Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt 9781107037137, 1107037131

Table of contents :
Cover
Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt
Title
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
1 Introduction: The Place of Police
Why this Book?
Ancient Policing: An Incomplete Picture
Ptolemaic Egypt: Completing the Puzzle?
The Evidence: Time, Space, Languages, Limitations
What Not to Expect
Outline
2 The Officer Corps I: The Phylakitai
The Phylakitai
The Phylakitai Proper
Archiphylakitai
Epistatai Phylakitōn
Other Phylakitai
Conclusions
3 The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military Police
Civil Police
Epistatai
Stratēgoi
Kōmarchai, Toparchai, and Nomarchai
Grammateis
Financial Officials
Military Police
Phrourarchoi
Phylakes
Other Officials
Conclusions
4 Agents of Appeal: Petitions and Responses
Why?
How?
Who?
Where?
What?
Conclusions
5 Busting and Booking: Arrest, Investigation, Detention, Resolution
Arrest
Detention
Investigation
Resolution
Conclusions
6 The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and Muscle
Border Security
Agricultural Protection
Coercion
Conclusions
7 Conclusion
Glossary
Works Cited
Index of Greek and Demotic Sources
Index of Documents Translated
Select Index of Greek Terms
General Index

Citation preview

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt This book examines the activities of a broad array of police officers in Ptolemaic Egypt (323–30 b.c.) and argues that Ptolemaic police officials enjoyed great autonomy, providing assistance to even the lowest levels of society when crimes were committed. Throughout the nearly three hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, victims of crime in all areas of the Egyptian ­countryside called on local police officials to investigate crimes; arrest, question, and sometimes even imprison wrongdoers; and hold trials. Drawing on a large body of textual evidence for the cultural, social, and economic interactions between state and citizen, John Bauschatz demonstrates that the police system was efficient, effective, and largely independent of central government controls. No other law enforcement organization exhibiting such a degree of autonomy and flexibility appears in extant evidence from the rest of the Greco-­Roman world. John Bauschatz is Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on Greek and Roman social history, Greek papyrology, Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, and crime in antiquity. He has been named a National Lecturer for the Archaeological Institute of America (2013–14) and has published in such journals as the Classical Bulletin, the Classical Journal, Syllecta Classica, and Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt John Bauschatz University of Arizona

32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107037137 © John Bauschatz 2013 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2013 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data Bauschatz, John, 1975– Law and enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt / John Bauschatz. p.  cm. Originally presented as the author’s thesis (doctoral) – Duke University, 2005, under the title Policing the cho﻾ra : law enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-­1-­107-­03713-­7 (hardback) 1.  Law enforcement – Egypt – History.  2.  Police – Egypt – History. 3.  Ptolemaic dynasty, 305–30 b.c.  4.  Egypt – History – 332–30 b.c.  I.  Title. HV8269.A2B38  2013 932.021–dc23    2013001219 ISBN 978-­1-­107-­03713-­7 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-­party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

­Contents

Preface Abbreviations 1 Introduction: The Place of Police

page vii xi 1

2 The Officer Corps I: The Phylakitai

49

3 The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

99

4 Agents of Appeal: Petitions and Responses

160

5 Busting and Booking: Arrest, Investigation, Detention, Resolution

218

6 The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and Muscle

281

7 Conclusion

328

Glossary Works Cited Index of Greek and Demotic Sources Index of Documents Translated Select Index of Greek Terms General Index

335 353 383 397 399 405

v

­Preface

The seeds of the project that ultimately became this book were planted a decade ago in (what was once) the Papyrology Room of Perkins Library at Duke University. I spent a lot of time there while a Ph.D. student in classics (1999–2005) and was very lucky to have two excellent mentors: John Oates, to whom I owe great thanks for my training in papyrology, and Joshua Sosin, with whom, in the summer of 2002, I first started to explore the topic of police in Ptolemaic Egypt as a possible dissertation topic. Both subsequently served (with distinction) as members of my dissertation committee, which Sosin headed. I will never be able to thank them enough for their long hours of hard work on what only very gradually turned into a viable Ph.D. thesis, but hopefully pride of place in this preface will help to make up some of the deficit. Their fellow committee members, Tolly Boatwright, Diskin Clay, and Kent Rigsby, also have my sincerest thanks for their time, effort, and (frankly) frankness. What Ph.D. student imagines, flush with the success of the dissertation defense, that it will take him or her eight more years to ultimately see the project through to publication? Well, life happens, and those years fly by, peaks and valleys opening up along the way. In that intervening period a number of people provided invaluable assistance to me as I navigated the treacherous path to publication, a path that more often than not was filled with potholes. I had the great fortune of landing my first real job in classics at Swarthmore College. The two years I spent there, though challenging, were wonderful. I got a crash course in how to be an ideal colleague from Deborah Beck, Grace Ledbetter, Rosaria Munson, and William Turpin. The skills I developed vii

viii

­Prefac

as a visiting assistant professor in that department continue to serve me well to this day. Though it is hard for me to fathom it, I have been at the University of Arizona for the past six years now. The UA is a decidedly different kind of place from Swarthmore, and the challenges I have faced here have likewise been of a different sort. What has not changed is the steady support of friends and colleagues. My senior colleagues, on the one hand – Alison Futrell, Eleni Hasaki, Steve Johnstone, Marilyn Skinner, Bella Vivante, and Mary Voyatzis – have been tremendous assets to me since my first day at the UA. Their suggestions for improvements to my manuscript, as well as advice on navigating the book submission process (and life at a large state university), were extremely helpful. On the other hand, my junior colleagues Jennifer Kendall and Mike Lippman (as well as former junior colleagues Karen Acton, Stacey McGowen, Gil Renberg, and Chris van den Berg), though always happy to lend an ear, have perhaps aided me even more by encouraging me to drink a beer now and then. Business Manager Kelly Moyes and the rest of the SILLC staff regularly made short work of even my most complicated departmental research fund questions while simultaneously making (good-­natured) fun of me. The bright smiles and quick wit of the classics front-desk staff made coming to work in the Learning Services Building a joy. When things were at their darkest, David Christenson and Cynthia White were always there. Outside of the UA, I have derived great benefit from the comments and suggestions of colleagues at American Philological Association paper sessions and lectures that I have given on Ptolemaic Egypt at colleges and universities across the United States and Canada. Many of these eventually worked their way into this book. The two anonymous readers drafted by Cambridge University Press to slog through my manuscript made me think more broadly about my topic than I ever had before, and though I did not end up transforming the final product entirely along the lines they suggested, I like to think I did the best I could. I am extremely grateful to Beatrice Rehl, my editor at Cambridge, for her guidance, not to mention her willingness to be very generous with the maximum word count for this book, and to Brian MacDonald, my production editor, for his uniformly excellent mentoring during the long journey from manuscript to printed book. Katherine

­Prefac

ix

Davis at Johns Hopkins deserves an honorary plaque, or something, for her appearance, Athena-­like, mere weeks before my deadline to provide Demotic transliterations for me. Finally, I would like to thank another scholar of ancient law enforcement systems, Christopher Furhmann, for his kind support. Leaving you out of the preface, my friend, would have been criminal. In spite of all the grief I have given them over the years (and will continue to give them), my parents Paul and Cathleen Bauschatz deserve abundant gratitude for, among other things, telling me again and again that I would get this book done. I still remember the day when, as an undergraduate at Brown University, I told them that I was going to major in classics after many years of half-­listening to their warnings not to go into the humanities. My mother’s dream of “my son the doctor/ lawyer” died that day, but as I suspected that they had seen it coming all along – being themselves professors in the humanities – I shed not a tear. And things worked out OK. I save my biggest thanks for last: this goes to my wonderful wife, Retina, who has turned out to be a ­better partner than anyone could ask for and has given me three amazing kids, Oscar, Oliver, and Anna. This book is dedicated, with love, to her. Well, the good parts are, at least. I will gladly take responsibility for any and all mistakes, shortcomings, and (especially) puns.

­Abbreviations

Unless otherwise noted, all abbreviations for editions of papyri and ­ostraca, as well as for other papyrological publications (corpora of papyri and papyrological series), are after Joshua D. Sosin, Roger S. Bagnall, James Cowey, Mark Depauw, Terry G. Wilfong, and Klaas A. Worp, Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, continuously updated at ­http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/­ papyrus/texts/clist.html. Abbreviations for journal titles are generally those of L’Année philologique online. A regularly updated list of these abbreviations can be found at http://www.annee-­philologique.com//files/sigles_fr.pdf. The texts of Greek papyri and ostraca cited and translated in this book derive for the most part from the Duke DataBank of Documentary Papyri (DDBDP), available online at http://papyri.info/ddbdp/. The use of brackets, braces, angle brackets, parentheses, and similar punctuation in these texts conforms to the Leiden Conventions for papyrological and epigraphic texts. All dates and provenances for documentary papyri and ostraca are those of the Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Ägyptens (HGV), at http://aquila.papy.uni-­heidelberg.de/gvzFM.html, where available. Dates and provenances for inscriptions, as well as for literary papyri and documentary papyri and ostraca not included in the HGV, are those provided by the original editors of the texts.

xi

­1 Introduction: The Place of Police

Today we take for granted the existence of a police force to provide protection and assistance. The reporting of crimes, accidents, and suspicious individuals is a phone call away. Uniformed police officers patrol the streets of our towns and cities on foot, horseback, bicycle, and four wheels, watching for speeders, muggers, and other lawbreakers. Specialized law enforcement squads perform various police operations, from drug busts to undercover surveillance, from crime scene investigations to autopsies. Most towns have a police station and a sheriff. Some have jails. Communication between police is immediate, and operations are coordinated swiftly and effectively. Identification of suspects is aided by computerized records that provide users with physical and personal data on millions of criminals. Corruption sometimes rears its ugly head, but when it does, public outcry is usually loud and punishment swift. As far as we can tell from the evidence available, it was quite a different story in the ancient world. Satisfaction at law in antiquity required a much higher degree of personal initiative.1 Ancient cities and villages do not appear to have had standing police forces to patrol city streets and prevent or stop wrongdoing. Few seem to have had professional watches or guards to respond to cries for help. Certain criminal offenses, from assault to property damage, from theft to murder, were punishable by the state.2 But it was generally not the state’s responsibility to round 1 On the predominance of “self-­help” in ancient law enforcement, see Chapter 4. 2 For the most part, in antiquity the (modern) distinction between crimes

(offenses against the state) and delicts (offenses against individuals) was 1

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

2

up suspects, assemble evidence and witnesses, and see to it that justice was done. These tasks were entrusted to the party with the vested interest in procuring justice: the victim. Self-­help was the rule in the ancient world. Organized police forces simply did not exist. For the most part, that is. The following account, a second-­century b.c. petition to a Ptolemaic police official from a man who had been robbed of some donkeys in the Egyptian desert and sought assistance from local law enforcement, suggests otherwise: 4 8 12 16 20

Μνασέαι τῶν διαδόχων καὶ ἐπι-­ στάτηι φυλακιτῶν παρὰ Σεῶτος τοῦ Ὥρου τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ καθ’ Ἑρμούπολιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἄμμου Σαραπιείου τῆι κδ τοῦ Χοιὰχ τοῦ ς (ἔτους). παραγινομένου μου ἐξ Ὀάσεως μετ’ ἄλλων καὶ λῃστη-­ ρίου ἡμῖν ἐπιθεμένου κάθοδον ωἴχεσθαι ἔχοντάς μου ὄνον ἄρσενα καὶ ὄνον θήλειαν σὺν οἷς ἔφερόν μου φορτίοις ἐμπορικοῖς προσεγδύσαντές με. ὑπὲρ ὧν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν ἐπιδοὺς προσαγγελίαν Δάννωι καὶ τοῖς κωμοφυλακίταις, ἐπο⟨ι⟩ησά-­ μην ἐπὶ σοῦ καὶ Εὐμήλου καὶ Πτολεμαίου τῶν τότε στρατηγῶν τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον ἅμα τοῖς ἄλλοις· καθότι καὶ ἐπεστάληι Θορταίωι ἀναζητῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κατὰ κράτος· νυνὶ δὲ ἐπεγνωκότος μου τὸν ἄρσενα ὄνον ὄντα παρὰ Ἀσῶτι τοῦ Σεοῦτος ἐν τῶι προειρημένωι

nonexistent. In general, ancient states were interested in taking action against offenders only when state interests (and especially financial interests) were directly threatened. Most offenses were left to the victim to pursue at law.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police 24 28 32

3

Σαραπιείωι, προσαγγέλλω σοι, ὅπως ἀσφαλισθέντος τοῦ τε Ἀσῶτος καὶ τοῦ ὄνου ἡ ἐνδεχομένη ­ἐπί-­ σκεψις γένηται κἀγὼ μὲν τὸν ὄνον κομίσωμαι καὶ ἐάν τι ἄλλο εὑρίσκη-­ ται τῶν ἀπολωλότων, οἱ δ’ αἴτιοι τύχωσι τῶν προσηκόντων. εὐτύχει. ἔτους ιθ Ἐπεὶφ ς.

To Mnaseas, of the diadochoi and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, from Seos, son of Horos, of those from the [4] Sarapieion in the desert opposite Hermoupolis.3 On the 24th of Choiach, year 6, I was away from the Oasis with others. A band of robbers [8] set upon us as we were coming back and took off in possession of a male donkey of mine and a female one.4 With both of these they carried off the merchandise [12] of which they stripped me. After submitting a notification to Dannos and the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ophylakitai about these matters at the very time when they occurred, I gave [16] to you and Eumelos and Ptolemaios, who were strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬then, the account of what happened, along with the other (officials?).5 Accordingly, Thortaios was sent out [20] to seek the men by force. But now I have learned that my male donkey is in the possession of Asos, son of Seous, in the aforementioned [24] Sarapieion, so I make this report to you, so that once Asos and my donkey are placed under guard, the necessary investigation may take place, and I may get back [28] my donkey; and if any other of the things I lost is discovered, those responsible may meet with the fitting consequences. Farewell. [32] Year 19, Epeiph 6.6 (SB VIII 9792 [Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.]) 3 On

the diadochoi, the “successors” of Alexander, see Mooren (1975) 1–7, 216–19 and (1977) 9–73; on the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬police commissioner), Chapter 2. A glossary of Ptolemaic police terms can be found at the end of this study. 4 On robbers and robbery in the Ptolemaic countryside, see Chapter 5. 5 Dannos does not have a title here, but given the fact that he appears to have been in command of a group of village (kom ‫ ﷳ‬o-­) police (phylakitai), he was likely an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬police chief ). Kom ophylakitai are not mentioned in ‫ﷳ‬ any other text. On the Ptolemaic phylakitai, see Chapter 2; on strategoi, the ‫ﷴ‬ governors of Ptolemaic provinces, Chapter 3. 6 Unless otherwise noted, all translations of Greek are my own.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

4

Papyri like the petition of Seos demonstrate that a sophisticated law enforcement system existed in Ptolemaic Egypt. It processed criminals efficiently and effectively and provided protections and assurances to citizens. Those charged with police tasks apprehended and detained suspects, investigated reported crimes, and even meted out justice. Responses to appeals for government assistance were fast and well organized, took a variety of forms, and regularly involved officials from different spheres of administration at both the local and provincial levels. The Ptolemies entrusted a variety of government men with crime­solving tasks and exercised a very limited degree of control over local policing. One might think that such lax supervision occasionally led to chaos and confusion, but this was rarely the case. The Ptolemaic criminal justice system was a smoothly functioning machine that provided options not only to victims of crime but also to police officers.

Why this Book?

In what follows, I draw on a large body of evidence for the cultural, social, and economic interactions between state and citizen to argue not only that Ptolemaic officials enjoyed great autonomy but also that government assistance, via these officials, was readily available to even the lowest levels of society when crimes and other offenses were committed. Throughout the nearly three hundred years of Ptolemaic rule (323–30 b.c.), victims of crime in all areas of the Egyptian countryside (or cho‫ﷳ‬ra in Greek) called on local officials to investigate crimes, hold trials, and arrest, question, and sometimes even imprison wrongdoers.7 The police system in place to tend to their needs was efficient, effective, and largely independent of central government controls. Before proceeding any further, we should address the definitions of “police” and “policing.” For the purposes of this book, I understand a police force as a government body charged primarily with three main 7 This is not to suggest, however, that the law enforcement system of Ptolemaic

Egypt remained static throughout these nearly three hundred years: there were changes across the time and space of Ptolemaic rule in response to both administrative needs and popular unrest. See note 146.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

5

tasks: investigation, apprehension, and prosecution.8 Policing, then, I understand as the performance of the tasks of police. By applying these definitions to an ancient Mediterranean civilization, I intend to demonstrate – once the Ptolemaic police and the ins and outs of Ptolemaic policing have been identified and described  – the ways in which the law enforcement system in Ptolemaic Egypt was unique in antiquity and, perhaps, uniquely integrated into every sphere of Ptolemaic ­administration.9 I should also offer here a definition of the phrase “law enforcement,” at least as I employ it when discussing the Ptolemaic material. As far as we know, there was no universal code of laws for the inhabitants of Ptolemaic Egypt and therefore no “law enforcement” per se. When I employ it, therefore, the phrase should simply be understood as a synonym for “policing.” No monograph on policing in Ptolemaic Egypt (or Roman Egypt, for that matter) has ever been published, though scholars have addressed individual facets of the system in book-­length studies. Of these perhaps the most important is Pieter Kool’s 1954 dissertation on the Ptolemaic phylakitai, the primary police officers in the Egyptian countryside.10 Kool traces the history of these officials and their organization and provides a brief introduction to the subject of police in Greece and pharaonic Egypt,11 but his work is narrow in scope, focusing on one branch of the criminal justice system to the exclusion of all other officials with police duties. It is also primarily a descriptive catalog of attested functions, not a history of the role(s) of law enforcement in daily life or social control under the Ptolemies. In addition, the publication of hundreds 8 These are the tasks of police as defined by Hay and Snyder ([1989] 18) in their

study on law enforcement in England, where, as scholars of law enforcement have long maintained, the world saw its first “real” police force in the course of the nineteenth century, Sir Robert Peel’s London Metropolitan Police (1829); see Terry and Hartigan (1982) 302–10; P. T. Smith (1985); Lock (1990); Emsley (1991); and Mason (2004). A brief assessment of the importance of this force – and a useful corrective to scholarly overestimations of this importance – can be found in Hay and Snyder (1989) 9–16. 9 I thus seek to attempt something along the lines of what Virginia Hunter did with her 1994 monograph on policing in classical Athens. 10 For a summary of the contents of Kool’s work, see the review of Rees (1956). 11 See Kool’s introduction, (1954) 1–4, for the latter.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

6

of new documents in the half century since its appearance renders it out of date. More recently (1986) Andréas Hélmis has examined the criminal court system of the Ptolemies and investigated topics of interest to the present discussion: among these types of crimes in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, crime rates, and the operation of prisons and imprisonment in the Egyptian countryside.12 Scholarship on the Ptolemaic civil court system is extensive, but little attention has been paid to judicial process for criminal matters.13 Hélmis provides the criminal court system with a long-­overdue assessment of its jurisdictions, procedures, and officers but does not undertake a thorough examination of how law enforcement officials worked with the criminal courts to bring offenders to justice. The processes by which offenders were apprehended, evidence gathered, and crimes solved take a back seat to the acts that set the criminal justice system in motion and the acts that the system took to reprimand offenders. Hélmis is interested in crime and punishment but not the surrounding institutions. His work is a fitting complement to, but not a substitute for, the present study. Aside from Kool and Hélmis, scholars have paid only scant attention to the Ptolemaic criminal justice system, though certain ­topics have received somewhat more consideration. The phylakes (guards) and other private security contractors who worked in both public and private capacities in Ptolemaic Egypt have drawn some attention.14 But a synthesis of the security functions of phylakitai, phylakes, the Ptolemaic military, and others has yet to appear. Many studies of the forms, language, writers, and addressees of, requests in, and responses 12 On prisons and 13 The following

imprisonment under the Ptolemies, see Chapter ­5. works are among the most important recent treatments of the Ptolemaic judiciary: Préaux (1954, 1963); Seidl (1962); Mélèze­Modrzejewski (1966, 1977–8, 1984); Wolff (1970, 1978, 2002); Peremans (1973, 1982–3); Pestman (1985b); and Allam (1991). We briefly consider the Ptolemaic criminal court system in Chapter 5. 14 See, e.g., Calderini (1924); Frösén (1978); Cuvigny (1984); Hennig (2003); and now Homoth-­Kuhs (2005), the last concerned primarily with the Roman period, but including some discussion of Ptolemaic phylakes (7–29). Phylakes are discussed in Chapter 3.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

7

to petitions exist.15 But scholars have tended to focus on petitions as a genre, not as legal documents that played crucial roles in helping police to solve crimes and victims to obtain justice. Royal decrees (prostagmata) and government circulars (entolai) were sometimes aimed at police officers and their subordinates as well, and the scholarship on these documents is extensive.16 Yet no one has collected and evaluated the evidence for royal notifications to law enforcement officials. More surprisingly, an assessment of the truth content of royal decrees – that is, the degrees of reality they reflect – is lacking. Such an evaluation would provide an understanding of how the rulers of the kingdom received, interpreted, and responded to reports of wrongdoing in the countryside, and whether the information presented in the decrees mirrored everyday life in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra. A few scholars have focused on crime and criminals in Greco-­Roman Egypt, drawing on the papyri as a sourcebook for crime in everyday life in antiquity.17 But in most cases, these studies are little more than descriptive catalogs of wrongdoing and wrongdoers, collections of juicy anecdotes with a few words on police procedure thrown in. They provide useful overviews of the perils of life in the Egyptian outback but little else. One final area has received a good deal of attention. The evidence for prisons and imprisonment in Ptolemaic Egypt is bountiful and has generated much discussion.18 This perhaps reflects a more general trend. In the past few years, the subject of the theory and practice of incarceration in antiquity has sparked great interest: one need only note three recent volumes to highlight this fascination.19 15 E.g.,

Hombert and Préaux (1942); di Bitonto Kasser (1967, 1968, 1976); Parca (1985). Petitions form the subject of Chapter 4. 16 See, e.g., the comments of Kunderewicz (1965), Lewis (1968), and Bagnall (1969) on P.Hib. II 198 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), a decree outlining guidelines for police searches and investigations. We return to this text in Chapters 5 and 6. 17 Along with Hélmis (1986), Baldwin (1963) and R. W. Davies (1973) provide good overviews of the material. 18 E.g., Taubenschlag (1959a [1940]); Ambaglio (1987); Maffi (1999); and Marcone (1999). 19 Bertrand-­Dagenbach et  al. (1999); Tovar and Martín (2003); Bertrand­Dagenbach, Salamito, and Vaillancourt (2004).

8

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Ancient Policing: An Incomplete ­Picture

In addition to the subject of prisons and imprisonment in antiquity, important work on law enforcement in Athens, Rome, and other ancient Mediterranean societies has appeared in the past few decades.20 For the most part, the evidence supports the view that sophisticated law enforcement systems were rare in antiquity and that “self-­help” predominated throughout the Mediterranean as a means of securing justice and righting wrongs. The ancient law enforcement systems, however, did not always follow this blueprint, and at least one of these systems – that of Ptolemaic Egypt – was, in many respects, a full-­fledged “police” force. The following survey highlights just how unique the evidence for police work in Ptolemaic Egypt actually is. Nowhere else do we find documents – that is, papyri – the likes of which we find in Egypt. This is an important distinction to make.21 The papyri reveal, often in striking detail, the day-­to-­day business of law enforcement in Hellenistic Egypt. When we turn to other ancient societies, however, we are confronted with a lack of papyri (or of any comparable, common, perishable writing material), and this, in general, means a lack of evidence for law enforcement similar to what we see in Egypt. It does not mean that comparable police forces never existed in Athens, Rome, Mesopotamia, or the other Hellenistic kingdoms. In fact, as we will see, the evidence for law enforcement in these other states and civilizations is often of an entirely different sort and, in many respects, is often complementary to what we find in Ptolemaic Egypt. These other sources for law, order, and police activity – among these, law codes, legal speeches, and government inscriptions – reveal at the very least that law enforcement 20 Law enforcement in Greece (primarily at Athens), e.g., Fuks (1984); Hunter

(1994) with the comments of Adam (2007) and E. Harris (2007); D. Cohen (1995, 2005); Hunter and Edmondson (2000); and van Wees (2008, archaic Greece); at Rome, e.g., Drapkin (1989) 213–43; Nippel (1995); Bauman (1996); Lintott (1999); Kelly (2003); Krause (2004) 44–201; and now Fuhrmann (2011); in Mesopotamia, e.g., Drapkin (1989) 15–33; Postgate (1992) 275–91; and Greengus (1995) 469–84; in pharaonic Egypt, e.g., Eyre (1984); Tyldesley (2000); and Vernus (2003). 21 On papyri as evidence, see the subsequent section in the Introduction.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

9

machinery of one sort or another existed in all ancient Mediterranean societies and leave quite open the possibility that local policing similar to that observable in Ptolemaic Egypt was not unheard of elsewhere. Some of the oldest evidence for crime, punishment, and policing comes from Mesopotamia. Here our evidence consists in the main of ancient law codes. The many codes that have survived reveal a great deal about the societal norms, government structures, methods of social control, and religious practices of the civilizations of the ancient Middle East.22 To be fair, these documents were not codes proper but rather collections of legal decisions passed down through time. Though individual rulers made additions and alterations and sometimes stressed the originality and uniqueness of “their” laws, for the most part the codes are characterized by a general sameness and inflexibility. They are virtually silent about the mechanics of law enforcement in their respective societies but offer many details about what sorts of offenses these societies deemed worthy of punishment, what types of penalties were considered appropriate for individual offenses, and what one part of the legal machinery of earliest antiquity looked like. The code of Hammurabi, compiled somewhere near the end of his forty-­three-­year reign (ca. 1792–1750 b.c.), is the most complete, the best organized, and consequently the most famous.23 The corpus contains some 280-­odd provisions concerning robbery, property disputes, debts, sexual offenses, assault, contractual disagreements, and other delicts.24 22 On

law and order in Mesopotamia, see sources cited earlier in note 20. The standard volume of translations for the Near Eastern legal material is still Pritchard (3rd ed., 1969). Roth’s collection (1997) is the most recent. 23 For discussions of Hammurabi’s laws, see especially Gordon (1957), who provides an invaluable guide to the material; also Jackson (1972) and Bottéro (1992) 156–84. A good recent biography can be found in Van de Mieroop (2004). My references to passages in the laws follow Roth’s (1997) numeration. 24 The total number of provisions contained in the original code is unknown, owing to lacunae in the source material. On theft in the laws of Hammurabi, see Jackson (1972); on corporal punishment in Hammurabi’s laws and the laws of Moses, see Dahlquist (1971). Finkelstein (1966) examines sex offenses in the code and other Mesopotamian texts; S. Lafont (1999) and Tetlow (2004), the place of women in the criminal justice systems of the ancient Near East.

10

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Each of the laws takes the form of a conditional statement and presents a fixed penalty for a specific offense.25 Many of these ­punishments were harsh and specified physical wounding of the “eye for an eye” variety, though monetary penalties were the rule. For instance, if a free person struck another man of the same rank, he was subject to a fine of sixty shekels of silver (law 203).26 Yet a free person who blinded another was himself subject to blinding (law 196). Capital punishment was sometimes prescribed as well.27 The first law in the corpus provides a good example of this: a man who accused another of murder and was unable to prove the charges was himself put to death. Justice in Mesopotamia was administered by various local and state courts.28 Councils of elders in the towns and villages of the Mesopotamian countryside represented the first level of appeal. Aside from the disputants, additional parties, including witnesses and friends of the litigants, were sometimes included in the proceedings. Local courts dealt with minor disputes, primarily concerning property and contractual issues. Trials were generally held in temples, where oaths were sworn before the gods to lend a degree of seriousness to the proceedings and to emphasize the consequences for falsehood. More serious matters, including murder, were handled by the royal court. Here the stakes – as well as the penalties – were higher. Indeed, in addition to swearing oaths, defendants might sometimes be required to undergo a physical ordeal in order to prove their innocence.29 The most common 25 On

punishment and imprisonment in Mesopotamia and Anatolia, see especially the collection of essays edited by Sasson (1977); more recently, Barmash (2004), on punishments for homicide in Mesopotamia and biblical Israel, and Kleber and Frahm (2006), on theft/sacrilege/homicide and imprisonment. Additional sources on prison and imprisonment can be found in note 33. 26 Three principal classes of person are specified in the laws: free men, commoners (inferior to the free), and slaves; see Roth (1997) 72–3. 27 On the evidence for corporal punishment in the ancient Near Eastern material, see Good (1967) and Dahlquist (1971); on the death penalty, see most recently VerSteeg (2002) 69 and Westbrook (2003) 74–5. 28 On justice in Mesopotamia, see, e.g., Greengus (1995) 473–5; Nardoni (2004) chapter 1; Wells (2005); also Jacobsen (1959) and B. Lafont (2001). 29 See B. Lafont (2001) for a recent and thorough account of the employment of ordeals at Mesopotamian trials.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

11

type of ordeal was submersion in a river. If the accused survived, he was found innocent. If he did not, he was guilty. At both the local and national levels, written records of verdicts and other details from trials were generally kept.30 The evidence for law and order in Hittite Anatolia is scarcer, but it is clear that a similar system of courts, judges, trials, and penalties existed.31 Magistrates empowered by the king ran the local court system, while the Hittite royal court handled appeals. As was the case in Mesopotamia, punishments were generally monetary and compensatory, though the death penalty was occasionally imposed. Records of court cases were kept and sometimes copied for litigants. These preserved testimony and oaths. One major law code survives in two forms, an earlier version and a later one, both of which date from approximately the fifteenth century b.c.32 Like the Mesopotamian codes, the Hittite “laws” preserved here are essentially a collection of court decisions with penalties specified for individual offenses. The same categories of wrongdoing that occur in the Mesopotamian material appear again here: robbery, assault, murder, property damage, adultery, and the like. The penalties specified in the Hittite laws differ little from those common to the earlier Mesopotamian texts, though the absence of “eye for an eye”–style punishments is noteworthy. There are strong indications that ancient Near Eastern states sometimes imposed imprisonment on certain types of offenders.33 A Neo­Sumerian hymn to the goddess Nungal suggests that the Sumerians 30 See,

e.g., Greengus (1995) 474–5. One such record provides the minutes of a trial for homicide: Jacobsen (1959). 31 On Hittite law in general, see Güterbock (1954) and Hoffner (1995, 1997); on punishment and incarceration, Riemschneider (1977). 32 Hoffner’s (1997) critical edition with translation and commentary is the authoritative source. Pritchard (1969) 188–97 and Roth (1997) 211–47 also provide translations. Hoffner (1995) 555–60 has a good discussion of the code’s contents. 33 A brief and up-­to-­date bibliography for prisons and imprisonment in Mesopotamia can be found at Kleber and Frahm (2006) 109 n. 3. See Riemschneider (1977) on imprisonment in Anatolia; Scouflaire (1989) for prisons in Mari; Casini (1990) for Akkadian terms for “prison;” and Steinkeller (1991) for an early Sumerian one. See also note 25.

12

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

temporarily incarcerated the convicted in temple complexes during the Neo-­Sumerian period (ca. 2100–1004 b.c.).34 The beginning of the hymn (lines 1–26) describes the Ekur complex in Nippur as capable of trapping and assessing wrongdoers. It allows the righteous to go about their business but does not permit the same freedom to wrongdoers, whom it punishes. The physical layout of the building likewise suggests a prison: its door is vast and shut to the wicked, who, trapped within, pass their time in misery. Further evidence indicates that prisons in Anatolia were places of temporary detention where prisoners were held until bailed out. It is possible that some homes even had areas in which accused criminals were detained until brought to trial by the homeowners.35 The degree to which the law codes of the ancient Mesopotamians were familiar to the Greek rulers of Egypt in the last four centuries b.c. is unknown and perhaps unknowable. One might argue on cultural grounds that the Ptolemies likely borrowed the majority of their legal thought and practice from mainland Greeks and adapted both to suit both their own needs and those of the indigenous population they ruled. Yet the influence of the earliest legal codes and justice systems on the Egyptian civilization must not be underestimated. The inhabitants of the Nile Valley in the time of the pharaohs enjoyed protection under a legal system strikingly similar in many ways to those of the Mesopotamians. The many parallels between the two societies suggest that the development of a justice system in pharaonic Egypt was not an independent phenomenon. Among other things, when one examines the pharaonic Egyptian evidence for law enforcement – primarily papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions – one finds clear signs of an organized police force. As the data suggest, various officers were empowered at different times and in 34 Attinger

(2003) provides the most recent edition of, and commentary on, this text. For a real-­world instance of temple detention in Mesopotamia, see, e.g., Kleber and Frahm (2006), who provide an edition of a Neo-­Babylonian documentary text that describes the theft of some food from the temple complex of Ishtar in the city of Uruk, the subsequent detention of the thief in the temple, his failed escape attempt, and then plans for his reincarceration in the temple. 35 Riemschneider (1977) 119–22.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

13

different places to tend to security, investigations, arrests, and other law enforcement business.36 Egypt under the pharaohs suffered from the same sorts of crimes that plagued Babylon, Sumer, and Akkad. Assaults and thefts were among the most common offenses committed against private individuals.37 In general, private matters were resolved without recourse to judicial machinery, whereas offenses against the state were prosecuted by government officials.38 Personal quarrels of a more formal nature, such as disputes over property and inheritances, sometimes required the intervention of a local judicial apparatus of some sort. As in Mesopotamia, the burden of securing justice in pharaonic Egypt lay primarily on the shoulders of the victim. Egyptians could petition local officials and initiate court proceedings where they presented their own cases, called witnesses, and produced defendants.39 As long as matters remained strictly private, the Egyptian crown took little to no interest in the affairs of its citizens; but as the stakes rose, so did the involvement of the central government. Criminal cases and complicated civil disputes were tried before the court of the vizier (tꜣtj), which was empowered to apprehend, incarcerate, interrogate, and even torture accused parties.40 Egyptian state courts seem to have been liquid institutions: different officials served on their benches at different times.41 Local courts were less formal. The papyrus (and ostracon) archive of the New Kingdom worksite at Deir el-­Medina provides details about their functioning.42 The court here (the kenbet [qnbt]) was an informal, ­outdoor tribunal whose officers were drawn from the local 36 In addition to the sources cited in note 20 on the pharaonic system of law and

order, see Peet (1930) 15–27; Cerný (1973) 261–84; and Lorton (1977). (1925, 1930); Eyre (1984); Tyldesley (2000) 60–76, 127–39; Vernus (2003) 1–49. 38 Bedell (1974) 2–10; Eyre (1984) 93; van den Boorn (1988) 315–17; Tyldesley (2000) 60–1. 39 Tyldesley (2000) 11–13 with The Instruction of Amenemope chapters 19 and 20 (Lichtheim [1976] II 158–9). 40 Bedell (1974) 37–42; van den Boorn (1988) 315–17; Allam (1991) 111; Tyldesley (2000) 13. 41 Bedell (1974) 42–60; Allam (1991) 111, 114–15. 42 On Deir el-­Medina, one of the best-­documented Egyptian sites of the ­pharaonic period, see, e.g., Della Monica (1980); Lesko (1994); Janssen (1997); and Janssen, Frood, and Goecke-­Bauer (2003). 37 Peet

14

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

community and government and served on a temporary basis.43 It was convened when necessary and did not undertake investigations on its own initiative. Cases were heard only when a suspect was identified, and they involved speeches from and then questioning of both plaintiff and defendant. The kenbet was strictly local in its jurisdiction and relied heavily on its officers’ familiarity with the local population and its character.44 The punishments meted out to offenders in pharaonic Egypt appear to have been fairly standard.45 Civil offenses were typically resolved by means of a correction of the perceived wrong in addition to some sort of financial compensation to the injured party. Penalties were often assessed in multiples of the value of the stolen, lost, or damaged goods or property. Crimes, on the other hand, merited corporal punishment, imprisonment, and even death, the last often by means of impaling on wooden spires or burning.46 Though both state and local prisons existed in pharaonic Egypt, they were generally employed only to house those awaiting trial or capital punishment as the outcome of a trial.47 A good deal is known about one prison in particular, the Great Prison (hnrt wr(t)) at Thebes. This seems to have been a multifaceted complex with a variety of functions. It contained an archive for official documents, a tribunal for the hearing of criminal cases and certain civil disputes, living quarters for local inhabitants performing compulsory public labor, and holding cells for those awaiting punishment.48 The modern term 43 See, especially, Peet (1925, 1930); Cerný (1973); and McDowell (1990); also

Tyldesley (2000) 124–44. On the kenbet, see Allam (1991) 110–19; Toivari (1997) 160–8; and Tyldesley (2000) 142–3. 44 Trial by oracle was another resource available to victims of crime; see Blackman (1925, 1926); Bedell (1974) 192–274; Tyldesley (2000) 140–52. 45 Cerný (1973) 186–9; Bedell (1974) 143–91; Lorton (1977) 7; Tyldesley (2000) 60–87. 46 Death by burning: Leahy (1984). A sentence of capital punishment, though originally only within the power of the pharaoh to pronounce, was an option for certain government functionaries by the Nineteenth (ca. 1304–1184 b.c.) and Twentieth (1184–1070 b.c.) Dynasties: Bedell (1974) 20–1. 47 Prisons: Posener (1970) 143; Bedell (1974) 183–9; Tyldesley (2000) 14 and 41. The evidence for prisons at both the national and local levels seems to be limited to the Ramesside period; see Bedell (1974) 185–7. 48 Tyldesley (2000) 40–­1.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

15

“prison” does not do this building justice. It clearly served as much more than a jailhouse. Aside from the pharaoh, the ultimate authority for law and order in the Egyptian world, the vizier, his direct deputy, was the most powerful civil and judicial official.49 He had duties in three main areas: managing the royal palace, heading the civil administration, and acting as the king’s deputy.50 As palace chief, the vizier received reports on traffic moving in and out of the palace and the status of guard posts, as well as communication from law enforcement officials. He was empowered to order arrests and interrogations of palace personnel, was responsible for organizing military escorts for the king when he was traveling, and also established military garrisons. As a judicial official, the vizier had the power to prosecute civil servants who had committed crimes or otherwise misbehaved. He was a chief justice of sorts, as well as a court of appeals for civil matters. The evidence strongly suggests that a national police force never existed in pharaonic times, but it is clear that many minor officials had duties in the realm of policing. The group that perhaps most closely resembled a modern police force was the Medjay (md ꜣ y).51 These were originally a nomadic people who lived near the Nubian Eastern Desert. During the New Kingdom (1570–1070 b.c.), many settled in the Delta and intermarried with the native Egyptian population. At this time they seem to have become something of a national security force. Native Egyptians eventually joined their ranks as a well-­ordered hierarchy of positions developed, among these that of chief (hrj md ꜣy), who seems to have occasionally served as a police administrator.52 In the New Kingdom, the Medjay were employed to patrol towns, desert regions, and borders as well as to serve as royal bodyguards.53 At Deir 49 On the legal powers of the pharaoh, see Bedell (1974) 17–34. On the vizier’s

office, see van den Boorn (1988); also Posener (1970) 301–2; Bedell (1974) 34–42; Tyldesley (2000) 31–47; and Grajetzki (2009) 15–41. 50 Van den Boorn (1988) 310–17. 51 On the Medjay, see Cerný (1973) 261–84; also Posener (1970) 228; Bedell (1974) 62–5; McDowell (1990) 51–4; Sadr (1990); and Tyldesley (2000) 48–50. 52 Cerný (1973) 261–84; McDowell (1990) 53–­4. 53 Tyldesley (2000) 48.

16

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

el-­Medina a special force of Medjay and Medjay chiefs acted as guards of the necropolis but do not appear to have served as agents of law and order within the workmen’s village itself.54 The Deir el-­Medina material provides information on other officials with police duties. There were “doorkeepers” (jrj-­), guards responsible for keeping watch over government supplies who also occasionally served as court bailiffs and tax collectors.55 They may even have had the responsibility of reporting thefts. “Guardians” (swtj/sw) are also attested.56 They seem to have been village residents responsible for the protection of the materials employed for the excavation and decoration of the tombs, especially copper tools. Their duties also included the occasional state investigation and presence at court. “Guardians” were of a higher rank than “doorkeepers.” A handful of minor officials are also attested for the workmen’s camp at Deir el-­Medina, including the enigmatic  tw officers, who seem to have dealt with issues of law and order among villagers, as opposed to the Medjay, who were apparently involved in the protection of tombs.57 They were officials of low rank and frequently the recipients of instructions from local officials. Yet the tw officers also played prominent roles in the investigation of tomb robberies. Matters of national security were handled primarily by the Medjay in the New Kingdom, though the army played an important role as well, especially in protecting trade routes and frontiers.58 In ear­ lier times, military officials saw to the security of borders and desert regions. Groups of “hunters” (nw) patrolled the desert lands and 54 Cerný (1973) 261–84; McDowell (1990) 51–4. 55 “Doorkeepers”: above all, see Cerný (1973) 161–75;

also McDowell (1990) 41–6; Tyldesley (2000) 50–1. 56 “Guardians”: see Cerný (1973) 149–60, 168; also McDowell (1990) 47–8; Tyldesley (2000) 50–1. 57 For a discussion of the  t w officers, see Cerný (1973) 231–43 and McDowell (1990) 55–9. 58 On the role of the Egyptian army as a security force in the time of Akhenaten (1364–1347 b.c.), see Kadry (1982) 74–5; for the New Kingdom, Faulkner (1953) 44. Hoffmeier (2006) examines Egyptian defense networks during the New Kingdom; Mumford (2006) 52–8, (primarily military) relations between Egypt and the Levant in the Old Kingdom.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

17

eastern and western roads, following nomads and pursuing fugitives.59 In the Old Kingdom (2686–2134 b.c.) an official with the title “overseer of desert blockhouses and royal fortresses” (jmj-­r rthw zmwt mnnw nswt) or “overseer of the affairs of the fortresses” (jmj-­r wpt mnnw) had as his responsibility the protection of fortifications scattered throughout the Egyptian countryside.60 He was charged with a general supervision of frontiers and wadis, as well as perhaps more remote royal infrastructure, such as quarries and mines. A similar system existed in the Middle Kingdom (2080–1640 b.c.). “Patrols” (phrt) guarded border regions, perhaps supervised by the “overseer of all police-­patrols on water and on land” (jmj-­r šnꜥ w nb hr mw hr tꜣ). An “overseer of all disputes” (jmj-­r snt t nbt) may have provided judicial supervision for districts or fortresses.61 The evidence for police and policing in pharaonic Egypt demonstrates that security was one of the primary concerns of the rulers of the kingdom. The police forces that existed seem to have been employed primarily for security details and the protection of the state’s assets, often in and around military garrisons and royal tombs. Though the police system appears to have grown progressively more complex over time, it nevertheless seems to have always retained a few basic principles: a strong, central authority for the effective administration of justice and supervision of lower civil authorities (the vizier); a powerful military presence for the guarantee of security along borders and in sparsely populated areas (the army and the Medjay); and a general policy of laissez-­faire with regard to the personal problems of Egyptian villagers, who were expected to bring law enforcement issues to the attention of the local or higher administration. The state had a strong interest in punishing state offenders but took little notice of the private squabbles of villagers. All the same, machinery was in place for the local resolution of local disputes, when necessary. Precisely how much of this local machinery, as well as that at the national level, was still in place at the time of the Macedonian conquest of Egypt in 332 b.c. remains an unanswered question. As we shall see, 59 Posener (1970) 227. 60 Faulkner (1953) 36. 61 Faulkner (1953) 41.

18

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

parallels in the pharaonic and Ptolemaic evidence (security forces in border regions, police forces with special details, an extensive network of state prisons) suggest that there was a close connection between the two systems. Yet it is perhaps impossible to prove conclusively that the Greek conquerors of Egypt in the fourth century b.c. adopted the principles of policing and protection put in place by their predecessors. The Ptolemies embraced many of the cultural institutions of Egypt but also imported a great deal from their Aegean homeland. In the realm of law enforcement, the result may have been a unique hybrid of elements from both civilizations. A discussion of law enforcement in classical Greece must center around Athens.62 Nowhere else on the Greek mainland are crimes, criminals, trials, and punishments so well attested. For Athens, our evidence is primarily literary and provided in the main by dozens and dozens of court speeches delivered by famous orators from the fifth and fourth centuries b.c. Literature of other sorts  – philosophy, history, drama  – also provides crucial glimpses of not only the Athenian legal mindset but also Athenian legal machinery. The aggregate data yield a detailed picture of law and order in Athenian society, and an examination of this evidence suggests that the Ptolemies were familiar with the Athenian law enforcement system. As in Mesopotamia and pharaonic Egypt, a system of law and order based primarily on “self-­help” predominated at Athens. There do not appear to have been professional police agents in the classical city, though a handful of officials and slaves were empowered to enforce a limited degree of law and order.63 As a group, the five­hundred-­member boule‫( ﷴ‬council) had the power to arrest and imprison when it considered someone a threat.64 More routine police work was left to underlings, including the Eleven (hoi hendeka).65 These magistrates had penal duties, including arresting common criminals, though this task was often undertaken by citizens independent of any official mechanism. They also tended to prisoners, hunted down escapees, supervised 62 See the sources cited in note ­20. 63 MacDowell (1978) 62; Finley

(1983) 18; Rhodes (1984) 125; Krause (2004) 13. 64 Harrison (1968–71) 2:55–8; Rhodes (1972) 179–207, especially 179 n. 3; (1979) 111–12; Hunter (1994) 144, 234 n. 52. 65 M. H. Hansen (1976) 25; Hunter (1994) 144–5, 234 n. 54.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

19

executions, confiscated and auctioned off property, and brought certain cases to court.66 In the execution of these duties the Eleven were assisted by a band of three hundred Scythian slaves known as toxotai (archers).67 These were public slaves purchased after the Persian wars and dressed in Scythian costume with a bow, whip, and small sword. They followed the orders of the Eleven and other magistrates and are seen in the sources (which include, in this case, a handful of Greek comedies and some pot paintings) pursuing escaped prisoners; keeping order in the assembly and boule;‫ ﷴ‬moving assembly members from the city center (agora) to the assembly (ekklesia); arresting, torturing, and executing offenders; and ‫ﷴ‬ acting as security guards in lawcourts and at public meetings. Their duties were purely urban. As a police force, the toxotai were decidedly rudimentary, lacking the ability or authority to investigate or prosecute. These tasks (and others) appear to have been left for the most part to the citizens themselves, who often acted entirely independently of authorities. Citizens could intervene to stop violence, arrest suspected runaway slaves, accept sureties, invoke witnesses, and even form posses when necessary.68 When possible, violence was avoided in such matters, but not always. In the preparation of lawsuits, the litigants were usually left with the tasks of investigation, apprehension, and prosecution.69 They amassed evidence, carried out detective work, consulted laws and decrees, solicited witnesses, publicly challenged opponents to give or receive slaves for torture, and performed various other tasks, such as assessing an opponent’s property values or digging up dirt, all without the assistance of officials.70 Arrests required the use of force, often obtained 66 One branch of the Ptolemaic police (the phylakitai) performed many of these

same functions; see Chapters 2 and 5.

67 Plassart (1913); Sargent (1924) 115–19; Jacob (1928) 53–78; Rhodes (1981)

439; Hunter (1994) 145–9, 235 n. 56; Krause (2004) 13.

68 See Hunter (1994) 129–39 and the additional sources cited there. 69 As noted earlier, these are the three main tasks of police as defined

by Hay and Snyder ([1989] 18) and applied by Hunter ([1994] 129–30) to her study of policing at Athens. I return to these tasks in Chapter 5 when I examine their applicability to the Ptolemaic police. 70 Hunter (1994) 130–51 and the sources she ­cites.

20

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

through the employment of posses or the recruitment of bystanders. On occasion, a magistrate might make an arrest (an ephege ‫ ﷴ‬sis, ‫ ﷴ‬literally a “leading to,” designating the magistrate being led to the accused by an accuser), but this was rare in comparison with instances of citizens’ arrests.71 Wrongdoers were then hauled before the Eleven. An arrested individual might obtain temporary liberty by presenting the Eleven with bail.72 In court, litigants had to prepare and present their own cases.73 They issued summonses to accused parties and witnesses and ­submitted claims to the appropriate magistrates, after which preliminary hearings might take place. Private suits might then go to a public arbitrator. In the courtroom, a litigant was responsible for the appearance of his own witnesses, the delivery of his case (with or without the aid of an advocate), and the suggestion of proper penalties for his opponent in the event of victory. After a sentence had been handed down, the victorious party was personally responsible for its enforcement. Here, too, violence was sometimes necessary. Scholars have long held that the prison at Athens, like most of those attested elsewhere in the ancient world, was not a place of long-­term punishment but rather of temporary detention. Yet the matter is far from resolved.74 We can say for certain that suspects brought to the Eleven were incarcerated at the discretion of these officials. They might be permitted to wander within the confined area of the prison complex or likewise might be shackled. Most cases of imprisonment were seen not as punitive measures but as matters of public security in advance of trials or in the aftermath of guilty verdicts.75 Debtors and those sentenced 71 M. H. Hansen (1976) 24–5; Hunter (1994) 136. 72 Paoli (1957) 159–60. 73 Bonner and Smith (1938); Paoli (1957) 154;

Lavency (1964) 68–79; Harrison (1968–71) 2:85–105, 154–68; Hunter (1994) 140–3; Krause (2004) 16–23. 74 On the prison (desmo‫ﷳ‬terion, literally “place of prisoners” or “place of bond‫ﷴ‬ age”) at Athens, see Paoli (1957) 153–4; D. S. Allen (1997); and Hunter (1997). Both D. S. Allen (1997) 121 and Hunter (1997) 296 give brief summaries of scholarly debate on the subject. 75 It seems possible, however, that occasionally an individual might be arrested and subsequently placed in limbo when his or her accuser no longer wished to pursue the matter at law. Such detainees might be confined within the prison for a fixed period of time, after which they would once again be freed; see Paoli (1957) 160–2.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

21

to death were sealed off from society until their debts had been paid. The fact that Athenian prisons were regularly well stocked suggests that individuals considered threats to public safety were detained there in advance of trials or even in cases where no trial was to be arranged. As was the case with the criminal justice system in pharaonic Egypt, satisfaction at law in classical Athens depended in large part on the initiative and determination of the individual. Institutions and officials tended to matters that required action beyond the capabilities of private citizens. Yet our evidence argues that personal quests for justice, as opposed to state-­sponsored inquiries and investigations, were responsible for most of the police work that took place in the classical city. Citizens took steps to see that justice was done and employed state law enforcement officials when necessary. The parallels between the criminal justice systems of Ptolemaic Egypt and classical Athens are many, but the similarities between the police forces attested in the two states are few. In both, the notion of “self-­help” was predominant; but in the absence of additional evidence, it appears that at Athens citizens received only minimal assistance from government infrastructure in obtaining justice in the aftermath of wrongdoing. Our sources make clear that citizens relied on their friends, neighbors, and families to help with the difficult tasks of rounding up criminals and setting the wheels of justice in motion. Personal resolve, physical presence, high-­placed connections, and financial means were all crucial for the successful resolution of a criminal suit. Evidence for law enforcement systems in states contemporaneous with Athens is difficult to detect, and traces of police and police activity in the Hellenistic kingdoms (aside from Egypt) are almost nonexistent. Solid conclusions are all but impossible for a number of reasons: a very small amount of perishable documentary evidence (i.e., papyrus and wood) has survived from these states; the documentary evidence that has survived (i.e., inscriptions) tends to focus on government and personal business outside the sphere of policing; and the historians who wrote about the Hellenistic states (Polybius, Diodorus, etc.) did not make issues of law and order priorities in their accounts, which focus primarily on international politics and warfare. There are numerous references in both the documentary and literary sources of the Hellenistic period to military and civil posts that quite possibly also had police duties, and there was certainly need throughout the Hellenistic world

22

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

for armed forces to police boundaries, defend against incursions, and ensure domestic tranquillity.76 But nowhere in the Hellenistic kingdoms outside of Egypt is there clear evidence for the existence of anything close to a law enforcement system as complex as that of ancient Mesopotamia, pharaonic Egypt, or classical Athens. Therefore, we must consider the traces. In the Seleucid Empire, there are indications that within individual satrapies (provinces) the central administration had a certain amount of legal pull.77 Royal judges are attested, though their means of appointment, administrative domains, and job descriptions are generally unknown, as well as the extent and nature of their relationships with local Greek judiciaries.78 In the military sphere, settlements of soldiers and guards of various types were commonplace in those areas of greatest strategic import and along transportation routes, and guard posts are attested for those regions under military sway, mainly borders and frontiers.79 Officials with jurisdiction in the realm of law and order may have included the epistatai (chief men) attested for numerous Seleucid cities and garrisons and the phrourarchoi (men in charge of garrisons) resident in the same, but the evidence does not permit more specific conclusions.80 76 See Chaniotis (2005) on the ubiquity of warfare in the Hellenistic period and

Chaniotis (2008) on the preoccupation of Hellenistic cities with the protection of their territories, specifically 124–5 and 127–8 on the various methods or officials employed by Hellenistic cities to protect these territories. 77 For a brief overview of the administration of the Seleucid kingdom, see Yarshater (1983) 7–12; Briant (1990); Sherwin-­White and Kuhrt (1993) 40–71, esp. 48–51. Edson (1958) examines the nature of the administration of the empire through the eyes of (later) literary sources. 78 Sherwin-­White and Kuhrt (1993) 50–1; also Yarshater (1983) 15. 79 On Seleucid military settlements, see especially Bar-­Kochva (1976) 20–48; Bickerman (1983) 8; Sherwin-­White and Kuhrt (1993) 59. On guards ([h]orophylakes, paraphylakitai, peripoloi, phrouroi, phylakes, etc.) and guard posts (ochyrom ‫ ﷳ‬ata, peripolia, phrouria, etc.) in general in the Hellenistic period, see now Chaniotis (2008) 128–42; also Ma (2000) 339–43 (forts) and Chankowski (2004) 65 (evidence for police in imperial Asia Minor applied to the Hellenistic period). See the Glossary for the meanings of the words cited here that designate guards and guard posts. 80 Epistatai and phrourarchoi populated the official landscape of Seleucia, though their specific duties are unclear: G. M. Cohen (1978) 81 with n. 47 and Musti (1984) 184–9. On government organization in the Seleucid Empire,

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

23

Officials appointed by the central government (e.g., epistatai, strategoi ‫ﷴ‬ [governors]) are also found in various areas in the Attalid kingdom, including the capital, Pergamon. These officials doubtless served as regional administrators or governors. Guards (among these paraphylakitai, literally “police alongside”) are likewise attested in the countryside.81 A similar system of governance seems to have been in existence in Macedon.82 In Crete, protection in times of trouble may have come from groups of young men with similarities to the ranks of the three hundred Spartan hebo ‫ﷳ ﷴ‬ntes (youths), who acted as a bodyguard for the Spartan kings in classical times.83 These groups, the neotas (also “youth”) and the hepta kat’ agoran (seven in the marketplace), may have similarly been part of a state-­sponsored program to inspire loyalty to the regime.84 Yet, as was the case for other aspects of law enforcement in the Hellenistic kingdoms outside of Egypt, the evidence does not permit further certainty. This picture changes dramatically when one turns to Rome.85 The sources provide a great deal of evidence for the resolution of everyday conflicts in the city and municipalities, the workings of the Roman court system, the duties of the various magistrates, and the application of Roman criminal law. From the late republic through late antiquity, the data for laws, law enforcement, crime, and criminals in the city of Rome and the Roman provinces are extensive. A close examination of see G. M. Cohen (1978) 81 with n. 47; Yarshater (1983) 7–12; also Musti (1984) 184–9. 81 R. E. Allen (1983) 105–9; on Pergamon, 164–74; E. V. Hansen (1971). The paraphylakitai of Pergamon: Chaniotis (2008) 138. 82 Epistatai: above all Hatzopoulos (1996) 1:372–429; also Walbank (1984) 224–9; Hammond (1999) with the comments of Hatzopoulos (2003–4) 37–40; Papazoglou (2000) 172–6 with the comments of Hatzopoulos (2003–4) 40–5; and Errington (2002) with the comments of Hatzopoulos (2003–4) 45–56. 83 On the hebontes, see Ducat (2006, esp. 101–12, 171–4); (2007). The employ‫ﷴ‬ ment of young men as security forces was a commonplace of the Hellenistic period; see Chaniotis (2008) 134–7. 84 Willetts (1954, 1957); Petropoulou (1985) 108–9; Chaniotis (2008) 135–6 with bibliography at p. 135 n. 125. 85 In addition to the sources for law and order at Rome cited in note 20, see Wolff (1951) 22–48; Echols (1957–8); and R. W. Davies (1977).

24

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Roman police machinery reveals a great deal of diversity in the ranks and substantial change over time in the prosecution of crimes. As was the case at Athens, there was no one magistracy responsible for the maintenance of public order at Rome. Various Roman officials were empowered to carry out the types of police duties observable in other ancient societies: physically subduing, arresting, imprisoning, fining, and even executing suspects.86 Censors, for example, could discipline groups of citizens charged with dereliction of duty.87 Tribunes, too, could take decisive action against citizens or other magistrates and also had the power to free prisoners.88 Lictors performed certain police duties in the presence of their commanding magistrates.89 Though not a bodyguard, they gave a magistrate’s authority a physical presence. Aediles were likewise responsible for the maintenance of the public welfare and order.90 They were unable to summon or arrest but were entrusted with security and conduct at public spectacles. The tresviri capitales (board of three men concerned with capital offenses) had supervisory powers over the jails and executions carried out there.91 They also organized night fire brigades (vigiles) composed of public slaves,92 led patrols to search for fugitive slaves, and presided over proceedings concerning criminals caught in the act. 86 What

follows relies heavily on Nippel (1995) 4–30. On Roman (republican) magistrates in general, see Homo (1962 [1929]); Abbott (1963 [1911]) 150–219, 359–80; Lintott (1993) 97–107 (imperial magistrates). Sivonen (2006) discusses Roman magistrates in late antique Gaul. 87 Suolahti (1963) provides a thorough treatment of the Roman censors, Brunt (1971) of the Roman census. Fantham (1977) treats censorship and censors in Roman society, though with little focus on the police powers of the latter. 88 Bleicken (1968) is the place to start for the tribunate, with Thommen (1989) for the office in the late republic. Tatum (1999) traces the career and influence of one of the most famous republican tribunes, Publius Clodius Pulcher. 89 See Purcell (1983) on lictors and other attendants (apparitores) of Roman magistrates. 90 Sabbatucci (1954); Garofalo (1989). 91 Cancelli (1956); La Rosa (1957); Cascione (1999); Robinson (1992) 105, 175–80, 188–90. 92 Reynolds (1926); Rucin´ski (2003), the praefectus vigilum (chief of the brigades); Wallat (2004); Sheldon (2005) 153–4.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

25

By the late republic (ca. 123–23 b.c.), official overlap had become a serious hindrance to the business of law enforcement. As a consequence, Augustus introduced a number of police reforms.93 He reorganized the armed forces and established the praetorian guard ( praetoriani), with nine cohorts of five hundred men each under his personal command.94 These served primarily as guards and could be employed to keep the peace. They were sometimes stationed at games and public events to maintain order and guarded prisoners and those awaiting trial before the emperor. Within the ranks of the praetorians, Augustus also created a small band of secret police, the speculatores, who protected the emperor from assassination, carried secret messages, undertook espionage, guarded suspects, and executed the condemned.95 He also set up a system of night patrols and night watchmen, seven cohorts of one thousand vigiles under the command of a praefectus vigilum (chief of the brigades).96 The vigiles patrolled the streets of Rome, detecting and extinguishing fires. Yet they also dealt with burglary, assault, and other petty crimes and interrogated and jailed suspects. The praefectus vigilum tried cases of arson, burglary, and abetting and punished those whose negligence or carelessness led to fires as well as guards who failed to prevent robberies. Augustus formed three cohortes urbanae (urban cohorts) of five ­hundred men each to police the capital.97 These were in charge of the prison, the city records, and interrogations. For greater control over the capital, Augustus occasionally appointed praefecti urbi (men in charge of the city).98 The praefectus urbi tended to law and order at public spectacles, 93 On

the Augustan law enforcement reforms, see especially R. W. Davies (1977), from whom the bulk of what follows has been drawn; Terry and Hartigan (1982) 296–301, 308–10; and Sheldon (2005) 143–63; also Echols (1957–8) 379–82 and Nippel (1995) chap. 4. 94 Passerini (1939); Durry (1968 [1938]). 95 Austin and Rankov (1995) 54–60; Sheldon (2005) 122–3, 164–7. 96 On the vigiles of Rome, see n. 92. 97 Freis (1967) is still the definitive ­source. 98 Vitucci (1956); Sinnigen (1957); Chastagnol (1960, 1962 [prosopography, a.d. 290–423]); Barrow (1973) 1–9 (on the urban prefecture in a.d. 384); Solidoro Maruotti (1993).

26

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

prevented and punished crimes, and tried cases brought to him by the lower magistrates from within the city and a certain perimeter outside of it. Augustus entrusted the protection of the provinces to the Roman army and the policing of its cities to army units parallel to those he established at Rome.99 Governors served as army commanders, judges, and chief executives and were personally responsible to the emperor.100 For the most part, individual towns were permitted to keep their existing police systems. Those with Roman charters typically had duoviri iure dicundo (boards of two men in charge of prescribing law) responsible for law and order; others had their own magistrates.101 Soldiers of ordinary rank were employed where localized policing was impractical or impossible. In time they became accustomed to performing a broad range of police functions. Officials such as the deceptively named frumentarii (grain foraging soldiers) and the vaguely titled agentes in rebus (agents in affairs) served as gatherers of intelligence for the central government as well as checks over provincial administrations and local aristocracies.102 Other emperors expanded on Augustus’s use of troops in putting down civil strife, controlling brigandage, and the like.103 Stationarii 99 Fuhrmann

(2011) provides the most recent account of policing in the provinces of the Roman empire. See also Brélaz (2005) for Asia Minor and more generally. 100 Mierow (1926); Brunt (1975), on Egypt; Burton (1975); Hoffman (1976); Braund (1999), the governor’s entourage (in Russian: summary at 84–5); Slootjes (2006). 101 Ratti (1974–5), duoviri and praefecti (chief men) iure dicundo; Gascou (1990); Rossignano (1991); Laffi (2002); Filippi (2005). Knapp (1980) examines praefecti in Italic territories before 90 b.c. 102 Frumentarii: Sinnigen (1961, 1962a); Clauss (1973) 82–117; Martini (1980–1); Paschoud (1983) 215–32; Mann (1988); Gichon (1989) 168–9; Reuter (1999); Rankov (1990, 2006); Austin and Rankov (1995) 136–7; Sheldon (2005) 250–60; agentes in rebus: Arias-­Bonet (1957–8); Sinnigen (1957) 14–32; (1959); (1962b) 369–78; Blum (1969) 1–16; Purpura (1973) esp. 231–65; Schuller (1975); Giardina (1977); Jerphagnon (1982); Paschoud (1983) 232–43; Austin and Rankov (1995) 219–21; Sheldon (2005) 261–5. 103 On policing in the Roman empire, see, e.g., Lopuszanski (1951); R. W. Davies (1968); Blockeley (1969); Sperber (1970); Hopwood (1983); (1986)

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

27

(soldiers in a detachment) were established in military posts along ­public roads.104 In the eastern provinces, the eirenarchai (chiefs of the ‫ﷴ‬ peace) headed local militias, and nyktophylakes (night guards) played an important role in maintaining security.105 Both institutions were liturgical, though even the lowliest of nyktophylakes was paid. In the West, lictors, scribae (scribes), viatores (wayfarers), and public slaves guarded against bandits and civil strife.106 In Egypt, the Ptolemaic police system seems to have been revised.107 Strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and epistrategoi ‫( ﷴ‬something like “chief governors”) remained the highest civil magistrates in the more peaceful areas, assisted by demosioi (public slaves) or archephodoi ‫ﷴ‬ (chief wayfarers), who filled police functions.108 Regionarii (area soldiers) headed groups of soldiers responsible for police tasks, such as transporting witnesses, interrogating suspects, issuing subpoenas, granting bail, and providing judgments.109 The existence of liturgical posts confirms that locals were regularly compelled to perform police duties.110

343–56; Pollard (2000) 85–110; Brélaz (2005); and Fuhrmann (2011); on crime, e.g., Gregory (1983); van Hooff (1988); Kelly (2003). 104 Lopuszanski (1951); Petraccia Lucernoni (2001). 105 Eirenarchai: Paparriga-­Artemiadi (2003); Dmitriev (2005) 206–13; nykto‫ﷴ‬ phylakes: Hennig (2002). 106 Lictors: note 89 herein; scribae: A. H. M. Jones (1949), and other clerical members of the Roman civil service, including viatores; Elguera (1968–9); B. Cohen (1970, in Hebrew); Martina (1980) 165–75; Wrede (1981); Muñiz Coello (1982); Badian (1989); Purcell (2001); viatores: A. H. M. Jones (1949), see herein; B. Cohen (1970, in Hebrew); Muñiz Coello (1996); Roman slavery: e.g., Bradley (1984, 1994); F. H. Thompson (2003), material culture of Greco-­Roman slavery; and now Joshel (2010). 107 Baade (1956); Baldwin (1963); R. W. Davies (1973); Bagnall (1977, 1989); Alston (1994); (1995), 81–6; and Hobson (1993). 108 On strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and epistrategoi ‫ ﷴ‬in Roman Egypt, see Whitehorne (1988, 2006) for the former and Vandoni (1971, prosopography; includes Ptolemaic period) and Thomas (1982) for the latter. On slaves in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see Biezunska-­Malowist (1979) and Clarysse (1989, in Dutch). 109 Regionarii: Speidel (1984) and Sarnowski ­(1988). 110 Lewis (1997a) includes a number of compulsory police posts in his catalog, among these various types of phylax (49) (cf. Homoth-­Kuhs [2005] 60–71, 123–35). See also Drecoll (1997), especially 158–75 and 258 (on liturgical police and guard posts).

28

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

The Roman criminal justice system depended in large part on the determination of victims, much as it did elsewhere in antiquity.111 Social status was also important for the efficient and effective resolution of disputes. Citizens were empowered and expected to take action to protect their homes, possessions, and selves when crimes were committed. Roman law permitted self-­defense, though to a limited degree.112 While an armed thief in the night could be killed immediately by his discoverer, the killer was obligated to call on his neighbors in order to prove that the killing was indeed justified. While traveling citizens were permitted to employ armed entourages for protection against bandits, at the same time they were prohibited from carrying weapons.113 The upper classes were able to station hired hands and slaves to guard their assets and could buy access to legal protections and services out of the reach of the poorest citizens, who relied in part on the favors of patrons to obtain redress after crimes had been committed. The Roman criminal court system was a complex organism that changed dramatically over time.114 Three distinct phases in the development of criminal courts at Rome from the republic through the principate and into the early stages of the empire can be identified.115 In the earliest times investigations and trials were carried out by magistrates, often tribunes of the plebs, who specified punishments for accused parties that were then approved or rejected by the popular assembly. By the late second century b.c., trial by jury had become the dominant 111 So

Nippel (1995) 35–46, from which the bulk of the following has been drawn. See also Krause (1999) 122–8; (2004) 60–7; and Lintott (1999) 6–21. 112 The Corpus Iuris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) contains important information about this right: Tysse (2004); Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen (2007–8) 108–17. 113 Wiltshire (1992) 138–42. 114 On Roman courts and lawsuits, see Ferguson (1961); Gruen (1968); A. H. M. Jones (1972); and Krause (2004) 68–86; on types of crimes, Watson (1971) 145–60; Gardner (1986) 117–36 (sexual offenses); Robinson (1995); Krause (2004) 87–201; and now Harries (2007) and Gaughan (2010) (murder); on law in general, Wolff (1951); Nicholas (1962); Crook (1967); Watson (1988); Frier (1989) (delicts); Johnston (1999); Frier and McGinn (2004) (family law); A. Borkowski and du Plessis (2005). 115 These phases are described by Bauman (1996) 4–­6.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

29

system. Courts were permanent, had sitting magistrates and juries, and were empowered to hear specific types of cases. Penalties were fixed by each court’s charter. The final phase in the development of the Roman criminal justice system came about with the Augustan reforms. In this last phase, the senate, the emperor, and his subordinates gained the right of hearing cases, though trial by jury remained an option in some areas until the third century a.d. Judges were granted an unprecedented amount of leeway in determining penalties. In addition, the emperor was permitted to define new categories of crime and create new punishments. As we have seen, imprisonment was a known entity in the Roman criminal justice system.116 The justifications for imprisonment seem to have been the same as those employed elsewhere in the ancient world. Offenders who owed debts, posed threats to public safety, or were awaiting trial or execution could be placed in jails by magistrates or courts. Over time, incarceration seems to have become increasingly commonplace, as the organization of police forces and their ability to bring in wrongdoers improved. The evidence demonstrates that the cities of the empire were dotted with prisons of many types. Increased mention of incarceration in the literary sources of the later empire suggests an increased awareness of, and interest in, humanitarian causes. The rise of Christianity and a corresponding drive toward the performance of acts of charity may have been partially responsible for this phenomenon.117 As in the other ancient societies we have surveyed, satisfaction at law at Rome was based primarily on the notion of “self-­help” and was consequently driven by the demands of victims. The social and economic standing of these victims was of paramount importance for the resolution of disputes and the solving of crimes. Roman officials and institutions lacked the power to prevent most types of crime but provided the machinery necessary for addressing wrongdoing when detected and 116 Three recent volumes provide thorough treatments of incarceration at Rome

(and elsewhere in antiquity): Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al. (1999), Tovar and Martín (2003), and Bertrand-­Dagenbach, Salamito, and Vaillancourt (2004). See also Taubenschlag (1959a [1940]) and Robinson (1968). The bulk of what follows has been drawn from Chauvot (1999) 221–4 and Krause (1999) 117–28. 117 Rapske (1994).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

30

reported. Though protection was in theory granted by law to all citizens, the state made its own interests primary when assigning duties to the various magistrates who performed law enforcement functions. In all, the evidence clearly demonstrates that policing of one sort or another occurred in most ancient Mediterranean states. The inevitability of wrongdoing made it necessary for the empires of the ancient world to establish law enforcement structures for the prevention of offenses and the punishment of offenders. Naturally, the finer points of these structures differed from place to place and experienced change over time, and the different types of primary sources we have to assess law enforcement in classical antiquity  – from papyri to inscriptions, literature to archaeological remains – differ in value and amount from place to place and period to period. They also yield different types of information. Perhaps surprisingly, rarely does the evidence for a law enforcement phenomenon in one place directly contradict the evidence for the same phenomenon in another. Indeed, it appears that the police systems of antiquity shared a number of basic traits. The most important common element was the obligation of citizens to engage police officials and ensure that justice was done. The justice systems of antiquity were intended to ensure that offenses would not go unpunished provided that victims stepped forward and actively pursued and proved their cases. States penalized offenders by applying (often) monetary and (sometimes) physical fines. Imprisonment was also imposed but rarely (if ever) as punishment. Ptolemaic Egypt: Completing the Puzzle?

As our survey of ancient law enforcement systems has shown, evidence for standing police forces to investigate reports of wrongdoing, visit crime scenes, issue and receive orders, and arrest, transport, ­incarcerate, and even try suspects is slim. When one turns to Ptolemaic Egypt, however, the contrast with the rest of ancient Mediterranean society is striking.118 The copious evidence from papyri reveals that the Ptolemaic 118 A

number of good, recent surveys of the Ptolemies and their empire exist, e.g., Chauveau (2000, age of Cleopatra); Hölbl (2000); and now Manning (2009, the Ptolemaic empire as a premodern state).

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

31

justice system took an active role in performing police duties.119 It protected towns and villages and guaranteed the inhabitants of the Egyptian countryside easy access to government redress. A wide variety of law enforcement officials patrolled the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra, supervising government infrastructure and tending to the day-­to-­day requirements of law enforcement. These forces were well organized, communicated quickly and efficiently, and were present at every geographic and administrative level, from the smallest villages to the chief cities of the nomes (or provinces), the metropoleis. Law enforcement officials sometimes followed direct orders from superiors but also regularly arrested offenders, confiscated goods, and solved crimes on their own initiative. The officers who policed the countryside not only prevented wrongdoing but also stopped it when detected. Recent scholarship on law enforcement and criminal justice in antiquity has focused on forms of social control primarily or wholly independent of state machinery.120 For these scholars, social status, not institutions, was the driving force behind security and justice. The state was a passive presence that provided a handful of services upon request but left most of the dirty work to citizens. The Egyptian evidence reveals that such assessments tell only part of the story. In at least one ancient state, institutions were of primary importance for maintaining law and order. With the phylakitai and others available to arrest and detain suspects, confiscate allegedly stolen goods, seal homes, examine crime scenes and other evidence, and interrogate witnesses, victims of crime in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra were freed from the time-­ and resource­consuming necessity of performing the bulk of police work themselves. In this sense, Ptolemaic Egypt looks (on the surface, at least) like an exception to the rule. That these officials often took personal initiative to tend to police business was also uncharacteristic of other ancient states, at least insofar as we are able to judge from the surviving evidence. Criminals were regularly caught in the act by police officers on patrol, and crimes 119 On papyri 120 For a pair

as evidence, see the discussion in the next section. of recent treatments, see Hunter (1994) on law enforcement at Athens – with the comments of Adam (2007) and E. Harris (2007) – and Nippel (1995) on policing at Rome.

32

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

were prevented by the stationing of security guards. Police frequently appeared on the scene when violence erupted in Egyptian towns and saw to it that offenders were carted off to prisons and state officials. In other ancient states, we see government paying attention to wrongdoing only once offenders had been reined in and trials set by victims; and even then, the services they provided were primarily judicial and rarely police. The military men stationed in many ancient city-­states could be employed for crowd control but do not provide convincing parallels for the autonomous officials capable of independent decision making and effective civil policing whom we see in Ptolemaic Egypt. These law enforcement officials performed various police functions both in response to requests from villagers and on the basis of their own judgment. Their operations were very important for the maintenance of law and order in the Egyptian countryside and represented the employment of personal initiative to its fullest extent. One of the more surprising conclusions to be drawn from the Ptolemaic Egyptian evidence is that the Ptolemaic justice system provided access to government redress to a full spectrum of victims: from the wealthiest Greek businessman to the poorest native Egyptian woman. In theory, neither class, sex, race, ethnicity, age, nor economic status was an insurmountable barrier to satisfaction at law in a Ptolemaic court.121 The petitions demonstrate that anyone who had suffered an injustice was able to contact neighborhood police and seek help and that people of all sorts regularly did so. Justice also does not appear to have been meted out differently to different groups. For the most part, victims were treated equally. To be sure, some degree of bias (racism, sexism, etc.) may occasionally have influenced the decisions of police officials who received petitions, and a certain degree of economic standing was necessary for the composition and conveyance of a letter to the police. But even the poorest Egyptians were not reluctant to write petitions demanding satisfaction at law, even if multiple appeals were sometimes required for success. The petitions provide the clearest evidence that Ptolemaic police officials were expected to take initiative to solve crimes.122 Petitioners 121 For a discussion of the intersection of class, sex, race, ethnicity, age, ­economic

status, and the Ptolemaic law enforcement system, see Chapter 4. 122 See Chapter ­4.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

33

knew what they wanted and told police officers precisely what to do in order to make it happen. For the most part, police followed their requests. But the petitions also reveal that Greeks and Egyptians who had suffered offenses took great personal initiative to obtain justice from law enforcement. If police did not witness an offense or were not informed of the details by someone else, it was the responsibility of the victim to file a report and make a request for remediation. In addition, though a flexible police force was in place to tend to many of their needs, villagers were still actively involved in solving crimes and settling disputes. They gathered witnesses or listed their names in petitions to law enforcement, provided evidence to police, and sometimes even hauled off accused criminals to officials or jails. The operation of the Ptolemaic justice system was in effect defined by two fundamentally different concepts. It not only was driven by victims aware of the necessity of actively involving themselves in obtaining justice but also was an autonomous organization that frequently took its own steps to solve cases and resolve disputes. The combination yielded a system that was fast and flexible and, to judge by the evidence, on the whole successful. But exactly how did the system work? It seems impossible that both police and the people they served could have enjoyed the powers and protections promised by such an organization. Were both populations really so well off? On the one hand, police served as the first level of appeal in the settlements where they worked and provided a broad range of law enforcement services to villagers, often acting independently of higher authorities. For their part, victims of crime took great initiative in obtaining justice by appealing to police and making specific requests for remediation. Yet both of these groups ultimately relied on a third entity for their empowerment: the central government. The administration in Alexandria was responsible for the unusual balance in power we see between police and the subject population.123 It was in the best interests of the Ptolemies to maintain both a sophisticated police force to tend to law and order in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra and a contented and peaceable work force of villagers. They achieved both of these aims by granting both groups a certain degree of empowerment: the police to serve and protect 123 See

Chapter ­6.

34

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

victims of wrongdoing in the outback, the victims to appeal to police and request appropriate remediating measures. The system worked because neither group was unchecked. A police force wholly independent of government controls would have rapidly degenerated into lawlessness, and a population given free reign to engage and instruct law enforcement would have severely taxed government time, resources, and manpower. Instead, the Ptolemies created a dynamic balance between police and villagers. Police were held accountable for inappropriate behavior and operational mistakes and knew that reprimand would be fast and stern. While the rulers of the kingdom encouraged their law enforcement officials to take considerable steps to solve crimes and settle disputes, they demanded that these officers work within a framework of reasonable behavior.124 Rough handling was sometimes tolerated, but only to a degree: peace and prosperity in the countryside were the goal, but not at all costs. For their part, villagers enjoyed relatively uncomplicated access to the police but were aware that their claims and appeals could be dismissed if groundless, misdirected, or otherwise defective. As many petitions demonstrate, sometimes these appeals were neglected (though usually only temporarily) if their contents were not considered sufficiently important to merit immediate attention. Police knew how to prioritize. Indeed, most police business was managed at the village level, with minimal interference from above.125 Police in Egyptian towns and villages received and processed complaints of wrongdoing, generally without instruction or interference from higher authorities. They reported to their immediate superiors when necessary and only occasionally sought the assistance of officials at higher administrative levels. Contact with the highest echelons of police power (at the nome, or provincial, level) was infrequent and initiated primarily in those cases where initial attempts at remediation had failed. For the most part, towns and villages were outfitted with the manpower and infrastructure to handle 124 On police misbehavior and corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Chapter 5. 125 Of a handful of book-­length studies that discuss life in the towns and vil-

lages of Ptolemaic Egypt, see, e.g., Crawford (1971) and Verhoogt (1997) on Kerkeosiris and Tebtynis, respectively; and D. J. Thompson (1988) on Memphis.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

35

the daily business of law enforcement on their own. A broad range of officials (phylakitai, phylakes, and the like) were hired in these same settlements to patrol them. Offenders, once apprehended, were placed in nearby jails. Most criminal trials probably took place in the offices of local judicial officials who had jurisdiction or perhaps local courtrooms. The criminal justice system was largely self-­sufficient and unburdened by interventions from superiors. For their part, the Ptolemies and the government administrators in Alexandria were content to allow the system to function on its own. By farming out control of law enforcement to towns and villages, the heads of state saved themselves, their officials, and their criminal justice infrastructure a good deal of time and money. Greater involvement in the affairs of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra by Alexandria would doubtless have ensured a greater degree of accountability in Egyptian towns and villages and tighter control over daily procedure, but such increased interference was not a viable alternative to the system in place. The Ptolemies had more important things to worry about than petty theft and violence in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. They let law enforcement handle such matters. The sophisticated police forces of the Egyptian countryside served effectively as tools of control and allowed the Ptolemies to give full attention to government business without having to endure constant complaining from villagers. Yet to some degree the rulers of the kingdom prioritized the pacification of civilians. From the beginnings of Egyptian civilization, the sovereigns were the ultimate authorities for law and order.126 The petitions, many of which are addressed to the sovereigns, demonstrate that the passage of time and changes in the ruling class did not alter this perception. These texts reveal that people trusted the government to give attention to their grievances. As far as we can tell, most petitions were read and processed by police and other officials. The financial ­well-­being of all Egypt depended in large part on the contentedness of villagers. The revenue production and transport that occupied so much state time and energy were possible only when producers and transporters were not victimized by criminals or preoccupied by personal quarrels. An efficient police system helped to ensure that things ran smoothly. 126 Tyldesley

(2000) 16–33 provides a nice assessment of this ­conception.

