnn ms n Kmy of the second half of the second century.B.C. That soldiers as such could enjoy certain privileges is attested by another document, DOC.13 (PTebt.5,168ff.). In this text, a decree from the late 2nd century B.C., a regulation is made for a mild regime of billetting on behalf of strateuomenoi He//€nes, priests, tillers of Crown land, wool-weavers, cloth-makers and a whole series of other professions that were connected somehow with the state monopolies 16). Clearly it is the profession that earns the benefited their privilege, not ethnic identity. These documents confirm Tcherikover's interpretation of CPJ 33 ( = DOC.6): it is quite conceivable that a local administrative procedure concerned the military only and took no notice of the rest of the population. In that document Greeks and Jews are treated on an equal footing; in it, there is no trace of a different fiscal r6gime for different ethnic groups. 15) This solution was suggested to me by Wilcken's remark that the one and only person in this category of exempted was an Egyptian who made advancement by being enrolled among the 1npaTEu6µ.Evo~··u;1.1JVEo;. Wilcken himself means something different: In his opinion, the (supposed) Egyptian acquired Hellenic status by his military service, and, subsequently enjoyed exemption from dyke labour not as a soldier l!!lL 11:1 I! lkJk!H.. W.Peremans, • "D.;l.11veo; dens P.Paris 66 (UPZ 11,157)', CE 11 (1936) 517-521, rightly rejected Wilcken's contention that all Greeks as such were exempt; but his positive suggestion, that He/lines here means 'ceux parmi les !'!!rangers qui se distinguent par leur situation sociale et leurs richesses', is too vague to be of any help. 16) See comm. Grenfell and Hunt ad toe.; Pr6aux, CE 11 (1936) 33.

102 Of a very interesting nature are the demotic lists of groups liable to the salt and guard tax (DOC.210) that have been edited by Fr. de Cenival (the banker's receipt for a tax gatherer, DOC.210a, mentioning Greeks, is too fragmentary to be of much value). The papyrus that carries the lists, P.dem.Lille 99, was discovered during excavations at Medinet-Ghoran at the beginning of this century. Both lists on the verso are dated 229 /8 B.C. They are a medley of professional and ethnic categories, without giving a clue to the logic that lies behind this way of articulating the population groups and without any indication that the various categories payed the salt tax at different rates. In the first list (verso col.II) we meet veterans of the cavalry, Greeks, Medes, guards, village scribes, schoolmasters, isionomoi, laundrymen, brewers and soldiers; the second list (verso cols.IIl,IV and V) contains several ethnic groups (Greeks, Sakians, Medes, rmt ih(?), Bedouins and Nubians), some sacerdotal categories, and, with regard to the Greeks, some subdivisions according to professions: physicians, instructors, laundrymen. The Egyptians as a separate category are absent. Whether the sum of the ethnic and professional categories exhausts the population is difficult to tell: the second list is explicitly stated to be "the remaining of the sum due from the district" (Illal). As far as the first list is concerned, the mentioning of the guard tax (11,3) perhaps means that it has something to do with the list on the recto. That list contains Greek names and probably refers to the cleruchs of the district; the phylakitikon (guard tax) is known to have been levied in particular on the cleruchs17). With some hesitation de Cenival explains the mentioning of the various occupational categories by referring to the exemption from the salt tax enjoyed by certain professional groups; she points to the case of the (Greek) schoolmasters18). But that does not explain the simultaneous application of ethnic categories, the less so because the different ethnic groups did not pay at different rates19). 17) PPetrie III,109; de Cenival, P.dem.Lille 99, comm.on p.27. l8) PHal.1, line 200f.; de Cenival, comm.on p.28; "Greek" is her interpretation of PHal.11 l9) Comm.on p.29; on the recto, VI,17 and VIl,9, she claims to have discovered an Egyptian nurse who pays the same amount as everybody. These pages had been written the moment Corpus Papyrorum Raineri (XIII) IX was published. In some of the fiscal documents edited in that volume the Greeks figure as a separate category (CPR IX,l; 2; 4; 11 = DOCS. 2; 2a; 2b; 2c: dating from the third century B.C.). DOC.2c in particular resembles the demotic lax document edited by De Cenival insofar as in this text, too, professional and ethnic categories are set side by side. More important is the fact that in DOCS. 2 and 2a the "Hellenes" are mentioned as being exempt (hypologoi)

103 In a third census papyrus edited by de Cenival, P.dem.Lille 101, a = census by houses; from Magdola, 244/3 B.C.), names of persons are given, but no ethnic labels. The nature of the tax for the purpose of which this census was taken is not expressly indicated, but from the fact that women were paying at a much lower rate than the men we may gather that, here too, the salt tax was concerned. In this document, however, the men with Egyptian names pay seven obols, whereas those having Greek names pay six only (with a few exceptions). In the case of this early document it is difficult to deny the nomenclature argument any value whatsoever, yet there are a couple of instances of men with Greek names being related to men with Egyptian names. Perhaps the "Greek" men were soldiers with their stathmos (quarters) on the premises of "Egyptians", but two of these "Greeks" are houseowners themselves. Setting aside these puzzling documents, we now come to the late Ptolemaic DOC.19 (PTebt.139), in which we encounter only one professional or social category, the machimoi, who are divided along ethnic lines, and DOC.18, in which only the Hellenic machimoi are mentioned and which probably refers to this same type of articulation. In any case, in the late Ptolemaic era the machimoi were not exclusively Egyptian, if they had ever been so before20). A most embarrassing text is DOC.19a from the first century B.C. To all appearances, the Hellenes of the village of Petachor mentioned in this document were privileged, in so far as they paid at a lower rate than the non-Greek inhabitants of the same village. Are we entitled here, too, to interpret the term Hellenes as a designation for a group of soldiers, in the same manner as the early Ptolemaic DOC.3? In other words, did these Hellenes enjoy a favoured treatment not on account of their ethnic identity but as katoikoi? Or are we obliged, indeed, to assume that the Romans could point to a late Ptolemaic precedent when they started to privilege the Hellenes G.tmm?

kat'oildan apographe (

for the obolos-tax, together with two professional categories. This sheds interesting new light on the issue treated above. The obolos-tax is a minor one in comparison with the salt tax, the amounts of which are mentioned in these same documents. With respect to the salt tax nothing is said about exemption of the Greeks. Of course, conceptually it makes no difference whether the Hellenes are set apart with regard to a minor or to a major tax. As to the nature of the obolos-tax, the suggestion of the editors (CPR pages 334f.) to connect it with the transport tax of Roman times is not particularly obvious, that tax being attested only for the late lllrd century A.O. (with a dubious mention in PTebt. II Ostr.8 of 5 B.C.).

20) For the machimoi see Supplementary Note, pages 121-125.

104

From PTebt. 1107 Taken all together, this is rather bewildering. (DOC.15) we learned how combined ethnic and professional categories It appeared that Menches could be used for administrative purposes. sometimes arranged his co-villagers according to profession and ethnic identity ("Greek farmers") simply as a device for keeping in control of the bulky administrative material he had to handle, and that this did not necessarily imply that the category thus set apart was treated differently from the rest. As we have seen, this group of Hellenic georgoi figured in other administrative documents too, but without title. Comparable is the frequent occurrence of a standard group of machimoi in the evidence from Kerkeosiris21), In PTebt.880, a fragmentary list of payers of the salt tax for the year 181/0 or 157/6 B.C. in two neighbouring Fayum villages, we may have a parallel to this. The kOmogrammateus lists the inhabitants "according to the person and according to groups" (kat'andra kai kat'ethnos). Tcherikover points to this text in connection with CPJ 33 (DOC.6); he observes that the first two of the four fragments of PTebt.880 contain mainly Hellenic names, and the last two Egyptian names, thereby suggesting that "ethnos" refers to ethnicity. Unfortunately his argument is untenable: 1. Nomenclature is no reliable guide for ethnicity 2. The first fragment apparently lists the men according to catoecic degrees (the abbreviated formula hekatontarourai 3. "Et/mos" is often used merely as an equivalent has been preserved) What remains, though, is that here, too, a population is of genos22>. split up into categories, while at the same time the list does not indicate the amounts to be paid by each person, the salt tax probably being levied on all at the same rate. Consequently the grouping does not result from fiscal necessities, and we may suppose that this village scribe, too, organized his material according to categories that were relevant to village life and perhaps also to certain Q1hJ:r fiscal operations, but not to the one under consideration. This may partly answer the question posed by Fr. de Cenival (see DOC.210), whether the categories listed in the salt tax document she discusses were set apart because they benefited from a special fiscal regime. It now appears that this need not necessarily have been so. Zl) PTebt. 61a,67ff.; 762,lSOff.; 63,14811.; 64,147ff.; 98,78ff. = 1147, 7811.; 1108,78ff.; 1110,lSSff.; 1115,103ff. 22) LSJ s.v. ~e~ No.3. Cp. e.g. PPetrie III,S9b; OGIS 90, 17; Diod.Sic. 1,94,4: TO iuix~µ.o11 ~e~.

105

I should like to adduce here one more text revealing the articulation of groups in the population of Ptolemaic Egypt: BGU 1768, from the middle of the first century.B.C. This papyrus has been interpreted by Schubart and Schafer as a fragment from the diary of a strategos, reporting the reception of a newly appointed strategos by the inhabitants of a village in the Heracleopolite nome. As soon as he disembarks the various sectors of the population come to meet him (the text has some gaps): the prophet& and the other priests, the infantry and cavalry men, those "from the house", the whole crowd of the katoilda, the resident foreigners (ton kata xenen) and the Laos. The people "from the house" have been connected by Braunert with the late Ptolemaic institution of skepe (patronage)23). The "mass of the katoilda" is interpreted by the editors as the families of the soldiers; the soldiers themselves are listed earlier because they probably defiled in military order. The last category is the Laos, the peasant population lacking any special qualification24). Several of the groups we have seen in other documents being handled as objects of administrative operations come to real life in this text as they march past the strategos, before assembling in the Heraklas sanctuary to hear the proclamation of their new provincial governor. The order in which the various groups appear probably reflects their importance and status in the village community, with the clergy and the soldiery in front, the peasantry in the rear. It is also true that ethnic classification is conspicuously absent bere25), as it is from a number of Ptolemaic census documents26). 23)

H.Braunert, Die Binnenwanderung (Bonn 1964) 89f. note 58.

24) See Cl.Vandersleyen, 'Le mot ka6.ci6~ (Kallisthenes ap. Plul. Ala.33; Theopompos, FGrH 115 fr.224). This may be true for the origin of this regiment's name, but it has no relevance for ethnicity in Ptolemaic times: the name has petrified, just as the names of the Scottish and Irish regiments in the British army. 28) But see now DOCS. 2; 2a; 2b; 2c.

107 certainly, and in DOC.3, probably, the Greeks are understood to be the soldiers. Discrimination, in these cases, affects the civilians, not the DOC.19a remains exceptional insofar as it testifies to the Egyptians. preferential treatment of a group of Greeks. Most of the time, however, in the analysed documents no direct relationship exists between the categories used and the fiscal purposes for which the documents are meant. Lower officials prove to have a certain propensity to make use of ethnic as well as social cleavages within the population of "their" villages and districts to ease the burden of their administrative task. The fact that generally the government refrained from advantaging the Greeks purely on account of their ethnic identity did not prevent social realities often being in favour of the Greeks. The convergence of military status and Greek nationality must have meant that in many villages where soldiers were settled the Greeks indeed enjoyed a social pres~ige that offered them opportunities to enrich themselves at the cost of the Egyptians/peasants. We have seen an instance of this situation in PEnteux.86 (DOC.108), testifying to the intimidation of Egyptian villagers by a Greek grandee. This same document also reveals two other things: 1. A hekatontarouros, too, fell victim to the mighty Apollod~ros: friction did not occur only across the ethnic border, but also within the same ethnic group 2. Tetosiris, whose nationality is not known but who probably was an Egyptian woman29), appeals to the authorities: a favourable testimony to their impartiality. Conflicts between persons belonging to different ethnic groups occurred not infrequently; we have seen instances of it before30). The opinion the Greeks had of their Egyptian compatriots was often low. A policeman in the Fayum could not be induced to entrust a couple of Egyptians with the guarding of a vineyard (DOC.106, from Zenon's archive). The weaver Iollas, who was probably a Greek, wrote a letter to Zenon in which he complained about the violent treatment he had undergone at the hands of a certain Addaios; the flogging was all the more humiliating because it was executed by "five Egyptian police chaps" (pente anthropous Aigyptious mastigophorous), as he remarks in a rather depreciatory way (DOC. 102). The decree of PTebt.5, 207ff., as we saw, reflects inter alia a dissatisfaction about the reduced possibilities for Egyptians to have their trials 29) I am not forgetting the principles laid down on pp.23ff. above, but one must not be pedantic.

30) DOCS. 5; 8; 9; 10; 107; 108; 110.

108

heard before a tribunal of their own language. The clashes in which Ptolemaios Glaukiou was involved posed the problem to what degree these were really motivated by ethnic antagonism, and to what degree other factors (of a mere personal kind) played a part. It was suggested that it would be unwise to oppose both types of motivation. No matter how diverse the causes for enmity and conflicts may have been, decisive was the fact that on certain occasions clashing interests were perceived by the parties concerned to be ethnically tinctured and consequently tended to be organized on ethnic lines. The same approach is also valid for ethnic struggle in the Egyptian society at large; in fact, the clashes of the years 163ff B.C. on the micro-level of the Serapeum may very well be interpreted as the outcome of the antagonism between the ethnic groups as a whole. I do not intend, here, to treat the history of the Egyptian rebellions I would rather call of the third and second centuries B.C. afresh31); attention to a few points that are relevant to my subject but, to my knowledge, have hitherto not received sufficient treatment. 1. In order to measure the importance of the ethnic factor in the Egyptian rebellions, one must choose the right starting point for investigation. It would be wrong to start from the supposition that hatred against the Greek occupants was endemic among the native population, so that not much was needed to kindle national revolt. The so-called "Demotic Chronicle" (DOC.214), an early Ptolemaic text containing a reference to the coming of a (native) Heracleopolite king who will "rule after the foreigners and the Greeks" cannot be cited as evidence for wide-spread enmity towards the Greeks if, as is now argued by Janet Johnson, the hostility revealed in these oracles is directed not against the Greeks but against the Persians32). In fact, just as the study of ethnicity in connection with individuals and groups must be based on the use of ethnic labels, in the same way only those apostasies and seditions may be considered "nationally" motivated that are explicitly reported to have been so. Consequently it is methodically wrong to bring all troubles in which machimoi are involved (PTebt.103, l.215ff.; OG/S 90,1.19) under this heading a priori: as is explained in the Supplementary Note (pp. 121ff.), machimoi were not automatically indigenous. 31) See the literature mentioned p.6 note '1:7.

32) Janet Johnson, GRAMMATA DEMOTIKA. Futschrift E.Lilddeckens (Wilrzburg 1984) 114124.

109 2. Another difficulty lies in the meaning of the term "Aigyptios". Peremans acutely observes that in Polybius this word may have two meanings: a. a person of Egyptian descent, i.e. a "native" (ethnic meaning) b. any inhabitant of Egypt33). Each time the context makes clear which one of the two meanings is intended. Now it need not be doubted that in the crucial passage V,107,1-3 Polybius uses Aigyptios in the first sense. His remark on the proud victors of Raphia who no longer obeyed orders from the king refers back to the description of the army composition in V,65,1-10 and the battle array of V,82ff., where the natives are clearly separated from the immigrant contingents34). In XXXIV,14 he distinguishes three sectors within the population of Alexandria: the Egyptians and indigenous, the mercenaries, and the Alexandrians who, though not being purely Hellenic, remembered Greek customs35); here, too, ''Aigyptios" is used as a label ·to denote ethnicity and therefore has the meaning studied in the present investigation. The ambiguity of the term Aigyptios, then, does not hamper the interpretation of the relevant passages in Polybius. Less clear is the text PKO/n IV, 186 ( = DOC.1 lla), a letter by an army commander reporting military operations in the Delta. This letter refers to "all the Aigyptioi inhabiting the chOra." If the interpretation the editors give of this mutilated letter is right, Aigyptioi points to the whole of the population of the Egyptian ch6ra and is not a real ethnic label. Also some data given by Diodorus Siculus should not be interpreted rashly as evidence for ethnicity. In Diod.Sic. XXXl,15a and 17b "Egyptians" are mentioned 33) Peremans, AC 50 (1981) 633: IlToAEµa~ b I.uµ'lrtri\ov; ~ .fi11 TO "(tlo; AL-y(nrri.o~, the rebellious viceroy of Cyrene (XXXI, 18,6) and ·ApWT6\ll.IC~ AL-y(nrri.o~. a boxer attending the games of Olympia (XXVII,9,7-13), respectively. That Polybius in XXXI,18,6 speaks of an Egyptian .bx ~ (To "(t\I04;) need not bother us. Ancient Greeks theorized about ethnicity mainly in terms of descent, just like many of our contemporaries, but that does not mean that it is right. 34) These passages are discussed in some detail in the Supplementary Note on the machimoi. In V,65,5/6 L1r'lrE~ t"'fXWpLO~ are listed in one group with the cavalry of the guard and the Libyan cavalry in contrast to the horsemen from Hellas and the mercenaries. The Egyptian foot (phalangitai) are mentioned in 65,8/9, together with the Libyan infantry, whereas "the phalangita1~ and the Hellenic mercenaries figure in 65,3/4. Even if the 20,000 Egyptian phalangitai of Polyb. V,65,9 are taken to be included in the 25,000 of V,65,4which, in my opinion, they should not - even then the infantry would consist of Hellenic mercenaries, Egyptian infantrymen and a third category: regulars who must have been cleruchs ("non-Egyptian" settlers). Therefore 'Egyptian" does not refer to the Egyptian country or state, but to the "natives". 35) See below, p.118.

110 apparently in contrast with the inhabitants of the capital and from the perspective of the Alexandrians and of people abroad. In these cases it is dangerous to interpret the term "Egyptian" as an ethnic label on the same footing as the occurrences in the papyrus texts. Moreover, ethnic divisions inside the population of Alexandria began to be blurred - in the perception of outsiders - by the end of the Ptolemaic and the beginning of the Roman period, as Livy's remark Macedones (... ) in (... ) Aegyptios degenerarunt36) proves. In writing the history of the "native" factor in the rebellions one should take account of this37). 3. Hence it has been established that Polybius V,107,1-3 should be interpreted as attributing an indigenous, ethnic character to the apostasies following the year 217 B.C.. This does not mean, however, that he is right. This passage38) has always been considered the crucial text for the national Egyptian character of these rebellions, explained by referring to the part the Egyptians had played in the victorious battle of Raphia. As we shall see below, the association of civil war and revolution in Egypt with the indigenous ("taracM t6n Aigypti6n") was current in the years following the 6th Syrian war (the 160's)39). Polybius visited Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, i.e. probably after 145 B.C.40). It is quite conceivable that during this visit he became acquainted with the ethnic interpretation of the more recent troubles and projected it back to the rebellion following the battle of Raphia. We may wonder how well informed Polybius could have been on the internal affairs of Egypt in the years about 200 B.C.; e.g. he never mentions the machimoi, neither in connection with the battle of Raphia nor with regard to the rebellion. If we turn to a document that is contemporary to the sedition under discussion, the decree of Memphis (the Rosettana, OG/S 90), we discover 36) Livy XXXVII,17; to be discussed below,p.118.

37)

For this reason I decided to exclude external evidence on ethnicity in Egypt from the list of documents accepted as basis for this investigation.

38)

Cp. also Polyb. XXIl,16-17(particularly17,1: oL 6vvticrrcn Tcil11 AL"'(Vl!Ti.c.>11); XIV,12,4.

39)

The war: 170-168 8.C.; the rebellions: 165/5 B.C. and afterwards.

40)

XXXIV,14 (from Strabo). For the date of this sojourn see Walbank, comm.I p.5 note 10 and IIl,p.630; idem, 'Egypt in Polybius', in: John Ruffle • GA.Gaballa - Kenneth A.Kitchen (eds.), GLIMPSES OF ANCIENT EGYPT. Studies in Honour of H.W.Fairman (Warminster 1979) 180-189, partic. 181.

111 that no mention at all is made of the national character of the rebellion. One could argue, of course, that it was unwise for the priests to pronounce the explosive and ominous word ''Aigyptios" in a reconciliatory decree. But in l.6 and in l.39, in a neutral context41), the word is not avoided, and in l.12 and 11.19 ("the machimoi and the others who showed their hostile disposition")42) the priests do not shun mentioning the rebellious elements by name. Pream: has suggested that the clergy had its own "Ainsi, ces revoltes, ou l'on ne peculiar interpretation of the rebellion: voit, apr~s Polybe, qu'un mouvement de haine contre le Gree, pour le clerge egyptien reuni ~ Memphis, elles rapellent Jes revoltes des villes qu'ont maitrisees les dieux, les premiers pharaons. Ce sont des revoltes contre le roi d'Egypte, sans plus•43). What bothers the priests, too, is that the temples were not spared; therefore, they call the rebels "the impious"44). We have no indication that parts of the clergy took part in the rebellion, let alone that the temples were the rallying point of an Egyptian nationalist movement in the days after Raphia. As for the interpretation the rebels themselves gave of their actions we are left in the dark. Hence it is perfectly possible to explain this stage in the rebellions without recourse to nationalist or ethnic motivations. There is one text left which might be contemporaneous with the post-Raphia revolution and which hints at the ethnic identity of the rebels: this is BGU 1215 ( = DOC.109), from the third century B.C., a report on an attack on a village by a band of "Egyptians". Unfortunately this text is in a fragmentary state and cannot be dated exactly; moreover, its provenance is not known. Ultimately, then, it cannot be excluded that Polybius is right in his contention in V,107,1-3, but there is no evidence to prove it definitely. 4. Once these restrictions and warnings have been made, we can assess the evidence on the national element in the rebellions. The first thing to be established is the remarkable frequency with which Egyptians and rebellions are associated. The documentary evidence contains 22 41) L39

42)

2

DOC.111.

TlilV f.UlXLjl.CdV KaL TlilV cllllaW Tlilll ct>.>.6'rpl4 cppoVYpliVTWV

Kai.po~.

43) Prfaux, CE 11 (1936) 535. 44) OGIS 90,1.27.

tv TO~

KaTcl Tapax-/)11

112 mentions of Egyptians. refer to groups45). six

have

to

Egyptians.

Seven of them concern individuals and fifteen

Of the fifteen texts that mention Egyptians (plural),

do with

rebellion and/or skirmishes

between Greeks and

In addition, we have PMich.inv. 6648, a narration on military

actions in which Hellenes and Egyptians are involved. This may also refer to some episode of the second century rebellions. For reasons of methodology this text has not been included in the list of documents46>. texts which have been accepted, however, are revealing47).