36

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

As we have said, the Ptolemaic police system was primarily a ­village phenomenon. Officers were hired in towns and villages to patrol these areas and tend to other law enforcement business, usually without interference from superiors at higher administrative levels. In reality, however, the independence enjoyed by the Ptolemaic police was not so absolute. In addition to protecting their jurisdictions, the police also helped to ensure that the state maintained tight control over certain aspects of daily life.127 Law enforcement officials not only solved crimes and caught crooks but also provided security for financial infrastructure, acted as bailiffs at trials, and furnished an armed presence at other government functions on a regular basis. When it came time for the harvest, the Ptolemaic police assisted in revenue gathering, transport, protection, and extraction. For the performance of all of these duties, law enforcement officials received instruction from (primarily) nome­level officers. Though permitted to take great initiative at other times, when it was necessary to gather, ship, and store grain, as well as extract public debt payments from defaulters, Ptolemaic police officials surrendered much of their autonomy. Alexandria called the shots. The occasional involvement of the Alexandrian administration in town and village law enforcement matters perhaps helps to explain the lack of evidence for corruption among the Ptolemaic police.128 One imagines that an organization operating as freely as the Ptolemaic law enforcement system did would be plagued by official abuses. Yet there are few indications that police corruption was a serious issue. Most officers seem to have been responsible and quick to follow orders. Villagers evidently trusted their police forces, if one is to judge from the hundreds of petitions these officials received. Reprimands to subordinates from police administrators are few, and government circulars and decrees concerning corruption are often too vague to provide firm conclusions about the extent or even types of police wrongdoing. Police were granted autonomy to carry out police work but were nevertheless subject to scrutiny from superiors. The same system by which they quickly and efficiently received and sent official correspondence could also be employed to report official misbehavior. 127 On the Ptolemaic police as agents of the central government, see Chapter 6. 128 Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt: Bauschatz (2007c) and Chapter 5.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

37

We see, then, that the Ptolemaic criminal justice system was in many ways characterized by contrasts. It shared many similarities with the law enforcement machinery observable in other ancient societies, where the personal initiative of victims was crucial for obtaining justice, but at the same time deployed a corps of standing police, unparalleled in the surviving evidence from outside of Egypt, who took initiative to perform a broad range of law enforcement tasks. As was the case in other ancient states, the Ptolemaic system guaranteed access and protections to those with the highest social standing. But we see it also providing the same services to the poorest of the poor, with little to no difference detectable in the quality or extent of assistance. The officials who composed the ranks of the phylakitai, phylakes, and other police groups in Egyptian towns and villages were empowered to tend to most of the daily business of law enforcement on their own, often without explicit instructions from superiors.129 But they were also ultimately government employees who could be (and regularly were) called on to perform any of a number of tasks at the behest of the sovereigns and their administrators. In spite of these many compositional contradictions, the Ptolemaic criminal justice system appears to have operated very well. The flexibility of the organization enabled it to serve a broad cross section of the populace and fill many different functions.

The Evidence: Time, Space, Languages, Limitations

The unique evidence for policing in Greco-­Roman Egypt – thousands of documentary papyri  – provides the kind of immediacy and detail unavailable in the data from any other ancient society. No fewer than two thousand papyrus texts provide information on the activities of law enforcement officials, the wrongdoers they pursued, and the ins and outs of the criminal justice system.130 These include petitions from 129 The

various police officials of Ptolemaic Egypt are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. 130 According to the author’s database of papyri, inscriptions, and literary texts relating to the Ptolemaic police. As of March 2013, this database contained 2,302 separate entries.

38

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

victims of crime, notifications from higher officials to police, records of court proceedings, royal proclamations, and letters from prisoners. In addition to these texts, a certain number of inscriptions – perhaps no more than fifty – are relevant to the study of the subject.131 In most cases, however, the evidence from stones provides little more than prosopographical data. Aside from this, a few references in Diodorus Siculus shed a bit of light on the treatment of prisoners in Egypt.132 But the Hellenistic historians (to say nothing of the poets) are otherwise silent about the activities of police officials in the Egyptian countryside. The papyri are invaluable for the insights they provide into the day-­to-­day business of law enforcement in the Egyptian outback. They help make Ptolemaic (and later Roman) Egypt one of the best­known (and also best-­documented) regions of the ancient world. But the papyri are not without their limitations. For one thing, these texts are mostly chance survivals that provide only a partial view of the people, institutions, and phenomena they depict. For the Ptolemaic period, papyri from the Arsinoite and Herakleopolite nomes are especially well represented: Arsinoite texts in the third and second centuries b.c., Herakleopolite in the first. Papyri from the other nomes are ­significantly rarer.133 In addition, virtually nothing has survived from the Delta region, which includes Alexandria, the administrative and cultural center of the Ptolemaic state.134 Papyri are often broken, 131 The number of inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt is quite small when com-

pared with the totals from other parts of the Greco-­Roman Mediterranean, and even with the other Hellenistic kingdoms. For an overview of the contents of the Ptolemaic material, the reader is directed to the sourcebooks of Bagnall and Derow (2004) and Austin (2006). 132 Diodorus 3.12–13: a detailed discussion of Egyptian mines and the people – criminals and prisoners of war – sent to work there by the kings of Egypt. 133 For a more thorough discussion of the chronological and geographic ­variations in the papyrus evidence from the third century b.c. to the eighth century a.d. see the survey of Habermann (1998). 134 On the archaeological evidence for Ptolemaic Alexandria and the Delta region as a whole, see now McKenzie (2007) 31–146. The documentary (papyrus) evidence for and from the city is in the process of being compiled and translated by Peter van Minnen on his Ancient Alexandria homepage: http://classics.uc.edu/~vanminnen/Alexandria/Ancient_Alexandria.html. A current bibliography on the city can also be found there, including information on published volumes of Alexandrian inscriptions and papyri.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

39

smudged, riddled with holes, or otherwise difficult to read or interpret. Some are parts of extensive archives that have survived in bulk owing to the fastidiousness of their compilers.135 Such mass survivals weight the evidence in favor of particular time periods and particular regions. For example, thanks to the most famous archive of texts, we are especially well informed about the activities of Zenon of Kaunos in the Arsinoite village of Philadelphia in the mid-­ to late third century b.c.136 But we know next to nothing about a man who must have been a police officer of some importance: Pleistarchos, police chief (archiphylakites) ‫ ﷴ‬of the Pathyrite nome in 148 b.c., mentioned in only one text (P.Lond. VII 2188 [Hermonthis]).137 Bias poses another problem. If the winners wrote the history books, it was the losers who wrote complaints to the police. And like the winners, the losers were not always interested in portraying the facts as accurately as possible. A large portion of the evidence for policing in Ptolemaic Egypt consists of petitions to law enforcement from alleged victims of crimes and abuses.138 Petitioners understood the importance of filling their accounts with grim details and painting their predicaments in bleak colors. They often stretched and sometimes broke the truth. There was clearly a belief among the inhabitants of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra that reports of egregious wrongdoing received the fastest and most effective police responses. Consequently, very few petitioners mentioned minor slights without also tacking on additional, more serious offenses. Wrongdoing was routinely portrayed as one-­sided; admissions of guilt are virtually nonexistent. Petitions to law enforcement are one of the most important data sets for details on the operation of the Ptolemaic police but also present some of the most serious interpretative problems. Petitions, however, do not monopolize interpretative difficulties. Royal decrees also touch on matters of interest to police officials.139 135 On papyrus archives, see Vandorpe (2009). 136 See Pestman (1981) for an overview of the archive. 137 Pleistarchos: Pros.Ptol. 4723. 138 The subject of petitions to police is treated in detail in Chapter 4. 139 E.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 34 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.), which outlawed arbitrary impris-

onment by police officials and others (see Chapters 2 and 5); C.Ord.Ptol.2 53

40

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

On the surface, these documents seem to provide guidelines for police searches, instructions for criminal judicial procedure, and penalties for misbehaving officials, among other things. But precisely how relevant were the decrees to the day-­to-­day functioning of the Ptolemaic police? Do they reflect law enforcement reality or rather an imagined world of lawlessness conceived by the rulers of the kingdom and their advisers and with few, if any, antecedents in the countryside? Did the sovereigns base their commandments on firsthand observations, on reports from court officials, or from those further afield? As a recent study has demonstrated, there are indications that the decrees were primarily proscriptive, not reactive, and composed by the rulers of the kingdom and their legal scholars along generic lines.140 They doubtless contain a good deal of valuable information, but must be treated with caution. Fortunately, not all of the source material is so problematic. But even documents as seemingly straightforward as land surveys and tax lists have limitations. Here the difficulties are primarily quantitative rather than qualitative. The information to be gleaned from tax records, receipts, land registers, accounts, and other such sources is generally of primarily prosopographical value. We learn much about the wages, landholdings, and tax payments of individual policemen but very little about policing. For the latter, one must turn to official orders and reports to and from police. These texts provide solid evidence for the actual functions of law enforcement officials. But even these can be tricky. A nome-­level police chief might command a village official to arrest an offender and seal his home, but the written order he composed likely did not preserve any indication that the subordinate followed his commands in full or even in part. A certain amount of faith in the documents and the degree of reality they reflect is necessary to arrive at even the most basic conclusions about police procedure. While both Greek and Demotic are encountered in the documentary evidence for Hellenistic Egypt, most of the papyri and inscriptions

(Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.), in which police officers were forgiven for making false tax returns (see Chapter 2); and P.Hib. II 198 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), a series of regulations for police searches and investigations (see Chapters 5 and 6). 140 Bauschatz (2007c) 32–5.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

41

relevant to the study of law enforcement under the Ptolemies are in Greek, the language of business and government in the kingdom.141 This should not surprise us: the rulers of the kingdom spoke Greek, employed mainly Greeks at the highest levels of state administration, and drew on Greek precedents for many of the institutions they established throughout the Egyptian countryside. Yet most of the people whom the law enforcement system served were Egyptians who spoke (Demotic) Egyptian. Some of them were able to speak Greek, but very few could write in it.142 The evidence reveals that for the most part, Egyptians were able to access the state police system via intermediaries – scribes ( grammateis) – who translated their complaints, sworn testimony, and the like into Greek.143 Yet there is some important evidence for the Ptolemaic police system in Demotic as well.144 Texts of this type were composed by Egyptians for exclusively Egyptian audiences. Alongside some accounts that mention ethnically Egyptian police officials, we also see bail agreements arranged between ethnically Egyptian police officers and private individuals, official correspondence concerning police business, and documentation about prisoners.145 As one might guess, 141 On

language in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Goudriaan (1988) 65–7, 92–3, 99–100, 117; D. J. Thompson (1992a); on ethnicity and bilingualism, Chapter 4, note 29. According to the author’s database of texts concerning law enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, of some ca. 2,300 papyri, inscriptions, and literary sources, at least ca. 2,250 are Greek. 142 Literacy under the Ptolemies: Baines (1983, pharaonic through Roman period); Baines and Eyre (1983) 69, 84; W. V. Harris (1989, especially 116–46 on the Hellenistic period; but see the comments of Wipszycka [1996]); Falivene (1991); D. J. Thompson (1992a, 1992b, 1994a, 1994b); Bagnall (1993) 230–60 (late antiquity); T. J. Kraus (2000); Evans (2004). 143 The best evidence for this phenomenon comes from the petitions: see Chapter 4. 144 Perhaps no more than 30 Demotic papyri from the Ptolemaic period are of great importance for their law enforcement content; cf. note 145 herein. 145 A number of 3rd and 2nd century b.c. Demotic salt-­tax accounts preserve demographic and prosopographical information on Ptolemaic police officials: see P.Count 2+3 (Arsinoite, 229 b.c.), 4 (Arsinoite, 243–231 b.c.), 8 (Mouchis, 243–217 b.c.), 9 (Arsinoite, after 251/250 b.c.), and 53 (Lykopolite, II b.c.). Bail agreements also seem to have been regularly drawn up in Demotic: P.Bürgsch. 7, 8 (Krokodilopolis?, 202 b.c.), 16 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 22, 23 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.); P.LilleDem. I 3 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.) and 4 (Ghoran, 247 b.c.).

42

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

these texts tend to have been produced in contexts where there was no Greek administrative machinery to insist upon translation. If subsequent access to the state were necessary, however, Greek was a must. Finally, a few words here about change over time might be useful. In much of the discussion that follows, it is assumed that the broad contours of the Ptolemaic criminal justice system remained largely the same over the course of the kingdom’s nearly three-­hundred-­year history; that the activities and titles of police officers did not change much over that time; and that interactions between offenders, victims, and police in the late fourth century b.c. did not differ too drastically from those in the late first century b.c. For the most part, this seems to be correct. The evidence suggests that in spite of the vast geographic and chronological expanse of the Ptolemaic empire, policing was a fairly stable phenomenon. Of course, neither the Ptolemaic state nor its police system was ever really static. As we will see, there was always some degree of organizational difference observable among police officials across the different nomes of Egypt, and even between individual towns and villages. In addition, the survival of papyrus archives from widely scattered geographic regions and time periods means that certain types of officials and phenomena are especially well attested in some places at certain times but not at all in or at others. There are also clear indications that certain elements of the Ptolemaic police system did experience change over time, in particular the administrative competencies of particular officials. Such changes are pointed out and investigated as they are encountered.146 Overall, however, the evidence for policing in Ptolemaic Egypt argues for a diachronic treatment of the subject. Official correspondence between police officials in Demotic: C.Jud.Syr.Eg. 5 (Pelousion or Mendes?, 102 b.c.); P.Bürgsch. 17  = P.CorpusRevillout II 3 (Memphis, 159 b.c.); P.CorpusRevillout II 4 (Memphis, 159 b.c.); Serapis 6 (1980) p.  166 (Memphis, 159 b.c.). Prisoners: P.LilleDem. I 5 (Ghoran, 245 b.c.?), a letter from a man fearing deportation to the South as a prisoner; 32 (Ghoran, 264/263 or 226/225 b.c.), an account of people (prisoners) to be transported to the South. On Demotic terms for Ptolemaic police officials, see Chapter 2, note 42. For more on prisoners, see Chapter 5. 146 E.g., we see an early (i.e., at some point in the early third century b.c.) shift in the judicial competencies of the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ﷳ‬ (Chapters 2 and 3), and also a late (i.e., first century b.c.) development whereby phylakitai were heavily employed as guards for grain shipments (Chapters 

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

43

What Not to Expect

Before we begin our investigation in earnest, I should add a few words about what this book is not. For starters, it should be obvious by now that this is not a book about policing in ancient Egypt in general but specifically policing in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Ptolemaic period provides extensive documentation for the activities of police officials, and the data exhibit minimal change over time. Our earliest evidence for police and policing during this period appears in the middle of the third century b.c., when the Ptolemaic state was in its prime and the machinery of government was still being developed. The documentation is rich and abundant up until the end, when Rome arrived and took control of Egypt. As noted, the Ptolemaic police system remained intact and essentially unchanged for more than three hundred years. By all indications, the reforms of Augustus reshaped the Egyptian police system he inherited into something fundamentally different: for example, under the empire soldiers played more prominent roles in policing, serving both on patrols and as administrators.147 These favorable conditions press for a treatment of the Ptolemaic evidence separate from a ­consideration of the pharaonic and Roman periods. There are indications that the Ptolemies may have inherited some of their police machinery from the previous rulers of the kingdom, but the evidence is thin and only suggestive.148 In the Roman period, evidence for law enforcement is plentiful. Recent scholarship has highlighted many aspects of police and policing in the province of Egypt.149 2 and 6). It will perhaps come as a surprise that there does not seem to have been a wholesale revision of the police system after the serious upheavals that shook the kingdom in the second century b.c. 147 Under the Romans, the centurion became the official of primary law enforcement competence: Baade (1956). Soldiers were given a more prominent role in day-­to-­day policing as well: Bagnall (1977); Alston (1995). In addition, a number of security posts (e.g., the various types of phylax) became liturgical: Lewis (1997a). 148 See earlier discussion. 149 E.g., Baade (1956); R. W. Davies (1973); Bagnall (1977); Hobson (1993); Alston (1994); Aubert (1994); Hennig (2002); Kelly (2003); and Fuhrmann (2011).

44

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

It should also be stressed that this is only tangentially a book about individuals: police officials and offenders. The primary focus is the operation of the police and the experiences of the people they pursued. In this work, wrongdoers are of interest for their interactions with police and the victims who complained about them, and crimes for when they were reported to or witnessed by law enforcement officials. I do not attempt to assess the evidence for crime rates, the socioeconomic status of criminals, the predominance of certain types of wrongdoing over others, or Egyptian or Greek attitudes toward offenses and offenders. This is well-­trodden ground.150 Similarly, the discussion only touches on the questions of who police officials were (ethnicity, class, age, geographic distribution), what they gave to and received from their employers (rates and types of pay, tax contributions, allotments of land, crops sowed), and how they led their private lives. To some degree treatments of these topics have been provided by other scholars.151 Again, my focus is institutions, not individuals. I am concerned with what police officials did, what types of government infrastructure they employed, and how the process of catching wrongdoers and ­bringing them to justice worked. Finally, it must be stressed that this book is limited in its geographic scope. It is not a definitive treatment of police forces in all of the Ptolemaic empire but rather that portion of Egypt outside the boundaries of Alexandria: the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Our evidence for policing under the Ptolemies comes exclusively from the towns and villages of the Egyptian countryside. The documents provide a window into the mechanics of law enforcement and crime solving in the small, ethnically mixed settlements scattered throughout the fertile and desert regions of Egypt. We are uninformed as to how policing was carried out in the Greek poleis (cities) of the empire, in large part because papyrus documentation for said poleis does not survive in great quantities. This is unfortunate for, but not crippling to, a discussion of law enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt. Alexandria was the center of the Ptolemaic government and the home of the royal court, but it was one city in a vast territory.152 The 150 On crime and criminals in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see Baldwin (1963); R. W.

Davies (1973); and Hélmis (1986); on violence, Peremans (1978); Hélmis (1986); Ambaglio (1987); Bagnall (1989); Alston (1994); McGing (1997). 151 See the previous discussion. 152 Ptolemaic Alexandria: note 134 ­herein.

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

45

Greek port city of Naukratis, originally established at some point in the seventh century b.c., survived under the Ptolemies but led a quiet existence, reduced in importance as it was by the founding of Alexandria.153 The third Greek city in Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemais Hermiou, was founded by Ptolemy I Soter (ruled 305–282 b.c.) along the lines of a traditional Greek city, with the usual boule‫( ﷴ‬city council) and phylai (regional subdivisions of the population, literally “tribes”).154 In other ancient city-­states, the majority of documentation for day-­to-­day life comes from the poleis, with little or no additional evidence from the outback.155 The reverse was true in Ptolemaic Egypt. The story of crime and punishment under the Ptolemies is told exclusively by the cho‫ﷳ‬ra but is no less rich and rewarding because of it. Of all the tales from everyday life in the Egyptian outback, it is perhaps those concerning the commission and reporting of crimes, the apprehension of suspects, the conducting of criminal investigations, and the resolution of disputes that tell us the most about interactions between officials and the populations they supervised. Here, as nowhere else, the relationship between the (primarily) Egyptian villager and the (primarily) Greek governor is laid forth in bright, clear colors. The documents that shed the most light on this relationship – primarily petitions, but also a number of especially detailed reports of investigations and trials  – reveal that interactions between police and citizens were often complicated. People were grateful for the fast attention police officers paid to their complaints of violence and theft, but resented the sometimes harsh treatment they received at the hands of these same officials at tax time. They appreciated the extra muscle and manpower provided by law enforcement for the investigation of reported crimes and the arrest of suspects, but likewise chafed at the necessity of performing annual liturgical work under the watchful eyes of police. They expected the police to show offenders little mercy but reacted with 153 The

information we have on Ptolemaic Naukratis is fairly meager: see, e.g., E. M. Smith (1924) 29–31 and Coulson and Leonard (1981) 14–16. 154 Precious little has been written about Ptolemais Hermiou. K. Müller (2006) 207 (#64) succinctly lists bibliography on the polis as well as the various names by which it was known, its facilities and officials. 155 This is certainly the case with Athens, for example; see Whitehead (1986) 39–46.

46

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

indignation when they themselves committed crimes and were subsequently ill-­treated. The texts that illustrate this complex relationship between policeman and villager reveal down to the smallest detail what everyday life was like in an ancient state. The depictions are rich and fascinating. By following the events recounted in a petition to a police officer, the minutes of a court case, or the report of a subordinate to a superior, one gains an appreciation for the vicissitudes of small-­town life. Similar information is unavailable elsewhere in antiquity. We know much about how the Athenian court system functioned from the Attic orators.156 But their speeches, though remarkable, are polished literary texts and lack the immediacy of letters written to police officials moments after crimes were committed. The Roman satirists and epigrammatists give one a certain perspective on the seamier side of life at Rome.157 But their works are often filled with intentional and obvious exaggerations and hence are removed from an everyday authenticity. The ­relationships between officials and villagers that we see laid bare in the papyri are of an entirely different sort. They are vivid, visceral, and real. The people who wrote about them were not commissioned poets or skilled declaimers but regular human beings who had suffered real injustices and asked officials to ease suffering by righting wrongs. At the most basic level, the evidence for law enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt shows us humans (police) helping humans (victims). It is a picture still familiar to us today.

Outline

In the second and third chapters, both on the officer corps, I discuss the human components of the Ptolemaic criminal justice system, focusing on two subsets: in Chapter  2, professional police officers (phylakitai), 156 Recent

guides to the material include Worthington (2006, specifically Greek rhetoric) and Carawan (2007). 157 Roman satire has been especially well treated by companions, introductory volumes, and monographs in recent years, e.g., Coffey (1989); Freudenberg (2001, 2005); Keane (2006); Hooley (2007). Work on Latin epigram focuses predominantly on Martial, e.g., Sullivan (1991); Fitzgerald (2007); Spisak (2007); Rimell (2009).

Introduction: The Place of ­Police

47

and in Chapter 3, civil and military officials who took part in police business. These chapters provide a broad overview of police powers, administrative domains, and interactions between officials. The papyri showcased here illuminate the ins and outs of policing in Ptolemaic Egypt and the specific tasks entrusted to the individual cogs in the law enforcement machine. Next, in “Agents of Appeal: Petitions and Responses” (Chapter 4), I address the self-­help aspect of policing in Ptolemaic Egypt. Petitions to law enforcement officials provide a convenient test case. As demonstrated by countless petitions, the Ptolemaic criminal justice system provided peasants with a good deal of personal empowerment. The “wild west” of Ptolemaic Egypt did not leave the inhabitants of the countryside without options when crimes were committed against them. The police system was a part of their daily lives, and they knew how to use it. Whereas Chapters 2 and 3 are organized by administrative hierarchy, Chapter 4 is arranged around a series of questions central to the ­petitioning process: Why did citizens write petitions to police officials? How did the petitioning process work? What segments of the population made use of the system? Where were petitions initially sent by their authors, and subsequently by the officials who received them? What did petitioners expect to gain from the process? What did they actually get? Ultimately, we see that the Ptolemaic petitioning system was remarkably fast and efficient, extended out into every corner of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, and was employed by people from all walks of life who called on officials at all levels of administration. That the Ptolemaic police system worked and to great effect is demonstrated more broadly in Chapter  5, “Busting and Booking: Arrest, Detention, Investigation, Resolution.” In this chapter I analyze the police activities most commonly attested in the documents: the arrest, detention, and examination of criminals and the investigation of crimes. The main focus here is on the autonomy of the Ptolemaic police forces. All four steps in the process demonstrate that Ptolemaic police officials were invested with a considerable degree of power and regularly acted without direct orders from local supervisors or agents of the central government. This stands in stark contrast to the evidence for the police forces found in, for example, Athens and Rome, where much of the police work on display was performed by agents largely unable to

48

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

take initiative or action unless sanctioned by higher-­ranking officials. Chapter 5 is organized chronologically: first, I consider the mechanics of arrests in Ptolemaic Egypt (i.e., whether ordered in advance, made spontaneously, performed by police officials or citizens, etc.). Next, I reveal how detention worked: where criminals were kept and for how long, options for bail, types of Ptolemaic prisons, and the prison experience. Third, I examine the various facets of Ptolemaic police investigations: these included the culling of evidence and witnesses, visits to crime scenes, the protection of property and infrastructure, and searches for stolen goods. The chapter ends with a look at Ptolemaic criminal trials: the use of documents and witnesses at trial, the courtroom officials most often present, and the types of punishments meted out by the judges at such trials (most commonly police officials). In the final main chapter, “The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and Muscle,” I focus on the roles of police in maintaining security, acting as “muscle” for the collection of tax arrears, preserving order at trials and auctions, and their involvement in additional activities in which the central government had vested interests. Chapter 6 shows the other side of the coin presented in Chapter  5: while the Ptolemaic police were invested with great autonomy for the solving of crimes, they were closely supervised when it came to the protection of the state’s economic and agricultural interests. They were deployed in a variety of ways: as agents of border security at the fringes of the Egyptian desert; as the main officials in charge of running the genematophylakia, the ‫ﷴ‬ annual guarding of crops; as collectors of tax arrears in Egyptian villages; and as physical reminders at large-­scale public events  – trials and auctions – of the power of the central government. It is perhaps not surprising that the Ptolemies called on their police officials to perform such tasks; what is surprising is that these officials coupled their government-­mandated duties with a broad array of additional police tasks in the towns and villages where they lived and worked, and managed to do so quite successfully. The Ptolemaic law enforcement system was a versatile and trusted institution, essential for the maintenance of peace and prosperity in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Both the subject population and the sovereigns depended on police to punish offenders, assist victims, and generally uphold the law. As we shall see, their trust was well placed.

­2 The Officer Corps I: The Phylakitai

On 9 May 137 b.c., Phanesis, village scribe (kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus) of the village of Thmoinausiris and the adjacent villages, wrote to Pesouris, royal scribe (basilikos grammateus) of the Herakleopolite nome, about the recent activity of the phylakitai of Rhodonos Nesos.1 In the first half of his report, Phanesis detailed a series of troubling events in the village: 2

4

Φανῆσις κωμογραμματεὺ[ς] Θμοιναυσίρεως καὶ τῶν συγκυρου[σῶν κωμῶ]ν Πεσούρει χαίρειν· τῆι ις τοῦ {m} ἐν⟨εσ⟩τῶτος [μ]ηνὸς {μηνὸς} ἐπιλαβόντα[ς] τοὺς ἐν [τ]ῆι Ῥοδῶνος Νῆσον φυ[λ]ακίτας Ὡρίωνα τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γεωργῶν, ἀ[ν]ήχθη ε[ἰ]ς Ἡρακλέους πόλιν ὡς ἐπὶ Κομανὸν τὸν ἐπιστάτην τῶν φυλακιτῶν· καὶ μετὰ τ[α]ῦτα

Much of this chapter derives from my dissertation (Bauschatz [2005] 25–52, 61–4). Supplementary material is drawn from Bauschatz 2007a and talks delivered at the annual meeting of the American Philological Association in 2004 and 2009. 1 The report of the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus is on one side of this document. On the other side are two poorly preserved drafts of letters to Dionysios, the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and Komanos, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n; for these (partly translated later in this chapter), see now P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.). See also ZPE 141 (2002) 189–90 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.) for an additional copy of Phanesis’s report that was forwarded to Pesouris from a certain Ammeneus. On the scribal hierarchy in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Chapter 5; for more on Phanesis and Pesouris, Sosin and Bauschatz (2002). 49

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

50

τῆι αὐτῆι ἡμέραι ἐπέβαλον Ἀγα[θῖ]νος καὶ Φιλάμμων κἄ[λ]λοι παρὰ [?Διονυσίο]υ τοῦ ἀρχιφυλακ[ί]του εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν κώμην ποιούμενοι παρασφραγισ[μὸν τῆς] 8 Ἀβαβίκιος οἰκίας ἐν ἧι ⟨ὁ⟩ ὑπογεγραμμένος Ὡρίων [παραγένετο] καὶ Π[ετε]σο[ῦχος τῶν] βασιλικῶν γεωργῶν [τ]ῶν [τ]ῆς αὐ[τ]ῆ[ς ἄ]νευ [τ]ῆς ἡ[με]τέρ[ας γ]νώ[μης ἢ παραλαβ]εῖν τινας τῶν π[αρ’] ἡ[μῶ]ν. ἔστιν δὲ τ[ὸ καθ’ ἓν ὧ]ν ἐ[πι]δέδ[ω]κεν [      πρὸς ἐμ]έ· χῆνα ταρ[ιχηρὸ]ν vac α vac προσκεφ[άλ]αια vac β [  ]π[  ]αμων [            ] 12 πο⟨ι⟩ήσαντε[ς τὸν παρα]σφραγισμὸν π[αρεγέν]ο[ν]το εἰς Ἡρακλέους πό[λ]ι[ν. ἔγραψά σοι] ὅπως εἰδῆ[ις.] vac ἔρρ[ωσο] (ἔτους) λ[γ Φα]ρ[μοῦθι ις.]

Phanesis, kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus of Thmoinausiris and the associated villages, to Pesouris, greetings. On the 16th of the current month, the phylakitai in [4]2 Rhodonos Nesos seized Horion, one of the farmers from the same village. He was sent to Herakleopolis in order (to appear?) before Komanos, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. After this, on the same day, Agathinos and Philammon and others, from [Dionysios?], archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬set upon the same village, (and) put a seal on the [8] house of Ababikis, in which the aforementioned Horion was staying, as well as Petesouchos, one of the royal farmers from the same (village), without our permission, or (our permission) to bring along some of our men. There follows the list of the things (stolen) which [ – – ] submitted: 1 pickled goose, 2 pillows. … [12] having made a seal, they went to Herakleopolis. I have written to you so that you may know. Farewell. Year 33, Pharmouthi 16. (ZPE 141 [2002] 185–7.2–13 [Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.])

According to Phanesis, Agathinos and his accomplices had carried out their raid on the village of Rhodonos Nesos without authorization and even illegally. On the back of Phanesis’s report, Pesouris, the recipient of this letter, sketched out a pair of draft reports to Dionysios, archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s, and Komanos, epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, in which he laid out 2 Line

references in translations are only approximate to the line numbers of the original Greek.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

51

some proposals for the punishment of the out-­of-­control police officers and the processing of the farmers: Διονυσίωι ἀρχ(ι)φυ(λακίτηι)· δι’ ἧς ἔπεμψεν [ἐπιστολῆ]ς Φ[α]νῆσις κω(μο)γρ(αμματεὺς) τῆς Ῥόδωνος Νήσου ἀ[νενήν]εκται τῆι ις τοῦ Φαρ(μοῦθι) ἀναχθέντος Ὡρίω[νος] ⟦τῶν⟧ ἐκ τῆς κώ(μης) ⟦  ⟧ γεωργοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτόθι [φυ]λακιτῶν ἐπὶ Κομανὸν τὸν ἐπισ(τάτην) τῶν φυ(λακιτῶν) μεταξὺ δ’ ἐπιπαραγενομένους Ἀγαθῖνον καὶ 8 Φιλάμμονα τοὺς π[α]ρὰ σοῦ παρασφραγίσασθαι ⟦  ⟧ ἄνευ τῶν ἄλλ[ων?] τὴν Ἀβαβίκιος οἰκίαν ὅπου κατ[αγεν]έσθαι τόν \τε/ Ὡρίωνα \καὶ Πετεσοῦχ[ο]ν τῶν    [ ca. ? ]/ διαρπασθέ[ν]των τῶν ὑπογεγραμμένων. καὶ μ[ ca. ? ] θὲν ἀγνοεῖν. ἵνα δ [ὲ ὁ Ὡρίων ?] εἰς συνέδριον κατα[σ]ταθῆι πρὸς τὴν [ἐ]σομένην ἐπίσκε(ψιν) διασεσαφήκαμεν τῶι 12 Κομανῶι. καὶ σὺ δὲ καλῶς ποή(σεις) τά τε vac. (?) ὑπογεγραμμένα ἀσφαλισ[ά]μενος μέχρι ἐπιγνώσεως καὶ τῆς τῶ[ν] διενγυηθέντων ἀποκαταστάσεως [vac] φροντίσας μὴ παρέργως. ἤδη \δὲ/ τοὺς περὶ τὸν Ἀγαθῖνον μεταπεμψάμενος κατάσ[τησον] πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστων διεξαγωγὴν ⟦ὥστ’ εἰ διαβάλλονται ἑαυτοῖς οὕτω⟧ \ἑαυτοῖς γὰρ οὕτω κ⟦ ⟧\α/θότι διαβάλλονται ὡς/ 16 ⟦κεχρημένοι⟧ πεποιηθότες ⟦    τον⟧ \ὥστε καὶ/ ⟦ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ κω(μο)γρ(αμματέως) γνώμης⟧ παρασφραγισμὸν \πα{ }ρεγέ[ν]ον-­ το (?) ει    / ⟦                            ⟧ καθ’ ὃν καὶ (?) τὰ ὑποδεικνύμενα διηρπᾶσθαι. δηλοῦται   καὶ παρ  [   ]    [   ]  ⟦[    ]   ε  [  ] εα⟧ ἐξ ἐπιγνώσεως ⟦   ⟧ ⟦πάντων⟧ οἷς ⟦   τη⟧ δι       [      ] traces 20 Κομανῶι ἐπισ(τάτηι) φυ(λακιτῶν)· τ     υ() κα(λῶς) οὖν (?) πο(ήσεις) συ(ντάξας) π[ρονοηθῆναι ὅ]πως ὅ τε Ὡρί[ω]ν (?) traces πρὸς τὴν ἐσομέ(νην) διεξαγω(γὴν) καὶ ὅπως τ[  ] [      ]    5

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

52

   στρα(τηγ-­) πρὸς  ε αγα  ομμαλ[ ca. ? ] [ ca. ? ]  [ ca. ? ] [ ca. ? ] [ ca. ? ]

To Dionysios, archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬Through the letter that Phanesis, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus of Rhodonos Nesos, sent it has been reported that on the 16th of Pharmouthi, Horion, a farmer from the village, was brought up before Komanos, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, by the phylakitai there; and in the meanwhile, (that) your men Agathinos and [8] Philammon, appearing on the scene without the [others?], put a seal on the house of Ababikis, in which both Horion and Petesouchos were living, after the ­aforementioned were seized. And (it was reported that) … was unaware. So that Horion (?) may be brought to court for the upcoming inquiry, we have clarified the matter to [12] Komanos. You, then, will do well to impound the aforementioned items until the verdict and give special attention to the restoration of the confiscated things. And, immediately transferring those around Agathinos, present each at his own hearing. For they are so at variance with each other that, [16] having made a seal, they arrived … and according to which/whom they also seized the aforementioned things. It is also clear … from the verdict. … [20] To Komanos, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. … Therefore, you will do well to please see to it that Horion … for the upcoming inquiry, and so that … the strategos ‫ … ﷴ‬to the … (P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang [Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.])

Unfortunately, the text breaks off at this point and we do not know what steps were taken to right the many wrongs committed in Rhodonos Nesos. These texts highlight the activity – both good and bad – of a handful of Ptolemaic police officials who patrolled the Egyptian countryside. They suggest, among other things, that police in Ptolemaic Egypt were quite diverse in terms of their specializations: these officials came in a variety of shapes and sizes, had jurisdictions that extended from the bounds of a village to the limits of a nome, and served various functions. Police were also diverse in terms of their administrative competencies. Officials from a wide variety of administrative spheres (among these the civil administration, the economic administration, the military, and the scribal hierarchy) played roles in policing the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra, alongside officials we can call “police” more properly. This combination of government agents from all across the map proved to be an effective means of policing Ptolemaic Egypt.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

53

In this and the following chapter, we consider the police of Ptolemaic Egypt in two major subsets. The first group, spotlighted in the preceding papyri, consisted of the phylakitai (police).3 Their ranks included the equivalent of modern policemen (the phylakitai themselves), chiefs of police (archiphylakitai), and police commissioners (epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n), for lack of a better modern equivalent. The phylakitai at all three levels of administration were the officials to whom the Egyptian populace most frequently turned for help when crimes had been committed against them. They were agents who could arrest, transport, and detain suspects; carried out investigations at crime scenes and elsewhere; guarded state assets and infrastructure; protected citizens; confiscated stolen property; sealed up homes and businesses involved in investigations; and worked alongside government agents from a variety of spheres to uphold justice. Of all the Ptolemaic law enforcement officials, the phylakitai most closely resembled a modern police force. The second group – really only a group in a very artificial sense – consisted of those officers who did not form part of the organization of the phylakitai but nevertheless had “police” duties of various sorts. This collection of officials can be further subdivided into two smaller groups based on their primary official competencies: the civil officials (epistatai, grammateis, strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬etc.) who watched over and interacted with certain branches of the phylakitai; and the military officers (machimoi, phrourarchoi, phylakes, etc.) who occasionally had duties similar, if not identical to, those of the phylakitai.4 Many of the officials in this second group functioned as security guards, but from time to time they appear to have played key roles in policing the Egyptian countryside. Certain of their number had powers comparable to those of the phylakitai and might be employed in conjunction with them. Yet most of these officials seem to have operated independently of the phylakitai and their superiors, with 3 The Greek term phylakites contains the same basic root ( phylak-­, “guard”) as

‫ﷴ‬ that which occurs in the name of another type of police official in Ptolemaic Egypt, the phylax. Given that the phylakitai appear to have generally had responsibilities that transcended mere guarding, I have elected to call them “police” and understand the phylakes as “guards.” 4 See the Glossary for definitions of the terms mentioned here, and Chapter 3 for the various functions of the officials so titled.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

54

the important exception of a few members of the civil administration, among these the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and the epistates. ‫ﷴ‬ The papyri make it very plain that officials from both of these groups coordinated their activities on a regular basis, that officials of one type could give orders to officials of another type, that members of one group had powers that overlapped with those of the other, and that, perhaps most importantly, there was never a rigid hierarchy of command among police. Yet, in spite of this overlap and cooperation, one can make a clear distinction between the two groups in terms of primary function. It can be said with confidence that the first group of officials (the phylakitai) had as primary among their tasks the performance of duties that overlap quite closely with those of modern-­day police. The second group, on the other hand, was made up of officials who participated in police work in the Ptolemaic countryside but who had primary tasks that lay outside the realm of policing. We examine the first group here, briefly highlighting the wide array of their duties, whereas in the following chapter, we focus on (primarily) the police duties of the second group. Our primary goal in both chapters is to spell out hierarchy, administration, and organization.5 On the surface, the Ptolemies appear to have distributed their police officers throughout the chor‫ ﷳ‬a according to a strict geographic scheme and to have fitted these same officials into a carefully articulated chain of command. Yet, as we shall see, in reality the organization of the Ptolemaic police differed from place to place, and official overlap was common. On top of this, the law enforcement system regularly adapted to the needs of the towns and villages it served and the officials who protected those towns and villages. This flexibility made for a very successful police force. The Phylakitai

The Phylakitai Proper We begin our investigation of the first branch of the Ptolemaic police system with the phylakitai, the primary police officials of Ptolemaic Egypt.6 These men, in many ways the equivalents of modern police 5 A more thorough discussion of specific duties is offered in Chapters 4–­6. 6 In addition to Kool (1954), see Lesquier (1911) 261–2; Bevan (1968) 163–5;

D. J. Thompson (1997) 962–5; Chrest.Wilck. I pp411–16; II p. 131; P.Count II

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

55

officers, were remarkable for their occupational adaptability. We see them engaged in a broad range of activities, most of which – but not all of which – were limited to the sphere of law enforcement. Among other things, they arrested criminals, transferred prisoners, investigated crimes, received petitions, and made reports; but they also guarded infrastructure, collected and transported grain, delivered mail, and even employed subordinates from time to time. Both villagers and officials required that police officers be versatile, and as the documents reveal, the phylakitai reliably were. Most police work under the Ptolemies concerned the palliation of victims, the apprehension of criminals, and the meting out of sentences, activities in which the phylakitai regularly participated to varying degrees. Among the tasks most commonly assigned to (or simply performed by) a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬was the arrest, detention, or transport of an individual to an official (for trial) or jail (for detention).7 In a letter to the famous Zenon, a man named Nikias recounted his experiences with the phylakitai in Boutos and Simyra, which included the capture of a foal and the arrest of his brother-­in law and another phylakites: ‫ﷴ‬ 4 8

ὑπόμνημα παρὰ Νικίου Ζήν[ωνι]. ἀπεστεί[λα]μεν εἰς Βοῦτον τοῦ Μεμφίτου πῶλον θηλυκὸν ἐπὶ χόρτον ἑβδόμηι. ἀποπηδᾶι τῆι ὀγδόηι ἐπιζη-­ τῶν τὴμ μητέρα. ἀπῆλθε δὲ τὴν ὁδὸν ἧι ἠώθει πορεύεσθαι. λαβόντες οἱ φυλακῖται [οἱ ἀπὸ] Σιμυρὰ ἀπέκλεισαν αὐτόν. ἐδί-­ ωξεν φυλακίτης ἐγ Βούτου καὶ σύγγαμβρός τίς μου κατὰ

pp165–73; P.Tebt. I 5 pp46–7 n. on 159; p. 51 n. on 188; pp550–1; and P.Hib. II 198 pp97–104. It should be noted that I am concerned here with the phylakitai proper, not their commanding officers (archiphylakitai, epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, etc.). Discussion of the latter follows in subsequent sections. 7 E.g., BGU VI 1248 (?, 137 b.c.?); P.Lille I 3 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.); P.Ryl. IV 570 (Krokodilopolis, ca. 254–251 b.c.). For more on the arrest and transport of offenders, see Chapter 5.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

56 12 16

τὸ ἴχνος. ἐλθόντες οὖν ἐπελά-­ βοντο τοῦ ὑποζυγίου. παραγενο-­ μένου Νουμηνίου τοῦ φυλακί-­ του, προσαπήγαγεν αὐτούς. δέομαι οὖν σου, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, γρά-­ ψαι αὐτῶι περὶ τούτων. εὐτύχει.

Memorandum from Nikias to Zenon.8 We sent a mare [4] to pasture in Boutos of the Memphite nome on the seventh. On the eighth, she ran off, seeking her mother. She left the path on which she was accustomed to travel. [8] The phylakitai from Simyra, seizing her, shut her up. A phylakites‫ ﷴ‬from Boutos and a brother-­in­law of mine followed [12] her tracks. Finding her, they took possession of her; but when the phylakites‫ ﷴ‬Noumenios arrived, he arrested them. [16] Therefore, I ask that you, if it seems best, write to him [i.e., Noumenios] about these matters. Farewell. (P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 [Philadelphia, III b.c.])

As we see here, the phylakitai could detain individuals, sometimes at the request of a victim, and could seize property as well. A phylakites‫ﷴ‬ might detain someone by handing him or her over to a desmophylax (prisoner guard),9 essentially a professional detainer, or a similar official for detention at a desmo‫ﷳ‬terion (place of prisoners).10 Nikias’s memo‫ﷴ‬ randum is also significant in that it demonstrates that phylakitai were not averse to working with others (i.e., non-­phylakitai) to take care of law enforcement business. Here, a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬teams up with a relative of the mare’s owner to find the missing animal. Finally, the memorandum also illustrates just how easy it was for misunderstandings to occur in the towns and villages of the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Communication between Ptolemaic law enforcement officials was fast and efficient;11 but mistakes 8 On the well-­known Zenon of Kaunos and the massive archive of ­third-­century

papyri connected with him, see Rostovtzeff (1922); Pestman (1981); Orrieux (1983, 1985); and Clarysse and Vandorpe (1995). 9 On desmophylakes, who worked as jailors in Ptolemaic prisons, see the following chapter and Chapter 5; also Bauschatz (2007b) 13–14. 10 Desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion is one of many terms employed in the papyri for prisons in ‫ﷴ‬ Ptolemaic Egypt. The terminology is discussed in detail in Bauschatz (2007b) in the course of an examination of detention and imprisonment under the Ptolemies. See also Chapter 5. 11 See Chapter 4. b.c.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

57

and miscommunications were bound to happen from time to time. This must have been especially true when suspected wrongdoing was taking place in areas outside of a police officer’s official competence. In this case, we have representatives from potentially three different groups of phylakitai and from (potentially) three different villages involved in the search for and recovery of a mare: one group of phylakitai initially recovered the animal in one village, a second phylakites‫ ﷴ‬from a second village subsequently went looking for and then obtained the mare, but then a third phylakites‫( ﷴ‬from yet a third village?) intervened to prevent the second from making off with the horse. Given the involvement of so many phylakitai in this operation, it seems likely that their actions were not coordinated in advance and that only subsequently would they have been able to sort out right from wrong, victim from thief. As we have just seen, phylakitai could be regularly called on to provide law enforcement muscle, but this was not always their primary task. They were also very often the agents who performed investigations into crimes. In the course of his detective work, a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬might visit a crime scene; examine evidence, damage, and witnesses at first hand; and even seize property, along with those who had obtained it by illicit means.12 A fragmentary petition from the second century b.c. 12 Investigating crimes: e.g., P.Petr. II 32 Fr1 (Krokodilopolis, 197 b.c.); P.Tebt.

III.1 733 (Tebtynis, 143–142 b.c.); SB XX 15001 (Krokodilopolis, 217 b.c.); visiting crime scenes: e.g., P.Enteux. 65 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); PSI IV 393 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.); SB XVIII 13160 (Moëris, 244 or 219 b.c.?); examining evidence: P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 (?) (Philadelphia, ca. 254–251 b.c.); P.Enteux. 70 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Petr. III 28 FrE recto (Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.); seizing property: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. IV 59620 (Arsinoite?, 248–239 b.c.); P.Enteux. 28 (Theogonis, 218 b.c.); UPZ I 5 (Memphis, 163 b.c.). A series of third-­century ordinances on police and brigandage preserved on one papyrus (P.Hib. II 198 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]) suggests that there were government regulations in place for the time frames and procedures to be followed in investigations. Unfortunately, the document’s poor state of preservation has obscured many of the relevant details. In one especially fragmentary segment the king seems to lay out regulations for the return of stolen items or their value (P.Hib. II 198.62–4). Elsewhere, guidelines are established for the arrest of thieves and fugitive rowers (86–92) as well as penalties for noncompliant phylakitai (85–6). For more on this text, see Chapters 5 and 6.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

58

and addressed to an Imouthes, phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬highlights the broad range of investigative activities a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬might be called on to perform: δραν[ ca. ? ] καὶ τὸν δηλούμενον φύλακα προσεμαστίγωσαν αἷς εἴχ[ο]-­ σαν ῥάβδοις κρ{ν}αναΐναις ἐπὶ τὸ ἔδαφος ῥίψαντες αὐτὸν \ὥστ’ ἂν δεινῶ[ς] διακε[ῖ]σθαι ὑπὸ τῶν πληγῶ(ν)/. ἐπεὶ οὖν ταῦτα διαπεπραγμέ-­ νοι εἰσὶν ἀποστατικῶς [δ]ια-­ 8 κείμενοι \⟦ὅσα⟧/ τά τε κτήνη ἀπε-­ βιάσαντο καὶ ᾤχοντο ἔχον-­ τες βουλόμενοι ἃ εἴησαν ἐπιτετηδευκότες δια[σ]κε-­ 12 δάσαι, \ὅθεν καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τὸν κ[   ] εσ ν/ προσαγγέλλω οὖ[ν] ὅπως ἐπελθὼν ἐφίδηι τὸ γεγονὸς βλάβος13 τά τε κ[τ]ή[νη] ἀσφαλάσηι καὶ τὸν Πετεσοῦ-­ 16 χον σὺν τῶι Ὀννώφρε[ι] ἐξα-­ ποστήσεις ἐφ’ οὓς κα[θήκ]ει, ἵνα τύχωσιν τῆς ἁρμοζούσης ἐπιπλήξεως ⟦και   ⟧ ει   20 ἐπαναγκασθῶσιν ἐκτεῖ[σ]αι τὸ βλάβος, ἐπιδέδωκα δὲ καὶ τοῖς εἰθισμένοις. (ἔτους) [ ca. ? ] 4

and in addition, they [i.e., Petesouchos and Onnophris] beat the aforementioned phylax [4] with the hard clubs they had in hand, hurling him onto the ground. And since they did these things in a rebellious manner, [8] and both abused my sheep and departed, taking with them whatever they wanted, and deliberately scattered, [12] I submit this report, so that coming, you may see the loss that occurred, and you may guard the sheep, and you may stand Petesouchos, [16] along with Onnophris, before the proper officials, so that they may receive a fitting 13 The



Greek here (τὸ | γεγονὸς βλάβος, 13–4) could also refer to the wound inflicted on the phylax.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

59

punishment … (and) [20] they may be forced to compensate me for the loss. I have also submitted (a report) to the customary officials. Year….14 (BGU VI 1253.1–23 [?, II b.c.])

Imouthes is expected to locate, arrest, possibly detain, and then stand the accused perpetrators for trial, which would have been a difficult task in and of itself; but he is also instructed to make a visit to the site of the wrongdoing, examine property damage (and the wounded phylax?), and provide protection for a number of animals. The writer clearly assumes that Imouthes will know how to get these tasks done and whom he should contact for assistance: he tells the phylakites‫ ﷴ‬simply that he should present the offenders before “the proper officials” and himself notes that a report of the offense has made its way to “the customary officials.” Imouthes will be able to read between the lines and figure things out. Clearly, phylakitai like Imouthes were invested with a remarkable degree of autonomy, especially by modern standards. They performed most, if not all, of the roles of the specialized agents who make up the investigation units that look into crimes today. Incredibly, phylakitai did not limit their activity to the realm of law enforcement. They also played vital roles in other tasks that were not properly “police” duties, at least not in the modern sense. For instance, they often served as security guards. Phylakitai provided an armed presence not only during the genematophylakia, the annual guarding of crops, ‫ﷴ‬ but also on board ships (typically those involved with the transfer of grain), where they sometimes served as epiploi, literally “men on board ship,” but in this context clearly on-­board security guards.15 When 14 The

identity of the addressee of the petition – Imouthes the phylakite‫ﷴ‬s – is preserved in the margin: Ἰμούθει | φυλα(κίτῃ). 15 Gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia as agricultural protection: e.g., BGU VIII 1851 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); Chrest.Wilck. 331 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. I 59136 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.); as epiploi, guarding grain: e.g., BGU XVIII.1 2736 (Herakleopolite, 87–86 b.c.); P.Ryl. IV 576 (?, 246– 221 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 1035 (Tebtynis, 182–181 or 158–157 b.c.?). On the gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia and gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakes, see Chapter  5. On epiploi, see especially Frösén (1978) and Gofas (1989); also Rostovtzeff (1906) 221 n. 3; Sijpesteijn (1993) 128; P.Oxy.Hels. 20 commentary; and P.Petaus 55 introduction and the sources cited there. The agricultural and security functions of the Ptolemaic police are considered briefly in the following chapter and in greater depth in Chapter 6.

60

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

filling this function, phylakitai carried sealed samples of a shipment’s contents on their persons. Though it does not seem to have been the case that epiploi were always drawn from the ranks of the phylakitai, where names and additional employment data are provided for epiploi, they are sometimes revealed to be phylakitai.16 Phylakitai were also involved to a broader extent in other agricultural activities. They sometimes assigned pasturage to citizens and could measure allotments of land. Phylakitai were at least occasionally responsible for measuring out seed and grain to villagers, and they also might collect the grain to be distributed, as well as tax arrears from the Egyptian people.17 They did not always discharge this last duty honorably.18 In addition to their roles as police and agricultural officials, we occasionally see phylakitai serving as postmen, ferrying correspondence and goods between officials. A good deal of day-­to-­day law enforcement business in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra involved the transfer and processing of official documents. Phylakitai were the police officials to whom this administrative footwork was most commonly delegated.19 In addition, phylakitai were 16 See

P.Ryl. IV 576 (?, 246–221 b.c.), a certificate for the unloading of river boats in Alexandria that mentions a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬acting as an epiplous; also P.Tebt. III.2 1035 (Tebtynis, 182–181 or 158–157 b.c.?), an account of grain shipments that likewise mentions phylakitai acting as epiploi in perhaps two instances (lines 1–2, 12–13). 17 Granting pasture rights: P.Grad. 8 (?, 223 b.c.?); measuring allotments: P.Hib. I 75 (Herakleopolite, 232 b.c.); measuring out seed/grain: P.Cair.Zen. I 59113 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.); P.Iand.Zen. 17 (Philadelphia, ca. 258–256 b.c.); P.Lond. VII 1953 (?, 257 b.c.); P.Zen.Pestm. 55 (Arsinoite, 257 b.c.); collecting grain/seed to distribute: P.Cair.Zen. II 59292 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.); P.Zen.Pestm. 1 (Arsinoite, 257 b.c.); collecting tax arrears: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 53 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59407 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 764 (Tebtynis, 185 or 161 b.c.?). 18 As suggested by, e.g., a royal ordinance from 118 b.c., in which the sovereigns “release the phylakitai throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra from the penalties recorded in their names regarding the royal inspections and regarding the crops which they have lost, and (from the penalties) for the revenue handed over to them for (the payment of ) debts and for other charges, and (from the penalties) for those who have run away, up to the 50th year” (C.Ord. Ptol.2 53.188–92 [Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.]). For more on police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz (2007c). 19 See P.Genova II 55 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.) and possibly P.Cair.Zen. II 59214 (?, 254 b.c.).

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

61

sometimes employed as “gofers,” asked to purchase or requisition items for their superiors and other officials who sought their assistance. These items might run the gamut from produce to money to beasts of burden.20 They might themselves be requisitioned as well.21 In one especially detailed example, a group of phylakitai was to be burdened with a whole grocery list of party supplies: 4 8 12 16

Δημοφῶν Πτολε-­ μαίωι χαίρειν. ἀπό[σ]-­ τειλον ἡμῖν ἐκ παν-­ τὸς τρόπου τὸν αὐ-­ λητὴν Πετωῦν ἔχοντ[α] τούς τε Φρυγίους αὐ-­ λ[ο]ὺς καὶ τοὺς λοιπούς, κ[αὶ] ἐάν τι δέηι ἀνηλῶσαι δός, παρὰ δὲ ἡμ[ῶ]ν κομι-­ εῖ.22 ἀπόστειλον δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ Ζηνόβιον τὸν μαλα-­ κὸν ἔχοντα τύμπανον καὶ κύμβαλα καὶ κρόταλα, χρεί-­ α γάρ ἐστι ταῖς γυναιξὶν πρὸς τὴν θυσίαν· ἐχέτω δὲ καὶ ἱματισμὸν ὡς ἀσ-­ τειότατον. κόμισαι δὲ

20 See P.Cair.Zen. IV 59610 (?, III b.c.), in which an unknown writer notes that

he had requested additional phylakes from a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬but that the phylakites‫ﷴ‬ had refused, in spite of the fact that the phylakes currently at the disposal of the letter writer were unwilling to perform guard duty; also P.Tebt. III.1 749 (Tebtynis, ca. 243 b.c.), where a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬is to obtain “the best donkeys possible” (3: ὄνους    ὡς βελ[τίστους]). 21 See SB VI 9104 (Arsinoite, 195 b.c.), where a letter writer requests that the recipient bring along (10–18) “one phylakites‫ ﷴ‬of those in the katalochismos who will do liturgical work in the district of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬Philon with the rest of the phylakitai for 30  days.” The katalochismos is the Ptolemaic government’s land-­grant register. On Philon, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Polemon meris (division) of the Arsinoite nome, see Pros. Ptol. 4604 with add. and Bauschatz (2005b) 190. 22 See BL 7.68 for the reading.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

62 20 24 28 32

καὶ τὸν ἔριφον παρὰ Ἀρισ-­ τίωνος καὶ πέμψον ­ἡμῖν. καὶ τὸ σῶμα δὲ εἰ συνεί-­ ληφας παράδος ⟦αυτο⟧ Σεμφθεῖ ὅπως αὐτὸ δι-­ ακομίσηι ἡμῖν. ἀπόσ-­ τειλον δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τύ-­ ρους ὅσους ἂν δύνηι καὶ κέραμον κα[ι]νὸν καὶ λά-­ χανα π[αντ]οδαπὰ καὶ ἐὰν ὄψον τι ἔχηι[ς]. ἔρρ[ωσο.] ἐμβαλοῦ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ φυ-­ λακίτας οἳ συνδιακομιοῦ-­ σιν ⟦α⟧ τὸ πλοῖο[ν.]

Demophon to Ptolemaios, greetings.23 Send to us, by all means, [4] Petoüs the flute player with his Phrygian flutes and his other ones; and [8] if it is necessary to spend something (to achieve this), do so and you will get it back from us. And send us also Zenobios the effeminate [12] with a drum, cymbals and castanets, for the women need him for the sacrifice. He should also [16] have the most elegant clothing. Get the kid from Aristion and send it to us. [20] And as for the slave, if you have apprehended him, hand him over to Semphtheus so that he may bring him to us. And send [24] us cheeses – as many as you can get – and a new jar, and a variety of vegetables; [28] and if you’ve got a delicacy, send that, too. Farewell. Load these things on board with the phylakitai who will attend [32] the ship. (P. Hib. I 54.1–32 [Oxyrhynchite, ca. 245 b.c.])

Not every task enjoined upon the Ptolemaic police required the employment of fine-­tuned crime-­fighting skills. Nevertheless, though most commonly employed as subordinates, Ptolemaic phylakitai were not simply lackeys. They were occasionally given responsibilities greater than those doled out to gofers. For instance, they were frequently the recipients of circulars (entolai) and 23 Ptolemaios

is not given a title in this document and, in fact, is given a title in none of the documents in which he appears, but he was most likely a phylakites: ‫ ﷴ‬see Bauschatz (2007c) 27.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

63

notifications ( prostagmata) from government officials.24 Phylakitai might also receive petitions from the Egyptian population, such as the fragmentary petition to Imouthes, phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬quoted earlier, or brief notifi25 cations of loss. The fact that phylakitai received correspondence from both those above and below suggests that they possessed a degree of organization and responsibility greater than that commonly associated with low-­level police agents. Phylakitai took not only action but also initiative. References to individuals serving in positions subordinate to individual phylakitai confirm these suspicions. In one case, the agents of a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬were responsible for the theft of a pig (P.Cair.Zen. III 59312.32–3 [Arsinoite, 250 b.c.]). In another, the agent of a phylakites‫ﷴ‬ was responsible for delivering some letters for his superior, including one addressed to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and another to a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the wagons (O.Oslo 2.9–10 [?, III/II b.c.]).26 Evidence for the landholdings and wages of phylakitai is extensive. Numerous land registers from the Ptolemaic period give many precise details about the extent and dispersal of police kleroi ‫( ﷴ‬allotments of land). Land grants to phylakitai distributed by and accountable to 27 the government were known as phylakitikoi kleroi. Phylakitai who pos‫ﷴ‬ sessed such allotments were occasionally designated as klerouchoi phy‫ﷴ‬ lakitai in land registers and appear as keklerouche menoi phylakitai in grain ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 24 Circulars

and notifications, e.g., P.Grenf. II 37 (Pathyris, 108 b.c.); P.Heid. VI 362 (Herakleopolite, 226 b.c.); SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?); petitions, e.g., P.Col. IV 92 (Philadelphia? 241 b.c.); P.Giss.Univ. I 8 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.); P.Heid. II 217 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.). For more on correspondence from villagers to police, see Chapter 4. 25 E.g., P.Hib. I 36 (Talaë, 229 b.c.), a notification to Harmiüsis, a phylakites‫ﷴ‬ from Talaë, that an unshorn Arabian ewe worth eight drachmas had disappeared by night from a sheepfold. 26 The post of “phylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the wagons” appears only here (O.Oslo 2.9–10: Ἀπολλωνίωι τῶι φ(υλακίτηι) τῶν ἁμα|ξῶν). Apollonios: Pros.Ptol. 4643. See also P.Iand.Zen. 36 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), in which a certain Pelosis, agent of Andron, phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬obtained a number of jars. 27 Such kleroi are mentioned at BGU VIII 1773.6 (Herakleopolis, 58 b.c.?); ‫ﷴ‬ 1818.2 (Herakleopolite, 60–59 b.c.); XIV 2439.21, 27 (?) (Herakleopolite, I b.c.); PSI X 1098.9–10 (Tebtynis, 51 b.c.); and P.Tebt. III.1 808.3 (Tebtynis, 151 or 140 b.c.).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

64

transport documents.28 Two Ptolemaic texts mention phylakitai in the katalochismos, the government’s land-­grant register.29 It is possible that these two groups (i.e., the kleruch-­phylakitai and those in the katalochismos) were in fact the same and formed a separate branch of the Ptolemaic law enforcement pyramid, complete with a separate financial administration. But this remains unclear.30 A certain amount is known about police wages. Phylakitai were paid variously with money, wine, or grain, as is revealed by numerous expense accounts.31 Villages might incur expenses for the entertainment and 28 Klerouchoi phylakitai in land registers: BGU XIV 2444.4 (Herakleopolite, II–­I

‫ﷴ‬

b.c.);

2445.27 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.); keklerouche menoi phylakitai accom‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ panying grain transports: e.g., BGU VIII 1742.12–13 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.); XVIII.1 2736.3 (Herakleopolite, 87–86 b.c.); SB V 8754.12–13 (Herakleopolite?, 77 or 48 b.c.?). 29 P.Count 12.147–9 (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.) and SB VI 9104.9–12 (Arsinoite, 195 b.c.; see note 21). On the katalochismos, see P.Count 12 p. 275 n. on 149 and the additional texts cited there, as well as OGIS I 229.45–7 (with notes), a pact between Smyrnaeans and Magnesians from the reign of Seleucos II Kallinikos (246–226 b.c.), which provides evidence for the operation of a katalochismos in the Seleucid kingdom. 30 Kool (1954) suggested that the two groups might have been one and the same but stopped short of equating them (19–24, 101). He was convinced that the phylakitai in the katalochismos “formed … a special branch organized on military lines; they could be used for police-­actions on a large scale and for special services” (101). He was likewise certain that the keklerouche menoi ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ phylakitai formed a special division, “as can be inferred from traces to be found in Roman times, viz. the taxes for the grammateia of the phyl. and the epistateia of the phyl. and the arithmetikon of the phyl. The existence of the first two taxes causes one to think of the possibility that these kleruchs – just as the katoikoi – had their own epistatai and grammateis, who need not be identified with the ep. phyl. of the nome and the grammateus of the phyl., who was in charge of the internal administration of the organization. In this connection one can even find a place for the dekanoi of the phyl., who would then be commanders of groups of phyl. in military squadrons.” On the military nature of the katalochismos, see also Chrest.Wilck. I pp305–6; OGIS I 229.45–7 (with notes; on the Seleucid kingdom); and P.Count 12 p. 275 n. on 149. On the grammateus phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬scribe of the phylakitai), see later in this chapter. 31 Money: e.g., P.Count 12.146–51a (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.); P.Hib. I 110.48–50 (?, 270 b.c.); P.Petr. III 128.4–9 (Arsinoite, 239 b.c.);

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

65

lodging of police as well.32 To compensate for the expenses incurred by the payment of police and support of police activities, there was a police tax, the phylakitikon.33 Though it often appears in tax registers and other official documents with modifiers specifying the type(s) of goods subject to it, the phylakitikon is typically recorded without further description. In the latter case, the tax was (usually) paid in kind; in the former, in money.34 It was levied on various agricultural products, animals, locations, and even organizations.35 The income from the phylakitikon wine: P.Col. III 55.1–2, 9–10 (Arsinoite?, 250 b.c.); grain: BGU XIV 2438.55 (?) (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 2440.19–20 (?) (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 850.46 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.); uncertain method of payment: PSI VII 868.4–12 (?) (Philadelphia, III b.c.). 32 Entertainment: P.Tebt. I 120.55 (Tebtynis, 97 or 64 b.c.); lodging: BGU III 1007.14 (?, 243 or 218 b.c.). On the lodging and entertainment of officials in Ptolemaic Egypt, see P.Tebt. V. 33 O.Wilck. I p. 402 is still the authority, though P.Count II pp72–3 provides an updated overview of the evidence for this tax. See also CPR XIII introduction pp35–7; P.Col. X 261 p. 52 (note on “police tax”); P.Grad. 6 pp45–6 n. on 6 (types of phylakitikon); P.Hib. I 105 introduction; P.Mich. XVIII 781 introduction; and P.Petr. III p. 274. 34 The phylakitikon was collected for a broad range of goods: see CPR XIII pp35–6 and P.Count II pp72–3 for summaries of taxable items. It seems likely that those who paid the phylakitikon for specific goods did so because said goods were of the sort that required protection (O.Wilck. I p. 402; CPR XIII p.  35; P.Count II pp72–3). Phylakitikon without further description, e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 53ter.10–15 (Arsinoite, after 113 b.c.); P.Gur. 26.3, 5–7, 9–13, 15–17, 21 (Arsinoite, 214–211 b.c.?); P.Hal. 22 recto.ii.5 (Arsinoite, III b.c.). 35 Grain: P.Lond. VII 1996.71 (Philadelphia, ca. 250–249 b.c.?); P.Petr. III 111.1, 10 (Arsinoite, 238 b.c.); PSI IV 388.10–11, 20–1, 34–5 (Philadelphia, 243  b.c.); grapes: P.Cair.Zen. III 59366.22 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.); P.Petr. III 112 FrC.14–17, FrE verso.ii.3 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.); barley: P.Gur. 29.18 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.); flocks (ktene ‫) ﷴ‬: ‫ ﷴ‬PSI V 509.9–12 (Philadelphia, 256 b.c.); flocks (leia): P.Grad. 6.6, 11 (?, 223–222 b.c.); P.Petr. III 112 FrA.i.11, ii.3, FrC.20, FrE recto.ii.6, FrF recto.5, 21 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.); flocks ( probata): P.Cair.Zen. III 59404.2–3 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.); P.Petr. III 109 FrB.9–13 (Arsinoite, 248 b.c.); 111.8 (Arsinoite, 238 b.c.); beasts of burden (hypozygia): PSI V 509.9–13 (Philadelphia, 256 b.c.); geese: P.Grad. 6.22 (?, 223–222 b.c.); P.Petr. III 112 FrA.ii.5 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.); goats: P.Petr. III 109 FrB.9–13 (Arsinoite, 248 b.c.); pigs: e.g., P.Grad. 6.6, 22–3 (?, 223–222 b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2008.3 (Philadelphia, 247 b.c.); P.Tebt.

66

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

might be used to pay the wages of the phylakitai and their superiors.36 The papyri preserve a great deal of information about payments to and from policemen. Tax lists record the payments of phylakitai to the government.37 Royal proclamations freed them from certain dues from time to time. In one instance, the sovereigns released pezoi (foot soldiers), machimoi (native Egyptian troops), phylakitai, and others from the tax on allotments (klerouchikon) (C.Ord.Ptol.2 34.i.25–8  [Oxyrhynchus?, ‫ﷴ‬ 186 b.c.]).38 The phylakitai were primarily Egyptian and Greek in their makeup, though other ethnic minorities were found among their ranks.39 We find III.2 1061.18, 24, 31 (Tebtynis, 228–227 b.c.); rams: P.Lond. VII 2010.4–5 (Philadelphia, ca. 244–243 b.c.); land: P.Petr. III 112 FrC.8, FrE recto.i.7, FrG.3, 10, 14, FrH.3–8 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.); land sown with grapes: P.Petr. III 112 FrA.ii.6 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.); workshops, e.g., Chrest. Wilck. 262.2–3, 9, verso.i.2–4, ii.9–11 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); P.Count 11.18–27 (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.); P.Count 23.45 (Arsinoite, 254–231 b.c.); allotments of land: P.Hib. I 105.4–5 (Herakleopolite?, 228 b.c.); II 269 (?, ca. 270–250 b.c.; no line numbers given); PSI IV 344.5–6, 11–12, 14–15 (Philadelphia, 255 b.c.); cities (?): P.Hal. 22 recto.ii.2, 6 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); rivers (?): P.Lille I 25.56–7 (Ghoran, III b.c.); guilds (ethnoi): Chrest.Wilck. 262.2–3, 9, verso.i.2–4, ii.9–11 (Arsinoite, III b.c.). 36 See P.Hamb. II 172 (Oxyrhynchite, 246 b.c.), where income from the phylakitikon was to be used to pay some overdue wages to some archiphylakitai. For more on this text, see subsequent discussion with note 133. See also BGU VIII 1808 (Herakleopolite, after 52/51 b.c.); P.Petr. III 128 (Arsinoite, 239 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 121 (Arsinoite, 94 or 61 b.c.); and 179 (Tebtynis, II b.c.). 37 E.g., BGU XIV 2441.218–24 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.); P.Count 30.69 (Arsinoite, 254–231 b.c.); P.Lips. II 124.86–7 (Herakleopolite or Arsinoite?, 137 b.c.?). On the wages and tax payments of phylakitai – as well as the other branches of the Ptolemaic police – see now P.Count II pp165–77. 38 On police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz (2007c), especially pp32–5, for discussion of royal decrees in response to widespread (?) reports of wrongdoing by police officials. On the machimoi, see Chapter 3. 39 Greek names: e.g., BGU XIV 2437.28, 33 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.); P.Erasm. I 1.6 (Oxyrhyncha, 148–147 b.c.); PSI IV 393.9, 26 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.); Egyptian names: e.g., BGU VI 1253.13 (?, II b.c.); XIV 2437.29, 31 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.); P.Stras. VII 662.7–8 (Oxyrhynchite, 239 b.c.). BGU VI 1272.22 (Arsinoite?, 173 b.c.) mentions a Jewish phylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬On ethnic diversity among the upper tiers of the phylakitai (i.e., among archiphylakitai and epistatai phylakiton‫) ﷳ‬, see Chapters 4 and 5. In P.Count II pp165–73 the

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

67

them scattered throughout the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra but never in the Greek cities of Egypt  – Alexandria, Naukratis, and Ptolemais Hermiou  – where no evidence for police or police work survives.40 They are attested throughout the Ptolemaic period and well into Roman times. A firm date for the ultimate disappearance of the Ptolemaic police force is perhaps unattainable.41 Little is known about their origins, but it is possible that the phylakitai were adapted from a preexisting institution. The large number of Egyptian names that occurs among the phylakitai in the earliest source material, as well as the evidence for security forces in pharaonic Egypt, suggests that this may have been the case.42 The phylakitai of Ptolemaic Egypt were officers with many functions. On one level, they were essentially police charged with carrying out patrols, responding to emergencies, investigating crimes, and hunting down criminals. But they also had other responsibilities for which they exercised considerable autonomy and had various obligations outside of the sphere of law enforcement. Although they represented the lowest rung in the hierarchy of phylakitai, the phylakitai proper were not drones. Rather, they constituted a multipurpose, largely self-­sufficient, and sometimes self-­governing police body. Before examining many of their duties in greater detail in the following chapters, we first consider the supervisors of the phylakitai. We begin with the police officials who occur with great frequency throughout the villages and in merides and toparchies (both essentially meaning “divisions”) of the Ptolemaic Egyptian countryside: archiphylakitai, or “police chiefs.” A few other reader will find the most up-­to-­date treatment of the social status of police officials. 40 According to Kool (1954), “In the Greek towns police-­work was probably entrusted to other authorities, after the example of the Greeks” (100; cf. 1–2). 41 Kool (1954) suggested that the arrival of the Romans in Egypt was largely responsible for the disappearance of the phylakitai (104; cf. 3–4). Yet phylakitai are attested in the papyri as late as the seventh century a.d., e.g., P.Oxy. XVI 2056.5, 7, 8, 11 (Oxyrhynchus, VII a.d.); P.Select 8.9 (Oxyrhynchus, a.d. 421); SB VI 9150.17 (Arsinoite, V a.d.). 42 On the ethnicity of phylakitai in the earliest source material, see Kool (1954) 24–5, 100; for police forces in pharaonic Egypt, see the Introduction. For the Demotic terms most commonly employed for phylakitai and other Ptolemaic police officials, see now P.Count II pp165–77.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

68

low-­level officers seem to have had some degree of power over the phylakitai as well: dekanoi phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (commanders of ten of the phylakitai), hegemones phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (leaders of the phylakitai), hoi epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (those ‫ﷴ‬ in charge of the phylakitai), and prostatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (those [placed] in charge of the phylakitai).43 The phylakitai were also subject to at least one nome-­level official responsible for their welfare and performance: the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (whom I will call the “police commissioner”). Archiphylakitai Archiphylakitai were government agents with many administrative duties who were also intimately connected to the populations they supervised.44 They were often required to perform many of the functions of a modern-­day police officer: among these were arresting and transporting criminals.45 The following official letter highlights this power and suggests that even government employees engaged in legitimate business might be seized by an archiphylakites: ‫ﷴ‬ i, 1 4 8 43 See

Πτολεμαίωι ἐπ[ι]μελητῆι παρὰ Θεοφίλου τοῦ παρ’ Ἀντικλέους πρὸς τῆι ἐξαγωγῆι τοῦ σίτου \ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι βα(σιλικοῦ)/ τῶν δι’ αὐτοῦ πλοίων. Πινῦρις καὶ Ἐριαν[οῦ]πις καὶ ⟦       ⟧ ναυπηγοὶ γινόμ[εν]οι ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι πρὸς τῆι \ἐπισκευῆι τῶν/ ⟦τῶν πλοίων⟧ [ἐ]ξαγο\υσῶν προσα(γωγίδων)/ ⟦πλοίων⟧ τὸν βα(σιλικὸν) σῖτον προλαβόντες π[αρά] τε Πτολεμαίου ⟦τους⟧ τοῦ Ἀσκλ[ηπι]άδου  [   ] εἰς ἔργα τῶν καινῶν πλοίων καὶ ελω  εἰς τὴν [ἐ]πισκευὴν τῶν δι’ ­Ἀντικλέους

the following discussion for definitions and descriptions of these officials. 44 See, above all, Bauschatz (2007a); also Meyer (1906) 460 n. 1; Engers (1909) 10, 75, 86ff.; Lesquier (1911) 79; Meyer (1920) 276ff.; Kool (1954) 43–66; Handrock (1967) 118ff.; Chrest.Mitt. I p.  13 n. 4; p.  21; and P.Bürgsch. p. 415 n. 8. 45 Arresting and transporting: e.g., P.Athen. 8 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.); P.Heid. VII 393 (Arsinoite or Memphite, III b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2188 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.).

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

69

ἐξεδήμησαν εἰς Ἡρακλέους πόλιν καὶ συν-­ [έ]σχεν αὐτοὺς Ἡρακλείδης ὁ ἀρχιφυλακίτης. Πτολεμαίου δὲ ⟦π[   ]αντας⟧ ἐντυχόντος Ἡρα-­ κλείδη[ι] τῶι οἰκον[όμ]ωι καὶ τὴν χρείαν προφερομένου ἔγραψεν ⟦εἰς τὴν⟧ Ἡρ[α]κλε\ίδηι τῶι ἀρχιφυ(λακίτηι)/ ⟦πόλιν⟧ διέσθαι αὐτούς, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπέσχον τοῦ ἐντυχεῖν. ii, 1 νυνὶ δὲ πυνθάνομαι τὸν Ἡρακλείδην μὴ προσεσχη-­ κέναι τῆι Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ οἰκονόμου ἐπιστολῆι \τοῦ διέσθαι,/ ἐὰν μὴ ἢ σὺ ἢ ὁ διοικητὴς αὐτῶι γράψηι. ⟦ἀξιῶ οὖν σε ἐάν σοι⟧ 4 ⟦φαίνηται ἐμβλέψαντα. ἐπεὶ οὖν συνβέβηκεν ἀπό τε τοῦ⟧ ⟦ἀγοραστοῦ καὶ τοῦ φορικοῦ πλήθη σίτου ἐπι[πεπ]τωκέναι ἃ δεῖ⟧ ἵνα οὖν μὴ ἡ ἐξαγωγὴ τοῦ σίτου ⟦ε   το ⟧ ἐπισταθῆι τῶν πλοίων μὴ ἐπισ[κε]υαζομένων ὑπὸ χε⟨ῖ⟩ρα καὶ ταῦτα ἱκανοῦ 8 τινος πλήθους [ἐπ]ιπεπτωκότος ἀπό τε τοῦ ἀγοραστοῦ καὶ τοῦ φορικοῦ, \ἀλλ[ ca. ? ] πλοίωι ἢ διότι ἔξεστιν παραδο[θ]η⟦       ⟧/ ἀξ[ιῶ] σε ἐάν σοι φαίνηται ⟦γράψαι⟧ συντάξαι γράψαι Ἡρακλεί[δ]ηι τῶι ἐν τῶι Ἡρ(ακλεο)πο(λίτηι) ἀρχιφυ(λακίτηι) διέσθαι αὐτούς, 10a ὅπως γίνωνται πρὸς τῆ[ι χρ]είαι καὶ μὴ ἀργῆι τὰ πλοῖα. 12

To Ptolemaios, epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬from Theophilos, agent of Antikles, the official in charge of royal grain export in the Arsinoite via boat.46 [i, 4] Pinuris and Erianoupis, who are shipbuilders in the Arsinoite nome for the purpose of exporting the royal grain, having received from Ptolemaios, agent (?) of [i, 8] Asklepiades, … for the purpose of constructing new ships … for the purpose of the preparation of the things commanded by Antikles, traveled to Herakleopolis; and Herakleides, 46 The

Ptolemaic epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬curator, manager) was an upper-­level official who had authority in certain areas of financial administration. Berneker (1935) 90–4 remains the authority for this post, but see now also McGing (2002) 51–64. Antikles (Pros.Ptol. 1468 = 14054) has the title ὁ πρὸς τῆι ἐξαγωγῆι τοῦ ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι βα(σιλικοῦ) | σίτου (2–3). On this official, see Rostovtzeff (1906) 211 and P.Sorb. I 44 introduction and n. on 2 for Theophilos (Pros.Ptol. 1473), the agent of Antikles.

70

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s, detained them.47 [i, 12] Ptolemaios, appealing to Herakleides the oikonomos,48 and making the necessity (of their release) known, wrote to Herakleides [i.e., the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s] to release them, since I myself as well was unable to intervene. [ii, 1] But now I hear that Herakleides [i.e., the archiphylakites] ‫ﷴ‬ has not obeyed the letter of Herakleides, oikonomos, and will not (do so), unless 49 either you or the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬write to him. [ii, 6] Therefore, so that the export of grain may not be held up – since the ships are not being made ready and all this is happening in spite of the fact that a very [ii, 8] large amount of grain has accumulated from the market and the tribute – I ask that you, if it seems best, please write to Herakleides, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the Herakleopolite nome, to release them, [ii, 10a] so that they may be available for work and the ships may not be left unbuilt. (Chrest.Wilck. 166 i, ii.1–11 [Arsinoite, 218 b.c.])

Here, what begins as a simple arrest turns into an interprovincial incident. A pair of Arsinoite shipbuilders cross into the Herakleopolite nome, possibly to obtain timber, always scarce in Egypt, to build some royal ships.50 An archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬suspecting that something is amiss, arrests them. When an attempt is made to clarify that the alleged offenders are, in fact, government employees in good standing, the arresting archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬insists that he hear from someone of greater authority than the nome-­level official called in by the letter writer: specifically, an official with chor‫ ﷳ‬a-­wide competency. This would have been a wise condition to insist upon, as the Herakleopolite archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬would not have been under the jurisdiction of any official from the Arsinoite nome. The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was likely just doing his job (by arresting some potential offenders) while at the same time covering himself (by taking extra precautions against letting them go). He knew what potentially could 47 Herakleides,

archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of (likely) the Herakleopolite nome (Pros.Ptol. 4577), occurs only here. He is one of only a handful of archiphylakitai with nome-­level competence attested in the documents from four different nomes: the Arsinoite, the Herakleopolite, the Memphite, and the Pathyrite. For more on the distribution of Ptolemaic police chiefs and specific attestations of nome-­level archiphylakitai, see Bauschatz (2007a) 186–91. 48 On the oikonomos (manager, steward), see Chapter 3. 49 On the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬administrator, treasurer), one of the chief civil and financial officials in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Chapter 3. 50 On the production and use of trees and wood in antiquity, see Meiggs (1982) with the comments of Rickman (1984); also El-­Mosallamy (1992).

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

71

happen were he to authorize a release that ended up running afoul of his superiors.51 In their capacity as police administrators, archiphylakitai received petitions from villagers, usually detailing instances of theft, violence, property damage, and the like.52 Petitioners realized that archiphylakitai were officials empowered to apprehend and transfer wrongdoers, investigate criminal activity, and, at the most basic level, help them obtain justice.53 In one typical case, a priest wrote to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his phylakitai and detailed a series of abuses followed by a theft: 4 8 12 16 51 For

[     ]ησει ἀρχιφυ[λακίτηι Βερενικίδος] Θεσμοφόρου καὶ το[ῖς σὺν αὐτῶι φυλακί]-­ ταις παρὰ Πορεγέ[βθιος τοῦ      παστο]-­ φόρου καὶ ἰσιονόμ[ου ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς] κώμης. τῆι ιε τοῦ [ἐνεστῶτος μηνὸς] θυσιάζοντος ἐμο[ῦ ἐν τῶι ἐνθάδε Ἰσιεί(?)]-­ ωι ὑπέρ τε τοῦ β[ασιλέως καὶ τῆς βασι]-­ λίσσης καὶ τῶν [τούτων τέκνων καὶ] προγόνων, οὐδ[εμιᾶς οὔσης πρὸς ἐμὲ] μέμψεως, επο[ ca. 18 ] Περῦτις Περύτ[ιος ca. 14 ἐ]-­ μαστίγου καὶ τ[ ca. 18 ] ἀφείλετο καὶ τὴ[ν ca. 17 ] ἐμοῦ δὲ βοήσαν[τος       ὁ       ] μου Παποντῶς, [οἱ δὲ ca. 14 ] ἐξέσπασαν ἐκ τ[ ]  [      καὶ πληγάς] μοι πλείους ἐνέκοψαν κ[α]ὶ τὸ ἀ[ντικνή]-­ μιόν μ[ο]υ ἐτραυμάτισαν καὶ [τὴν] ὄψιν ἔτ[υπτ]ον καὶ ᾤχοντο ­ἔχοντες

more on the punishment and reprimanding of police, see note 23 on Ptolemaios the phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and Chapter 3, note 26 on Patron, archiphylakites, ‫ﷴ‬ both of whom seem to have gotten themselves into trouble with superiors from time to time. 52 Petitions to archiphylakitai: e.g., P.Giss.Univ. I 7 (Euhemeria, II b.c.); P.Tebt. I 41 (Kerkeosiris, 105–90 b.c.); SB VIII 9674 (Euhemeria, ca. 131 b.c.). For the content of petitions to archiphylakitai, see Chapter 4. 53 For more on the responses of archiphylakitai and other police officials to the written requests of villagers, see Chapter 4.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

72 20 24 28 32

τὸ μέλι [τε κα]ὶ τὸ ὀθόνιον ἄξιον (δραχμῶν) Β, καὶ μάρσ[ιππ]ον ἐν ὧι ἐνῆν χαλκοῦ (δραχμαὶ) σκη, καὶ τὸν βωμὸν χαλκοῦν καὶ τὸ κόνδυ ἃ τῆι ις ἐκομισάμην παρὰ τῶν ἰσιονόμων. ἐπιδίδωμί σοι ὅπως ἐξαποστείληις τούς {τε} διαπεπρα-­ γμένους ἐπὶ Μελέαγρον τὸν ἐπιστά-­ την τῶν φυλακιτῶν ὅπως γενομέ-­ νης τῆ[ς πρὸς] αὐτοὺς ἐπ[ισ]κ[έ]ψεω[ς] τύχωσ[ι τῆς] ἁρμοζούση[ς ἐπιπλή]-­ ξεως, [ἐγὼ δὲ ἀνα]κομίσω[μαι τὰ δεδη]-­ λω[μένα. τούτ]ου γὰρ γε[νομένου] …[ ca. ? ]

To [..…]esis, archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s of Berenikis Thesmophorou, and his phylakitai, from Poregebthis, priest [4] and warden of the temple of Isis from the same village.54 On the 15th of the present month, while I was sacrificing in the temple of Isis there [i.e., in Berenikis Thesmophorou] on behalf of the king and queen [8] and their children and ancestors, totally innocent, … Perutis, son of Perutis, whipped [12] (me?) … and took … and when I cried out for help, Papontos, my …, but they [16] removed by force from the… (and) planted many blows on me, and wounded my shin, and beat me in my face and took off in possession of [20] my honey and a linen garment worth 2,000 drachmas, and a bag containing 328 bronze drachmas, and a bronze altar and a drinking vessel, (all of?) which I recovered from the [24] wardens of the temple on the 15th. I am submitting a petition to you so that you may send the perpetrators to Meleagros, the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, so that, once the [28] examination of them has been held, they may meet with the fitting punishment and I may recover the things which I have described.55 For once this has happened, [32]. … (P.Tebt. III.1 797 [Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.])

Like many petitions, that of Poregebthis, though fragmentary, was clearly intended to evoke pity, underline the innocence of the victim and the violence of the offenders (here directed against a member of the priestly caste), effect the return of specific valuables, and request ­punishment for 54 This archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬Pros.Ptol. 4608) is mentioned only ­here. 55 Meleagros, epistates phylakiton (Pros.Ptol. 4534): only here.

‫ﷴ‬

‫ﷳ‬

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

73

the perpetrators and justice for the aggrieved.56 It is filled with details that would have been of great value to the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his phylakitai as they worked this case. It also provides a rare example of a text in which phylakitai at three different administrative levels are called on. The archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬the local chief, receives the petition, which is also addressed to his phylakitai, the corps of local police over whom he would have had sway. The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬would then have run his investigation and personally made any decisions not requiring a stamp of approval from higher-­ups. If we are to assume that the archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ followed the instructions he received in the petition exactly, once the alleged offenders were collared, they would have been sent to the provincial police magistrate, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, who ultimately would have decided what to do with them. It is not always easy – and it is usually not even possible – to tell what sorts of actions police officials took when they received requests for help from victims or written instructions from superiors, so it is hard to be certain whether the archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ in this case would have complied with the specific instruction to send the offenders to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n.57 As we shall see, archiphylakitai could hold trials themselves. Yet in this case, the seriousness of the offense – an attack on a priest sacrificing on behalf of the royal family – perhaps merited upper-­level attention. Aside from receiving complaints about crimes and instructions from other officials, archiphylakitai attended to the financial and agricultural provisioning of their underlings, enlisted men into their forces, and assigned them to various posts. As three texts suggest, there was a standard procedure to be followed by an applicant seeking admission into a corps of phylakitai.58 The applicant wrote to the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the region in question and declared his intention to be enrolled into the ranks of the police of the village (and associated districts) over which the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬had control, in accordance with a publicly posted notice (ektethen ekthema/programma). He would then request that he be added ( prosgraphesthai) to their ranks. It is unclear precisely how or by 56 For more on petitions, see Chapter ­4. 57 See Chapter 4. 58 P.Genova III 101 (Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?);

XIV 11860 (?, II/I b.c.).

102 (Arsinoite, 221

b.c.?);

and SB

74

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

whom archiphylakitai were recruited, but the surviving evidence suggests that hiring was done in Egyptian villages. One text is especially illuminating in this regard: Chrest.Wilck. 331 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), a copy of a letter from the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬to Hermias, ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n (the man in charge of the revenues), concerning delinquencies in his work for the 59 annual guarding of crops ( genematophylakia). The document reveals ‫ﷴ‬ that the latter official was (at least occasionally) responsible for appointing men to the position of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬as well as that of oikonomos (21–2) and that the men to fill these posts may have come from the nearby vicinity (45–53).60 Archiphylakitai could not only hire phylakitai, but they seem also to have had the power to requisition phylakitai from areas outside their jurisdiction.61 Archiphylakitai occasionally employed deputies as well: hyparchiphylakitai (sub-­archiphylakitai) are attested in two texts, from which we learn that they might appear at government auctions (BGU III 1222.61, 75 [Hermopolite, 144 b.c.]) and could possess kleroi ‫( ﷴ‬P.Tebt. III.2 1006.6–7 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]). Unfortunately, the duties of these subordinate officials and the reasons for and nature of their appointments are unclear. A few additional texts make reference to men subordinate to archiphylakitai but without specific titles.62 In none of these do we get a sense that there were specific duties entrusted to such men, though we do see evidence that from time to time a subordinate of an 59 On the dioiketes, see Chapter 3; on the official with the title ho epi ton prosodon,

‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ Salmenkivi (2003). 60 For further discussion of this text, and a translation, see Chapter 6. 61 See SB VI 9104 (Arsinoite, 195 b.c.), a letter in which one official requested that another bring one of the phylakitai in the katalochismos over to Krokodilopolis to serve (leitourgein) in the quarters (oikesis) ‫ ﷴ‬of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬for thirty days. This text is partially translated in note 21. 62 At least four such subordinates appear in the evidence: Aniketos (Pros. Ptol. 4610), ὁ παρ᾽ Εὐβίου | τοῦ [ἀρ]χι[φυ]λα[κ]ίτο[υ] (P.Tebt. III.1 752.10–11  [Tebtynis, early II b.c.]); Dionysios (Pros.Ptol. 4611), “Denys, fils de Phonchons, l’officier” (see P.CorpusRevillout II 3 [Memphis, 159 b.c.]); Ptolemaios (Pros.Ptol. 4612), [τοῦ] | καθεσταμένου διὰ τοῦ ἐν τῶι Ἀνουβι[είω]ι ἀρχιφυλ[ακίτου] (UPZ I 5.5–6  [Memphis, 163 b.c.]); and Horos (Pros.Ptol. 4613  = 4628), who reports to an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬see P.CorpusRevillout II 4 [Memphis, 159 b.c.]).

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

75

archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬might use his clout to carry out an operation, such as the raid in the following example: 4 8 12

Διονυ[σίωι63 τῶν φίλων] καὶ στρατηγῶι πα[ρὰ Πτολεμαίου] τοῦ Γλαυκίου Μακεδό[νος ὄ]ντος ἐν τῶ[ι με]γάλωι Σαραπιείωι ἐν κατοχῆι {ὢν} ἔτη δ[έκα], οὐκ ἐξεληλυθὼς τὸ παστοφόριον ἐν [ὧ]ι [ἐ]νκέκλειμ[αι] ἕως τῆς σήμερον. τῆι ις τοῦ Θῶυθ [Π]τολεμαί[ου τοῦ] καθεσταμένου διὰ τοῦ ἐν τῶι Ἀνουβι[είω]ι ἀρχιφυλ[ακίτου] καὶ Ἀμώσιος τοῦ παρὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέ[ως] παραλαβόντες φυλακίτας εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ ἐν τῶι [μεγάλ]ωι Σαραπ[ιε]ίωι Ἀσταρτιεῖον, οὗ καὶ ἐν κατοχῇ εἰμι μ[έ]χρι τῆς σήμερον, φάσκοντες εἶναι ἐν τῶι τόπωι ὅπλα. ἐρευνήσαν[τ]ες οὖν πάν τὸν τόπον οὐθὲν εὗρον. ἐκπορ[ευ]ομων δὲ τῶν φυλακιτῶν ἐξετίναξαν ἑαυτοὺς οὐθὲν ἄτοπο[ν] ποιή-­ σαντες.

To Dionysios, ton‫ ﷳ‬philon‫ ﷳ‬and strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬from Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias, Macedonian, in detention (katoche)‫ ﷴ‬in the great Serapieion for ten years, [4] not having left the priestly chamber in which I have been enclosed up to the present day.64 On the 16th of Thoth, Ptolemaios, the man appointed by the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the Anoubieion, and Amosis, agent of the archiereus, taking [8] phylakitai, entered into the Astartieion in the great Serapieion, where I have been in detention (katoche)‫ ﷴ‬up to the present day, alleging that there were weapons in that place.65 After making a search of the whole place, they found nothing. Once the [12] phylakitai had exited, they took off after doing nothing unseemly.66 (UPZ I 5.1–13 [Memphis, 163 ­b.c.]) 63 The papyrus has Διοδό[τωι ­here. 64 On the title “of the (first) friends” (ton‫[ ﷳ‬prot‫ ﷳ‬on‫ ] ﷳ‬philon‫ ) ﷳ‬of the Ptolemaic king, see Mooren (1975) 1–5, 9, 226–32 with (1977) 17–73. On the phenomenon of religious “detention” (katoche)‫ ﷴ‬in Egyptian temples, see Sethe (1913); Delekat (1964); D. J. Thompson (1988) 215–31; and UPZ I pp52–77. We briefly consider the Ptolemaic strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in the following chapter. 65 On archiereis, or “chief priests,” in Ptolemaic Egypt, see H. Müller (2000) 537–40 and the additional sources cited there. For other archiphylakitai with jurisdictions over temples, see Bauschatz (2007a) 190–1. On the Anoubieion (temple of Anoubis) in Memphis, see herein note 74. 66 On similar raids, carried out by police officials and others, see Bauschatz (2007c) p. 21.

76

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

But the same was not true for the other officials involved in the raid: as Ptolemaios notes in the next section of his petition (lines 13–45), during a subsequent visit by the offenders he was driven out of detention, the temple was thoroughly pilfered, and a seal was applied. Here we see a subordinate of an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬acting in almost the same manner as a fully fledged police chief: organizing a raid, assembling a diverse posse (here consisting of temple as well as police personnel), and conducting a search. One wonders why the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬would not have himself spearheaded such an operation. It is perhaps impossible to know. The Memphis Anoubieion complex was a large and complicated series of buildings, however, and may have necessitated an extra degree of police organization.67 As we have seen, archiphylakitai received petitions from the Ptolemaic populace. They also regularly received communication – in the form of notifications, commands, and circulars  – from other law enforcement agents and officials in different government spheres. In many cases, these documents addressed the regulation, collection, and protection of tax revenues, primarily agricultural tax revenues.68 Archiphylakitai also had a role to play as government-­sanctioned muscle. We occasionally see them appearing at state auctions of goods and properties, perhaps as a means of crowd control, and sometimes at Ptolemaic civil trials as well.69 A recently published archive of third-­century documents connected with a Herakleopolite archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬named Theomnestos reveals that archiphylakitai were intimately connected with the distri70 bution of seed, grain, and kleroi ‫ ﷴ‬in their administrative areas. They 67 See herein note ­74. 68 Correspondence concerning

tax revenues in general: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.138–46 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); P.Gen. III 132 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); P.Lille I 3 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.); beer and natron: P.Tebt. I 40 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.); grain: P.Tebt. III.1 708 (Tebtynis, III b.c.); papyrus: P.Tebt. III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); wool: SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?). On the Ptolemaic papyrus monopoly, see Lewis (1974) with Pap.Brux. XXIII (1989). 69 Present at auctions, e.g., P.Haun. I 11 (Diospolis Magna, 182 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 871 (Krokodilopolis, 158 b.c.); UPZ II 219 (Thebes, 130 b.c.); at trials: Chrest.Mitt. 32 (Arsinoite, 181 b.c.). 70 The archive, which consists of thirteen texts dating from 214 to ca. 210 b.c., is published as P.Köln XI 438–51. We examine these texts in greater detail

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

77

also may have been responsible for provisioning government workers in the mining trade and those involved in crown-­sponsored hunting, though the evidence for this duty consists of one fragmentary text (P. Petr. III 130 [Arsinoite, III b.c.]).71 As they needed quick and easy access to their subordinates and likewise had to be accessible to the people, archiphylakitai were spread out over the cho‫ﷳ‬ra and had different spheres of control.72 As with phylakitai, when a locale is specified for the domain of an archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s, one encounters the name of a village (or a form of ko‫ﷳ‬me‫ )ﷴ‬most frequently.73 But other geographic jurisdictions for these officials are encountered in the papyri: variations on villages, the meris, the toparchy, the nome, and even temples.74 There was clearly a widespread need for police in Chapter 6, when we consider the financial duties of archiphylakitai and their underlings. Theomnestos seems to have had jurisdiction over a number of villages in a toparchy (Ἄγημα κάτω) of the Herakleopolite nome. His domain may have been the entire toparchy: see P.Köln XI pp84–7. 71 The lower margin of the document, an expense account concerning mining, preserves the beginning of a letter from (16–17) Νίκων ἐπιστάτης φυλακιτῶν καὶ ἀρχι[φυλακίτης ca. ? ]|ιπποις θηροφύλαξιν (with BL 1.384 for reading). The document provides the only evidence that the posts of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬could be combined in the same individual in the Ptolemaic period. 72 A more detailed discussion of the distribution and jurisdictions of archiphylakitai can be found in Bauschatz (2007a) 186–91. 73 E.g., BGU VIII 1798.1 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Enteux. 82.5 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.); P.Giss.Univ. I 7.1–2 (Euhemeria, II b.c.). 74 Variations on villages: e.g., P.Genova III 102.1–3 (Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?): Διοσκουρίδει ἀ[ρχιφυλακίτηι Κρο]|κοδίλων πόλεως κ[αὶ τῶν ca. ? ]|σῶν κωμῶν; P.Tebt. III.1 795.1–3 (Tebtynis, II b.c.): Διο[σ]κου|[ρίδ]ει ἀρχιφυλακίτηι Κροκοδίλων πόλεως | καὶ τῶν μεμερισμένων τόπων; SB XIV 11860.1–3 (?, II/I b.c.): Στρατονίκωι | ἀρχι[φ]υλακίτηι τῶν | περὶ Ἀρσινόην κ[ώ]μη[ν]; merides: e.g., P.Bürgsch. 22.3–4 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.); P.Coll.Youtie I 16.9–10 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?); P.Tebt. III.1 731.4 (Tebtynis/ Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?); toparchies: e.g., P.Frankf. 3.26–7 (Tholthis, 212 b.c.); P.Hib. I 73.9–10 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.); UPZ II 187.2–3 (Thebes, 127–126 b.c.); nomes: P.Dryton 33.14 (?, 136 b.c.); P.Gen. III 132.4 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2188.91–2 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.); temples: UPZ I 5.6 (Memphis, 163 b.c.); 6.6 (Memphis, 163 b.c.). The Memphite Anoubieion seems to have been a

78

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

administrators at a variety of levels. One might assume that a cho‫ﷳ‬ra-­ wide network connected archiphylakitai at the highest levels with those at the lowest. Yet lower-­level archiphylakitai do not appear to have been linked to higher-­ranking chiefs by a carefully articulated chain of command.75 Rather, the Ptolemaic hierarchy of archiphylakitai seems to have been a hierarchy in name only: that is, the various lower-­level archiphylakitai did not form a ranked succession of officials.76 This claim is admittedly based on a lack of evidence. For instance, no correspondence between Ptolemaic archiphylakitai survives, which suggests that archiphylakitai at “lower” levels (i.e., those based in villages or districts) did not receive orders from those “higher” up (i.e., at the level of the toparchy, meris, or nome). Further, there is no solid proof in the surviving evidence that “higher” archiphylakitai had more important responsibilities, garnered better wages, or commanded a broader range of subordinates than the “lower” variety. The conclusion to be drawn from this lack of evidence is that the organization of Ptolemaic police chiefs was not truly based on rank. The Ptolemies do not appear to have installed archiphylakitai at numerous geographic levels in order to establish a linked chain of police officials from the village level all the way up through the nome. Rather, they seem to have dotted the cho‫ﷳ‬ra with police chiefs to provide easy public access to the police system at various points. From its coordination in police work of officials from different spheres of government to its only semi-­rigid articulation of administrators, the Ptolemaic police system was defined by its flexibility. Archiphylakitai were in many ways a perfect embodiment of this operational adaptability. decidedly unusual temple, as it had both an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and an epistates‫ﷴ‬ (on whom see Chapter 3, note 19). For more on the Anoubieion, see D. J. Thompson (1988) 212–65 and UPZ I pp12–18. 75 Kool (1954) argued for a strict administrative hierarchy (5–10, 43–5, 101): “Down the scale we … find the archiphy. of the merides and of the toparchies and then the archiphy. of the metropoleis and villages, sometimes of the precinct of a temple such as the Anoubieion” (101). 76 See Bauschatz (2007a) 192–5 for a much more detailed discussion of the interactions – or lack thereof – between archiphylakitai at the various levels of Ptolemaic administration.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

79

Epistatai ­Phylakito﻾n The duties of the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬as mentioned earlier, were similar to those of another police official, the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n.77 Ptolemaic papyri that mention the latter (significantly fewer in number than those that refer to archiphylakitai) demonstrate that they, too, attended government auctions, had a regular presence in Ptolemaic courts, helped manage the collection and protection of tax revenues, were the recipients of petitions from private citizens and circulars from the central government, transported suspects, and performed investigations.78 But in spite of the apparent similarities in their job descriptions, relatively little has been written on the relationship between the two officers.79 A closer examination of the duties, administrative domains, and colleagues of the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s and the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n reveals that the two officials were in fact quite different. As we have seen, archiphylakitai are frequently attested taking part in arrests, investigations, and various other physically demanding police activities. Epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, on the other hand, appear to have been primarily judicial officials and administrators. This distinction is 77 On

the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, see above all Kool (1954) 67–85 and Bauschatz (2007a) 199–202; also Berneker (1935) 79; Van ‘t Dack (1949) 41–3; di Bitonto Kasser (1985) 3–6; and P.Hamb. IV 272 n. on 2. As one text demonstrates, the offices of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n could be combined in one individual: P.Petr. III 130.16–17 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); see herein note 71. 78 Present at auctions: P.Ryl. II 253 verso (Hermoupolis Magna, 142 b.c.?); in courts: e.g., BGU VI 1252 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.); collected and protected tax revenues: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.138–46 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); P.Köln VII 313 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 793 (Bereknikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.); received petitions: P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.); circulars: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 62 (Memphis, 99 b.c.); P.Gen. III 132 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?); transported offenders: P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); investigated crimes: P.Tebt. III.2 857 (Herakleopolite, 162 b.c.). 79 Kool (1954) 100–5; Bauschatz (2007a) 199–202; Chrest.Wilck. I pp411–12; P.Hib. I 34 p. 175 n. on 1; P.Tebt. I 5 pp46–7 n. on 159.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

80

suggested by the following text, a circular to these officials from the king concerning legal judgments: 4 8 12 16 20 24

βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Νέωνι χαίρειν. τῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἐπισ[τ]άτας τῶν φυ[λ]ακιτῶν γεγραμμένων ἐπιστολῶν ὑποτεθεί-­ κ[αμέ]ν [σ]οι τὸ ἀντίγραφον, κ[α]ὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν διαστείλασθε τοῖς παρ’ αὑτῶν τετ[αγ]μένοις κατὰ τόπον πράσσειν καθάπερ ἐπεστάλκαμεν γιν[ώσκ]οντες, ὅτι τοῖς παραβαίνουσι τὰ {τὰ} ὑφ’ ἡμῶν προστε-­ ταγ[μέ]να προσενεχθησόμεθα, καθότι προσῆκόν ἐστιν. ἔρρωσο. (ἔτους) κβ, Δαισίου κς Χοιὰχ κς. βασιλ[ε]ὺς Πτ[ο]λεμαῖος Συννόμωι χαίρειν. προσπέπτωκεν ἡμῖν ἄλλο μέρος· τὰς δ’ ἀνακρίσεις διεξάγετ[ε] κατὰ τὰ διαγράμματα καὶ τὰ ὑφ’ ἡμῶ[ν] καὶ τ[ο]ῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν προγόνων προστεταγμένα, καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰκῆι κ[α]ὶ ἀπροσ{σ}κέπτως ἀνάγοντάς τινας ἐπιπλήσσετε, καθ[ότι π]ροσῆκ[ό]ν ἐστιν, τ[οὺ]ς δὲ διαφορᾶς ἢ σεισμοῦ χάριν κατα-­ πέ[μπετε] πρὸς ἡμᾶς παραχρῆμα. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ [τοὺς ἐπ’ ὀνόματ]ος τὰς προσαγγελίας ποιουμένους τῶν [ ca. 11 τ]ῶν δὲ [κ]αθ’ ὑ[πό]νοιαν διδόντων πο⟨ι⟩εῖσθε [καταπομπὴν πα]ραχρῆ[μ]α, καὶ ἐὰν μέν τι αὐτῶν κατα-­ [         κατα]κολουθ[οῦν]τες τοῖς προκειμένοις χρηματισμοῖς αλλοτ[   ]τ [    ]τους. ἐὰν δ’ εἴς τ[ιν]ας μὴ παρόντας ὁρισμὸς γένητ[αι,  ] [ ] ά[γετ]ε τοὺς [ἀ]ν[θ]ρώπ  [ο]υς, ἵνα μὴ πρὸ κρ[ί]σεως [ ca. 15 ] κακουργ[ία]ς γ[έ]νωνται, καὶ καθόλου προσέχετε [τοῖς ὑφ’ ἡμῶν προσ]τεταγμ[έ]νοις διαλαμβάνοντες, διότι προσ-­ [ε]νεχθη[σό]μεθ[α τοῖ]ς παρὰ τα[ῦτ]α πράσσουσι, καθότι προσῆκόν ἐστιν. (ἔτους) κβ.

King Ptolemy to Neon, greetings.80 We have subjoined to you a copy of the letter we sent to the epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. See to it that you instruct those appointed [4] by 80 Neon

is not given a title in this document, but given the high degree of supervisory powers he seems to enjoy, he was perhaps a strategos: see C.Ord. ‫ﷴ‬ Ptol.2 30–1 pp76–7 and Pros.Ptol. 4535 add.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

81

you, region by region, to act in accordance with our wishes, knowing that we will penalize those who transgress our orders, as is fitting. Farewell. Year 22, Daisios 26, Choiach 26.81 [8] King Ptolemy to Synnomos, greetings.82 It has come to our attention that …83 Another ordinance: carry out your examinations in accordance with the regulations and the commandments from us, our father and our ancestors. [12] Punish those who at random and without forethought bring people up for examination, as is right, but send to us immediately those who bring people up for examination because of a grudge or seeking illicit gain. And (act) in the same manner regarding those who make notifications in name against (?) [16] …, but deliver to us immediately those who submit notifications covertly, even if you … with regard to one of these matters in compliance with the existing orders. But if a vow is made against certain individuals who are not present, [20] then bring these people (in/ up), so that they may not be … of wrongdoing before the trial. And in general, steadfastly provide for those who have been appointed by us, since we will punish those who transgress this ordinance, as is right. [24] Year 22.84 (C.Ord.Ptol.2 30–1 [?, 183 b.c.]).

It is a shame that the text of the original letter being forwarded (in part) here, which would have contained an explanation for the ordinance, has been lost. One suspects, however, that a number of epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had been accused of some sort of judicial wrongdoing and that the king had subsequently been pressed into sorting matters out and laying down clear guidelines for their examinations. Ironically, the ordinance as we have it does not contain particularly clear instructions for, or details on, how trials were to be administered. Instead, the king simply indicates 81 The

document is dated using both the Macedonian (Daisios) and Egyptian months (Choiak). On the use of the Macedonian calendar under Ptolemy V Epiphanes (205–180 b.c.), during whose reign this text was composed, see Hazzard (1999). 82 Synnomos is almost certainly an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, given the fact that he is expressly named as an addressee of the letter sent to the epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n by the king (line 8). See Pros.Ptol. 4539. 83 The rest of this sentence has not been reproduced in the document (line 8); instead, after the end of this line, the new commandment starts immediately (on line 9). 84 For more on this text, see Kool (1954) 74–8; Bauschatz (2007c) 33–4; and Chapter 5.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

82

that fairness at trials is paramount and that malicious accusations and prosecutions are to be avoided at all costs. But even this is not especially clear-­cut. An epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n receiving this decree was supposed to be able to differentiate between litigants suing because of personal differences, those seeking to commit extortion, and those who made groundless claims. One imagines that there would not always have been a clear difference. What we can conclude with some certainty is that the king issued this decree in the hopes of preventing frivolous lawsuits from tying up the royal court. We can also assume that official abuses were not limited to the lowest rungs of the Ptolemaic police hierarchy, or at least that the king and queen understood the importance of including police administrators in their prohibitions.85 As we see, details on the trials held by Ptolemaic epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n are hard to come by in royal decrees. They are also scarce on an individual basis. In an especially well-­known episode, the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, Menches, and his brother Polemon sought protection from the sovereigns against further prosecution following their release on criminal charges by the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n:86 4 8

85 On 86 On

[βασιλεῖ Πτολεμ]αίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι τῆι ἀδελφῆι καὶ βασ[ιλ]ίσσηι [Κλεοπάτραι] τῆ[ι γυ]ναικὶ θεοῖς Εὐεργέταις χαίρειν [Μεγχῆς] κωμο[γ]ραμματεὺς Κερκεοσίρεως τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος τοῦ Ἀρ[σ]ιν[ο]ί[του] καὶ ὁ τούτου ἀδελφὸς Πομων. τῆι ιζ τοῦ Ἁθ[ὺρ το]ῦ ἐνεστῶτος νγ (ἔτους) προσπε[σό]ντος ἡμῖν Ἀσκληπιάδην τινὰ τῶν παρ’ Ἀμιν[ίου] τοῦ ἐπιστάτου τῶν φυλακιτῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ παραγείνεσθαι εἰς τὴν κώμ[ην κ]αὶ κατὰ τὸ καθ[ῆκ]ον87 παρεγενήθημεν εἰς ἀπάντησιν σὺν τῶι τῆς κώμης κωμάρχωι [καί] τινων τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ­τῶν

police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz ­(2007c). Menches, the famous kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, see Verhoogt (1997). 87 With BL 1.523 for reading.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

83

[γ]εωργῶν καὶ Δημητρίωι τῶι διεξάγοντι τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστατείαν καὶ ἀρχιφυλακιτείαν τῆς αὐτῆς καὶ ἄλλοις, οὐδεμίαν ἔχοντες [ ]αμινωντ  ων ἐξεδεξιασάμεθα αὐτόν, καὶ ἐπίλημψιν ἡμῶν 12 ἐποιήσατο ὁμ[οίως] δὲ καὶ τοῦ Δημητρίου καὶ ἑνὸς τῶν γεωργῶν Μαρρὴν Πετῶτος, προφερόμενος ἐπιδεδόσθαι κατὰ ἡμῶν καὶ Μαρῶνος τ[οῦ] Διοδώρου καὶ Πετεσούχ[ο]υ [τοῦ     ο]υ καὶ Σίμωνος τοῦ [   ο]υ τῶν ἐκ τῆ[ς] αὐτῆς καὶ Ἀρτε[μιδώ]ρ[ου κω]μ[ο]-­ 16 γραμματέως [Ἰβίωνο]ς (Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) προσαγγελίαν ὑπὸ Ἁρυώτου τοῦ Ἁρσιγήσιος τ[ῶν] ἀ[πὸ Κροκο]δίλων πόλεως ⟦     ος⟧ ὡς ⟦      υλη⟧ συνδεδειπνη[κό]των αὐτῶν ἔν τινι καπηλήωι ἐν τῆι κώμηι καὶ ἐπανείρηται αὐτὸν φαρμάκωι, ὑφ’ [ο]ὗ καὶ ἀναχθέντες ἐπὶ τὸν 20 Ἀμινίαν τῇ ιθ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς ἐξ ἐπισκέψεως παρόντος καὶ Ἀμεννέως τοῦ βα(σιλικοῦ) γρ(αμματέως) παραχρῆμα ἀπελύθημεν διὰ τὸ ἀντίους φανῆναι.88

To king Ptolemy and queen Kleopatra the sister and queen Kleopatra the wife, benefactor gods, greetings, Menches, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus of Kerkeosiris of the Polemon meris of the [4] Arsinoite nome, and his brother, Polemon. On the 17th of Hathyr of the present 53rd year, it was made known to us that a certain Asklepiades, an agent of Aminias, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬of the same nome, had arrived in the village.89 As is customary, we met up with him, along [8] with the village ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ﷴ‬ and certain of the elders of the farmers and Demetrios, the man holding the offices of epistates‫ ﷴ‬and archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the same village, and others.90 Having no … we 88 With BL 7.269 for reading. The papyrus has ἀντίους φ ­ ανῆσαι. 89 Aminias: Pros.Ptol. 4524; Asklepiades: Pros.Ptol. 4543. The title of the latter

official is unknown. the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches‫( ﷴ‬village chief ), a village civil official, see above all P.Yale I pp156–61; also Berneker (1935) 127–30; Wolff (1970) 163 and 175 n. 58; Hélmis (1986) 110; and Chapter  3. Kom ‫ ﷳ‬archai tended to private disputes in Egyptian communities and worked in close contact with village scribes

90 On

84

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

greeted him; and he [12] arrested us, and similarly Demetrios, and one of the farmers, Mares, son of Petos, saying that a petition had been submitted against us, and also against Maron, son of Diodoros, Petesouchos, son of …, and Simon, son of …, all from the same village, as well as Artemidoros, kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus [16] of Ibion Eikosipentarouron. (The petition, submitted) by Haryotes, son of Harsygesis, an inhabitant of Krokodilopolis, (stated) that all of the accused had dined with him at a tavern in the village, and that he had been poisoned.91 Wherefore, arraigned before [20] Aminias on the 19th of the same month, we were immediately released from the examination – at which Ammeneus, the basilikos grammateus, was pres­ ent – owing to our innocence.92 (P.Tebt. I 43.1–22 [Alexandria, 117 b.c.]).

Given the degree of build-­up to the examination before Aminias, the lack of details on the trial itself is quite surprising. Nevertheless, we can glean a few bits of information about the operation of epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n from Menches’ petition. We see here that like an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n might effect arrests through subordinates, a fact that is perhaps not surprising, given that an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n would not have been based in a village and thus would have had to draw on supplemental manpower to haul in suspects.93 We also see that like the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n sometimes received petitions. But he was not always the ideal first level of appeal, as we have already seen in the petition to Mnaseas, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, in the Introduction. A local official was usually a safer bet for a petitioner. This is borne out (kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateis): P.Yale I p. 161. Demetrios (Pros.Ptol. 660 = 4561) is one of a handful of men who are attested as having held the offices of archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ and epistates‫ ﷴ‬simultaneously. See Bauschatz (2007a) 193–4 for the others. 91 This is the only recorded instance of the crime of poisoning in Ptolemaic Egypt. 92 The petition continues a bit beyond this point. In spite of his legal victory, Menches was nervous about future persecution on the same charges. And so he appealed to the king and queens for additional support in the form of protection from the strategos. The king, in turn, ordered the strategos ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬to see to it that no harm came to the brothers and appended his commandment to the bottom of the document. On the trial of Menches, see Verhoogt (1997) 160–1. For the decisive emendation of P.Tebt. I 43.21–2 leading to the proper interpretation of the trial’s outcome, see Chapter 5, note 118. 93 On the administrative domain of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, see the following discussion.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

85

by another case, in which an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n redirected a petition sent to him: 4 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

recto, left margin: (hand 2) Ἀπολλ[ω]νίωι ἐπ(ιστάτηι) φ[υλακιτ(?)]ῶν ιζ \⟦α⟧/ ἀποβιασθῶσι ὑπὲρ οὗ      παρὰ Τοκολλ[ούσ]ιος (ἔτους) κβ Ἁθὺρ κγ. recto, center: (hand 1) Ἀνικήτωι οἰκονόμωι παρὰ Τκολλ[ο]ύσιος ζυτοποι[ο]ῦ κ[ώ]μης Φνεβίεως καὶ ημενχων ἐνεστηκυίας [μ]οι κρίσεως ἐπὶ τῶν τὰ πρ[οσο]δικὰ κρινόντων [χρ]ημα-­ τιστῶν πρ[ὸς] Πᾶσιν καὶ  σ θέαν [τ]ὴν μητέρα αὐτῶν περὶ οὗ ἐπενενηνόχασιν κατ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ τῶν παρ’ ἐμοῦ φόνου ἀγενήτου παιδίου πεντεκαιδεχημέρου καὶ διὰ τούτ[ο]υ τῶν ἐγκα-­ λουμένων εἰσβιασαμένων εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν μου, ἣν καὶ τυγχάνω ἠγορακυῖα παρὰ τῶν πριαμένων αὐτὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν, νυνὶ δὲ εἰσωικικότων Ἰσιάδα τινὰ δι’ ἑαυτῶν, ἵν’ εἴ πως δύναιντο διὰ παρευρέσεως εἰκαστῆς [γ]είνεσθαι τὴν ἐνοίκησι[ν], [ἀ]ξιῶ σε συντάξαι γράψ[αι] Ἀγαθοκλεῖ ἀποστε[ῖ]λ[αι]

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

86 32 36 40 44

τὴν Ἰσιάδα ὅπως ἀ [  ] ­η καὶ βίαι ἐκχωρ[ήση]ι μοι τούτου γενομένου [ὦ τε]-­ τευχυ[ῖ]α τ[ῆ]ς βοηθείας. [εὐ]τύχει. verso: (hand 2) Ἀπολλωνίωι. (hand 3) (ἔτους) κβ Ἁ[θ]ὺ[ρ] κδ πα(ρ’) Ἀπολλω(νίου) [Ἀ]γαθ[ο]κλεῖ ἐπ(ιστάτηι) Φνεβιέως τοῦ δ[ο]θέντος Ἀνικήτωι τῶι vac ὑπομνήμα[τ]ος ἀναπεμφθέντος δ’ ἐφ’ [ἡ]μᾶς      γραφοις ὑπόκειτ[αι] τὸ ἀν[τίγρα]φον \καὶ τῶν συντάξεων   /, καταπεμφθή[τω] οὖν ἡ [  ]   η ἐπ[ὶ] τὴν Ἰσιάδα, ἵνα περὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐπισκεφθῆι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀνικήτου [ ca. ? ] traces

(recto, center, 3–34) To Aniketos, oikonomos, [4] from Tkollousis, brewer from the village of Phnebieus and. … I had a trial against Pasis and …-­thea, their mother, [8] before the chrematistai who adjudicate in matters that concern the (royal) rev‫ﷴ‬ enues, concerning the baseless charge of the murder of a slave [16] fifteen days ago, (a charge) which they leveled against me and my agents.94 On account of this, the accused broke into my house, which [20] I happen to have purchased from the people who bought it from them. And now they have moved a certain Isias into it [24] through their own agency, so that perhaps somehow they may be able, through a similar pretext, to establish habitation. Wherefore, [28] I ask that you please write to Agathokles to send Isias, so that she may … and give way to me by force. [32] For if this happens, I will have met with your assistance. ­Farewell. 94 On



Ptolemaic chrematistai (money-­getters), judges for civil cases ­involving ‫ﷴ‬ both Greeks and Egyptians, see Aly (1995 [1943–4]) 30–4; Seidl (1962) 74–7; Wolff (1966) 24–32, (1970) 64–89; Mélèze Modrzejewski (1975); Bastianini (1981) 149–50; Peremans (1982–3) 156–9, (1983) 263–8; also now P.Heid. VIII pp61–3. On the charge of murder, see Hélmis (1986) 17–20.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

87

(recto, left margin, 1–5) To Apollonios, epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n.95 17[?]. Let them be evicted [?] as regards what [we have received] from Tkollousis. [4] Year 22, Hathyr 23. (verso, 35) To Apollonios. (verso, 36–46) Year 22, Hathyr 24. From Apollonios. To Agathokles, epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Phnebieus. Below lies a copy of the petition given [40] to Aniketos and sent to us. [44] Therefore, let … be sent to Isias, so that an investigation about the events recorded may be carried out by Aniketos. (BGU VI 1244 [Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?])

In this instance, a petitioner wrote to the oikonomos to request that an offender be transported, presumably for examination. The oikonomos forwarded the petition to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, who then forwarded the document again, this time to the village epistate‫ﷴ‬s, with instructions for the apprehension and transport of the accused.96 The epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n generally received complaints only after they had already been sent elsewhere and if they had not attained the goals of petitioners. He represented a higher level of appeal and provided a check on miscarriages of justice in towns and villages. But, as a rule, he avoided involving himself with legal matters in the Egyptian backwater when competent town or village machinery was available. In addition to his roles as judge and agent of appeal, the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n also seems to have occasionally served as a legal consultant to other government agents. In one case, a strate‫ﷴ‬gos was asked to sit in council with various officials – including the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n – so that the group might draw up a list of men suitable to draft certain Demotic contracts (synallagmata Aigyptia; P.Ryl. IV 572.30–47  [Arsinoite?, II b.c.]). Further evidence is provided by a decree of the dioike‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s in which the suggestion is made that the recipients of the decree sit in council with the epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and other officials (among these strategoi, oikonomoi, and basilikoi grammateis) to discuss reports of agri‫ﷴ‬ cultural mismanagement and take the proper course of action (UPZ I 110.128–55 [Memphis?, 164 b.c.]). The documents are not especially informative, but the consultant role of the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n may have

95 Apollonios: Pros.Ptol. 4525. He 96 On the epistates, see Chapter 3.

‫ﷴ‬

appears only in this ­text.

88

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

had less to do with his standing as an official with judicial competency and more to do with his position as a high-­level bureaucrat.97 This raises the question of the administrative domain of the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. A handful of Ptolemaic texts preserve a geographic designation for this official: the nome.98 Kool concluded that the office of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had been instituted above that of the archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ of the nome at some point during the reign of Philadelphus.99 Yet it is impossible to state with certainty that the post of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was established in this period (285–246 b.c.). Only three texts dating firmly to the third century and securely mentioning this official survive.100 Yet none provides any evidence for the post of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n being 97 One

additional text highlights the importance of his office: P.Tebt. III.2 890.37 (Herakleopolite, ca. 137 b.c.), a banker’s account of payments and debits in which we see that an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬might have an official financial assistant/manager (cheiristes): ‫ ﷴ‬Πτολεμαίωι ἀπὸ πό(λεως) χει(ριστῆι) ἐπ(ιστάτου) φυ(λακιτῶν) Ἀχ. For Ptolemaios, see Pros.Ptol. 1451 = 4544. 98 C.Ord.Ptol.2 62.2–3 (Memphis, 99 b.c.): τῶι στρατη[γ]ῶι τοῦ Μεμφίτου κ[αὶ] τῶι φρουράρχωι [καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπισ[τά]τηι | [τ]ῶν φυλα[κιτ]ῶν; P.Gen. III 132.1–2 (?) (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.): [     ]ης τῶι στρατηγῶ[ι τοῦ Ἡρακλεοπολίτου καὶ τῶι φρουράρχωι καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπιστάτηι | [τῶν φυ]λακιτῶν; P.LilleDem. I 4 exterior.6 (?) (Ghoran, 247 b.c.): “…..sigénès, chef des vigiles du nome Arsinoïte”; P.Tebt. I 43.5–6 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.): Ἀμιν[ίου] | τοῦ ἐπιστάτου τῶν φυλακιτῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ (sc. 3–4: τοῦ | Ἀρ[σ]ιν[ο]ί[του]); SB XXII 15766.1–2 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?): τῶι στρα(τηγῶι) τοῦ Ἀρσινο(ίτου) νο(μοῦ) καὶ τῶι ἐπ(ιστάτηι) τῶν φυ(λακιτῶν). 99 Kool (1954) 5–8, 100. He also pressed for a close professional connection between these two officials (101): “At the head of the nome is the ep. phy., assisted by an archiphy. and a grammateus of the phyl. (of the nome).” Archiphylakitai of nome-­level provenance are attested for perhaps six nomes: the Arsinoite (?) (e.g., Herakleitos, Pros.Ptol. 4579), the Herakleopolite (?) (e.g., Herakleides, Pros.Ptol. 4577), the Koite (Philippos, Pros.Ptol. 4602a), the Lykopolite (?) (Asklepiades, Pros.Ptol. 4557a), the Memphite (C.Ord. Ptol.2 62.2–3 [Memphis, 99 b.c.]), and the Pathyrite (e.g., Herakleides, Pros. Ptol. 4578). However, not all of the attributions are secure. On the grammateus phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, see the next section. 100 BGU VI 1244.5–6 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); P.Petr. III 128.i.2 (Arsinoite, 239 b.c.); and 130.minf.1–2 (Arsinoite, III b.c.). See also the following texts, which may contain references to third-­century epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: P.Bürgsch. 23.4, 4–5, 15–16, 17–18 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.; Herakleides, Pros.Ptol. 4531 ­= 4619);

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

89

a recent innovation. Further, only one archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of nome-­level competence is securely attested for the third century, hardly firm evidence for a cho‫ﷳ‬ra-­wide distribution of these officials at the nome ­level.101 Archiphylakitai could certainly fill nome-­level posts; but whether every nome had one of these officials is uncertain.102 For now, it seems best only to assume that archiphylakitai were generally officials of lower standing than epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. Though the two had much in common, Ptolemaic archiphylakitai and epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n were officials of decidedly different types. Archiphylakitai provided the inhabitants of Egyptian villages with neighborhood law enforcement administrators. They performed the great majority of police work in Egyptian settlements themselves or delegated it to subordinates. They received petitions from victims of crime and tended to their complaints or sought assistance from other officials. The epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, on the other hand, seems to have had as his chief concern the solving of problems that had not met with satisfactory resolution in Egyptian towns and villages (i.e., at the hands of P.Hamb. II 172.4 (Oxyrhynchite, 246 b.c.; Apollodotos, Pros.Ptol. 4524a); P.LilleDem. I 4 interior.3, exterior.6 (Ghoran, 247 b.c.; [ – – s]igenes; Pros. Ptol. 4542  = 4625); SB V 7569.24 (Tholthis [Oxyrhynchite]?, 213 b.c.; Epikudes/Epikudis, Pros.Ptol. 4529). The following texts contain references to epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬but are of uncertain date: SB V 8872.3–4 (Athribis, 205–180 b.c.; Ptolemaios, Pros.Ptol. 4537); XXII 15766.1–2 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?; only post of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬mentioned). 101 The only secure attestation is Nikon, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬and archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ of an unknown nome (Pros.Ptol. 4536  = 4590), and this attestation rests on two assumptions: that the post of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬was nome level; and that Nikon’s appointment as archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was also at the nome level. Three other men were perhaps nome-­level archiphylakitai in the third century, but in each case the evidence for their nome-­level rank is weaker than that for Nikon’s. They are: Herakleides, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Herakleopolite nome (?) (Pros.Ptol. 4577); Herakleitos, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Arsinoite nome (?) (Pros.Ptol. 4579a); [ – – s]igenes, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Arsinoite nome (?) (Pros.Ptol. 4542 = 4625). 102 The government of Ptolemaic Egypt was rigidly organized by geography, but within its various regions there were variations. For example, Egyptian nomes were generally subdivided into toparchies, but the Arsinoite nome was divided into merides. On the various Egyptian nomes during the Ptolemaic period, see Thomas (1967).

90

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

archiphylakitai and others). As an official of the nome (most likely), the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had a much broader administrative domain than the majority of the police chiefs scattered throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. He, too, received complaints from villagers but typically only after the village or district law enforcement officials had proved themselves unable to provide the proper assistance. His most important function appears to have been as a judicial official, one who carried out trials, pronounced judgments, and served as an adviser for the various officers with whom he might sit in council. But the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was not the only Ptolemaic official with 103 nome-­level judicial competence. The strategos ‫ ﷴ‬also had such powers. Here a few words need to be said concerning the judicial relationship between the two officers. The nature of this relationship is not entirely clear. Kool (1954) concluded that (1) both acted as judges in criminal trials, the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in the third century and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n after that; (2) strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬had the various civil epistatai of the villages as their contact persons, and had no direct contact with archiphylakitai; and (3) epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n seem generally to have received court cases after archiphylakitai referred them (102; cf. 49–50, 83–5). A large cache of documents reveals that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was the judicial official of primary importance in the third century for criminal cases.104 No evidence survives for the judicial domain of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n in the third century, but later documentation reveals that this official could also try these types of cases.105 103 We return to the strate‫ﷴ‬gos in the next ­chapter. 104 See P.Enteux. and Wolff (1970) 162–3; for judges in civil cases, Wolff (1970)

48–53 (laokritai) and 64–89 (chre‫ﷴ‬matistai) and the additional sources cited there; also note 94, on chre‫ﷴ‬matistai. On the laokritai (judges of the [native] people), judges who handled civil disputes between Egyptians, see Aly (1995 [1943–4]) 11–30; Seidl (1962) 74–7; Wolff (1970) 48–53; Mélèze­Modrzejewski (1975); and Peremans (1982–3) 151–3. 105 See BGU VI 1252 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), a petition containing a request that a thief be transported to an epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n for punishment; P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.), a petition to an epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n seeking trial and punishment for the perpetrator of an assault; and SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.), a similar petition concerning a theft.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

91

Other ­Phylakitai A handful of other officials in the ranks of the phylakitai appears to have had administrative duties, primarily as supervisors of phylakitai. For instance, a dekanos phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬commander of ten phylakitai) is attested in two texts. In one of these, a letter of censure to a man named Hermias with the title ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫( ﷳ‬Chrest.Wilck. 331 [Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.]), the recipient was taken to task for failure to properly instruct the dekanoi phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, among other things.106 According to the letter, in each village these officials were to have been summoned to a common meeting for the purpose of obtaining declarations on oath for the upcoming 107 genematophylakia. The function of the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n at these meet‫ﷴ‬ ings is not made clear, though it is perhaps reasonable to assume that each would have served as a representative of a small group of (ten?) phylakitai and would have had the responsibility of delivering copies of the oaths sworn by the phylakitai under him. The second document is a memorandum with instructions for an unknown official to write to other officials (SB XXII 15767 [Arsinoite, II b.c.]). The former is asked to contact the strategos, the epistates‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬the oikonomos, and the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n with some information about a pair of tax farmers. It seems likely that the officials listed in this memorandum would have provided assistance to the two tax farmers specified in collecting arrears from some taxpayers who had fled.108 The list of officials in SB XXII 15767 is not all that different from those who often appear in Ptolemaic circulars: in these documents, various police, civil, and financial officials were regularly called on to provide assistance with revenue extraction, collection, and 106 Chrest.Wilck.

331 is considered in much greater detail – and translated – in Chapter 6. On the official with the title ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n, see note 59. 107 Chrest.Wilck. 331.30–4: ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι μεταπεμφθέντων εἰς κοινὸν | συνέρδιον τῶν κατὰ κώμην δεκανῶν τῶν φ[υ]λακιτῶν | ληφθῆναι μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ (sc. Ἁρνεμγώτου τοῦ ἐν τῶι ῞Ωρ[ου] βασιλικοῦ γραμματέως, line 27) γνώμης ἃς ὑπετίθετο χειρο|γραφίας ὅρκου βασιλικοῦ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἐπετείων γενημάτων | τη[ρ]ήσεως. On the genematophylakia, see Chapter 3. 108 Indeed, this is the scenario tentatively reconstructed by the original editor of the text: M. Müller (1995) 241–3.

92

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

protection.109 The major difference here is the presence of the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: the official occurs in no other Ptolemaic circular letter and, in fact, occurs nowhere else with the unusual title “dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n for those who have run away” (τῶι | ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνακε|χω(ρηκότων) δεκαν(ῶι) τῶν φυ(λακιτῶν), 8–10).110 The designation suggests that the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n – or at least this specific dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n – had some sort of supervisory function with regards to the phylakitai, likely as the leader of a police corps devoted to hauling in tax dodgers.111 The memorandum also makes clear that the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was subordinate in the hierarchy of phylakitai to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, if we assume that, as is the usual custom, the list of potential addressees here is laid out in order of decreasing importance. Unfortunately, the exclusion of an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the list makes the relative hierarchy of that official and the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n unclear.112 The title of dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n does not occur outside of these two documents, though a Euboulides, dekanos, appears at the head of a list of the names of ten men ( phylakitai?) who were likely under his command (P.Paramone 10.1 [?, II b.c.]).113 A dekanos also appears in P.Tebt. I 251 (Arsinoite, I b.c.; no line numbers given), an expense account that is not fully transcribed, but which records payments made to the machairophoros (sword-­bearer) of the ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬and a dekanos.114 Whether the dekanoi mentioned in each of these texts are to be understood as dekanoi phylakito‫ﷳ‬n is uncertain, as the contexts in which they occur are not sufficiently clear to indicate a police function for these officials.115 109 On

the content and addressees of circulars (entolai) emanating from the Ptolemaic court, see Chapters 3 and 6. 110 The specific dekanos phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬mentioned here, Phaneias, occurs nowhere else. 111 On the phenomenon of anachor‫ ﷳ‬esis  ‫ – ﷴ‬flight from landholdings so as to avoid tax responsibility  – in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see the bibliography in Cowey (1995), especially n. 4 p. 195; also Lewis (1996) 64–5; and McGing (1998). 112 It is probably safe to assume, given the extensive evidence for the dispersal and operation of archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt, that the dekanos phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬was an official of lower status. 113 Euboulides appears only in this text. 114 Kom ‫ ﷳ‬archai: note 90; machairophoroi: Chapter 3. 115 On a related note, men designated dekanikoi (probably “commanders of ten men”) occur in a number of Ptolemaic texts, e.g., BGU X 1956.5

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

93

Elsewhere, evidence survives of a hegemo phylakito‫ﷳ‬n ‫ﷳ‬n (or ho hegoumenos) ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ (leader of the phylakitai). The evidence for this position comes from four texts, a second-­century official letter and three second-­ or first­century land registers from the Herakleopolite nome.116 The letter (P. Tebt. III.1 731.1 [Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142– 141 b.c.?]) provides by far the best evidence for the position.117 The author of the letter, a certain Apollonios, ho hegoumenos to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n ‫ﷴ‬ in Ibion Eikosipentarouron, wrote to a man named Mestasytmis about some phylakitai from Tebtynis who had failed to appear for service as genematophylakes (guards of crops).118 The editors of the document ‫ﷴ‬ suggested (p.  140 n. 1)  that the office may have been equivalent to that of dekanos phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. Given that Apollonios seems to have had at least supervisory jurisdiction over a handful of village phylakitai, and that said jurisdiction was connected to recruiting personnel for the genematophylakia (cf. Chrest.Wilck. 331), the possibility of an equation of ‫ﷴ‬ the offices of dekanos phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬and hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬is real, though cer‫ﷴ‬ tainty is not possible. Unfortunately, the three Herakleopolite land registers that also mention (or may mention) the office of hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ do not contribute much to our understanding of the position, save for revealing that there was a position for the leader of former phylakitai, the hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n archaio‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (BGU XIV 2445.iii.3 [Herakleopolite, ‫ﷴ‬ (Oxyrhynchite?, 200–199 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 951.1 (Tebtynis, III b.c.); SB XII 11061.23–4 (Tholthis, 218 b.c.). Though certainty is perhaps impossible, it seems likely that these latter men were soldiers (cf. Latin decuriones, “commanders of ten cavalrymen”) and not police officials: P.Paramone 10 p. 113, n. 4. 116 Ho hegoumenos (ton‫ ) ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: P.Tebt. III.1 731.1 (Tebtynis/Ibion ‫ﷴ‬ Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?), an official letter; hegemo n‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ archaion‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬leader of former phylakitai): BGU XIV 2445.iii.3 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), a land register; hegemonia ton‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬post of ‫ﷴ‬ leader of [former?] phylakitai) (?): BGU XIV 2447 Fr15 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), a land register: [ ca. ? τῶ]ν ὑπὸ τὴν Διονυσίου ἡγ[εμονίαν φυλακιτῶν? ca. ? ]. Pankrates (BGU XIV 2440.19  [Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.]) may also be a hegemon ‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: φυλακιτῶν τῶν Παγκρά(του) τῶν περὶ Φε(βῖχιν); cf. BGU XIV 2445.iii.3 and 2447.47. 117 See Chapter 5 for a translation and further discussion of this text. 118 Genematophylakes/gene matophylakia: see Chapter  3; Apollonios appears ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ only here.

94

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

II–I b.c.]), and that one might speak of the hegemonia phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (BGU ‫ﷴ‬ XIV 2447 Fr15 [Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.]).119 Two texts mention a prostates‫( ﷴ‬or ho proesteko ‫ﷳ ﷴ‬s to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (man [put] in charge of the phylakitai).120 The first (chronologically) of these, a fragmentary petition to the king from some prisoners who noted that a knife had been given to the prostates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫( ﷳ‬SB I 4309.25 [Arsinoite, III b.c.?]), is unfortunately so poorly preserved as to obscure many important details.121 The second document, however, is much more instructive. This text is a letter concerning grain thefts at a pair of threshing floors in the village of Thmoiobastis and the investigations of Petesouchos, ho proesteko ‫ﷳ ﷴ‬s to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, and his men (SB XIV 12089 [Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.]).122 Petesouchos seems to have had a relatively wide array of police powers: we learn that he and his phylakitai carried out a search for missing (stolen) grain, discovered some of the grain in the home of one villager, sealed up the threshing floor of another villager (?), and transferred the recovered produce to the crown. The police activities here parallel those in which archiphylakitai (and sometimes epistatai) commonly engaged.123 Thus, it would not be surprising to discover from other evidence that Petesouchos was an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬or an epistates), ‫ ﷴ‬were it not the case that he identifies himself as ho proesteko s to n phylakito n‫ ﷳ‬, which ‫ﷳ ﷳ ﷴ‬ should indicate that Petesouchos was not an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬or an epistates‫ﷴ‬ (for, if he were, he would certainly have indicated his title). All we can really conclude here is that Petesouchos was “appointed in charge” of 119 The

hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬archaion‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬in BGU XIV 2445.iii.3 is one Dionysios ‫ﷴ‬ who appears only here, and perhaps in one additional document, the text where the phrase hegemonia (archaion‫ )? ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬may occur, BGU XIV 2447 ‫ﷴ‬ Fr15: [ ca. ? τῶ]ν ὑπὸ τὴν Διονυσίου ἡγ[εμονίαν φυλακιτῶν? ca. ? ]. 120 Prostates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: SB I 4309.25 (Arsinoite, III b.c.?); ho proesteko ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷳ‬ton‫ﷳ‬ phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: SB XIV 12089.1–2 (Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.). 121 One such detail: whether the petitioners themselves were phylakitai (25–6): γράψας [δοῦναι] αὐτὴν τὴν μάχαιραν τῶι προστάτηι φυλακιτευσάν[των] ἡμῶν | [ ca. ? παράδ]ωσιν Διονυσοδώρωι. Another: whether or not the man referred to as the prostates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬in line 25 is to be identified with the Simon, prostates, ‫ ﷴ‬to whom the petitioners ask the king to write in line 27 (Pros.Ptol. 4622). 122 For more on this text, including a translation, see Chapter 5. 123 For further discussion of the activities outlined here, see Chapters 5 and 6; for epistatai, Chapter 3.

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

95

the phylakitai by another official, perhaps as a stopgap measure or on an ad hoc basis. Whether his position was a regular one in the Ptolemaic police system or whether the position of prostates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n should be identified with either the position of the dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n or that of the hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n must remain uncertain. ‫ﷴ‬ An official with the title ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (man in charge of the phylakitai) occurs in one text: a copy of orders from the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬Apollonios concerning the harvesting of timber, perhaps involving the “man in charge of the phylakitai” (SB VI 9215 [Oxyrhynchus, 250 b.c.]).124 The document is unfortunately very fragmentary precisely where one would like additional clarification on the duties of the man styled ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. The letter seems to suggest that the officials assembled by the addressee of the letter, a certain Demetrios,125 would have had a role to play in the employment of a certain number of slaves for the collection of the requested wood. But Apollonios asks that Demetrios assemble the royal scribes – basilikoi grammateis, the officials at the top of the scribal hierarchy – along with one police official (ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n) and a number of thief catchers ( pho‫ﷳ‬res).126 Were these men to do some organized woodcutting? This is unclear, though one might imagine a scenario in which the scribes kept records, the police official and his subordinates provided a stern presence for the slave work force, and the pho‫ﷳ‬res kept an eye open for anyone tempted to make off with royal timber, which was a precious commodity in Egypt.127 One might also reasonably ask whether the phrase ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n reflects an actual title and rank within the phylakitai, or was simply an easy way for an official unfamiliar with police organization in a locality to signify the man in charge. As we have seen, the organization of the phylakitai differed from place to place throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. A final pair of texts indicates that a grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was responsible for administrative issues related to the phylakitai, perhaps including 124 The life and career of the dioiketes Apollonios are well-­known to historians of

‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ Ptolemaic Egypt thanks to the Zenon archive: see note 8. 125 On Demetrios, see the suggestion of Fraser (1949) 290 n. on 10. 126 It seems more likely that these men, the phor‫ ﷳ‬es, were officials who caught thieves, as opposed to being thieves themselves. The word can have both meanings. On phor‫ ﷳ‬es, see Chapter 3. 127 See note 50.

96

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

payment. In these texts (P.Petr. III 64 FrB [Krokodilopolis, 239 b.c.]; 64 FrC [Krokodilopolis, after January 19, 239 b.c.]), the grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n Zopyros is instructed to make a payment to a woman from the funds reserved for the wages of the phylakitai of the nome.128 Kool maintained that the grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was a nome-­level official who assisted the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and was in charge of the administration of the phylakitai.129 While this is certainly possible, it should be kept in mind that the office is securely attested only in these two texts.130 There is also no definitive proof that the grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n assisted the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n of the nome, though, as the latter official seems to have been an officer with nome-­level competence, the association is suggestive.131 One additional text hints at precisely such a relationship: a series of bank records including an entry in which a certain Dionysios, grammateus ( phylakito‫ﷳ‬n?), makes a payment of two talents to [ ca. 4 ο]υ ἐπ(ιστάτου) φυ(λακιτῶν) (P.Tebt. III.2 890.16 [Herakleopolite, ca. 137 b.c.]).132 Finally, the post of grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n also possibly appears in an official letter, where a certain Apollodotos (an epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n?) instructs Nikanor (a grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n?) to a make a payment from the proceeds of the phylakitikon to Theophiles (an archiphylakites?) ‫ ﷴ‬to pay the wages of some archiphylakitai (P.Hamb. II 172 [Oxyrhynchite, 246 b.c.]). Unfortunately, none of the three (likely) police officials involved in this transfer of funds is given a title.133 128 Zopyros: Pros.Ptol. ­4630. 129 Kool (1954) 88–9, 101. 130 P.Petr. III 64 FrB.1 (no title); FrC.7–8; FrC.12 (no title). 131 If so, then the [     ]ος of P.Petr. III 64B.1, the writer of

both texts cited above, may be an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. If so, he virtually must be identical with [ca. 6]     ωι, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬of the Arsinoite nome in 239 b.c.: Pros.Ptol. 4541a. 132 P.Tebt. III.2 890.16: [    ο]υ ἐπ(ιστάτου) φυ(λακιτῶν) ἃ Διονύσιος γρ(αμματεὺς) τῆι β τά(λαντα) β. Dionysios, grammateus (phylakiton‫)? ﷳ‬: Pros. Ptol. 4629; [….o]u (Genitive), epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: Pros.Ptol. 4541. The editors of P.Diosk. 4 suggest that this epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬may in fact be Dionysios, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬of the Herakleopolite nome: P.Diosk. pp44–5, n. on 17–18. 133 It nevertheless seems likely that all three men – Apollodotos, Nikanor, and Theophilos – were in the ranks of the phylakitai, given the subject matter of the letter. Pros.Ptol. suggests that Apollodotos may have been an epistates‫ﷴ‬

The Officer Corps I: The ­Phylakitai

97

The spare nature of the data allows few conclusions about the duties, provenances, or relative ranks of the posts highlighted in this chapter. But the comparative wealth of documentation for the offices of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n suggests that additional administrative positions were uncommon or extraordinary and decidedly low in the police hierarchy, with jurisdictions covering towns or villages. As for the grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, we can say with confidence that he had a role to play in seeing to it that phylakitai and their superiors were paid; but the specifics of his position must remain obscure until additional evidence surfaces.

Conclusions

The majority of policing in the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra was carried out by the phylakitai and their superiors. These officials performed a broad spectrum of police functions. They arrested, detained, and transported offenders, investigated reports of crimes, seized property, sealed homes, and received petitions from villagers and notifications from the government. Systems for policing and defense in Ptolemaic Egypt, though in theory strictly organized by geography, were in practice flexible and differed greatly from place to place. The amount of autonomy granted to police officials seems to have depended in large part on the nature of the work being done. While police work in the towns and villages of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra was of little concern to the rulers of the kingdom, matters of security were closely supervised and tightly controlled. In the realm of police activity, nome-­level officers (epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and sometimes archiphylakitai) were responsible for lower-­level administrators (archiphylakitai and others) throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. The latter, in turn, supervised the lowest-­level officers (phylakitai) who attended to most routine police business. But this system was by no means rigidly fixed. For one thing, hierarchy differed throughout the different phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (4524a) and Theophilos an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬4581a = 4543a). The editors of P.Hamb. II 172 thought that Nikanor may have been a grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (p. 139). All three identifications are logical but, of course, speculative.

98

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

subdivisions of the kingdom. Certain places had police administrators that were not found elsewhere. Overall, variation was the rule. In addition, the official chain of command does not seem to have functioned as a means for the upper levels of power to keep tabs on the lowest-­level officers. As we saw at the outset, phylakitai sometimes acted without specific instructions from commanding officials and occasionally even usurped the duties of these same supervisors. Police chiefs in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra generally do not seem to have informed nome-­level police of most of their decisions. Nome-­level officials seem to have involved themselves in town or village law enforcement matters only in cases of appeal or where administrative mismanagement had been detected. For the most part, police at the lowest levels of power were permitted to resolve police issues without interference from above. This system, in which a high degree of autonomy was granted to police officials in Egyptian towns and villages, proved very effective. The Ptolemies were doubtless perfectly happy to entrust the detection, investigation, and prevention of crime in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra to town and village phylakitai.

­3 The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

In 227 b.c., somewhere in the Arsinoite nome, an official wrote a report concerning some men who had been arrested for debts and imprisoned: [       ἀπεστ]άλκαμεν πρός σε Πετῶϋν Ὥρ[ου] [τὸν ζυτοπ]οιὸν ὀφείλοντα π[ρὸ]ς τὴν ζυτηρὰν [   ] ιδ (ἔτους) Ἀρσινόης οδ[  , ιε (ἔτους)] Αωξς (ὀβολοὺς 5), [Π]ηλουσίου ις (ἔτους) Αϙβ (ὀβολοὺς 5), ιζ (ἔτους) σ, ιη (ἔτους) φϙζ (γίνονται) με[  ], ἐντετεύχασιν ἡμῖν καὶ πλείους [τ]ῶν ἐχόντων ἐν τῆι μερίδι περιστερεῶν[ας] [φά]μενοι μηδ’ ἕως τοῦ νῦν συντετιμῆσ[θαι]. 8 τὸν δὲ καιρὸν ἐκτρέχειν καί τινας μὲν παρε-­ σφρ[α]γίσθαι ὑπὸ Τεστευτόγχιος τοῦ ἐγλαβόντ[ος] εἰς τὸ κ (ἔτος). προσπέπτωκεν οὖν ἡμῖν ⟦τὸν ἄνθρωπον⟧ [ἀ]πῆχθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τ\ῆι/ ἐν Κροκοδίλων πόλει 12 [φ]υλακῆι· ἐὰν οὖν σοι φαίνηται, καλῶς ποιήσεις [ἀ]ποστείλας πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὅπως [τὸ] λοιπ[ὸ]ν ἐπιτελέσηι. Φαρμοῦθι β. ἐν Ψινάχει, παρόντος Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῦ 16 ἐκ Βουκόλων κώμης ἐπιστάτου, Ὥρου τῶν ἐ[κ τ]ῆς αὐτῆς κώ(μης) φυ(λακιτῶν), Μαρρέους τοῦ ἐξ Ἀρσινόης [δεσ]μοφύ(λακος) ἀνήγαγεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς Μαρρῆς ὁ ἐλαιοκάπηλος 4

Material in this chapter derives from my dissertation (Bauschatz [2005] 46–64). 99

100

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt Πετοβάστιν τινὰ Σαννεσιθέως ἔχοντα 20 σικύας β καὶ     νεινην λήκυθον, ἐν ­οἷς

… we sent to you Petoüs, son of Horos, the brewer, who owed the following sums for the brewing tax: for year 14, for the village of Arsinoë, 740 [+ x] drachmas, [y] obols; for year 15, 1,866 drachmas, 4 obols; and [4] for Pelousion, for year 16, 1092 drachmas, 5 obols; for year 17, 200 drachmas; and for year 18, 597 drachmas; all told, 4500 [+ x] drachmas [and z obols?]. Also, more of those who have dovecotes in the meris have notified us that their value has not been determined up to now.1 [8] And (they say that) the time is running out and that certain (dovecotes) have been sealed up by Testeutonchis, the man who received (the contract for the tax on dovecotes?) for year 20. And it has reached us that he [i.e., Testeutonchis?] was carried off to the phylake‫ ﷴ‬in [12] Krokodilopolis.2 Therefore, if it seems right to you, you will do well to send the man to us, so that he may pay in full the remainder. Pharmouthi 2, in Psinachis. While Asklepiades, the epistates‫[ ﷴ‬16] in Boukolon Kome, was present, as well as Horos, one of the phylakitai from the same village, and Marres, the desmophylax from Arsinoë, Marres the oil dealer brought up to us a certain Petobastis, son of Sannesitheus, who had [20] 2 gourds3 and a … oil-­flask, in which….4 (SB III 7202.1–20 [Arsinoite, 227 b.c.])

At this point the text becomes fragmentary, but it is clear from what follows that several debtors were transferred between jailors (desmophylakes) and prisons ( phylakai) in Krokodilopolis, Arsinoë, and elsewhere. As this report suggests, police business in Ptolemaic Egypt was not the exclusive province of the phylakitai and their superiors. In fact, the police activity described in this report involved a military official (the 1 A meris (literally a “part” or a “share”) was a geographic subdivision of a nomos,

or nome, one of the main districts or provinces of the Ptolemaic state. 2 Phylakai were multipurpose buildings that had police, security, and financial functions and in which a variety of officials from different government spheres worked. For attestations and functions, see Bauschatz (2007b), especially 11–17; also Chapter 5. The word phylake‫ ﷴ‬can also have a few additional meanings: see the Glossary. 3 This word (σικύας) could also be translated as “cupping instruments.” 4 Epistatai (literally “men [put] in charge”), the chief civil officials in most Ptolemaic towns and villages, and desmophylakes, the jailors in Ptolemaic prisons, are discussed later in this chapter.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

101

jailor), a civil official (the epistates), ‫ ﷴ‬a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and a financial official (the oil dealer), the last perhaps acting in a private capacity. Dozens and dozens of texts reveal that the phylakitai often worked in close contact with officials from different spheres of government to carry out police business. In this chapter, we examine precisely who these other officers were, and in what contexts and capacities they assisted – and sometimes directed – phylakitai. Our objective here, once again, is to lay out functions and hierarchy. In this case, we are concerned specifically with the law enforcement duties of officials whose primary competencies lay in other spheres of government: mainly the civil and military administrations. A more detailed look at the police duties performed by the officials discussed here will be found in the chapters that follow. The division made in Chapter 2 between the phylakitai on the one hand and a host of additional officials with police duties on the other is arbitrary. The two groups are separated for ease of presentation and discussion, and to stress the point that policing in Ptolemaic Egypt was virtually always a collaborative effort, involving government employees with a variety of areas of expertise and from different backgrounds. Likewise, the division I make here – between civil and military officials involved in policing – is also arbitrary. The reader will perhaps disagree at times with my assignment of specific officials to specific categories, or object that my view of the Ptolemaic administration is too simplistic. Such criticisms are perfectly fair. At all events, regardless of how one chooses to classify them, the officials discussed in this chapter all played supporting roles in policing the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Civil Police

Epistatai Alongside the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s and the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, a third Ptolemaic official had regular and close supervision over the phylakitai: the epistates‫ﷴ‬ (man in charge).5 Epistatai had many duties in the realm of policing, 5 See Lavigne (1945); also Holleaux (1938–68) 3:412–13; Van ‘t Dack (1949)

39–44; (1951) 20–3, 46–7; (1989); Wolff (1970) 164–6; Bauschatz (2007a)

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

102

some of which were similar to those of archiphylakitai and phylakitai. The documents reveal that epistatai made visits to crime scenes, gathered and inspected evidence, sealed off homes and businesses, questioned both witnesses and suspects, arrested malefactors and transported them to trials, and provided protection to the persecuted.6 In the following example, an epistates‫ ﷴ‬was called on to rein in a deceitful thesaurophylax ‫ﷴ‬ (granary guard) and obtain justice for a petitioner: 4 8 12

[τ]ῶι στρατη[γῶι ca. ?] παρὰ Θαήσιος τῆς Χ[      ] τῶν ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας. [ἀ]πέδωκά σοι ὑπόμ[νη]μα κατὰ Τεσε-­ [ν]ούφιος θησαυροφύλακος τοῦ Ἀντι-­ [φ]ίλου ἰδιωτικοῦ θησ[α]υροῦ προφερο-­ [μ]ένη[ ca. 9 ] παραθεμέ-­ [ν]ην με α[ὐ]τῶι ἐν τ[ῶι θ]ησαυρῶι (πυροῦ ἀρτάβας) σϙγ [   ]σασθ[αι] μ[ ca. 9 αὐ]τὰς ἐμὲ συνπεριενεχθῆναι αὐτῶι ἐφ’ ὧι ἐν τῶι [(ἔτει)] κζ ἀποδώσειεν. {καὶ} βουλο-­ μένη αὐ[τ]ὸ[ν συ]νλ[α]βεῖν ὑπεσχό-­ μην καὶ [ἐ]γρ[ά]ψατο ἐπιστολὴν εἰς τοπάρ[χην   ]την Πτολεμαίου (ἑκατοντάρουρον) ὀνόμ[ατι οὗ] καὶ γεωργῶ τὸν κλῆ-­ ρον. ἔγραψας Σαραπίωνι τῶι ἐπισ-­

196–8; and P.Enteux. introduction. The third-­century documents published as P.Enteux. provide a good survey of the variety of duties, both police and civil, that an epistates‫ ﷴ‬was required to perform. One should not confuse the post of epistates‫ ﷴ‬with that of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: the two were distinct, as will be demonstrated later in this chapter. 6 Inspecting crime scenes/evidence: P.Münch. III.1 55 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.); P.Stras. II 100 (?, II b.c.); sealing homes: SB I 4309 (Arsinoite, III b.c.?); interrogations: e.g., P.Heid. VIII 416 (Herakleopolis, II b.c.); P.Tor. Amen. 7 (Thebes, 119–117 b.c.); SB III 7177 (Herakleopolite, 243 b.c.); arresting and transporting criminals: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); Chrest.Mitt. 12 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.); P.Bingen 44 (?, I b.c.); preventing harassment: e.g., P.Dion. 11 (Hermoupolis Magna, 108 b.c.); P.Enteux. 87 (Alabanthis, 222 b.c.); P.Mil.Congr.XVII p. 10 (Arsinoite, ca. 143–141 b.c.).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police 16 20 24

103

τάτει. ἔ[πει]τα καὶ ὁμόλογος γενό-­ μενος συνέσχεν αὐτόν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐντυχοῦσ[ά] σοι συνέταξας τῶι Σ[α]ραπίων[ι] καταστῆσαι αὐτόν. τούτου δὲ μὴ ­καθεσταμένου ἀ[ξι]ῶ σε ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων εἰ β[ούληι ὄν]τα μοι ἐπαναγκάσαι [Σαραπ]ίωνα καταστῆσαι τ[ὸν ἄνθρ]ωπον ὅπως τύχω τ[οῦ δικαίου.] εὐτύχει.

To [ – – ], strategos, ‫ … ﷴ‬from Thaesis, daughter of Ch[ – – ], of those from Philadelphia. I submitted to you a denunciation against Tesenouphis, [4] thesaurophylax of the ‫ﷴ‬ private granary of Antiphilos, alleging that (he denied that?) I had placed with him in the granary 293 artabas of grain [8] to … (and?) that I had made an agreement with him whereby in year 27 he would give them back.7 I wished to arrest him. I had agreed (to the contract), [12] and he had a letter written to the toparches, ‫ﷴ‬ [ – – ]tes, son of Ptolemaios, 100-­aroura man, in whose name I am farming the allotment.8 You wrote to Sarapion the epistates. ‫[ ﷴ‬16] And then he [i.e., Sarapion], agreeing with me, detained him [i.e., Tesenouphis]. And when I met with you, you commanded Sarapion to stand him before (you). [20] But as this man has not been stood before you, I ask that you, if you wish, when you are in the area, force Sarapion to stand [24] this man before you for my sake, so that I may find justice. Farewell. (P.Princ. III 117.1–26 [Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?])9 7 On

thesaurophylakes, the guardians of Ptolemaic granaries, see the ­section ‫ﷴ‬ on phylakes; on the artabe,‫ ﷴ‬an Egyptian unit of dry measure, see Chapter 4, note 45. 8 On the toparches (district chief ), an Egyptian official with primarily agricul‫ﷴ‬ tural jurisdiction over a toparchia (toparchy, an administrative district), see Berneker (1935) 115 and Clarysse (1997), the latter for attestations for all toparchy-­level officials. Toparchies were the successors of nomarchiai (nomarchies, larger administrative districts). The aroura was an Egyptian land measure equal to 100 square cubits. On weights and measures in Egypt, see Chapter 4, note 45. 9 The document is potentially to be dated to the early Roman period, but the details it provides about the activities of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬are similar to those which can be drawn from the Ptolemaic evidence.