The

In the third

century B.C. document BGU 1215 ( = DOC.109) the term "Egyptians" is used first to label the attackers of a fortified village; villagers themselves.

next, it indicates the

Prfaux interprets this text as proof that the guerrilla

that was going on had a mainly social character, an attack by persons relegated to the margin of established society against the centres of that society: "Les troubles caract~ris~s

sociale

est

~chappant

d~crits

dans notre rapport pourraient

d~s

lors !tre

comme un soul~vement dirig~ contre Jes centres ou la vie encore

a

bien

organis~e.

villages

et

temples,

par

ceux

qui,

l'emprise d'une ~conomie d'Etat trop stricte, ont cess~ de

faire partie de la soci~t~"48).

That is excellent, except that it does not

explain the semantic tour de force executed by our officer (or whoever 45) Individuals: DOCS. 5; 12; 103; 104; 105; 107; 110. Groups: DOCS. 14; 19; 101; 101a; 102; 106; 108; 109; 111; 111a; 111b; 112; 113; 114; 115. 46) Not only is it too fragmentary to be of any value, but according to Renner, Proc. XWth Pap. Congr. (Oxford 1974) (London 1975) 176 it is a literary text in regard to which we cannot even be sure that it deals with Egyptian affairs. Moreover it may date equally

well from the early 1st cent. A.D. as from the 1st cent. B.C. Hence the objections against including Polybius and Diodorus are valid here, too. For the same reason I did not include PHaun.6. Recent editions of this text are those of I.Gallo, Frammenti Biografici da Papiri. /: La biografia politico (Rome 1975) 57·105 and of A.Billow-Jacobsen, "P.Haun.6. An Inspection of the Original", ZPE 36 (1979) 91-100. The papyrus dates from the imperial age but the text it contains may be older. The first editor, T. Larsen (Copenhagen 1942) interpreted it as a fragment from a work on Ptolemaic history; Galli included it in his collection of biographical fragments. J.Schwartz, ZPE 30 (1978) 95100 attributed the text to Phylarchus. A.N.Oikonomides, ZPE 32 (1979) 85-86 took an intermediate stand by suggesting that we have to do with biographical sketches based on the work of Greek historians using the Athenian dating system. The point is that we cannot be sure of an Egyptian origin of this text. The lines 14-17 of fragment 1 are interpreted by Huss, Aegyptus 58 (1978) 151-6, as proof that the domestica seditio of Justin XXVII,1,9 (245 B.C.) had a nationalist motivation. Peremans's contention, AC 50 (1981) 628-636, that this sedition could equally well have been socially motivated is justified, although it does not really refute Huss's hypothesis. 47) Except DOC.Illa, for which see above page 109.

48) CE 11 (1936) 530.

113 the author of our report may have been). In my opinion it can only be accounted for by assuming that at this time already the notions "Egyptians" and "rebels" could be so closely associated with each other that the one term could be used as a shorthand for the other, the context doing the rest. It is also true that Egyptians as well as Hellenes were the victims of these "Egyptian" bandits. This is an aspect which DOC.109 apparently shares with DOCS. 112 (PTebt. 781) and 115 (PAmherst 30), both dating from the revolution in Lower Egypt following upon the abortive coup d'~tat by Dionysios Petosarapis (165/4 B.C.)49). In DOC.112 "Egyptian rebels" cause damage to a temple; in DOC.115 the priest Tesenouphis has become the victim of attempts by "Egyptian rebels" to overturn property rights by destroying the contracts50). In the Upper Egypt DOC.114 (Plen. inv.263) the Egyptians are equally made responsible for a rebellion (tarach€ ton Aigyption). DOC.lllb, a dream oracle belonging to the archive of Hor, is more difficult to interpret, but to all appearances it refers to an army of "Egyptians" in Upper Egypt in connection with the revolt mentioned Diod. Sic. XXXI fr. 17b. Is this association of the terms "Egyptian" and "revolution" due solely to the viewpoint of the Greeks, putting the blame for all separatist Or do the desperamovements they have to cope with on the Egyptians? does of Egypt really obey the parole of "the Egyptian cause"? Indications that the Greeks considered the Egyptians as born trouble-mongers are also to be found in non-papyrological texts. Polyb. XXXIV,14 calls the Egyptian part of the population of Alexandria oxy kai ou politikon, ''volatile and resistant to civil control"51). This thought recurs in the works of Philo Judaeus52) and Flavius Josephus53), both of whom reflect, in addition to the Hellenic viewpoint, the negative experience the Jews had with the Egyptians. It would therefore be possible to argue that the nationalist 49) See Prtaux, CE 11 (1936) 540f. 50) Let us, for once, assume that the priests involved are Egyptians. 5l) The manuscript tradition has azy kai politilcon; almost certainly this has to be emended; cp. Walbank, comm. ad loc. '11'0A.vr1.1, from the obolos-tax. The total male population of this village amounts to 171 persons. DOC.2a= CPR IX,2 (Arsinoe, Illnd. cent.B.C., probably not later than c.234 B.C.) This papyrus belongs to the same group as DOC.2. It contains accounts of taxes for 3 Fayum villages. In Lysimachis 42 Hellenes, together with 17 Pemans, appear to be exempt from the obolos-tax (l.5); in Trik6mia the same group of 72 Greeks does not pay this tax (1.15); and in Lagis 17 Hellenes and 2 Persians are exempt (l.32). DOC.2b= CPR IX,4 (Arsinoe, IIIrd cent. B.C., probably not later than c.234 B.C.) This text still belongs to the same group of papyri. It is a census list for the village of Trik6mia in which the inhabitants are mentioned by name. The list is arranged according to households. Unfortunately the text contains a number of lacunae; otherwise it would probably have presented us with an enumeration of the total population. In the large middle part of the text (1.89-284) no amounts of sums due are added to the names. After a partial recapitulation in 1.108 the text reads: "in Mar6n's (house), Hellenes" (1.109); then the list continues, intermingling Greek, Egyptian, Jewish and Thracian names. DOC.2c= CPR IX,11 (Arsinoe, Illrd cent. B.C., probably not later than c.234 B.C.) This papyrus, a preliminary assessment of taxes for Athenas Kllme, appertains to the same group as the aforementioned three texts. The population of Athenas K6me is arranged in categories, some of which are of a professional, other of an ethnical nature: 37 Greeks (l.13), 13 Arabs, 82 farmers, 2 camel drivers, etc. Maybe there is some connection with the obolos-tax mentioned in 5) This document is not really relevant to ethnicity and is mentioned for completeness's sake only. To the same category belongs PCairo Zen. 59690 1.24 (Fayum, ?257/6 B.C.). Cp. OOC. lOla. 6) For this date see CPR IX p33. 7) L.19 read 'PU(AaK'LT.A11veo; n'a pcut-etrc pas d'autrc sens ici qu'individus capables d'6airc en grcc', accepted by Wilckcn, I.e.; Pestman, P.LBat.19,p.34: "pcrsonnes capables d'tcrirc )cur nom en grcc (ou disposfcs AJc faire?)", and cp.p.36 note 16: Dryton "boycottt par Jes Grccs"?

28) SchOtes: not in PPt; for details about his priesthoods: Pestman, comm. Several items

of the family archive of this Schote& and his descendants have been preserved: WAngstcdt, Acta Orietttalia 25 (1960) 295-304; Seidl, Pto/.Rechtsgeschichte (2nd cd.1962) 31 note 2; Pestman, P.LBat.14 (1965) 49 note 18.

29) Nechoutes: PPt 5957+add.; Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 95 No.64; Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.34; from a priestly family, see Pestman, P.L.Bat.19, p.2llf.for his genealogy. He is a Persis, like the following witnesses. For the problem connected with a Pcrses who is not a soldier but a priest sec Pestman, comm. and P.LBatZl (1982) 58 note 4.

30) Patous Hcric6s: PPt 6440=7431; Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 96 No.87; from a family of priests, sec the genealogy in Pestman, P.LBat.19,p.210.

3l) Patous Horou: PPt 3532=10901; Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 96 No.96; Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.65. A Iltpa1Jo; Tlilv '1fE,lilv in our text. His demotic signature is found on several other documents from late llnd Century Pathyris (sec Pestman, comm. in addition to PPt). 32) Amm6nios: PPt 2535=2562; Oates, YC/S 18 (1963) 91 No.4; Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.1. In our text and in PCairo 10388 he is called a ml>U11'i Tlilv µ.~o60.ala•fE>.1111 (IlV.alo" and IlV.alai; Bilabel in BS). The other persons present were: Herakleides (known also £rom Oloachim 21,2) Pathrys (only here) the oiko110111os Hermias, the son of Kallias (PPt 443=980= 1039=7352) and Kallias (probably the son of Hermias), a topogrammateus (PPt 588=805 ( = ?806) =7353. The words IlopBllm), added to Hermias's name, and IlopE(3-fJKEI., added to the name 0£ Kallias, have been interpreted by Sottas, Rev.arch. (1921) 24£., as titles.

138

DOC.21= BGU 1002 (Hermoupolis Magna,55 B.C.) Greek translation of an Egyptian sales contract: "So speaks the Greek woman from Hermoupolis Tath6tis, also called Hermione, the daughter of Antiphilos, to MMokos, son of Eudemos, the Arkadian, the military settler and cavalry officer"43). In Egyptian contracts women can act without a guardian, and perhaps that is the reason why in this case an Egyptian contract is preferred to a Greek one. Antiphilos (PPt 2193) is not known from elsewhere, unless he is to be identified with Antiphilos son of Dionysios in SB 599 1.129 (end llnd Cent.B.C.) 44>. It is rather pecuhar that in this tract originally drawn up in Egyptian Medokos is called a Arkadian.

43) L.2/3: At-yE~ -yuiri) T. The name Phatres is rather frequent, which makes identification impossible.

DOC.219=P.dem.Strwb21(Pathyris,145 B.C.) This pa~yrus stems from the Peteharsemtheus archive ( = P.W. Pestman, 'Les archives privees de Pathyris a l'epoque ptolemalgue. La Camille de Peteharsemtheus, fils de Panebkhourus", P.L.Bat.14 (1965) doc.I on J?.58f.). The scribe Areios, son of Hermophilos, alias Pelaias Jumor, son of Phibis and of Senn8sis96), sells a plot of fallow land; the purchaser is Totoes, a Wynn ms n Kmy and son of Pelaias (I) and of Tisas, for himself and for his brother H6ros (II; see Pestman's genealogy on p.57: the numbers 34 and 32). This H6ros is a "misthophoros among the men of Diodotos and inscribed in the encampment of Krokodilopolis". In a number of Greek documents Totoes figures as a Perses tes epigones97). It is good to remember that he is the grandfather of Peteharsemtheus, the protagonist of the archive, who himself is never called a "Greek born in Egypt" in demotic papyri. DOC.219a= P.dem.Lille (edited by B.Menu, CR/PEL 6 (1981) 229-241) + P.dem.Amiens l(a) (edited by D.Devauchelle, Enchoria 14 (1986) 57-61) (probably Memphite or Heracleopolite nome, 136 B.C.) x Sale of a cow by the priest l;lr-wd3 son of Thotortaios and :>pnb-B3stt98) to the Greek (Wynn) Hermogenes son of Hermogenes, a horseman belonging to the squadron of Kallikles99).