104

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Here we seem to have a good example of a petitioner seeking a high-­level follow-­up for a law enforcement breakdown at the local level. Thaesis writes to the chief civil official of the nome, the strategos, to ensure that ‫ﷴ‬ the chief civil official in her village, the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬finish what he started. We see that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬had taken the lead in tracking down, arresting, and detaining the accused but had thus far failed to present him for trial. All of these duties are well attested for archiphylakitai, so one might wonder why Thaesis did not ask the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬to contact the local 10 police chief instead of the epistates. In this case, the fact that Thaesis ‫ﷴ‬ had evidently met with the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in the presence of Sarapion – and clearly knew that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬was on the case – is enough to explain in and of itself why he was expected to finish the job. Epistatai clearly had duties in the realm of busting and booking. Also, like archiphylakitai, epistatai attended government auctions of seized or forfeited property, issued tax receipts, assisted other officials in the collection of arrears and received correspondence of all kinds from agents of the central government as well as petitions from civilians.11 These last often concerned law enforcement matters.12 Alongside these similar duties, epistatai had additional responsibilities that, for the most part, archiphylakitai and phylakitai do not seem to have had. For instance, they were often called on to deliver summonses to defendants and witnesses to appear at Ptolemaic courts.13 We see that epistatai sometimes expelled squatters from private homes and that they might sit in council with other government officials to attend to state business matters.14 They 10 We return to this question in 11 Notifications: e.g., BGU VI

more detail in the following ­discussion. 1214 (Arsinoite, ca. 185–165 b.c.); P.Grenf. II 37 (Pathyris, 108 b.c.); P.Rain.Cent. 45 (?, 197–190 b.c.); petitions, e.g., BGU VI 1251 (Philadelphia, 155 or 144 b.c.); P.Erasm. I 4 (Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.); P.Köln III 140 (Arsinoite, 244–242 or 219–217 b.c.?); present at auctions: UPZ II 219 (Thebes, 130 b.c.); 221 (Thebes, 130 b.c.); issued receipts: O.Bodl. I 111 (Thebes, 140 b.c.); collected tax arrears: e.g., Chrest.Wilck. 55 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); P.Berl. I 15522 (Elephantine, 323–30 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 746 (Tebtynis, 243 b.c.). 12 For more on petitions to law enforcement officials, see Chapter 4. 13 E.g., P.Enteux. 43 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); 51 (Magdola, after 222 b.c.?); P.Hib. II 203 (?, 246–221 b.c.). 14 Expelling squatters: e.g., BGU III 1006 (?, III b.c.); P.Enteux. 10 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); 14 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); sitting on advisory councils: P.Ryl. IV 572 (Arsinoite?, II b.c.).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

105

also held trials and examinations concerning criminal matters more frequently than archiphylakitai did, though, even so, it seems to have been more common for them to send disputants along to a higher official, generally a strategos, for examination after a preliminary investigation ‫ﷴ‬ was made.15 The following petition highlights the typical procedure: 4 8

βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι χαίρειν Ἑρμογένης Φιλ[       Π]έρσης τῆς [ἐπιγο]νῆ[ς. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Πετο]-­ σίριος τοῦ κατοικοῦντος ἐν Λαγίδι τῆς Θεμ[ίστου μερίδο]ς τοῦ Ἀρσιν[οίτου] νομ[οῦ. τοῦ γὰρ ε (ἔτους) ὡς αἱ] πρόσοδοι, Φαμενὼθ κα, λοιδο[ρί]ας μοι γενομέν[η]ς πρ[ὸς αὐ]τὸν ⟦προε[ιρημένον (?) ca. ? ]⟧ ⟦ικιαι το ου   ⟧ ἐν τῆι προγεγραμμένηι κώ[μ]ηι, τ[ὰς χ]εῖράς μοι [      ]ην [ ca. ? ] πυγμαῖς καὶ λακτίσμασιν [      εἰς ὃ ἂν] τύχ[οι μέρος] τοῦ [σώ]ματος π[      ]ε[    ]αυτ[ ca. ? ] παρόντας. δέομαι οὖν [σου], βασιλεῦ, προστάξαι Δ[ιοφά]νει τῶι σ[τρατηγῶι γρά]ψαι Ἀγ[αθοκλεῖ] τῶι ἐπισ[τ]άτηι ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ Διοφάνην [δ]ιακριθη[σόμενόν μοι κ]αί, ἐὰν [ἦι καθότι] γράφω ἀληθῆ, πραχθῆναί μοι αὐτὸν τῶν π[λ]ηγ[ῶ]ν (δραχμὰς) σ [         Διο]φάνης [ ca. ? ] τούτου γὰρ γενομένου, ἔσομαι διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ, [τοῦ δι]καίου τε[τευχώς. ε]ὐτύχ[ει]. vac (hand 2) Ἀγαθ[οκ]λεῖ. μά(λιστα) δι(άλυσον) [αὐ(τούς)·] εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπ(όστειλον) [ ca. ? ].

Hermogenes, son of Phil[  –  – ], Persian of the epigone, to king Ptolemy, greetings.16 I am wronged by Petosiris, the one who lives in Lagis of the Themistes meris of the Arsinoite nome. For in year 5, according to the financial 15 E.g.,

P.Mert. I 5 (Ptolemais, 149–135 b.c.); P.Mich. III 173 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 11bis (Thebes, 119 b.c.). 16 On the status designation “Persian of the epigone,” see above all Oates (1963) with the comments of Pestman (1963a, b) and Préaux (1965); also Lesquier (1911) 52–65 (on the designation tes‫ ﷴ‬epigones) ‫ ﷴ‬and Vandersleyen (1988). On the general meaning of epigone‫( ﷴ‬literally “offspring”) in the papyri, see Láda (1997).

106

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

calendar,17 Phamenoth 21, a disagreement having arisen between us [4] in the ­aforementioned village, (he placed) his hands upon me … with beatings and stompings upon whatever part of my body he might strike, … those present. Therefore, I need you, king, to command Diophanes, strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬to write to Agathokles, epistates, ‫ﷴ‬ and have him [i.e., Agathokles] send him [i.e., Petosiris] to Diophanes, so that he may be tried for me, and if the things I write [8] prove to be true, he may be forced to pay 200 drachmas for the blows … Diophanes. … For if this occurs, I shall have found justice through you, king. Farewell. (second hand ) To Agathokles: By all means, settle their differences; but if you cannot, send (them). (P.Enteux. 72.1–10 [Magdola, 218 b.c.])

As in the previous example discussed, here, too, the relationship between the nome strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and a village epistates‫ ﷴ‬is key for resolving a dispute. A disagreement had led to a physical altercation, evidently before witnesses. The victim writes to the king as the ultimate dispenser of justice, and asks him to contact the strategos, who is then to contact the ‫ﷴ‬ local epistates‫ ﷴ‬to transport the accused for trial before the strategos. Such ‫ﷴ‬ a request formula occurs time and again in the large cache of third­century petitions to which Hermogenes’ letter belongs.18 Less common are those instances in which we find a docket, or official response, to a petitioner’s request. Here, the heavily abbreviated instruction contained in the last line of the text, doubtless from the office of the strategos, ‫ﷴ‬ makes clear that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬is to do everything in his power to resolve the matter at the local level. In this case, he is to run his own investigation and perhaps arrange a mediation. The strategos ‫ ﷴ‬is to be involved only in the event that the village epistates‫ ﷴ‬is unable to handle the matter by himself.19 17 On the Ptolemaic financial calendar, see CPR XVIII pp83–9; also P.Heid. VI

pp157–9, n. on 10–12; and Pestman (1981) 215–19 (especially 216). On the Ptolemaic calendar in general, Samuel (1962); (1972) 145–51; Hazzard (1987) 140–4; Spalinger (1994) 61–83 (an overview of scholarly problems with the Egyptian and Macedonian calendars); Grzybek (1990); and most recently, A. Jones (1997) (on problems with the equation of the Egyptian and Macedonian lunar calendars). 18 For more on these documents – many of which were published as P.Enteux. – see Chapter 4. 19 Incidentally, where reference is made to a geographic domain for the post of epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬the name of a village or city is encountered most frequently, e.g.,

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

107

We have seen that little evidence of a professional link between archiphylakitai and epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n survives.20 The office of epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n was an upper-­level, primarily administrative position, while that of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was a (mainly) lower-­level, labor-­intensive job. Consequently, the operational domains of the two positions very rarely overlapped. When one turns to a consideration of the link between archiphylakitai and epistatai, however, a considerable amount of documentation survives that demonstrates a clear hierarchical link between the offices: the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of a given region was subordinate to the 21 same region’s epistates. ‫ ﷴ‬As we have already seen, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬regularly received orders from the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬of the nome. In police matters that attracted the attention of the strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of the town or village in question was almost always the official to whom instructions to set matters right were addressed.22 The archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬however, seems never to have received instructions from the strategos. ‫ ﷴ‬Rather, when orders had to be given to archiphylakitai, BGU III 1006.5–7 (?, III b.c.); X 1909.9–10 (Memphis?, I b.c.); P.Dion. 11.27–8 (Hermoupolis Magna, 108 b.c.). Yet epistatai of merides, toparchies, and nomes also occur, as well as epistatai of less specific geographic regions and even temples. Themistes meris: P.Köln III 140.1–3 (Arsinoite, 244–242 or 219–217 b.c.?); toparchies: e.g., O.Ashm.Shelt. 42.1–2 (Thebes, II b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2188.222 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.); P.Tor.Amen. 7.1–2 (Thebes, 119–117 b.c.); nomes: e.g., P.Giss. 108.11–12 (Pathyris, 134 b.c.); P.Ross. Georg. II 10.5–7 (Pathyris, 88 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 5B.39 (Thebes, 110 b.c.); other areas: e.g., P.Lond. VII 2188.137 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.): τοῦ ⟦   ⟧ ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου ἐπ(ιστάτου); P.Petr. II 25 FrA.5–6 (Ptolemais Hormou, 226 b.c.): Ἀρτέμωνος | τοῦ ἐπιστάτου τῶν κατὰ τὴν χώραν; SB XIV 12093.8–9 (?, II b.c.): τῶν | ἐπὶ τῶν τόπον ἐπιστατῶν; Memphite Anoubieion: UPZ I 69 verso.1–4 (Memphis, 152 b.c.); 108.1 (Memphis, 99 b.c.). The epistates‫ﷴ‬ in charge of the Memphite Anoubieion (as well as the archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬see Chapter 2, note 74) seems to have had a decidedly police function and should not be confused with the epistates‫ ﷴ‬hierou (man in charge of a temple) attested elsewhere (e.g., BGU VI 1214.7–8  [Arsinoite, ca. 185–165 b.c.]; C.Ord. Ptol.2 62.4 [Memphis, 99 b.c.]; P.Eleph. 26.2–3 [Apollonopolis, 223 b.c.]), who seems to have been connected with the financial administration of the temple(s) under his authority. On this official, see P.Paramone 7 pp83–4. 20 Chapter 2. 21 Bauschatz (2007a) 196–8. 22 See P.Enteux. passim.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

108

the epistates‫ ﷴ‬appears to have been the delegating official. For instance, in one case a lower official (perhaps a phylakites) ‫ ﷴ‬wrote to an epistates‫ﷴ‬ concerning the insubordination of an archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬He noted that the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬had disobeyed the recipient’s direct orders ( prostagmata) by releasing a donkey thief: Ἀντίγ[ονος Δωρί]ωνι χαίρειν. ἔ[γραψας περὶ Καλλιδρό]-­ μου \τ[οῦ Καλλικρά]του/ ὥ[στε ἔ]τι καὶ νῦν ἐπαν[αγκάσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ὄνον] ἀποδοῦν[αι \τῶι κυρί]ωι/ [ἢ τι]μὴν αὐτῶι ⟦  [ ca. 17 ]⟧ 4 ὁ Καλλίδρο[μος] δὲ τὸν Δωρίων[α ca. 16 ] \ὅπως [    ] ἐνέγκηι/ ⟦και εαν [   ]ρη⟧δ να ἀπολυ[ ca. 17 ] πρᾶξαι δ[ὲ αὐ]τὸν τιμὴν τοῦ ὄ[νου (δραχμὰς) κ. ἐγὼ οὖν ἡσυ]-­ χῆι μὲν κα[τὰ τὴ]ν ⟦π⟧ γραφεῖσάν μο[ι ὑπὸ σοῦ ἐπιστολὴν] 8 ἀπήγαγον [τὸν] Κα[λλίδ]ρομον ε[ἰς τὸ ἐν Σινάρυ δεσμω]-­ τήριον ἵνα τ[ὸ ὑποζ]ύγιον ἀπ[οδῶι Δωρίωνι, Πάτρων δὲ] ὁ \ἀρχι/φυλακίτης \τῆ[ς κάτω] τοπαρχίας/ παρ[αγε]νόμενο[ς] ε[ἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον] \τὸ ἐν Σινάρυ/ ἐξήγαγεν τὸν Καλλίδρομον [ἐκ τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου] 12 ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι \ἡμᾶς/ τὴν πρᾶξιν π[οιήσασθαι ⟦ἐκ τοῦ⟧] \κατὰ τὸ/ \διάγραμμα/ ⟦σώματος⟧ τόν τε ὄνον ἀναγαγ[ὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] καὶ ἔχων \ἐν Τακόναι/ παρ’ αὑτῶι ἐγ μέσου ἀ[φῄρηκεν αὐτόν.] εἰ οὖν μὴ ἠρρωστήσαμεν επ[ ca. 16 ] 16 ⟦ον⟧ \⟦αν⟧/ εἰλήφειν ἂν παρ’ αὐτοῦ διά [τινος μαχαιροφό]-­ ρου. ἔγραψα οὖν σοι περὶ τούτων [ὅπως εἰδῆις εἶναι] αἴτιον τοῦ μὴ γενέσθαι τῶι Δω[ρίωνι ἀπόδοσιν τὴν] Πάτρωνος βίαν, ὃς ἀπειθῶν δια[τετέλεκε τοῖς πα]-­ 20 ρὰ σοῦ προστάγμασιν. ἔ[ρρωσο. (ἔτους) δ       ]

Antigonos to Dorion, greetings.23 You wrote concerning Kallidromos: for me now, at last, to force him to give back the donkey or pay him [i.e., the donkey’s owner] its value. [4] But Kallidromos … Dorion24 … to exact from him the value of the 23 On

Dorion, epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬see Pros.Ptol. 663. Antigonos is not given a title here (or in P.Hib. I 34 [Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.], another petition from Antigonos concerning the same incident), though given that he performed a number of basic police duties, he was perhaps a phylakites: ‫ ﷴ‬cf. P.Hib. I p. 173. 24 This man is not the same as the addressee of this letter: there are two Dorions in this document, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬and the man whose donkey has been stolen.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

109

donkey, 20 drachmas. Therefore quietly, in accordance with the letter you wrote me, [8] I led Kallidromos off to the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion in Sinary so that he might give the ‫ﷴ‬ 25 26 donkey back to Dorion; but Patron, the phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬arriving at the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion, ‫ﷴ‬ released Kallidromos from the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion, [12] with the result that I could not ‫ﷴ‬ exact the money. He led the donkey off to his house and is keeping it there, out of sight. If I had not been unwell, [16] I would have taken it from him by means of a machairophoros.27 I have written to you concerning these matters so that you may know that the violence of Patron is responsible for the fact that the restoration to Dorion did not take place. Patron has continued to disobey [20] your commands.28 Farewell. Year 4, …. (P.Hib. I 73 [Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.])29

Even if we assume that the letter writer was attempting to whitewash his own mistakes or even lying outright in accusing Patron, he nevertheless underlines the direct connection between archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬in his cover-­up. Antigonos clearly believes that Patron will have to answer to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬for his actions and seems to go the extra mile to make the actions of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬seem not only improper but even malicious. He characterizes his behavior in this instance as “violence” (bia), suggests that the only way he could have stopped Patron’s insubordination would have been via the agency of an armed attendant (the machairophoros), and even notes that the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬is a repeat offender (lines 19–20).30 This last piece of information would be easy to dismiss as slander were it not for the existence of a letter of reprimand addressed to Patron by a superior who took him to task for being the only one of his subordinates to fail to take action on orders, in this case concerning some wood (P.Tebt. III.1 747 [Tebtynis, 243 b.c.]). 25 Desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion: Chapter 2, note 10, and Chapter 5. ‫ﷴ‬ 26 On the well-­known Patron, archiphylakites of

the Kato toparchy of the ‫ﷴ‬ Oxyrhynchite nome, see Pros.Ptol. 4592 = 4711 and Bauschatz (2007a) 188. Here he is perhaps referred to as a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬mistakenly or as a member of that overall group. 27 Machairophoroi (sword-­bearers): see the section on other officials. 28 Police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt: Bauschatz (2007c). 29 See also P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.), a petition from the same author to the king detailing the same events (and providing a number of the restorations in P.Hib. I 73). 30 Bia is doubtless to be understood generically as “violence” or “abuse” here. There was also a legal charge of bia: on this charge, see Chapter  5, note 107.

110

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Perhaps the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in this case was something of a loose cannon after all.31 Further evidence for a strong link between the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬comes from those cases in which petitioners or other officials sought out the assistance of the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in reprimanding or instructing an archiphylakites. Where evidence of remediating action survives, the ‫ﷴ‬ strategos ‫ ﷴ‬always contacted the epistates. ‫ ﷴ‬In three of the third-­century petitions from Magdola published as P.Enteux., a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was asked to contact an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to obtain justice for a petitioner.32 Yet a strategos ‫ﷴ‬ wrote invariably to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of the village in question and in no case to an archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬A reason for this is perhaps not hard to find. Archiphylakitai were primarily officials of town or village competency who supervised the activities of the phylakitai and were generally given ample freedom to attend to matters of law and order at the town or village level. Consequently, nome-­level officials such as the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬may not have been personally familiar with police chiefs in the chor‫ ﷳ‬a. The epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬on the other hand, appears to have been an appointee of a nome-­level official (the strategos) with a corresponding connection ‫ﷴ‬ to this official. Strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬were at least occasionally responsible for hiring epistatai, to judge from one text, a petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬from some crown cultivators, in which the writers recalled the former’s appointment of trustworthy epistatai to whom instructions had been given by the sovereigns to prevent extortion (P.Tebt. III.1 788  [Oxyrhyncha, 143 b.c.]). The epistates‫ ﷴ‬handled those matters that involved appeals to government agents at the nome level and was responsible for supervising law enforcement in his locality, including the activities of archiphy­ lakitai. But this does not imply that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬had a direct connection to the ­phylakitai. Rather, he seems to have acted only through the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬Further, the epistates‫ ﷴ‬does not appear to have taken much initiative in the realm of law enforcement. He generally acted only when called on from above (through orders from the strategos) or below (via ‫ﷴ‬ 31 Elsewhere,

a man who was most likely an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬wrote to an epistates‫ﷴ‬ concerning the search of a house and noted that another official had prevented him from carrying out the search without a letter from the epistates‫ﷴ‬ (SB X 10272 [Magdola, III b.c.]). 32 P.Enteux. 24, 50 (both Magdola, both 221 b.c.) and 82 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

111

petitions from villagers). When he did act, however, he might perform many of the same tasks as the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬subordinate to him. Two Ptolemaic officials shouldered the main responsibility for ensuring the maintenance of law and order in the Egyptian countryside: the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s and the epistate‫ﷴ‬s. Each had his own delineated domains and powers, though certain of these duties overlapped from time to time. Archiphylakitai had the main responsibility for managing and maintaining the phylakitai and occasionally received instructions from the epistatai who acted as their supervisors. Epistatai functioned primarily as representatives of royal authority in Egyptian towns and villages and were responsible for seeing to it that archiphy­ lakitai did their jobs, but they could also perform many of the duties of archiphylakitai. Though strikingly similar in many respects, arch­ iphylakitai and epistatai were both necessary cogs in the Ptolemaic law enforcement machine. It also appears to have been the case that they were not uniformly and regularly distributed throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. The degree of diversity observable in the data suggests that police hierarchy, though in theory set by the Ptolemies based on geography, was in fact more often determined by the needs of individual towns and villages and the law enforcement officials who served them. This perhaps helps to explain why official relationships between archiphylakitai and epistatai (and their superiors) were not always clearly defined. Each officer performed some functions likewise performed by the other and did not always follow the expected chain of command when problems made communication between officials necessary. Yet, in spite of these apparent departures from official protocol, breakdowns in communication seem to have been rare. Most police business was completed expeditiously and in full. In fact, the lack of rigid organization made for a much more self-­sufficient, flexible police system. That the phylakitai functioned so well as an efficient policing body was due mainly to the administrative acumen and adaptability of the officials who supervised them. ­Strateg﻾ oi As we have seen, strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬the top civil officials in each nome, had direct contact (via official correspondence, at least) with the various civil

112

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

epistatai.33 This fact is demonstrated again and again in a series of third­century petitions from the Arsinoite nome (P.Enteux.). We have already speculated on the nature of the relationship between the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and 34 the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the third century. The few texts in which both the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n appear to have acted in a cooperative manner send mixed signals about their professional relationship. A report concerning the actions of some epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n suggests that they were somehow subordinate to strategoi ‫( ﷴ‬P.Tebt. III.1 736 [Tebtynis, 143 b.c.]). In this text, someone appends an instruction to notify the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬about what the epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n have done. Unfortunately, the text is too fragmentary to permit clarity. As we have seen, even in the second century the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬might serve as a (higher) court of appeals.35 The two officials might sometimes sit together on advisory boards. In one case a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was advised to consult with the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and others about the suitability of certain men for drafting some Demotic contracts (P.Ryl. IV 572 [Arsinoite?, II b.c.]). In another, officials were urged by the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬to sit in council with the strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n to attend to certain financial and agricultural issues (UPZ I 110 [Memphis?, 164 b.c.]). Neither case illuminates a distinction between the offices of epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in terms of the duties they may have discharged when acting in an advising capacity. Elsewhere, a petitioner wrote to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and mentioned that a report of a crime had been previously filed with the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and a pair of strategoi ‫( ﷴ‬SB VIII 9792 [Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.]). Unfortunately, the alleged victim offered no explanation for this action save that it was apparently de rigueur.36 The second round of 33 See Chapter 2. On the strategos – the nome governor – see Van ‘t Dack 1948;

‫ﷴ‬ Bengston 1964–7 III; Hohlwein 1969; and Mooren 1984. The strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was the judicial official of primary importance in the third century for criminal cases: see the documents published as P.Enteux. and Wolff (1970) 162–3. 34 Chapter 2 and Bauschatz (2007a) 198–9. 35 See P.Tebt. I 43.32–6 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.), where Menches and his brother ask the sovereigns, after a trial before the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, that word be sent to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬so as to assure that they not again face the charges of which they had been acquitted or experience any other type of harassment. (On this text, see also Chapter 2.) 36 Lines 15–19: ἐποησά|μην ἐπὶ σοῦ καὶ Εὐμήλου καὶ | Πτολεμαίου τῶν τότε στρατηγῶν | τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον ἅμα τοῖς | ἄλλοις.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

113

petitioning (i.e., the new complaints detailed in the document), however, reached the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n alone. In another case the expected hierarchy seems to have been inverted: here a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was asked to see to it that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n received notification of the events detailed in a letter (BGU VIII 1854 [Herakleopolite, 74–73 or 45–44 b.c.?]). The evidence is thin and only suggestive, but it seems likely that by the end of the third century the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had obtained the primary right of holding criminal trials. It also seems to have been the case that at this time the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was still empowered to hear a case under special circumstances or in case of appeal. But the data are conclusive on only one point: that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was the criminal judge to whom appeals were most frequently directed in the third century. Until additional evidence appears, it seems best to suggest nothing more radical than this. Kom ‫ ﷳ‬archai, Toparchai, and Nomarchai Aside from epistatai and strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬the documents reveal that various civil officials at the town and village level interacted with, gave orders to, and performed the duties of police officers from time to time. None of these additional officials had law enforcement as a primary occupation. Rather, they sometimes assumed police powers or interacted with police but, generally, only as necessary. One such group of Ptolemaic officials was composed of the ko‫ﷳ‬marchai (village chiefs), toparchai (chiefs of toparchies), and nomarchai (chiefs of nomarchies). A few texts demonstrate that ko‫ﷳ‬marchai could visit crime scenes, receive reports of crimes and petitions, make arrests, and detain suspects along with other Ptolemaic police officials.37 Parts of one especially detailed text, a petition to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬concerning the illegal activities of a ko‫ﷳ‬marches, ‫ ﷴ‬are especially valuable for what they reveal about the police powers of this official. In the first section of his lengthy petition to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬Harmais, a royal farmer from Theadelphia, lists a long series of illegal extractions by the 37 Komarchai: Chapter 2, note 90. Visiting crime scenes: P.Enteux. 65 (Magdola,

‫ﷳ‬ 221 b.c.); receiving petitions and reports: e.g., P.Gur. 5 (Lysimachis, ca. 215 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 796 (Tebtynis, 185 b.c.); P.Yale I 53 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); arresting and detaining: e.g., P.Enteux. 83 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 13 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.); UPZ I 124 (Memphis, 175 or 165 b.c.?).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

114

ko‫ﷳ‬marches, ‫ ﷴ‬Mesthasythmis, from the royal tax revenues of Theadelphia. Then things took a more personal turn: 36    μετὰ δὲ ταῦ[τα] [ ca. ? ]  ἐν τῶι λ (ἔτει) προσπεσόντων ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους χρηματισμῶν π[ ca. 13 ] αν κἀμοῦ μεταδόντος τῶι Μεσθασύτμει [ ca. 14 ] ca. 9 ἀλλὰ καταπλεύσαντα εἰς τὴν 40 [πόλιν ὥστε πω]λεῖν τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν [γῆς] τῆι φύσει μοχθηρὸς ὢν ἐπενέγκας μοι α  τον αἰτίαν παρέδωκεν εἰς τὴν ἐγ Κροκοδίλων πόλει φυλακὴν εφ   θρα  [   ] ασθαι. οὐ πρότερον διήκατό με πρὶν συνηνάγκασέν με τὰ δεσμ       θέσθαι αὐτῶι παρα-­ 44 χώρησιν ἧς γεωργῶ βασιλικῆς γῆς σὺν τῶι ἐν αὐτῇ σπόρωι μέχρι τοῦ ἐκτεῖ[σ]αί με αὐτῶι. ἐπειδὴ ἐνήνοχεν εἰς τὰ πράγματα ζημ[ίαν καὶ πληγ]άς, ἔτι δὲ καὶ προσκατενεγύησεν τὰ παρα-­ κεί[μενα σπέ]ρματα ἐν τῶι βασιλικῶι θησαυρῶι εἰς (πυροῦ) (ἀρτάβας) ρν 48 ἀνθ’ ὧ[ν δὲ λαβόμε]νος μετὰ πολλῶν διαφόρων, ἐφ’ οἷς ἔχω πᾶσα[ν] κατε[ργασίαν ἐμ]ὴν πρὸς τὸ μηθὲν διάφορον εἰς τὸ βασιλικὸν γενέσ[θαι. ἐνε]χόμενος οὖν ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου μοχθηροῦ ἐξωρμήθ[ην] εἰς τ[ὸ φυγεῖν ἐ]πὶ τὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὴν βασίλισσαν ἕκαστα 52 δηλώ[σας ἐν τῇ γραφ]ῇ. ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ αἱρέσει παραλαβὼν φυλακίτα[ς] καὶ ἐ[πισκόπους]38 αὐτοῦ συνετήρει τὰς ὁδοὺς βουλόμενός μ[ε] 38 The



restoration ἐ[πισκόπους] can hardly be correct, and I have assumed, both in the Greek text and in the translation that follows, that the correct reading is ἐ[φόδους]: see P.Count II p. 168, n. 241. Episkopoi (literally “overseers” or “watchers”) appear in only as many as three Ptolemaic texts: Chrest.Mitt. 5.16–17 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.); P.Petr. II 39 FrD.3 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); and P.Tebt. III.1 769.22 (Tebtynis, 237–236 or 212–211 b.c.?). Only Chrest.Mitt. 5.16–17 provides a somewhat clear indication of the function of these officials, which was evidently judicial. See Guerra y Gómez (1962) 156–61 for instances of episkopoi with judicial or police powers throughout the Greek-­speaking world, and Balcer (1977) for the office of the Athenian

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police 56

115

πάλιν [ἀπαγαγεῖν] εἰς φυλακὴν πρὸς τὸ μὴ καταπλεύσαντ[α ­εἰς] τὴν [πόλιν τὴν μ]αρτυρίαν ποιήσασθαι. διὸ προσφερμενος τὴν [ ca. 10 ] ἀξιῶ ἐὰν φαίνηται συντάξαι τοῖ[ς] παρὰ [σοῦ       ]ου τὴν περὶ τούτων μαρτυρίαν κατ[α]-­ λῦσαι [ ca. 11 τού]των δὲ γενομένων ἔσομα[ι βεβοηθημένος.] εὐτύχει.

After this, … in year 30, when documents arrived in the area, … and I, giving to Mesthasythmis … but having sailed down to the [40] city to sell the produce from the land up river, he [i.e., Mesthasythmis], being naturally vile, having brought a charge of [ – – ] against me, handed me over to the phylake‫ ﷴ‬in Krokodilopolis. …39 He did not release me before he forced me to give him a cession [44] of the royal land that I farm, along with the seed in it. Until I paid him (this, he did not release me). After he had already brought loss and blows to the matter, in addition he seized the seed in the royal granary to a total of 150 artabas of wheat, receiving (payment?) [48] in return for these with great losses, whereas I gave all of my attentions toward the goal of the crown incurring no loss. Thus, being detained by a worthless man, I was driven into flight to the king and queen, [52] having made everything clear in writing; but he, pursuing the same course of action, taking his phylakitai and ephodoi, was watching the roads, wishing to again carry me off to the phylake‫ ﷴ‬so that I may not be able to sail down to the city and give witness testimony. Wherefore, presenting (?) [56] … I ask, if it seems best, that you please [ – – ] to your agents … to destroy (?) my (original) testimony about these matters. … For if this happens, I shall have received assistance. Farewell. (SB XX 14708.36–59 [Theadelphia, 151 b.c.])

The degree of reprehensible conduct attributed to the ko‫ﷳ‬marche‫ﷴ‬s in this petition is perhaps matched only by the extent of his police powers. Mesthasythmis not only is able to effect an arrest and have someone detained but is revealed to be in command of an organized police force of his own, composed of phylakitai and ephodoi, with which he is able to keep a close eye on his area and, if we are to believe Harmais, to arrest those who run afoul of him. That a ko‫ﷳ‬marche‫ﷴ‬s could command a corps of other police officials is surprising, given that the former tended episkopos in the fifth century and its possible Achaemenid roots. For ephodoi (literally “wayfarers”), see the section on other officials. 39 Phylakai: Bauschatz (2007b) 13–17 and Chapter 5.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

116

to be ethnically Egyptian and low on the administrative totem pole. But perhaps Mesthasythmis was no ordinary ko‫ﷳ‬marches. ‫ ﷴ‬At all events, he definitely seems to have been more interested in lawbreaking than law enforcement. At a geographic level one step up from that of ko‫ﷳ‬marchai sat toparchai, “area chiefs.”40 These officials evidently had the power to detain those who owed debts and extract payment from them, as revealed by two texts, a pair of official letters (P.Gur. 20  [Andromachis, III b.c.] and 21 [?, III b.c.]). They could also mobilize military detachments, if a letter to a toparches‫ ﷴ‬instructing him to send along a corps of machimoi (literally “fighting men,” actually members of the Egyptian warrior caste) for the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬is to be taken as representative of the powers of toparchai more broadly (P.Yale I 33  [Ankyron, 253 b.c.]). Further up the geographic scale, nomarchai, “nome chiefs,” could occasionally usurp police duties as well, though they were primarily charged with the supervision and maintenance of government infrastructure, specifically irrigation works.41 Still, they certainly had the power to imprison, as made clear by a petition to Zenon in which a man complains that he has been arrested by the phylakitai and hauled off by force to the nomarches, ‫ ﷴ‬by whom he was not released (P.Ryl. IV 570  [Krokodilopolis, ca. 254–251 b.c.]). Perhaps unsurprisingly, we also see that nomarchai had subordinates with the power to arrest. In one petition, the hyperetai (subordinates) of ‫ﷴ‬ the nomarches‫ ﷴ‬were employed to haul in an alleged debtor and imprison him (BGU VIII 1821 [Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.]). Like strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, nomarchai seem to have been identified by the Egyptian populace as judicial officials to whom appeals 40 Toparchai: note ­8. 41 On nomarchai, the

chief agricultural administrators in the Egyptian nomes, see above all Seider (1938) 11–42, Samuel (1966), Thomas (1978) 192–4, and Clarysse (1997); also Héral (1990) and D. J. Thompson (1999) 109–10. In P.Petr. III 26.1–3 (Arsinoite, ca. 240 b.c.), a fragmentary series of regulations for property damage, it appears that the nomarches‫ ﷴ‬and strategos, as ‫ﷴ‬ opposed to the toparchai, are empowered to give judgments in cases concerned with tax revenues or debts ([ ca. ? το]ὺς τοπάρχα[ς ca. ? ] | κρίματα καθήκει εἰς τοὺς φόρους ἢ τὰ[ς] ὠνὰ[ς ca. ? ] | ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν νομάρχην μετὰ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ [with BL 5.84 for reading]). We see the same pairing in P.Hib. II 198.242–3 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), but no specifics on the types of cases to be tried by the duo, owing to the fragmentary nature of the text.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

117

could be directed. Appeals to nomarchai seem largely to have concerned tax and financial matters, and specifically – to judge from the surviving evidence  – to have come from or concerned those who had been imprisoned for debts, unjustly or not. They also sometimes involved ko‫ﷳ‬marchai, which suggests an administrative link between nomarchai and ko‫ﷳ‬marchai like that between strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and epistatai. For example, in one case we see, if a restoration is correct, that some nomarchai received a plea for assistance because some petitioners had failed to find justice at the hands of some ko‫ﷳ‬marchai: 332 τοῖς νομάρχαις οἱ Μικ[ρολιμναῖοι (?) χαί(ρειν)]. ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀφ’ οὗ κα[τεχόμεθα   ] μηνος καὶ οὐ δυνάμ[εθα τῶν δικαίων] τυχεῖν πρὸς τοὺς κωμ[άρχας (?), ἀλλὰ] 336 ἐξερημώκασιν ἡμῶ[ν τὴν κώμην] καὶ ἔστιν νῦν ἔρημος. ἐν[ευχόμεθα] οὖν ὑμῖν τὸν δαίμονα τοῦ [βασιλέως] μὴ περιιδεῖν ἡμῶν τὴ[ν κώμην οὖσαν] 340 ἔρημον. βουλόμεθα γὰρ [ἀπολυθέντες (?)] τὰ δίκαια πο⟨ι⟩εῖν αὐτοῖς, κα[ὶ μενεῖ ἐπὶ] τούτοις ἡ κώμη ἐπὶ χώ[ρας, ὅπως] καὶ μηθὲν διαπίπτηι τῶ[ι βασιλεῖ.] 344 εἰ οὖν καὶ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ μὴ περι[ιδεῖν] οὕτως ἡμᾶς τε κατεχομ[ένους] καὶ τὴν κώμην ἔρημον, ἐ[σ]ό[μεθα] τῶι βασιλεῖ χρήσιμοι. To the nomarchai, the Mikrolimnaians (?), greetings. It has now been [ – – ] of a month (?) since we were detained, and we are not able to find justice before the ko‫ﷳ‬marchai (?), [336] but they have completely reclaimed our village and it is now deserted. So we beseech you by the divinity of the king to not overlook our village being [340] deserted. For we wish to do them [i.e., the ko‫ﷳ‬marchai?] justice, after we are freed (?), and the village, at the edge of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, will remain in their power, so that the king may not lose any revenue. [344] If, therefore, it seems best to you to not overlook both us being detained in this manner and the deserted village, we will be useful to the king. (P.Tebt. III.1 701.332–47 [Tebtynis, 235 or 210 b.c.?])

It would seem on the face of it that the petitioners in this case had been arrested because of an outstanding debt, as they seem to acknowledge

118

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

the need to do justice to the ko‫ﷳ‬marchai (or, if not the ko‫ﷳ‬marchai, some other village official or officials, judging by the κωμ[ at the end of line 335) and stress the fact that their village has become “deserted” since their incarceration, which here likely means bereft of a work force to generate tax revenues. Though we do not know what the outcome of this case was, the nomarchai may very well have set the petitioners free: a nomarche‫ﷴ‬s could at the very least give instructions to lower officials to release prisoners. In one case, a superior wrote to a nomarches‫ ﷴ‬with instructions to post bail for and release an imprisoned farmer (SB IV 7285 [Philadelphia, 237 or 212 or 195 b.c.?]). The nomarches‫ ﷴ‬then wrote to a subordinate, who, in turn, wrote to another subordinate about the imprisoned farmer. As we see, ko‫ﷳ‬marchai, toparchai, and nomarchai occasionally employed police powers in the execution of their duties, but seem to have rarely been actively involved in local law enforcement.42 One sees a stark contrast when one turns to the grammateis, or scribes, of Ptolemaic Egypt, who were likewise arranged geographically at the village (ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis), district (topogrammateis), and nome (basilikoi grammateis) levels. Grammateis The scribes of Ptolemaic Egypt performed tasks that extended far beyond what their titles might initially imply.43 These were not mere record keepers. Grammateis were certainly that, but of all the officials attested 42 Analogously,

there is some evidence that meridarchai, the chief agricultural administrators in Egyptian merides, were similarly disposed: aside from receiving petitions and notifications about financial matters (e.g., BGU VIII 1828 [Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.]; 1856 [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]; P.Tebt. I 183  [Tebtynis, 125–100 b.c.]), they could evidently order police raids (BGU VIII 1855  [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]; see Chapter  4) and seem to have been able to arrange trials and examinations (SB XIV 11883 [?] [Euhemeria, 170–116 b.c.]). For more on meridarchai, see P.Bingen 57 pp238–40; the notes on BGU XIV 2370.3 (p. 10) and P.Tebt. I 66.60 (p. 276); and Taubenschlag (1959b [1906]) 625–7. 43 On Ptolemaic scribes, see Biederman (1913), Berneker (1935) 102–8, and Oates (1995) with the comments of Kruse (1997) for the basilikos gramma­ teus; Engers (1909) 16–57, Berneker (1935) 116–27, Criscuolo (1978), and Verhoogt (1997) for the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

119

in the evidence they also had perhaps the broadest general supervision over the state’s interests at the local level. In Egypt, the breadbasket of the Mediterranean, this meant agriculture more than anything else: measuring land, parceling out allotments, recording yields, transferring grain, storing surpluses, preventing shortages, supervising irrigation, collecting debts, counting taxpayers, and maintaining regular correspondence about crops, among other things. Scribes, the strongest links between the central administration in Alexandria and the settlements of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, must have been very busy officials. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they also played vital roles in policing the Ptolemaic countryside. Here we concern ourselves with the law enforcement functions of grammateis. Three main tiers of government grammateis can be articulated: these are, from the bottom to the top, the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis (village scribes), topogrammateis (district scribes), and basilikoi grammateis (royal scribes). Our documentation for the lowest and highest rungs is the richest, but sufficient evidence for those at the intermediate level survives to permit some conclusions about their functions as well. For the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus,44 perhaps the aspect of the job that connected him most closely with the realm of law enforcement was his role as a recipient of petitions from villagers. These were not always intended for his eyes alone, or even at all: in fact, a village scribe was commonly expected to receive and process information about wrongdoing and then decide whom to contact to take the appropriate action. The petitions received by ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis often concerned the same types of wrongdoing in Egyptian villages we have already seen detailed in petitions to other officials: theft, assault, property destruction, illegal confiscation, illegal arrest, and the like.45 More often than not, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis 44 Criscuolo (1978) 53–90 lays out the functions of the Ptolemaic komogrammateus

‫ﷳ‬ in detail, with special treatment of his “funzioni giudiziarie” at 81–9. See also Engers (1909) 49–55. 45 Theft: e.g., BGU VI 1254 (Arsinoite, 153 or 143 b.c.?); P.Heid. IX 423 (Tebetny [Herakleopolite], 158 b.c.); SB XXII 15762 (Krokodilopolis, 210 b.c.); assault: e.g., BGU VIII 1796 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 53 (Kerkeosiris, 110 b.c.); III.1 793.xi.3–xii.4 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.); property destruction: e.g., P.Petr. II 38 FrA (Lysimachis, 198 b.c.); III 34 FrA (Lysimachis, 210–183 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 47 (?) (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.); illegal confiscation: e.g., P.Lond. VII 1980 (= 1981) (Ammonias, 252 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 29

120

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

were asked by petitioners to send their reports of wrongdoing on to the appropriate officials.46 This seems only natural, as one of the main tasks of the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus was to make regular reports to his superiors, sometimes about wrongdoing.47 Occasionally we see evidence in these petitions that they (or slightly modified versions of them) were also forwarded to other officials by the petitioners at the same time as they were sent to the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus.48 While most of the time ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis contacted other officials when they received reports of wrongdoing, sometimes they themselves took action in response to petitions: among other things, they carried out investigations, inspected property damage, made arrests, and detained accused offenders.49 Ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis were clearly also empowered to (Kerkeosiris, ca. 110 b.c.); III.1 800 (Tebtynis, 153 or 142 b.c.?); illegal arrest: SB XXII 15762 (Krokodilopolis, 210 b.c.). 46 See the previous note, as well as P.Tebt. I 53 (Kerkeosiris, 110 b.c.) and III.2 958 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 162 b.c.?). 47 See, e.g., P.Tebt. I 24 (Ptolemais Euergetis, 117 b.c.), where a kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus (Menches) reports in extenso about the bad behavior of some officials in the three merides of the Arsinoite nome, and P.Tebt. III.1 793 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.), a register of petitions and reports of lawbreaking originally addressed (for the most part) to a kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, who forwarded a good deal of it to superiors (who are not always clearly designated). In those cases where we are able to determine the identity of the official receiving a report about wrongdoing from a kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, it is often the basilikos grammateus, e.g., P.Gur. 8 (Apollonias [Arsinoite], 210 b.c.); P.Heid. IX 423 (Tebetny [Herakleopolite], 158 b.c.); ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.). 48 E.g., P.Heid. IX 433 (Herakleopolite, 161–155 b.c.), where there is mention of a petition to the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Tebt. III.1 798 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.), in which a copy of a petition is noted as also having been sent “to the customary people” (τοῖς εἰθισμένοις, 28); SB XXII 15762 (Krokodilopolis, 210 b.c.), where a copy of a petition is noted as having been sent “to whom it concerns” (οἷ[ ς κα]θήκει, 40). For more on petitions concerning wrongdoing addressed to more than one official, see Chapter 4. 49 Investigations: P.Tebt. III.1 793.i.18–30 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.); inspecting property damage: BGU VIII 1859 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), along with a topogrammateus; P.Tebt. I 13 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.); SB XXII 15762 (Krokodilopolis, 210 b.c.); making arrests: P.Cair.Zen. II 59275 (Arsinoite, 251 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 13 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.); detaining accused offenders: P.Tebt. III.1 798 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.); 800 (Tebtynis, 153 or 142 b.c.?).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

121

directly attend to matters of law enforcement in their villages without first receiving official orders or a request from a petitioner. For instance, in one case (P.Tebt. III.1 715  [Tebtynis, II b.c.]), a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus instructed some genematophylakes and a superior to set a watch over a ‫ﷴ‬ village to ensure that some rent security was received. Elsewhere, a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus, along with an epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬seems to have sealed a house (SB I 4309 [Arsinoite, III b.c.?]). As noted, significantly less documentation – in fact, just a handful of documents  – for the law enforcement duties of the topogrammateus survives than for those of the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus, but a few observations can be made. For instance, topogrammateis could receive notifications from officials about wrongdoing. In BGU VIII 1779 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.), an official notes that he had made a report to the topogrammateus concerning three men who had extorted a number of villagers; in P.Tebt. III.1 730 (Tebtynis, 178 or 167 b.c.), a report to a basilikos grammateus, the (unidentified) reporting official notes that he had sent a copy of a report about a suspected murder to the topogrammateus; and in P.Tebt. III.1 793. vi.13–26 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.), a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus forwards a report he had received about a stolen donkey to the topogrammateus. Elsewhere we see a topogrammateus inspecting property damage alongside a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus (BGU VIII 1859 [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]) and evidence that topogrammateis could seal homes (P.Tebt. III.1 793. xii.22–6 [Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.]). Little else can be concluded about the law enforcement duties of the topogrammateus. His position as an intermediary between the scribes who received the most direct contact from villagers – ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis – and those at the top of the administrative hierarchy who called the shots in the nomes – basi­ likoi grammateis – perhaps helps to explain the relative paucity of evidence for this official acting as a police officer. The topogrammateus was neither the most natural point of contact for a victim of wrongdoing nor an official with a great deal of authority. Basilikoi grammateis, on the other hand, are regularly encountered in the papyri. Yet in spite of their ubiquity in the evidence, their involvement in law enforcement matters in the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra was only peripheral. A mere handful of texts illustrates the extent to which basi­ likoi grammateis had a role to play in crime fighting: the basilikos gram­ mateus, by virtue of being a nome-­level official with important contacts

122

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

throughout the Ptolemaic administration, was a reliable source for the redirection of complaints. Petitioners who wrote to him expected that he would contact the appropriate officials in response to their petitions, and officials who contacted him generally did so because they knew that he would know where to turn when provided with certain types of information. In most cases where a basilikos grammateus received a missive, it seems that a petitioner or official could have instead written to a local law enforcement official for redress: an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬or epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬most likely. It is usually not clear why a given addressor wrote to the basilikos grammateus instead of another addressee. In addition, the contents of the petitions and notifications that reached him concerned wrongdoing of all sorts. Perhaps the one commonality is that most of these communications involved the threat of damage to royal infrastructure or the loss of tax revenues. A few examples will bear this out. In one case, a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus forwarded a petition concerning the theft of some grapevines and a sickle as well as violence against a phylax (guard) to the basilikos grammateus (P.Gur. 8 [Apollonias (Arsinoite), 210 b.c.]). He expressly noted that he had copied the basilikos grammateus so that the latter might be informed (ὅπως εἰδῇς, 4) but was otherwise silent about the reason for contacting the nome-­level official. A potential clue is provided by the fact that the three robbers were from a different village (Kerkeosiris) from that in which the wrongdoing had taken place (Apollonias). Perhaps the ­village scribe was unclear about jurisdiction. At all events, it is not certain whether any action was taken at the village level to right the wrong done.50 P.Tebt. I 15 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.; see Chapter 5) is a draft of two notifications, likely to the basilikos grammateus (who is not given a title), from the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus Menches.51 Menches reports that two men had assaulted the local epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬and that while one had escaped, the other had been detained and subsequently appeared before the strategos. ‫ ﷴ‬As in 50 Compare

P.Tebt. III.1 730 (Tebtynis, 178 or 167 b.c.), two drafts of reports from an unidentified official to the basilikos grammateus and the topogramma­ teus concerning the discovery of a lot of blood around a village but no body, and the fact that a villager had gone missing. At the end of the first notification, the author simply states “I am reporting” (ἀναφέρω, 6). 51 Menches: Chapter 2.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

123

the previous example, Menches reported so that the basilikos grammateus might be in the loop; here, however, we see that the wheels of justice started moving in the village without the basilikos grammateus’s say-­so. He seems to have been informed of the events in question solely to make sure that anyone else in the administration who needed to know about the situation found out about it.52 We also find petitions to basilikoi grammateis. Some belong to the archive of Dionysios, basilikos grammateus of the Herakleopolite nome in the mid-­second century b.c. This archive, additions to which were recently published as P.Heid. IX, sheds a great deal of light on the involvement of the basilikos grammateus with matters of law enforcement.53 In P.Heid. IX 422 (Tinteris, 158 b.c.), a farmer complained to Dionysios that the sheep of the local archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬had gobbled up part of the allotment he was farming. When he attempted to confiscate the animals with the assistance of the village phylakitai, the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his cohorts attacked and compelled the farmer and phylakitai to flee. The farmer asks that the basilikos grammateus take the appropriate action (τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον ποιήσασθαι, 32–3). As the basilikos grammateus saw it, the correct action was to forward the petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬with a request that, if it seemed good to him, he stand the accused before himself for an examination. A similar situation presents itself in P.Heid. IX 423 (Tebtny [Herakleopolite], 158 b.c.), in which a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus forwards a notification of loss from a soldier to the basilikos grammateus. The ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus forwarded the petition so that the basilikos gram­ mateus might know that the soldier had been robbed of a great many possessions; the basilikos grammateus then made a note to write to whom it concerned (οἷς καθήκει, 16)  as well as to the king and queen; he then wrote the beginning of some forwarding formulary to the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, with instructions for him to seek out the perpetrators and see 52 See

also ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.; see Chapter 2), a report from a kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus to a basilikos grammateus about the wrongdoing of the village police ( phylakitai). On the verso (P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang [Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.]), the basilikos grammateus wrote drafts of a number of notifications about the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus’s petition to the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬mentioned in the original petition. 53 For a description of the archive, see P.Heid. IX introduction. The archive covers the years 161–155 b.c.

124

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

to it that they got what they deserved, as well as what appears to be a forwarding formulary to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and the king and queen. In addition to their roles as redirectors of petitions and notifications, basilikoi grammateis were occasionally responsible for sending out circulars concerning potential lawbreaking by those dealing in contraband oil, papyrus or the like, often with instructions for the involvement of local police in the protection of the state’s assets.54 They also might appear at trials. As we have already seen, the basilikos grammateus was present at the trial of Menches, on a charge of poisoning, before Aminias the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n (P.Tebt. I 43 [Alexandria, 117 b.c.]; Chapter 2). Aside from his presence there, however, we know nothing about his duties at trial.55 Finally, basilikoi grammateis could inspect damage to state property, especially in those circumstances where theft from the crown was detected or suspected.56 In sum, the scribes of Ptolemaic Egypt had important roles to play as agents of law enforcement. They were not beat cops or patrolmen and were not called on to provide muscle in a pinch. Rather, by virtue of their record-­keeping skills and connections to wide-­ranging networks of correspondence, they were ideal targets for the submission of complaints or reports of wrongdoing. Grammateis knew who needed to know what, and which officials were the appropriate recipients for different types of information. 54 E.g.,

P.Lille I 3.55–61 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.), an entole‫( ﷴ‬circular) to some oil dealers from the basilikos grammateus with instructions for them to hand those caught selling more oil than permitted over to the phylakitai for transport to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Tebt. I 40 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), a letter from a tax farmer to the basilikos grammateus forwarded to the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus with instructions that the local epistates, archiphylakite s, and others provide the tax ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ farmer with the requisite assistance. 55 See also P.Tebt. III.2 895 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, ca. 175 b.c.), where there is note of a trial in the koinon synedrion (literally “common council”) before the strategos, the basilikos grammateus, and others (lost in lacuna). On ‫ﷴ‬ the koinon synedrion, see P.Diosk. 5 n. on 17–18. 56 See P.Tebt. III.2 857 (Herakleopolite, 162 b.c.), a report that describes an investigation into a break-­in at a granary, reported by the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus and carried out by the basilikos grammateus, an agent of the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

125

Financial Officials Even the casual scholar of the Hellenistic period knows that the bibliography on the Ptolemaic economy is massive.57 The same holds true for the work that has been done on Ptolemaic officials whose main duties concerned the implementation and maintenance of this economy. Just as the grammateis of Hellenistic Egypt had important connections with police because of their concern with agricultural matters, so, too, officials with economic responsibilities interacted with law enforcement for financial reasons. In the discussion that follows, we take a closer look at the police functions of three of these: the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬and the oikonomos. The dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬was one of the most important government agents in Ptolemaic Egypt.58 As the highest-­ranking economic official in the state, the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬had virtually no role in day-­to-­day policing. Yet as an economic authority figure, he was granted a great deal of autonomy to deal, usually from afar, with lawbreaking in the financial realm. His authority is often invoked by petitioners and officials in cases involving wrongdoing in economic matters. For instance, in Chrest.Mitt. 5 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.), a petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬a prisoner who had spent ten months in detention claimed that he had been arrested unjustly (likely for financial reasons: τ[ῶν] | βασιλικῶν, 14–5) and cited his right to a trial before the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s. ‫ ﷴ‬As we saw in another petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬Chrest.Wilck. 166 [Arsinoite, 218 b.c.]; Chapter 2), an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬who had arrested some shipbuilders refused to let them go until he received the go-­ahead from an economic official of high­enough standing: specifically, the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬or the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s. ‫ ﷴ‬In both of these cases, it is clear that, aside from the king himself, the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ was the ultimate authority for economic matters and the resolution of disputes that arose concerning them. 57 Rostovtzeff

(1922) and (1959) 255–422, 705–36, 870–929; Rathbone (2002) (on the usefulness of the Egyptian evidence for the broader ancient economy); Manning (2003); and von Reden (2007) are good places to start. See also the following notes in Chapter 2 on specific officials: note 49 (on the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s); ‫ ﷴ‬note 46 (on the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s); ‫ ﷴ‬and note 59 (on the official with the title ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫) ﷳ‬. 58 See Berneker (1935) 80–9 and Thomas (1978).

126

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

It should therefore come as no surprise that, like the strategos, his ‫ﷴ‬ colleague in the civil sphere, the dioikete s (or his subordinates, often ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ hypodioiketai, “sub-­ d ioike tai”) might also receive petitions.59 As the evi‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ dence bears out, these were always concerned with wrongdoing connected with tax revenues, monopolies, or other financial officials. For instance, in CPR XXVIII 11 (Herakleopolite?, 191 b.c.?), a petition to an agent of the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from some sailors, the latter complained of extortion by a group of tax collectors and requested that the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬summon them and examine their claims. In P.Cair.Zen. II 59236 (Philadelphia, 253–252 b.c.), a petition to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬himself, a man complained that an oikonomos and a basilikos grammateus had improperly registered his father’s property. He requested that the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬investigate and, assuming that his claims were valid, issue an order to the oikonomos and basilikos grammateus to correct the registration. Both of these cases illustrate not only that the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬could receive petitions but also that he could investigate alleged financial wrongdoing and hold trials.60 He and his subordinates were also empowered to issue orders to other officials when making arrangements for examinations. In BGU VIII 1757 (Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.), a petition forwarded from a dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬to a strategos, the dioike te s appended instructions for the strate gos to sum‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ mon the man accused in the petition to appear before him concerning the accusations. In P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?), a phrourarchos 59 Petitions:

e.g., P.Gen. III 128 (Herakleopolite, 163–156 b.c.?), a petition concerning a soldier who had worked his way into the inheritance of a man who had recently died; P.Mich. XVIII 778 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.), a petition from a man who complains about the extortions of an oikonomos; SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 151 b.c.), a petition to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬concerning the alleged abuses of a kom arche s with a request that the dioike te ‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬destroy the petitioner’s former (positive) testimony about the kom arche s. ‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 60 Investigations and trials: e.g., BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), a petition from a man whose father had died and was now dealing with a woman who had moved onto some of his inherited land; P.Lille I 3.55–61 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.), a circular to a number of oil dealers with instructions for them to hand over to the phylakitai for transport to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬those caught selling oil at inflated prices; P.Lond. VII 1954 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.?), a petition to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from a number of Heliopolite farmers who request that they be summoned to provide testimony concerning the alleged wrongdoing of two men.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

127

(garrison commander) was instructed to arrest and detain two men, scribes in the service of the royal navy accused of paying out too much, until they were picked up by the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n for transport to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s. ‫ﷴ‬ Another high-­ranking financial official with ties to the realm of law 61 enforcement was the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬literally “curator, manager”). Perhaps because of his nome-­level competency, the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬seems to have been a reliable target for petitions concerned with financial wrongdoing. The subject matter of the petitions that reached him, like those which reached the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬was virtually always financial: the extortions of a ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫( ﷴ‬P.Amh. II 34  [Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.]), harassment from a grammateus who had overassessed an allotment (P.Heid. VI 382 [Samareia, after 158 b.c.?]) and from another who incorrectly recorded a debt (P.Dryton 31  [?, 140–130 b.c.]), etc.62 Also like the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬could carry out investigations of alleged financial wrongdoing and administer examinations.63 61 Berneker

(1935) 90–4 remains the authority for this post, but see now also McGing (2002) 51–64, especially 52–5 on the status of this official relative to other economic agents (in particular the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬and the oikonomos). 62 See also, e.g., APF 48 (2002) 45–6 (Lykopolite, 154 or 143 b.c.?), a petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from a tax official who reported an arrest – by a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬an agent of the oikonomos, an agent of the topogrammateus, and an agent of the epistates – ‫ ﷴ‬of a man caught (illegally) grinding state salt in his home; P.Heid. IX 433 (Herakleopolite, 161–155 b.c.), a petition to an unknown official in which the petitioner notes that he had sent a petition about the same subject (lost in lacuna, but evidently concerned to some extent with crown rent) to the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Petr. II 1 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), a fragmentary petition to an epimelete s requesting protec‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ tion for the petitioner from an unidentified official and an archyiphylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ 63 Examinations and investigations: e.g., P.Amh. II 33 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.), a petition to the sovereigns in which the petitioners note that a trial on charges of extortion is upcoming against a kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches‫ ﷴ‬before the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ﷴ‬ basilikos grammateus, and chrematistai; P.Mich. XVIII 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. ‫ﷴ‬ 194–193 b.c.), a petition to an epimeletes ‫ ﷴ‬asking that the latter summon a tax collector and force him to return some wrongfully confiscated items; ZPE 152 (2005) 191 (Arsinoite, 196/195 b.c.?), a petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from some tax collectors with a request that the epimelete s transfer a delinquent ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬examine their claims, and assess a fine.

128

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

It is perhaps a testament to the importance of financial concerns to the Ptolemaic crown that another nome-­level financial official seems to have been invested with law enforcement powers similar to those 64 of the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s: ‫ ﷴ‬the oikonomos (manager, steward). Like the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ and the epimelete s, the oikonomos and his subordinates received petitions ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ from those with finance-­related problems.65 The oikonomos could also investigate claims of financial wrongdoing and hold examinations.66 Perhaps the only area in which a noticeable difference can be observed in the law enforcement powers of the oikonomos and the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬is that of arrests. The oikonomos and his subordinates seem to have effected arrests – whether by hand or by command – on at least a few occasions. In one petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬APF 48 [2002] 45–6 [Lykopolite, 154 or 143 b.c.?]), a tax official reported the arrest of a man caught (illegally) grinding state salt in his home by a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬an agent of the oikonomos, an agent of the topogrammateus, and an agent of the epistates. ‫ ﷴ‬In another text (P.Cair.Zen. III 59368  [Memphis?, 241 b.c.]), the arrest of some 64 On

the oikonomos, see Berneker (1935) 94–102. Much has been written on the subject of his relationship with the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s: ‫ ﷴ‬most recently McGing (2002) 53–5 (see also Chapter 6). We do not concern ourselves with their relative hierarchy here. For our purposes, it should suffice to note that both had broad powers to deal with financial wrongdoing and wrongdoers. 65 Petitions: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), a petition to an oikonomos with instructions for the oikonomos to have an epistates‫ ﷴ‬make an arrest and transport an accused, which was forwarded by the oikonomos to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, who contacted the epistates; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Heid. VI 379 (Boubastos, 204 b.c.), a petition to the oikonomos requesting that he write to the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ to accept some sureties for the fuller tax; P.Tebt. III.1 776 (Tebtynis, III b.c.), a petition to an oikonomos concerning wrongdoing involving a contract of cohabitation with a request that the oikonomos have the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ take action. 66 Examinations and investigations: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 39341A (Alexandria, after 247 b.c.), a letter to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬that records the outcome of an examination of some treasurers before the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and oikonomos; P.Lond. VII 1980 = 1981 (Ammonias, 252 b.c.), a petition to a kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus from a number of farmers who have been deprived of their land, plan to emigrate, and have received word from the oikonomos that he will investigate; P.Stras. VII 662 (Oxyrhynchite, 239 b.c.), an official letter in which an oikonomos appears to have arrived on the scene of a suspected grain theft and confiscated (?) some grain.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

129

beekeepers and a chortophylax (hay guard) by an oikonomos after an illegal transfer of hives is recorded. In P.Heid. VII 393 (Arsinoite or Memphite, III b.c.), an oikonomos orders an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to arrest a bath attendant. Certainty is impossible, but perhaps the oikonomos was effectively the most “hands-­on” of the three financial officials discussed here. Like government grammateis, members of the financial sphere had important roles to play in protecting the cho‫ﷳ‬ra and its assets. The dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬and oikonomos all received reports of wrongdoing from petitioners and other officials and could mete out justice when the state’s finances were threatened. That these three officials, all with such similar administrative domains, would have been integrated into the Ptolemaic law enforcement hierarchy is perhaps somewhat surprising. Yet it is also reflective of the flexibility we have observed in the Ptolemaic police system thus far: access to redress was prioritized, and officials from diverse areas were granted broad autonomy to deal with problems and coordinate their actions with others. Military ­Police

Phrourarchoi Officials with primarily military duties also played roles in law enforcement in the chor‫ ﷳ‬a.67 Of these, the heads of Ptolemaic garrisons, phrourarchoi, were arguably the most important.68 Phrourarchoi were frequently involved in solving crimes and providing justice. These officials had police powers similar to those of archiphylakitai, though their administrative reach seems to have been limited to the immediate vicinities of the phrouria they commanded. Phrourarchoi were regularly called on (by petitioners or higher officials) to arrest, transport, and interrogate 67 For

the purposes of this chapter, by “military” I mean those officials who seem to have been organized along military lines, had security as one of their primary concerns, but can also be shown to have had duties connected to law enforcement. 68 On phrourarchoi and phrouria (garrisons) in the Ptolemaic period, see especially P.Diosk., the archive of Dioskourides, phrourarchos of Herakleopolis in the mid­second century b.c. See also, e.g., Lesquier (1911) 72, 83, 332ff.; Kortenbeutel (1936) 292–5; Maehler (1970); and Wolff (1970) 94, 172 n. 46.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

130

offenders.69 The documents that reached them with such requests bear striking similarities to those that reached police officials, such as the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬as well as those that reached civil officials, such as the epistates‫ ﷴ‬and the strategos. ‫ ﷴ‬We see the usual requests for examinations and interrogations, as here: 4 8 12 16 20 24

Διοσκουρίδει ἡγεμόνι καὶ φρουράρχωι παρὰ Διοσκου-­ ρίδου τοῦ Πακήμιος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Νικάδα{ι} νεώς. τ[ῆι  ] τοῦ ἐνεστῶ-­ τος μηνὸς [Πα]χὼν πορευο-­ μένου μου εἰς τὴν ὑπάρ-­ χουσάν μοι οἰκίαν ­ἐπεκ-­ πηδήσας Ὧρος ὁ νεώ-­ τερός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ προσαλόμενός μοι ὕβρισεν τύπτων πληγαῖς πλεί-­ οσιν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ εἰς ὃ ἐτύγχανεν μέρος τοῦ σώματος ὥστ’ ἂν παρ’ οὐδὲν καὶ τοῖς ὄμμα-­ σιν κεκινδυνευκέναι με. διὸ ἀξιῶ, ἐὰν φαίν-­ νηται, συντάξαι μετα-­ πεμψάμενον τοῦτον ἐπισκέψασθαι καὶ προνο-­ ηθῆναι ὡς τεύξεται τῆς ἁρμοζούσης ἐπι-­ πλήξε[ω]ς. εὐτύχει.

69 Arresting:

BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.); P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); transporting people: BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.); P.Diosk. 12 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); P.Tor. Choach. 8 (Thebes, after September 24–October 23, 127 b.c.); interrogating and investigating: P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); P.Hib. II 233 (?) (?, III b.c.).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

131

To Dioskourides, he‫ﷴ‬gemo‫ﷳ‬n and phrourarchos, from Dioskourides, son of Pakemis, of those [4] from the ship of Nikadas.70 On the [  –  – ] of the present month, Pachon, when I was going into [8] my house, Horos, my younger brother, leapt out and jumped me. He mistreated me, [12] beating me with very many blows on my face and all over my body, with the result that [16] I am in dire peril of losing my sight. Wherefore, I ask that you, summoning [20] him, examine him and see to it that he meets with the fitting punishment. [24] Farewell. (P.Diosk. 7 [Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?])

Petitions also highlight the arresting and transporting powers of the phrourarchos. In one case, a man wrote a petition to the sovereigns concerning illegal habitation and abuse and requested that a phrou­ rarchos transfer the accused to trial (P.Tor.Choach. 8  [Thebes, after September 24–October 23, 127 b.c.]). Phrourarchoi also seem to have had broad powers to detain suspects: at least five documents provide requests for phrourarchoi to jail or keep watch over offenders.71 This is not surprising, as Ptolemaic phrouria doubtless contained cells for temporary detention, and may even have housed full-­fledged prisons, as is suggested by a petition in which a woman notes that she had asked a phrourarchos to detain a runaway slave girl in the phylake‫ ﷴ‬until her husband could retrieve her (P.Diosk. 9 [Herakleopolite, II b.c.]). Though the document is not conclusive, given the administrative domain of the phrourarchos, it seems likely that the garrison over which he had sway (namely that in Herakleopolis) contained a prison complex. Also like archiphylakitai, phrourarchoi were present at government auctions and received and archived petitions and government 70 On the various meanings of the title hegemon (literally “leader”), see Lesquier

‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ (1911) 83–7, 93 and Mooren (1975) 156–7. See also P.Diosk. pp4–7, which provides a discussion of the various titles attributed to Dioskourides in his archive – among these hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬, hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬ep’ andron‫( ﷳ‬leader of men), and ton‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ hegemono n (of the leaders) – as well as their relative positions in the Ptolemaic ‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ court hierarchy. 71 P.Diosk. 3 (153 b.c.?); 4 (153 b.c.?); 5 (146 b.c.?); 8 (II b.c.); and 9 (II b.c.). All five texts are Herakleopolite. In P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), a copy of a petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬forwarded by the petitioners to the phrourarchos, the writers asked that the phrourarchos give heed to their complaints. The original petition contained a request that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬detain certain wrongdoers until a trial could take place.

132

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

circulars.72 They also might be present at trials, judging from a report from a trial over a boundary dispute at which a phrourarchos and an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬were expressly noted as being in attendance (Chrest. Mitt. 32.i.2–17 [Arsinoite, 181 b.c.]). In this case, the phrourarchos and archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬seem to have served as witnesses to an oath. Though phrourarchoi might have stood side by side with archiphylakitai in court, unlike archiphylakitai they do not appear to have had any connection to the ranks of the phylakitai. The few texts that mention subordinates of the phrourarchos doing police work provide no clues as to the official designation of these underlings. Though they performed tasks similar to those carried out by phylakitai, one assumes that the agents of the phrourarchos were not police officers but rather military officials of some sort. But the evidence is inconclusive.73 The documents are more helpful in identifying those officials from whom phrourarchoi took orders. They suggest that phrourarchoi answered to strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬though perhaps only indirectly. In one case, we see a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬contacting a phrour­ archos via some scribes ( grammateis) concerning a contractual dispute (BGU VIII 1844  [Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.]). In another (P.Diosk. 6 [Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.]), complainants asked that the phrourarchos give heed to the contents of their petition, a document that had initially been sent to the strategos. Government circulars in which the phrour­ ‫ﷴ‬ archos is listed after the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬reveal that the former was an official of a lower but not necessarily dramatically lower rank than the latter.74 72 Present

at auctions: e.g., BGU VI 1219 (Hermopolite, II b.c.); Chrest.Wilck. 162 (Pathyris, 186 b.c.); P.Haun. I 11 (Diospolis Magna, 182 b.c.); received petitions: e.g., P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?); 2 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?); 3 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); circulars: e.g., P.Gen. III 132 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); P.Rain.Cent. 45 (?, 197–190 b.c.); 46 (Arsinoite, II b.c.). 73 See P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?), where an agent of the phrourarchos (Ἡρα|κλείδου τοῦ παρὰ σοῦ, 23–4) arrested a pair of fighting men; also P.Diosk. 5 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?), where some contraband donkey hides were entrusted to two agents of the phrourarchos (10–11: Ἀπολλωνίωι καὶ Ἐπιμάχωι | τοῖς π[α]ρὰ σοῦ); and P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), where petitioners noted that some offenders had been handed over to an agent of the phrourarchos (Ἐπιμάχωι τῶι παρὰ τοῦ φρ⟦α⟧ουράρχου, 28). 74 E.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 47.1–3 (Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.): [βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος καὶ βασίλισ]σα Κλεοπάτρα ἡ ἀδελφὴ καὶ βασίλισσα | [Κλεοπάτρα ἡ

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

133

The closeness of their ranks is further suggested by the fact that the two officers appear to have occasionally worked together.75 ­Phylakes If phrourarchoi in many ways approximated archiphylakitai in terms of the breadth of their law enforcement duties, the military group bearing the closest resemblance to the phylakitai proper was the various phylakes (guards) found throughout the Ptolemaic cho‫ﷳ‬ra.76 Whereas the phylakitai were government-­sanctioned defenders of public safety, many phylakes were privately hired and managed, among these the para­ deisophylakes (garden guards) employed to guard an individual’s agricultural interests, the halo‫ﷳ‬nophylakes (guards of threshing floors) stationed at threshing floors, and the nauphylakes (ship guards) tending to the cargo of ships in transit. A few types of guards were regularly employed by the state, often in conjunction with phylakitai and their superiors, for the protection of government interests. Of these guards the desmo­ phylakes, eremophylakes (desert guards), genematophylakes, potamophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ (river guards), and thesaurophylakes occur with the greatest frequency. ‫ﷴ‬ The term phylax (guard) appears in a number of compounds in the papyri and other documentary evidence from Egypt, but only a few γυνὴ τοῖς στρατη]γοῖς καὶ τοῖς φρουράρχοις καὶ τοῖς | [ἐπιστάταις τῶν φυλακιτῶν κ]αὶ ἀρχιφυλακίταις (etc.); 62.1–3 (Memphis, 99 b.c.): [β]ασιλεὺ[ς Π]τολεμαῖος ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Ἀλέξα[ν]δρος καὶ βασ[ίλισσα Βερενί]κ[η | ἡ] ἀδελφὴ τῶι στρατη[γ]ῶι τοῦ Μεμφίτου κ[αὶ] τῶι φρουράρχωι [καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπισ[τά]τηι | [τ]ῶν φυλα[κιτ]ῶν καὶ ἀρχιφυλακίτηι (etc.); P.Gen. III 132.1–4 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.): [     ]ης τῶι στρατηγῶ[ι τοῦ Ἡρακλεοπολίτου καὶ τῶι φρουράρχωι καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπιστάτηι | [τῶν φυ]λακιτῶν καὶ τῶι ν[ομάρχηι καὶ τῶι ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων κα]ὶ τῶι οἰκονόμωι | [κ]αὶ τῶι βασιλικῶι γραμμα[τεῖ καὶ τῶι ἀντιγραφεῖ καὶ τοῖς τοπάρχαις] καὶ τοπογραμ[μα|τεῦσι] καὶ κωμάρχαις κα[ὶ κωμογραμματεῦσι καὶ τῶι ἀρχιφυλακίτ]ηι καὶ φυλακίταις (etc.). 75 See P.Hib. II 233 (?, III b.c.), in which mention is made of a prostagma for the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and the phrourarchos that will aid the two in an investigation of certain matters. 76 On phylakes in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see now Homoth-­Kuhs (2005). His work is primarily concerned with phylakes and phylax-­taxes during the Roman period, but it opens with a discussion of the Ptolemaic period (7–29).

134

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

types of phylax occur with enough frequency and in sufficiently clear contexts to allow for certainty concerning their duties. Many phylakes surface in the data only once or twice. Their titles provide a suggestion of their primary activities but no real certainty. As noted, a great many types of phylax were employed by private individuals in Ptolemaic times to watch over their personal interests. These guardians of homes, gardens, vineyards, and the like provided their employers with a certain amount of security and protection.77 Interestingly, most of the attestations for these types of phylax date to the third century and the preponderance derives from the Zenon archive. Perhaps the degree of specification seen in the titles of these phylakes was necessary only on an agricultural estate the size of Apollonios’s.78 A few types of phylax did not have a police or military function. Some of their posts were nothing more than honorific titles, though most of them performed some sort of supervisory duty.79 77 Etymology

suggests the operational domain of aulophylakes, “courtyard guards”: P.Cair.Zen. II 59292.58 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.); that erganophy­ lakes (?) were “guards of (agricultural?) tools”: BGU X 1988 FrB.3 (?, III b.c.); and that nyktophylakes served as “night guards”: P.Cair.Zen. III 59329.6 (Philadelphia?, 249 b.c.). Paradeisophylakes were doubtless garden guards: P.Cair.Zen. IV 59690.22 (Memphis?, 257–256 b.c.); hydrophylakes (water guards) likely supervised irrigation works: P.Hib. II 268 (?, ca. 260 b.c.; no line numbers given). The chalkiophylax (cauldron guard) may have been employed to protect the heating cauldrons in a bath: P.Cair.Zen. IV 59799.8 (Philadelphia, 254–250 b.c.). A chortophylax doubtless was a “guard of hay”: P.Cair.Zen. III 59368.24 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.). 78 In many respects this huge estate was a state in and of itself, owned by a high-­ranking government official who acted as chief administrator and outfitted with hundreds of personnel. On Apollonios, his estate, and the documents associated with both – the Zenon archive – see Chapter 2, note 8. 79 The titles archisom ‫ ﷳ‬atophylax (chief of the bodyguard) and som ‫ ﷳ‬atophylax (bodyguard), for instance, were aulic (royal court) titles: see Mooren (1977) 17–73 for a discussion of attestations, relative ranks, and chronology. Bibliophylakes (document guards) and symbolophylakes (receipt guards) served as record keepers, e.g., P.Tebt. V 1151.257 with note (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.) and P.Rev.2 x.2 (Arsinoite?, 259 b.c.). Gazophylakes (treasure guards) and chrematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ (money guards) were treasurers: P.Cair.Zen. I 59036.4 (Karia, 257 b.c.) and, e.g., P.Erasm. I 10.1–2 (Arsinoite, II b.c.). Thesmo-­ and nomophylakes (both “law guards”) had legal duties: the former primarily dealing with the

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

135

As with those phylakes who were primarily private employees, guards working for the state served a variety of needs. Again, however, many of the types of phylax with seemingly official duties occur only once or twice in the evidence, leaving some uncertainty about the nature of their employment and the extent (both temporal and spatial) of their distribution. Some of these guards (cho‫ﷳ‬matophylakes [dyke guards] and halo‫ﷳ‬nophylakes, for instance) had among their primary responsibilities the protection of state agricultural and financial interests.80 Cho‫ﷳ‬matophylakes were crucial for the supervision of irrigation works, as is suggested by a fragmentary letter in which two cho‫ﷳ‬matophylakes were to be stationed near a dyke (?) in order to carry out patrols (P.Petr. II 6  [Arsinoite, 256 b.c.]). Others (hormophylakes [harbor guards], nauphylakes, and skeuo­ phylakes [baggage guards]) had functions connected with travel and commerce on the Nile.81 The following text, a petition from a nauphy­ lax, illustrates the importance of keeping watch over the contents and equipment of a ship:

(ἔτους) λς Ἁθὺ[ρ (?) ι]α. [Δημ]ητρίωι τ[ῶ]ν διαδόχων καὶ ἱππάρχηι ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν καὶ ἐπιστάτει

formation of decrees and regulations (e.g., P.Hal. 1.239  [Apollonopolite, after 259 b.c.]), the latter concerning judicial matters (e.g., P.Hamb. II 168 FrA.3  [?, III b.c.]). Therophylakes (literally “beast guards”) seem to have ‫ﷴ‬ been high-­level hunters or supervisors of captive beasts, e.g., SB I 294.3–4 (Panopolis, 323–30 b.c.). Syngraphophylakes (contract guards) were entrusted with copies of legal agreements between parties, e.g., BGU VI 1271.15 (Philadelphia?, 180–145 b.c.). 80 Chom ‫ ﷳ‬atophylakes were evidently in charge of inspecting and protecting dykes, e.g., P.Petr. II 6.3 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.). Halon‫ ﷳ‬ophylakes guarded threshing floors, and thus played an important role in the successful completion of the genematophylakia, e.g., P.Oxy. XII 1465.7–8 (Oxyrhynchite, I b.c.). On the ‫ﷴ‬ genematophylakia, see Chapter 6. ‫ﷴ‬ 81 Hormophylakes seem to have played a role in the collection of grain and may have been responsible for protecting the harbors of the Nile, e.g., P.Erasm. I 13.1–2 (Kaine, 152 b.c.?). Nauphylakes appear to have been members of the on-­board security forces of ships: P.Tebt. III.1 802.4–7 (Tebtynis, 135 b.c.). Skeuophylakes were probably guardians of baggage or cargo while in transit: e.g., P.Zen.Pestm. 41.5–8 (Arsinoite, III b.c.).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

136 4 8 12 16 20

παρὰ Πααλ[ᾶ]τος τοῦ Ἁρμάιος τοῦ ναυφυλακοῦντος τὴ[ν] Ἀπολλων[ίου] τῶν (πρώτων) φίλων καὶ στρα(τηγοῦ) καὶ ἐ[πὶ τῶν] προσόδων θαλαμηγόν. τῆι [λ το(?)]ῦ Φαῶφι τοῦ λς (ἔτους) τῆς δ[εδη]λωμένης θαλαμηγοῦ οὔσης ἐφόρμ[ου] ἐπελθόντες τινὲς ἐν τῶι ἑαυτῶν πλοίω[ι] ἐκτὸς α [   ]ς προσόρμισαν καί τινα τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅπλω[ν] ἐξέκλασαν, οἷς καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαντός μου ὅπως διαχωρισθῶσι, οἱ δ’ ἐμπηδήσαντες φω{ι}νὰς ἀπρεπεῖς προ{ε}ίεντο κἀμοὶ πληγὰς καὶ πλείους ἔδωκαν, ὥστ’ ἂν ἐν τῆι ἁψιμαχίαι ἀπολέσαι με ἱμάτιον ἄξιον χα(λκοῦ) (δραχμῶν) Γ [vac] χω[ρ]ὶς τῶν ἐκκλασθέντων ὅπ[λων ἃ ἦ]ν ἄξια ὁμοίως χα(λκοῦ) (δραχμῶν) Γ. [ἄξιῶ ­οὖν] συ[ντά]ξαι καὶ απ[ ca. 10 ]   [   ]ους δ [ ca. 10 ] [   ]. [εὐτύχει].

Year 36, Hathyr (?) 11. To Demetrios, of the diadochoi and hipparches‫ ﷴ‬ep’ andro‫ﷳ‬n and epistates, ‫[ ﷴ‬4] from Paälas, son of Harmais, nauphylax for the barge of Apollonios, of 82 the first friends and strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n. On the [30th?] of [8] Phaophi, year 36, while the aforementioned barge was at anchor, certain men, coming in their own ship, outside of …, came to anchor at its side; and they broke off some [12] of our tackle. When I rebuked them, so that they might scatter, they, leaping upon me, used inappropriate language and dealt me [16] a great many blows. As a result, in the altercation I lost a cloak worth 3,000 bronze drachmas, apart from the broken-­off tackle, which was similarly [20] worth 3,000 bronze drachmas. I ask, then, that you please. … Farewell. (P.Tebt. III.1 802 [Tebtynis, 135 b.c.])