DOC219b= P.dem.Amiens l(b) (published by D.Devauchelle, Enchoria 14 (1986) 57-61) (probably Memphite or Heracleopolite nome, 136 B.C.) Another contract for the sale of a cow, filling the other half 94) "P.Cairo 30650 + 30688 + 30800 should be combined into a single document": P.W.Pestman, in: W.Clarysse • G. van der Veken, The eponymous priests of Ptolemaic Egypt. P.L.Bat. 24 (Leyden 1983) ix. 95) P3-~t[r). 96) Areios belongs to tbe family of Horos the son of Nechouth!s; see F.L.Griffith, Introduction to the Adler Papyri (Oxford-London 1939) 4; Pestman, o.c. 47f. note 5; idem, "L'agoranomie: Un avant-poste de l'administration grecque enlev~e par les Egyptiens", in: Das ptol. Agypten (Mainz 1978) 208f. He was to become one of the four members of this family who occupied the post of agoranomos in Patbyris.

97) Cp.P.W.Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.112; Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) No. 163: Persis tis epigonls in PGrenf.11,18 (127 B.C.); PStrasb. 85 (113 B.C.); PLond.880 (113 B.C.). 98) l;lr-w!!J son of Q~wty-y-yr-dy-s and of ~p-nb-B3stt. Restoration of the names partly on the base of P.dem.Amiens 2, edited by D.Devauchelle together with P.dem.Amiens 1.

99) According to B.Menu this Kallikles may be identical with Kallikles PPt 1922a.

153 of the papyrus that also contains DOC.219a and drawn up by the same scribe at the same moment. The persons concerned are the blacksmith Haratres son of Pa-'Imn and of Ta-Hr and his son Pa-ge, equally a blacksmith as sellers 100) and the Greek (Wynn) horseman Ty-? son of Ktesias as purchaser. None of these persons was previously known.

DOCZW=P.dem.Heid.25 (KaJ?lony-Heckel, Heidelberg 1964} (Pathyris, not long before 135 B.C.) A loan contract for an unknown amount of corn. The debtor is a misthophoros of the men of Diodotos, whose name is partly lost, Hr-[ ... ]. The creditor is the "Greek woman Apollllnia (name partly reconstructed), also called Senmllnthis, the daughter of Pamenlls son of Panas"lOl). This woman is equated by the editor with one of the four sisters involved in the deed of reconciliation P.dem.Wiss.Ges.16 (= below, DOC.221, with its Greek counterpartP.Giss.36 = DOC.11). DOC.221=P.dem.Ww.Ges.16 (Pathyris, 135 B.C.). The demotic original of P.Giss.36 = DOC.11 above. DOC222=P.dem..Ryl21(Pathyris,112 B.C.) A contract tor a loan of corn. The debtor is described as Petearsenouphis, the son of Pates and of Senmouthis1 "a Greek born in Egypt among the descendants of soldiers" 02). The creditor is Petesouchos, son of Pasas, a Wynn ms n Kmy; this Petesouchos figures also in PGrenf.11,19 (118 B.C.), where he is called a Pers€s t€s epigon€$103).

DOC.223=P.dem.Strasb.1 = Sethe-Partscb, Bilrgsch. p.708 No.xvi = SB 5116 (Pathyris, 111 B.C.) The "Greek born in Egypt" Psenanouphis, oldest son of Hl>ros and of ija •s-Ubaste, declares that he agrees with the sale by his father Hllros, the son of Thotortaios and of Relu, of a plot of land. This plot, measuring 1 1/4 arourai and situated in the temple area of Hathor, in the plain north of Pathyris, is his 100) ljr·~tr son of Pa·'lmn and of Ta·I;Ir and his son Pa· be. 101) SenmOnthis: TI-lr.t-Mntw PamenOs: Pa-m.nl] Panas: Pa-n3. l02) ffYnn ms n Kmy f!n n3 (!rt.w n3 !rtyts; this phrase has played a major role in the discussion around the epigonl, see Wilcken, APF 6 (1920) 367·9; Heichelheim, Auswlirtige Bevolkerung, 15ff.; Oates, YC/S 18 (1963) 20. For Petearsenouphis (P3·di·ir·~ms-nfr) see P.W.Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.77. The grandfather of Petearsenouphis was a Panebchounis; he had a daughter Tak8bis and was a distant relative of Pelaias the son of Eunous. For these genealogical connections see NJ.Reich, Recuei/ de Travaia 33 (1911) 148; Seidl, Pto/em. Rechtsgeschichte (2nd ed.1962) 30. 103) Pestman,Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.83; Oates, YC/S 18 (1963) No.113.

154 share in the heritage that has come down to him from his father Thotortaios, son of Harpaesis, and apparently ultimately from his greatgrandfather Sminis. The purchaser is Le6n alias Phmois, son of Le6n alias Phentenmout, "a man who receives pay .. . among the people of Haru6tes, and who has been inscribed m ...". Seidl attributes this document to the "archive of Psenanouphis" he reconstructs; P.dem.Ry/.27 ( = DOC.231 below) is said to belong to this archive, too104}.

DOC.224=P.dem.Adler4 (Pathyris, 110 B.C.)

Three persons recognize their debt to H6ros the son of Nechoutes resultm~ from a loan of 30 jars of wine. H6ros (see DOC.225) is called ' a man who receives pay inscribed to the camp of Pathyris". The second and third of the debtors have Egyptian names: Petosiris the son of Pates and Esth6tes the son of rGounsis] 105); the first one is indicated as a Wynn ms n Kmy, but the space for his name has been left blank; "the failure to fill in the missing name in a completed and witnessed document seems strange" (ed.).

l04} Seidl, Pto/em. Rechtsgeschichte, (2nd ed. 1962) 31. According to Seidl this archive contained: -BGU 993 (l'lPi/7 B.C.}: testament of Psenthot& in favour of his daughter; this PsenthOt& is isionomos and has a brother called Psenanouphis -P.dem.Ry/31 (119 B.C.) -P.dem.Ry/.18 (117 B.C.): deed of payment in connection with the sale of a plot of land by Psenanouphis to his daughter; Psenanoupis is here called 'the proclaimer(?) of the shrine(?) of Isis" (i.e. probably isionomos ), and the name of his wife is given as T-~r-t- •mn (Senamounis), a name that occurs also in P.dem. Ry/. 27 ( = DOC.231). His mother's name is here Temekhas (T3-bw-ir-pb=s), which according to S.P. Vleeming can be interpreted as Anonyma. -P.dem.Strasb.1 = DOC.223 -P.dem.Ryl.21 = DOC.231 (108-101 B.C.). The name of Psenanouphis must be ~ in this text, and the identification rests solely on the name of the wife, Senamounis. Seidl is right, I think, in trying to organize the Pathyris material as much as possible into family archives; therefore his identification of Psenanouphis (DOC.223) with the isionomos of P.dem.Ryl.18 (PPt 6913) and with the brother of the isionomos Psenthot8s (BGU 993) may be accepted. But extension of the identification to the 'Greek' of DOC.231 seems to be too hazardous; the wife's name (Senamounis) is not exceptional. I shall treat them here as two distinct persons. Phmois Phentenmoutos: PPt 3997 (Papyrus wrongly indicated as PCairo dem.1)= 10796 = 11099. Seidl calls Phmois Psenanouphis's "Neffe', apparently because there is some talk about the partitioning of a heritage; but Phmois l!m the plot in question. Horos Thotortaiou: PPt 11153 (Haros is here erroneously called a scribe, see Bargsch., p.708); Thotortaios son of Harpa8sis: PPt 10756. Hence we have five generations (Sminis - Harpa&is - Thotortaios - Horos - Psenanouphis), all of them with Egyptian names, and only the last one is called 'Greek born in Egypt'. l05) The name of the third debtor has been restored after P.dem.Adler 7: Esthotes (Nsthe son of Gounsis (Wnl) (PPt 7106), a brother of the Psenanouphis who is a partner in the contract DOC.225. D~wt)

155 DOC.225=P.dem.Adler 5 (Pathyris,108/7 B.C.) Recognition of a debt in connection with a Joan of wheat by a singer of Hathor called Psenanoupis son of Gounsis 106) to the wellknown H6ros the son of Nechoutes, whose archive has been published in the Adler Papyri. This time it is H6ros himself who is called a Wynn ms n Kmy; elsewhere he is a Perses tes epigones 107). DOC.126=P.dem.Adler6 (Pathyris, 107 B.C.) A loan of barley. The debtor is Harmais son of Pelaias, the creditor this time, too, is H6ros son of Nechoutes; both parties Harmais 1s not to the contract are called Wynn ms n Kmy. known from other texts108).

DOC.121=P.dem.Rein.6 = E.Boswinkel - P.W.Pestman, "Les archives privees de Dionysios fils de Kephalas", P.L.Bat.12 No.6 (Amontephnach· this, registered in Tachomtomou, 106 B.C.) Sale of a cow by Kollouthes, the son of Ptolemaios, who is described as a "Greek belonging to the young men of the village of Tachomtomou", to the "son of a mistlwphoros of the village of Tnn-Amontephnachthis" Plenis ( = Dionysios), son of Kephalas. About Kollouthes nothing is known outside this text; we cannot identify him with any of the Greek named soldiers in the Pathyris archives. It may be that the "young men" mentioned in this text are the same as the recruits under Demetrios among whom Dionysios was enrolled shortly afterwards (DOC.228)109). DOC.128=P.dem.Rein.1 = Boswinkel-Pestman, P.L.BatZl No.1 (Hermopolites 106 B.C.) Another contract for the sale of a cow. The seller is a police commander called Psenamounis residing in the village of Mr-nfr; the purchaser is Dionysios again, who in the meantime has entered military service; he 1s now described as a "Greek belon~ing to the men of Demetrios". Demetrios was a master of recruits, and Dionysios as well as his brother were under his command 110).

106) P-lr·'np son of Wol. l07) Genealogy of HOros by E.NAdler in the Introduction to the Adler Papyri, p.4, and in P.W.Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) 47f.note 5; cp. also Pestman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) No.130; Oates, YCIS 18 (1963) 101 No.187 and p.105ff.; PPt 4145 = 11152. For Pers~s t~s epigonis the data have been assembled by Pestman and Oates. Psenanouphis, son of Gounsis (and a brother of EsthOt&, see DOC.224): PPt 1215 = 11834. l08) Harmais son of Pelaias (l;lr·m-~b son of P-mr·'~) does not figure elsewhere in the Adler papyri and the PPt has no entry on his name. 109) Kollouth!s: PPt 2988; Rev.Eg.14 (1912) 44f.; Boswinkcl-Pestman, note b. 110) Psenamounis, the son of Abykis, whose mother is Thermouthas: PPt 2951. For Dcmctrios sec Boswinkcl-Pcstman, note d to the translation and Introduction p.37. Dionysios: Boswinkel-Pcstman, p.56-63 and p.3ff. (analysis of his career); cp. Pcstman, Aegyptus 43 (1963) 51-53 No.1.30; Oates, YC/S 18 (1963) 84; PPt ~ = 2553a = 8141.

156 Dionysios was a Pers& t& epigon& before as well as after his entry into the army111>. DOC.229= U.Kaplony-Heckel, Fo.u..Ber.8 (1967) 73-75 (No.1) (Pathyris, 104 B.C.) Two men take on lease one half of a plot of land. The name of one of them, as well as the name of the owner, are lost, but both lessees are "Greeks born in E,gypt". The second lessee, Psennesis, son of Pelaias and Tat6ous1rzJ; cannot be identified with any person known from Pathyrite documents. DOC.230=P.dem.Strasb.9 (Pathyris, 104 B.C.)

From the Peteharsemtheus archive ( =P.W.Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) doc.37). Senpelaia (No.57 in Pestman's genealogy), the daughter of Panobchounis and of Kobahetesis and so a sister of Peteharsemtheus, leases a plot of land in the area of the Hathor temple to the Wynn ms n Kmy Harsiesis, son of Herieus. This person is not otherwise known113).