A fourth group (akrophylakes [citadel guards], gerrophylakes [literally “wicker guards”], [h]orophylakes [boundary guards or mountain guards], 82 For

the titles “of the first friends” (prot‫ ﷳ‬oi philoi) and “of the successors” (­diadochoi), see Chapter 1, note 3; for the hipparches‫ ﷴ‬ep’ andron‫ ﷳ‬, see Mooren (1975) 146–54; (1977) 165–6; for ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫ ﷳ‬: Chapter 2, note 59.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

137

and plagiophylakes [flank guards]) seems to have had duties of a military nature, but the documents do not provide many specifics.83 Men serving as phylakes without any further distinction were occasionally employed by the Ptolemies as well. We see them as guards of villages and possibly watching over the state’s agricultural interests and prisoners.84 We also see that phylakes could be requisitioned as necessary for the safeguarding of agricultural activities, as revealed by a letter to Zenon in which he is instructed to send no fewer than ten phylakes for the harvest (PSI IV 345 [Philadelphia, 256 b.c.]). That the position of phylax was recognized as an occupation is proved by a handful of documents where the profession of phylax is recorded.85 As mentioned, five types of phylax occur in the Ptolemaic evidence with great frequency and deserve special treatment. These guards (desmophylakes, eremophylakes, genematophylakes, potamophylakes, and ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakes) were all actively involved in the protection of state agri‫ﷴ‬ cultural and financial infrastructure. The documents provide a wealth of 83 One

would assume that akrophylakes protected citadels: P.Cair.Zen. I 59006.5 (Palaistine, 259 b.c.?). Analogously, gerrophylakes ought to have been responsible for defending wickerwork barriers of some sort, e.g., SB I 1918.4 (Syene, 144–142 b.c.). (H)orophylakes seem to have been responsible for guarding frontier regions or perhaps mountain terrain: PSI IV 406.8–9, 12 (Philadelphia, 260–258 b.c.; see Chaniotis [2008] 139–42 on the duties and employment of these officials throughout the Hellenistic world, and 139 n. 140 on whether the title had a smooth [orophylax] or rough breathing [horophylax]). Plagiophylakes may have provided protection for the flanks of an army on the move: UPZ I 89.6 (Memphis, 159 b.c.). 84 Village guards: BGU VI 1215 (?, III b.c.); VIII 1787.7 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); guards for oil (?): P.Sorb. I 34.13–14 (Arsinoite?, 230 b.c.); guards of prisoners (?): P.Hib. I 147 (?, III b.c.; no line numbers given). 85 P.Tebt. III.2 893.8 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.); IV 1136.64 (Kerkeosiris, ca. 114 b.c.); and 1150.2 (Kerkeosiris, 115–114 b.c.). In addition to phylakes, at least one other type of private security professional is occasionally encountered in the documents: thyror‫ ﷳ‬oi (doormen), e.g., BGU VI 1491.5 (?, II/I b.c.); XIV 2428.28 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59292.76–7 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.). These men seem to have been employed for home security purposes, e.g., BGU VIII 1881 (Herakleopolite, 80–30 b.c.), where a man noted that he had been attacked by the thyror‫ ﷳ‬os of a house. On archithyror‫ ﷳ‬oi (chief doormen), see I.Alex.Ptol. 43.2 (Alexandria, II/I b.c.) with commentary and P.Tebt. III.1 790.1 (Oxyrhyncha, 127–124 b.c.).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

138

information on their duties, times, and durations of service, co-­workers, ethnic makeup, geographic distribution, rates of pay, landholdings, and even personal lives. Each of these five officials was tightly linked to the Ptolemaic state and very often to the phylakitai. Further data on these five types of phylax will appear in the following chapters. For now, a few preliminary remarks are in order. Desmophylakes worked as jailors in Ptolemaic prisons, received and released prisoners, and often accepted bail payments.86 As texts like the following reveal, desmophylakes could have significant sway over whether an alleged offender was let out of prison, even after securing a promise of release: 4 8 12 16 20

βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι χαίρειν Διονυσόδωρος. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ vac τοῦ \ἐν Κερκεσοῦχι/ δεσμοφύ(λακος). διατρίβοντος γάρ μου μετὰ Ἀπολλωνίου ἐμ\αυτ/οῦ οἰκείου, καὶ ἐπιζητήσαντος αὐτοῦ βυβλάριά τινα ἃ ἐδεδώκει μοι φυ(λάσσειν), ταῦτα δέ μου οὐχ εὑρίσ-­ κοντος, προσπικρανθείς μοι vac \ἀξίωσεν/ ⟦συνέταξεν⟧ Σπινθῆρα, τὸν ἐν Κερκεσούχοις φυ(λακίτην), συν-­ έχειν με. οὗτος δὲ ἀπαγαγών με εἰς τὸ αὐτόθι δεσμω-­ τήριον, εἶπεν τῶι δεσμοφύ(λακι) δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν συνέσχημαι καὶ ἵνα, ἂν Ἀπολλώνιος συντάξηι, ἀφῆι με. ⟦ὃ δὲ⟧ νυνὶ δὲ ἀναγή-­ γοχέν με εἰς τὸ ἐν Κροκο-­ δίλων πό(λει) δεσμωτήριον, φάσκων εἶναί με κακουρ-­ γὸν ⟦δέομαι⟧ καὶ τοῦ Ἀπολ-­

86 Receiving

prisoners: e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 45 (Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.?); P.Enteux. 84 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.); SB III 7202 (Arsinoite, 227 b.c.); receiving bail payments: P.Lille.Dem. I 3 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 777 (Tebtynis, II b.c.). On desmophylakes, see also Chapter 5.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

139

λωνίου ἠξιωκότος αὐ-­ τὸν διέσθαι με, οὐ προσέσ-­ 24 χηκεν. δέομαι οὖν σ[οῦ] Dionysodoros to king Ptolemy, greetings.87 I am wronged by the desmophylax in Kerkesoucha. [4] For I was passing time with my kinsman, Apollonios, and he asked me for certain records that he had given me [8] to watch over; but when I was unable to find these, he, becoming angry with me, thought it fitting that Spinther, the phylakites‫ ﷴ‬in Kerkesoucha, detain [12] me. And he [i.e., Spinther], leading me off to the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion there, told the desmophylax the reason for my detention [16] so that, ‫ﷴ‬ if Apollonios should command it, he [i.e., the desmophylax] might release me.88 But now he has led me off to the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion in Krokodilopolis, [20] claiming that I am a ‫ﷴ‬ wrongdoer; and though Apollonios thought it fitting that he release me, he did not obey. [24] Wherefore, I need you to [….] (P.Enteux. 84 [Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.])

Here it seems that a simple misunderstanding about some files ­escalated very quickly into something much more serious via the agency of the desmophylax, who allegedly ignored instructions to release the petitioner. In this case, some crucial information may have been left out by the letter writer, who notes that the desmophylax considers him a “wrongdoer” (kakourgos) and has moved him to a different prison in a different village. Either the desmophylax has done so because he is malicious – as the writer would have us believe – or he has received instructions to deliver the prisoner to another jail and (likely) another jailor. Indeed, in a section of a text already (partially) presented (SB III 7202 [Arsinoite, 227 b.c.]; at the beginning of this chapter), we see that a desmophylax might be responsible not only for supervising offenders in prisons but also for placing offenders into prisons: 36

[Ὀ]ννώφρει δεσμοφύ(λακι). ⟦ἀπεστάλκαμεν⟧ παραδεδώκαμεν Μαρρεῖ Πετέτριος τῶι ἐν Ἀρσινόηι δεσμοφύλακ[ι] ὡς καταστῆσαι εἰς [τὴ]ν ἐν Κροκοδίλων πόλει φυλ[ακὴν] [Ἀ]κμῆνιν Φανῆτος τὸν ἐγλαβόντα τὴν ζυτηρὰν Ἀρ[σινόης].

87 As the date of this document is uncertain, it is unknown to which of the first

three Ptolemies – I Soter (304–284 b.c.), II Philadelphos (285–246 b.c.), or III Euergetes (246–221 b.c.) – it was addressed. 88 On the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion (literally “prisoner place”), a type of Ptolemaic prison, see ‫ﷴ‬ Chapter 5 and Bauschatz (2007b) 15–18.

140

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

To Onnophris, desmophylax. We handed Akmenis, son of Phanes, the man who has received the beer tax for Arsinoë, over to Marres, son of Petetris, the desmophylax in Arsinoë, [36] so that he might present him at the phylake‫ ﷴ‬in Krokodilopolis.89 (34–7)

The reasons behind such transfers of prisoners are rarely spelled out, but the evidence from petitions to archiphylakitai, phrourarchoi, and others suggests that the transfer of wrongdoers was often a prelude to examination by an official in another part of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Eremophylakes were employed in border regions and occasionally (at ‫ﷴ‬ least) provided assistance to other officials in confiscating goods and arresting those engaging in illegal activities.90 This is indicated by their presence in the addressee-­lists of circulars.91 Though they are a common occurrence in land registers, the ample surviving evidence for eremophylakes sheds little light on their official duties.92 One text may be ‫ﷴ‬ an exception: an official letter that possibly concerns the stationing of eremophylakes at points in the Oxyrhynchite nome (SB X 10448 [Magdola, ‫ﷴ‬ III b.c.?]). Unfortunately, the document is too fragmentary to provide certainty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, genematophylakes had state grain ‫ﷴ‬ 93 within their occupational purview. One of their primary tasks was the transportation of grain from the fields to government threshing-­floors.94 They also issued receipts.95 Naturally, they watched over produce.96 89 On

phylakai and other types of Ptolemaic prison, see Bauschatz (2007b), especially 13–14, and Chapter 5. 90 On ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes, see above all Hennig (2003); also Wallace (1938) 272ff.; Rostovtzeff (1959) 669, 1482 n. 76; Z. Borkowski (1971); Peremans (1972); P.Aust.Herr. I 9 p. 40 and Chapter 6. 91 Circulars: P.Tebt. III.1 709.3 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); III.2 903.7 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); 904.2 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.). 92 Land registers: e.g., P.Tebt. I 63.79–87 (Kerkeosiris, 116–115 b.c.); 85.77, 106 (Tebtynis, 112 b.c.?); III.2 833.14–22 (Tebtynis, II b.c.). 93 On gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakes and the gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia, see Rostovtzeff (1906) 204ff.; (1910) 52, 81; P.Lille II 1 n. on 10; P.Mich. XVIII 769 pp99–103; P.Ryl. II 90; UPZ I pp475–9; and Chapter 6. 94 See P.Tebt. III.2 1057 (Oxyrhyncha?, 170–116 b.c.); also (?) P.Enteux. 55 (Magdola, 222 b.c.). 95 P.Gen. II 86C (Bakchias, 187 or 163 b.c.?); P.Tebt. IV 1135 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.). 96 See Chrest.Wilck. 337 (Arsinoite, 222–221 b.c.) and (?) P.Mich. XVIII 769 (Trikomia, 200 b.c.?).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

141

That they could provide security for areas in which financial wrongdoing connected to grain had been detected seems clear from a letter in which a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus wrote to an official of unknown rank and the genematophylakes concerning setting a watch (?) over a village until secu‫ﷴ‬ rity for some rent was obtained (P.Tebt. III.1 715 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]; see Chapter 6). When the need arose, genematophylakes were impressed from ‫ﷴ‬ village populations.97 Potamophylakes provided security at and around rivers.98 They were also involved to some degree in the transfer of troops, judging from a first-­century official letter in which a troop of potamophylakes (designated as “of good courage and tireless” [10: εὐθαρσεῖς… καμ]άτους]) was to send along a rear guard to a second group of officials (BGU VIII 1784  [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]). Surprisingly, potamophylakes seem to have received official notifications from time to time, as is suggested by the following report of a robbery on a ship: Ἀσφεῖ ποταμοφύ(λακι)· Λεωνίδου ναυκλήρου τοῦ Κάστορος κερκούρου καὶ Μάρωνος  [ ca. 6 ]        ἐπ’ αὐτῶι ἐπίπλου δόντων ἡμῖν ὑπ[όμνημα] ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῆι [   τοῦ] Φ[αρ]μοῦθι περὶ ὥρα[ν ca. 4 ] ὁρμοῦντος τοῦ πλοίου ἐπ[ὶ τοῦ κατ’ Ἀγκυρῶν πόλιν] ὅρμου ἐπιθεμένους τινὰ[ς ca. 17 ] [ἐπὶ τὸ προωνομ]ασμένον πλ[οῖον ca. 15 ] [  ]τ [ ca. 40 ] ὠιχῆσθαι ἔχον[τ]ας λα   ε [ ca. 15 ] \ὧν εἶναι τὴν διατίμησιν εἰς χα(λκοῦ) (τάλαντα) κδ [ ca. ? ]/ με[  ]  [  ]    [  ] ου κατακαῦ[σαι (?) ca. ? ] 12   [    ]  \ / (γίνονται) (τάλαντα) λ [ ca. 25 ] των    ν[  ]   [ ca. 15 ἀποκατα-­] στάσεως τῆς λείας, τοῦ δὲ τοιούτο[υ οὐδὲ] μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος γεγενημένου τό τε πλοῖον 16 ἐφορμεῖ ⟦οὐ [δ]υνάμενον    ⟧ ⟦ἐκρίναμεν⟧ \τῶν ναυτικῶν προφερομένων μὴ ἂν δύνασ-­ 4 8

97 P.Mich. I 73 (Philadelphia, III ­b.c.). 98 On potamophylakes, see Lewis (1977) 152–3; also Chapter 6. Guarding fords:

BGU XIV 2368 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

142

16a θαι καταπλεῦσαι (?) [ἐξ] Ἀγκυρῶν πόλεως        κω  16b κλαπέντ   [ ca. ? ]/ πάλιν δια    [  ]      ε  κ       φροντίσαι 18 [ ca. 15 ] άζω To Aspheus, potamophylax. Leonidas, naukleros ‫ ﷴ‬of Kastor’s boat, and Maron, …, [4] epiplous on it, submitted to us a report:99 on the [ – – ] of Pharmouthi, around the [ – – ] hour, while the ship was at anchor in the harbor of Ankyron Polis, certain individuals set [8] upon the aforementioned ship … and left with … the value of which is 24 (?) talents of bronze … and they burned (?) … [12] a total of 30 [+ x] talents. … the return of the stolen goods; but as this has not happened up to the present time, the ship [16] is still at anchor, with the sailors claiming that they are unable to sail down (?) from Ankyron Polis … stolen … again … to take care. … (P.Heid. IX 428.2–18 [Herakleopolis, 158 b.c.])

The document’s poor state of preservation is unfortunate, because it leaves unclear precisely what the potamophylax was asked to do about the robbery. Nevertheless, like the petition from the nauphylax discussed earlier in this chapter (P.Tebt. III.1 802  [Tebtynis, 135 b.c.]), the letter to Aspheus underlines how dangerous river travel was under the Ptolemies, and the necessity of having guards available to provide protection.100 The‫ﷴ‬saurophylakes protected public and private granaries.101 The following text highlights some of the activities of the latter type of thesaurophylax: ‫ﷴ‬

[Ζήνω]νι χαίρειν Σομοῆλ[ις φύλ]αξ ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας. κατεσπάρκα-­ [μεν τὴ]ν τηνεῖ Ἀμανδε [     ] ὑπάρχου\σιν/ οὖν σοι παρ’ ἐμοῦ πυ(ροῦ) ἀρτ(άβαι) κ

99 Naukleroi

‫( ﷴ‬literally “men assigned to ships”): P.Heid. IX 428, pp68–9 n. on 2; epiploi: Chapter 2, note 15. 100 We return to the issue of state protection of river-­farers in Chapter 6. 101 On thesaurophylakes, see Calderini (1924); also see Chapter  6. Public ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakes: e.g., P.Tebt. III.2 848.1–3 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); 862.1 ‫ﷴ‬ (Letopolis, II b.c.); 957.11 (Tebtynis, II b.c.); private thesaurophylakes: ‫ﷴ‬ P.Cair.Zen. II 59292.155 (?) (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59509 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); and P.Princ. III 117.3–5 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?).

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

143

[εἰς τὸ]ν σπόρον. ἀναφέρω [δέ σοι ταῦ]τα· καὶ μὴ ἀδικηθῶ ὑπὸ Ἐτεάρχου 4 [μήτε] κατὰ τοῦτο μήτε [κατ’ ἄ]λλο μηθέν. ἐπέκλα[σεν γάρ] μου [    ] ον ἀνγαρεύων δι[ὰ παντός. καλῶς ἂν οὖ]ν [ποιήσαις γρά]ψας [μοι ἐ]πιστολὴν πρὸς αὐ[τόν, ἵνα] πρόνοιαν ἡ[μ]ῶν ποιῆτα[ι ­καὶ] [μὴ] ἀδικώμεθα. δύνα[μα]ι δέ σοι καὶ συναγοράσαι κρ(ιθῆς) ἀρτ(άβας) Α 8 [παρ]ὰ τῶν ἱππέ{ι}ων, π[α]ρὰ δὲ γεωργοῦ οὐθενός, ἵνα μηθεὶς [ἀντι]λέγηι. καὶ εἰ δυνατ[όν ἐστι]ν, προσκατασκεύασον θησαυρόν· [ὁ γὰρ ὑ]πάρχων οὐχ ἱκαν[ός ἐστι] χωρεῖν τὸν σῖτον τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν [τοῦ]τον. φυλάσσω δὲ καὶ τ[ὸν] τηνεῖ θησαυρὸν λαμβάνων οὐθέν, 12 [οἱ δ]ὲ ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας δίδ[ουσ]ίμ μοι πυ(ροῦ) ἀρτ(άβας) α (ἥμισυ). οὐχ ἱκανὸν οὖν [ἐστ]ιν οὐδὲ τὰ παιδάρια [διαβό]σκειν, εἰ μὴ αὐτός τι προσεργάζο-­ [μαι]. εὐτύχει.

To Zenon, greetings, Somoelis, phylax from Philadelphia.102 We have sown the [land?] of Amand[ – – ]. There belongs to you from me 20 artabas of grain for seed. I am sending these up to you; and let no wrong be done by Etearchos, [4] with regard to this or anything else. For he has worn me down … pressing me into service for everything. Therefore, you would do well to write a letter to him for me, so that he may know about us in advance, and we may not be wronged. And I am able, also, to buy up for you 1,000 artabas of barley [8] from the hippeis, but not from any farmer, so that no one may disagree (?).103 And if it is possible, get ready in advance another granary. For the one you have is not sufficient to contain the 102 Though

Somoelis does not call himself a thesaurophylax, the fact that he ‫ﷴ‬ is a phylax who guards a thesauros (granary) makes the identification all ‫ﷴ‬ but certain. 103 On the Ptolemaic cavalry (hippeis literally = “horsemen”), see Chapter  4, note 38.

144

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

grain from this year. I am guarding the granary here, though I get nothing, [12] but those from Philadelphia are giving me 1.5 artabas of grain. This, however, is not enough to feed my children, if I don’t get something in addition. Farewell. (P.Cair.Zen. III 59509 [Philadelphia, III b.c.])

Here, the thesaurophylax not only performs the basic function of protect‫ﷴ‬ ing his employer’s granary but also attends to additional agricultural tasks. Somoelis seems to be having a difficult time of things, not least of all because he is not being paid. Indeed, one can imagine that the work of a thesaurophylax would have been difficult at times, especially ‫ﷴ‬ during harvest season when granaries were filling up. Other texts make clear that thesaurophylakes received, transmitted, and returned grain and ‫ﷴ‬ issued receipts.104 There was a tax for the support of Ptolemaic granaries, the thesaurophylakikon (sometimes thesaurophylakitikon), which was ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 105 perhaps used (in part) to pay the salaries of state thesaurophylakes. ‫ﷴ‬ Though not as crucial as the phylakitai for the day-­to-­day maintenance of law and order in the Ptolemaic kingdom, professional security guards ( phylakes) nevertheless played important roles in the policing of the Egyptian countryside, roles that often included duties sometimes assigned to phylakitai. These officials were entrusted with the protection of government infrastructure and finances, the transportation of state manpower, and the defense of the Egyptian population  – tasks that were all, to varying degrees, within the administrative sphere of phylakitai. Though their duties were generally those of low-­level 104 See

P.Tebt. III.2 957 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), where a thesaurophylax accepts some ‫ﷴ‬ grain and tenders a receipt confirming its storage; also P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), the complaint already noted concerning a private thesaurophylax who had become involved in a dispute over return‫ﷴ‬ ing some grain. 105 Thesaurophylakikon/the saurophylakitikon: e.g., P.Tebt. I 72.321 (Kerkeosiris, ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 113 b.c.); 89.39 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.); 94.3, 10, 13 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.). In one additional text, thesaurophylakes may have been responsible for channel‫ﷴ‬ ing government funds from the registration and taxation of slaves toward a project honoring the king (SB VI 8993  [Oxyrhynchite?, 176–175 b.c.]). Yet the text is so heavily restored  – and the suggested function of the thesaurophylakes, also restored, unparalleled  – as to be safely dismissed as ‫ﷴ‬ not providing any firm evidence for the function of thesaurophylakes. On the ‫ﷴ‬ problems with the restoration of this document, since reprinted as C.Ptol. Sklav. I 8, see C.Ptol.Sklav. I pp53–7.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

145

subordinates, some of these same officers were occasionally involved in the arrest of wrongdoers, confiscation of goods, and the like. The most important distinction to draw between phylakes and phylakitai seems to be one of autonomy: more often than not, men designated as phylakes of one sort or another were the recipients of instructions or the performers of basic security tasks. They rarely seem to have taken initiative in law enforcement matters. The supporting parts they played in the defense of Greek Egypt were their most important roles. Other ­Officials In addition to phrourarchoi and phylakes, other military men sometimes had police functions. For instance, the machimoi (literally “fighting men”), a military division composed primarily of native Egyptian troops, sometimes served as armed attendants on government officials.106 They seem to have occasionally received government circulars and may have been empowered to make arrests.107 It also seems clear that machimoi were occasionally co-­opted by phylakitai to help carry out local police work. This is suggested by a fragmentary letter to Zenon, in which the writer refers to a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬who had been seized and thrown in prison along with the machimos who had been making the rounds with him.108 The machimoi had their own supervisory officials: archimachimoi (chief machimoi).109 Though very little is known about these officials, it is clear 106 E.g., P.Tebt. I 116 verso.57–9 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.); 121.34–5 (Arsinoite, 94

or 61 b.c.); V 1151.81–2 (Kerkeosiris 112 b.c.). Scholarship on the machi­ moi is extensive. See Goudriaan (1988) 121–55 and Oates (1994) as well as P.Yale I pp86–90, where an especially detailed account of the attestations for, duties of, and previous scholarship on machimoi is given. See also, e.g., Winnicki (1985) 48–52; CPR XVIII pp103–4; and P.Count II p. 173. 107 Circulars: P.Tebt. III.2 903 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); arrests (?): SB I 4369 (Arsinoite, III b.c.). 108 PSI IV 353.12–14 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.): συναρπά[ζε]ι τὸν φυλακίτην    [ ]        [   ]|μ [             αὐ]τὸν ἐν τῶι δεσμωτηρίωι καὶ τὸν μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ συμπο|ρευόμενον [μάχι]μον. On desmot‫ ﷳ‬eria ‫ ﷴ‬and other types of Ptolemaic prisons, see Bauschatz (2007b), especially 15–18, and Chapter 5. 109 Archimachimoi: P.Tebt. I 120.127–8 (Tebtynis, 97 or 64 b.c.); V 1151.86 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.); SB XVI 12375.26, 110 (Arsinoite?, ca. 180 b.c.); 12468.24–5 (? [Arsinoite?], III b.c.).

146

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

from the following text that they might receive appeals for aid and were at least thought to have police powers. fragment 1 – – – – – – – – – –   ος γεωργοῦ βασιλικοῦ ἐκ Καρανίδος. ἐμοῦ ἀνα-­ φέροντος ἀρτίδια ἐπ’ ὄνου 4 εἰς Κροκοδείλων Πόλιν συνε-­ χομένωι τινι ἐν τῆι φυλα-­ κῆι καὶ τῶν ­ἀρτιδίων ἐνόντων ἐν μωίοις καὶ 8 κριθῶν χοινίκων τετά-­ ρων ἵνα ἔχηι ἡ ὄνος τὰ δέ-­ οντα ἀπαντήσας μοι Ἁθῶρις ὁ φυλακίτης 12 τοῦ Φρεμιθιείου ἀφείλε-­ τό μου τὴν ὄνον ἐπισε-­ σαγμένην καὶ ἐπικει-­ μένων τῶν τε μωίων 16 τῶν ἄρτων καὶ σάκκου στιππυίνου. ἐγὼ δὲ ἀνεχώρησα μὴ προσαπα-­ χθῶ ἕνεκεν κριθῶν (τετραχοινίκων). 20 [ ca. 3–4 ]ταθέντων δὲ ἐπι  [ ca. ? ] [    ]των ἔδωκα σοὶ ὑπό-­ μνημα περὶ τῆς ὄνου πρὸς ὃ οὐκ ἀνεκλήθην. 24 ὅθεν ἐνέτυχον Ἀγχώφει τῶι ἀρχιμαχίμωι σου κατὰ τοῦ προγεγραμμένου φυλακίτου ὅτι ἔχει μου 28 τὸν σάκκον καὶ τοὺς – – – – – – – – – – fragment 2 (recto) – – – – – – – – – – [  ] [ ca. ? ]

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

147

μον ἐξεκομίσατο [ca ? ] του τὸν σάκκον ἐμ[οῦ δὲ (?)] 32 ἀπαιτοῦντος αὐτὸν ᾔτησέ με τριώβολον κα[ὶ ca. ? ] [ ca. ? ] τως   [ ca. ? ] 36 το[ ca. ? ] – – – – – – – – – – fragment 2 (verso) – – – – – – – – – – πεπρακ[ ca. ? ] ἀξιῶ σὲ συντ[άξαι γράψαι] Ἀγχώφει ἀποδ[οῦν]αί 40 μοι τὸν σάκκον κ[α]ὶ τὴ[ν] σαγὴν τῆς ὄνου καὶ [ ca. ? ] τὰ μωία vac [ ca. ? ] – – – – – – – – – – [To X, greetings, from Y], royal farmer from Karanis. While I was bringing food on my donkey [4] to Krokodilopolis for someone being detained in the phylake110 ‫ ﷴ‬ – the food stored in jars/boxes, as well as [8] four choinikes of barley, so that the donkey might have what she needed111 – Hathoris, phylakites,‫[ ﷴ‬12] son of Phremithieios, met with me and took away from my laden donkey the jars/boxes [16] of food and a sack made of tow.112 And I ran away, so that I might not be hauled off for the sake of four choinikes of barley. [20] And with the … having been …, I gave you a petition concerning the donkey, (a petition) for which I did not receive a summons. [24] When I appealed to Anchophis, your archimachimos,113 against the aforementioned phylakites,‫ﷴ‬ (saying) that he had [28] my sack and the … he received … my sack, and when I [32] asked (for it from?) him, he asked me for three obols and. … [38] I ask, then, that you please write Anchophis to give [40] me back my sack and the donkey’s pack-­saddle and the [ – – ] and the boxes/jars. … (SB XVI 12468 [? (Arsinoite?), III b.c.]) 110 Phylakai: Bauschatz (2007b) 13–14 and Chapter ­5. 111 A choinix was a dry measure equivalent to approximately

.98 liters: Pestman (1990) 49. On weights and measures in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Chapter 4, note 45. 112 Hathoris occurs only here. 113 Anchopis also occurs only here.

148

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Here we have what appears to be a fairly straightforward case of illegal confiscation of property followed by an attempt at recovery. Yet a few details are unusual. The petitioner depicts the seizure by the phylakites‫ﷴ‬ as unjust but also notes that he ran away, a detail that he is also compelled to explain by stating that he feared that he would be arrested. While this may be true, it causes the reader to wonder about the innocence of the petitioner and the injustice of the phylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬The petitioner then made an initial complaint about the seizure to the addressee of the petition but met with no response. The petitioner seems to include this fact to highlight his diligence in contrast with the neglect of the addressee. At the same time, however, he opens the door to the possibility that his claim was groundless. He then makes a second appeal for justice, this time to the addressee’s archimachimos. But this does not do him any good, either: it appears that the archimachimos requested a payment for release of some (all?) of the confiscated goods (though the petition becomes very fragmentary here, so one cannot be certain). The petitioner sees this as injustice and asks the addressee to issue orders to the archimachimos. Again, there may have been good reason for the archimachimos to deny the petitioner’s request, but the petition’s poor state of preservation, as well as our ignorance about the administrative competencies of archimachimoi, make further certainty impossible.114 Ephodoi (literally “wayfarers”), too, appear to have had at least quasi­police duties from time to time, though their duties were by no means restricted to the realm of police work.115 Like the phylakitai, we see 114 Perhaps

the most frustrating piece of missing information in this case is the identity of the petition’s addressee. Who would have been the superior of an archimachimos? 115 The most thorough and up-­to-­date treatment of ephodoi is to be found in P.Count II pp174–5. The editors see the ephodoi as traveling police, charged primarily with “getting the show on the road (whatever that show might be), and protecting it on its journey” (174). Though the evidence for the duties of these officials is limited, the characterization seems accurate. The editors also plausibly suggest, on the basis of evidence for their payment, that ephodoi belonged to a higher social rung in the hierarchy of police than the phylakitai did (174). On ephodoi, see also P.Hal. 7 pp199–200; P.Mich. X p. 51; and P.Tebt. I 96 introduction and pp550–1.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

149

them escorting (?) letter carriers, receiving produce earmarked for government use, and collecting tax revenues.116 They are also regularly present in government records alongside phylakitai and other police officials – for example, Ptolemaic land registers and tax accounts, where they are often holders of ephodikoi kleroi, ‫“ ﷴ‬ephodos allotments” – but seem to have had a higher social status than phylakitai.117 In the realm of law enforcement, we see them providing physical assistance to those in danger (BGU VIII 1780 [Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?]), acting as bodyguards for police officers (specifically an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: P.Petr. III 128.10–12 [Arsinoite, 239 b.c.]), participating in searches for fugitives (as we saw earlier in this chapter in the letter to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from a man who had gone into flight as a result of the depredations of a corrupt ko‫ﷳ‬marches: ‫ ﷴ‬SB XX 14708 [Theadelphia, 151 b.c.]), and accompanying police officials on raids: 4 8

Πτολεμαίωι συγγενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶι παρὰ Πετερμούθιος τοῦ Πετεή-­ σιος μαχίμου ἑπταρούρου τῶν διὰ Χομήνιος, ὄντος δὲ καὶ ἠπη-­ τοῦ ἀ\να/πείρου, τῶν ἐκ Τεβτύνεως τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος, καταγινό-­ μενος δ’ ἐν Ὀξυρύγχοις τῆς αὐτῆς μερίδος. τῆι α τῶν ἐπαγομένων τοῦ Μεσορὴ τοῦ η (ἔτους) Διονυσίου τοῦ

116 Serving as escorts (?): P.Hal. 7 (Thebaid, 232 b.c.); P.Oxy. IV 710 (Oxyrhynchus,



111 b.c.); collecting agricultural goods: P.Lond. VII 2190 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.); collecting taxes: P.Rev.2 x.1–xi.3 (Arsinoite?, 259 b.c.). 117 Alongside phylakitai: e.g., BGU VI 1216.73–4 (Memphis, 110 b.c.?); XIV 2437.23–31 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.); P.Count 12.28, 148–9 (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.); with other police officials: e.g., P.Tebt. I 179 (Tebtynis, II b.c.; no line numbers given); IV 1116.91–5 (Kerkeosiris, 132–121 b.c.?); 1117.155–9 (Kerkeosiris, 119 b.c.). Ephodikoi kle‫ﷴ‬roi, e.g., P.Tebt. III.2 826.79 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 172 b.c.); 830.5 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.); IV 1140.86 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.). On the relative social statuses of phylakitai and ephodoi, see P.Count II pp167–8, especially n. 242, p. 168. Like the machi­ moi, they seem to have had superior officers (archephodoi, “chief ephodoi”): BGU VIII 1855.7–8 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.IFAO II 4.3–4 (?, 103 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 90.i.1 (Tebtynis, I b.c.).

150

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

τῆς μερίδος ἀρχιφυλακίτου παραγε-­ νηθέντος εἰς τὴν κώμην 12a ⟦Ἀκουσιλάωι καὶ⟧ Δημητρίωι καὶ 12 σὺν ⟦τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν ἐφόδοις⟧ καὶ ἐπελ-­ θὼν \ἐ/πὶ τὸ ἐργαστήριόν μου καὶ 13a Ἀπολλωνίωι εἰσαγγελεῖ καὶ Τεῶτι καὶ 14a Νεκθενίβει καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφόδοις ἐπιλαβόμενός μου ἤγαγάν με διὰ τῆς κώμης μετὰ τοῦ ­παντὸς 16 σκυλμοῦ καὶ ὕβρεως καὶ πληγῶν 17a ⟦    ⟧ μέχρι μέσης τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς πόλεως κοὐ πρότερον ἀπέλυσάν με πρὶν ⟦πρότερόν με⟧ διέσεισάν με ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) δ 20 καὶ χαλκοῦ (δραχμὰς) Ατ, καὶ συνεινάγ-­ κασαν Πνεφερῶν Ὥρου ἕτερον 22a ⟦ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ⟧ μάχιμον θέσθαι ⟦ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ⟧ ⟦χειρ   ραλη εω    ⟧ 24a ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ 24 αὐτῶι εἰς Ἄρειον τὸν τῆς μερίδος ἐπισπουδαστὴν πιττάκιον ἐπὶ τράπεζαν ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμῶν) μδ, καὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Ἄρειον προσεγδέξα-­ 28 σθαι αὐτῶι τὰς προκειμένας 29a προσ⟦εκσκύλαντες τὸ ἐργαστήριόν μο[υ]⟧ ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) μδ, κατεγνωκὼς ἐπὶ τῶι 30a ἀπενεγκάμενοι ἃ εἶχον ἐγδόσιμα ἱμά(τια) ἀβοήθητόν με εἶναι καὶ ἀνά-­ πειρον, ἀξιῶ μὴ ὑπεριδεῖν 32 με ἀλλ’, ἐὰν φαίνηται μὴ παρ-­ οραθῆναι, συντάξαι συμπέμψαι [ ca. ? ]ε    [ ca. ? ] [2–3 lines lost] upper margin: τούτου δὲ γενομένου ἔσομαι διὰ σὲ βεβοηθημένος. (ἔτους) η Μεσο(ρὴ) ἐπαγο(μένων) α. εὐτύχει.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

151

To Ptolemaios, syngene‫ﷴ‬s and strate‫ﷴ‬gos,118 from Petermouthis, son of Peteësis, 7-­aroura machimos of those [4] under Chomenis, also a crippled cobbler of those from Tebtynis of the Polemon meris, but living in Oxyrhyncha of the same [8] meris. On the first of the intercalary days of Mesore, year 8, Dionysios, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the meris,119 arriving in the village and entering my workshop [12a] with Demetrios, and Apollonios the eisangeleus,120 and Teos and Nechthenibis and other ephodoi, seized me and led me through the village, with every form [16] of mistreatment and insolence and blows, up to the middle street of the city.121 And they did not release me before shaking me down for 4 silver drachmas [20] and 1,300 bronze drachmas; and they forced Pnepheros, son of Horos, another machimos, to place at the bank [24a] in my name for him [i.e., Dionysios] a promissory note payable to Areios, epispoudastes‫ ﷴ‬of the meris,122 for 44 silver drachmas; and in addition they forced this same Areios to accept [28] the aforementioned 44 silver drachmas from him [i.e., Dionysios], disdaining me because I am helpless and crippled. And they also carried off the clothes I was wearing. I ask that you not overlook [32] me, but if it does not seem improper, please send … [upper margin] And if this takes place, I shall receive succor from you. Year 8, Mesore intercalary day 1.123 Farewell. (P.Coll.Youtie I 16 [Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?])

In the raid, an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬joined forces with some ephodoi, a court official (the eisangeleus), and an official potentially from yet another sphere of government (Demetrios) to apprehend a cobbler. The target of 118 Ptolemaios:

likely to be identified with Ptolemais, strategos ‫ ﷴ‬of the Arsinoite nome, Pros.Ptol. 318; see P.Coll.Youtie I pp153–4. The appellation syngenes‫ﷴ‬ (companion) was a Ptolemaic court title. 119 Dionysios appears only ­here. 120 Eisangeleis (literally “announcers”) were subordinates of officials who possibly served as ushers: P.Tebt. V introduction, p. 29; also P.Freib. IV p. 24 n. on 28–9 and the bibliography cited there. 121 The word I translate as “insolence” here – hybris – could also have a more formal, legal meaning: see Chapter  4, note 2. It is uncertain whether Petermouthis meant to suggest a possible charge of hybris against the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his associates, or simply that his behavior had been outrageous. 122 The epispoudastes‫( ﷴ‬literally “the man who makes haste”) was a grain transport official: see P.Köln. VIII 346, n. on 5–7 (p. 124) for attestations, and Henne (1933) 383–6 with the comments of Clarysse (1976) 194. 123 On the Ptolemaic financial calendar, see note 17. On the Macedonian/ Egyptian calendar in general, Chapter 2, note 81.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

152

the raid depicts the raid as abusive and the size of the posse of officials as completely out of proportion with what was required to arrest someone who was “helpless and crippled.” On the other hand, the large number of officials involved here could suggest that the raid was a serious piece of police business and that a certain degree of resistance from the target was expected. Also, we see in what follows after the raid that coercion had to be applied to at least two other men to make and accept some payments, so perhaps the size of the group was justified after all. As we just saw, ephodoi seem to have had itinerant investigative duties. Another group of Ptolemaic police officials may have had a similar charge: pho‫ﷳ‬res. These officials appear in only a handful of texts, and consequently their duties are not well understood.124 Nor is it certain that they should be considered military men, or even that the term pho‫ﷳ‬r can be safely assumed to sometimes have the meaning “investigator” as opposed to “thief.”125 Nevertheless, it seems relatively clear that there did exist officials with this title who performed tasks fundamental to effective law enforcement, chiefly searches for stolen items. One text, containing a series of regulations on police searches, suggests the existence of a basilikos (royal) pho‫ﷳ‬r who was at least occasionally charged with the task of conducting searches (P.Hib. II 198.102–3 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]; see Chapter 5).126 Though this official is not otherwise 124 Phores

appear in the following three texts: P.Count 14.20 (Arsinoite?, III P.Hib. II 198.103 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.); and SB VI 9215.14 (Oxyrhynchus, 250 b.c.). 125 Indeed, the latter meaning is the standard one: cf. LSJ, “φώρ.” See also Herodotus 2.121.β2; γ1; ε1, 2, 3, 5; and ζ2, where two thieves (phor‫ ﷳ‬es) repeatedly plunder the treasure chamber of king Rhampsinitos; Diodorus 1.80, where there is mention of a law among the Egyptians that thieves (kleptai) had to register with the archiphor‫( ﷳ‬chief phor‫ ) ﷳ‬in order to take up the profession; and PSI XIII 1317 (Thinite, 118 b.c.), a petition to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in which the petitioner perhaps notes that a subordinate had been sent to him to conduct a search for a thief (14–5: ἐπ᾽ ἀναζήτησιν τοῦ | [φωρ]ός). 126 For further discussion of P.Hib. II 198, see Chapters 4, 5, and 6. The text of P.Hib. II 198.102–3 is disputed. Bagnall (1969) 92 suggests that the printed text, ἔ[ρε]υναν ποιείσθωσαν παραλαβόν[τες ca. ? ] | ἐπ[ισ]τάτου καὶ τὸν φῶρα τὸν βασ[ιλικόν ca. ? ], does not allow for certainty about whether a royal investigator or a thief from the crown is meant, chiefly because he does not have full confidence in the accuracy of the supplement βασ[ιλικόν]. ‫ﷳ‬

b.c.);

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

153

attested, it is certain that a man could have the profession of pho‫ﷳ‬r under the Ptolemies: a third-­century list of occupations records nine phor‫ ﷳ‬es (P.Count 14.20 [Arsinoite?, III b.c.]), and in an official letter, also from the third century, the basilikoi grammateis, the official with the title ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, the pho‫ﷳ‬res, and others (lost in lacuna) seem to have been co-­opted to help obtain timber for the construction of ships for the royal fleet (SB VI 9215 [Oxyrhynchus, 250 b.c.]). Two other texts may also allude to the activity of phor‫ ﷳ‬es: one of these, a royal proclamation from the first century, reveals that anyone discovered (φωραθείς, 8) illegally transporting grain was to be killed (C.Ord.Ptol.2 73 [Herakleopolite, 79 or 50 b.c.]). In the other, a letter to Zenon, an offender was hunted down by an unknown individual (τοῦ φωράσαντος αὐτόν, 5), perhaps a phor‫ﷳ‬ (PSI IV 483  [Philadelphia, 257 b.c.]). Finally, an unpublished document from the second century indicates that there were administrators of the pho‫ﷳ‬res, archipho‫ﷳ‬res, though the text evidently reveals nothing about their duties.127 Five texts mention mastigophoroi, “whip-­bearers.”128 Aside from the fact that they evidently provided floggings for those who had done wrong and served as attendants on officials, little is known about them.129 The text that sheds the most light on their place in the Ptolemaic policing infrastructure is an expense account in five columns, of which only a few (unnumbered) lines were printed in the original publication (P. Tebt. I 179  [Tebtynis, II b.c.]). Police officials are mentioned in connection with various costs: expenses for the lodging and entertainment (koite)‫ ﷴ‬of an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and payments to ephodoi, mastigophoroi, machimoi, and men from the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬who had apparently 127 See P.Count 14 p. 286 n. on 20 for this unpublished Milan papyrus, in which

phor‫ ﷳ‬es and archiphor‫ ﷳ‬es are mentioned, along with basilikoi grammateis and topo­ grammateis, as responsible for the successful repression of an Egyptian revolt ca. 165 b.c. 128 BGU XIV 2433.70 (Herakleopolite, ca. 150 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. I 59080.4 (Memphis, 257 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 121.58 (Arsinoite, 94 or 61 b.c.); 179 (Tebtynis, II b.c.; no line numbers given); and SB XVI 12375.7, 17, 25, 94, 101–2 and 109 (Arsinoite?, ca. 180 b.c.). 129 Providing whippings: P.Cair.Zen. I 59080.3–5 (Memphis, 257 b.c.); serving as attendants: SB XVI 12375.7, 17, 25, 94, 101–2, 109 (Arsinoite?, ca. 180 b.c.).

154

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

come because of some flocks. That all of these officials were grouped together in one section of the account and separate from officials from other spheres of government suggests that they were considered (by the account keeper, at least) as belonging to a discrete professional sphere. The professional activities of rhabdophoroi, or “ club bearers,” are likewise not well ­understood.130 They provided motivation for those performing liturgical work and perhaps served as urban or harbor security forces.131 This last function is suggested by a text in which rhabdophoroi seem to have extracted a payment from a sailor (P.Cair.Zen. IV 59753 [?, III b.c.]). Three texts suggest that rhabdophoroi might also have occasionally been co-­opted by police and other officials to assist in arrests and interrogations.132 There was also a tax to support their activities: the rhabdophorikon.133 Almost nothing is known about the posts of chersanippos, cherse­ phippos (both roughly “desert man on a horse”), and lonchophoros (spear bearer).134 Etymology suggests that the first two patrolled the desert 130 Only

four Ptolemaic texts mention rhabdophoroi for certain: P.Cair.Zen. IV 59753.73 (?, III b.c.); PSI IV 332.11 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.); SB VI 9556.iii.9, 11 (Arsinoite, 245 b.c.); and UPZ II 157.18 (Thebes, 241 b.c.). Rhabdophoroi may also appear in P.Mich. XVIII 773 (Oxyrhyncha/ Krokodilopolis, ca. 194 b.c.); 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 194–193 b.c.); and an unpublished Marburg papyrus (P. Marb. inv. 1 [Bousiris, 230 or 188 b.c.], description at Jördens [2008] 144–5). On the possible identifications, see Jördens (2008) 144–5 with P.Mich. XVIII p. 127 n. on 11–12. 131 Supervising liturgists (?): UPZ II 157.13–20 (Thebes, 241 b.c.); urban security (?): PSI IV 332.11 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.); harbor security (?): P.Cair. Zen. IV 59753.70–4 (?, III b.c.). 132 P.Mich. XVIII 773 (Oxyrhyncha/Krokodilopolis, ca. 194 b.c.) and 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 194–193 b.c.), two petitions from a goldsmith about an allegedly illegal arrest, detention, and confiscation of property by a tax farmer and an official with the title ho kata polin (the man in the city); P. Marb. inv. 1 (Bourisis, 230 or 188 b.c.; description at Jördens [2008] 144–5), an official report in which a ko‫ﷳ‬marche‫ﷴ‬s hands an offender over to an official with this same title (ho kata polin). This official was more than likely a rhabdophoros: on the possible identification, see Jördens (2008) 144–5 with P.Mich. XVIII p. 127 n. on 11–12. Ko‫ﷳ‬marchai: Chapter 2, note 90. 133 O.Bodl. I 14.2 (Thebes?, 236 b.c.); 17.2 (Thebes?, 232 b.c.). On this tax, see Muhs (2005) 41, 43, 56–7. 134 Chersanippoi appear in only two texts: PSI IV 399.1–2 (Philadelphia, III b.c.) and an unedited third-­century Petrie papyrus from Berenikis (see Pros.Ptol.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

155

with horses, and that the third carried a spear. The texts in which these officials appear do not offer much additional information. Lonchophoroi appear in six texts, though only one hints at the potential police powers of this office. In this document, an official letter, a lonchophoros seems to have been empowered to present someone at trial (BGU VIII 1778 [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]). The evidence is similarly thin for the post of chersanippos. The one published text that mentions this official, a petition to the king, suggests that a chersanippos could deliver an individual to another official (PSI IV 399 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]). The evidence for chersephippoi consists exclusively of entries in tax records and land surveys; hence all hypotheses about the duties of these officials must center around their title. Significantly more data survives for a final group of armed quasi­police officials, the machairophoroi (sword-­bearers).135 The post designated an agent who served as an armed attendant for an official.136 We see machairophoroi providing muscle in a pinch: in one instance, a machai­ rophoros was the suggested tool for the extraction of a pilfered donkey, as noted earlier (P.Hib. I 73 [Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.]).137 They also 4827b). Chersephippoi appear in ten documents, all from Kerkeosiris, all from the second century: P.Tebt. I 60.21 (117 b.c.); 62.34 (119–118 b.c.); 63.36–7 (116–115 b.c.); 64.18 (115 b.c.); 84.174–5, 181–2 (118 b.c.); 89.63, 67 (113 b.c.); IV 1110.39–40 (115 b.c.); 1114.12–14 (113–112 b.c.); 1116.91–2 (132–121 b.c.?); and 1118.148–9 (117 b.c.). See Hennig (2003) 145–65; also P.Tebt. I pp550–1. Lonchophoroi: BGU VIII 1778.1–2 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 838.7–8 (Tebtynis, 139 b.c.); 986.5 (Herakleopolite, 139 b.c.); 988.4–5 (Herakleopolite, 139 b.c.); 992 (Herakleopolite?, 139 b.c.; no line numbers given); and I.Prose 38.5–6 (Euhemeria, 69 b.c.). The designation may have been a title (cf. machairophoros). 135 See, e.g., Jouguet (1896) 188–9; Meyer (1900) 95; Wenger (1903) 505 n. 3; Strack (1906) 129–30; Harper (1934); Mitford (1939) 24, 36; and Oertel (1965) 412. 136 For the king: BGU IV 1190.2–4 (Herakleopolite, after 80 b.c.); for the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s: ‫ ﷴ‬e.g., BGU XVIII.1 2737.13–14 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.); 2738.14– 16 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.); SB V 8754.19–20 (Herakleopolite?, 77 or 48 b.c.?); for the strategos: BGU VIII 1780.13–14 (Herakleopolite, 57 or ‫ﷴ‬ 50 b.c.?); P.Tebt. I 105.1–2, 11–12 (Kerkeosiris, 103 b.c.); for the basilikos grammateus (?): P.Tebt. V 1151.85 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.); for the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches: ‫ﷴ‬ P.Tebt. I 251 (Arsinoite, I b.c.; no line numbers given). 137 See also BGU VIII 1780 (Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?).

156

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

assisted in making arrests and presenting individuals before officials.138 Machairophoroi could transport goods (P.Ross.Georg. II 10  [Pathyris, 88 b.c.]), act as security guards (P.Tebt. III.2 962 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]), and see to it that government regulations were followed (P.Tebt. I 35 [Arsinoite, 111 b.c.]). They evidently had a certain degree of organization in their ranks: they had their own chief officers and even priests.139 Finally, a word here about the men called “Arabs” (Ἄραβες) in the sources, who seem to have had a decidedly police function from time to time, judging from the limited evidence for their law enforcement activities.140 The best evidence for these activities is provided by a fragmentary official report in which some epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n assisted in transferring a contingent of Arabs, who were then forced to keep watch over a mountain pass (P.Tebt. III.1 736 [Tebtynis, 143 b.c.]). Though a few texts refer to individual Arabs or small groups of Arabs being sent to various places or officials, the functions filled by these men are generally left unclear.141 Additional evidence for Arabs playing protective roles is revealed by two documents that pair phylakitai with Arabs (P. Cair.Zen. II 59296.7–11, 22–4 [Arsinoite, 250 b.c.]) and describe them as guards of threshing floors (P.Cair.Zen. IV 59745.84–9 [Philadelphia?, 255–254 b.c.]). At least some Arabs seem to have served as archers, arabotoxotai.142 We see, too, that Arabs, like phylakitai and ephodoi, could 138 P.Louvre II 98.5–8 (?, 157 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 39 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.). 139 Prostates machairophoron (man [put] in charge of the machairophoroi):

SB ‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ I 624.2–3 (Arsinoite, 323–30 b.c.?); hiereus machairophoron‫( ﷳ‬priest of the machairophoroi): SB I 624.2–3 (Arsinoite, 323–30 b.c.?); V 8929.5–6 (Memphis, 176, 165 or 112 b.c.); archiereus machairophoron‫( ﷳ‬chief priest of the machairophoroi): BGU VIII 1770.2 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.). 140 The most recent treatment of Arabs can be found in P.Count II pp159–61, with 175–6 for their police duties; see also Altheim and Stiehl (1964) 65–79; Liesker and Tromp (1986) 87–9 (for a list of Arabs appearing in Ptolemaic papyri); and Honigman (2002). 141 Transfer of Arabs: BGU IV 1192.5–6 (Bousiris, 55 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59230.4 (Philadelphia, 253 b.c.); P.Wisc. II 78.29–32 (?) (Philadelphia, 248 b.c.). 142 Arabotoxotai (Arab archers) appear in BGU XVIII.1 2750.7, 13 (Hera­ kleopolite, 87 b.c.) and 2751.8 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.). Both texts refer to the payment of grain to 20 arabotoxotai who attend an official named Kastor.

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

157

be employed as postmen and had at least some degree of administrative hierarchy.143 As we have seen, various divisions of the Ptolemaic military occasionally had police duties throughout the time and space of Ptolemaic rule. The officials who played these law enforcement roles – from machi­ moi to Arabes  – often did so in conjunction with officials from other areas of state administration, and regularly did so alongside phylakitai. As was generally the case, in such situations the phylakitai took more active roles in tending to the business of law enforcement, while military men played important back-­up roles. The supplementary manpower of these officials was doubtless often a crucial element in assuring that crimes were prevented, malefactors caught, and justice obtained in the Ptolemaic countryside.

Conclusions

A broad spectrum of officials from different occupational backgrounds filled posts crucial to policing the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra. These officers, primarily from the civil and military administrations, had demonstrable police powers as part of their job descriptions and interacted to varying degrees with the phylakitai. In very general terms, officials from the civil administration had supervisory power over police, whereas military men provided supplementary manpower for police tasks. A wealth of documentation reveals that epistatai, strategoi, grammateis, and ‫ﷴ‬ officers charged with economic oversight could order police to make arrests, imprison wrongdoers, and hold examinations and that they could even perform police work themselves. Military officials, on the other hand, tended to take subordinate, primarily security roles when engaged in police operations: they patrolled desert regions, roads, and 143 Postmen:

PSI V 519 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.), a letter to Zenon in which Pasis, the letter’s writer, reveals that Peteminis, the Arab, had brought him both Zenon’s letter and some money for papyrus sheets; hierarchy: PSI V 538 (Philadelphia, 258–256 b.c.?), a letter to Apollonios, dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬from the dekadarchai (leaders of ten men) of the Arabs in Philadelphia, who seek the appointment of an epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬as well as some unpaid wages.

158

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

waterways and stood guard over agricultural produce at various points in its ­journey from the fields to state granaries. But they also sometimes arrested and detained those who violated financial regulations and could be called on by police supervisors to lend a hand when necessary. Cleary, the Ptolemies did not make policing the countryside the sole domain of the phylakitai. This raises the question why. If there was a sophisticated law enforcement bureaucracy already in place to tend to wrongdoing and day-­to-­day disputes in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra – the phylakitai – why did the rulers of the kingdom feel it was necessary to empower a slew of additional government men to grapple with the same problems? The answer perhaps lies in the fact that the Ptolemies, like any dynasts, were determined to maintain their grip on power, the safety of their borders, and the continued flow of revenue into their coffers. With this as the ultimate goal, the advantages inherent in empowering a vast array of government employees to arrest, confiscate, detain, prosecute, and resolve become clear. The Ptolemies expected officials from different administrative spheres to work together, and coordination was regular. A troupe of phylakitai might be ordered to make an arrest at the behest of an oikonomos who had been commanded to take action by the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬who had read about village-­level financial wrongdoing in the report of a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus. But as this makeshift example suggests, coordination was not always easy, could be slow, and, at worst, was impossible. If the sovereigns wanted action to be taken quickly and effectively, the best way to ensure this was to grant a great deal of law enforcement autonomy to as great a number of officers as possible. Why did the phylakitai wait to receive word from the oikonomos regarding a commandment from the strategos ‫ﷴ‬ who received his news at least second hand from the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus? Why not empower the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus to take action himself ? The previous two chapters have demonstrated that the Ptolemaic system of law and order benefited from a wide variety of both specialized and unskilled police labor. The system found articulation at all geographic and administrative levels, from the village to the nome, from the lowest subordinate to the provincial top brass. Officials from various professional spheres (the police proper, the civil administration, and the military) performed a full array of police duties: from making arrests to sealing homes; from protecting crops to delivering suspects;

The Officer Corps II: Civil and Military ­Police

159

from conducting raids to presiding over trials. Those Ptolemaic officials with some involvement in police work – that is, most Ptolemaic officials – were granted broad autonomy to tend to police matters. In the ensuing chapters, we examine the duties performed by the Ptolemaic police in greater detail, including closer looks at the mechanics of law enforcement on the village scale and the ins and outs of empire-­wide security, beginning with an investigation into the petitioning process.

­4 Agents of Appeal: Petitions and ­Responses

On May 5, 218 b.c., a Greek man named Herakleides made a trip into the village of Psya on personal business. While he was passing through, he had a memorable encounter with an Egyptian woman named Psenobastis.

4

βασιλεῖ Πτ[ο]λεμαίωι χαίρειν Ἡρακλείδης τῶν ἀπ’ Ἀλε[ξ]ά[νδρου νήσου, τ]ῶν κατοικού[ντων ἐν Κροκοδίλω]ν πόλει τ[οῦ Ἀρσι]-­ νοίτου νομοῦ. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ψενοβάστιος ἣ κατοικεῖ Ψυάν, τ[οῦ προγεγρα]μμένου νομοῦ. [τοῦ γ]ὰρ [ε] (ἔτους) ὡς αἱ πρόσοδ[οι], Φαμενὼθ κα, ἐπορεύθην εἰς Ψυάν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ, πρ[ὸ]ς ἰδίαν χ[ρείαν, πα]ραπορευομέν[ου δέ] μου   α αιν  επ[  ] ρα κύψασα Αἰγυπτία τις ἧι λέγεται εἶναι ὄνομα Ψενοβάστι[ς] κατέχ[ειν κατ]ὰ τῶν ἱματίων μ[ου] οὖρον ὥστε καὶ ε            καταρρυῆναι. ἀγανακτήσαντος δέ μου καὶ ἐπιτιμῶντος αὐτῆι, ἐλ[οιδόρησε]· ἐμοῦ δὲ ἀντιλοιδοροῦντος αὐτῆι        Ψενοβάστις τῆι αὑτῆς δεξιᾶι χειρὶ ἐπισπασαμένη τῆς ἀναβολῆ[ς τοῦ ἱμ]ατίου οὗ περιεβεβλήμην ἔρηξε καὶ ἐπάρασσεν ὥστε καὶ ἀπογυμνωθῆναί μου τὸ στῆθος, \καὶ ἐνέπτυσεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπόν μο[υ]/ παρόντων τινῶν οὗς ἐγὼ ἐπε[μαρτυρά]μην. ἃ δ’ ἐγκαλῶ ἔπραξεν ὑβρίζουσά με καὶ ἄρχουσα

Material in this chapter derives from the third chapter of my dissertation (Bauschatz [2005]) and served as the basis for a paper delivered at the 2008 American Philological Association annual meeting.

160

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

161

εἴς με χε{ι}ρῶν ἀδίκων. ἐπιτιμηθεῖσα δὲ ὑπό τινων τῶν παρόντων ἐφ’ οἷς αι [       ]   με, οὕτως καταλιποῦσά με ἀπηλλάγη ἔνδον, ὅθεν τὸ οὖρον κατέχεέν μου. δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλεῦ, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, [μὴ περιιδεῖν με οὕ]τως ἀλόγως ὑπὸ Αἰγυ[πτίας ὑβρισμέ]νον, Ἕλλην[α ὄν]-­ τα καὶ ξένον, ἀλλὰ προστάξαι Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι, ἐπειδ[ὴ ca. 14]  επιδει  ι ὑπὸ α[ὐτῆς (?) ca. ? ] γράψαι Σωγένει τῶι ἐπιστάτηι ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν Ψενοβάστιν ἐφ’ [αὑτὸν ὅπως διακρι]θῆι πρός [μ]ε περὶ το[ύτων καί, ἐὰν ἦι ἀληθῆ τὰ] 12 διὰ τῆς ἐντεύξεως, τύχηι ζημίας ἧς ἂν ὁ στρατηγὸς συνκρ[ίνηι. τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ, τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]-­ καίου. vac [εὐτύχει.] 8

To king Ptolemy, greetings, Herakleides, of those from Alexandrou Nesos, those living in Krokodilopolis in the Arsinoite nome. I am wronged by Psenobastis, who lives in Psya in the aforementioned nome. For in year 5, according to the financial calendar,1 Phamenoth 21, I traveled to Psya, in the same nome, on private business; and while I was passing (through/by) … [4] a certain Egyptian woman, whose name is said to be Psenobastis, leaned over and poured urine down upon my clothing, with the result that they were dripping (with urine). I was vexed and upbraided her, and she abused me; and when I told her off in return … Psenobastis, with her right hand, yanked the part of my cloak that lay upon my shoulder – the himation I was wearing – and ripped and struck it with the result that my chest was laid bare in the presence of some bystanders whom I called to witness. The things of which I accuse her she did out of hybris, and she herself put [8] her hands on me first.2 She was upbraided by some of those present for the things which she had done (?) to me, and as a result, she left me behind there and went inside, from where she had poured the urine on me. I need you, king, if it seems best to you, to not overlook me, having been treated with hybris so outrageously by an Egyptian woman – I, being a Greek and a foreigner3 – and to tell Diophanes, 1 On 2 On

the Ptolemaic financial calendar, see Chapter 3, note ­17. the charge of hybris, a delict, see above all Rupprecht (1993); also Lewis (1997b) 31–3. 3 On ethnicity and ethnic tensions in Ptolemaic Egypt, see herein note 29.

162

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

strate‫ﷴ‬gos,4 since … by her … to write to Sogenes, epistate‫ﷴ‬s,5 to send Psenobastis to him [i.e., Diophanes] so that she may appear at trial with me about these matters, and if the things presented [12] in my petition prove true, she may pay the penalty upon which the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬decides. For if this occurs, I shall find justice through you, king. Farewell. (P.Enteux. 79.1–13 [Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.])

Though we know nothing more of this case, similar petitions with surviving dockets suggest that it is likely that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬commanded the epistates‫ ﷴ‬to look into the matter, attempt a resolution, and then send the disputants to him should a trial have been deemed necessary.6 The submission of a petition to law enforcement was a determined act of self-­empowerment. Herakleides’ case, as well as those presented in the hundreds of Ptolemaic petitions that survive, illuminates a world that stands in stark contrast to much of the rest of classical antiquity. As far as we can tell from the incomplete evidence available, elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean people were often unable to gain access to government redress at the local level without difficulty.7 Those who had been wronged sometimes resorted to vigilantism, whether sanctioned by the state or not, rather than working within the framework of a government whose structures and officials could be unfamiliar or inaccessible to them.8 For the most part, the poor and uneducated were at a decided disadvantage at law: they had little defense in the face of persecution and abuse and had to rely on favors from family members or influential citizens when it came to obtaining justice.9 4 Diophanes, strategos of the Arsinoite nome (Pros.Ptol. 247 with add.), appears

‫ﷴ‬ in a number of the third-­century petitions published as P.Enteux. 5 Sogenes was epistate‫ﷴ‬s of Psya: Pros.Ptol. 717. 6 E.g., P.Enteux. 70 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); 72 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.). 7 See Todd (1993) 94–7 on the inequalities inherent in the Athenian court system and 201–31 on family relations and the position of women at law; also Carey (1997) 7–9 on the importance of citizenship for full access to the legal system. See Nippel (1995) 30–46 on self-­help and personal justice in Rome and the inherent social inequalities. 8 Vigilantism was essential to many forms of self-­help and a cornerstone of ancient justice: Chapter 1. 9 For crime and victims of crime in Greece, see, e.g., Fuks (1984); Hunter (1994); D. Cohen (1995); and Hunter and Edmondson (2000); for Rome, e.g., R. W. Davies (1968, 1977); Gregory (1983); Nippel (1995); and Lintott (1999).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

163

Ptolemaic Egypt was different. As the petitions demonstrate, people living in the towns, villages, districts, and territories of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra had regular and easy access to government redress. Petitioners spearheaded efforts to right wrongs committed against them by seeking out police officials in their vicinity. Victims of crime – or, at least, those who wrote their petitions – knew precisely whom to contact for specific forms of remediation and in many of the towns and villages in the Egyptian countryside could seek justice from any one of a number of police officers. In those cases where the official with the appropriate powers was unknown, petitioners regularly asked that the right man be contacted. While vigilante justice did occur in Ptolemaic Egypt, it did not provide the assurances and protections of a state-­sanctioned response to crime. As countless petitions reveal, the government was seen as the final arbiter for disputes and the ultimate authority for punishment and reparation. The Egyptian people, many (if not most) of them poor and uneducated, were by no means helpless. The petitions also reveal that the rulers of the kingdom considered justice in Egyptian towns and villages a high priority. The Ptolemies, with their extensive agricultural interests, had a decided interest in maintaining the well-­being of their revenue-­generating population. But they did not exert firm control over the workings of law enforcement in order to assure this. Rather, they entrusted the resolution of disputes in towns and villages to regional authorities who generally had little to no contact with the higher levels of power. The petitions demonstrate that this system, in which authority was farmed out to officials in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, operated smoothly and efficiently. Petitioners complained to neighborhood police officers about crimes committed against them. These officials then took the necessary steps to see to it that justice was served. Higher officials were involved only in cases of appeal or in those instances where breakdowns in official machinery at the town or village level occurred. Both were rare. A dynamic balance between petitioners and police ensured both groups a certain degree of empowerment but likewise kept each somewhat in check. Petitioners were aware of the importance of providing information to law enforcement officials quickly and in full and also realized that their appeals could be rejected or ignored if somehow deficient. For their part, police realized that reports of operational failures

164

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

and abuses on their watch reflected badly on them and consequently took steps to ensure that problems were thoroughly and speedily resolved.10 The heads of state had more important things to worry about than ­stolen donkeys and assaults on grandmothers. Nevertheless, when things in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra got out of hand, an appeal for justice to a nome-­level (or higher) official usually met with swift resolution. This chapter focuses on several aspects of the phenomenon of petitions to law enforcement officials in Ptolemaic Egypt. Petitions were a fast and effective way for the Egyptian people to get the attention of the police, arrange for judicial proceedings, and effect arrests, confiscations, investigations, evictions, and returns of stolen property. People from all walks of life, races, sexes, and religions wrote to the police and requested a variety of services. Various government officials received petitions. Agents with police powers were generally the officers of choice for criminal charges, but military, financial, and other officials also received complaints from victims of crime. Once received, an appeal might be forwarded repeatedly, eventually receiving an official response that was sometimes appended to its bottom. Though petitions were sometimes mishandled in the course of police processing and justice consequently miscarried, such instances were rare. In most cases, some government official would ultimately take responsibility for investigating and acting on the written claims of an alleged victim. In what follows, we examine each of the aspects of the petitioning process in greater detail. First, however, a few words about terminology. What, exactly, constitutes a “petition?” For the purposes of this study I define a petition as a letter written by a private citizen (or an official in his capacity as a private citizen) to a government agent with (perceived) power to see to the righting of certain alleged wrongs. Petitioners labeled their appeals for justice with common Greek words selected to inform petitioned officials of the contents of their complaints. Yet though there appear to have been specific genres of appeals to law enforcement, each with its own characteristics, the large amount of overlap in content suggests that it would be best to consider them as a whole. Though petitioners 10 On

police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz ­(2007c).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

165

took different routes in composing their appeals, they uniformly sought aid in solving crimes and procuring justice.11

­Why?

Let us begin our examination of the petitioning process with a consideration of why the inhabitants of Ptolemaic Egypt wrote petitions to police officers. The simple answer is that they believed (or alleged) that wrongdoing had been committed against them and wanted revenge, restitution, or some other form of justice. As is generally still true today, after any criminal activity it was the responsibility of the injured party to contact local law enforcement, make an official report of the incident, provide relevant details, and start the wheels of justice rolling. In Ptolemaic Egypt these steps were combined in an epistolary appeals procedure. Victims of abuse sought out a scribe, told their stories, and sped their written accounts and requests for action to a village police official (an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬or epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬for instance) or higher (generally nome­level) authority (the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬or even the king). Once they had been received by the addressee’s office, petitions were read, sometimes cataloged or copied, and often forwarded to other officials for further processing. After an administrator had reached a decision, the police took action. In many cases, the official response to an appeal was recorded at the bottom of the document. Though certainly not on a par with the 911 telephone alert system, the procedure appears to have been surprisingly fast.12 It allowed petitioners to present the details of 11 The

subject of Ptolemaic petitions has received a good deal of scholarly attention. See especially Hombert and Préaux (1942); di Bitonto Kasser (1967, 1968, 1976); and Parca (1985); also Semeka (1913) 1:277; Berneker (1930) 11–76; Wolff (1970) 163, 175 n. 58; P.Enteux. pp. xxii–xcii; P.Hib. II 198 pp96–7 n. on iv.52–84; P.Köln V 216 pp107–11; VI 272 pp213–14; P.Lille I 6 pp56–7; and P.Yale I 53 pp156–61. 12 It is easy to forget that for most of recorded history mankind has been without a means for immediately alerting local authorities of law enforcement issues. The United Kingdom was the first nation to implement a telephone alert system for emergencies (the 999 alert system), but only as recently as 1937.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

166

offenses in a thorough fashion and permitted the police to carry out efficient investigations into wrongdoing. The offenses that petitioners detailed in their letters to law enforcement included assaults on person, property, and individual rights. Victims complained about theft, personal violence, breaking and entering, destruction of property, wrongful confiscation, extortion, illegal habitation of property, and wrongful arrest or imprisonment.13 But as crimes are very rarely characterized by single offenses, petitions regularly contained multiple complaints. In one especially detailed example, two men forwarded to a phrourarchos a petition about a series of assaults. 4

Διοσκ[ουρίδει] ἡγεμόνι καὶ φρουράρχωι παρὰ Ἀρ[τεμιδώρ]ου καὶ Πρωτάρχου τῶν Ἀρτεμιδώρου Δωριέων οὗ ἐπιδ[εδώκ]αμεν ὑπομνήματος Τήρῃ τῶν φίλων καὶ στρα-­ τηγῶι ὑπ[όκε]ιται τὸ ἀντίγραφον. ἀξιοῦμεν οὖν καὶ σὲ προνο{ι}ηθῆναι περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῶι δεδηλομένων· τούτου γὰρ γενομένου τευξόμεθα φιλανθρωπίας. εὐτύχει. Τήρηι τῶν φίλων καὶ στρατηγῶι

A scholarly treatment of the development of such alert systems around the world is lacking. A detailed timeline of the steps in the development of the 911 emergency contact system in the United States (implemented for the first time in 1968) can be found at http://www.911dispatch.com/911/history/. 13 Theft: e.g., BGU VI 1254 (Arsinoite, 154 or 143 b.c.?); VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256 b.c.); personal violence: e.g., P.Enteux. 72 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 39 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.); breaking and entering: e.g., BGU III 1007 (?, 243 or 218 b.c.); VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); UPZ I 5 (Memphis, 163 b.c.); destruction of property: e.g., P.Enteux. 60 (Kaminoi, 218 b.c.); P.Mich. XV 688 (Soknopaiou Nesos, II/I b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 802 (Tebtynis, 135 b.c.); wrongful confiscation: e.g., BGU III 1012 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.); VIII 1836 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.); P.Enteux. 83 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); extortion: e.g., P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?); P.Hib. II 238 (?) (Oxyrhynchite?, 246–221 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 786 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.); illegal habitation: e.g., BGU III 1006 (?, III b.c.); VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 11 (Thebes?, 119 b.c.); wrongful arrest/imprisonment: e.g., P.Petr. II 19 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 777 (Tebtynis, II b.c.); SB I 4309 (Arsinoite, III b.c.?).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

167

παρὰ Ἀρτεμιδώρου καὶ Πρωτάρχου τῶν Ἀρτεμιδώρου Δωριέων. τῆι ς Φαῶφι τοῦ λς (ἔτους) διαπορευομένων ἡμῶν τὴν ἀ-­ φ’ Ἡρακλέους πόλιν ἐπὶ τὸν ὅρμου ὁδὸν σὺν ἄλλοις ὁπηνίκα ἐγενόμεθα κατὰ τὴν πύλην τὴν φίρουσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ φρουρίου εἰς τὴν Ἡρακλέους, ἐπικαθήμενός τις πορείωι οὗ τὸ ὄνομα ἀγνομεν ἐνέσεισεν τῶι ἑνὶ [ἡ]μῶν Ἀρτεμιδώρωι ­ἐπίτηδες, ὡς ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν εὐλόγων θεορῆσαι, τοῦ γὰρ Ἀρτεμιδώρου ἐπιτιμήσαντος αὐτῶι καὶ γενηθέντων ἡμῶν ἐντὸς τῆς πύλης τοῦ ὀχυρώματος Κόσων τις καὶ Θυμολέων καὶ ἄλλοι ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἀγνοοῦν ἐπιθέμενοι ἡμῖν καὶ τῶι συνακολουθοῦντι ἡμῖν Ἀνδρονίκωι μεθύοντες ἐμαστί⟨γ⟩ουν. ἔνοι μὲν ἐνσείοντες πλ{ε}ίνθους καὶ χάλικας, ἕτεροι δὲ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν χερσ{ε}ὶ καὶ τοῖς σκέ-­ λεσιν, ἄλλοι δὲ ἔδακνον. ἐγ δὲ τοῦ τοιούτου κινδυνευόντων ἡμῶν καὶ ἐπικαλουμένων βοηθοὺς καί τινων διὰ τὸν θόρυβον ἐπιπαραγενηθέντων καὶ βοηθησάντων τῆς τε τοῦ Κόσωνα ὄντες καὶ Θυμολέτος ἀγωγῆς ἐπὶ τὸν φρούραρχον γενομένης ἐπεκπηδήσασα Ἀμμωνία τίς τινα μὲν ὧν περιεβεβλήμεθα ἱματίων κατακίσατο, ἐν δὲ τῶι θορύβωι καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἀνδρονίκου ἱμάτιον ἀπηλλάγη ἔχουσα. οἱ δὲ σὺν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Κόσωνα ὄντες εἰς φυγὴν ὥρμησαν. μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τοὺς διασαφουμένους Ἐπιμάχωι τῶι παρὰ τοῦ φρουράρχου ἐπιπαραγενηθέντες Νικόδημός τις καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης καὶ ἄλλοι πλείονες ὡσαύτως μεθύοντες καὶ ἀκούσαντες ἔνδον εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰσ{ιδ}εβιάζοντο ἀλο γ  ῆ σαι  ἡμᾶ  ς  βουλόμ ενοι, τῶν δὲ δι τὸν θόρυβον ἐπισυναχθέν-­ των ἐπιτιμησάντων αὐτοῖς καὶ καταστησάντων ἡμᾶς εἰς οἶκον οὕτως ἀπηλλάγησαν. αὐτοὶ δὲ τῶι ζῆν κεκινδυνευκότες καὶ καθυπονοοῦντες τὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως εἰς ἡμᾶς συντετε-­ λέσθαι ὑπὸ Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Ἡερακλείδου Ἀμμωνιέως χάριν τῆς ἐνεστώσης τῶι ἑνὶ ἡμῶν Πρωτάρχωι ἐπὶ Νικάνορος καὶ Ἀρχιάνακτος πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ Χρυσοῦν καὶ τὸν μεμοιχευκ[ό]τα αὐτὴν Ἀπολλώ\νι/ον τὸν προγεγραμμένον ἐπισκέψιν κοὐ δυνάμενοι ἐπὶ τῶν

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

168 40 44 48

τόπων τὸν πρὸς αὐτοὺς λόγον συν-­ στήσεσθαι διὰ τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίαν ἀξιοῦμεν ἐὰν φαίνηναι προνο-­ ηθῆναι ὡς οἱ μὲν διασαφούμενοι καὶ ἡ Ἀμμωνία ἀσφαλισθήσονται, τὸ ­δὲ ὑπόμνημα ἀναπεμφθῆναι ἐπὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Ἀρχεάνακτα ὅπως \καὶ/ ἀπ[ὸ] τούτου ὁρμηθέν-­ τες ποιησόμεθα14 τὸν προσήκοντα λόγον. τούτου γὰρ γενομένου τευξόμεθα ἀντιλήψεως. εὐτυχεῖτε.

To Dioskourides, hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬and phrourarchos, from Artemidoros and Protarchos, sons ‫ﷴ‬ of Artemidoros, both Dorians.15 Of the petition that we submitted to Teres, to‫ﷳ‬n 16 philon‫ ﷳ‬and strategos, ‫[ ﷴ‬4] we have appended a copy. We ask that you take heed of its contents. For if this occurs, we will benefit from your kindness. Farewell. To Teres, to‫ﷳ‬n philo‫ﷳ‬n and strategos, [8] from Artemidoros and Protarchos, sons of ‫ﷴ‬ Artemidoros, both Dorians. On the 6th of Phaophi, year 36, we were traveling along the path that leads from Herakleopolis to the harbor with others when we came to the gate that leads from the phrourion [12] into the city.17 Someone sitting on a wagon, whose name we do not know, willfully attacked one of us, namely Artemidoros, in a manner defying all expectation. Artemidoros determinedly rebuked him, and we entered the gate [16] of the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma.18 But then, a certain 14 Read ­ποιήσονται; also φαίνηται for φαίνηναι (line 42). 15 On the aulic title hegemon, see Chapter 3, note 70; on phrourarchoi, Ptolemaic

‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ garrison commanders, see Chapter  3; for ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt, herein note 29. This papyrus (P.Diosk. 6 [Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.]) is the only one that preserves an instance of the ethnic “Dorian”; see P.Diosk. p. 56, n. on 2. 16 On the aulic to‫ﷳ‬n philo‫ﷳ‬n, see Mooren (1975) 223–5 and (1977) 17–73; on Teres, P.Diosk. 6 p. 56, n. on 3. 17 There is a useful discussion of phrouria, or citadels, in the Herakleopolite nome in P.Diosk. (pp8–9). On phrourarchoi, the commanders of phrouria, see Chapter 3. 18 The most recent discussion of the use of the term ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma, as well as of ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata attested in the Ptolemaic period can be found at P.Diosk. pp58–9 n. on 16. In this case, the writers seem to use the terms phrourion and ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma interchangeably for “fortress” (cf. P.Diosk. p.  59 n. on 16). On ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata containing prisoners, see Bauschatz (2007b) 12–13 and Chapter 5.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

169

Koson and a certain Thymoleon and others, whose names we do not know, set upon us; and, drunk, they whipped Andronikos, who was traveling along with us. Some of them attacked us with bricks and rocks, [20] while others employed hands and feet, and still others bit us. And we, in danger from such an attack, called out for help, and certain people who had arrived on account of the commotion assisted us. Koson and Thymoleon were consequently carted off to the phrourarchos, but after this [24] a certain Ammonia set upon some of the cloaks we were wearing and mistreated them, and in the confusion she went off in possession of Andronikos’s cloak. Those who had accompanied Koson’s accomplices fled. After we had handed over the aforementioned [28] to Epimachos, agent of the phrourarchos, a certain Nikodemos appeared, as did Asklepiades and many others. They were also drunk and had heard that we were within (the ochyrom ‫ ﷳ‬a). They mistreated us, wishing to cause us harm; but those who had appeared on the scene because of the disturbance [32] upbraided them and took us into a house, so they went away. We ourselves are in danger of our lives and suspect that the attacks against us were orchestrated by Apollonios, son of Herakleides, an Ammonian, because of [36] the present examination for one of us – namely Protarchos – before Nikanor and Archianax of his [i.e., Protarchos’s] wife, Chrysous, and the aforementioned Apollonios, who has committed adultery with her.19 We are unable to deliver the appropriate account against them in the [40] area for the aforementioned reasons. We ask, then, if it seems right to you, to see to it that, on the one hand, the aforementioned men and [44] Ammonia are guarded, and that, on the other hand, our petition be sent up to Nikanor and Archianax, so that we, setting out from this (place?), may deliver the appropriate account. [48] If this occurs, we will receive assistance. Farewell. (P.Diosk. 6 [Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.])

To hear them tell it, Artemidoros and Protarchos experienced a great deal of abuse during the course of their ordeal: repeated instances of personal violence coupled with destruction of property and theft. Their assailants were many, both male and female, known and unknown, and the proof of their villainy is multifaceted: some were unknown to the petitioners and thus ostensibly motivated only by the opportunity to do wrong or by their loyalty to the accused; others were drunk and so 19 If

the editors’ conjecture (p.  63) is correct, Nikanor and Archianax were court officials with the titles hoi pros tais anakrisesin and epi tou en tei‫ ﷴ‬aulei‫ﷴ‬ kriteriou (cf. P.Lond. VII 2188.88–91 [Hermonthis, 148 b.c.]). On these offi‫ﷴ‬ cials, see the additional bibliography cited at P.Diosk. 6 n. on 36–7 (p. 63).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

170

behaved in an outrageous manner in public in full view of innocent bystanders; and, finally, the whole scheme seems to have been orchestrated by a man who had cuckolded one of the victims (Protarchos). To make matters even worse, the petitioners express fear for their lives and the belief that they will not be able to obtain a fair hearing in such a highly charged environment. They underline their innocence by portraying all of the assaults as unprovoked, highlighting the shock and outrage of the bystanders who witnessed the events and contrasting with the lawlessness of the accused their own proper use of the criminal justice system: handing some of the accused over to an agent of the phrourarchos and writing a petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and then the phrourarchos. Of note is the fact that the petitioners chose to begin the petitioning process with a letter to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and then copied the phrourarchos. Perhaps the severity of the wrongs done them prompted an initial appeal to the higher authority. We cannot be sure. Though most of the time they detailed abuses like those endured by Artemidoros and Protarchos in their complaints, occasionally petitioners wrote to police officials about their own personal shortcomings and the failure of others to perform the actions required or expected of them, and not about wrongdoing committed against themselves. Those who wrote petitions of this sort displayed a keen interest in evoking the pity of the police. They cited their inability to pay taxes or perform liturgical work, sought relief from debts and unfair prosecution or persecution, detailed the offenses or inaction of officials, expressed concern about future harassment or persecution for past events, and in by far the greatest number of cases asked for aid in resolving contractual or business issues.20 Such situations could lead to violence or other 20 Impossibility

of tax payment or liturgy performance: BGU VIII 1822 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59451 (Sophthis, III b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 787 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.); debt relief: e.g., BGU VIII 1833 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. IV 59626 (?, III b.c.); PSI Congr. XXI 6 (?) (?, 116–107 b.c.); unfair prosecution/persecution: P.Tebt. III.1 785 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.); UPZ I 124 (Memphis, 175 or 165 b.c.?); official abuses: e.g., P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 803 (Oxyrhyncha, 143–138 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 4 (Thebes?, 111 b.c.); requests for protection: P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.); III.1 790 (Oxyrhyncha, 127–124 b.c.); UPZ I 107 (Memphis, 99 b.c.); contractual/business issues: e.g., BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.); P.Enteux. 50 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); UPZ I 123 (Memphis, ca. 157/156 b.c.).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

171

mistreatment. For instance, a second-­century petition to the sovereigns details the travails of a royal cultivator who had entered into a rental agreement with a phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι τῆι ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι χαίρειν Ἁρενδώτης Πετεύριος ὑμέτερος γεωργὸς τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν Ὀξυρύγχοις τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος τοῦ Ἀρσινοίτου. τοῦ λδ (ἔτους) μισθωσαμένου μου παρὰ Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ἡρακλείδου φυλακίτου (δεκαρούρου) τῶν ἀποτεταγμένων ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν Πτολεμ[α]ί[δ]ι [κατα]-­ μεμετρημένους (ἀρούρας (?)) [ ca. ? ] γῆς σιτοφόρου ὑπὲρ ὧν λόγους πρὸς τὸν Ἡρακλείδην ποιουμένου μου ἠξίωσεν προδοῦναι αὐτῶι \⟦τὴν γεγενημένην⟧/ τὰ γινόμενα αὐτῶι ἐκφόρια \τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους/ εἰς τὴν ἀνάλυσιν τοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ κου [    χρη]ματισμοῦ \καὶ ἔτους/ traces μ traces φορω[ν] traces μεταβολὴν ἔχειν τοῦ ἀπενέγκασθαι εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προδεδωκὼς αὐτῶι \καὶ ἀνηλωκὼς/ κατὰ χειμῶνα τὰ ἐκφόρια ἐπελθὼν ὁ Ἡρακλείδης καὶ ἀθετήσας τὴν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑπάρχουσαν πίστιν καὶ [ ca. ? ] προσλαβόμενός τε σύνεργον Ὡρίωνα τὸν ἀπὸ Ὀξυρύ(γχων) ἀρχιφυ(λακίτην) ἐκώλυσάν με καὶ ὃν πρότερον εἴασάν με ἀπενέγκασθαι εἰ μὴ ὁ Ὡρίων ἠνάγκασέ με σύ(μβολα) τῶι \Ἡρακλείδηι/ προέσθαι αὐτῶι ἐπιστολὴν περὶ τοῦ θήσειν τὰ ἐκφόρια ἐν παραθέσει. ὑπὲρ \μὲν/ ὧν βουλομένου μου τὸν προσ-­ ήκοντα λόγον πρὸς αὐτοὺς ποιήσασθαι ὁ αὐτὸς 24 Ἡρακλείδης καὶ Ὡρίων ἐπιπορευόμενοι ἐπὶ τὴ[ν] οἰκίαν μου ποιοῦνται ἐνεχυρασίας πράσοντες ἐμὲ ἐγ δευτέρας τὰ ἐκφόρια. οὐ καθῆκον ἀρνοῦνται περὶ συμβολαίων διακούειν ἅ τε ἐν χρηματισμῶι 28 διεξάγεσθαι καὶ τοῦτο κατ’ ἐμὲ ποιήσαντες τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων κα     ονας τέρπειν δι’ ὧν ἐπάν(αγκον) τὴν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς καταφυγὴν πεποιημένος δέομαι ὑμῶν ἀποστεῖλαί μου τὴν ἔντευ(ξιν) ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ ἰδιωτικὰ 32 κρίνοντας χρηματιστὰς ὧν εἰσαγωγεὺς Ἁρμόδιος ὅπως διαλέξαντες αὐτὴν εἰς κατάστασιν καὶ ­ἀνακαλεσά-­

4 8 12 16 20

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

172 36 40

μενοι τόν τε Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ὡρίωνα δι[ὰ Θ]εοδώρου τοῦ τῆς κώμης ἐπιστάτου προστάξωσιν [α]ὐτοῖς μὴ περισπᾶν με ἐπὶ τὸ μὴ κλοπῶν ἄρχειν μηδ’ εἰσβιάζεσθαι εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν μου καὶ τὸ ἐνεχυράζειν τρόπωι μηδενὶ ανται-­ traces ν τὰς ἐντεύξεις τυχεῖν τοῦ  α traces εὐτυχεῖτε.

To king Ptolemy and queen Kleopatra the sister, mother-­loving gods, greetings, Harendotes, son of Peteuris, your farmer, of those dwelling [4] in Oxyrhyncha of the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite (nome).21 In year 34 I leased from Herakleides, son of Herakleides, ten-­aroura phylakite‫ﷴ‬s of those assigned to the allotments measured out in Ptolemais, [8] [ – – ] arourai of land for growing grain.22 I spoke with Herakleides concerning this plot, and he asked that I give him in advance the rents for the purpose of the release of my … [12] the commandment … made (?) a change by (?) forcing (his way?) into my house. I had already given him the rents in the winter, [16] but Herakleides, arriving and breaking faith with the trust that adheres among men, and … taking as his accomplice Horion, the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s from Oxyrhyncha,23 they hindered me from taking away (the produce) that they had previously agreed that [20] I could (take), but Horion forced me to give him an agreement in which I promised I would give him a letter in which I said that I would put the produce in storage. And though I want to have the appropriate discussion about these matters with them, this same [24] Herakleides and Horion now come to my house seeking pledges that they can get the rents from me a second time. Inappropriately, they refuse to listen (to me) about the pledges and to carry out the things in [28] the commandment, and having done these things to me, (they refuse) to (let me?) enjoy the … in the area. Thus, they have forced me to flee to you. I ask that you send my petition to the chre‫ﷴ‬matistai who judge [32] private matters,24 whose eisago‫ﷳ‬geus is Harmodios,25 so that they may receive it for trial 21 The king and queen here addressed are Ptolemy VI (ruled 180–145 b.c.) and

Kleopatra II (ruled 170–145 b.c.). 22 Herakleides, son of Herakleides, phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬occurs only here. 23 Horion, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of Oxyrhyncha, also appears only here. 24 Chrematistai: see Chapter 2, note 94. ‫ﷴ‬ 25 On the eisagog‫ ﷳ‬eus, the official who introduced cases into the Ptolemaic courts, see now Allam (2008), who sees the office as a survival from the pharaonic period, not a Ptolemaic innovation; also Wolff (1970) 29–30.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

173

and summon Herakleides and Horion via Theodoros, epistate‫ﷴ‬s of the village,26 and command them not to strip [36] me, so as to prevent them from initiating thefts, or to force their way into my house, or to take pledges in any manner … the petitions to meet with …. [40] Farewell. (P.Erasm. I 1 [Oxyrhyncha, 148–147 b.c.])

In this case, the petitioner alleges a major violation of a rental agreement. Lacunae make some of the finer details obscure, but this much is clear: the landlord, a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬is accused of unfair play in drawing up and executing a lease. If we are to believe the petitioner, the accused even went so far as to bring in some local muscle, in the form of the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬to help move the coercion along. That the archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ is called in here is potentially significant in a number of ways. As a police officer, he was likely a co-­worker and may even have been a friend of the accused, a phylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬In such an instance, the line between legal extraction of rent and police brutality can sometimes be hard to determine. If we assume that the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was involved for legitimate reasons, however, it is possible that he intervened to help the landlord extract a debt. As we shall see, this was one of the chief duties of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the financial sphere.27 Also of note here is the petitioner’s request that the local epistates‫ ﷴ‬summon the accused for trial. The petitioner clearly knew a thing or two about local police hierarchy and whom to contact for help when the village phylakitai proved to be a dead end (or part of the problem). As we have seen thus far, a petition allowed a victim of crime to assemble the relevant details of an offense and present his or her case in a clear and concise manner for the perusal of law enforcement. Of course, there were certainly quicker ways to obtain justice than by submitting a written record of criminal events hours, days, or even weeks after a crime had been committed. Victims doubtless took the law into their own hands some of the time, though there is admittedly no explicit evidence for vigilantism in the papyri. Petitioners did not acknowledge personal wrongdoing in their appeals to law enforcement. They knew full well that to admit to even partial responsibility for the commission of a crime was tantamount to opening the door to failure at law. But 26 Theodoros, 27 Chapter 6.

epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Oxyrhyncha, appears only here.

174

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

it seems only natural that, as is still true today, many of the offenses committed against those who chose to contact the police were, in fact, committed in retaliation for previous offenses. Another alternative to petitioning was to personally seek out law enforcement officers and inform them of the details of the case or bring them to a crime scene.28 Yet both vigilantism and direct contact with police could be problematic. In the latter case, the language barrier between the predominantly Egyptian underclasses and their Greek governors might occasionally have been a major impediment. An Egyptian petitioner would doubtless have had little trouble, however, in locating a bilingual scribe in the village to record the details of his or her case in formal (if not always case-­perfect) Greek for perusal by the police.29 Vigilantism and direct contact with the police were also less desirable alternatives for victims of crime because they did not necessarily produce written records of offenses and their outcomes. Petitions provided the inhabitants of a traditionally litigious and bureaucratic civilization with detailed accounts of the offenses committed against them. These records were essential for court cases, among other things.30 Litigants with detailed files on the specifics of their individual cases had clear advantages at trials held before traveling judicial officials. Those 28 See,

e.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59224 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.), in which a victim noted that he had pointed out a robber to an archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Enteux. 65 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), where a petitioner related that he had shown some maliciously mangled vineyards to the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches, ‫ ﷴ‬the phylakitai, and others; and SB XVIII 13840 (Mouchis, 224–218 b.c.), in which a man reported that he had shown some property (?) damage to an epistates. ‫ﷴ‬ 29 On bilingualism in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Rémondon (1964) and Peremans (1982b, 1983). Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt remains a hot topic. Goudriaan (1988) (with the comments of Colin [1994]) is still the authority. For a few recent studies, see, e.g., Bilde et al. (1992); La’da (1994); Delia (1996); Clarysse (1998); and D. J. Thompson (2001). 30 See, e.g., P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), a petition to a phrourarchos in which the writers requested that their complaint be sent to a pair of judicial officials (see Chapter 3); P.Enteux. 4 (Arsinoë [recto], Ghoran [verso]; 219– 218 b.c.), a petition whose recto preserves an order to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to carry out an investigation and whose verso contains the minutes of an attempted mediation by this official; and SB VI 9065 (Herakleopolite, 50/49 b.c.), a petition in which the complainant asked that her appeal be sent to the regional chrematistai. ‫ﷴ‬

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

175

without written materials to back them up had to rely on the weakness of their opponent’s case, the strength of their witnesses, or the favor of the presiding officer. Further, vigilante justice, though in theory quicker to produce the desired results, could lead to consequences from the system it attempted to sidestep. A victim of abuse who took the law into his or her own hands to punish an offender might very well have ended up the subject of a petition from the offender he or she had sought to reprimand. Without a formal, written record of an initial offense on file with the police, it was one man’s (or woman’s) word against another’s. If the offender-­turned-­victim took the initiative to file a report of the act of revenge, however, he had the opportunity to portray the incident(s) in a decidedly different light and turn the tables on the original victim. In such a case, seeking personal justice would have proved a decidedly worse alternative to writing a petition. One does not find explicit evidence of this phenomenon in the documents because petitioners uniformly portrayed themselves as free of fault or offense when relating the details of criminal acts perpetrated against them.31 Naturally, many petitioners must have covered up relevant details about their relative guilt in (for instance) the failure of a business transaction or a dispute over pasture rights. As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, in his petition to the king (P.Enteux. 79) Herakleides detailed a series of seemingly unprovoked outrages perpetrated against him by an Egyptian woman. But we hear only his side of the story. Though Herakleides maintained his innocence, and it seems likely that Psenobastis (the offender) was indeed guilty of (accidentally?) emptying 31 Avowals

of innocence: e.g., BGU VIII 1847.10–13 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?), a petition from some prisoners who had previously been declared innocent after examination: [οἱ] μὲν οὖν ποιμένες ἀνα[γαγόν]τες | οὐθὲν τῶν  καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς π[ροήνεγ]καν, | καθαροὶ δὲ καὶ ὡς ἐσμ[ὲν ἐγε]νήθη|μεν; Chrest.Mitt. 5.1–6 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.), a petition to the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from a prisoner who had been wrongly locked up for a long time: πολλάκ[ις] | σοι γέγραφα, διότι καταδεδυ|ναστεύ\ο/μαι ἐν τῆι φυλ[α]κῆι | λιμῶι παραπολλύμενος, μῆνές | εἰσιν δέκα, παραν     με | ἀδίκως ἀπηγμένον; P.Enteux. 79.7–8 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.), a petition from a Greek man assaulted without provocation by an Egyptian woman (see the beginning of this chapter): ἃ δ᾽ ἐγκαλῶ ἔπραξεν ὑβρίζουσά με καὶ ἄρχουσα | εἴς με χερῶν ἀδίκων.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

176

her bed pan on the Greek man’s head, the former was probably reacting to a perceived slight (left out of Herakleides’ partisan account of the incident) when she (allegedly) carried out the ensuing attack and was not seeking to assault the Greek businessman out of envy or spite. Unfortunately she chose to vent her anger violently instead of complaining to the police. The most important motivations to consider when examining the reasons why victims of crime decided to write petitions to law enforcement are the basic desires for self-­preservation and the enjoyment of property and rights. Though the Egyptian people were materially poor and poorly educated, they had homes, families, possessions, and livelihoods that were linked to their contentedness, prosperity, and survival. Though many of the offenses detailed in petitions seem trivial to modern minds (and may have often seemed minor to ancient law enforcement as well), to victims even seemingly minor offenses against seemingly unimportant possessions could be major blows. Petitions provided the people of Egypt with the opportunity to strike back, to remedy their newly disadvantaged situations, and to pursue offenders without endangering their own rights and lives. Personal responses to crimes in Ptolemaic Egypt could take many forms. To ensure the greatest degree of satisfaction, however, with little chance of additional complications the choice was obvious: write a petition.

How?

Villagers clearly knew how to prepare a petition. One of the first things a petitioner did after an offense had been committed against him or her was to travel to the office of the village scribe, where a record of the theft, assault, or other incident would be composed for official perusal. Petitions were known by a variety of names in Greek Egypt. Enteuxeis, hypomnemata, and prosangelmata are among the designations ‫ﷴ‬ most commonly encountered in the documents themselves.32 Clear-­cut 32 Petitions

described as enteuxeis: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59145.3–4 (?, 256 b.c.); P.Erasm. I 1.31, 38 (Oxyrhyncha, 148–147 b.c.); SB VI 9065.20–1, 24

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

177

differences of style among the different types of official notification are often difficult for the modern scholar to detect. It seems clear, however, that when applied to letters to officials from citizens, the terms enteuxeis and hypomnemata generally designated documents that contained spe‫ﷴ‬ cific requests for decisive action to solve cases in addition to details on the crimes committed and the criminals involved, whereas prosangelmata often omitted requests for redress and focused more on the specifics of the goods damaged or stolen and on the types of abuse suffered by victims.33 While the former two generally had a longer, narrative format, the latter one was often terse.34 A thorough reevaluation of the style, structure, grammar, and syntax of petitions to Ptolemaic law enforcement is beyond the scope of this study.35 Here it will suffice to outline the general characteristics of the documents. Petitioners typically listed the addressee first, followed by an oftentimes very specific description of their own name, complete with ethnicity, parentage, employment, title, or provenance: Σελεύκωι συγγενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶ[ι] καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων παρὰ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Ἐπινίκου 4 δεσμοφύλακος τοῦ ἐν Φνεβιεῖ δεσ-­ ­μωτηρίου. (Herakleopolite, 50/49 b.c.); as hypomne‫ﷴ‬mata: e.g., BGU VIII 1761.1 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Amh. II 35.36 (Soknopaiou Nesos, 132 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59475.1 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); as prosangelmata: e.g., BGU VI 1252.31 ( prosangellein) (Arsinoite, II b.c.); P.Hib. I 144 (Herakleopolite?, 229 b.c.; no line numbers given); P.Oxy. XII 1465.10 ( prosangellein) (Oxyrhynchite, I b.c.). 33 Di Bitonto Kasser distinguishes between enteuxeis, petitions to the king (1967), and hypomne‫ﷴ‬mata and prosangelmata, those addressed to other officials (1968). 34 In fact, prosangelmata were occasionally written out in duplicate within the same amount of space consumed by an average-­sized hypomne‫ﷴ‬ma or enteuxis, as is the case with the following texts: P.Hib. I 36 (Talaë, 229 b.c.); 37 (Talaë, 235 b.c.?); P.Mich. I 34 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.). 35 For a detailed look at the formulae most commonly employed in Ptolemaic petitions, the reader is referred to di Bitonto Kasser (1967, 1968, 1976).  

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

178

To Seleukos, syngenes‫ ﷴ‬and strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n, from Ptolemaios, son of Epinikos, desmophylax of the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion in [4] Phnebieus. …36 (BGU VIII ‫ﷴ‬ 1828.1–5 [Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.]) 4

βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ βασ[ιλί]σσηι Κλεοπ[άτρ]αι τῆι ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι χαίρ[ειν] Μαρεπάθις Σισούχου καὶ Π[α]τκῶς Ὀννώφ[ριος καὶ Τ]εσενοῦφις Μάρρεως καὶ Φατρῆς Θο[το]ῆτος καὶ Ἁρπ[      Ἀμα]ράντου βασιλικοὶ γεωργοὶ τῶν [ἀπὸ τ]ῆς Σοκνοπ[αίου Ν]ήσου τῆς Ἡρακλείδο[υ] μερίδος τ[οῦ] Ἀρσινοίτου νο[μοῦ.]

To king Ptolemy and Queen Kleopatra the sister, mother-­loving gods, greetings, Marepathis, son of Sisouchos, and Patkos, son of Onnophris, and Tesenouphis, [4] son of Marres, and Patres, son of Thotoës, and Harp[.….], son of Amarantes, royal farmers of those from Soknopaiou Nesos of the Herakleides meris of the Arsinoite nome. … (P.Amh. II 33.1–6 [Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.]) 4

προσάγγελμα Ἀλεξάνδρωι ἀρχιφυλακίτηι παρὰ Ἀντιγένο-­ υς Μακεδόνος τῶν Νικάνορος κλη-­ ρούχου.

Notification ( prosangelma) to Alexandros, [4] archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬from Antigenes, 37 Macedonian klerouchos of those under Nikanor. … (P.Mich. I 34.3–6 [Philadelphia, ‫ﷴ‬ 254 b.c.])

Petitioners employed such a high degree of specificity doubtless so as to ensure the greatest degree of accuracy in resolving disputes and to avoid confusion with homonymous villagers. Next came a brief statement in which the petitioner made his or her accusation and identified 36 On the title syngenes, see Chapter 3, note 118; on the official with the title ho

‫ﷴ‬ epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫ ﷳ‬, Chapter 2, note 59; on desmophylakes, Chapter 3; on desmot‫ ﷳ‬eria, ‫ﷴ‬ Chapter 5. 37 Alexandros: Pros.Ptol. 4545. He appears for certain only here (P.Mich. I 34.3– 4 and again at 12–13), but potentially appears in four other texts: P.Cair. Zen. II 59140.1, 3 (?, 256 b.c.; no title given); III 59343.4 (Philadelphia?, 246 b.c.; no title given); 59373.1, 4, 7 (Philadelphia, 239 b.c.; no title given); and SB IV 7285.25, 26 (Philadelphia, 237 or 212 or 195 b.c.?; no title given). Klerouchoi: on the Ptolemaic government’s land-­grant system, ‫ﷴ‬ see Chapter 2, note 29.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

179

the accused, often employing the same degree of precision as that with which he or she had identified himself or herself:

ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ἀριστοκράτου, Θραικός, (ἑκατονταρούρου) τῆς α ἱπ(παρχίας), τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν Αὐτοδί[κηι.]

I am wronged by Aristokrates, Thracian, one-­hundred-­aroura man of the 1st hipparchy, of those living in Autodike.38 (P.Enteux. 48.1–2 [Magdola, 218 b.c.]) 4

ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Πελαίου πασθοφόρ[ο]υ τῶν ἐκ Κορκο[δ]ίλων πόλει το[ῦ] Παθυρίτου Σούχου ἱ[ρ]οῦ.39

I am wronged [4] by Pelaios, pastophoros of those from Krokodilopolis of the Pathyrite, priest of Souchos.40 (P.Grenf. I 38.3–6 [Pathyrite, 170 b.c.]) 4

ἀδικούμεν[ο]ς ὑπὸ [Ζ]ωπύρου τοῦ Μελεάγρου τῶν Ἀπ[ολλω]νίου τῆς γ ἱπ(παρχίας) (ἑκατονταρούρου) τῶν ἐκ τ[ῆς αὐ]τῆς κώμης

[4] I, wronged by Zopyros, son of Meleagros, of those under Apollonios of the 3rd hipparchy, one-­hundred-­aroura man, of those from the same village. …41 (P.Tebt. III.2 952.4–7 [Tebtynis, ca. 145–144 b.c.])

As the examples we have considered thus far reveal, the dénouement of the crime generally followed immediately on the heels of the accusation and could extend over many lines of text depending on the extent of the 38 Thracian:

on foreign ethnics in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Pros.Ptol. X and now Winnicki (2009), who examines the presence of foreigners in Egypt during the first millennium b.c.; on ethnicity, note 29; on hipparchies (cavalry divisions), Winnicki (1989) 222. 39 Read ἱερέως. 40 On the pastophoroi, effectively assistant priests who, among other things, carried the shrines of their gods, see Dunand (1969) 304–7; Schönborn (1976); Passioni Dell’Acqua (1981) 175–80. On the Egyptian crocodile god Souchos/Sobek, see Bonnet (2000 [1952]) 755–9; also Brovarski (1984) 995–1031. 41 The name of the village is lost in lacuna in line ­3.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

180

wrongdoing, the type of abuse, and the petitioner’s desire to appear as pitiful as possible. The Zenon archive contains some of the best examples of pathos in petitions:

δεόμεθα οὖν σου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς· ὧν γὰρ ἡμάρτομεν τ[ε]τιμωρήμε-­ θα· οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἀναμάρτητός ἐστιν·

Therefore, we need you to have pity on us; for we have been punished for the things we did wrong. For no one does not make mistakes. (P.Cair.Zen. III 59495.1–3 [Philadelphia?, III b.c.]) καὶ εἰ δυνατ[όν ἐστι]ν, προσκατασκεύασον θησαυρόν· [ὁ γὰρ ὑ]πάρχων οὐχ ἱκαν[ός ἐστι] χωρεῖν τὸν σῖτον τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν [τοῦ]τον. φυλάσσω δὲ καὶ τ[ὸν] τηνεῖ θησαυρὸν λαμβάνων οὐθέν, 12 [οἱ δ]ὲ ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας δίδ[ουσ]ίμ μοι πυ(ροῦ) ἀρτ(άβας) α (ἥμισυ). οὐχ ἱκανὸν οὖν [ἐστ]ιν οὐδὲ τὰ παιδάρια [διαβό]σκειν, εἰ μὴ αὐτός τι προσεργάζο-­ [μαι].

And if it is possible, prepare another granary; for the one you have is not big enough to hold this year’s grain. And I am guarding the granary there without receiving anything in return. [12] The people of Philadelphia are giving me 1½ artabas of grain, but this is not enough to feed my children, unless I get something else in addition. (P.Cair.Zen. III 59509.9–14 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]; see Chapter 3) 8

δέομαί σου καὶ ἱκετέω, μὴ περιίδης μη ἐν τῶι δεζμωτηρίωι. ἱκανῶς βέβλαμαι ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπγμαι ἀπ⟨ὸ⟩ τοῦ κλήρου ο[ὗ ἐ]μισθωσάμην ἐπὶ σωὶ πεποιθώς. ο⟨ὐ⟩κ ἰλία42 \βέ/βλα-­ ψαι ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπγμαι, καὶ τὰ προβάτια ἃ περιπεπωίημαι ἀφ’ οὗ ἐλήλυθα πρὸς ὑμᾶς διέρπα-­ κται ὑπὸ τῶν ποιμένων ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπγμαι. εἰ δέ \τι / σωι φαίνεται, καταλ⟨ε⟩ίψω τὴν γυναῖκα ἐν

42 Read ­ὀλίγα.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

181

τῶι δεσμωτηρίωι περὶ ἐμοῦ, ἕως ἂν ἐπισκέψῃ περὶ ὧν μωι ἐνκαλοῦσι.

I need you and I beg you, do not overlook me in the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion. I have been suffi‫ﷴ‬ ciently harmed from the time when I was dragged away from the allotment which I rented, trusting in you. And you have been harmed in not a few ways since the time I was dragged away: the sheep which I have obtained for you from when I left have been seized [8] as plunder by the shepherds since I have been dragged away. If it seems best to you, I will leave my wife behind in the desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion in my place ‫ﷴ‬ until you make an examination about the matters I am reporting to you. (P.Mich. I 87.5–9 [Arsinoite?, III b.c.])

Then as now, melodrama was an asset. It is so pervasive in the documents that it can oftentimes be difficult to discern true pathos from invented suffering. Along with the details of the offense came a description of the extent or nature of the damages suffered by the victim. In the case of a theft, for instance, the petition might be accompanied by a list of the missing or damaged items, often with monetary, qualitative, or quantitative valuations appended, perhaps for purposes of remuneration in case the perpetrator of the theft was caught and was unable to return the victim’s belongings.43 In the following instance, three men reported the results of a home invasion and robbery to an archiphylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ 4 8

ἔτους κα Φαῶφι ια. Φίλ[ω]νι ἀρχιφυλακίτηι παρὰ Διονυσίου καὶ Ἀδάμου \(τριακονταρούρων)/ καὶ Ποσειδωνίου. ὑπερβάν-­ τες τινὲς τῆι νυκτὶ τῆς ι εἰς τὴν ια τοῦ ­προγε-­ γραμμένου μηνὸς τὴν οἰκίαν ἡμῶν καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν προστάδα, καθευδόντω[ν] τῶν παρ’ ἡ-­ μῶν ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν θυρῶν κεκλειμένων, οἴχονται [ἔ]-­ χοντες ἐν τῆι προστάδι σφυρίδα σίτων ἐν ἧι ἐνῆν κρ(ιθῆς) ἡμιαρτάβιον, ἧς τιμὴ (δραχμαὶ) ϙ καὶ τῆς σφυρί-­ δος (δραχμαὶ) κ, καὶ ὀθονίων β ἐσχισμένων ὄντων ἐν σφυρίδι ἄξια (δραχμῶν) χ, καὶ σάκκον τρίχινον αἰγὸς

43 Lists of stolen goods with amounts/values attached: e.g., BGU VIII 1832.9–10



(Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.); SB XVIII 13160.10–13 (Moëris, 244 or 219 b.c.?).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

182

ἄξιον (δραχμῶν) τ, ἱδρῶια β ἄξια (δραχμῶν) ρκ, \τετραχοίνικον (δραχμῶν) ν/, ὥστε εἶναι 12 τῆς λε⟨ί⟩ας χαλκοῦ (δραχμὰς) χιλίας ἑκατ[ὸ]ν ὀγδοήκοντα, \(γίνονται) (δραχμαὶ) Αρπ/. ἐπεὶ οὖν τυγχάνομεν ἐπιδεδωκέναι περὶ τούτων τῆι αὐτῆι ἡμέραι Ὥρωι κωμάρχηι τῆς Σατύ-­ ρου λαύρας, ἀξιοῦμ[ε]ν, ἐά[ν σοι] φαίνηται, συ[ντά]-­ 16 ξα[ι] γρ[ά]ψα[ι οἷ]ς καθήκ[ει      ] [ ca. 10 ] δια  [   ]ρου ἀντίγρ(αφον) [ἵ]να κατ [   ] [  ] παρὰ σοὶ ὅπως ὑπάρχηι ἡμῖν ἐν τῆι πρὸς Ὧρον δικαιολογίαι. εὐτύχει.

Year 21, Phaophi 11. To Philon, archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬from Dionysios and Adamas, 44 thirty-­aroura men, and Poseidonios. Certain individuals broke into our house on the night of the 10th of the aforementioned [4] month and entered into the portico/vestibule, while our agents were sleeping in the houses with the doors closed. They went off in possession of a nose-­bag of grain from the portico/vestibule, in which there was [8] half an artabe‫ ﷴ‬of barley, valued at 90 drachmas.45 The value of the nose-­bag is 20 drachmas. And they carried off 2 linen cloths contained within the nose-­bag, worth 600 drachmas, and a goatskin sack worth 300 drachmas, and 2 harness-­cloths worth 120 drachmas. In total, the value [12] of the stolen goods is 1,180 bronze drachmas.46 Since, therefore, we happen to have given, on the same day, a report about these matters to Horos, ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬of Satyros’s street,47 we ask, if it seems best to you, that you please [16] write to the appropriate individuals … a copy, so that … with you, so that we may have it at the inquiry before Horos. Farewell. (P.Tebt. III.1 796 [Tebtynis, 185 b.c.])

Aside from the insights this petition (and similar notifications) provides into the world of animal accessories in Ptolemaic Egypt, it is 44 Philon

was archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite nome: Chapter 2, note 21. 45 An artabe‫ ﷴ‬was an Egyptian dry measure. Its capacity varied, though it often contained approximately forty choinikes (roughly forty liters): Pestman (1990) 49. On weights and measures in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see Kruit and Worp (1999) and the extensive additional bibliography cited there (pp96–7). 46 Currency in Ptolemaic Egypt was minted in bronze, silver, and (on ­occasion) gold. On the values, denominations, and uses of Ptolemaic coinage, see Chapter 7, note 7. 47 Ko‫ﷳ‬marches: ‫ ﷴ‬Chapter 2, note 90, and Chapter 3.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

183

valuable for a number of additional reasons. To begin with, it illustrates just how quickly police paperwork might be filed and arrangements for trials made. The three petitioners here wrote their report to the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s  – and the ko‫ﷳ‬marche‫ﷴ‬s, too  – the day after the break-­in and appear to have already made arrangements for an appearance before the ko‫ﷳ‬marche‫ﷴ‬s by that time. In addition, the request that a third official or group of officials  – “the appropriate individuals” ([οἷ]ς καθήκ[ει], 16) – be involved in the case, albeit in an uncertain capacity, illustrates the lengths to which people were prepared to go to make sure that no stone was left unturned in obtaining justice. It also highlights the importance of having documents available at trials.48 In a case like this one, a police report filed the day after a break-­in with an itemized list of items lost, plus values, would doubtless have been very useful at trial. When a petitioner had been attacked, a description of the assault with the names of the offending parties and witnesses given in full (where possible) was also commonplace, as well as an often quite detailed and dramatic depiction of the damage inflicted and regularly a complete list of specific bodily regions that had been wounded.49 Here we see a brief but riveting account of a raid on a home: Traces

Φνεβιέως ὁ ἀνε [ ca. ? ­] μεριδάρχηι παρὰ τὴν σὴν μισο-­

48 More on this later: Chapter 5. 49 Detailed assaults: e.g., P.Diosk.

6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.; see the preceding discussion); P.Enteux. 79 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 798 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.); petitions alluding to witnesses: e.g., P.Enteux. 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.); P.Giss.Univ. I 9 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.); P.Grenf. I 38 (Pathyrite, 170 b.c.). Individuals might also submit witness testimony to a police officer: P.Enteux. 43 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), a petition to the king requesting that he have an epistates‫ ﷴ‬summon two witnesses and have their testimony sent to the strategos; P.Hamb. I 105 (Philadelphia, ‫ﷴ‬ 236 b.c.), witness testimony submitted to an archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Heid. VIII 416 (Herakleopolis, II b.c.), testimony presented to a strategos; P.Petr. II 32 ‫ﷴ‬ Fr2A (Arsinoite, 217 b.c.), a petition to an unknown official concerning violence in which the writers noted that they had given witness testimony of the events to the petitioned official and a phylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬For more on witnesses and witness testimony, see Chapter 5.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

184 4 8 12 16 20

πονηρίαν οἷς καὶ συνθεωρήσαντες τῆι κβ τοῦ Παχὼν ἐπελθόντες Μένανδρος καὶ Δημήτριος Θαλοῦ [μ]ετ’ ἐπαγωγῆς τοῦ ἀρχεφόδου Σωσιβίου καὶ Πετεχῶντος θεαγοῦ οὐ μόνον συντρίψαντες θύραν [κα]ὶ ἐπιθέμενοι τῆι μητρὶ περὶ τούτων λογοποιουμένηι ἐξύβρισαν οὐ μετρίως καὶ εἰς τὸν περὶ τοῦ ζῆν κίνδυνον περι-­ στήσαντες καὶ βίᾳ τρυγήσαντες τὸν περι-­ στερεῶνα ἀπηλλάγησαν. ἀξιῶ ἐὰν φαίνηται συντάξαι καταστῆσαι τούτους ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ διαλαβεῖν περὶ αὐτῶν μ{ε}ισοπονήρως, εἰς δὲ τὸ λοιπὸν μηδὲν βίαιον συντελεῖν, τυχόντες ὧν προσήκει πρὸς ἐπίστασιν ἄλλων, ἵν’ ὦ ἀντειλημμένος. vac εὐτύχει.

50 … of Phnebieus, the … to the meridarches, ‫ ﷴ‬contrary to your hatred [4] of wrongdoing, and contemplating these things (?) at the same time, on the 22nd of Pachon Menandros and Demetrios, son of Thales, with the cooperation of the archephodos,51 [8] Sosibios, and Petechon, theagos,52 not only broke down the door, but even set upon my mother, who tried to talk to them about these actions. They treated her with an extremely immoderate amount of hybris and put her [12] in danger of her life, and then violently removed my dovecote before departing. I ask, if it seems best, that you please stand [16] these men before you and deal with them in keeping with your hatred of wrongdoing, so that they attempt nothing violent in the future, but meet with the punishments appropriate for committing violence against others, and so that I may receive aid. [20] Farewell. (BGU VIII 1855 [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.])

Here the violence committed is less reprehensible for its extent than for its intended target: the petitioner’s mother, who was treated with 50 On meridarchai, see Chapter 3. 51 Archephodoi: Chapter 3, note 117. 52 On theagoi, priests who had as

a primary function the conveyance of ­ ummified animals in procession, see, e.g., Quaegebeur (1984); Bresciani m (1986) 50–1; Scholl (1988); and Dils (1995).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

185

hybris – in itself a serious offense – and put in danger of death.53 The accused  – two men without titles, a military official (the archephodos) and a priest (the theagos) – damaged the petitioner’s property and carried off a birdhouse. The motivation behind the raid is difficult to see, thanks in large part to the fragmentary nature of the text, but the fact that those involved in the raid do not all appear to have come from the same branch of government suggests that this was a hastily assembled posse, either for reasons of personal gain or revenge or perhaps as a state­sanctioned debt-­recovery operation. The latter possibility is especially appealing, given that the petitioner does not explicitly request that his dovecote be returned but rather that the addressee intervene to put a stop to the violence of the perpetrators. On a related note, victims of crime sometimes mention that there had been previous interventions by the police in their petitions. In one case, a petitioner noted that he had shown damage incurred in the course of a home invasion or robbery to an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬P.Frankf. 3 [Tholthis, 212 b.c.]). In another case, a petitioner related that an epistates‫ ﷴ‬had made an arrest but had not yet transported an offender for trial (P.Princ. III 117 [Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?]; Chapter 3). Next a petitioner requested some sort of decisive action from the addressee. As was mentioned earlier, some appeals did not include requests but simply presented the details of an offense for the benefit of the petitioned official (who would then use his own discretion to follow through).54 In the greatest number of cases, however, a petitioner knew exactly what it was that (in his or her opinion, at least) needed to be done and asked that the appropriate steps be taken. Victims expected law enforcement to carry out investigations by themselves or to contact the proper people: 24

ἀξιῶ συντάξαι ἀσφαλίσασθαι τὸν Φίλωνα καὶ τοὺς μεθ’ αὑτοῦ μέχρι τοῦ ἐπιγνωσθῆναι τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ.

53 On the charge of hybris, see note 2. 54 This seems to have been primarily a third-­century phenomenon, e.g., P.Hib.

I 36 (Talaë, 229 209 b.c.).

b.c.);

37 (Talaë, 235

b.c.?);

P.Köln V 216 (Moithymis,

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

186

I ask, therefore, that you please guard Philon and his [24] associates until a judgment has been given concerning my claims.55 (P.Hels. I 2.22–5  [Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.]) 16 20

διὸ ἀξιῶ ἐὰν φαίνηται συντάξαι γράψαι Κλεάρχωι τῶι ἐπι[σ]-­ τάτῃ ἐξαποστε[ῖ]λαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σέ, ἵν’ ἐὰ γράφω ἀληθῆ, [τύχω] τοῦ δι[καίου (?)] κα[θ]ὼς ἂν διαλ[ά]βης.

[16] Wherefore, I ask, if it seems best to you, that you please write to Klearchos, epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬to send him to you, so that if the things I write prove true, I may find [justice?] [20] as you determine.56 (P.Grenf. I 38.16–20 [Pathyrite, 170 b.c.]) 32 36

ἐπιδεδωκὼς οὖν περὶ τῶν ­αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς εἰθισμένοις ἀξιῶ καταχωρίσαι μου τὸ προσάγγελμα καὶ παρὰ σοὶ ἐν χρηματισμῶι.

[32] Thus, since I have also submitted (reports) about these incidents to the other customary officials, I ask that you please enter my notification into your record and have it with you [36] for your decision.57 (P.Diosk. 1.32–6 [Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?])

Often, as in the first two examples presented, a petitioner asked that a petitioned official arrest, detain, or transport an offender, or arrange for another official to do so. This was usually done so that some sort of examination could be arranged, either before the petitioned official or 55 The petition, from a man who had been attacked by a soldier (named Philon)

and some accomplices, was directed to Philon, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the Polemon meris of the Arsinoite nome: Chapter 2, note 21. The text is translated in full in Chapter 5. Philon, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and the offending soldier – also named Philon – are not one and the same. 56 The petition – from a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬named Pokas (Pros.Ptol. 4724) concerning an attack he had suffered at the hands of a priest – was sent to the strategos ‫ﷴ‬ of the Thebaid, Noumen/Noumenes/Noumenios (Pros.Ptol. 196 = 1966 = 5213 = 14617). 57 This petition was delivered to Dioskourides, phrourarchos of Herakleopolis (see Chapter 3, note 70), and concerned a drunken assault.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

187

before someone else. On the other hand, sometimes a petitioner was less specific about what he or she wanted, as in the third example. In this case, the petitioner simply requested that the addressee retain a copy of his complaint so as to help him obtain justice after the addressee had had an opportunity to assess the evidence. We also see in the request sections of petitions that petitioners did not always know the names or titles of the officials best qualified to deal with their complaints, instead trusting that the addressee would contact the appropriate people to move things along, and that, as in the final example, occasionally additional notification by the petitioner to other officials was necessary (or customary). Once a petitioner had made his request, he typically concluded his appeal with one of a number of identifiable formulae designed to portray him as a victim of unfair persecution in order to appeal to the addressee’s compassion or ability to provide help or justice.58 A certain degree of variation is visible in these formulas over time and throughout the ­different administrative regions of the kingdom. Yet specific stock phrases do not appear to have been customary in the conclusions

58 Petitioner

as a disadvantaged sufferer: e.g., BGU VIII 1847.18–21 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?): νυνεί τε κατὰ τὴν εἱρκτὴν | [ὄ]ντες καὶ παραπολλύμενοι ἐν τοῖς | [ἀ]ναγκαίοις δεόμεθα καὶ ἀξιοῦμεν | [ἱ]κανὸν χρόνον κατεφθαρμένοι; Chrest.Mitt. 12.16–19 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.): τού|του γὰρ γενομένου | οὐ τὸν πλείω χρόνον | καταφθαρησόμεθα; P.Coll.Youtie I 12.19– 20 (Krokodilopolis, 177 b.c.): ἵνα [οὖν μ]ὴ καταφθείρωμαι ἐν τῆι [φυλακῆι] ἀλογούμενος | παρ[ὰ πάν]τα τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντ[α]; addressee as compassionate/benevolent: e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 12.20–1 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.): διὰ σὲ τῆς πάσης φιλαν|[θρωπίας τευξόμεθα]; P.Diosk. 12.15–17 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.): τ[ού]του  γεν ο | μένου τεύξομαι τῶν εὐγνωμό|[νων]; UPZ I 108.36 (Memphis, 99 b.c.): τούτου γὰρ γενομ(ένου) ἔσομαι πεφιλανθρω(πημένος); as provider of justice: e.g., BGU VIII 1824.30–1 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.): ἵν᾽ ὦ τετευχὼς τῆς σῆς δικαι|οσύνης; X 1903.8–9 (?, III b.c.): τούτου γὰρ γενομένου ἔσομαι | [ca. ? ] τετευχὼ[ς] τοῦ δικαίου; P.Mich. XVIII 778.37–8 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.): τούτου δέ γενομένου, ἔσομαι τετευχὼς τῶν | δικαίων; as helper: e.g., BGU VI 1244.32–3 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?): τού τ ο υ  γενομένου [ὦ τε]|τευχυ[ ῖ]α τ[ῆ]ς βοηθείας; VIII 1836.25–6 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 B.C.): ἵνα   μηθ ὲ ν  ελ     | γείνηται τυχὼν τῆς σῆς ἀντιλήψ[εως]; Chrest. Mitt. 5.33 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.): ἵνα τῆς σωτ η ρ ίας τύχω.

188

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

to petitions of specific types. That is, one did not address an official in one way when complaining about a theft but in another manner when detailing an assault. Rather, it was the epistolary style at a given time and in a given place that seems to have dictated how victims closed their appeals.59 Regardless of how a concluding wish was expressed, once it had been made, there remained to be written only the traditional “farewell” and (sometimes) a date. After this, the petition was sent on its way. It appears that petitions to the primarily Greek law enforcement administrative class of Ptolemaic Egypt were written primarily in Greek. Few traces of Demotic appeals survive. The Greek and Demotic elements of the archive of Hor (O.Hor) cannot be considered fragments of a proper petition, as many of the texts that make up the archive are dream texts and oracles and thus of questionable value.60 A fragmentary Demotic version of a Greek petition that survives elsewhere in two copies demonstrates only that an Egyptian petitioner may have wished to keep a private copy of a complaint to law enforcement written in his own tongue (UPZ I 6a [Memphis, 163 b.c.]).61 Aside from these texts, we only occasionally see Egyptians writing in Egyptian to Egyptian police officials, and then only to arrange for bail payments.62 59 For

instance, petitions belonging to a large cache of third-­century documents from Magdola (P.Enteux.) regularly concluded with a future more vivid conditional sentence consisting of a genitive absolute (e.g., τούτου γὰρ γενομένου) or mention of a specific action to be carried out in the protasis and then a variation on the phrase τεύξομαι τοῦ δικαίου in the apodosis. But a number of petitioners to Herakleopolite strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬in the first century (BGU VIII) appended purpose clauses (indicating the type of satisfaction the petitioner hoped to receive) to the request sections of their conclusions, e.g., 1824.30–1 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.): ἵν᾽ ὦ τετευχὼς τῆς σῆς δικαι|οσύνης; 1829.10–11 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.): ἵν᾽ ὦμεν τετευχότες | τῆς παρά σου βοηθείας; 1836.25–6 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.): ἵνα μηθὲν ελ     | γείνηται τυχὼν τῆς σῆς ἀντιλήψ[εως]. 60 See O.Hor pp121–­4. 61 The petition concerns the same events detailed in UPZ I 5 and 6 (Memphis, 163 b.c.). For more on this text, see Clarysse (1986), who provides a translation and commentary. 62 E.g., P.Bürgsch. 16 (Memphis, 159 b.c.); 22 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.); P.LilleDem. I 4 (Ghoran, 247 b.c.), letters to archiphylakitai (?) from villagers seeking to post bail for prisoners.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

189

That petitioners generally appealed to police officials in Greek should not surprise us. Though the Greek administration of the Ptolemies acknowledged Egyptian contracts and records from legal proceedings (as such documents were kept in the private possession of the parties concerned and would not have required government authorization or approval), petitions were usually sent to primarily Greek officials who probably would not have had the time or patience to obtain translators. Consequently, a petition in Greek was a necessity for possible satisfaction at law. The sheer number of petitions that have survived from all periods of Ptolemaic rule, the varieties observable in the sex, ethnicity, age, social status, and professions of petitioners and the numerous clichés that characterize the medium suggest that Egyptians from all segments of society knew how to construct appeals to law enforcement, or to hire those who did, and that they did so when necessary. Petitioners knew what to expect and what details they would need to supply when they visited a village scribe. They also knew how to employ rhetoric in their accounts. We see in these documents an understanding among victims of the importance of filling their appeals with genuine pathos or invented melodrama. Ironically, these appeals, documents in which victims ­regularly portrayed themselves as helpless and resourceless, were a very popular means of self-­empowerment at law among the Egyptian people.

Who?

Not only were people at all levels of Ptolemaic society victims of crimes, but individuals from all walks of life took the initiative to write letters to the police after attacks, thefts, or other outrages. Not only did all segments of the population have access to the police system, but they made use of it regularly and effectively. Even those with the lowest social statuses (e.g., orphans and widows) were effective petitioners. As we have seen, a plea for pity was a common ingredient in a petition. Evidently there was a popular belief that the more abject the petitioner appeared, the more effective his or her appeal would be. But who precisely had these appeals to law enforcement composed?

190

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Petitions written by a wide variety of Egyptians, Greeks, and foreigners survive.63 As one might suspect, the number of petitions from each segment of society depended on the size of the segment.64 A large number of petitioners were Egyptian or Greek men who worked as government cultivators.65 Another sizable subset of Ptolemaic ­petitions came from priests, soldiers, and other government officials.66 Professionals and skilled laborers also wrote appeals to law enforcement, often concerning matters that directly impacted on their business.67 Usually a petitioner did not provide an indication of his social status other than the fact that he was a member of a disadvantaged group. Among the most common of these were prisoners and orphans.68 As has already been noted, 63 A

thorough study of the ethnic makeup of petitioners to Ptolemaic law enforcement officials is outside of the scope of this work. Greeks and Egyptians seem to have made up the majority of petitioners. But it is difficult to determine which of these two segments of the population wrote the bulk of appeals to the police: for example, petitioners with Greek names were not necessarily Greeks. 64 On the population of Greco-­Roman Egypt, see Rathbone (1990) and now P.Count II. 65 Royal cultivators: e.g., BGU III 1007 (?, 243 or 218 b.c.); VIII 1822 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.); P.Amh. II 33 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.). 66 Priests: e.g., P.Amh. II 35 (Soknopaiou Nesos, 132 b.c.); P.Enteux. 54 (Bakchias, 218 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 4 (Thebes?, 111 b.c.); soldiers: e.g., BGU VI 1254 (Arsinoite, 154 or 143 b.c.?); VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.); P.Enteux. 55 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); government officials: e.g., BGU IV 1190 (Herakleopolite, after 80 b.c.), from a grammateus; Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.), from the subordinate of a grain-­transporting official with the title ho pros tei‫ ﷴ‬exagog‫ ﷳ‬ei‫ ﷴ‬tou sitou; P.Diosk. 5 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?), from two tax collectors. On the transport of grain in Ptolemaic Egypt, see P.Tebt. III.1 703.70–87 with notes (pp87–9) and the bibliography cited there; also Frösén (1978); Sijpesteijn (1978) 107, n. 1 for bibliography; D. J. Thompson (1983); and Hauben (1997a, 1997b). 67 Businessmen and laborers: e.g., BGU III 1012 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.), from an emporos; VIII 1828 (Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.), from a desmophylax; P.Cair. Zen. I 59080 (Memphis, 257 b.c.), from a weaver. Desmophylakes: Chapter 5. 68 Prisoners: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59492 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); P.Coll.Youtie I 12 (Krokodilopolis, 177 b.c.); P.Polit.Iud. 2 (Herakleopolite, ca. 135 b.c.); orphans: e.g., P.Enteux. 9 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.); P.Lond. III 683 (?) (Pathyrite, II b.c.); SB VIII 9790 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.). On orphans in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Criscuolo (1981) and Montevecchi (1981); on prisoners, Bauschatz (2007b) and Chapter 5.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

191

women, too, wrote petitions.69 Appeals from female petitioners were frequently concerned with issues that had arisen after a husband’s death. Widows were evidently favorite targets of the unscrupulous.70 Petitioners were not limited to any one socioeconomic subset of Ptolemaic society. A similar conclusion can be reached about addressees. A broad range of officials in law enforcement, financial administration, the civil sphere, and the military received complaints from the people of Egypt. Any well-­known, connected Greek in the Egyptian countryside might have been seen as a suitable target for petitioning. As a rule, victims of crime sought help from the people who seemed most likely to be willing and able to provide aid in a given situation. Thus, while a victim of breaking and entering might have lodged a complaint with the village archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬a tax collector experiencing difficulties in the execution of his duties might have appealed to a financial official (the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬or oikonomos, for instance), a soldier who had not been paid for a certain period of time might have written to a high-­ranking military officer, and a plaintiff having difficulty securing a court date 71 might have directed a petition to a panel of chrematistai. ‫ﷴ‬ We are concerned here, of course, with those petitions that concerned offenses against individuals. As we have already seen, sometimes civil officials received petitions regarding criminal matters. In villages, such complaints were occasionally directed to ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis or ko‫ﷳ‬marchai.72 69

Petitions from women: e.g., P.Enteux. 81 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Giss.Univ. I 8 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.); P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?). 70 Petitions from widows: e.g., BGU VIII 1833 (Herakleopolite, 51–50  b.c.); P.Enteux. 22 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); SB XXIV 16285 (Krokodilopolis, 202 b.c.). 71 Petitions to the dioike‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s: e.g., P.Gen. III 128 (Herakleopolite, 163–156 b.c.?); P.Mich. XVIII 778 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.); SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 171 b.c.); to the epimele‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s: e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 5 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.); P.Petr. III 36 FrA recto (Herakleopolite, 218–217 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 782 (Tebtynis, ca. 153 b.c.); to the oikonomos: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); Chrest.Wilck. 262 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); SB XX 14999 (Krokodilopolis?, 217 b.c.); to military officers: e.g., BGU IV 1190 (Herakleopolite, after 80 b.c.); P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.); P.Mil.Congr.XVII pp5/6 (Arsinoite, 142 b.c.); to chre‫ﷴ‬matistai: BGU VIII 1758 (Herakleopolite, 60–57 b.c.); SB VI 9556 (Arsinoite, 245 b.c.); XXII 15542 (Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.). 72 See Chapter 3.

192

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Two second-­century Herakleopolite petitions (P.Polit.Iud. 1 [135 b.c.] and 2 [ca. 135 b.c.]) suggest that the residents of the Jewish politeuma there could submit complaints concerning offenses to a judicial body of 73 archontes headed by a politarches. ‫ ﷴ‬In addition, private individuals could receive petitions. Zenon provides the best-­documented example of this fact. His important position under Apollonios seems to have made him a natural agent of appeal.74 Most of the time, however, petitions concerning crime and criminals reached officials with police powers. In a great many cases, petitioners appealed to the closest law enforcement official with administrative power and a connection to higher authorities. Archiphylakitai, epistatai, phrourarchoi, and occasionally even phylakitai were the recipients of appeals of this sort.75 Petitions to epistatai are most common, followed by those to archiphylakitai, phrourarchoi, and phylakitai, respectively. The requests preserved in the petitions that these officials received suggest that the power of town and village authorities to prosecute malefactors was great. Officials in Egyptian settlements were invested with a wide variety of powers for cracking cases. Although the town or village police could usually be counted on to resolve problems in the immediate vicinity, there nevertheless were occasions when a petitioner might address an appeal to a higher civil or police authority, such as the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, strategos, or even the ‫ﷴ‬ 73 The

politarches‫ ﷴ‬was the chief civil official in the Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis, assisted by a number of archontes: P.Polit.Iud. pp10–18 with bibliography. On Jewish politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt, see P.Polit.Iud. pp4–9 and the additional sources cited there. 74 Petitions to Zenon: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59520 (Krokodilopolis?, III b.c.); P.Mich. I 87 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.); PSI IV 419 (Philadelphia, III b.c.). On the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬Apollonios, Zenon, and his archive of third-­century documents, see Chapter 2, note 8. 75 Petitions to archiphylakitai: e.g., P.Mich. I 34 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 41 (Kerkeosiris, 105–90 b.c.); III.1 796 (Tebtynis, 185 b.c.); to epistatai: e.g., P.Köln III 140 (Arsinoite, 244–242 or 219–217 b.c.?); P.Mich. III 173 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.); P.Tebt. II 283 (Tebtynis, 93 or 60 b.c.); to phrourarchoi: e.g., P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?); 2 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?); SB V 8009 (?, I b.c.); to phylakitai: e.g., P.Hib. I 36 (Talaë, 229 b.c.); 37 (Talaë, 235 b.c.?); 144 (Herakleopolite?, 229 b.c.). Petitions to phylakitai seem to have been a third-­century phenomenon.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

193

king and queen.76 This higher official would then delegate responsibility to the appropriate village subordinate (typically an epistates). ‫ ﷴ‬Strategoi ‫ﷴ‬ received petitions throughout the Ptolemaic period, though appeals addressed to the sovereigns seem to have been primarily a third-­century phenomenon.77 Only two petitions to epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n survive.78 Often a failure in police function at the town or village level spurred a petitioner to seek out a higher official. In such cases, the higher official acted ­effectively as an agent of appeal. For example, in a second-­century letter to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n a petitioner noted that he had initially appealed to a certain Dannos and the ko‫ﷳ‬mophylakitai concerning the theft of two donkeys and certain other goods (SB VIII 9792 [Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.]; Chapter 2). Consequently, a police agent was dispatched to find the thieves. The petitioner had subsequently discovered one of his donkeys in the possession of a fellow villager. He asked in his petition that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n place this man under guard so that an investigation could be carried out. Occasionally a petition to a higher official met with an unsatisfactory (or no) response, prompting the petitioner to appeal to a lower official to ensure justice. In the following case, an epistates‫ ﷴ‬had been slow to enact a royal commandment prohibiting the abuse of a temple precinct and its overseers: 4

Ἀρκάδι τῶν (πρώτων) φίλων καὶ ἀρχιθυρωρῶν διεξάγοντι τὰ κατὰ τὴν στρατηγίαν παρὰ Πετοσίρι[ο]ς τ[ο]ῦ Σπάγιτος καὶ τῶν μετόχων τῶν προεστηκότων τοῦ ἐν Ὀξυρύγχοις τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος τεμένους

76 Petitions

to epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.; see Chapter 5); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.; see Chapter 3); to strategoi: e.g., BGU VIII 1822 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.); Chrest.Mitt. ‫ﷴ‬ 12 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.); P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?); to the sovereigns: e.g., P.Enteux. 49 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.); SB VI 9065 (Herakleopolite, 50/49 b.c.). 77 See P.Enteux. It should be noted that though formally addressed to the sovereigns, petitions of this sort were actually delivered by the petitioner to the office of the strategos: P.Enteux. pp. xxi–xl. ‫ﷴ‬ 78 See herein note 76.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

194 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Ἀρσινόης. τινῶν τῶν ἐκ τῆς κώμης ὑποτελῶν καὶ ἄλλων εἰσβιαζομένων εἰς τὸ δηλούμενον τέμενος οὐ μόνον αὐτῶι ἐπιρ⟨ρ⟩ίπτουσι ἀλλὰ καὶ διασείουσιν καὶ ἐνεχυράζονται παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον καὶ τοῦτο μεθ’ ὕβρεως καὶ σκυλμοῦ συν   υ  [   ]ν καταπλεύσαντες εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἐπ[εδ]ώκαμεν ἔν[τ]ε[υ]ξιν τῶι βασιλεῖ καὶ τῆι β[ασιλίσ]σηι ἐν ἧι παραπλήσια τοῖς προειρη-­ μ[ένοι]ς ἐξηριθμησάμεθα, [τ]αύτης δὲ ἀπ[ο]σταλείσης ἐπὶ  ολλίδην τὸν στρατη-­ γήσαντα ἐχούσης τὸ προστεταγμένον  ολλ[ ]δ  [ ]     ται ὡς οὔτε τὸ τέμενος οὔτε οἱ [προεστ]ῶτ[ε]ς σκυλήσονται ἀλλ’ ἐ-­ αθήσον[ται ἀνεν]όχ[λη]τοι καθότι ἀξιοῦσιν, καὶ τῶν        ολλι    γραψάντων τῶι τῆς κώμης ἐπιστάτει ἀ ­ κολούθως, ὁμο[ίως δὲ] καὶ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐπι-­ δόν[των] σοι πολλὰ ὑπομνήματα, πρὸς ἃ ἔγρα[ψ]ας Πτ[ολ]εμαίωι τῶι τῆς κώμης ἐπιστάτει μ[η]θενὶ ἐπιτρέπειν παρὰ τὸ δέον τι πράσσειν, τοὺς δὲ σημαινομένους καταστῆσαι, καὶ μηδ’ ἕως τοῦ νῦν ἐπιστροφῆς γεγο[ν]υ[ί]ας πρ[ο]σδεόμεθα δὲ τοῦ ἐνθένδε ὑπάρχειν τῶι τεμένει τὸ ὑπὸ το[ῦ] βασιλέως καὶ τῆς βασιλίσσης προστεταγμένον κ[α]ὶ τούτου τὸ ἀντίγραφον ἐπιγραφῆναι ἐπὶ [τοῦ] ἔξω προπύλου τοῦ [τεμένου]ς ὑπὸ τὴν [ὑ]-­ πάρχουσαν πλάκα [ἵ]να μηθεὶς [κ]ατ’ αὐ[τὸ] εἰσβιάζηται. ἀξ[ιο]ῦμέν σε, ἐὰν φ[αίνηται], συγχωρῆσαι ἡμῖν ἐπιτελέσαι τὸ προστε-­ [ταγμένον ]     [   ]    [  ]      

To Arkas of the pro‫ﷳ‬toi philoi and archithyro‫ﷳ‬roi,79 the man performing the functions of strategos, from Petosiris, son of Spagis, and the officials [4] appointed to the ‫ﷴ‬ 79 Pro‫ﷳ‬toi philoi: Chapter  3, note 82; archithyror‫ ﷳ‬os: Mooren (1975) 176 with I.Alex.Ptol. 43.2 (Alexandria, II/I b.c.).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

195

holy precinct of Arsinoë in Oxyrhyncha of the Polemon meris.80 As certain of the monopoly employees from the village, and others, were doing harm [8] to the aforementioned holy precinct, not only throwing (things?) at it, but even taking things (from it?) and extracting pledges contrary to what is right, and doing this with hybris and vexation … we, [12] sailing down to Alexandria, submitted a petition to the king and queen, in which we enumerated about the same number of offenses as indicated above. This (petition) [16] was sent to [..]ollides, the former 81 containing the ordered … that neither the holy precinct nor those in strategos, ‫ﷴ‬ charge of it be mistreated, but be allowed [20] to remain undisturbed, as is fitting. And the [ – – ]s accordingly wrote to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of the village, and similarly we have submitted [24] to you several petitions about the same matters. In response, you wrote to Ptolemaios, epistates‫ ﷴ‬of the village,82 that he not attempt to extract anything beyond what is necessary, and to stand the aforementioned men [28] (before himself? ); but as no attention has been given to this matter up to the present time, we require that the copy of the commandment of the king and queen concerning the holy precinct [32] here be inscribed upon the outer entrance to the temple under the slab, so that no one may do harm to it. We ask you, if it seems right, that you [36] agree to fulfill for us what has been enjoined … (P.Tebt. III.1 790 [Oxyrhyncha, 127–124 b.c.])

Here we see a good example of a breakdown in the chain of command on display in a great many petitions: petition to sovereigns, notification to strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬order to epistates. ‫ ﷴ‬The basic scenario is clear: an arrangement for protection drawn up under the former strategos ‫ ﷴ‬seems to be eroding under the current officeholder. The lapses that have allegedly occurred on the latter’s watch are serious: he has already received several petitions concerning abuses against a sacred precinct – which we can assume were expressly forbidden by the sovereigns after they had read the initial petition from the precinct officials – and in spite of having contacted the local epistates‫ ﷴ‬with instructions for him to stop his extortion and 80 In

addition to this temenos dedicated to the cult of queen Arsinoë II (ca. ­316–270  b.c.), Oxyrhyncha possessed in the Ptolemaic period a Thesmophorion, a temple of Demeter, a Hierakeion (hawk shrine), an Isieion and a Serapeion: see Daris (1978–83, 1988, 2007). 81 The editors suggest that the strategos mentioned here may be named ‫ﷴ‬ [Pt]ollides, though this is far from certain (see P.Tebt. III.2, index VII, under στρατηγῶν). He only occurs here (cf. Pros.Ptol. 325 = 349). 82 Ptolemaios, epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Oxyrhyncha: Pros.Ptol. 705, only here.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

196

arrest some malefactors, nothing has happened. Thus, the petitioners wisely decide to move one level up the chain of command  – to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬again – in order to obtain results at the lowest level (i.e., from the epistates), ‫ ﷴ‬perhaps knowing full well that another appeal to the king and queen, though it would ultimately prove successful, would also likely add many additional days (even weeks) to the grievance process. One way to potentially avoid the kind of breakdown on display in this example was to cast a wider net in the earliest stages of the petitioning process by sending copies of an appeal to more than one official at the same time.83 Granted, this may also have occurred because a petitioner was ignorant of the proper person to contact for his or her problem, or simply from a belief that the more petitions one wrote, the greater the success one would have. The reasons why victims of crime wrote multiple petitions are not always clear, though in by far the greatest number of cases petitioners seem to have directed their complaints to high-­ranking government agents in the belief that an appeal to the official with the broadest geographic or administrative competency would receive the swiftest, most satisfactory response. Those who sought the aid of high-­ranking officials frequently requested that addressees give an order to an appropriate town or village agent to see that justice was done. The ubiquity of the petitioning process proves that the inhabitants of Ptolemaic Egypt were not resourceless when offenses were committed against them. They were well aware of the various officials who could provide them with government redress and did not hesitate to seek them out. That petitioners appealed for justice to officers in all areas of Ptolemaic administration suggests that they also knew, in many cases, to whom to direct complaints about specific issues. This 83 E.g.,

P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.) and 73 (Oxyrhynchite, 2­ 44–243  b.c.), two reports on the misbehavior of an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬the former addressed to the king, the latter to the village epistates; SB XXVI ‫ﷴ‬ 16742, 16743, and 16744 (all Arsinoite, all ca. 140/139 b.c.), three petitions concerning an abduction, addressed to an archisom ‫ ﷳ‬atophylax (without further title), an unknown official, and a strategos, respectively; UPZ I 5, 6, ‫ﷴ‬ and 6a (Memphis, 163 b.c.), three petitions concerning an illegal search, the first addressed to the strategos, the second to the sovereigns, and the third to ‫ﷴ‬ an unknown official.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

197

hypothesis is borne out by the few surviving petitions that relate failures after initial pleas for help. For the most part, people knew to whom to write for assistance. When the process stalled, they knew how to get it started again.

Where?

One assumes that petitions were generally delivered to the offices of the addressees specified by petitioners. Indeed, the numerous appeals with appended dockets that survive attest that many were eventually processed by recipients.84 Yet, while the presence of a command to make an arrest, write to a subordinate, or perform some other follow-­up action, usually written in a second hand and placed in the upper or lower margin of a petition, is a clear indication that a complaint had been processed by the Ptolemaic law enforcement system, it is not a guarantee that an appeal had been read and digested by the intended addressee. A delegating official very rarely identified himself in the typically terse docket to a petition, and where identification of a forwarding official is offered by an editor, it is often based on conjecture or assumption.85 Petitioners sometimes specified officials to whom instructions should be given  – or their petitions should be forwarded  – by the original recipient of their petitions; but here, too, certainty about the identities of the officials who ultimately received petitions or instruction is often impossible, as in the following case:

[βασιλεῖ Π]τολεμαίωι χαίρειν Π[άππος. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑ]πὸ Στρουθοῦ [τοῦ υἱοῦ μου.]

84 Docketed petitions: e.g., BGU VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.); P.Enteux.

64 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 4 (Thebes?, 111 b.c.). 85 For instance, in P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.), a petition to an official occupying the post of ho pros tais syntaxesin, an unidentified official followed the petitioner’s instructions and forwarded the petition to an epistates‫( ﷴ‬32–5). The epistates‫ ﷴ‬wrote back to the addressee once he had carried out the instructions (36–44). One would assume that the original addressee had been responsible for forwarding the petition to the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬but this cannot be proved conclusively.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

198

[ἐμοῦ γὰρ δι]δάξαντος αὐτὸν τὴν [ ca. 12 κ]αὶ τὴν γραμ[ματικὴν ca. ? ] [ ca. ? γενο]μένου πρεσβυτέρου καὶ οὐ[ ca. 11 ]αυτὸν τρέψα[ι ca. ? ] 4 [ ca. ? ἐ]πὶ Διοσκουρίδην τὸν παρὰ σ[οῦ        ἐ]ν Ἀρσινόηι κ[ ca. ? ] αὐτ[ὸν] παρέχειν μοι κατὰ μῆνα πυ(ροῦ) ἀρ(τάβην) α καὶ (δραχμὰς) δ, ἐν οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς [ ca. ? ] \             / [ο]ὐδ’ ὥς μοι δέδωκεν οὐθὲν τῶν συγχωρηθέντων, ἀλλὰ περικα[ ca. ? ] ὅταν ποτέ μοι ἀπαντήσῃ λοιδορεῖ με τα  ̀ αἴσχιστα, καὶ ἀποβιαζόμ[ενος ca. ? ] 8 δον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν μου ἁρπάζει μου ἀεὶ τὸ πρόχειρον τῶν σκευῶν, καταφρονῶν μου ὅτι πρεσβύτερός εἰμι καὶ ἀσθενῶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς. δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλεῖ, προσ-­ τάξαι Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι γράψαι τῶι ἐπιστάτηι κώμης Ἀρσινόης, τῆς Θε-­ μίστου μερίδος, τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ χώματος, ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ Διοφάνην, καὶ ἐὰν ἦι 12 τὰ διὰ τῆς ἐντεύξεως ἀληθῆ, τῆς μὲν βίας ἐπιστῆσαι αὐ\τόν/, τῆς δὲ ταγῆς μοι ἐγγύους αὐτὸν καταστῆσαι, ἵνα εἰς τὸ λοιπόν μοι εὐτακτῇ. τούτου γὰρ γενομένου, ἔσο-­ μαι διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ, τοῦ δικαίου τετευχώς. vac εὐτύχει. (hand 2) Πτολεμαίωι. μάλιστα μὲν αὐτὸς σὺ διάλυσον τὸν πατέρα πρὸς τὸν Στρουθόν· ἐὰν δέ τι 16 ἀντιλέγηι, ἀπόστειλον αὐτὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὅπως μὴ ἄλλως ἔσται. (ἔτους) κς, Δαισίου κγ, Φαῶφι ε.

To king Ptolemy, greetings, Pappos. I am wronged by Strouthos, my son. For although I taught him … and grammar … when I became older … and not … for him to take care (of me?) … [4] to Dioskourides, your agent … in Arsinoë … that he would provide me with an artaba of grain per month and 4 drachmas, in which I myself (?) also … he did not give me any of the agreed-­upon things, but … whenever he meets me, he reviles me most shamefully, and abusing me (physically) … [8] into my house, he always seizes a box of my things (?), looking down upon me

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

199

because I am an old man and have poor eyesight. Therefore, I need you, king, to 86 tell Diophanes, strategos, to write to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Arsinoë of the Themistes meris, ‫ﷴ‬ the one by the dyke, to send him [i.e., Strouthos] to Diophanes;87 and if [12] the contents of my petition prove true, bring him to trial for the abuse and force him to supply guarantors for my pension, so that he may pay it to me in the future. For if this occurs, I shall meet with justice via your agency, king. Farewell. (second hand ) To Ptolemaios. By all means, reconcile his father with Strouthos. But if he [i.e., Strouthos] [16] disputes something, send him to us. Take care that you do not do otherwise. Year 26, Daisios 23, Phaophi 5.88 (P.Enteux. ­25.1–15 [Ghoran, 222 b.c.])

On the face of it, the journey made by this petition is clear: it was sent to the king, who then forwarded it to someone named Ptolemaios (without title), who, in turn, either took action himself and recorded the outcome (on the verso) or forwarded the petition to a third official who himself handled the situation and wrote down the results.89 The petitioner, however, requested that the king have the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬write to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Arsinoë to send the accused back to the strategos. What ‫ﷴ‬ exactly happened here? In this case we can be reasonably confident that Pappos’s petition never actually reached the king but instead was received by the office of the strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬who then forwarded it to the epistates‫ﷴ‬ (Ptolemaios), who either took charge himself or had a subordinate do 86 Diophanes: see note 4. 87 One assumes that this

epistate‫ﷴ‬s is the Ptolemaios to whom the petition was forwarded (line 15, below; cf. Pros.Ptol. 702), but as Ptolemaios is not given a title, this is speculative. 88 On the double date here, see Chapter 2, note 81. 89 On the verso of this petition is preserved, in a third hand, a brief account of the reconciliation of father and son (lines 17–19): “Year 26, Phaophi 4. Strouthos, appearing (at the mediation), said that he would provide to Pappos, his father, for his pension, 2 bronze drachmas per month; and Pappos, also present, was content with these terms, and said, ‘If he pays me (my pension) for a year, I will not inscribe his name on the temple for (owing me) this same amount.’” ((ἔτους) κς, Φαῶφι δ. καταστὰς Στρουθὸς ἔφη δώσειν Πάππωι τῶι πατρὶ αὐτοῦ | εἰς τροφὴν αὐτῶι τὸμ μῆνα χαλκοῦ (δραχμὰς) β. παρὼν δὲ καὶ Πάππος εὐδοκεῖ ἐπὶ τούτοις, | καὶ ἐὰν ἐνιαυτόν μοι εὐτακτήσῃ \μὴ/ ἐπιγράψειν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ αὐτοῦ μέρους.)

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

200

so.90 In general, while it is probably safe to assume that in most cases a petitioned official read and replied to his own mail, it is nevertheless probable that a subordinate (e.g., a hypostrategos ‫ ﷴ‬or hyparchiphylakites) ‫ ﷴ‬or some other government officer was responsible for sending the instructions of the addressee on to a lower official, with or without the addressee’s nod of approval.91 The documents are inconclusive. Complaints to high-­ranking law enforcement officials did not always reach the offices of their intended destinations. It seems to have occasionally been the case that petitions were addressed to one official but delivered to another.92 In many cases, petitions were forwarded to other, generally lower officials by their original recipients. Most documents of this sort contain brief instructions from the forwarding official to the forwardee to give heed to the contents of the document and either follow the petitioner’s instructions and carry out a specific action or simply see that the victim found justice:93 δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλεῦ, προστάξαι Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι, ἐπειδὴ ὁ Ἱπποίτας οὐκέτι ἐστ[ὶ ca. ?, γράψαι] Μικίωνι τῶι ἐπιστάτηι ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ Διοφάνην καί, ἐὰν ᾖ καθότι γράφω, ἐπαναγκάσαι αὐτὸν ἀπο-­ δοῦναί μοι τὰς ιβ (δραχμάς). τούτου γὰρ γενομένου, διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ, τεύξομαι τοῦ δικαίου. εὐτύχει. 12 (hand 2) [Μικίωνι. ἐπι(σκεψάμενος) φρόν(τισον) ὅπως τ]ῶν δικαίων τύχηι. (ἔτους) δ, Δίου γ, Φαμενὼθ κζ. 8

90 This

is the chain of command on display in virtually all of the third-­century documents from Magdola collected as P.Enteux. (see P.Enteux., introduction). 91 As one might expect, petitions to officials who were clear subordinates of other officials are rare. Aside from phylakitai (see herein note 75), only the hypodioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ seems to have regularly received complaints: di Bitonto Kasser (1968) 61. 92 As mentioned earlier, many third-­century petitions addressed to the king and queen were actually delivered to the office of the strategos ‫( ﷴ‬see P.Enteux. pp. xxxi–xl). The lack of forwarding formulary demonstrates that these petitions were not forwarded to the office of the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬by the sovereigns. 93 Forwarded petitions with instructions to follow a petitioner’s request: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Enteux. 8 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); with instructions to see that justice was carried out: e.g., P.Enteux. 48 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); SB XVIII 13840 (Mouchis, 224–218 b.c.); UPZ I 7 (Memphis, 163 b.c.).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

201

[8] Therefore I need you, king, to tell Diophanes the strate‫ﷴ‬gos94 – since Hippoitas is no longer [ – – ] – to write to Mikion the epistates‫ ﷴ‬to send him [i.e., Hippoitas] to Diophanes,95 and if my account of events proves true, to force him to give me back the 12 drachmas. For if this happens, I will find justice through you, king. Farewell.96 [12] (second hand ) To Mikion. Examine the matter and see to it that he finds justice. Year 4, Dios 3, Phamenoth 27. (P.Enteux. 28.8–12 [Theogonis, 218 b.c.]) 28 32

[διὸ ἀ]ξι[ῶ] καταφθειρόμενος ἐπὶ ξένης μὴ περιιδεῖν με [καὶ ἐά]ν σοι φαίνηται γράψαι Δ[ ca. ? τῶι] ἐπιστάτηι, ἐὰν ἦι οἷ[α προφέρ]ομαι, παραδοῦναί μοι τὰ σ[κῦλ]α, περὶ δὲ τῶν ταῦτα διαπεπρα-­ γμ[ένω]ν διαλαβεῖν κα[τ]ὰ τὸ φανέν σ[οι]. εὐτύχει. (hand 2) πρ(ονοηθῆναι(?)).

Wherefore I ask, wasting away abroad, that you not overlook me, and if it seems 97 best [28] to you, please write to D[ – – ] the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬to hand the people over to me, if things are as I present them; and make a judgment about those who have done [32] these things as seems best to you. Farewell.98 (second hand ) Take care of this (?). (P.Hamb. I 91.25–34 [Herakleopolite, 167 b.c.]) 94 Diophanes: herein note 4. 95 Mikion: Pros.Ptol. 688 (= 689?). 96 The petition concerns the theft of some items and a sum of money by a man named Demetrios, who had later been caught by a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬Hippoitas (Pros.Ptol. 4686). Hippoitas had managed to extract a cup/jar ( poterion) and ‫ﷴ‬ twelve drachmas from Demetrios, but only the cup/jar had found its way back to the petitioner. 97 D[ – – ]: Pros.Ptol. 658 = 662. In the original edition of the text, the editors print Δ[ημητρίωι] at 28, but there is no independent support for the supplement: see the comments of Clarysse (2002) 106 n. on 28, who presents a new edition of the text. I employ his version here. 98 The petition, from a soldier, concerns a number of slaves who had been given to the petitioner as booty and later escaped. One had been recovered but escaped a second time with the complicity of some priests.