DOC.231=P.dem.Ryl21 = Uiddeckens,Ehevertrage. AegnttolAbh.1

(Wiesbaden 1960) No.42 (Pathyris, 108-101 B.C.)'14) In a marriage contract the male partner is a Greek whose name has not been preserved; the female is Senamounis, daughter of Nechoutes and of Senanouphis115),

DOC.232=P.dem.Bod.6 (= P.dem.Heid.162 + 770 + 774) (Pathyris, 100/99 B.C.) A letter of divorce from the Greek born in Egypt (U')lnn ms n Kmy) Pamen6s, son of Nechoutes (his mother: Senth6tis), to

Senm6nthis Junior, the daughter of Kaies and of Senmouthis. The letter has been connected with the papers of the cavalry officer Dryt6n and his family, and Spiegelberg conjectured, plausibly, that Senm6nthis Junior must have been a granddaughter of Dryt6n and Apoll6nia-Senm6nthis (for the last mentioned cp.

lll) P.L.Bat.22 (1982) 56ff., in particular p.60. The receipt P.L.Bat.22 No.JO is the first document to show us in explicit terms the fictional use of this status designation.

112) P3-§r-ht, son of P3-mr·lht and Ta-t3wy. 113) Senpelaia: PPt 11009. Harsi&is: PPt 10676. In view of the names Harsi&is and Herieus this person might be a member of the family the genealogy of which bas been reconstructed by Pestman, P.L.Bat.19, p.210; this would lead us to priestly circles. But it is only a guess. 114) Bresciani, PP 27 (1972) 123 note 4 mentions erroneously P.dem.Ryl.26. ll5) T-lr.t-'mn, daughter of Ne-ntit-f and of T-lr.t-'np. For Seidl's hypothesis see note to DOC.223.

157 DOCS. 219 and 11/221)116). DOC.233 =P.dem.Strasb.43 = Liiddeckens, Ehevertriige No.45 (Pathyris, 99 B.C.) Another document from the Peteharsemtheus archive ( =Pestman, P.L.Bat.14 (1965) doc.51). It is a marriage contract between Pelaias, the son of Pabis and Esoueris - he is a Wynn ms n Kmy - and Nechouthis, a sister of Peteharsemtheus (Nos. 58 and 59 in Pestman's genealogy). The contract contains a detailed inventory of Nechouthis's possessions, which even comprise a house. It is impossible to identify Pelaias, notwithstanding the rarity of his father's name. DOC.234=Rec.de Tmv35 (1913) 87-89117>= P.dem.Wus.Ges.20 (Pathyris, late 2nd Cent.B.C.) The papyrus was found among the documents acquired by Fr.Preisigke at Luxor in 1908 for the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft of Strasburg, most of which concerned the inheritance dispute treated by Gradenwitz and others118). Though P.dem. Wiss.Ges.20 has no connection with this dispute, one cannot exclude the possibility that it concerns the same family. It is in a very fragmentary condition and contains the sale of a mare by three persons, one of whom is a horseman, to a J.fynn ms n Kmy. Only the name of the latter's mother (Suteesis) is legible. DOC.235 = P.dem.Cairv 30785 (Pathyris, Ptolemaic era) In a loan of grain one party is a Wynn ms n Kmy. is not given by Spiegelberg.

His name

DOC.236=P.dem.Cairo 30799 (Pathyris, Ptolemaic era) Badly mutilated fragment of a narration. In line 3 the word Wynn (the Greeks) can be perceived, but the context is beyond repair.

ll6) For the archive of Dryt6n see Seidl, Ptolem. Rechtsguchichte (1962) 29 (with reference lo Spiegelberg). Kaies (Gai), the son of Pamenes, was a misthophoros of Krokodilopolis/Pathyris, according to P.dem.Lond. 10500 (125 B.C.): PPt 3859. l17) W. Spiegelberg, 'Zwei demotiscbe Urkunden aus Gebelen', Recueil de Tn.waux 35 (1913) 82·89.

ll8) Gradenwitz - Preisigke - Spiegelberg, Ein Erbstreit aus dem ptol. Agypten (Strasb.1912); see DOCS.11and221.

158 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY In this bibliography only the most important literature is mentioned. Editions of Greek and demotic papyri have not been included. Throughout the text these are cited by the usual abbreviations (for the Greek papyri see J.Oates - RA.Bagnall - W.H.Willis, Checklist of Editions of Greek Papyri and Ostraca. 2nd ed. BASP Suppl.No.1 (Missoula 1978)). The abbreviations used for periodicals are those of Marouzeau, L 'annee

phi/o/ogique. Barth, F. (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Boston 1969) Bickermann, E., "Beitrage zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. I: Der Heimatsvermerk u11.d die staatsrechtliche Stellung der Hellenen im ptolemfilschen Agypten",APF 8 (1927) 216-239 Bingen, J., "Grecs et Egyptiens d'apres PSI 502", Proc. XI/th Intern. Congr. Pap. (Ann Arbor 1968] (Toronto - Amsterdam 1970) 35-40 Boswinkel, E. and P.W.Pestman, Les archives privees de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas. P.L.Bat. 22 (1982) Braunert, H., Die Binnenwanderung. Studien zur Sozia/geschichte Aegyptens in der Ptolemiier- und Kaiserzeit (Bonn 1964) Braunert, H., "IMA. Studien zur BevO!kerungs~eschichte des ptolemaischen und romischen Aegypten",JJP 9/10 (1956) Cenival, F.de, Cautionnements demotiques du debut de /'epoque ptolemai~ que (Paris 1973) Crawford, D.J., Kerkeosiris. An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge 1971) Delekat, L., Katoche, Hierodulie undAdoptionsfreilassung (Munich 1964) Handelman, D., ''The Organization of Ethnicity", Ethnic Groups 1 (1977) 187-200 Heichelheim. F., Die auswiJrtige Bevo/kerung im Ptolemiiem!ich (Leipzig 1925; repr. Aalen 1963) Hombert, M. and Cl.Prfaux, Recherches sur le recensement dans l'Egypte romaine. P.L.Bat. 5 (1952) Launey, M., Recherches sur /es Annees He/lenistiques (Paris 1949/50) Lesquier, J., Les institutions militaires de /'Egypte sous /es Lagides (Paris 1911)

159 Lewis, N., Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1986) Martin. V., "L'onomastique comme indice des rapports entre indigenes et occupants dans l'Egypte greco-romaine , Akten d. VIII. Int. Kongr. f. Pap. [Vienna 1955) (Vienna 1956) 85-90 (Meleze-) ModrzeJewski, J., "Chrematistes et laocrites", in: J.Bingen G.Camb1er - G.Nachtergael (ed.), Le monde grec: Pensee, litterature, histoire, documents. Hommages aCLPreaux (Brussels 1975) 699-708 Meleze-Modrzejewski, J., "Le statut des Hellenes dans l'Egypte lagide", REG 96 (1983) 241-268 Oates, J.F., ''The Status Designation IIEpCMJ'>, ~ E'ITL'Yovi')c;", YCIS 18 (1963) Peremans, W., Vreemdelingen en Egyptenaren in Vroeg-Ptolemaeisch Egypte (Louvain 1937) l'E~te ptolemalque", in: Recherches sur /es structures sociales dans l'Antiquite classique. Colloques

Peremans, W., "Ethnics et classes dans

nation. du CNRS Sc.hum. (Paris 1970) 213-223

Peremans, W., series of articles inAncSoc 1(1970)25-38; 2 (1971) 33-45; 3 (1972) 67-76; 4 (1973) 59-69; 5 (1974) 127-135; 6 (1975) 61-69; 7 (1976) 167-176; 8 (1977) 175-185; 9 (1978) 85-100; 10 (1979) 139149; 11/12 (1980/1) 213-226; 13/14 (1982/3) 147-159 Peremans, W., "Les revglutions e~tiennes sous Jes Lagides", in: Das ptolemiiische Agypten (Mamz 1978) 39-50 Pestrnan. P.W., "A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris. I: Ilepacn ~ E'ITL'Yovi')c;",Aegyptus 43 (1963) 15-53 Pestman. P.W., "L'agoranomie: une avant-poste de l'admini~tration _gr~cque enlevee par les Egyptiens?", in: Das ptolemaische Agypten (Mainz 1978) 203-210 Pestman, P.W. a.o.,A Guide to the Zenon Archive. P.L.Bat. 21(Leyden1981) Preaux, Cl., "Politique de race ou politique royale?", CE 11(1936)111-138 Preaux, Cl., L'economie royale des Lagides (Brussels 1939) Preaux, Cl., Les Grecs en Egypte d'apres /es archives de zenon (Brussels 1949) Preaux, Cl., LE MONDE HELLENIST/QUE. La Grece et l'orient (323-146 av. J.-C.) (Paris 1978) Remondon, R., "Problemes du bilinguisme dans l'Egypte lagide (UPZ I 148)", CE 39 (1964) 126-146 Rostovtzeff, M.I., A L~e Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B. C. (Madison 1922)

160 Rostovtzeff, M.I., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941) Ruppel, W., "Politeuma",Phi/o/ogus 82 (1927) 268-312; 433-454 Samuel, AE., 'The Greek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy", Proc. X/lth Int. Pap. Congr. [Ann Arbor 1968) (Toronto -Amsterdam 1970) 443-453 Samuel, AE., From Athens to Alexandria. Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt. Stud. hell. 26 (Louvain 1983) 105-117 SchOnbauer, E., "Studien zum Personalitiitsprinzip im antiken Rechte", ZRG 49 (1929) 345-403 Seidl, E., Ptolemilische Rechtsgeschichte (2nd ed.; Hamburg 1962) Shelton, J., "Land Register: Crown Tenants at Kerkeosiris", in: AE.Hanson (ed.), Col/ectaneaPapyro/ogica I (Bonn 1976) 111-151 Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (2nd ed.; Warsaw 1955) Thompson, J.LP., 'The plural society approach to class and ethnic political mobilization", Ethnic and Racial Studies 6 (1983) 127-153 Uebel, F., Die Kleruchen Agyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemaem (Berlin 1968) Vandersleyen, Cl., "Le mot Aaoc; dans la langue des papyrus grecs", CE 48 (1973) 339-349 Wolff, H.J., Das Problem der Konkurrenz von Rechtsordnungen in der Antike (Heidelberg 1979).