202

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

In both of these cases, as is also the case for most petitions that contain forwarding formulary, the instructions of the forwarding official are abbreviated (sometimes quite heavily) and fit on one line. More often than not, the forwarding official told his subordinate to tend to the petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition. This regular agreement between the wishes of petitioners expressed in the request sections of appeals and the commandments given out to subordinates by forwarding officials is striking. It suggests either that Ptolemaic police officials were especially obliging or (more likely) that petitioners knew what sorts of police responses to expect in certain situations and tailored their requests accordingly. It was generally officials of high rank (the king, strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬and upper­level epistatai) who forwarded petitions to lower-­level officers throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. In most cases, higher-­level government officers seem to have forwarded petitions concerning crimes in Egyptian towns and villages to the epistatai in these settlements.99 As the highest-­ranking administrators in the towns and villages of the Egyptian countryside and direct appointees of nome-­level officials, epistatai were natural points of contact for the central government. There is some evidence that archiphylakitai might occasionally have received petitions forwarded by the epistatai who supervised them or by other town or village officials. Yet though victims of abuse occasionally instructed a higher official to forward a petition to an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬there is no evidence that such forward100 ing ever occurred. Other officials, too, sometimes received petitions forwarded by higher-­ranking officers.101 It should also be noted that 99 Epistatai

as recipients of forwarded petitions: e.g., P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 4 (Thebes?, 111 b.c.); SB XVIII 13837 (Mouchis, 224–218 b.c.). 100 In one instance (P.Mich. XVIII 778 [Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.]), a petitioner asked the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬that his petition be forwarded to an archiphylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ But the petition does not have a subscription, leaving it in doubt whether the document ever reached the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬In three other cases (P.Enteux. 24 and 50  [Magdola, 221 b.c.] and 82  [Trikomia, 221 b.c.]), petitioners requested that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬write to a village archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬In each case, the strategos wrote to the village epistate s instead. ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 101 For instance, P.Enteux. 70 (Magdola, 221 b.c.) and 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.), petitions to the king, were forwarded by strategoi ‫ﷴ‬ to epistatai. In P.Tor.Choach. 8 (Thebes, after September 24–October 23,

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

203

petitions to the sovereigns could be copied and distributed to multiple police, military, and civil officials as circulars.102 The forwarding of petitions was not always from top to bottom. Often a petitioner asked a lower-­level law enforcement official to send his or her appeal on to a superior. Sometimes a lower-­level official did so of his own accord. The papyri preserve instances of petitions being sent up to strate‫ﷴ‬goi and other officials, primarily those with judicial ­powers.103 Occasionally the transfer of petitions from one sphere of government to another or between officials within a certain branch of the administration without direct supervisory connections to each other took place. For instance, in one case a petitioner had written initially to an oikonomos with a request that the oikonomos write to the epistate‫ﷴ‬s of Phnebieus (BGU VI 1244 [Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?]; Chapter 2). The oikonomos, however, rerouted the petition through the office of the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. The latter official saw to it that the petition reached its intended destination. In another case, a petitioner wrote to an official with the title ho pros tais syntaxesin (P.Hamb. IV 238 [Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.]).104 The petitioner asked that the addressee write to an epistate‫ﷴ‬s to make an arrest and have an offending party sent to the addressee. 127 b.c.) and SB VI 9065 (Herakleopolite, 50/49 b.c.), petitions to the sovereigns, petitioners requested that the king and queen send their appeals to certain chrematistai. ‫ﷴ‬ 102 See C.Ord.Ptol.2 62.2–5 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), a petition to the sovereigns from the chief of embalmers, which was copied, supplemented with official instructions, and forwarded τῶι στρατη[γ]ῶι τοῦ Μεμφίτου κ[αὶ] τῶι φρουράρχωι [καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπισ[τά]τηι | [τ]ῶν φυλα[κιτ]ῶν καὶ ἀρχιφυλακίτηι καὶ τῶι ἐπὶ [τ]ῶν προσόδ[ων] καὶ βασιλι[κ]ῶι | [γρ]αμματεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐπιστάταις τῶν ἱερ[ῶ]ν καὶ ἀρχι{ι}ερεῦσ[ι καὶ] τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς | [τ]ὰ βασιλικὰ πραγματευομένοις. Cf. C.Ord.Ptol.2 47 (Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.), in which the king and queens write to a number of police (and other) officials after receiving a petition from some priests about problems with collecting temple income. 103 Petitions forwarded by lower officials to strategoi: BGU III 1012 (Arsinoite, ‫ﷴ‬ 170 b.c.); VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Hib. I 72 (Herakleopolite, 241 b.c.); to other judicial higher-­ups: P.Diosk. 6 (?) (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), where petitioners requested that their petition be sent up to a certain Nikanor and a certain Archianax (on whom see herein note 19). 104 On the title ho pros tais syntaxesin, see Geraci (1981).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

204

The addressee forwarded the petition to the epistate‫ﷴ‬s, who then returned the petition to the addressee with news that the request had been carried out:105 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

[Διονυσίωι τῶι πρὸς ταῖς συ]ντάξεσι καὶ ­ἡγεμόνι [παρὰ Φιλίνας Ἀργαίου Μα]κέτας. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ [Λεοντίσκου τοῦ ἐμοῦ υἱοῦ.  ]οστησάσ{σ}ης γάρ μου [τούτου ἠνάγκασμαι τὴν ἐπὶ σὲ] καταφυγὴν ποήσα-­ [σθαι ca. 20 ] καταγνούς μου διὰ τὸ [γυναῖκα ca. 14 τοῦ] κα (ἔτους) πορευθεὶς πρὸς [ ca. 24 ] κην τὴν καθήκου-­ [σαν ca. 21 ] δεκαρουρίαν ἐμὲ [ ca. 25 ] τῷ ἐμῷ ὀνόματι [ ca. 25 ]ατο ἄλλας πυρῶν [ἀρτάβας ca. 15 πεν]τε. καὶ α  το ὑπο [ ca. 25 ]   [  ]  [     ]ν traces [ ca. 12 ]     ο   ν ἐπὶ traces [ ca. 11 τ]οῦ Ἡρακλεοπολ[ίτου] νο-­ μοῦ δι’ ὠνὴν γ[ενομένην διὰ το]ῦ ἐν Ἡρακλέους πόλει ἀγοραν[ομείου, κ]αὶ οὐκ ἀρκεσθεὶς ἐπὶ τούτοι[ς] ᾤχηται ἔχω[ν καὶ τὴν τ]ῆς προγεγραμμένης μου δούλης θυγα[τέρα ὑ]πονοῶν καὶ ταύτην ἀπο-­ δώσεσθαι. ἀξ[ιῶ οὖν, ἐ]άν σοι φαίνηται, καθ’ ὃ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ὑπο[μνήμασι] καὶ ποιῶν, μὴ ὑπεριδεῖν μ’ ὑπὸ [τοῦ ἀγνώ]μονος υἱ{ι}οῦ κατα-­ βραπευθῆν[α]ι, ἀ[λ]λὰ [γράψαι] παραχρῆμα Σωγένει τῷ [ἐπιστάτ]ῃ ἀποστεῖλαι τὸν Λεοντίσκον ἐπ[ὶ σὲ π]ρὸ τοῦ τὸ κοράσιον πραθῆναι, ἵνα ἐ\ὰ/ν π[αραδεικ]νύω τὰ διὰ τοῦ ὑπομνήματος ὄντα ἀληθῆ, ἐπαναγκάσῃς αὐτὸν ἀποδοῦναί μοι τὸν σῖτον καὶ τὸ κορά-­ σιον, τὴν δὲ πεπραμένην παιδίσκην μεσιδιωθῆναι δ[4–5] τούτου γὰρ γενο-­

105 But see herein note 85. The papyri also preserve instances of petitions being

forwarded from epimeletai ‫ ﷴ‬to epistatai (P.Tebt. III.1 782 [Tebtynis, ca. 153 b.c.]) and from dioiketai to strate goi ‫ﷴ‬ ‫( ﷴ‬BGU VIII 1761 [Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.]).

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses 32 36 40 44

205

μένου ἔσομαι διὰ σ[ὲ τοῦ  ]   ου τετευχυα. εὐτύχει. Σωγέν[ε]ι· παραγ[γεῖλαι] τῷ Λεοντίσκῳ παραχρῆμα ἀπ[αντᾶν] πρὸ ἡμᾶς. ἐὰν δὲ στραγεύηται, μὴ ἐπιτρέψῃς. (ἔτους) κβ Φαμενὼθ κ. (ἔτους) κβ Φαμενὼθ λ. Διονυσίωι. ἐκόμισεν ἡμ{ε}ῖν Φιλίνα Ἀργαίου Μακέτα ­κατὰ Λεοντίσκου τοῦ ἑαυτῆς ὑγοῦ106 ὑπόμνη-­ μα παρὰ σοῦ κεχρηματισμένον ἔχον ὑπογραφ[ὴ]ν παραγγεῖλα[ι] αὐτῶι ἀπαν-­ τᾶν πρὸ[ς σ]ὲ παραχρῆμα, ἐὰν δὲ στρα-­ γεύηται, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν αὐτῶι. παρήγ-­ γελται α[ὐ]τῷ δι’ Ἑρμογ[ένου] τοῦ παρὰ Πτολεμ[αίου] τοῦ ὑπο    [ ]τρ[ ]πηναι Ἑρμο( )

To Dionysios, ho pros tais syntaxesi and hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬, from Philina, daughter of Argaios, ‫ﷴ‬ 107 Macedonian. I am wronged by Leontiskos, my son. For as I have run away from (?) [4] him, I have been forced to flee to you … having charged (?) me, on account of my being (?) a woman … in year 21, having gone to … [8] the according … the plot of 10 arouras, me … in my name … other artabas of wheat … 5  … and… [12] … of the Herakleopolite nome, via a purchase that took place at the Herakleopolis [16] agoranomion.108 But he did not abide by these terms, but has fled in possession of the daughter of the aforementioned female slave of mine, supposing that he will sell her. I ask, therefore, if it seems best to you, acting in accordance with what is presented [20] in my other petitions, to not overlook me, being deprived of my rights by my inconsiderate son, but to write immediately to Sogenes, epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬to send [24] Leontiskos to you, before the maiden is sold, so that if I prove that the contents of my petition are true, you may force him to return to me the grain and the maiden, [28] and the slave girl who has been sold may be deposited with a neutral party. For if this happens, I shall have met with [ – – ] through you. Farewell. 106 Read υἱοῦ. 107 He‫ﷴ‬gemo‫ﷳ‬n: Chapter 3, note ­70. 108 The agoranomion was the office of the agoranomos, essentially a public notary. On this official and his office, see Pestman (1985a) and the additional sources cited there; also Foster (1970) 134–5 and Raschke (1974).

206

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

[32] (second hand ) To Sogenes: Tell Leontiskos to present himself before us immediately. But if he delays, do not allow it. Year 22, Phamenoth 20. [36] (third hand? ) Year 22, Phamenoth 30. To Dionysios. Philina, daughter of Argaios, Macedonian, brought to us a petition against her son, bearing [40] orders from you to tell him [i.e., Leontiskos] to appear before you immediately, and if he delays, not to allow him to. He was ordered to appear by Hermogenes, agent [44] of Ptolemaios, the ­…

Cases like this one, which preserve the results of an investigation or order to arrest, are rare. Also unusual here is the path apparently taken by the petition: it was initially delivered to Dionysios, who (or a subordinate of whom) then added an instruction to the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬but then evidently returned the petition to the petitioner for delivery to the epistates. ‫ﷴ‬ The epistates‫ ﷴ‬received the docketed petition from the petitioner, carried out the instructions of Dionysios, and had the petition returned to the same as proof of his compliance. One wonders why Dionysios did not bother to send the petition to Sogenes himself or via someone in his office. Perhaps the petitioner insisted on a personal delivery for the sake of obtaining speedy redress. If so, she seems to have met with some success: only ten days passed between Dionysios’s reply to the petition and the report of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬that Leontiskos had been ordered to appear. There had possibly been additional developments in that time period as well, but since the report of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬breaks off, we can be certain only that an order to appear had been given. The frequent transfer of appeals for justice between different departments of the administration demonstrates not only that the bureaucracy of Ptolemaic Egypt was organized and efficient but also that it felt a surprising degree of responsibility toward its subjects. Instead of summarily dismissing as a waste of time and resources complaints of the most trivial nature (e.g., those regarding minor thefts and scrapes), petitioned officials of high status contacted the appropriate town or village officials in order to secure justice. When the petitioning process failed to yield the desired results, an effective appeals process provided additional assistance. The success of a victim of crime and his or her petition often depended not only on the merits of the case in question but also on his or her own resolve.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

207

What?

The success of a petition can also be gauged by the official action taken in response to the petitioner’s request. Thus, it is reasonable to ask what petitioners expected from the officials they petitioned and what these officials did. As we have seen, the offenses committed against the inhabitants of Ptolemaic Egypt varied. By contrast, the requests made of the police by petitioners did not. In most cases, victims sought specific remediating actions. They seem to have realized, however, that the recipients of their appeals were often not the officials who would carry out their requests. Victims often asked that the recipient of a complaint forward it to another official or that someone other than a petition’s addressee be informed in writing of the charges being brought. The papyri preserve instances of requests for lower officials to write to their superiors, for higher officials to contact subordinates, for an addressee to communicate with the proper officials, and for an official in one administrative sphere to write to one in another.109 Petitioners who requested communication with another official typically supplied an additional request for this officer. In addition to a request for one official to write to another, or independent of such a request, a petitioner typically asked that some decisive action be taken to solve a case. Requests for arrests of suspected offenders, 109 Communication

with a superior: e.g., BGU III 1012 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.); P.Hib. I 72 (Herakleopolite, 241 b.c.); P.Stras. VIII 781 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), petitions to epistatai requesting that they write to strategoi, with ‫ﷴ‬ subordinates: e.g., BGU VIII 1828 (Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.), where a petitioner requested that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬write to a meridarches; ‫ ﷴ‬X 1903 (?, III b.c.), a letter in which the author asked that the king write to the strategos; ‫ﷴ‬ P.Dion. 11 (Hermoupolis Magna, 108 b.c.), where a petitioner requested that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬write to an epistates; ‫ ﷴ‬with the appropriate officials: e.g., P.Enteux. 6 (Athenas kome, 222 b.c.); P.Rain.Cent. 50 (?) (Phthemphouth, I b.c.); P.Tebt. I 264 (Tebtynis, II b.c.); with government agents outside of the administrative sphere of the addressee: BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), a petition to an oikonomos asking him to write to an epistates; ‫ﷴ‬ BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), a letter to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬with a request that he write to the strategos; Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.), ‫ﷴ‬ an appeal to the epimelete s with a request that he write to an archiphylakites. ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬

208

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

deliveries of summonses, and the transport of a suspect to another official for trial or examination are most common.110 Occasionally petitioners asked that they themselves be summoned.111 Sometimes they asked that someone be imprisoned, that they or another person be removed from jail, or that certain goods be kept under watch.112 Requests for the eviction of squatters are common.113 Frequently a petitioner asked that an addressee carry out an investigation of his or her complaints, a process that usually involved the interrogation of a witness or suspect, or that he view damage to person and/or property.114 In many cases victims requested that stolen or owed property be returned, that they be reimbursed for the value of stolen or damaged goods, or that they be compensated for pain and suffering.115 Requests for an end to harassment, 110 Arrest

or summons of a suspect or transport to an official or tribunal: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59224 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.). 111 Summons of the petitioner or petitioner and accused: e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 12 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.); P.Mert. I 5 (Ptolemais, 149–135 b.c.); P.Polit.Iud. 2 (Herakleopolite, ca. 135 b.c.). 112 Imprisonment of a suspect: e.g., BGU VIII 1824 (Herakleopolite, 60–55  b.c.); P.Diosk. 3 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); P.Enteux. 3 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); of a third party: e.g., Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.); PSI V 532 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); SB XXVI 16743 (Arsinoite, ca. 140/139 b.c.); release from prison: e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 5 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.); P.Polit.Iud. 2 (Herakleopolite, ca. 135 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 777 (Tebtynis, II b.c.); supervision of goods: e.g., BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.), a petition to a phylakites‫ﷴ‬ with a request that he guard some ktene ‫( ﷴ ﷴ‬flocks); VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), a petition to the dioikete s with a request that he secure the petitioner’s ‫ﷴ ﷴ‬ genemata (crops); P.Diosk. 5 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?), a petition to a phrou‫ﷴ‬ rarchos with a request that he watch over some smuggled donkey hides. 113 E.g., BGU III 1006 (?, III b.c.); P.Enteux. 14 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 780 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.). 114 Investigations/interrogations: e.g., P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); P.Enteux. 3 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); UPZ II 151 (Thebaid?, 259 b.c.); inspections: e.g., BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. I 59080 (Memphis, 257 b.c.); SB XVIII 13312 (Magdola, 224–218 b.c.). 115 Return of stolen items or goods/money owed: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256 b.c.); P.Dion. 11 (Hermoupolis Magna, 108 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 41 (Kerkeosiris, 105–90 b.c.); compensation for damaged or stolen goods or for pain and suffering: e.g., BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.); VIII 1824 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.); P.Enteux. 72 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); return of items or suitable payment: BGU

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

209

whether official or private, sometimes occur as well as requests that a standing decree or judgment be obeyed.116 Petitioners to the king and queen occasionally asked that their petitions be displayed in prominent public areas or that orders for protection be publicly posted, especially if the matters contained in their complaints were of concern to a broad cross section of the population.117 Appeals sometimes contained the request that a copy of the document be kept on file in the office of the addressee or some other regional official.118 Petitioners often simply asked that justice be done, leaving the petitioned official to decide how best to proceed.119 Of course, not every appeal concluded with a simple request. In many instances, petitioners made multiple demands of the officials to whom they wrote. Often they detailed a series of steps they deemed appropriate for the successful resolution of an issue. For instance, in one case a petitioner requested that the recipient of his appeal come to his home, view a wound his phylax had received in the course of an attack, place a watch over his livestock, send two offenders to the appropriate officials, and force the guilty parties to compensate him for the damages he had suffered (BGU VI 1253 [?, II b.c.]; see Chapter 2). Victims sometimes presented the recipients of their complaints with a variety of options for response as well. These multiple possible procedural pathways were generally based on the availability or cooperation of the VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.); P.Enteux. 35 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); P.Hib. II 202 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.). 116 Harassment: e.g., BGU VIII 1828 (Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.); P.Dion. 9 (Hermopolite, ca. 139 b.c.); P.Petr. II 1 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); standing decrees or judgments: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 62 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), a petition to the sovereigns in which there is a request that a circular be sent out to guarantee the safety of the petitioners; P.Cair.Zen. III 59451 (Sophthis, III b.c.); P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.). 117 Inscribing or posting of petitions: e.g., I.Prose 38 (Euhemeria, 69 b.c.); P.Mil. Congr.XVIII p. 10 (Arsinoite, ca. 143–141 b.c.), in which there is reference to a previous petition having been inscribed; UPZ I 108.21–36 (Memphis, 99 b.c.). 118 E.g., P.Amh. II 35 (Soknopaiou Nesos, 132 b.c.); P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?); SB XIV 11626 (Lykopolis, 125 b.c.). 119 E.g., P.Enteux. 29 (Magdola, 218 b.c.); SB VI 9556 (Arsinoite, 245 b.c.); UPZ I 7 (Memphis, 163 b.c.).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

210

accused and the whims of the addressee. After one particularly violent assault, Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias, asked the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬for remediation determined entirely by the reaction of the alleged culprits to an intervention from a subordinate: 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Διονυσίωι τῶν φίλων ­καὶ στρατηγῶι παρὰ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Γλαυκίου Μακεδόνος τῶν ὄντων ἐν κατοχῆι ἐν τῶι μεγάλωι Σαραπιείωι ἔτος ἤδη δέκατον. ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι ἱερῶι καλλυντῶν καὶ ἀρτοκόπων τῶν νυνὶ ἐφημερευόντων, καταβαινόντων δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἀνουβιεῖον, Ἁρχήβιος ἰατροῦ καὶ Μυὸς ἱματιοπώλου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἀγνοῶ. τοῦ γὰρ ιθ (ἔτους) Φαῶφι ια παραγενόμενοι ἐπὶ τὸ Ἀσταρτι{δ}εῖον, ἐν ὧι κατέχομαι ἱερῶι, εἰσεβιάζοντο βουλό-­ μενοι ἐξσπάσαι με καὶ ἀλο-­ γῆσαι, καθάπερ καὶ \ἐν τοῖς/ πρό-­ τερον χρόνοις ἐπεχείρησαν οὔσης ἀποστάσεως, παρὰ τὸ Ἕλληνά με εἶναι. ἐπεὶ ο[ὖ]ν ἐγὼ μὲν συνιδὼν αὐτοὺς ἀπονενοημένους ἐμαυτὸν συνέκλεισα, Ἁρμᾶιν δὲ τὸν παρ’ ἐμοῦ εὑρόντες ἐπὶ τοῦ δρόμου καταβαλόντες ἔτυπτον τοῖς χαλκοῖς ξυστῆρσιν. ἀξιῶ οὖν σε συν-­ τάξαι γράψαι Μενεδήμωι τῶι παρὰ σοῦ ἐν τῶι Ἀνουβιείωι ἐπαναγκάσαι αὐτοὺς τὰ δίκαιά μοι ποιῆσαι, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὑπομένωσιν,

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

211

ἐξαποστεῖλαι αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ σέ, ὅπως διαλάβηι⟨ς⟩ περὶ αὐτῶν μισο-­ 36 πονήρως. ­εὐτύχει. (hand 2) Μενεδήμωι. προνοήθητι ὡς τεύξεται τῶν δικαίων. 40 (ἔτους) ιθ Φαῶφι ιθ. To Dionysios, ton‫ ﷳ‬philon‫ ﷳ‬and strategos, from Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias, [4] ‫ﷴ‬ Macedonian of those in katoche‫ ﷴ‬in the great Sarapieion, now for the tenth year.120 I am wronged by [8] those sweeping and the bakers, those who are now performing service at the temple and who are going down into the Anoubieion, and (also) by Archebis, the doctor, [12] and Mus, the cloak seller, and others whose names I don’t know. For in year 19, on Phaophi 11, being present at the [16] Astartieion, in which temple I am now in katoche,‫ ﷴ‬they broke in, wishing to strip and insult me, just as [20] previously they attempted to get rid of me (?), in spite of the fact that I am a Greek. Since, therefore, I realize that they [24] have lost all sense, I have shut myself in; but they, finding Harmais, my agent, upon the public walk, [28] they beat him with bronze files. I ask, therefore, that you please write to Menedemos, your agent in the Anoubieion, [32] to force them to do me justice; but if they do not obey, to send them to you, so that you may treat them in accordance with your hatred of wrongdoing. [36] Farewell. (second hand ) To Menedemos. See to it that he receives justice. [40] Year 19, Phaophi 19. (UPZ I 7.1–40 [Memphis, 163 b.c.])

The options suggested to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬by Ptolemaios are in line with the types of requests made by most petitioners who had been assaulted: have a subordinate look into the matter and put a stop to the wrongdoing, or order the malefactors to be sent along for examination. That Ptolemaios was able to offer options for responses from both lower-­level and higher-­level officials suggests that he had some familiarity with how the criminal justice process in Memphis worked, and indeed he did.121 The response of the strategos ‫( ﷴ‬or his subordinate) to the petition 120 On the phenomenon of katoche, as well as for another petition from Ptolemaios

‫ﷴ‬ (UPZ I 5 [Memphis, 163 b.c.]), see Chapter 2. 121 On Ptolemaios and the many petitions in his name that survive, see D. J. Thompson (1988) 212–65.

212

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

is also entirely in line with what we have seen thus far: he instructs a subordinate  – the very man named by Ptolemaios, in fact  – to handle matters himself. In those petitions that contain dockets, the orders of police officials to their subordinates without fail ask either that the ­latter follow the requests of petitioners to the letter or that they carry out investigations personally. The only time a petitioned official might not strictly observe the wishes of a victim was when a request was made to write to another official. The addressee would certainly have contacted another government agent. Yet as we have seen, a petitioned official might forward an appeal or write a letter of instruction to an official other than the one specified by a petitioner. Sometimes this occurred because of the ignorance of the victim regarding the competency of a certain official to attend to a certain issue. In these cases, the petitioned official sent word to an officer with the power to tend to the request.122 Other times, addressees saw to it that appeals eventually reached their requested destinations, though indirectly.123 Once a petition had been digested by its addressee or had been forwarded to and read by a secondary official, some sort of action was usually taken to provide assistance to the petitioner. Yet though the petitions 122 Petitions

or communication directed to officials other than those specified by petitioners: e.g., P.Enteux. 24 and 50 (both Magdola, both 221 b.c.), petitions to the sovereigns including instructions for the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬to write to village archiphylakitai; in both cases, the strategos wrote to an epistate s‫ ﷴ‬instead; ‫ﷴ‬ UPZ I 20 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), a petition to the sovereigns requesting that they write to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬Dionysios; they wrote to the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬Asklepiades (without title here, but see Pros.Ptol. 21 with add.), who subsequently wrote to the hypodioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬Sarapion (also without title: Pros.Ptol. 914 with add.), who then wrote to an official or officials under his supervision. 123 Petitions that made intermediate stops between their initial addressees and the destinations requested by petitioners: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), a petition addressed to an oikonomos with a request that it be forwarded to an epistates; ‫ ﷴ‬it reached the epistates‫ ﷴ‬only after being sent to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ; ﷳ‬VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.), a petition to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬with instructions that he write to a phrourarchos; the document contains a subscription instructing some grammateis to write to the phrourarchos; P.Hib. II 201 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.), a petition to the king in which he was asked to write to a certain Aristion; the docket reveals that it was a certain Dorion who wrote to Aristion.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

213

reveal that people expected certain actions from the police after crimes had been committed, they generally do not provide evidence that decisive action was taken. The requests of petitioners and the commands of petitioned officials to their subordinates to carry out these requests provide the lion’s share of the evidence that the Ptolemaic police took action in resolving disputes. One must generally look elsewhere, however, for proof that the police actually did provide the services requested of them. Other types of documents, among these official reports and government correspondence, demonstrate that the police responded to the requests of victims of crime.124 There is also ample evidence of (previous) police responses to requests for aid in the narrative sections of petitions.125 An appeal might even have been annotated by the responding parties with details of the steps taken to crack a case and the results obtained.126 A note is in order here on the speed of police responses to petitions. As has been stressed from the outset, appeals regularly received rapid responses from their addressees. But just how fast was “fast”? Petitions that contain both dates and dated dockets show that turnaround was very quick, indeed: a response within a day of a petition’s ­composition 124 E.g.,

P.Hib. I 73 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.), an appeal to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬in which the writer detailed the release of a prisoner by an archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬UPZ II 185 (Thebes, 152–146 or 141–132 b.c.), a record of proceedings before the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of the Pathyrite nome; ZPE 141 (2002) 189–90 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), an official letter to a basilikos grammateus in which an arrest by some phylakitai was described. 125 E.g., Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.), a petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬concerns an archiphylakites’‫ ﷴ‬previous arrest of some shipbuilders; P.Frankf. 3 (Tholthis, 212 b.c.), part of a register of correspondence to various officials, preserves a petitioner’s note that he had shown a window broken in the course of a robbery to an archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Mert. I 5 (Ptolemais, 149–135  b.c.), a petition to a strategos, contains a description of the outcome of a trial before ‫ﷴ‬ a village epistates. ‫ﷴ‬ 126 See P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.), a petition to an official with the title ho pros tais syntaxesin in which the petitioner requested that the addressee write to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to have a man sent for examination. The petition records the addressee’s order to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬as well as a response from the latter signifying that the requested summons had been served. On this text, see discussion above.

214

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

was the norm.127 Naturally, such speedy redress was not always the case. Longer periods of time (weeks, months) occasionally elapsed between the delivery of an appeal and a police response.128 Yet it seems to have been the case that petitions very rarely sat unattended in an official’s office for more than a few days. The same was not always true of petitioners. Appeals from prisoners reveal that justice was sometimes delayed for months at a time.129

Conclusions

The act of writing a petition to law enforcement was a self-­empowering one. The request sections of these documents provide additional evidence that victims were far from resourceless. Petitioners not only sought out the police after crimes and detailed the offenses committed against them but generally went a step further, specifying exact measures to be taken for the solving of their cases. Surprisingly, the police 127 E.g.,

BGU VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), a petition to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬concerning the events of June 20 that was forwarded to a lower official on the 21st; P.Enteux. 8 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), a petition delivered to the office of the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬on February 27 and forwarded to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬on the same day; UPZ I 7 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), a petition presented to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬on November 19 and passed along to a lower official on the 20th. 128 E.g., BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), a petition dated to February 12 but only forwarded to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬on March 16; P.Enteux. 12 (Sebennytos, 244 b.c.), a petition to the king received by the office of the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬on August 28 and forwarded to a subordinate on September 27; SB XVI 12468 (? [Arsinoite?], III b.c.), a petition to an unknown official in which the petitioner noted that he had previously petitioned the same addressee and had not received a response. 129 E.g., Chrest.Mitt. 5 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.), a petition to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬from a prisoner who stated that he had written to the addressee several times previously and had been sitting in jail for ten months; P.Cair.Zen. III 59496 (Krokodilopolis, 248–241 b.c.), a petition to Zenon from a prisoner who noted that he had written to Zenon many times before but remained in jail; P.Coll.Youtie I 12 (Krokodilopolis, 177 b.c.), a petition to an unknown official from a man who had been imprisoned for three years. For more on prisoners and imprisonment in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz (2007b) and Chapter 5.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

215

officials who received appeals for justice seem generally to have passed the requests of petitioners on to their subordinates with little to no alteration in content. This demonstrates not only that a petition was a powerful tool in the hands of an aggrieved party but that police were receptive to the demands of their subject populations. As we have shown, petitions to police officials during the Ptolemaic period were marked by many similarities. Aggrieved parties detailed acts of violence against their possessions or persons, named offenders, provided lists of damaged goods, and assembled the various other details of their individual cases into written documents designed to elicit some sort of response from the police. Petitioners seem to have expected different responses from one group of police officials to the next. Archiphylakitai, epistatai, and other lower-­level police agents often represented the initial level of appeal and were usually responsible for providing remediating measures (if any were taken). These officials, often with jurisdictions that covered no more than the boundaries of a village, were sought out for immediate responses to crimes that had occurred on their turf. Higher officials such as epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬and even the king and queen occupied a loftier position in the petitioning hierarchy. They were often addressed when an initial appeal to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬or epistates‫ ﷴ‬had failed to yield the desired results but likewise were the recipients of many first-­time complaints that were immediately forwarded to the town or village police. It was the latter who were expected, with or without the assistance of their subordinates, to solve crimes. The petitions demonstrate that the Egyptian masses were invested with a high degree of personal empowerment. They were not resourceless in the aftermath of criminal activity but rather had access to a uniform, universal, and relatively simple process of drafting written requests for aid from the police. They did not shrink from directing petitions to officials in all spheres of government and at all levels, from the village archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬of the nome and even the king and queen, and were not loath to draft additional appeals if an initial effort proved unsuccessful. Petitioners knew what they wanted from the appeals process and what sorts of responses to expect from individual law enforcement officials. They regularly told the police what they needed, where to find it, and how to go about getting it. Here as nowhere else, the

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

216

Ptolemaic populace demonstrated a striking degree of autonomy. The petitions also demonstrate that the Ptolemaic law enforcement pyramid kept a very close watch over the subject ­population and was quick to respond to appeals for help. When wrongdoing, official or otherwise, was reported, swift action was generally taken to ensure that complaints were investigated and administrative malfunctions repaired. The administration and its officers had a high degree of interest in the maintenance of law and order in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra. But why was it so important that stolen goods were returned and damages paid? As we have seen, the heavily organized Ptolemaic law enforcement bureaucracy relied on the interaction and cooperation of officials with differing competencies, domains, and responsibilities. An efficient system of official communication made contact between superiors and subordinates regular and reliable. The system likewise made it easy for reports of wrongdoing, duty-­shirking, and dissatisfaction to find their way to high-­ranking officials. It was perhaps this fact more than anything else that spurred the police officials scattered throughout the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra to respond to requests from superiors and the subject population with the alacrity and thoroughness exhibited in the petitions. While a desire to fulfill the duties of their offices meticulously and honorably no doubt compelled many Ptolemaic police agents to handle the complaints of the people with care, fear of official censure or reprimand was perhaps more compelling. Inattention to the needs of villagers might very well lead to unpleasant situations, both for the officers in question and for the locals. Neither group wanted a mess on its hands.130 This was not true only of the villagers, townspeople, chiefs of police, and other law enforcement officials in the Egyptian backwater. The highest rungs of the Ptolemaic administration were concerned with these issues as well. In order for grain to keep rolling in and taxes to continue 130 In

P.Tebt. III.1 703.257–80 (Tebtynis, ca. 210 b.c.), a set of instructions to a newly appointed subordinate of a dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬great stress is laid on the importance of proper conduct in carrying out official duties and avoiding causes for reproach. This text demonstrates that the avoidance of blame and ill-­repute was a real concern to the administrators of Ptolemaic Egypt. The existence of Hellenistic treatises on kingship (see Delia [1993] 200) suggests that such issues were of concern to the sovereigns as well.

Agents of Appeal: Petitions and R ­ esponses

217

to be paid, the Ptolemies had to maintain law and order throughout the countryside. Unsolved crimes could lead to frustration on the part of villagers and to both distrust of and lack of confidence in the government. Unchecked lawlessness in the towns and villages of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra made life unpleasant for the people on whom the prosperity of all Egypt depended and likewise called into question the government’s power to maintain control in Egyptian settlements. Mistreatment or persecution at the hands of town or village officials might drive people to flee their homes and economic responsibilities. For all these reasons and more, it was in the Ptolemies’ best interests to see to it that their subjects were contented. The Ptolemies may not have guaranteed happiness or even comfortable subsistence, but they did provide for the punishment of wrongdoers and the satisfaction of those who had been wronged. They did so by means of an epistolary appeals process unparalleled in the evidence for the rest of the ancient world for its scope and speed. The system enabled victims of abuse to quickly present both simple reports and detailed narratives to police officials and to make specific requests for remediation. It ensured that law enforcement officers received a wealth of information crucial for capturing offenders and resolving disputes. As the phenomenon of forwarded petitions indicates, it also enhanced communication between police at all geographic levels. In addition, the system guaranteed a certain degree of police accountability and allowed the Ptolemies to keep tabs on criminal justice matters in the towns and villages of the Egyptian countryside. Above all, it helped guarantee a certain degree of protection under the law for the Egyptian people and a steady income for the rulers of the kingdom. As the petitions reveal, the system worked very well.

­5 Busting and Booking: Arrest, Investigation, Detention, Resolution

On October 31, 89 b.c., a pregnant woman from Hermoupolis Magna named Tereus petitioned the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n concerning a recent assault: 4 8 12

[ ] [        ]να  [     ] [ἐ]πιστά[τηι φ]υλακι[τῶν] παρὰ Τερεῦτος τῆς [       ] [Ἑρ]μοπολίτιδος. τοῦ β ἀπαντήσασ μοι Τετ[εαρ]-­ [μ]ᾶις Θοτνάχθιος1 Ἑ[ρμοπολῖ]-­ τι{δο}ς ἐπὶ τοῦ δρ[όμου τοῦ] Ἑρμοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἐντ[αῦθα (?) δικα]-­ στήριον κα[ὶ ἐμπεσοῦσα] ἐξ ἀντιλο[γ]ίας ἔ[πληξέν] με ταῖς αὑτῆς χερσὶν [πλη]-­ γαῖς πλεί[στα]ις εἰς τυχὸν2 τοῦ σώμα[τό]ς μου ἐγ γαστρ[ὶ] ἔχουσαν π[ε]\ν/τάμηνον, ὥ[στε] διὰ τὰς πληγὰς ἀρρωστήσα-­

This chapter derives from the fourth chapter of my dissertation (Bauschatz [2005]) and from a paper presented at the 2005 American Philological Association conference, ultimately published as Bauschatz 2007b. The subject of this chapter also formed the basis of lectures delivered at various colleges and universities between 2005 and 2007. 1 With BL 1.388 for reading. 2 With BL 1.388 for reading. 218

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution 16 20 24 28

219

σα κατακεῖσ⟨θ⟩αι κινδυνεύου-­ σα⟨ν⟩ τῶι βίωι. προσαγγέλλω ὅπως ἀναχθεῖσα ἡ Τετε-­ αρμᾶις ἀσφαλισθῆι ­μέχρι τοῦ ἐπιγνωσθῆναι τὰ κα[τ’] ἐμ[ὲ] ἐν ταῖς διηγορευμέναις ἡμέραις, ἵν’, ἐὰν μέν τι πάθω, δ(ια)ληφθῆι π[ερὶ] αὐτῆς κα[τ]ὰ τὰ περὶ [τούτων] προστεταγ[μένα,] ἐὰν δὲ περιγένωμαι, λάβω παρ’ αὐ-­ τῆς τὸ δίκαιον ὡς καθήκει. εὐτύχει. (ἔτους) κς, Φαῶφι ιη.

[To – ], epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, from Tereus, daughter (?) of [ – – ], [4] from Hermoupolis. In year 26 (?), Tetearmais, daughter of Thotnachthis, inhabitant of Hermoupolis, met up with me along the road of [8] Hermes opposite the dikasterion there.3 She ‫ﷴ‬ set upon me because of a disagreement, and beat me with her hands a [12] great deal all over my body, and I was 5 months pregnant at the time. Now, on account of these blows, I am unwell, [16] bedridden and in danger of my life. I am making this report to you so that after she has been arrested, Tetearmais may be guarded until an examination of her offenses against me takes place over the days that have been reserved for the purpose, so that, if I suffer something, she may be punished in accordance with the regulations that concern such matters; but if I live, I may receive justice from her as is proper. Farewell. Year 26, Phaophi 18. (P.Ryl. II 68 [Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.])

Unfortunately, we know nothing more about this case. Tereus’s petition serves as a convenient starting point for a discussion of the arrest of wrongdoers, investigation of abuses, and resolution of disputes in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Ptolemaic police system regularly processed criminals in an efficient and effective manner. Police apprehended and detained suspects, investigated reported crimes, and even 3 Dikasteria

were courts charged with dispensing justice to Greeks and ‫ﷴ‬ n­ on-­Egyptians: see P.Heid. VIII, pp3–9, and the additional sources listed ­there.

220

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

meted out justice. Responses to appeals for government assistance were fast and well organized, took a variety of forms, and regularly involved officials scattered throughout the Egyptian countryside – not only those at work in the small settlements of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra but also those supervising the nome capitals. The Ptolemies entrusted police officers in the towns and villages of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra with crime-­solving tasks and exercised a very limited degree of control over law enforcement machinery. One might suppose that such lax supervision occasionally led to chaos and confusion, but this was rarely the case. The Ptolemaic criminal justice system was a smoothly functioning machine that provided options to victims and allowed its officers to exercise considerable autonomy. As was the case with petitions to law enforcement, the busting and booking process in Ptolemaic Egypt was quite different from that attested elsewhere in the ancient world. Criminals in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra were generally not apprehended by private citizens seeking justice (e.g., as at Athens) but rather by organized police forces usually (but not always) under orders from higher powers. The number of officials with the power to arrest was great. As was also the case with petitions to law enforcement, it was generally village officials who tended to village problems. But nome-­level (or higher) agents of the crown also performed these essential police tasks from time to time. No one level of police administration held a monopoly when it came to apprehending and processing wrongdoers. The central government delegated responsibility for regional law enforcement issues to officials in Egyptian towns and villages but reserved the right to interfere in cases of appeal or administrative malfunction. It had a decided interest in the well-­being of the Egyptian population but perhaps also realized that village matters were best handled in villages and that too much involvement in the affairs of Egyptian settlements was a waste of government time and resources. Once an offense had been reported, a police investigation was usually opened. Such investigations often began with (and sometimes included nothing more than) the arrest of a suspect, followed by a trial. In many cases, however, it was necessary to take additional steps before resolution was possible. Police often confiscated personal property, sealed off the homes of those under suspicion, paid visits to crime scenes to examine traces of illegal activity, received itemized lists from those who had suffered property theft or damage, and interrogated witnesses. Unlike

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

221

the specialized detectives and crime scene investigators who perform a good deal of modern police work, it was generally the phylakitai and their immediate superiors who filled these many diverse functions, often acting on their own authority. This high degree of autonomy among the lowest-­level officers of the Ptolemaic criminal justice system was a natural consequence of minimal involvement from Alexandria in the law-­enforcement affairs of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. But it also reflects the desire of the Ptolemaic administration to provide efficient policing at all administrative levels. The same sort of autonomy observable in the processes of arrest, detention, and investigation can also be seen in operation at Ptolemaic criminal trials.4 Such trials, essentially formal audiences before town or village police officials, effectively bypassed the established Ptolemaic (civil) court system. The presiding officers summoned both offender and accuser, examined evidence, heard witnesses or read their testimony, and pronounced judgment, all without any interference from higher levels of government. Decisions were binding on the disputing parties, and it was expected that the word of the judge would be followed. When problems arose, cases might be referred to nome-­level officials such as the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬or epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n for resolution; but, in general, village justice was in the hands of the village police. In addition to the wealth of details they provide on the processes of arresting and prosecuting criminals, the documents also shed a great deal of light on prisons and imprisonment in Ptolemaic Egypt, a subject that has received little scholarly attention to date.5 Prisons existed throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra and throughout all periods of Ptolemaic rule. They were often outfitted with professional jailors and regularly 4 On criminal trials, see Wolff (1970) 113–93 and the many additional sources

he cites.

5 On prisons, prisoners, and detention in Ptolemaic Egypt, see now Bauschatz

(2007b); the reader is referred there for the most up-­to-­date discussion of the subject, which will not be treated in greater depth here. See also Lewald (1910) 30ff.; von Woess (1923) 126; Taubenschlag (1959a [1940]); Baldwin (1963); Hélmis (1986) 171–6; Maffi (1999); and Marcone (1999). On prisons, prisoners, and detention in antiquity in general, see, e.g., Krause (1996); Bertrand-­Dagenbach et  al. (1999); Tovar and Martín (2003); and Bertrand-­Dagenbach, Salamito, and Vaillancourt (2004).

222

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

served as places of temporary detention where those on their way to trial were placed under surveillance until transport to a courtroom could be arranged. In this sense, they were simply holding cells, much like the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion at Athens, and were not intended to serve as places of ‫ﷴ‬ punishment for criminals.6 Yet Ptolemaic prisons occasionally housed inmates for very lengthy periods of time. Many petitions detail the sufferings, real or alleged, of prisoners who complained that they had been forgotten by their friends, families, and employers or that they were being detained unjustly or at the whims of prejudiced officials. Prisoners often expressed the fear they had fallen through the cracks of the legal system or that, lacking the proper resources, they would die of starvation in jail. Indeed, for the most part, prisoners were expected to take care of themselves. In addition, the Ptolemies do not seem to have made allowances for prisoners for whom no bail was posted or for whom no trial arrangements were made.7 They doubtless realized that such detentions occasionally took place but did little to prevent them. This phenomenon of long-­term detention is attested nowhere else in the ancient world and provides a striking contrast to the treatment of victims of abuse under the Ptolemies. Those who had been harmed could count on easy access to government redress and a thorough investigation of their claims. For those who had done wrong, however, the government offered next to nothing.8 6 On

the Athenian desmo‫ﷳ‬terion, see, e.g., Harrison (1968–71) 2:241–4; ‫ﷴ‬ Vanderpool (1976, 1980); Koumanoudis (1984); Camp (1986) 113–16; Todd (1993) 140; Hunter (1994) 136–8; 171–84; 240 n. 32; 242 n. 48; (1997); and Hunter and Edmondson (2000) 8–9 n. 15; 19–20 n. 34; 21. It is generally agreed that the notion of prison as punishment developed only in the modern era. Foucault (1975) 300 notes a number of key nineteenth-­century dates in the development of the modern prison as a place of punishment. 7 See Bauschatz (2007b) 18–24 and the discussion in this chapter; also the previous chapter, notes 31 and 58 (on letters from prisoners to police and other officials complaining of starvation and the like) and Chapter 3, for a translation and discussion of SB XVI 12468 (? [Arsinoite?], III b.c.), a petition from a man whose donkey had been confiscated by a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬while the petitioner had been en route to the Krokodilopolis jail to bring bread to a prisoner. 8 One wonders what would have happened to victims in those cases where the accused were detained in jail indefinitely. That is, could a victim obtain

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

223

­Arrest

Among the first steps in the process of solving a crime is the apprehension of accused criminals. The Ptolemaic police regularly led suspects up (anagein) or off (apagein) to a prison or official, stood (apokathistanai, kathistanai) accused individuals before other officers, and sometimes received (epilambanein, paralambanein) guilty parties from private citizens who had previously apprehended them so as to hand them over ( paradidonai) to the police.9 Ptolemaic police officers seem to have carried out arrests for three basic reasons: they were asked to arrest by civilians, they were ordered to do so by higher officials, or they had witnessed wrongdoing firsthand.10 justice if an accused was unavailable for trial? The evidence for indefinite detention consists mainly of petitions from prisoners unjustly arrested (or so they alleged) and thus provides no clues. At civil trials, when one party failed to appear, the other usually won by default (e.g., BGU VIII 1826 [Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.]; P.Mich. I 39 [Arsinoite, 254 b.c.]; P.Petr. III 21 FrA [Krokodilopolis, 227 b.c.]). 9 Anagein: e.g., P.Athen. 8.22 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.); P.Enteux. 82.8 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.); P.Ryl. II 68.18 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); apagein: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 55.11 (Tebtynis, ca. 118 b.c.); Chrest.Mitt. 5.6 (Arsinoite, ca.  218 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59368.18 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.); apokathistanai: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59224.8 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.); P.Diosk. 4.14 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); P.Tebt. III.1 709.16 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); kathistanai: e.g., BGU VIII 1778.7 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Amh. II 35.40–1 (Soknopaiou Nesos, 132 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59369.1 (Krokodilopolis, 241 b.c.); paradidonai: e.g., BGU VI 1252.26 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); VIII 1780.18 (Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?); X 1912.3 (Arsinoite or Herakleopolite, ca. 250 b.c.); ­epilambanein: e.g., P.Coll.Youtie I 16.14 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?); PSI IV 366.4 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.); P.Zen.Pestm. 24.5–6 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.); paralambanein: e.g., BGU VIII 1774.17 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Diosk. 4.16 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); SB XIV 11966.3, 15 (Euhemeria, 170–116 b.c.). 10 For requests for arrests from petitioners, see the previous chapter. Orders to arrest from higher officials: e.g., BGU VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), a letter to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in which a petitioner requested the arrest of certain offenders and to which the strategos ‫( ﷴ‬presumably) added a command for a subordinate to execute the arrest; P.Heid. VI 362 (Herakleopolite, 226 b.c.), orders from an oikonomos to the Herakleopolite archiphylakitai and phylakitai not to allow anyone to remove cows from the nome and to arrest those that attempted to do so; P.Mich. XVIII 778 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.), where

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

224

The motivations behind arrests ran the gamut from stolen goods to unprovoked violence, from failure to render services to illegal habitation. These types of offenses have been discussed in detail in Chapter 4. In each case the mechanics of an arrest were different. If an arrest had been planned in advance, an official, with or without subordinates or companions, simply approached and seized the offending party (or ­parties).11 For instance, in one case an epistates‫ ﷴ‬commanded a police official (perhaps a phylakites) ‫ ﷴ‬to arrest a donkey thief and then discovered that an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬had subsequently and incorrectly released the offender (P.Hib. I 34 [Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.] and 73 [Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.]; see Chapter 3). In another, a traveler was attacked while en route and subsequently sought to make arrangements to see to it that the offender was arrested: 4

Ζήνων[ι χα]ίρειν Τ[εῶ]ς. π[ορείαν] μὲν οὖμ μ[ου] ποιουμέ[νου] εἰς Φιλα[δέλφει]-­ αν, περιεκ[όπ]ην ὑπὸ λη[ιστ]οῦ ἀποδ[ημή]-­ σας οὖν εἰς [Ἀρσ]ινοίδα εὑρίσκω τὸν [ἄνθρωπον] τὸν περικ[όψ]αντά με [κ]αὶ παρέδ[ειξα αὐ]-­ τὸν Ἑρμάε[ι] τῶι ἐκεῖ ἀρχ[ιφυ]λακίτ[ηι. καλῶς] οὖν ποιήσεις γράψας πρὸς [Ἑρμ]άιν ἐπ[ιστολήν],

a petitioner requested that the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬write to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬so that the latter could mobilize his phylakitai to arrest an oikonomos; spontaneous arrests: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), a petition to Zenon concerning the arrest of the petitioner’s brother-­in-­law and a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬by another phylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Hels. I 2 (Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.), a petition to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬concerning an assault and the arrest of the petitioner by some phylakitai who had appeared at the scene of the crime; P.Tebt. III.1 733 (Tebtynis, 143–142 b.c.), a letter to an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬concerning the seizure of a man who had been discovered stealing clothing by a tax collector’s son and a phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ 11 Arrests planned in advance: e.g., P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?), where a victim complained about a premeditated workshop invasion and an unjust (?) arrest carried out by an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬with the aid of accomplices; P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), in which a man noted that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬had previously ordered an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to arrest someone (and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬had then done so); SB I 4369 FrB.52–8 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), a work order in which the sender noted that a machimos had been instructed to arrest the recipient if record-­keeping inconsistencies came to light.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution 8

225

ὅπως ἂν τὸ σῶμα ἀπ[οκα]ταστή[σηι πρὸς ­σέ,] ἵνα ἐπὶ σὲ [κα]ταφυγὼν τοῦ δικαίο[υ τύχω.] εὐτύ[χει].

To Zenon, greetings, Teos. While I was making the journey to Philadelphia, I was attacked by a robber.12 Later, on a visit [4] to Arsinoë, I found the man who had attacked me and pointed him out to Hermais, the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬there.13 Please write a letter to Hermais [8] so that he may send this person to you, so that I, who have fled to you, may receive justice. Farewell. (P.Cair.Zen. II 59224.1– 10 [Arsinoite, 253 b.c.])

What is perhaps most striking about this little letter is the addressee: Zenon, not Hermais the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬Why did the victim not simply contact the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬himself and ask for the arrest? We have already seen examples of petitions and notifications to archiphylakitai from Egyptian villagers with requests for arrests and more. The necessity of Zenon as an intermediary becomes even more puzzling when we learn that the petitioner had already made contact with the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in person and pointed out the offender. We, of course, cannot be sure as to why Teos chose to write to Zenon and not Hermais. First and foremost among the possibilities, Zenon was an Arsinoite authority figure like no other (save for Apollonios the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s) ‫ ﷴ‬in the late third century b.c. and was thus a natural option for a petitioner; and in this case, Zenon is intended to serve as judge and jury for the petitioner’s claims. In addition, Teos was surely an Egyptian, likely unable to read or write Greek and perhaps lacking the necessary personal connections to effect the writing of an official letter in Greek to a police official he did not really know. Finally, we do not know where Teos lived or worked, save that he was likely located somewhere in the Arsinoite nome. His whereabouts may have made contact with the phylakitai of Arsinoë difficult if not impossible. In the case of a spontaneous arrest, things were naturally much less organized, though the mechanics were basically the same: the official or 12 On

robbers and robbery in Ptolemaic Egypt, see McGing (1998) with Lewis (2000); also the discussion in this chapter on royal decrees concerning robbery. 13 Hermais: Pros.Ptol. 4572. He appears only here.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

226

officials with power to arrest grabbed the guilty party (or parties) with or without the assistance of others. A broad spectrum of officials had the power to do this, from the highest administrator to the lowest subordinate. In most cases, however, it was village officials who carried out such arrests, most frequently phylakitai. In one instance, a grain transport official reported that some Arsinoite shipbuilders had been arrested by a Herakleopolite archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬when they had entered into the latter’s jurisdiction (Chrest.Wilck. 166 [Arsinoite, 218 b.c.]; see Chapter 2). In another an official of unknown rank noted that the son of a tax collector had been patrolling certain reservoirs accompanied by a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬when the two had stumbled upon a man who had stolen two himations and a chiton. That a pair of officials engaged in inspecting agricultural infrastructure was empowered to arrest a clothing thief may seem surprising. But as this and other evidence demonstrates, the Ptolemaic police had broad powers of arrest. In a final example, some phylakitai who appeared on the scene of a crime arrested the wrong man, at least to hear him tell it. 4 8 12 16

Φίλωνι ἀρχιφυλακίτηι παρὰ Διονυσίου τοῦ Ζωίλου τοῦ ἀντιγραφομένου παρ’ οἰκονόμου τὴν ἀπόμοιραν τῶν περὶ Θεογονίδα τόπων. τῆι ιη τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος μηνὸς \Φ[αμε]νὼθ/ ἤδη λύχνων καομένων λουομένου μου ἐν τῶι καλουμένωι Ἀριστοδήμου καινῶι βαλανείωι καὶ χρωμένου σικύαι ἀρυταίνηι περιεσπάσθην ὑπὸ Φίλωνός τινος τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὡς παραχύτην   με [ ca. 15 εἰ]-­ πόντος προσπηδήσας μοι μετ’ ἄλλων, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἀγνοῶ, ἔτυπτόν με πυγμαῖς τε καὶ λακτίσμασιν εἰς ὃ τύχοι μέρος τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐκσπάσαντές με ἐκ τοῦ βαλανείου ἦγον ὡς ἐπὶ τὴν κατὰ τὸ Σαμοθράικιον πύλην.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution 20 24

227

ἐπιφανέντων δέ τινων ­φυλακιτῶν παρέδωκάν με αὐ[τοῖς]. ἐπεὶ [ο]ὖν κλινοπετής εἰμι, ἀξιῶ συντάξαι ἀσφαλίσασθαι τὸν Φίλωνα καὶ τοὺς μεθ’ αὑτοῦ μέχρι τοῦ ἐπιγνωσθῆναι τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ. τούτου δὲ γενομένου

14 To Philon, archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬from Dionysios, son of Zoilos, antigrapheus from the oikonomos [4] for the apomoira for the districts around Theogonis.15 On the 18th of the present month, Phamenoth, when already the lamps were being kindled, I was bathing in the so-­called [8] new baths of Aristodemos. As I was using a gourd as a cup, I was stripped (of it?) by Philon, one of the soldiers, [12] saying that … bath attendant … me. … Leaping upon me, with others whose names I do not know, they beat me with blows and [16] kicks against various parts of my body. Dragging me out of the bath, they led me up to the gate opposite the Samothrakion;16 [20] and when some phylakitai appeared, they handed me over to them. Since, therefore, I am bedridden, I ask that you please guard Philon and his [24] associates until a judgment has been given concerning my claims. For if this happens, … (P.Hels. I 2 [Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.])17

This case highlights just how difficult it could be – and still is – for police to make quick determinations of fault at a crime scene. Here, a group of phylakitai appears in time to witness the end of a brawl outside of a bath complex. The petitioner claims that he had been beaten and 14 Philon, archiphylakites: ‫ ﷴ‬see Chapter 2, note 21. 15 The antigrapheus acted as a supervisor of tax collectors:

see Harper (1934) 49–64, esp.  52–5; Montevecchi (1988) 146; and P.Erasm. II pp8–11, 96, 99–103, 115. On the oikonomos, see Chapter 3; on the apomoira, a tax of one­sixth on vineyards and orchards to support the cult of the deified Arsinoë II, wife of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, see Koenen (1993) 66–9; Clarysse and Vandorpe (1998) 5–42; von Reden (2007) 95–102; also P.Hels. I pp122–6 and P.Heid. VI pp64–8. 16 Samothrakion: see P.Hels. I 2 n. on 19 (p.  25) for attestations and bibliography. 17 See also, e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), in which a ­victim reported that some phylakitai had seized and penned up a runaway mare and that subsequently a single phylakites‫ ﷴ‬had arrested his brother-­in-­law and another phylakites‫ ﷴ‬after the two had regained possession of the horse (see Chapter 2).

228

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

dragged out of the baths to a gate nearby a temple, where the phylakitai had appeared. The reason for their appearance is unclear: Were they drawn to the scene by the commotion? Had they been summoned by a witness or one of the alleged attackers? Had they simply arrived by chance? At all events, the petitioner suggests that the offenders had him wrongly arrested. Whether or not he was right, it is easy to see how a group of police might have readily taken custody of someone from a makeshift posse. In the moment, the correct course of action was to defuse the situation. Questions could be asked and victim sorted out from offender afterward. This example of a bathhouse beat-­down not only highlights the confusion that could ensue in the course of a street fight but also reveals that officials who were not police officers and even private citizens sometimes provided assistance in arresting offenders. Many of these officials seized wrongdoers by themselves as well. As we have already seen (Chapter 3), financial officers were among those who most commonly executed arrests, often with police backing.18 Two tax officials reported that they had handed over a hide smuggler and his wares to two agents of the phrourarchos (P.Diosk. 5 [Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?]; see Chapter 3). An official report details the arrest of an offender by an oil dealer while an epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and a desmophylax were present (SB III 7202 [Arsinoite, 227 b.c.]; see Chapter 3). Though police presence was always a plus, sometimes a citizen might carry out an arrest by himself or herself. In such cases, the apprehended wrongdoer was handed over to the police to complete the process.19 A letter to the king concerning 18 E.g., BGU VIII 1821 (Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.), a letter from a man who had

been arrested by a tax collector and the hyperetai of the nomarches; ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬P.Mich. XVIII 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 194–193 b.c.), a petition from a goldsmith who had been wrongly arrested by a tax farmer accompanied by a rhabdophoros (?); P.Tebt. III.1 772 (Tebtynis, 236 b.c.), a letter from an apomoira contractor who noted that he had previously arrested a vineyard owner and brought him before the strategos. ‫ﷴ‬ 19 E.g., BGU VIII 1847 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?), a petition from some prisoners who had been arrested (?) by certain shepherds; P.Cair. Zen. III 59499.27–43 (Philadelphia?, 254 b.c.), a memorandum concerning a stonecutter who had been arrested by Zenon because of a debt; PSI V 529 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), a petition from a man arrested by a private citizen for a debt of sixty-­two drachmas.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

229

intentional scalding in a bath details how the writer had apprehended an offender and handed him over to the village archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬P.Enteux. 82 [Trikomia, 221 b.c.]; see Chapter 3). In a petition concerning hunting rights, the authors noted that they had handed a man over to two phylakitai whom they had brought along for the purpose: Traces 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

[    ] στρ[     ]φ[    ]εμυ[  ] [    ]των[    ]ντων ἐξει[λη]-­ φ[ό]τ[ων] τὴν [θήρ]αν τῶν ἀγρίων ὄρνε[ω]ν εἰς τὸ ζ (ἔτος) τῆς τε προγεγραμμένης κώμης ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Εὐημερίας, ὑπο-­ λιπομένων ἡμῶν κατὰ κοι-­ νὸν τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἔδει ἡμᾶς στήσαντα τὰ λίνα θηρεύσαν-­ τας τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς κοιτάζοντα ὄρνεα ἀποδοῦναι τὸν καθήκον-­ τ[α] φόρον, τῆι δὲ νυκτὶ τῆι φερού-­ σηι εἰς τὴν η τοῦ Τῦβι τοῦ ζ (ἔτους) προσαγγελέντος ἡμῖν Γενναί-­ ου τοῦ [ ]οτου τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐ-­ τῆς κώμ[η]ς, ὃς καὶ συνθηρεύει ἡμῖν, κατ[αβε]βηκότος ἄνευ τῆς ἡμε-­ τέρα[ς γ]νώμης καὶ θηρεύοντα ἐν αἷ[ς ὑ]πολελείμμεθα κοίταις, ὅθεν [πα]ρ’ αὐτ[ὸ]ν τὸν και[ρὸ]ν προσ-­ ορωρ[ότες καὶ λ]αβ[ό]ντες Ἁρ[μ]άιν φυλα[κίτ]η[ν] κ[αὶ] Πύρρον Πεταῦ-­ τος φ[υ]λακίτ[ου] υἱὸν ἐπελθόντες ἐπὶ τοὺς προδε[δ]ηλωμένους τόπο[υς] παρεδώκαμεν τόν τε Γενναῖον ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λίνα αὐτοῦ ἑσταμένα· ἐπεὶ οὖν διὰ τὴν δηλουμένην αἰτίαν ­τυγχά-­ νομεν βεβλαμμένοι εἰς κερκὴρ εἰς λόγον υ, προσαγγέλλομέν σοι

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

230 32 36

ὅπως ἀναχθῆι ἐφ’ Ἡλᾶν τὸν ἐπι-­ στάτην τῶν φυλακιτῶν καὶ τύχηι τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπιπλεί-­ ξεως καὶ πραχθῆι τὰ δηλούμε-­ να [βλάβη], ἵνα δυνώμεθα ἀπρο-­ φασί[σ]τ[ω]ς τὸν φόρον ἀναπληρῶσαι. (ἔτους) ζ Τῦβι  .

[To X, greetings, from Y and Z], who have received [4] the contract to hunt wild birds for year 7 in the aforementioned village and also in Euhemeria.20 We had [8] jointly left the areas in which it was required that we set out our hunting nets after we had hunted the birds living in them, [12] so as to render the appropriate tax revenue. But on the night of Tybi 7, year 7, Gennaios, [16] son of [.]otes, of those from the same village and our fellow hunter, reported to us that he had, without our knowledge, entered the bird lairs [20] in which we had left him (?) remaining/ behind (?) and hunted. Wherefore we rushed upon him at that very moment, and 21 22 taking Harmais, phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and Pyrrhos, son of Petaus [24] the phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬we entered into the aforementioned areas and handed over Gennaios as well as the nets [28] he had set up. Since, therefore, for this reason we have suffered the loss of 400 kerkereis,23 we are making this report to you [32] so that he [i.e., Gennaios] may be brought before Helas, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬,24 and he may meet with the appropriate punishment, and the aforementioned loss may be extracted from him [36] as a penalty, so that we may be able to pay what is due unhesitatingly. Year 7, Tybi [..]. (BGU VI 1252 [Arsinoite, II b.c.])

The phylakitai employed to arrest here had not been encountered by chance, nor had the petitioners nabbed the offender on their own and 20 On the hunting of wild animals in Greco-­Roman Egypt, see Aymard (1951)

48–9; Lindsay (1965) 192–234; and Raïos-­Chouliara (1981); for the sources for bird hunting in pharaonic Egypt, Decker and Herb (1994) 1:283–91, 382–532; 2: plates CCVII–CCC. 21 Harmais: Pros.Ptol. 4648. 22 Petaus: Pros.Ptol. 4712. 23 The Greek at BGU VI 1252.29–31 reads τυγχά|νομεν βεβλαμμένοι εἰς κερκὴρ εἰς | λόγον υ. I have chosen to interpret this as indicating that the hunters have suffered the loss of four hundred aquatic birds (cf. LSJ, “κέρκηρις”), as opposed to a monetary loss of four hundred drachmas (?), which is also possible. 24 Helas: Pros.Ptol. 4530.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

231

then delivered him to the police. Rather, the petitioners had brought police along with them in expectation of making an arrest. The circumstances of this co-­option are worth considering. Was just anyone empowered to grab a policeman and command him to make an arrest, or was some sort of connection to the central government a prerequisite? Here, the petitioners were effectively tax contractors, and the accused was infringing on their exclusive right to harvest wild birds. Perhaps it was the threat of damage to royal revenues that allowed the two men to call on the phylakitai. Yet it is likely that in many cases where spontaneous arrests were necessary, there would not have been time for police officials to check the credentials of those seeking their help. Rather, a “shoot first, ask questions later” policy would have been in order. In this case, then, as in the case of the man beaten in the bath (P.Hels. I 2 [Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.]), the phylakitai involved had probably been publicly posted to respond to the needs of villagers, or had been assigned beats that were known to the inhabitants of a given town or village in case assistance was needed in a pinch. If so, then in Ptolemaic Egypt, at least, there likely always was a policeman around when you needed one. Though the evidence demonstrates that arrests in Ptolemaic Egypt could take many forms, a series of third-­century ordinances on police and brigandage preserved on one papyrus suggests that there were, in fact, government regulations in place for the time frames and procedures to be followed in the course of investigations leading to arrests (P.Hib. II 198 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]).25 Unfortunately, the document’s poor state of preservation has obscured many of the relevant details. Nevertheless, a few important points are clear, and in one especially well-­preserved section, guidelines are established for arrests and penalties specified for noncompliant phylakitai as well as those caught harboring fugitives: 88 25 On

καὶ μὴ ἐπαναγάγηι, ἔνοχος ἔστω τῶι α[ὐτῶι ἐπι]τίμωι καθάπερ καὶ ὁ λῃιστής· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ [δὲ καὶ το]ὺς να[ύ]-­ τας τοὺς τὸν χαρακτῆρα ἔχοντας κα[ὶ τ]οὺς [ ca. 9 ] ἐκ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ οἱ φυλακῖται ἐν[  ]  [  ]ς φυλα[       ]

this important text, see Kunderewicz (1965); Lewis (1968); Bagnall (1969); and also Chapter 6.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

232

ὅσοι ἂν \ἁλῶσιν/ ἐπαναγέτωσαν πρὸς [τοὺς  ε]στηκότα[ς τῶν] φυλακῶν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπαναγάγω[σ]ιν ἐξελεγχθέντες α[ὐτοὶ] ἀποστελλέσθωσαν ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς· ἔνοχοι δ’ ἔστωσαν κ[αὶ οἱ] ὑποδεχόμενοι τοὺς ναύτα[ς] φωρᾶι βασι[λ]ικῆι· ἀγώγ[ιμοι] δ’ ἔστωσαν οἵ τε ληισταὶ καὶ οἱ λοιπο[ὶ κ]ακοῦργοι καὶ οἱ βασιλι[κοὶ] ναῦται πανταχόθεν καὶ μηθεὶ[ς αὐ]τοὺς ἀφαιρείσθω ἢ ἔν[ο]χος ἔστω αὐτ[ὸς] ὁ κωλύ[ων] ἢ ὁ [   ]μενος τοῖ[ς] αὐτοῖς 96 ἐπιτ[ίμ]οις οἷς καὶ ὁ λ[ῃσ]τὴς καὶ ὁ τὴ[ν να]ῦν λελο[ι]π[ώς]· κατὰ τὰ α[ὐ]τὰ δὲ καὶ οἱ ὑποδεχόμενο[ι τὰς λεί(?)]ας παρὰ τ[ῶν] λῃισ[τ]ῶν ἢ κακούργου ἢ αὐτοὺς ὑπ[οδεχόμε]νοι ἔν[οχοι ἔσ]-­ τω[σα]ν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίμοι[ς] κ[αθάπερ ca. ? ] 100 γέγ[ρα]πται· ε     [ ] δὲ τοῖς φ[ ca. ? ] μὴ [ἐκ]λυέτω μηθεὶς αὐτοὺς ἢ ἔν[οχος ἔστω ca. ? ] δ’ ἔ[ρε]υναν ποιείσθωσαν παραλαβόν[τες ca. ? ] ἐπ[ισ]τάτου καὶ τὸν φῶρα τὸν βασ[ιλικὸν ca. ? ] 104  [   ] ρωι ἐστιν ⟦  ⟧ \καὶ/ [ἄ]νευ τουτ [ ca. ? ] [    ] ι· νυκτὸς δὲ μ[ηθ]εὶς βαδιζ[έτω ca. ? ] 92

And if he [i.e., a robber] is not arrested, let him [i.e., the noncompliant phylakites] ‫ﷴ‬ be liable to the same penalty as the robber. The same holds with regard to the sailors, specifically those who have the mark, and the _____s [88] from the fleet:26 the phylakitai … as many as bring them to those in charge of the phylakai.27 But if they [i.e., the phylakitai] do not arrest them, let them be accused and sent to the ships. And let them also be liable, namely those [92] hiding (fugitive) sailors, to (the penalty for) theft from the crown.28 Also to be arrested everywhere are robbers and other wrongdoers and (runaway) royal sailors; and let no one conceal any 26 That the rowers had marks or brands suggests that they may have been slaves,



though there does not appear to be consensus on the matter: P.Hib. II 198 pp98–9 n. on 86 with Kunderewicz (1965) 140 and Bagnall (1969) 85–8. 27 On phylakai, buildings which had multiple law enforcement purposes in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz (2007b) 11–17 and the subsequent discussion in this chapter. 28 For the translation of this sentence and the meaning of the phrase phor‫ ﷳ‬a basilike‫( ﷴ‬theft from the crown), see Bagnall (1969) 85–92. See also P.Dryton 33 (?, 136 b.c.), a petition to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬in which the petitioners note that the offenders were liable to the penalties for stolen property (17: ἔνοχοι ὄντες φωρᾶι λείας).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

233

of these, or let him also be liable, the one hindering or the one _____ing, to the same [96] penalties as the robber and the man abandoning his ship. And it is the same with regard to those who conceal stolen goods obtained from a robber or a wrongdoer, or those who conceal the robbers or wrongdoers themselves: let them be liable to the same penalties as … [100] has been written.29 … And may no one hinder them, or he will be liable … and let them conduct a search, taking along … 30 (from?) the epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬and the basilikos pho‫ﷳ‬r … [104] … is, and without … and at night, let no one go. … (85–105)

While the regulations preserved in this text clearly lay out guidelines for the operation of the phylakitai, the reader will note that they are for the most part quite specific in nature: the regulations concern police procedure connected with river transport and the royal fleet. Clearly, the problems of desertion from the fleet, the theft of royal revenue, and aiding and abetting thieves and fugitives were of great concern to the crown. This is underlined by the repeated imposition of penalties on those who fail to make mandated arrests, here specifically the phylakitai. Had there been widespread or long-­standing problems in this area that merited such a stern response from the king and queen? Our evidence is silent on the matter, but the severity of the penalties imposed for noncompliance – essentially being treated as deserters or thieves – suggests that the sovereigns meant business. They also seem to have taken the subject of police investigations seriously, but unfortunately the papyrus becomes fragmentary in the section concerning methodology for police searches. One would very much like to know more about the operation of the mysterious basilikos pho‫ﷳ‬r and where, exactly, no one was allowed to go at night. Arresting officers most commonly targeted individuals who had committed offenses against private citizens or had been charged with having done so. Yet as the foregoing regulations suggest, other types of arrests took place as well.31 For instance, offenses against the state, chief 29 Liability for offenses in the papyri: Lewis (1968) 467–9; Bagnall (1969) 92. 30 Phor‫ ﷳ‬es: Chapter 3. 31 Arrests of private citizens charged with crimes: e.g., BGU VIII 1832

(Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), a petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬requesting that he arrest some ephodoi and donkey drivers who had absconded with feed; P.Cair.Zen. III 59369 (Krokodilopolis, 241 b.c.), a letter containing a report from a trial

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

234

among these infringements upon government monopolies, were considered offenses worthy of arrest. In such cases regional police were often notified in advance that they were to assist the appropriate government agents in the successful completion of state business. They were typically asked both to seize traffickers in illegal goods as well as their wares and to hand both over to the appropriate officials.32 In the following case, an oil seller reported to a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus on a sting operation carried out to nab an oil smuggler: παρ’ Ἀπολλοδώρου τοῦ ἐξειληφότος τὴν διάθεσι[ν καὶ τὸ τ]έλος τοῦ ἐλαίου τῆς αὐτῆς εἰς τὸ δ (ἔτος). τῆς ἐγλήμψεως εἰς τέλος καταλελ[ειμμέν]ης χάριν τῶν 12 παρεισφερόντων εἰς τὴν κώμην καὶ παραπωλούντων Κολ[πιτ]ικὸν ἔλαιον καὶ κίκι, ὅθεν τῆι ια τοῦ Μεχεὶρ προσαγγελέντες μοι Θρᾶικά τινα οὗ τὸ{ν} [ὄνο]μα ἀγνοῶι τῶν ἐκ Κερκε-­ σήφεως παρεισενηνοχότα ἔλαιον εἰς ὃν ἐνοικεῖ Πετεσο[ῦχος σ]κυτεὺς οἶκον καὶ παρα-­ πωλεῖν Θαήσει τῆι καταγινομένηι ἐν τῆι αὐτῆι οἰκίαι [καὶ       ]ιωι χηνοβοσκῶι 16 καὶ τῆι τούτου θυγατρὶ τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς κώμης, εὐθέως π[αραλαβὼν τὸ]ν ἐπιστάτην καὶ τὸν παρὰ τοῦ ἀρχιφυλακίτου χάριν τοῦ καὶ σὲ μὴ παρεῖναι ἐπὶ τῶ[ν τόπων ἐ]πὶ τὸν σημαινό-­

concerning a property dispute between a petitioner and his father-­in-­law at which the former was arrested after the latter accused him of being a slave; P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?), a petition concerning the arrest of two men after a drunken brawl. 32 Arrests of bootleggers and black marketeers: e.g., P.Diosk. 5 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?), a letter to a phrourarchos requesting that he detain a smuggler of donkey hides and his wares until a trial; P.Tebt. III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.), a letter to the police officials of Talei asking for their assistance in bringing in sellers of illicit papyrus and their wares; SB XII 11078 (Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.), a letter from three papyrus sellers to the police officials of Tebtynis requesting that the latter aid the collector of the papyrus tax for the region in his activities by arresting those operating illegally.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

235

μενον τοῦ σκυτέως οἶκον κατέλαβον τὸν Θρᾶικα ἔνδον ὄντα τὸ δ [ἐπίτ]ιμον ἐκτετο-­ πισμ[έ]νο[ν, ἔρ]ευναν δὲ τούτου σὺν αὐτοῖς ποιησάμενος εὗρον ἐν ε[    ]ωι ον         20 αὐτῆι [ ca. 9 ] κινημένηι ἐλαίου ωσι[ ca. 10 ] ι κ[α]ὶ συμμ[   ]ριαν δη     καὶ ἄλλην [ ca. 37 ] [ ]ολ  [     ]        τ[ὸ]ν Θρᾶικα παρε[ ca. 30 τοῦ σκυ]τέως κασῆι καὶ μηλωταῖς [ ca. 44 ε]ἰς φυγὴν ὡρμηκέναι, τὸ δὲ 24 [ἐ]πίτιμον [ ca. 34 ὁ προ]γεγραμμένος Θρᾶιξ οὐ δια [   ]νει[ ca. 27 ὥστ’ ἂν ἐπιγεγονένα]ι μοι βλάβος εἰς χα(λκοῦ) (τάλαντα) ιε. διὸ ἐπιδίδω[μί σοι ὅπως περὶ ὑπογραφὴν ποιήσηι] προσυποτάξαντα ἀντίγραφον [οἷς καθήκει ca. ? ] 28 εὐτύχει.

From Apollodoros, who has received the contract for the sale of and tax on oil for the same village (of Kerkeosiris) for year 4.33 The completion of my business has been constrained by those [12] illegally smuggling into the village and selling Colpitic and castor oil. On the 11th of Mecheir it was announced to me that a certain Thracian whose name I do not know, one of those living in Kerkesephis, had smuggled oil into the house in which Petesouchos the leather worker lives and illegally sold it to Thaesis, who lives in the same house, and to [  –  – ]ios the gooseherd, [16] and to his daughter, all of whom are from the same village. Straightaway I took the epistates‫ ﷴ‬and the agent of the archiphylakites – ‫ ﷴ‬as you were not present in the area34 – to the aforementioned house of the leather worker and found the Thracian within, but the illegal materials removed. I made a search for the latter with them, and found in … [20] of oil … and another … the Thracian … in a hide and some sheepskins of the leather worker. [  –  – ] fled, but the [24] ­illegal goods … the aforementioned Thracian did not … with the result that the monetary damages I suffered were 15 talents of bronze. For this reason I submit 33 On the production and sale of oil in Ptolemaic Egypt, see above all Sandy (1989). 34 On the absence of the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus here, see P.Tebt. I 38  p.  138 n. on 16–19.

236

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

this notification to you so that you may add instructions to my report and send along a copy to those who are concerned with such matters. … [28] Farewell. (P.Tebt. I 38.10–28 [Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.])

What is striking here is the amount of autonomy Apollodoros the oil-­monopoly superintendent appears to have enjoyed. As he tells it, he received a report of some smuggling activities in the village and immediately spearheaded a raid, co-­opting both the village epistates‫ ﷴ‬and archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬as muscle. The account of the raid is somewhat fragmentary, but it is clear that Apollodoros conducted a search for the contraband oil and other illegal goods, as well as the offenders. He ended his report with the request that the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus contact the appropriate officials about the case, and the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus did just that: he forwarded the letter to the basilikos grammateus for processing.35 That a tax collector could orchestrate such an operation, and so quickly, suggests that the Ptolemies put a high premium on financial security; and the fact that the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus contacted the basilikos grammateus about the issue instead of handling matters himself suggests the very same thing. When the state’s interests were being threatened, the state went to great lengths to protect itself. A similar principle seems to have applied to debtors to the crown: these were likewise often arrested, though very few descriptions of arrests of this sort are preserved in the documents. Yet that such seizures regularly took place is evident from the great number of petitions from prisoners incarcerated for fiscal malfeasance.36 As was mentioned earlier, different police officials carried out arrests. No one officer had the primary right of apprehending offenders. Agents from the village phylakitai to the nome-­level epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n were empowered to do so, though their powers to arrest seem to have varied. Police officials with administrative powers (archiphylakitai, epistatai, and phrourarchoi) typically acted of their own volition.37 These same 35 Lines

1–9. The title of the basilikos grammateus, Horos, must be restored in line 1, but the restoration is all but certain: see P.Tebt. I 38 p. 137 n. on 1. 36 On debtors in Ptolemaic prisons, see Bauschatz (2007b) 7–9 and the discussion in this chapter. 37 Archiphylakitai: e.g., Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 230 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.); III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.); epistatai: e.g., P.Köln III 140 (Arsinoite, 244–242 or 219–217 b.c.?); P.Tebt. I 38

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

237

officers might also be ordered by higher officials to carry out arrests.38 Nome-­level police officials were empowered to make arrests as well and did so without need for instruction or sanction from a commanding officer. Epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n evidently performed this function, though only a few documents show these officials apprehending criminals or being petitioned by private citizens to do so.39 The strategos, too, could ‫ﷴ‬ carry out arrests, though more often than not he delegated this activity 40 to a subordinate (generally an epistates). Most of the time, however, it ‫ﷴ‬ was the phylakitai who carried out arrests, even if a superior had been instructed to do so. Phylakitai could seize offenders with the sanction of their supervisors, but likewise did so on their own initiative.41 We see here additional evidence that phylakitai were far from nonthinking cogs (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.); UPZ I 124 (Memphis, 175 or 165 b.c.?); phrourarchoi: e.g., P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); 9 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.). 38 Archiphylakitai ordered to arrest: e.g., P.Enteux. 82 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.); P.Heid. VII 393 (Arsinoite or Memphite, III b.c.); SB VI 9108 (Aphroditopolite, 173–169 b.c.); epistatai: e.g., BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); P.Enteux. 28 (Theogonis, 218 b.c.); P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?); phrourarchoi: e.g., BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49  b.c.); P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.); P.Tor.Choach. 8 (Thebes, after September 24–October 23, 127 b.c.). 39 Arresting: P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?); P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.); ordering arrests: BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), a petition to an oikonomos forwarded to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, who then commanded an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to make an arrest. 40 Arresting: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 34 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.); 53 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); UPZ I 5 (Memphis, 163 b.c.); delegating: e.g., P.Enteux. 28 (Theogonis, 218 b.c.); P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.). 41 Phylakitai ordered to arrest: e.g., BGU X 1912 (Arsinoite or Herakleopolite, ca. 250 b.c.); P.Mich. XVIII 778 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.); SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 151 b.c.); arresting of their own volition: e.g., BGU VI 1252 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); P.Mich. I 85 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.). At least one document suggests that they might be stationed in problem areas to make future arrests: a report from a trial concerning a number of castor oil workers who had been sleeping in the pastophorion of Aphrodite in Memphis (UPZ I 119 [Memphis, 156 b.c.]).

238

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

in the Ptolemaic criminal justice machine. Rather, they were a surprisingly autonomous body and an effective arresting corps. That officials at all levels of the administration, from the smallest villages to the nome metropoleis, not only received orders to arrest, and were asked to do so by petitioners, but also did so when they themselves deemed it necessary suggests that the Ptolemaic law enforcement system was designed to provide rapid and decisive responses to allegations of wrongdoing throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. The Ptolemies allowed Egyptian towns and villages great autonomy in determining and managing their law enforcement machinery. As a consequence, numerous officials were granted or assumed the power to apprehend offenders. This made the effecting of an arrest quite easy for a victim. A broad spectrum of police agents empowered to haul in criminals in any given place improved the odds that a suspect would not escape the charges against him or her. The Ptolemies took lawbreaking seriously and favored swift resolution for reported offenses. From brawlers to thieves to tax cheats, wrongdoers of every stripe were liable to sudden seizure by the Ptolemaic police.