161 INDEX OF SOURCES

BGU992 = Wilcken, Chrest.162 BGU993 BGU 1002 ( = DOC.21) BGU 1050-9; lO'JS-1184 BGU1213

131/20 1540 16n, 20, 23, 37 table F, 88, 138 1190 16 23+n, 96, 111-113, 141 15 93n, 105, 123 123 14n, 23+o, 96, 103, 106, 107, 137

BGU 1215 ( = DOC.lO'J) BGU1250 BGU1168 BGU1779 BGU2429 (= DOC.19a) Wilcken, Chrest. 9 see PAmherst 30 Wilcken, Chrest.11 123 Wilcken, Oirest.55 see CPJ 33 Wilcken, Chrest.147 see POxy.251 Wilcken, Chrest.162 see BGU 992 Wilcken, Chrest.258 see PRev.Laws (col.7) Wilcken, Chrest.288 see Ptebt.103 Wilcken, Chrest.385 see UPZ 151 Wilcken, Chrest.448 see PTebt.32 Mitteis, Chrest.18 seePLond.401 Mitteis, Chrest.302 see PGrenf. 1,21 CPJ33 = Wilcken, Chrest.55 ( = DOC.6) :23+n, 96, 100, 101, 104, 129, 130 COrd.Ptol.53 see PTebt.5 CPR IX,1 ( = DOC.2) 22, 23n, 96, 102/3n, 106n, 128 CPR IX,2 ( = DOC.2a) 22, 23n, 96, 102/30, 1060, 128 CPR IX,4 (= DOC.2b) 22, 230, 96, 102/3o, 106n, 128 CPR IX,11 ( = DOC.2c) 22, 230, 96, 102/3n, 106n, 128/9 PAmherst 30 = Wilckeo, Chrest.9 ( = DOC.115) : 22, 230, 96, 112n, 113, 144

PAmherst 40 (= DOC.17) 16n, 20, 22, 23n, 25n, 96, 137 PBQl'Qize 1.9 1430 PBouriant 9 see PGrenf. 1,44 PCairo 10388 1340 PCairo Zen 59080 ( = DOC.102) 22, 230, 38, 96, 107, 112n, 139 PCairo Zen.59133 1390 PCairo Zen.59131 1390 PCairo Zen.59138 139n PCairo Zen.59139 1390 PCairo Zen.59113 1390 PCairo Zen.59116 139n PCairo Zen.59182 1390 PCairo Zen.59285 1390 PCairo Zen.59340 1390 PCairo Zen.59411 ( = DOC.1) 22, 230, 96, 128 PCairo Zen.59421 27 table A, 145 PCairo Zen.59563 ( • DOC.104) 22, 38, 112n, 140 PCairoZen.59590 + PMich.Zen.82 (= DOC.105) : 22, 27tableA, 38, 11211, 124, 140. 145 PCairo Zen.59610 ( = DOC.106) 22, 23n, 38, 96, 107, 112n, 140/1 PCairo Zen.59661 139n PCairo Zen.59690 128n PCoLZen.54 139n

162 PCol.Zen.66 PCol.Zen.14 PCol.Zen.85 PCol.Zen.115 PCome/12 PEntewc.15 • PMogd.31 ( • DOC.4) : PEntewc:n PEntewc.19 ( • DOC.5)

92.n, 126 rl table A, 39, 140n 139n 139n 1390 22, 23n, 96, 1060, 129, 130 139n 22, 24, '36/7 table F, 88, 1070, 112n, 129, 141 PEntewc.86 ( • DOC.108) : 22, 23n, 24, '36 table F, 88, 96, 107, 112n, 141 PFrtib.34 : 1290 PFrtib.36/1 .. SB 6822 ( • DOC.7) : 23+n, 96, 106n, 129, 130 PGiss.36 (• DOC.11) : 20, 22, 240, 31 table D, 58-64, 91,131-133,135,153,1.S6/7 PGiss.31 : 131/2n PGiss.38 : 131n PGiss.108 : 131n PGrtnf. l,15+11+PHeidelb.1280 .. SB 4638 : 31 table Dl31n, 1330 PGrtnf. 1,21 • Mitteis, Chrut3CJ2 : 1330 PGrtnf. 1,23 : 19 PGrtnf. 1,44 + PBouriont 9 • P.LBot. 19 (1978) No.4 ( •DOC.12) 22, 24, 25, 31 table D, 33 Table D, 58, 59, 61n, 63, 64, 65, 66, 87,90,1120, 132, 133-135 PGrtnf. 11,18 17, 31 table D, 133n, 152n PGrtnf. 11,19 32tableD PHol.1 16n, 102+0 PHomb.168 160 PHoun.6 112n, 126 PHeidelb.1280seel'Grtnf.1,15+ 17 PHibeh rl ( • DOC.101) 23+ n, 96, 112n, 139n PHibeh 44 124 PHibeh ( .. DOC.lOla) : 23 + n, 96, 112n, 1280, 139 P/en.inv.263 .. APF 19 (1962) 147-162 .. SB 9681 ( = DOC.114) : 23+o, 96, 112n, 113, 143 Plen.inv.992 • Proc.}{[/th lntem.Congr.Pop. (1970) 494: 105/60 PKiJln 186 ( = DOC.Illa) : 23+n, 96, 109, 112n, 142 P.LBot. 19 (1978) No.4 see PGrtnf. 1,44 PLille 1 1390 l'Lond.401 • Mitteis, Oirtst.18 1350 PLond.880 : 152 PLond.881 ( • DOC.110) : 23, 25n, 37 table F, 88, 1070, 1120,141/2 PLond.1954 ( • DOC.103) 22, 27 table A, 38, 112n, 139/40 PLond.1955 140n PLond.1962 1390 PMogd.31 see PEntewc.15 PMich.Zen.66 139n PMich.Zen.82 see PCairo Zen.59590 PMich.inv.6648 112, 126 POxy.251 = Wilcken, Chrut.147 119n PPetrie lll,S9a 1050 PPetrie III,59b 1040 PPetrie lll,S9c 1050 PPetrie 111,100 (b) 124/5 PRev.Lows (see also Wilcken, Chrut.258) 16, 123, 1390 PRyl.551 : 139n

163 PRyl.589

139n PSI343 140n PSI368 139n PSI371 1400 PSI389 1390 PSI402 123 PSI 488 1060, 130 PSIS02 140n PSI 1160 118 P.grec Sorbonne inv.331 .. CRJPEL 1 (1973) 221-248: 105//60 PStrasb.85 : 18, 1520 PTebt. 5,168ff. ., COrd.Ptol. 53,168ff. ( = DOC.13) : 22, 230, 96, 101, 106, 135 PTebt. 5,W7-220 = COrd.Ptol. 53,W7ff. ( = DOC.14) : 1, 22, 230, 96-100, 107, 112n, 135/6, 144 PTebt.32 • Wilcken, Otrest.448 150

PTebt.49 PTebt.50 PTebt.61 PTebt.62 PTebt.63 PTebt.64 Ptebt.73 PTebt.83 PTebt.84 PTebt.88 PTebt.93 PTebt.94 PTebt.95 PTebt.97 PTebt.98 PTebt.101 PTebt.103 = Wilcken, Olrest.288 PTebt.J:lD ( • DOC.18) PTebt.139

( • DOC.19)

PTebt.163r PTebt.164 ( .. DOC.16) PTebt.189 PTebt.241/248/'1A9 PTebt.101 PTebt.103 PTebt.181 ( = DOC.lU) PTebt.815 PTebt.820 PTebt.879 PTebt.880 PTebt.1103 PTebt.1105 PTebt.1101,279-344 ( = DOC.15) PTebt.1108 PTebt.1110 PTebt.1112 PTebt.1114 PTebt.1115

81n 81n

80n, 840, 1040 34 table E, 71, 800, 830, 840, 1040 800, 82n, 840, 1040 82n, 840, 1040 80n Ul 34 table E, 71, 810, 830 34 table E, 81n, 82n, 830 800 : 76, 80, 82n, l.360 780 810 71, 82n, 840, 1040 800 105/60 22, 230, 85, 96, 103, 106, 121, 125, 137 22, 230, 85, 96, 103, 106, 112n, 121, 125, 137, 144 l.360 160, 20, 22, 35 table E, 70, 85/6, 136 105/60 l.360 123 108, l'lA

22, 23n, 96, lUn, 113, 143 1390 1390 139n 104 74, 15, n, 79, 80, 81 +n, 85 71,80/lo 22, 34/5 table E, 70-87 passim, 91, 104, 125, 136 34 table E, 840, 1040 800, 820, 840, 1040 73, 78, 80n, 840 800, 82n 80n, 840, 1040

164 PTebt.1117 PTebt.1118 PTebt.1119 PTebt.1120 PTebt.1122 PTebt.1128 PTebt.1129 PTebt.1130 PTebt.1133 PTebt.1138 PTebt.1139 PTebt.1140 PTebt.1144 PTebt.1147 PTebt. II Ostr.5 P.(gr.)Wrss.Ges.m = SB 4512 PYa/e 46 ( = DOC.107)

80/ln,82n 81n,84n 80n,82n 84+n 81n 73, 76, 78, 80/ln, 80n 75, 76,80,81n 73, 76, 78,80/ln 73, 75, n, 79,80/ln 34 table E, 35 table E, 74, 75, n, 80, 81n, 82, 83n, 85 80n 73, 75, n, 1s, 80/ln 84n, 104n 102/3n 131/2n 23, 24, 36/7 table F, 88, 107n, 112n, 135n, 141

SB 4512 see P.(gr.)Wrss.Ges.2n SB 4638 see PGrenf. 1,15+17 SB 5104 see P.dem.Ry/.15 SB 5116 see P.dem.Strasb.7 SB 6034 see Oloachim 8

SB6285 SB6801 SB 6822 see PFreib.36/1 SB 7179 SB 9681 see P/en.inv.263 UPZ 2 ( = DOC.113) UPZ4 UPZ5 UPZ6 UPZ 7 ( = DOC.8) UPZ 8 ( = DOC.9) UPZ9 UPZ12 UPZ13 UPZ14 UPZ 15 ( = DOC.10) UPZ18 UPZ19 UPZ20 UPZ23 UPZ25 UPZ43 UPZ45 UPZ78 UPZ80 UPZ81 UPZ89

124 123

123 22, 24, 29 table C, 42, 43, 44, 46,49,51,57,112n, 143, 151n 53n 29 table B, 43n, 47, 54, 57, 131n 29 table C, 43n, 44n, 47, 54, 57, 131n 22, 24, 29 table C, 42-57 passim, 107n, 114, 115,130, 143, 151n 22, 24, 29/30 table C, 42, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 57, 107n, 114, 115, 130,143, 151n 48n,53n 54/5,57 54/5,57 48, 57, 131 22, 24, 29 table C, 42, 46, 47, 51, 54, 57, 107n, 114/5, 131, 143, 151n 44n,47n,50n,51n,57 44n, 47n, 50n, 51n, 57 44n, 47n, 51n, 57 51n 51n 51n 51n 44n 46 46,49n 44n

165 UPZ92 UPZ93 UPZ94

UPZ97 UPZ 98 UPZ 110 UPZ 119 UPZ 130 UPZ131 UPZ148 UPZ 157

44n 44n 44n 46n 44n, 47n 121, 123, 124 29/'30 table C, 47, SS, S1 46n 46n 66n • Wilcken, Chrest38S ( • DOC.3) : 23 + n, 96, 101, 103, 106,

107, 129

Oloachim 8 • SB Ci034 ( • DOC.1.0) : 23, 37 table F, 67, 88, 137 Oloachim 21 : 137n APF 19 (1962) 147-162 see P/enJ.nv.U,3 Archive of Hor (1976) 1-6 see/EA 54 (1968) 199-208 CR/PEL 1 (1973) 221-248 see P.(gr.)Soroonne inv.331 Giuh and Rifeh. BSAE 13 ch.xi 88El : 10S/6n /EA 54 (1968) 199-208 =Archive of Hor (1976) 1-6 ( = DOC.111b) : 22, 23n, 54n, 96, 112n, 113, 11fJ, 142 Proc.Xllth Intun.Congr.Pap. (1970) 494 see Plen.inv.992

P.dem.Adler 2 P.dem.Adler 4 ( • DOC.224) P.dem.Adler S ( • DOC.225) P.dem.Adler 6 ( = DOC.226)

63n 18, 22, 24n, 32 table D, 58, 60, 61n, 62n, 63n, 64, 89, 154, lSSn 18, 22, 32 table D, 58, 61n, 62n, 64, 89, 154, lSS 22, 25, 32 table D, 58, 61n, 64, 89, 99n, lSS 63n 63n 63n 63n 32table D 32 table D 32tableD

P.dem.Ad/er 7 P.dem.Adler 15 P.dun.Adler 16 P.dun.Adler 18 P.dem.Adler 20 P.dem.Ad/er 22 P.dem.Adler 25 P.dem.Amiens 1(a) see P.dem.Li/le P.dem.Amiens l(b) = Enchoria 14 (1986) S7ff. ( = DOC.219b) : 22, 36 table F, 88, 152/3 P.dem.Amiens 2 152n P.dem.Bad.6 ( = DOC.232) 22, 31 table D, 32 table D, 58, 62n, 133, ill, 156/7 P.dem.Berl.3104 11fJ P.dem.Berl.310S 11fJ P.dun.Berl.3111+3141 = Grunert, Thebanische Kaufvertrllgt (= DOC.215) : 23, 36 table F, 150 P.dem.Bibl.Nat.215 (= DOC.214) : 23+n, 96, 108, 11fJ, 149/SO P.dem.Bologna 3173 = Tesn demonci I (1941) No.2 = Egitto e vicino oriente 1 (1978) 9Sff. ( = DOC.217): 22, 24, 29/30 table C, 42-46, Sl,

166 151 P.dem.Cairo 30650+30688+30800 {= DOC.218)22, 31 table D, 58, 152 P.dem.Cairo 30652 63n P.dem.Cairo 30663 19n P.dem.Cairo 30785 ( = DOC.235) 22, 32 table D, 58, 157 P.dem.Cairo 30799 ( .. DOC.236) 22, 23n, 96, 157 P.dem.Hauswaldl 6 19 P.dem.Hauswaldt 15 19 P.dem.Hauswa/dt 18 = Bilrgschaftsurlcunden No.12 ( =DOC.213) 23, 36 table F, 88, 149 P.dem.Heide/b.25 ( = DOC.220) 22, 24n, 31 table D, 32 table D, 58, 59, 61n, 133, 153 P.dem.Lil/e 1 ( = DOC.206) 19, 22, 28 table B, 40 P.dem.Lille 2 ( = DOC.207) 20, 22, 28 table B, 40, 146 P.dem.Lille 4 28 table B, 40, 146n P.dem.Lille 35 18, 40n, 148 P.dem.Lille 43 18, 40n, 148n P.dem.Lille 69 ( = DOC.212) 22, 28 table B, 40, 148 P.dem.Li/le 81 ( = DOC.208) 22, 28 table B, 40, 146/7 P.dem.Li//e 89 147n P.dem.Lille 95 ( = DOC.209) 22, 28 table B, 40, 209, 147 P.dem.Lille 99 ( = DOC.210) 22, 23n, 40, 96, 102, 104, 106, 147 P.dem.Lille 100 ( = DOC.210a) 22, 23n, 40, 96, 102, 147/8 P.dem.Lille 101 103, 105n, 124 P.dem.Lil/e 103 ( = DOC.212a) 23, 36 table F, 88, 149 P.dem.Li//e + P.demAmiens l(a) (= CRIPEL 6 (1981) 229£. + Enchoria 14 (1986) 57ff. ( = DOC.219a): 22, 36 table F, 88, 152 P.dem.Loeb 15 ( = DOC.202) 23, 145 P.dem.Lond. 10500 157n P.dem.Louvre ined. : 135n P.dem.Louvre E 3266 ( = DOC.214a) : 23+n, 88, 96, 106n, 126, 150 P.dem.Rein.6 = P.LBat. 22 (1982) No.6 ( = DOC.227): 22, 36 table F, 88,89,155 P.dem.Rein.7 • P.LBat. 22 (1982) No.7 (= DOC.228): 22, 36 table F, 88, 89, 155/6 P.dem.Ryl.15 + SB 5104 ( = DOC.216) : 22, 31 table D, 58, 62n, 63, 64, 150/1 P.dem.Ryl.16 19 32 table D, 154n P.dem.Ryl.18 P.dem.Ry/.21 ( = DOC.222) 22, 25, 32 table D, 58, 61n, 63, 64n, 99n, 153 P.dem.Ry/.23 19 P.dem.Ryl.26 19 P.dem.Ryl.27 = Ehevertrllge No.42 ( = DOC.231) : 22, 32 table D, 58,62n,154n, 156 P.dem.Ryl.28 : 32 table D P.dem.Ry/.31 : 154n P.dem.Strasb.7 = SB 5116 ( = DOC.223) : 22, 32 table D, 58, 61n, 62n,63,64, 153/4,156n P.dem.Strasb.9 ( = DOC.230) 22, 32 table D, 58, 59, 62n, 63, 156 P.dem.Strasb.21 ( = DOC.210) 17, 22, 31 table D, 58, 61n, 62n, 63,64n,65, 152, 156/7 P.dem.Strasb.43 = Ehevertrdge No.45 ( = DOC.233) : 22, 33 table D, 58, 62n, 63, 157 P.dem.Wiss.Ges.16 (= DOC.221) 20, 22, 24n, 31 table D, 58-64 passim, 91,131,135,153,156/7 P.dem. Wiss.Ges.18 131/2n

167 P.dem.Wiss.Ges.19 : 131n P.dem.Wiss.Ge.r.20 (= DOC.234) : 22, 33 table D, SS, 63, 157 P.dem.Zen.1 = PSI 1001 ( • DOC.203) : 22, 27 table A, 38, 40, 140n, 145 22, 27 table A, 38, 40, 145 P.dem.Zen.6 ( = DOC.204) 22, 27 table A, 38, 40, 145 P.dem.Zen.12 ( .. DOC.205) 43n, 44, 49, 57 UPZ6a Potter's Oracle 114, 126 Bargschaftsurlamden No.9 131/2n Bargschaftsurkunden No.12 see P.dem.Hauswaldt 18 CR/PEL 6 (1981) 229(. see P.demLille Egitto e vicino oriente 1 {1978) 95ff. see P.dem.Bologna 3173 Ehevertr4ge No.18 see Recueil de tatts dhnotique.r et bilingue.r (1977) No.7 Ehevertritge No.42 see P.dem.Ryl.27 Ehevertritge No.45 seeP.dem.Stra.rb.43 Enchoria 14 (1986) 57ff. see P.dem.Lille and P.dem.Amiens l{b) Fo.u.Ber. 8 {1967) 73-75 ( • DOC.229) : 22, 32 table D, S8, 59,

99n,156

GRAMMATA DEMOTIKA (Ritner) 171-187 : 132n /Glufvettr/Jge see P.dem.Berl.3111+3141 P.L.Bat. 22 {1982) No.6 see P.dem.Rein.6 P.LBat. 22 {1982) No.7 see P.dem.Rein.7 Recueil de texte.r dlmotique.r et bilingue.r No.7 = Ehevertritge No.18 ( • DOC.211):23, 36 table F, 88, 148 Serapi.r 6 (1980) (1984) 241-3 ( • DOC.201): 23, 36 table F, 40, 88, 145 Tempeleide No.18 : 33 table D Te.rti demotici I (1941) No.2 see P.dem.Bologna 3173

~.Qt!!li documents

OGIS 56 = SB 88S8 OGIS 90 ., SB 8299 OGIS 90, 1.17 OGIS 90, 1.19 OGIS 90, 139 ( = DOC.111) OG/S102 OG/S731 SB 8299 see OGIS 90 SB 88S8 see OGIS 56

139n 111 104n 108, 121/2, 124 23+n, 96, 111, 112n, 142 123 121

D;Uterarv~

Diod.Sic.

1,28 1,94,4 1,73,7-74,1 XIX,80,4 XXXI fr.15a

XXXI Cr.17b Aavius Josephus, c.Ap.Il,69C. Herodotus 11,141 11,164

124 104 124 121 110 110, 113, 143 : 113, 118 39n,121 39n, 121

168 IX,32 Livius XXXVIll,17,11 Pausanias III,6,5 Philo Judaeus, Fl. 17 78

80 Leg.

166

205 Polybius

V,65 V,79,2

V,82ff. V,107,1-3 XIV,12,4 XXIl,16/7 XXVIl,9,7-13 XXXI,18,6 XXXIV,14

39n, 121 4n, 94n, 110, 118 121 113 118 118 118 118 109, 121/2 122 109, 122 109-111. 121/2

llOn llOn 109n 109n 109, llOn, 113

169 INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES (References are to pages including the notes; 63n means: note to page 63 only) Addaios Akousilaos son of ApoUOnios AmenOth& son of HOros AmmOnia alias Senminis AmmOnios alias Harpa&is AmmOnios alias Pakoibis AmmOnios alias Teephibis AmmOnios Androbios Andronikos son of Androstyts Anosis Antiphilos ApollodOros ApoUOnia alias SenmOnthis ApollOnia alias Senmouthis ApollOnios alias Nechthyris ApollOnios son of Glaukias ApoUOnios (oikononws) ApollOnios ApoUOnis son of Diokl& Areios son of Hennophilos Areios Aromgous ArtemidOros AsklSpiad& son of DSmetrios Asklepiad& Axap&

107, 139 84 150

24n, 31 table D, 61, 69, 132, 133n 31 table D, 63, 150 31 table D, 61n, 63-68, 134n 36 table F, 150 see Petesouchos 24, 36 table F, 88, 141 36 table F, 149 TT table A, 38, 140 138, 141 24, 36 table F, 107, 141 24n, 31/32 table D, 58, S9, 60, 61n, 62n, 63, 67, 69, 132, 133n, 13S, 153, 156 69 67,69,131 29 table C, 43, 44, 4S, 46, 48, 49, S2, 54, SS, S1, 131. 151 147,148 27 table A, 139 74,80n 31 table D, 62n, 68, 152 2Sn, 137 62n 40, 146

125

see Mench& 140

Baton son of Demetrios

12S

Chairophan& ChelOys son of Sisouchos Chypsis son of Petesouchos

28 table B, 148 3S table E, 73, 74 3S table E, 73, 74, Tl

Damis Demetrios son of Herakleid& Demetrios Diodotos Dionysios son of ApollOnios Dionysios son of Kephalas Diphilos Dryton son of Pamphilos

139 74,80n

EpiodOros EsthOtes son of Gounsis Euripides the tragedian

15S

63 27 table A, 38, 14S lSn, 36 table F, 6S, 66n, 88, 89, 15S 46,49,130 31/32 table D, 63, 6S, 67, 69, 132, 133,134,13S,1S6 2Sn, 137 62n, 64, 68, 1S4 49

170 Glaukias Gounsis

48,57 62n, 64, 68

Harapathos Haratrfs son or Pa-'lmn Harbechis SOD or Ergcus Harchfbis Harembasnis Harmachoros SOD or Thotortaios Harmais son or Pclaias Harmais son or Tees Harmais

62n 152 77 29 table C, 46, 57, 130 30 table C, 47, 55, 57 : 34 table E, 73, 74 32 table D, 155 145/6n 29 table C, 43, 44, 46, 49-51, 55, 57, 130, 143 34 table E, 73, 74, 83 74,83 34 table E, 73, 74, 82 74, 80n,85 76, 77 34 table E, 71, 73, 74, 83 19,20

Harmiysis SOD or Harmiysis Harmiysis son or Pctcsouchos Harmiysis son or Pctosiris Harmiysis SOD or Pctoys Harphafsis son or PctechOns Harphafsis son or Pctosiris Harp(h)afsis Harp(h)aesis Harphaesis Harsiesis SOD or Hcricus Hfrais alias Tisris Hfraklcia alias Scnapythis Hfraklcides Heraklcides Herakles SOD or Pctalos Hcrathrfs son or Horos Hcrmias SOD or Kallias Hermione Hcrmogcn& son or Hcrmogcn& : Hcrmokrates alias Panas Hermophilos alias Phibis Hipponikos Horos (mikros) son or Kenteisis Horos (megas) son or Kcntcisis Horos son of Ncchoutes H6ros son of Ncoptolcmos Horos SOD or Orses H6ros son of Pelaias H6ros or Scbcnnytos H6ros son of Thotortaios Hr-wd3 son of Thotortaios Hr-[ ...)

46 sec Ammonios 32 table D, 64, 156 62n, 69, 132, 133n 62n, 69, 132, 133n 137n 36 table F, 129 74, 76, 77,80n,85 74, 76, 77,81n 137n sec TathOtis 36 table F, 88, 152 64, 69, 133 62n,68 129 : 35 table E, 73, 74, 78n : 74, 78n, 81n 18, 32 table D, 58, 60, 61n, 62, 63, 64n, 66, 67, 68, 89, 154, 155 74,80n 74, 76, 77,81n 63, 68, 152 142 62n,153, 154n 152 153

las6n llos son of Horos lmouth& Imouth& (royal scribe) Iollas

92n

Kaies Kalibis daughter of Harapath& Kallias (topogrammateus) Kames SOD or Harpha&is Kedja SOD or Kedja

62n,69 : 62n, 151 137n 77 28 table B, 40, 91, 147

74, 76,80n 29 table C, 47, 57 148 107, 139

171 Keltous son of Petosiris Kentis son of HOros Kobahetesis Kollouth& son of Ptolemaios Kondylos KritOn son of ApollOnios

148 74, 76, 77, 81.n 68 36 table F, 88, 89, 155 144 36 table F, 149

LeOn alias Phentenmout LeOn alias Phmois

62n 62n, 63, 153, 154n

Marlin Marr& son of Marr& Marr& son of Sentheus Medokos son of Eudemos Melas son of Apollonios Menander the comedian Mench& alias Asklepiad&

128 74, 77,81n 34 table E, 73, 74 138 36 table F, 88, 148 49 35 table E, 78, 79, 81.n, 85/6, 135, 136 130 29 table C, 47, 48, 57, 130

Menedemos Mys Nanakhtes son of Hor Nechout(h)& son ofThotortaios: Nechout(h)es son of Thras6n Nechout(h)& Nechout(h)& Nechouthis daughter of Panobchounis Nechtbyris Nephorys

18 33 table D, 64, 134 62n, 64, 69, 131, 133 62n,68 62n

Niklin son of Amenneus Nineis son of Pha&is Noumenios

: 33 table D, 62n, 63, 68, 157 see Apolllinios 29 table C, 44, 47, 48, 50n, 55, 57, 143 74, 76, 77, 81.n 77 77

Onnliphris son of Hliros Onnliphris son of Petearpsen&is Onnliphris son of PetechOns Ors& son of Ors&

74, 76, 77, 81.n :77 74,81n 34 table E, 71, 73, 74, 83

Pachrat& Padiousir son of Pensi Pa-he son of Haratres Pais son of Hr-w Pakoibis Pakusis son of Pelaias Pamen6s son of Nechout& Pamen6s Panas Panereus son of Gounsis Panobchounis son of Toto&

47,57 18 152 145/6n see Ammlinios 146 32 table D, 69, 156 see Ptolemaios see Hennokrat& 64,68 62n, 63, 65, 68 27 table A, 38, 140, (145) 145/6n 74, 77,81n 145 62n 137n 33 table D, 64, 134 33 table D, 64, 134

Paris

Pasemtheus son of M3y(?)-p3Pasis son of Petesouchos Pasis Pat& Pathrys Patous son of Erieus Patous son of Hliros

172 Patous Pechysis son of Komlln Pelaias son of Pabis Pelaias "the Hellene• Pelaias the strat8gos Pclaias Petearpisis Petearsenouphis son of Pates Pctechllnsis son of Imouth& Peteharsemtheus son of Panobchounis PctenephOtes Petenoupis son of Petosiris Pctermouthis son of Siephmous Pctcs son of Petesis Petcsis (Harsiesis) Petesouchos alias Ammllnios Pctesouchos son of Orsenouphis Petcsouchos son of Pemsais Petesouchos son of Pasas Petesouchos son of Sarapion Petesouchos son of Sot8rid& Petosiris SOD of Pat& Petosiris (royal scribe) Petosiris, a Mdy ms n Kmy Pha&is SOD of Pha&is Phagllnis Phatrcs Phcntenmout Phibis Philippos Philoxenos Phmersis son of Sarapilln Phmois Phramcnis son of Petosiris Pnephcrlls son of Horos Poregcbthis son of Apynchis Poseidippos the epigrammatist Psenamounis son of Abykis Psenanouphis son of Gounsis Psenanouphis son of Horos Psenn&is son of Pelaias Pscn( n )!sis son of Thllnis Psenobastis PscnthOt& Psosnaus Ptolcmaios alias Pamenlls Ptolcmaios son of Glaukias Ptolcmaios son of Scnthcus Ptollis

see Thrason 76 33 tablc D, 68, 157 37 tablc F, 137 137 62n,68 30 table C, 46, 48, 151 32 table D, 61n, 63, 153 147 : 31 table D, 33 table D, 65, 67, 68, 152, 156, 157 145 34 table E, 73, 74, 11 35 table E, 73, 74 240, 141 145 35 table E, 85/6, 136 35 table E, 73, 74, 15, 76, 83 145/60 32 table D, 61n, 640, 153 74,810 35 table E, 73, 74, 82, 136 620, 154

140 148 74,80n 68 31 table D, 151 see Lella sec Hcrmophilos

son

28 table B, 40, 146 35 table E, 73, 74, 77, 780, 82, 136 see Leon 35 table E, 73, 74, 83, 136 35 table E, 73, 74 34 table E, 71, 73, 74, 83-5, 125 49 155 62n,64,68, 1540, 155 32 table D, 610, 64, 153, 1540 32 table D, 156 74,81n 37 tablc F, U9 154 29 table C, 46 620, 63, 69, 133 24, 29 table C, 42-51 passim, 88, 920, 108, 114, 117, 130, 131, 143, 151 76 70n, 11

Rcnpnofre daughter of Hllros Rhodon son of Kallias

149 20, 28 table B, 146

Sarpokrat& son of Onnllphris Sehotcs SOD of Phimcnis Senamounis daughter of Neehout&

36 table F, 145 33 table D, 64, 134

: 62n, 156

173 Senamounis 154n Senapythis see Hfraklcia Scnminis sec Ammt>nia : 31 table D, 62n, 69, 156 Scnmt>nthis junior daughter of Kai& Scnmantbis sec Apollt>nia Scnmouthis sec Apollt>nia Sen(a)nouphis daughter of Hcnnophilos : 64, 68 : 62n, 69, 131, 132n, 133 Scnnoupbis daughter ofThrast>n : 148 Scnobastis daughter of Ptolemaios : 62n, 63, 68, 156 Scnpclaia daughter of Panobchounis 62n, 64, 151 Siepmous son of Aromgous Sminis 153, 154n Sokmfnis son of Ors& 35 table E, 73, 74 Stotoetis 30 table C, 46 Tamen& daughter of Hennokrat& Taous, one of the Twins Tathfmis Tathatis alias Hennione Tathatis Teeb&is' sons Teephibis Temekhas Te& son of Haros Te& son of Pa-yt

Te&

:64,69 43-47,50,51,55,57,151 29 table C, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 55, 143 37 table F, 138 68

54/5,57

see Ammt>nios 154n 35 table E, 73, 74 145/6n 145 113, 144 25n, 107, 141 :68 43-47, 50, 51, 55, 57, 151 144 140 74,SOn 74,SOn 34 table E, 73, 74, 82, 136

Tesenoupbis Tetosiris Thaibis daughter of Hennophilos Thau&, one of the Twins Themb& Themistokl& Tht>nis megas Thanis mikros Thoteus son of Diodt>ros Thoteus son of Pholemis Thotortaios son of Harpa&is Thotortaios Thotortais Thrastin alias Patous Tisris Toto& son of Pelaias Tot(h)o& Ty- son of Kt&ias

153, 154n 62n 44n, 45n 62n,69 see Hfrais 17, 31 table D, 61.n, 63, 64n, 65, 68, 152 U4 36 table F, 88, 152

Unodaros son of Kedja Zenon

27 table A, 39, 92n, 107, 139, 140,

77

40,147 145

(... )-H pi SOD of P3-srpy (... )-Sbk son of Nechtht>t& (... ) son of Pbekis

145/60 146 145/6n

174 INDEX OF SUBJECTS agoranomos Aigyptios/-oi autourgoi

31 table D, 65f., 133, 134n 16, 23, 24, 25, 109-114, 126 and passim 124 Arab 92n baroaros 92n Bedouins 102 bilingualism 92/3 Bihm (Blemmyan) 19,20 census documents JOOff. cMra (a the Egyptian countryside) : 93, 94, 109, 110, 118 chrtmatistai 96-100, 136 cleruchs, cleruchy 5, 102 epigonl 48, 63 and see Penis tis epigonls

ethnicity theory Ethnika

8- 13

2, 14, 15, 17, 18 116n ethnos 104 ge"rgos autos 71 ge"coi basilikl.s gls : 78 Grliko-Aegypter 117, 118 gymnasium 123 Heimatsvermerlc 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 16 Hellln(es) 16, 20, 23, 25, 101, 103, 123, 126, 129, 134, 135, 137, 138 and passim Hel/In ench,,rios 86, 136 70 = 87 passim He/lines ge"rgoi Helllnion : 106n helllnizein 92n Herlcunftsuichen 2, 14, 18 idia 15 lgJ (=Ethiopian) 19 1S1onomos 64, (102) katochos/-oi and katochl : 29 table C, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 90, 143 kat'oikian apographl : 103 katoikoi/ katoikia 85, 93, 103, !05, 123 k"mogrammateus/eis : 78, 102, 135, 147 !Wrlnaia : 31 table D laarchy : 84, 121 language as criterium for ethnicity 46; 52; 66f;, 92f., 99ff., 117 laos 84, 105, 121-125 laographia l 4n, 119 laokritai 96-100, 136 "ethno-classe"

6 38, 39, 77, 80n, 83, 84, 85, 93, 103, 104, 108111, 121-125, 137, 140 Mdy ms n Kmy, Mty Kmy (Medes born in Egypt) : 18, 19, 20, 102, 146

lufori machimos/-oi

148 Mhbr ( = Megabarians): 19 migades 118 misthophoroi 63,89,133,150,152,153,(154),155 monographoi 18 Nhs (=Nubian) 19, 102 nomenclaturt 1, 7, 61-63, 82/3, 95 patris 14, 15, 16 pericMmata 70, 79n Penaigyptios 19n

175 : 17-20, 2.6, 134n, 152, 155 : 3, 6 109n, 122 115n 3n, 15n prophlth 34 table E, 83, 105 reports lcat'andra kai kata phyllon 79 reports kat'andra stephanou :78 rmt-ih : 102 Rm-Pr-~iq (•Ethiopian from Pbilae) : 19 rmt Kmy : 12.6, 151 ~ OOE b Apcn.VOEl!r'J(Ell1JV!o; 14n Saki ans 102 skepl 105 stathmos 5, 103, 141, 142 strateuomenoi Helllnu : 101, 13S strati~ai 123 tarochl (t&i Algyptibn) : S2, S1, 110-115, 121, 143, 144 Jf11nn 20, 21, 23, 2S, 40, .58-67 passim, 89, 91, 12.6, 145-157 passim Jf1lnn ms n Kmy 16-21, 2S, 40, .58-67 passim, 86, 92, 101, 117, 126, 145-157 passim xenoi 3 Penh (th epigonh)

PmonalittJtsprinzip phalangitai pogrom politeuma