Detention

Once the police had nabbed a wrongdoer, they typically detained him or her for a period of time while an investigation was carried out and judicial proceedings of some sort readied.42 The documents are not always clear, but it seems likely that in most cases detainees – and sometimes items of property – were placed in some sort of jail or lockup.43 The offenses for which the Ptolemaic police imprisoned suspects were varied, though in many instances we find people imprisoned for debt, both public and private.44 The majority of examples of imprisonment for 42 The

material in this section has been significantly reworked from my article, “Ptolemaic Prisons Reconsidered” (Bauschatz 2007b). On detention in antiquity in general, see Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al. (1999); Tovar and Martín (2003); and Bertrand-­Dagenbach, Salamito, and Vaillancourt (2004). 43 Indeed, detention of suspects is often simply indicated by forms of the verbs asphalizesthai, katechesthai, and synechesthai, without further reference to location. See further Bauschatz (2007b) 6–7 for specific instances of these terms. 44 Imprisonment for debt under the Ptolemies: Bauschatz (2007b) 7–9.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

239

debt date to the third century b.c., and many of these come from the Zenon archive. In a fairly typical case, a man offered to sell some wine in order to erase his debt and secure a release: 4 8 12 16 20

τος ἀπαγήγοχέμ με πρὸς τὸ λοιπὸν ὃ προσοφεί-­ λω (δραχμὰς) ξ. ἡμῖν δὲ συμ-­ [βα]ίνει τινὰ μὲν τῶν [σκευῶν] διαπεπιστευ-­ κέναι, ὑπάρχει δὲ καὶ οἶνος ἔτι ἄπρατος. εἰ οὖν σοι δ[ο]κεῖ, καθάπερ καὶ ἔμ-­ [προ]σθεν παρὰ σοῦ ἐπιει-­ [κεί]ας τετεύχαμεν, καὶ νῦν ἀνακαλεσάμενός μου διάκουσον, ἵνα μὴ συμβῆι ἐμὲ μὲν ἐν τῶι δεσμω-­ [τη]ρίωι εἶναι, τὰ δὲ πεπιστευ-­ [μέ]να παραπολέσθαι καὶ τὸν λοιπὸν οἶνον τὸν ὑ-­ πάρχοντα διαπεσεῖν, ἀλ-­ λ’, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, καὶ [τα]ῦτα συναγαγόντες τὰ [δίκ]αιά σοι ποιήσωμεν. εὐτύχει.

…tos has arrested me because of the rest of the 60 drachmas which I owe. It ­happens that [4] we have pledged some of our items, but we still have some wine that is unsold. If, then, [8] it seems best to you – as also previously I have encountered your fairness – even now, summoning me, [12] hear my case, so that it may not happen that I be in the desmo‫ﷳ‬tetrion and my pledged items be forfeited and [16] ‫ﷴ‬ the rest of the wine that I have be lost.45 Rather, as with everything else, so also bringing these matters to conclusion let [20] us do you justice. Farewell. (P.Cair. Zen. IV 59626.1–21 [?, III b.c.])

The petitioner stresses the fact that he has gone to great lengths to obtain funds to pay off his debt but has not yet been able to do so. 45 Desmoteria:

Bauschatz (2007b) 13–17 and the subsequent discussion in ‫ﷴ ﷳ‬ this chapter.

240

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

He also suggests that a stay in jail will make repayment of the debt impossible: pledged items and wine will be lost while the petitioner sits locked up. Like so many other prisoners, this man underlined the importance of release as a means of returning to work and productivity for the benefit of the petitioned official. This must have been an especially good approach when dealing with the supervisor of a large estate like Zenon. It was certainly a common one: for example, another man sought to trade grain to Zenon for the release of himself and his sons so as to return to work (PSI V 532 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]). Of course, another tactic was to stress that there actually was no debt, and that an unjust or mistaken arrest had been made. We have already seen one such example, a letter to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬from a man who claimed that he had been arrested and detained by a tax collector and his cronies, in spite of the fact that he owed no debt (BGU VIII 1821 [Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.; Chapter 3]).46 Yet debtors were not the only offenders who sometimes found themselves wasting away in Ptolemaic holding cells. The papyri reveal that a broad array of offenses could lead to at least temporary stays in a ­holding facility: theft, assault, disturbing the peace, poor job performance, and flight (for slaves).47 An assault on the local epistates‫ ﷴ‬landed one man 46 See

also, e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59492 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), in which a man was imprisoned by an official who attempted to extract one hundred drachmas from him; P.Cair.Zen. III 59520 (Krokodilopolis?, III b.c.), in which a beekeeper was arrested and imprisoned for an outstanding debt; P.Heid. VIII 417 (Herakleopolis, 190 or 189 b.c.), where a priest noted that he had been arrested after an inspection by an official, likely because of a (trumped-­up) charge of debt. 47 Theft: Chrest.Mitt. 45 (Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.?); P.Diosk. 5 (Hera­ kleopolite, 146 b.c.?); P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.) and 73 ­(Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.), the same prisoner in both texts; assault: P.Ryl. IV 570 (Krokodilopolis, 254–251 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 15 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.); SB I 4309 (Arsinoite, III b.c.?); theft and assault: PSI IV 380 (Philadelphia, 249 b.c.); disturbing the peace: P.Eleph. 12 (Diospolis Magna, 222 b.c.); PSI IV 406 (Philadelphia, 260–258 b.c.); poor job performance: Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59368 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.); 59484 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); P.Enteux. 84 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.); P.Iand.Zen. 50 Appendix (Krokodilopolis, mid-­III b.c.); P.Petr. II 19 Fr2 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); PSI IV 353 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.); slave flight: P.Cair.Zen. III 59369

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

241

in prison (P.Tebt. I 15.1–18  [Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.]). A carpet weaver effected the arrest and detention of a co-­worker after filing a report on his poor work habits with a superior (P.Cair.Zen. III 59484 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]). Public indiscretions, too, could lead to imprisonment: one papyrus even records that a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬had been ordered to imprison a number of people for public drunkenness (P.Eleph. 12  [Diospolis Magna, 222 b.c.]). We have already seen a pair of additional examples in which detention was carried out for reasons unrelated to personal or public debt: in one, a woman asked a phrourarchos to detain a runaway slave for a few days (P.Diosk. 9 [Herakleopolite, II b.c.]; Chapter 3); in the other, some misplaced records landed an unfortunate man in prison (P.Enteux. 84  [Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.]; Chapter  2). Clearly, Ptolemaic prisons had room for more than the debtors who crowded the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion ‫ﷴ‬ at Athens. Of course, people were sometimes imprisoned unjustly, with or without a stated charge – or, at least, the imprisoned saw it that way. Papyri preserve instances in which prisoners declare that they have been hauled off to the lockup on false charges, at the whim of a corrupt official or because of a case of mistaken identity or official incompetence.48 From time to time, these texts provide more than just the barest of details concerning the illegal activities of the arresting and detaining officials. The following petition to the king provides a good example of the latter:

βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι χαίρειν Θαμοῦνις, Ἡρακλεοπολῖτ[ις. ἀδικοῦμαι] ὑπ[ὸ Θο]θορτάιτος, τῆς κατοικούσης ἐν Ὀξο-­

(Krokodilopolis, 241 b.c.); P.Diosk. 9 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 904 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.). 48 See Bauschatz (2007b) 10 n. 22 for a list of as many as twenty-­four cases of unjust imprisonment under the Ptolemies. Examples: P.Cair.Zen. III 59368.22–5 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.), where a chortophylax, who was unjustly arrested and detained by an oikonomos, was kept in detention for eight months; P.Cair.Zen. IV 59619 (Memphite?, III b.c.), in which a man was arrested while traveling and jailed without episkepsis (official examination); SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 151 b.c.; see Chapter 3), the long account of a farmer who was unjustly imprisoned and then forced to flee after his release in order to avoid the depredations of a crooked kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches. ‫ﷴ‬

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

242



4



8



ρύγχοις τοῦ Ἀρσινοίτου νομοῦ. τοῦ γὰρ α (ἔτους), Ἁθύρ, ἐπιξενω[θείσης μ]ου εἰς Ὀξόρυγχα καὶ πορευθείσης εἰς τὸ βαλανεῖον, ἡ ἐγκαλουμένη, ἐπιπαραγενομένη καὶ καταλαβοῦσά με λου[ομέν]ην ἐν πυέλωι ἐν τῶι γυναικείωι θόλωι, ἐξέβαλλέν με ἐκ τῆς πυέλου· ἐμοῦ δὲ οὐκ ἐκχωρούσης, καταγνοῦσά μου ὅτι ξένη εἰμ[ί, πλη]γάς μοι ἐνέβαλεν καὶ πλείους εἰς ὃ τύχοι μέρος τοῦ σώματός μου, τό τε περιτραχηλίδιον ἐκ καθορμίων λιθίνων ἀφείλετό μ[ου· μ]ετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καταβοησάσης μου Πετοσίρει τῶι κω-­ μάρχηι περὶ τούτων, ἀνακληθεῖσα ἡ Θοθορτάις καὶ προσφ[ωνήσ]ασα αὐτῶι ὁπότ’ ἠβούλετο, συμποιήσας αὐτῆι ὁ κωμάρχης προσαπήγαγέν με εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν καὶ συνέσχεν ἐφ’ ἡμέρας δ ἕ[ως] τοῦ ἐγδῦσαί με ὃ περιεβεβλήμην ἱμάτιον, ἄξιον (δραχμῶν) λ, ὃ καὶ [ἔ]χει ἡ ἐγκαλουμένη, καὶ οὕτως διεί[θ]ην. δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλε[ῦ, πρ]οστάξαι Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι γράψαι Μοσχίωνι τῶι ἐπιστάτηι ἀποστεῖλαι Θορτάι{ο}ν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν καί, τ[αῦτα] ἀληθῆ, ἐπαναγκάσαι αὐτὴν τό τε ἱμάτιόν μοι ἀπο-­ δοῦναι ἢ τὴν τιμὴν τὰς λ (δραχμάς), περὶ δὲ ὧν συντετέλεσται εἴς μ[ε Δι]οφάνην διαγνῶναι, ἵνα διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ, τύχω τοῦ δικαίου. vac εὐτύχει.

To king Ptolemy, greetings, Thamounis, Herakleopolitan. I am wronged by Thothortais, inhabitant of Oxyrhyncha in the Arsinoite nome. For in year 1, Hathyr, when I was visiting Oxyrhyncha and had gone into the baths, the accused, appearing on the scene and grabbing hold of me as I was bathing in a tub in the women’s room, cast me out of the [4] tub. When I did not give way, she, disdaining me because I was a stranger, struck me a great deal all over my body and took away from me my stone necklace. After this, when I called for help to Petosiris the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches‫ ﷴ‬about these matters,49 Thothortais, after being summoned, addressed him when she chose; and the ko‫ﷳ‬marches, ‫ ﷴ‬plotting with her, led me off to the phylake‫ﷴ‬ and held me there for four days, before he stripped me of the himation which I 49 Petosiris,

kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches: ‫ ﷴ‬Pros.Ptol. 757.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

243

was wearing, worth 30 drachmas, and which [8] the accused now has. Thus was I released. I ask you, then, king, that you command Diophanes, strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬to write to 50 Moschion, epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬to send Thothortais to him and, these things being true, to force her to give me back my himation, the one worth 30 drachmas; and (that you command) Diophanes to pronounce judgment concerning the things that were done to me, so that through your agency, king, I may find justice. Farewell. (P. Enteux. 83.1–11 [Magdola, 221 b.c.])51

This example raises the issue of unjust imprisonment under the Ptolemies, as well as that of police corruption more broadly. Both subjects have been treated in greater detail elsewhere.52 Here we see an allegation of cooperation between a ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬and a female wrongdoer to arrest and imprison an Egyptian woman from out of town. After an assault and theft, the victim had contacted the ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬to get the wheels of justice moving. Here things very quickly took a wrong turn. The ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬summoned the alleged attacker, but not only did the ­latter not take her summons seriously – as indicated by the fact that she seems to have been free to answer the summons whenever she wanted to – but she also seems to have convinced the ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬that it would be beneficial for him to arrest the complainant instead, which in fact occurred. The latter evidently only managed to get out of jail after handing over a bribe of some clothing. It is important to bear in mind that the evidence for allegedly unjust imprisonments such as the one on display here, though on the surface compelling, is often highly suspect, as it generally comes primarily from those who allege that they have been wrongly imprisoned. 50 Moschion, epistates: ‫ ﷴ‬Pros.Ptol. 691. 51 Below the main text, in a second hand, is the following instruction (lines12–

13): “To Moschion. By all means, reconcile them; but if you are unable, send them so that they may be judged before the laokritai. Year 1, Gorpiaios 28, Tybi 12.” (Μοσχ[ί]ωνι. μά(λιστα) διάλυσον αὐτούς· εἰ δὲ [μή], ἀπό(στειλον) ὅπως ἐπὶ τῶν λα(οκριτῶν) δι(ακριθῶσιν). | (ἔτους) α, Γορπιαίου κη, Τῦβι ιβ.) On the laokritai, see Chapter  2, note 104; on the use of Macedonian months in Ptolemaic dating formulary, Chapter 2, note 81. 52 For police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt, see above all Bauschatz (2007c), especially 22 and the sources cited there, with Bauschatz (2007b): 10–11 and 27–48; for official corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt in general, Crawford 1978 and Peremans 1982a.

244

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Indeed, in this case as well, it is likely that we do not have the whole story. For instance, the motivation for the attack at the baths is essentially left unexplained by the petitioner, who insists that the accused simply mistreated her because of a disrespect for strangers. The victim also does not ask for the return of the necklace she claims was stolen from her at the baths, only for the clothing. The possibility of fabrication here is real. As the evidence in this case – and so many others like it – is inconclusive, it is perhaps best to assume that while the practice of illegal detention did occur, it was not widespread or endemic. The same perhaps cannot be said for the embellishment of truth in petitions. A word here is needed about the different types of jails that dotted the Ptolemaic landscape. The vocabulary used in the papyri to describe places of detention is diverse: judging from the evidence, desmo‫ﷳ‬phylakia, desmo‫ﷳ‬teria, drapetago‫ﷳ‬gia, ephemereute ria, heirktai, ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata, phylakai, ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ praktoreia, and synochai all could hold prisoners.53 Our evidence for many of these types of prisons comes from one or only a handful of texts. For instance, one text, an official letter to some phylakitai, eremophylakes, ‫ﷴ‬ and others, makes reference to a desmophylakion, which may have been employed to temporarily house some misbehaving slaves (P.Tebt. III.2 904 [Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.]). The term drapetago‫ﷳ‬gion likewise appears only once in the evidence, in an odd little letter about the assaults of a female thyro‫ﷳ‬ros, among other things (BGU VIII 1881 [Herakleopolite, 80–30 b.c.]).54 Three texts reveal that ephemereute ria ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬housed offenders as well, and in one instance a widow who had been arrested ­(allegedly) unjustly (SB XXIV 16285  [Krokodilopolis, 202 b.c.]).55 Lastly, we have already seen one text in which a man was detained in the synoche‫ﷴ‬ by some officials after they confiscated his seed (BGU VIII 1821.21, 28 [Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.]; Chapter 3). Our evidence is somewhat more extensive – though not necessarily more illuminating – for two other designations for prisons. A type of 53 See Bauschatz (2007b) 11–17 for more detail and specific attestations. 54 Thyro‫ﷳ‬roi: see Chapter 3, note 85. 55 Ephemereuteria also appear in P.Petr. II 10.ii.13 (Arsinoite, 221–205 b.c.)

and ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ in UPZ I 119.11–12 (Memphis, 156 b.c.), where the ephemereute rion is specif‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ically τὸ ἐφημ[ερευτήριον τῶν] | [πα]στοφόρων τὸ πρὸς τῶι ἁγίωι τοῦ Σαράπ[ιδος].

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

245

prison called the heirkte‫ ﷴ‬turns up in seven texts.56 In one of these we see a man taking over and exploiting the allotment of another while the latter was imprisoned en heirkte‫ﷴ‬i (BGU VIII 1773 [Herakleopolite, 58 b.c.?]; Chapter 6). We also know that ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata could contain prisoners.57 These fortresses occur in a variety of Ptolemaic documents, but in only one do we see that a prison population could be part of the contents of an ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma: 4 8

[Νική]ρατος Κλέωνι χαίρειν. τὸ πρὸς νότον [τ]οῦ ὀχυρώματος τεῖχος, μέρος μέν τι αὐτοῦ πεπτωκός ἐστιν, τὸ δ’ ἐπίλοιπον φέρεται ὥσ-­ τε κινδυνεύει πεσόντος αὐτοῦ διαφωνῆσαί τι τῶν σωμάτων. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις τὴν ἀπέγδοσιν αὐτοῦ ποιησάμενος καὶ δοὺς Διονυ-­ σίωι τῶι [ο]ἰκοδόμωι ὅπως ἐνέργηι εὐθέως γὰρ ἕξομεν ἐξαγαγόντες καὶ πλέονι τόπ[ω]ι ­ἀπο-­ χρήσασθαι πρὸς τοὺς παραδεδομένους \νῦν/ δεσ-­ μώτας [ὑ]π’ Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ διοικητοῦ. ἔρρωσο. (ἔτους) λ Ἁθὺρ ις.

Nikeratos to Kleon, greetings.58 Regarding the northern wall of the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma, a certain part of it has collapsed, and the remaining part is in such a condition so as [4] to pose a risk, if it collapses, that one of the slaves (so‫ﷳ‬mata) will escape.59 56 BGU

VIII 1773.8 (Herakleopolis, 58 b.c.?); 1847.18–19 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?); C.Ord.Ptol.2 34.ii.20 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.); 53.260 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); 55.13 (Tebtynis, ca. 118 b.c.); P.Mil. Congr.XVII pp21/22.11 (Arsinoite, after 142–141 b.c.); and P.Tebt. I 15.13 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.). 57 Ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata: see Chapter  4, note 18. Attestations: P.Berl.Zill. 1.47 (Herakleopolis, 155 b.c.) and P.Diosk. 6.15–16 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), for the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma in Herakleopolis; P.Lond. III 880.26 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.), 1204.19, 21 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.), VII 2191.36, 39 (Pathyris, 116 b.c.) and P.Stras. II 85.23 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.) for the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma in Pathyris; P.Tebt. III.2 875.ii.16 (Kerkesoucha, II b.c.), for the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma in Kerkesoucha; and P.Petr. III 119 FrB verso.4 (Arsinoite, after 222–221 b.c.?). 58 On the architekto‫ﷳ‬n Kleon and the archive of documents associated with him, see Lewis (2001) 37–45. The title of Nikeratos (Pros.Ptol. 10319) is unknown. 59 On the imprisonment of slaves under the Ptolemies, see also, e.g., P.Diosk. 9 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.; Chapter  3) and P.Tebt. III.2 904 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.). On slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt in general, C.Ptol.Sklav.

246

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Therefore you will do well to draw up a contract for (the repair of ) it, and to give it to Dionysios the house builder, so that he may carry it out. For straightaway, [8] bringing out (the prisoners/slaves?), we will need to make use of a larger space, 60 because of the desmot‫ ﷳ‬ai who have now been handed over by Apollonios the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s. ‫ﷴ‬ Farewell. Year 30, Hathyr 16. (P.Petr. II 13 Fr3 recto [Arsinoite, 255 b.c.]).

Uncertain here is whether an ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma would have contained a designated area for detainees and, if so, what this area would have been called. Ochyro‫ﷳ‬mata were at least occasionally extensive complexes: in fact, at least one  – the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma at Pathyris  – contained houses.61 It therefore does not seem unreasonable to expect that the areas used for detaining prisoners should have been called by some or any of the terms for “prison” cited earlier. Also uncertain here is the significance of the terms used to describe the inhabitants of the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma: so‫ﷳ‬mata (slaves) and desmo‫ﷳ‬tai (prisoners). The simplest solution is to assume that the people designated as so‫ﷳ‬mata are “slaves” because they have been imprisoned by the state and are (probably) being used as a source of forced labor. The desmo‫ﷳ‬tai, on the other hand, may represent a new group of prisoners (likely of war), who, once they had been transferred to the ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma, would be integrated into the body of so‫ﷳ‬mata. At all events, both groups would have posed a flight risk, so the repair of the fortress wall had to be made a priority. The evidence surveyed so far for prisons in Ptolemaic Egypt makes clear that various buildings with (at least occasionally) different names could serve as places of detention, though the evidence does not indicate whether specific offenses landed wrongdoers in specific buildings. The specificity of vocabulary on display in the papyri and elsewhere could indicate that there was a similar degree of specificity on the ground, both in physical makeup and in use. However, barring the discovery of additional data, certainty on this issue is perhaps impossible. What is certain is that, though the vocabulary employed for most prisons could vary from place to place and person to person, a prison complex was, 60 The

desmot‫ ﷳ‬ai mentioned here are perhaps prisoners of war, not men guilty of crimes or private offenses. On prisoners of war under the Ptolemies, see van Minnen (2000). For Apollonios, dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬see Chapter 2, note 8. 61 P.Lond. III 880.26 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.); 1204.19, 21 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.); VII 2191.36, 39 (Pathyris, 116 b.c.); and P.Stras. II 85.23 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

247

in practically every locale, a fairly standard detention building. Again, this appears to have been the case with most types of prison. That said, there are two designations for prisons under the Ptolemies for which a relative abundance of evidence allows further conclusions: desmo‫ﷳ‬teria ‫ ﷴ‬and phylakai. The attestations for these two words are by far the most numerous among words for places of detention under the Ptolemies: according to a recent study, thirty-­three texts contain instances of desmoteria, and sixty-­seven contain instances of phylakai.62 In ‫ﷴ‬ addition, these two types of prison – if indeed they are distinct types – appear to have had real functional and organizational differences. This is important to keep in mind when assessing the meanings of the various words used to describe prisons in Ptolemaic Egypt, as it suggests that the diversity in vocabulary may in fact have reflected a real diversity on the ground. Desmo‫ﷳ‬teria ‫ ﷴ‬occur in Egyptian villages throughout the time and space of Ptolemaic rule.63 They were often supervised by jailors (desmophylakes) who were in charge of the intake and discharge of prisoners (e.g., P.Petr. III 28 FrE recto.1–21 [Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.]; Chapter 4) and could receive payments for bail (P.LilleDem. I 3 [Ghoran, 243 b.c.]). Desmophylakes seem to have been the only Ptolemaic police agents to be found in the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion full-­time. Only one additional document ‫ﷴ‬ records the presence at the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion of other agents: an account in ‫ﷴ‬ which hoi tetagmenoi epi tou desmo‫ﷳ‬teriou received their pay along with ‫ﷴ‬ the stonecutters at the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion (P.Cair.Zen. II 59296.12–13, 25–6, ‫ﷴ‬ 34–5 [Arsinoite, 250 b.c.]). A broad array of officials from all spheres of government – as well as private citizens – is seen delivering wrongdoers to desmo‫ﷳ‬teria ‫ ﷴ‬and arranging their release, but in no case does an official other than a desmophylax appear to have spent significant time at a desmo‫ﷳ‬terion before or after the incarceration or release of a wrongdoer.64 ‫ﷴ‬ All of this suggests that desmo‫ﷳ‬teria ‫ ﷴ‬were prisons and nothing more. 62 Desmoteria:

Bauschatz (2007b) 11 n. 29; phylakai: Bauschatz (2007c) ‫ﷴ ﷳ‬ 11–12, n. 30. 63 Attestations in Bauschatz (2007b) 11 n. 29 and 15 n. 39. 64 Delivery of offenders to or release of offenders from desmot‫ ﷳ‬eria by archiphylakitai: P.Hib. I 34.4, 7–8 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.) and 73.9–11 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.); II 203.14–19 (?, 246–221 b.c.); by desmophylakes: P.Enteux. 84.17–21 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.); by epistatai: P.Hib. I

248

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

The picture is quite different when we turn to phylakai. As with desmo‫ﷳ‬teria, these buildings occur over a very wide geographic and tem‫ﷴ‬ poral expanse.65 Yet the evidence for phylakai suggests that these buildings were much more than basic holding cells. For starters, it appears that a broader array of government agents was either posted at or could occasionally be found operating out of phylakai. As at desmo‫ﷳ‬teria, des‫ﷴ‬ mophylakes might be on hand to receive prisoners (SB III 7202.17, 35 [Arsinoite, 227 b.c.]; Chapter 3), collect bail from prisoners (P.Tebt. III.1 777.5 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]), and perhaps occasionally receive deliveries of food and wine (PSI XIII 1315.4 [Arsinoite, 127 b.c.], two jars of wine for desmophylakes).66 But the papyri offer glimpses of other officials operating in and around phylakai as well. For instance, we know from a royal decree on police regulations that hoi [..]estekotes to‫ﷳ‬n phylako‫ﷳ‬n were ‫ﷴ‬ the officials to whom the phylakitai were to hand over runaway sailors from the royal fleet (P.Hib. II 198.89–90 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]; cited in the previous section). We also have good evidence that officials with economic functions operated out of phylakai, or at least the phylake‫ﷴ‬ in Memphis. In one instance, hoi pros tais phylakais tetagmenoi made a confiscation (P.Cair.Zen. I 59031.1–16 [Alexandria, 258 b.c.]). In another, hoi epi tes‫ ﷴ‬phylakes‫ ﷴ‬posed a potential threat to swift passage up the Nile (P.Cair.Zen. III 59392.1–4 [?, III b.c.]). A third example mentions hoi epi tou phylakeiou in a similar context (P.Zen.Pestm. 61 [Arsinoite, 246 or 34.1–3 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.) and 73.7–9 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.); by oikonomoi: P.Cair.Zen. III 59368.24–5 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.); by phylakitai: P.Enteux. 84.10–17 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.); by other officials: P.Cair.Zen. III 59492.5–6 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), where an official with the title ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n myrio‫ﷳ‬n arrested and imprisoned a man in the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion; by Zenon (release ‫ﷴ‬ sought by prisoners): P.Cair.Zen. III 59482 and 59492 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); 59520 (Krokodilopolis?, III b.c.); IV 59601 (?) (Aphroditopolis?, III b.c.); 59619 (Memphite?, III b.c.); 59626 (?, III b.c.); P.Mich. I 87 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.); PSI IV 416, 419 and V 532 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); by private individuals: P.Cair.Zen. III 59520.6 (Krokodilopolis?, III b.c.), where a beekeeper brought a man to the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion; P.Enteux. 84.21–4 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.), ‫ﷴ‬ where a man sought release for a kinsman. 65 Attestations at Bauschatz (2007b) 13 n. 35. 66 See also UPZ I 149.11 (Memphis, ca. 208–206 b.c.?) for wine designated for a phylake.‫ﷴ‬

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

249

245 b.c.?]).67 The preceding examples and others make clear that phylakai served as toll stations.68 They could also be used as guard posts.69 And as one text demonstrates, a private contract could be drawn up at a phylake‫( ﷴ‬UPZ I 125.7, 36–7 [Memphis, 89 b.c.]). If we assume that all phylakai were created equal – that is, that these buildings did not serve different functions in different areas70  – then it appears to have been the case that phylakai were not merely prisons but were also the bases of operation for many different agents from different spheres of government and places where individuals might be detained, goods might be confiscated, river passage might be granted or denied, river traffic might be registered, and police and military men might spend time.71 Our discussion of detention under the Ptolemies has thus far ignored prisoners, the prison experience, and the reasons for which prisoners were detained. We know quite a bit about each of these topics. First, as for the offenses that landed wrongdoers in detention, the papyri make it very clear that they included both private and public (i.e., mainly fiscal) wrongdoing.72 Offenses that were considered jailable included assault, 67 It seems likely that the Memphis phylakeion mentioned here is identical with

the Memphis phylake,‫ ﷴ‬as this is the only text in which the former designation occurs. It should also be noted that phylakeion is in abbreviation here (2: τοῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ φυ(λακείου)), so there is perhaps a possibility of scribal error (i.e., τοῦ φυ(λακείου) for τῆς φυ(λακῆς)). 68 E.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.24 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59289.10, 21 (Alexandria?, 250 b.c.); P.Lond. VII 1945.4 (Alexandria, 257 b.c.). 69 See Chrest.Wilck. 1.i.7, ii.17–18 (Arsinoite, ca. 246 b.c.) and UPZ II 218.i.16–17 (?) (Thebes, 131–130 b.c.). 70 It has been suggested that phylakai of at least two distinct types turn up in the evidence. According to the editors of P.Hib. II 198 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), some phylakai functioned as guard posts, while others served as toll stations (p. 99 n. on 89). Wilcken (UPZ I 125 [Memphis, 89 b.c.] introduction, p. 590) also expressed uncertainty about the universality of phylakai. 71 A handful of second-­century b.c. grain-­loading orders from the Arsinoite nome mention an official with the title ho hegoumenos tes‫ ﷴ‬phylakes‫ ﷴ‬who does ‫ﷴ‬ not appear to have worked at a phylake‫ ﷴ‬but rather served as a security guard on board ships: P.Erasm. II 23.7; 24.4; 25.12 (all 152 b.c.); 35.7 (II b.c.). On this official, see P.Erasm. II p. 96. 72 See Bauschatz (2007b) 16–17 with appendix for detailed attestations of detentions carried out in different types of prisons for various offenses. In

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

250

debt (both public and private), disturbing the peace, poor workmanship, and theft. We also find allegations that unjust arrests had been carried out, and see runaway or offending slaves being detained as well. The wide variety of prisons that dotted the Ptolemaic landscape and the numerous types of offenses that could land wrongdoers in jail make one wonder what sorts of regulations existed concerning incarceration. Regulations on imprisonment did, in fact, exist; however, the three royal decrees that provide our only information for such regulations indicate merely that the Ptolemies were concerned about instances of unjust imprisonment: 12 16 20

[μηδένα δ]ὲ μήτε τῶν στρατηγῶν [μήτε] [τῶν ἐπιστ]ατῶν μήτε τῶν ἐπιμε[λητῶν] [μήτε τῶν π]ρακτόρων μήτε τῶν χρ[ηματι]-­ [στῶν μήτε] τῶν οἰκονόμων μήτε τ[ῶν ca. ? ] [ ca. 9 ] μήτε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν [πρὸς ταῖς] [χρείαις πραγ]ματευομένων τεταγμ[ένων ἐπὶ] [τῶν τε βασ]ιλικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν κ[αὶ ἱερευ]-­ [τικῶν ἀπά]γ⟨ε⟩ιν μηδένα πρὸς ἴδιον [ὀφείλημα] [ἢ ἀδίκημα μ]ηδὲ ἰδίας χερας73 ἕνεκεν [συνέχειν] [μηδ’ ἐν ταῖς] \οἰ/κίαις μηδ’ ἐν ἄλλοις τ[όποις ­ἐν] [εἱρκτῆι ἐλε]υθέρους· ἀνάγειν δὲ αὐτ[οὺς ca. ? ]

Neither any of the strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬nor of the epistatai nor of the epimeletai ‫[ ﷴ‬12] nor of the praktores nor of the chrematistai nor of the oikonomoi nor of the [ – – ] nor of the others ‫ﷴ‬ tending to business in charge [16] of royal or civic or priestly matters is to arrest anyone for a private debt or (private) wrongdoing, nor is any of these officials to detain, either in homes or in other places because of a private hatred, [20] free men; but they are to bring them up. … (C.Ord.Ptol.2 34.ii.10–20 [Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.])74 specific cases, we have clear indications of the offenses that led to detention in desmot‫ ﷳ‬eria, heirktai, praktoreia, synochai, and phylakai. ‫ﷴ‬ 73 Read ἔχθρας. 74 See also C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.255–64 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.) and 55.10–13 (Tebtynis, ca. 118 b.c.). Both later decrees contain virtually the same text as the earlier one, though in each of them, the list of named officials is abbreviated (and identical). C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.255–7: μηδὲ τοὺς στρα(τηγοὺς) μηδὲ τοὺς ἄλλο⟨υ⟩ς τοὺς | πρὸς χρείαις πάντας τῶν τε βασιλικῶν | καὶ πολιτικῶν καὶ ἱερευτικῶν.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

251

Like the regulations on arrests and investigations we saw earlier (P.Hib. II 198.85–105 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]), this decree was not intended to provide comprehensive guidelines for detention but rather was aimed at solving a specific problem: unjust imprisonment. The king and queen inform a broad spectrum of civil, financial, and even religious officials that personal motivations cannot lead to arrests or detention. Instead, they seem to suggest before the papyrus breaks that a judicial solution is to be preferred. Given that no additional evidence for prison regulations survives, it is entirely possible that the Ptolemies did not provide any but instead left the regulation of detention up to town and village authorities. It certainly appears possible that there were not specific regulations in place regarding the whereabouts of detention, since the sovereigns refer to imprisonment in homes and other places in this decree. In fact, it seems likely that in most cases, wrongdoers were arrested and taken to the nearest available prison, whether desmo‫ﷳ‬te‫ﷴ‬rion, heirkte‫ﷴ‬, phylake‫ﷴ‬, or otherwise. Of course, there is rarely any indication that an arresting official chose a certain prison specifically because of its proximity to a crime scene, investigation site, or his own base of operations, or because it was judged somehow most suitable. All the same, it is obvious in most cases that imprisonments usually took place in nearby jails. We have already examined a number of texts in which this principle seems to be in play: the letter to the phrourarchos from the woman who asked that her runaway slave be detained in the phylake‫ ﷴ‬in the city of the phrourarchos (P.Diosk. 9 [Herakleopolite, II b.c.]; Chapter 3); the report of the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus detailing an assault on the local epistate‫ﷴ‬s and the subsequent imprisonment of one of the assailants in the village heirkte‫( ﷴ‬P.Tebt. I 15 [Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.]; this section); the petition from an offender who had lost some records, initially had been imprisoned in the local desmo‫ﷳ‬te‫ﷴ‬rion, and was then moved to the desmo‫ﷳ‬te‫ﷴ‬rion in another village (P.Enteux. 84 [Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.]; Chapter 2); and the petition from a woman unjustly (?) arrested, placed in the local ephe‫ﷴ‬mereute‫ﷴ‬rion and then moved to the local phylake‫( ﷴ‬SB XXIV 16285 [Krokodilopolis, 202 b.c.]; this section). Convenience and the limitations of local infrastructure seem to have played at least as big a role in the incarceration of suspects as any hypothetical set of guidelines for imprisonment.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

252

An offender might have found himself or herself arrested for any of a number of jailable offenses and, depending on where the arrest took place, might have ended up in any of a number of different detention facilities. On the other hand, the experience of prison seems to have been fairly unvarying across the time and space of Ptolemaic rule, to judge from the often colorful accounts of prisoners in their letters to the outside world and their petitions to officials. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these accounts regularly detail the nightmarish realities of life behind bars  – deprivation, famine, isolation, death  – or at least the alleged realities of those who wrote about and likely often embellished them. Though the basic themes of these letters are generally the same, the details vary from case to case. In one, a prisoner noted that while detained he had lost everything and lacked basic necessities: 4

Ζήνωνι χαίρειν Πᾶ{ε}ις ὁ τοῦ Πάτ{ε}ιτος ἀδελφός. ἀφ’ οὗ ἥκω εἰς τοὺ τόπους οὔτε λελεείσμαι οὔτε κέκλοφα οὔθ’ ἥκει καταβοῶν οὐθεὶς πρός σε κατὰ μοῦ· ἔστι δὲ ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπῆγμα[ι] ἤδη πεντάμηνος. ἐγλέλοιπε ἡμᾶς πάντα ὥστε καὶ τῶν ἀνανκαίων ἐνδεὴς εἶναι. νῦν οὖν ἱκέται καταπεφεύγαμεν πρός σε. οὐκ ἔχομεν βοηθὸν ἄλλον οὐθένα ἀλλὰ σέ{ς}. ὀμνύω τὴν σὴν τύχην καὶ τὸν βασιλέως δαίμονα ψευδῆ ἀπῆγμαι. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίστη⟨ι⟩ ὅτι τῶν εὐτάτω[ν] εἰμεί. ἐγγύησαί με σὺ παραμονῆς· ἐγὼ δέ σοι ἐξελθὼν ἐγγύους σοι καταστήσω{ε}. εὐτύχει.

To Zenon, greetings, Pais, the brother of Patis. From the time when I arrived in the area I have never plundered, nor stolen, nor has anyone come to lay a charge against me before you. It has now been five months since I was arrested. Everything has abandoned us, so as for me to now be in need even of the necessities. [4] Now, therefore, we have fled to you as suppliants. We have no other helper save you. I swear by your fortune and the fortune of the king that I have been falsely arrested.75 Also you yourself know that I am among the well behaved. Bail me out on my guarantee to appear, and after I get out I will provide you with guarantors.76 Farewell. (P.Lond. VII 2045 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]) 75 On royal oaths in the Ptolemaic period, 76 Bail: see the following ­discussion.

see Beare (1980).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

253

Like many Ptolemaic prisoners, Pais alleges his innocence and the unjustness of his arrest in his letter to Zenon.77 He also stresses the fact that he has now absolutely reached the bottom of his barrel, bereft of friends and family to assist him and deprived of the necessities of life. We, of course, do not get the whole story here, and details about the circumstances of Pais’s arrest are few. Perhaps more than anything else, one would like to know why Pais has been in prison for five months. This seems like an inordinate amount of time for someone so innocent and well behaved to be shut off from the outside world. Why is it only now, after five months, that Pais writes his letter to Zenon? Had he only recently been able to write a letter to the outside, or had he in fact made earlier attempts to win release and failed? We cannot know for sure. It is certain, however, that the deprivations of prison could be serious. References to dying from hunger in prison suggest that the incarcerated were on their own when it came to food and water, and such a situation could only become more difficult with time. One wonders what became of the man who claimed that he had been languishing in the phylake‫ ﷴ‬for a period of ten months (Chrest.Mitt. 5 [Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.]), or the fate of three men who sought the intervention of Zenon so that they would not die of hunger in the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion (PSI IV 419 [Philadelphia, ‫ﷴ‬ III b.c.]).78 Clearly, prisoners could face the possibility of going hungry in prison. Petitions from the incarcerated suggest that they were 77 Other

letters from prisoners: e.g., BGU VIII 1847 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?); P.Petr. III 36 FrA recto (Herakleopolite, 218–217 b.c.); PSI V 532 (Philadelphia, III b.c.). It should be noted that not all prisoners bemoaned their misfortunes in their petitions for release. Some hinted that their lengthy prison stays were harming state or private coffers, e.g., P.Cair. Zen. III 59495 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), where two swineherds admitted guilt but sought release for the sake of their pigs; IV 59626 (?, III b.c.), in which an imprisoned defaulter claimed that after his release he could obtain the wine necessary to satisfy his debt; and P.Mich. I 87 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), where an imprisoned shepherd stressed that his freedom would ensure the supervision of flocks and the protection of their fodder, and offered to leave his wife behind in the desmo‫ﷳ‬terion in his place. ‫ﷴ‬ 78 Other requests for aid from prisoners (and their friends or family) seeking to avoid death behind bars: e.g., P.Mich. I 85 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); P.Petr. II 19 Fr1 (Arsinoite, III b.c., with BL 1.358 for reading); SB XIV 11639 (Philadelphia, 248 b.c.).

254

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

personally responsible for keeping themselves alive while behind bars. One additional text suggests much the same thing: a petition from a man who noted that he had been bringing bread to a prisoner before he had had his donkey and cargo confiscated by a phylakites‫( ﷴ‬SB XVI 12468 [? (Arsinoite?), III b.c.]; see Chapter 3). Elsewhere, we find evidence that provisions were delivered to prisons by the state: a wax tablet records payments made for food (opson) in a phylake‫( ﷴ‬SB IV 7451.81–2, 105–6 [Ptolemais Hormou, before 210 b.c.]), and two papyri reveal that wine was delivered to phylakai (PSI XIII 1315 [Arsinoite, 127 b.c.] and UPZ I 149.11–12 [Memphis, ca. 208–206 b.c.?]), along with cups in the second case. For whom were these provisions intended? Most likely the officials, and not the prisoners: one of the three texts mentions “customary” measures of wine specifically “for the desmophylakes.”79 To be fair, the wine mentioned here may very well have been intended for the prisoners in the desmophylakes’ care; but given the evidence from petitions that starvation was a regular concern of prisoners, and the fact that many Ptolemaic police officials were paid nonmonetary wages, it seems probable that only prison officials ate and drank at the state’s expense.80 Aside from warding off death and boredom and seeking release from incarceration, how did prisoners in Ptolemaic jails spend their time? At least some of them appear to have done hard labor for the state. In one Demotic text, a man asks that he not be deported to the South, where a life of toil, perhaps as a prisoner, awaits him (P.LilleDem. I 5 [Ghoran, 245 b.c.?]). In another, the deportation of several hundred people to the South is recorded, and again it seems likely that these unfortunates were destined for the chain gang (P.LilleDem. I 32 [Ghoran, 264/263 or 226/225 b.c.]). An official letter in Greek makes reference to people being sent to the “upper works” (APF 48 [2002]: 98–9.20–1 [Alexandria?, 225 b.c.]: [τὰ] | ἄνω ἔργα). The situation here seems parallel to that in the Demotic texts, and the fact that one of the deportees had been left behind in the phylake‫ ﷴ‬only makes their identification as prisoners more likely.81 That prison work crews were sometimes actively engaged in 79 PSI

XIII 1315.3–5: τὰ εἰθεισμένα | τοῖς δεσμοφύλαξι οἴνου κεράμια | δύωι (read δύο). 80 On police wages, see Chapter 2. 81 In this papyrus, the detainees are called som ‫ ﷳ‬ata, literally “bodies,” but we should likely translate “slaves.” As slaves were a relative rarity in Ptolemaic

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

255

mining is suggested by a report on the excavation work of a number of desmo‫ﷳ‬tai: 4 8 12 16 20

[Ζήνωνι χαί]ρειν Ὧρος ­λατό-­ [μος. ἀγγέλλε(?)]ι Ἑριεὺς τοὺς [δε]σμώτας ἀπ[ὸ] μηνὸς Παῶφι δευτέρας ἕως Χοίαχ ι, φάμε-­ νος αὐτοὺς ἐργᾶσθαι τὴν ἡ-­ μέραν ἕκαστον ἄνδρα ἀ{γ}ώι-­ λιον α ὄντας δέκα, ὥστε εἶναι ἑκάστου μηνὸς ἀ{γ}ώιλια τ, ὥστε εἶναι τῆς διμήνου [ἀώ]ιλια χ κ[αὶ] τῶν ὀκτὼ{ν} ἡ-­ μερῶν ἀ{γ}ώιλια π· (γίνονται) χπ. ἐάν σοι δόξηι, ἀπόστειλόν τι-­ να ὃς ἐγμετρήσει· οὐ γάρ πω εἰργασμένοι εἰσὶν ρλ. γνώ-­ ριζε δὲ ἡμᾶς [ἐξ]ειληφότας τὰ φρέατα, ἐφ ὧ[ι] ἐργώμεθα· Ἑριεὺς δὲ λαβὼν παρά σου σῖτον [ε]ἰς τὰ ἔργα οὐκ εἴργασται, ἀλλὰ [ ca. 13 ]τους ἐργω-­ μέν[ο(?)]υ[ς (?)      ]ζονται. καὶ τοὺς ὀχετούς, οὓς ἐξελάβομεν ἐκ πέντε (ὀβολῶν) β (ἥμισυ) κ[αὶ] τοῖς ἀναφέρου-­ σι ἐγ δέκα (ὀβολοῦ) α (ἥμισυ), ἐργῶμαι

Egypt, one suspects that the people designated as “slaves” in this papyrus were “slaves” in that they were considered possessions of the state, perhaps those guilty of high crimes against the government or captured state enemies. Indeed, though the evidence is limited, it seems to have been the case that, in many instances, prisoners sent out on work details were prisoners of war. On the latter, see van Minnen (2000); on prisoners forced to work, P.Eleph.Wagner I (Elephantine, 241–240 b.c.?), a legal judgment against two men who were to be arrested and made to work; and P.Petr. II 13 Fr3 (Arsinoite, 255 b.c.; translated in this section) and Fr4 (Arsinoite, 256 or 255  b.c.), correspondence concerning the collapse of the wall of an ochyrom ‫ ﷳ‬a and the impending arrival at the ochyrom ‫ ﷳ‬a of additional desmot‫ ﷳ‬ai; also Diodorus 3.12–14 for an account of prisoners condemned to Egyptian mines; and Fraser (1972) 176 and 543.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

256 24 28 32 36

ἐγ {δύο} (διωβόλου) καὶ ἐξ (ὀβολοῦ). ἔχω γὰρ καὶ τοὺς ἐργ[αζομέ]νους ἐνταῦθα μετ’ ἐμοῦ, ὥσ[τε τὴ]ν ταχίστην συντελεσ[θῆναι]. λελατομεύ-­ καμεν δὲ καὶ λίθους βασιλικοὺς ἐκ τῆς πέτρας τῆς πρὸς νότον, καὶ \ἐξ ὀβολοῦ/ οὐθὲν εἰλήφαμεν εἰς αὐτούς. καλῶς ἂν οὖν ποιήσαις, εἰ καὶ σοὶ δοκεῖ, συντάξας ἡμῖν δοῦ-­ ναι σιτάριον, ἵνα ἔχωμεν ἐργα-­ ζόμενοι μέχρι ἂν ἐπισκέψηι περὶ τούτων. ε[ὐτ]ύ[χ]ει.

To Zenon, greetings, Horos the stonecutter. Herieus reports concerning the desmo‫ﷳ‬tai, from the second of Phaophi [4] until the tenth of Choiak, that each man has worked 2 cubic cubits every day, there being 10 men in all, so that [8] within each month 600 cubic cubits have been worked and within the 2-­month period 1,200 have been worked and over the course of 8 days 160 have been worked. The total of cubic cubits worked is 1,360. [12] If it seems best to you, send someone who will make a measurement, for there are 130 who have not yet worked. And know that we have received [16] the contract for the excavation of the mine shafts, so that we may work. But Herieus, after receiving grain from you for the work, has not worked, but … the workers (?) … [20] And the channels for which we received the contract, (at a cost of ) 2.5 obols per 5 aoi‫ ﷳ‬lia of rock and 1.5 obols for those transporting 10 ao‫ﷳ‬ilia of rock,82 these I have completed [24] at a cost of 2 obols and 1 obol, respectively. For I have workers here with me, so that the work was completed very quickly. And we [28] have worked the royal stone from the rock toward the south at a cost of one obol, and we have received nothing for it. Therefore you would do well, if [32] it seems best to you, to please give us some grain, so that we may be able to keep working until you make an examination about these maters. [36] Farewell. (PSI IV 423.1–36 [Philadelphia, III b.c.])

82 On



the supplement ao‫ﷳ‬ilia in this passage (not in the Greek), see the note at PSI IV 423.22. On the ao‫ﷳ‬ilion, an Egyptian measure of capacity equivalent to two cubic cubits (hence also equivalent to the naubion), see the bibliography at P.Köln VIII 341 n. on 4 (p. 99).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

257

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Horos’s report says nothing about the quality of life of the men in his work crew, who are effectively considered rock­hewing machines. That these machines needed grain in order to function properly is clear enough from the close of the letter. Also clear from the word used to describe the prisoners – desmo‫ﷳ‬tai – is the fact that the workers in this text were, in all probability, shackled at least some of the time, though one imagines that prisoners engaged in stonecutting would have had to have had a decent range of motion. Other types of prisoners (i.e., those not on work details) were evidently bound as well. One man was arrested, bound, and jailed for seven days (PSI IV 406.22–4 [Philadelphia, 260–258 b.c.]). Another was nabbed, fettered, and imprisoned in a desmo‫ﷳ‬terion for eight months by an oikonomos (P.Cair. ‫ﷴ‬ Zen. III 59368 [Memphis?, 241 b.c.]). A third man sought a reexamination of his case after spending close to a year in chains in a phylake‫( ﷴ‬PSI IV 347 [Philadelphia, 255 or 254 b.c.?]). The three examples just cited raise the sticky issue of the typical length of a Ptolemaic prison stay. It seems only natural that in most cases police made arrests, notified superiors, and arranged trials within a few days.83 In such cases, jail time would have been minimal. But this was not always the case. In fact, periods of detention in Ptolemaic jails were flexible, and a recent analysis of the evidence for Ptolemaic prison stays has revealed that the data are too imprecise to allow for the establishment of an “average” prison stay.84 On the one hand, petitioners often expressed the fear that they would die in prison, which suggests that lengthy stays – weeks, months, and even years – were a reality.85 83 On

the speed of police responses to petitions and notifications – among our best evidence for the efficiency of the Ptolemaic police – see Chapter 4. 84 On the flexibility observable in the lengths of prison stays under the Ptolemies, see Taubenschlag (1959a [1940]) 716 and Matter (1999) 102; for the analysis, see Bauschatz (2007b) 21–4 with appendix. 85 See also, e.g., P.Mich. I 85 (Philadelphia, III b.c.); P.Petr. II 19 Fr1 and Fr2 (Arsinoite, III b.c.); III 36 FrA recto (Herakleopolite, 218–217 b.c.). There is also evidence for long-­term detention in the Ptolemaic period, albeit indirectly, from Egyptian wisdom literature: the Instruction of ‘Onchsheshonqy (see P.Brit.Mus. II 10508), a story set in the Saite period but a Ptolemaic composition. In the story, the priest ‘Onchsheshonqy learns of a plot against the Pharaoh but does not inform the Pharaoh. After the plot fails, ‘Onchsheshonqy is imprisoned and remains in jail even after the Pharaoh

258

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

And we know from a number of texts that sometimes prisoners endured prison stays that could last months – or even years – at a time. At the longer end of the spectrum we find the case of a produce guard who was arrested by an oikonomos and only released from jail eight months later (P. Cair.Zen. III 59368 [Memphis?, 241 b.c.]); that of a tax collector whose bail payment to a desmophylax had failed to secure a release but instead won him an eight-­month stay in prison (P.Tebt. III.1 777 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]); and that of a man who insisted that he was starving, having spent ten months locked up already in spite of having written several petitions from prison (Chrest.Mitt. 5 [Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.], cited earlier in this section). In the most extreme case, a man noted that he had been sitting in the phylake‫ ﷴ‬for three years after being arrested by the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ and in spite of the fact that he had previously been released from the charges against him by the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬the king, and the queen (P.Coll. Youtie I 12 [Krokodilopolis, 177 b.c.]). Again, these are extremes. We generally do not get precise indications of the lengths of prison stays in the documents. There are various reasons for this: the difficulty for prisoners of keeping track of days and nights spent in jail (especially as time wore on), the generic nature of petitions, and the urge to portray even minimal suffering as major among these. We should also keep in mind that bail was often an option for prisoners and that many were freed after only a short stay in jail. Written agreements to provide bail survive, in which potential guarantors wrote to supervising officials and agreed to satisfy additional conditions in order to secure the release of a prisoner.86 Many of these bail agreements are in Demotic, frees all of the other prisoners. See H. S. Smith and Hughes (1980) and Thissen (1984). 86 E.g., Chrest.Mitt. 35 (Itos?, 133 b.c.); P.Bürgsch. 7 (Krokodilopolis?, 202 b.c.); P.Hib. I 92 (Muchinaryo, 264 b.c.); also Chrest.Mitt. 45 (Sebennytos?, 224– 218 b.c.?), a register of court cases, outcomes, and bail payments; P.Bürgsch. 16 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), a letter to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬from a man who notes that he had written previously to arrange a bail payment for a prisoner; and P.Tebt. III.1 777 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), where a prisoner complained that he had made a bail payment to a desmophylax but had failed to secure his release. Accused persons could also sometimes supply guarantors for their eventual appearance at an inquiry to avoid imprisonment. The obligation to appear was known as paramone:‫ ﷴ‬e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 27 (Alexandria?, 237 b.c.); P.Cair. Zen. III 59421.3–5 (Memphis, 258–256 b.c.); P.Hib. I 41.4–9 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 261 b.c.). On paramone,‫ ﷴ‬see Préaux (1937) 40 and Hélmis (1986) 184–5.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

259

such as the following text, in which a man wrote to an archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ to bail out a prisoner (P.LilleDem. I 4 [Ghoran, 247 b.c.]). The writer noted that he had received the prisoner and would present him to the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬at an agreed-­upon place and time. Once the writer had received a summons, he had a five-­day period in which to present the accused or suffer consequences at the hands of the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬The writer also agreed that he would keep the accused away from places of asylum before and during the five-­day period.87 Ultimately, the limited  – though clear  – evidence for long-­term detention allows us to do little more than suggest that it was rare and, in at least some cases, due to official miscommunication. To judge from a number of texts, it was also occasionally due to disputes over official jurisdiction and even sometimes arbitrary. We have already seen the case of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬who arrested some shipbuilders and would not release them – in spite of orders from the oikonomos – unless he heard from the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫( ﷴ‬Chrest.Wilck. 166 [Arsinoite, 218 b.c.]; Chapter 2). Another archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was likewise accused of acting against the orders of his superior – an epistates – ‫ ﷴ‬though this time by improperly releasing a donkey thief and purloining the donkey (P.Hib. I 73 [Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.]; Chapter  3). In this case, the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬initially appears to have engaged in multiple types of wrongdoing: releasing a prisoner without permission, confiscating and concealing stolen property, and in general acting violently and disobediently. Yet should we take all the statements of his accuser at face value? Telling here is the fact that the orders to arrest and detain the offender and the stolen donkey had come from the epistates‫ ﷴ‬of a village, while the same offender and donkey had been released by the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of an entire toparchy. One wonders whether official miscommunication  – or no communication at all – was ultimately responsible for the confusion. Had the prostagma of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬never reached the archiphylakites? ‫ ﷴ‬Had the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬simply chosen to ignore the orders because they came 87 In addition to the bail agreements described previously, we also see requests

for bail in petitions to officials, e.g. P.Enteux. 81 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), where a woman requested that the king have the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬contact an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to arrange for a man to be bailed out; P.Mich. I 85 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), a letter to Zenon seeking release or bail for a jailed youth; and SB IV 7285 (Philadelphia, 237 or 212 or 195 b.c.?), where one official asked another to examine the case of an imprisoned farmer and bail him out if appropriate.

260

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

from a village-­level epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬a lower-­level official, or because he found them to be objectionable or incorrect? Had the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬himself received different orders from a higher authority? That illegal detentions and releases occurred should not surprise us: as we have already seen, a handful of royal decrees makes it clear that the sovereigns were concerned to at least some degree with preventing the practice. But while rogue elements in the Ptolemaic police system were doubtless occasionally responsible for wrongful detentions and releases, miscommunications must occasionally have played a part; and it seems likely that most cases of prolonged detention were due to a lack of outside resources on the prisoner’s part. Release from prison was dependent on proof of innocence or payment of debts, and those unable to secure either might indeed be detained indefinitely. Even a brief look at the Ptolemaic prison system reveals a striking degree of diversity and flexibility. Detention under the Ptolemies took place for public and private offenses, from debt to assault, from theft to disturbing the peace. Prisons, scattered throughout the towns and villages of Ptolemaic Egypt, appear to have come in at least two different varieties, as indicated by the numerous attestations for phylakai and desmot‫ ﷳ‬eria ‫ ﷴ‬in the papyri and the (admittedly few) differences observable in the functions of these buildings and the officials who frequented or were stationed in them. Nevertheless, there do not appear to have been regulations concerning the placement of specific classes of wrongdoers in specific prisons, and it seems to have been the case that, in most instances, offenders were arrested and placed in the nearest available place of detention. The papyri make it clear that detention under the Ptolemies was immediate and usually brief, as it was not in the state’s best interests to keep offenders locked up for long periods of time. But petitions from prisoners and royal decrees indicate that prolonged or arbitrary detention sometimes occurred.

Investigation

Once an offender had been arrested and detained, or even before any such steps were taken, an investigation into the claims of an injured party was often opened. In Ptolemaic Egypt, such investigations could

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

261

take various forms and encompass a broad range of detective activities. A papyrus preserving a series of third-­century royal ordinances suggests that there were specific guidelines for procedures to be followed in police searches (P.Hib. II 198 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]; see earlier in this chapter and Chapter 6). Unfortunately, the document is fragmentary and provides only the barest of details on the characteristics and time frames of police searches.88 Yet as we have seen, town and village police – phylakitai and their superiors – were generally responsible for performing examinations of people, places, and other evidence. As was the case with arrests and detention, the amount of autonomy these officials exercised in their investigations was great. In addition to seizing offenders, police also confiscated the possessions of private individuals, whether because they had been stolen or were necessary for a police investigation. Items of all sorts were seized as evidence, including agricultural produce, animals, clothing, and money.89 Admittedly, it is not always clear why police seized items from 88 In

one segment, the king seems to lay out regulations for the return of stolen items or their value (P.Hib. II 198.62–4): καὶ ἐπ[ιδ]ειξάν[των ca. ? ] σαντες | οἱ φυλ[α]κῖται [ ca. ? ἀπο]λωλότα | ἢ τὴ[ν ἀ]ξίαν. Elsewhere, there appear to be notes on the personnel employed for searches (101–5): μὴ [ἐκ]λυέτω μηθεὶς αὐτοὺς ἢ ἔν[οχος ἔστω ca. ? ] | δ᾽ ἔ[ρε]υναν ποιείσθωσαν παραλαβόν[τες ca.? ] | ἐπ[ισ]τάτου καὶ τὸν φῶρα τὸν βασ[ιλικόν ca. ? ]|  [   ] ρωι ἐστιν ⟦  ⟧ [ἄ]νευ τουτ [ ca. ? ]|[    ] ι· νυκτὸς δὲ μ[ηθ]εὶς βαδιζ[έτω ca. ?]. 89 Agricultural goods: e.g., BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), where a petitioner requested that the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬confiscate a certain amount of stolen crops (genemata); PSI IV 396 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.), a letter to a phylakites‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ concerning a theft of wine; SB XIV 12089 (Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.), a report concerning the seizure of some stolen pyros (wheat) by the phylakitai; animals: e.g., P.Tebt. III.1 793.viii.6–10 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.), a notification that the phylakitai had received a report of a stolen beast of burden; SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.), a petition to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n requesting the return of a stolen donkey; ZPE 146 (2004) 168 (Oxyrhyncha, 154–153 or 143–142 b.c.), a notification to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his phylakitai that some cattle had been stolen; clothing: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256 b.c.), in which Zenon was asked to write to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to return two cloaks and some wool that had been stolen; P.Enteux. 83 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), in which a petitioner detailed his imprisonment by a komarches‫ ﷴ‬and the confiscation of a necklace; P.Hib. II

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

262

the populace of Egypt, and in fact those who had their goods confiscated sometimes characterized police seizures as unjust or driven by unclear motives, as in the case of a merchant who had had his animals taken by the phylakitai and pleaded ignorance as to the reason why (BGU III 1012 [Philadelphia, 170 b.c.]). A police official might receive a list of stolen or damaged items from a victim to assist his investigation. Often these lists had monetary values appended, perhaps to offer a fair market value in case the pilfered items were unable to be recovered.90 In one typical case, three men reported the results of a home invasion and robbery to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and listed among the items taken a nose-­bag of grain, half an artabe‫ ﷴ‬of barley, two linen cloths, and a goatskin sack (P.Tebt. III.1 796 [Tebtynis, 185 b.c.]; see Chapter 3). In a similar case, the thieves also netted some clothing: 4

Νικάνορι καὶ τοῖς συνφυλακίταις Κιρκᾶ παρὰ Παήσιος τοῦ καὶ [ ]γης Κεφαλᾶτος τῶν ἐ[κ] τῆς Ἀκώριος Λίβυ⟨ο⟩ς τῶν [Δ]ημητρίου ἱππέων μισθοφόρων. τῆι νυκτὶ τῆι φερούσηι εἰς τὴν ιδ τοῦ Ἁθὺρ τοῦ θ (ἔτους) ἐπιβαλόντες τινὲς \λῃ[σ]τικῷ τρόπωι/ [εἰς] τὸν ὑπάρχοντά μ[ο]ι [ο]ἶκ[ο]ν ⟦π⟧

202 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.), where the king was asked to write to a pair of epistatai to return a stolen himation; money: e.g., P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?), a letter concerning the theft of 4 silver drachmas and 1,300 bronze drachmas by an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his henchmen; P.Mich. XVIII 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 194–193 b.c.), a petition concerning the confiscation of an amount of silver by a tax farmer and a rhabdophoros (?); P.Tebt. III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.), a notification to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his phylakitai from a priest requesting that some thieves be sent to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and a certain number of stolen items (including 228 bronze drachmas) be returned; household goods: e.g., P.Cair. Zen. IV 59620 (Arsinoite?, 248–239 b.c.), a letter noting that some phylakitai had taken possession of a number of household goods; P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang, ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7, 189–90 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), three texts detailing a home invasion by agents of an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬who made off with (among other things) a pickled goose and two pillows. 90 Sometimes the names and identities of offenders were presented in list fashion, as well: BGU VIII 1818 (Herakleopolite, 60–59 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 (Philadelphia, ca. 254–251 b.c.).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution 8 12 16 20

263

περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐξ[έ]δυσαν τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὴν γεωργικὴν κατασκευὴν καὶ τ⟨ὰ⟩ ἄλλα τὰ ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι τόπωι ᾤχον[τ]ο ἔχοντες, ὧν τὸ καθ’ ἓν ὑπόκειται. ἐπεὶ οὖν ὑπολαμβάνω τὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως γεγονέναι  Κωννῶτος Κυνοπ[ο]λείτου, καταγεινομένου δ’ ἐν τῆι Αἴθωνος, καὶ ἑτέρων [σὺ]ν αὐτῶι, οὓς τὰ [ὀ]ν[όμα]τα ἀγνοῶι, ἐπιδίδωμι ὑμῖν τὴν προσαγγελίην ὅπως οἱ αἴτιοι ἀναζητηθέντες ἐξαποσταλῶσι ἐπὶ τὸν στρατηγόν, [ἵν]α ἐμοὶ μὲν διαπεφωνημένα ἀποκατασ[τα]θείη , οἱ [δ]ὲ αἴτιοι τύχωσι τῶν ­ἐξα-­ κολουθούντων· τούτου δὲ γενομένου ἔσομαι αν [ ]  λλη ε  [ ca. ? ε]ὐτύχε[ι]. (ἔτους (?)) [θ Ἁ]θὺρ ις. ἔστιν δὲ [τὸ κ]αθ’ ἕν· Σωτιόγχιο[ς]· κιτὼν καὶ ἱμάτιον καὶ σάκκον, Πλῆνις ὁ ἀδελφός· κιτών, ἄροτρον α, ζυγ[ὸ]ν α, Παπτῦτι[ς]· κιτὼ[ν] καὶ σάκκον καὶ τῶν [ἐ]πιξενω[θέ]ντων· ἱματίων.

To Nikanor and the synphylakitai of Kirka,91 from Pasis, also known as ..ges, son of Kephalas, of the mercenary cavalry under Demetrios from Libyan Akoris.92 [4] On the night of the 13th of Hathyr, year 9, certain individuals, breaking into my house in a thievish manner, on the same night (?) despoiled those inhabiting it and made off with not only the agricultural tools but also the other items in the [8] same location, of which an itemized list is appended. Since, therefore, I suspect that the attack was orchestrated by Konnos, a Kynopolite, and as he happens to live in the house of Aithon, and others along with him, whose names [12] I do not know, I submit to you this notification so that the guilty, having been hunted down, may be sent to the strategos, so that the lost items may be returned to me, ‫ﷴ‬ and the guilty may meet with the [16] consequences. And if this occurs, I shall be … Farewell. Year 9, Hathyr 16. 91 Given

his association with the phylakitai of Kirka, Nikanor was likely an archiphylakites: ‫ ﷴ‬see Pros.Ptol. 4621. He appears only here, as does the word synphylakitai (literally “phylakitai with [him]”). 92 The so-­called mercenary cavalry are the misthophoroi hippeis: see Lesquier (1911) 16–19, 97–9; Griffith (1968 [1935]) 108–41, especially 135–9 (on “mercenary klerouchs”).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

264

This is the itemized list: [20] Belonging to Sotionchis: a chiton and a himation and a sack. Belonging to Plenis, his brother: a chiton, 1 plow, 1 yoke. Belonging to Paptutis: a chiton and a sack. And belonging to those who were visiting from out of town: himations. (P.Dion. 10 [Hermopolite, 109 b.c.])93

It is curious that the petitioner does not append values for any of the stolen goods. Perhaps the fact that he has identified a possible suspect whose whereabouts and associates are known should tell us that he had high hopes of getting the items back. The possibility of recovery in this case was perhaps greater than average owing to the fact that the suspected lead perpetrator was from out of town (the Kynopolite nome) but staying at the home of a local. One suspects that the village police would have had an easier time locating such a suspect or tracking his movements, should he have tried to escape detection and capture, given his conspicuousness. Of course, in a case like this the possibility of flight from the nome was a real one, so speed was of the essence. Why, then, did Pasis wait until the 16th of Hathyr to make his report if the break-­in and robbery had occurred on the 13th? The delay is puzzling. It would certainly have allowed the accused time to make arrangements for a departure. Perhaps work or family concerns had prevented Pasis from making a more timely report; or perhaps there were less honorable motivations behind the lag. We cannot know for sure. Robbers in Ptolemaic Egypt are often seen breaking into homes and removing personal effects of all sorts. To prevent repeated break-­ins in the aftermath of robberies, homes might be sealed and guarded by the police.94 As we have already seen, the agents of one archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ 93 For

lists of stolen goods in reports to police officials, see also, e.g., Chrest. Wilck. 244 (?, 224–223 b.c.) and PSI XIV 1514 (?, II/I b.c.). 94 Officials in other administrative areas also had the power to apply seals, e.g., P.Gen. III 133 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), where an official of unknown rank informed the laokritai that he had sealed a home as requested; P.Giss.Univ. I 10 (Euhemeria, 145–116 b.c.), a report (?) concerning the sealing of a house and the transfer of its contents (?) to an official of unknown rank; P.Mich. XVIII 779 (Mouchis, after 192 b.c.), where a petitioner requested that an agent of the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬seal an offender’s home.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

265

sealed the home of a royal cultivator without the knowledge of the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus and made off with some household items (P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang; ZPE 141 [2002] 185–7; 189–90 [Herakleopolite, 137  b.c.]; Chapter 2). In another instance, a petitioner detailed in a letter to the king the sealing of a home (?) by an epistates‫ ﷴ‬and a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus (SB I 4309 [Arsinoite, III b.c.?]). Seals could be applied by police to other types of buildings as well. In another case, a police official and his phylakitai discovered a certain amount of pilfered produce at a village threshing floor: 4 8

Ὁρ[ῆ]νις Σωσιβίωι χαίρειν. Πετεσούχου τοῦ προεστηκότος τῶν ἐν Θμοιοβάστει φυλακιτῶν παραγενομένου πρὸς ἡμᾶς προεφέρετο γεγε-­ νῆσθαί τινας λείας ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἅλω τῆι νυκτὶ τῆι φερούσηι εἰς τὴν ε τοῦ Παχὼν καὶ ὠιχῆσθαι ἔχοντας εἰς (πυροῦ ἀρτάβας) ιδ καὶ τούτου τὴν ἀναζήτησιν ποιου-­ μένου μετὰ τῶν φυλακιτῶν εὑρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ διενεχθέντος πυροῦ ἐν τῆι Πετεσούχου τοῦ Ὥρου οἰκ[ί]αι εἰς (πυροῦ) μέτρα ὀκτώ, ἃ καὶ προέδωκεν Ἀγαθίδι φυλακίτηι παρόντων καὶ ἡμῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῆι Καλῆτος ἅλῳ εὑρεῖν εἰς πυροῦ μέ(τρα) ς τεθαμνισμένα καὶ κατασφραγισάμενοι μετηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν βασιλικὸν θησαυρόν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ὅ τε Πετεσοῦχος καὶ Καλῆς μεταλαβόντες ἀνακεχώρηκαν, ἀναφέρω, ἵν’ εἰδῆις. ἔρρωσ(ο). (ἔτους) μ Παχὼν ιε.

Horenis to Sosibios, greetings. When Petesouchos, the man in charge of the ­phylakitai in Thmoiobastis,95 came to see us it was reported that there had been some thefts at the royal threshing floor on the night of [4] Pachon 4 and that the thieves had made off with 14 artabas of grain; and (it was reported that) after he had carried out a search with the phylakitai he discovered eight measures of the stolen grain in the house of Petesouchos, son of Horos, which he handed over 95 For

the official with the title ho proesteko ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷳ‬ton‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, see Chapter  2. Petesouchos occurs only here.

266

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

to Agathis, phylakite‫ﷴ‬s, while we ourselves were present.96 And similarly (it was reported that) he discovered at the threshing floor of Kales that 6 measures of grain [8] had been removed from their sacks; and applying a seal, we transferred (the grain) to the royal granary. Since, therefore, both Petesouchos [i.e., Petesouchos, son of Horos] and Kales, having had a hand in this business, have fled, I make this report so that you may know. Farewell. Year 40, Pachon 15. (SB XIV 12089.1– 10 [Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.])

That the police would have been quick to seal off a pair of state threshing floors in the aftermath of some suspected thefts is unsurprising. Also unsurprising is the fact that someone went to the trouble of recording the steps taken by the local phylakitai to solve the mystery of the lacking sacks. A paper trail would not only provide useful assistance to any higher officials assigned to the case but also make clear that the police officers involved in the sealing and searching had not acted improperly. The circumstantial evidence in this case is substantial: the grain missing from the threshing floor, the grain discovered in the home of Petesouchos, the fact that Petesouchos eventually fled. It all suggests that the police had probable cause in carrying out their search and that the sequence of events preserved on this papyrus is a close reflection of reality. Yet, as was the case with arrests, civilians sometimes viewed searches for stolen property or illegal goods as arbitrary or unjust.97 Unfortunately, we do not have testimony from Petesouchos and Kales to help explain away any unfortunate coincidences surrounding the discovery of the grain or their ill-­timed flight from the village. Sometimes visits to homes and crime scenes were carried out not to seize goods or cordon off buildings, but rather to inspect damage inflicted in the course of a home invasion, robbery, or other such offense.98 96 Agathis: only here. 97 See, e.g., P.Giss.Univ.

I 10 (Euhemeria, 145–116 b.c.), a report (to a phylakites?) of the sealing of a home to which was appended a list of items ‫ﷴ‬ discovered in the search of the house; UPZ I 5, 6, and 6a (Memphis, 163 b.c.; see Chapter 2), petitions concerning an (allegedly) illegal search for weapons in the Memphite Sarapieion carried out by an agent of the temple archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and his phylakitai. On alleged police heavy-­handedness in carrying out searches, see Bauschatz (2007c), especially 18–24. 98 Inspecting damage: e.g., BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.) in which a victim requested that a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬come and inspect a wound; P.Enteux. 65 (Magdola, 221 b.c.),

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

267

In one report of a robbery, a petitioner noted that he had shown a window broken in the course of a home invasion to the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s (P. Frankf. 3 [Tholthis, 212 b.c.]; Chapter 4). In a letter to the oikonomos, petitioners reported that the cattle of another had grazed on their castor plants and that they had specimens of the destroyed crop to show authorities (P.Petr. III 32 FrG,B recto [Sebennytos?, 217 b.c.]). Police were also called on to come and bear witness to the identities of the accused. In one case, a petitioner noted that he had shown a pig thief to the phylakitai: recto: 4 8

Ζήνωνι χαίρειν Ἀμεννεὺς ὑοφορβός. [ἐ]ν τῶι συνταγῆναι ἡμῖν ἀναθρέψαι τὰ εἰς τὰ Ἀρσινόεια \ἱερεῖα/ θεὶς ⟦οὖν⟧ τὸ ἱμάτιον [ἐ]νέχυρον ἐπριάμην καὶ ἀνέθρεψα, ὅπως μηθέν μοι ἐγκαλῆις. ὡς δὲ [κ]ατήγαγον αὐτὰ ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὴν [ ca. 9 ]ν ἀπ[ό]λωλεν [ἡ]μ[ῶν ἱ]ερεῖα β, καὶ εὗρον τὸν ἔχοντα, ὁ [δὲ] οὐθὲν ἡμῖ[ν] ἀποδ[έ]δωκεν μέχ[ρι] ἂν σὺ γράψηις, καὶ ὑπὸ κορκοδίλου [  ]  [   ] κ σθαι α[   ] [   ] οὐκ ἀφηιρούμην αὐτὰ    νι[  ]ν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῆι κώμηι ὅτι μὴ ἀφέληι. γράψον οὖν αὐτοῖς καὶ Τιμοθέωι ὅπως μηθὲν τοιοῦτο γίνηται. Σε[  ] ς δέ, περὶ οὗ σοι ἔδωκα τὴν ἔντευξιν, οὐκ ἐᾶι με νέμειν τ[ὰ] ἱερεῖα. ⟦εὐτύχει⟧ εὐτύχει.

verso: ἔστι[ν] τὰ ὀνόματα 12 τῶν [ὑ]φειρημ[έ]νων [τὰ] ἱερ εῖα Κ   [ ]πις Ψε[ν]πεσῶτος

where a petitioner noted that he had shown crop damage to the komarches, ‫ ﷴ‬the phylakitai, and many others; SB XVIII 13160 (Moëris, 244 or 219 b.c.?), a petition to a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬in which the writer noted that he had shown ­evidence of a theft to some other phylakitai.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

268 16 20

κώμαρχος ἱερεῖον α Ἀριστόβουλος ἱερεῖον α ὃν πα[ρ]έδειξα τοῖς φυλακίταις καὶ νυκτὸς ⟦απωλ⟧ ἀπώλετο ἱερεῖον α περὶ οὗ ἐνέτυχον τοῖς ­φυ-­ λακίταις καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔφασαν εἶναι παρὰ Λευκίππωι.

To Zenon, greetings, Ammeneus, swineherd. Per your instructions to us for rearing the pigs for the festival of Arsinoë,99 having put my himation down as a pledge, I bought the pigs and reared them, so that you might not find fault with me. But as I was bringing them down, going off into the… [4] 2 of our pigs were lost, and I found the man who had them; but he will return neither of them to us until you write to him, and by a crocodile … I did not take them away for myself … by those in the village that he may not take them (?). So write to them, and to Timotheos, [8] so that no such thing may happen. And Se[..].s, concerning whom I gave you the petition, is not allowing me to graze the pigs. Farewell. These are the names of [12] the men who have taken the pigs for themselves: K…[.]pis, son of Psenpesos, kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches, 1 pig. ‫ﷴ‬ [16] Aristoboulos, 1 pig; I pointed him out to the phylakitai. And at night 1 pig was lost, [20] concerning which I went to see the phylakitai, and they said that it was at Leukippos’s house. (P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 [Philadelphia, ca. 254–251 b.c.])100

Ammeneus, for all his bungling, managed to do the right thing when it came time to inform the authorities about where to find the missing pigs: he contacted the phylakitai. He notes that he pointed out one of the culprits to the phylakitai, doubtless to make sure that they knew who he was if and when they received orders to arrest him or confiscate the pig. That Ammeneus does not mention pointing out the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches‫ﷴ‬ 99 On 100 See

the festival of Arsinoë (ta Arsinoëa), see D. B. Thompson (1973) 71–5. also P.Eleph. 12 (Diospolis Magna, 222 b.c.), in which an official of unknown rank was asked to show a number of drunks to be incarcerated to a phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and P.Stras. II 100 (?) (?, II b.c.), where a victim pointed out to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬certain individuals responsible for ravaging his construction site.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

269

to the phylakitai should not surprise us, as they doubtless would have known who he was. The third man involved in the porcine purloining, Leukippos, is a bit of a mystery. Ammeneus is told by the phylakitai that this man is in possession of the pig that went missing by night, but Ammeneus records nothing more about his identity, which suggests that he was known not only to the phylakitai but also to Ammeneus (and to Zenon as well). The fact that he is ­detaining a missing or stolen animal at his home may indicate that he was an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬like the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬Patron who detained a stolen donkey at his house after mistakenly (?) releasing the man who had stolen it (P.Hib. I 73 [Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.]). We cannot be sure, however. Nor can we be sure that Ammeneus ever successfully brought home the bacon. The investigatory powers of the Ptolemaic police were broad. Officials from all areas of government, but the phylakitai and their superiors in particular, might respond when they received word of wrongdoing by visiting crime scenes, inspecting damage, seeking out and viewing offenders, confiscating property, sealing homes and businesses, or drawing up reports of illegal activity. All of these activities helped police assemble a body of evidence to present during the final phase of the Ptolemaic criminal justice process: the judicial phase.

Resolution

Once an investigation had reached its conclusion, an offender was usually transported (-­agein, -­pempein, -­stellein) so as to be stood before (-­kathistanai) a judicial official or tribunal for an examination of some sort.101 An alternative to escort under arms (meta phylakes) ‫ ﷴ‬was the 101 Anagein:

e.g., P.Athen. 8.22 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.); P.Bingen 34.7 (Herakleopolite?, III/II b.c.); P.Ryl. II 68.18 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.); metapempein: e.g., BGU VIII 1780.5 (Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?); P.Cair. Zen. II 59140.5 (?, 256 b.c.); P.Dion. 9.29 (Hermopolite, ca. 139 b.c.); pempein: e.g., P.Cair.Zen. III 59368.5 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.); P.Hib. I 127.3 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 250 b.c.); SB XXIV 16295.41 (Oxyrhyncha, 199 b.c.); apostellein: e.g., BGU VI 1244.29 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?); VIII 1780.19 (Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?); P.Enteux. 50.10 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); exapostellein: e.g., BGU VIII 1761.13 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2188.14,

270

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

serving of a summons (-­angellein, -­kalein).102 Archiphylakitai, epistatai, phrourarchoi, phylakitai, and other low-­level police officials were regularly responsible for the transfer of wrongdoers.103 Upper-­level officials (e.g., epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, strategoi) also occasionally transported individ‫ﷴ‬ uals but more often than not gave orders to subordinates to do so.104 At this point some sort of trial would take place. The papyri provide an abundance of details on the nature of Ptolemaic criminal trials.105 The vocabulary employed to describe them demonstrates that official 92 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.); PSI V 542.24–5 (Arsinoite?, ca. 185–165 b.c.); apokathistanai, kathistanai: see note 9. 102 Meta phylakes: ‫ ﷴ‬e.g., BGU VIII 1761.13 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); P.Amh. II 33.35 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.); P.Hib. I 41.4 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 261 b.c.); parangellein: e.g., BGU VI 1248.3 (?, 137 b.c.?); VIII 1761.17 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.); Chrest.Mitt. 30.24 (Alexandria, 228 b.c.); anakalein: e.g., BGU VIII 1847.16 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?); P.Cair.Zen. IV 59626.11 (?, III b.c.); P.Diosk. 12.11 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); proskalein: e.g., BGU VIII 1774.13–14 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.); P.Mich. III 173.34 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.); P.Polit.Iud. 12.24–5 (Herakleopolite, 135 b.c.). 103 Archiphylakitai: e.g., P.Enteux. 24 (Magdola, 221 b.c.); P.Heid. VII 393 (Arsinoite or Memphite, III b.c.); P.Lond. VII 2188 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.); epistatai: e.g., P.Bingen 44 (?, I b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 961 (Tebtynis, 150 or 139 b.c.?); SB XVIII 13842 (Mouchis, 223–218 b.c.); phrourarchoi: e.g., BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.); P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); P.Tor.Choach. 8 (Thebes, after September 24–October 23, 127 b.c.); phylakitai: e.g., BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.); X 1912 (Arsinoite or Herakleopolite, ca. 250 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.). 104 Epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), ordering an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to transport; P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?), transporting; P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.), asked to transport; strategoi: ‫ ﷴ‬e.g., BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), asked to transport; SB XVIII 13842 (Mouchis, 223–218 b.c.), asked to order an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to transport; UPZ I 124 (Memphis, 175 or 165 b.c.?), a hypostrategos ‫ ﷴ‬asked to transport; the king and queen: e.g., PSI VII 816 (Aphroditopolis, II b.c.), asked to order an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to transport; P.Yale I 46 (?, 246–221 b.c.), asked to order an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to transport; SB VI 9556 (Arsinoite, 245 b.c.), asked to have someone summoned (?). 105 The bibliography on the Ptolemaic judiciary is immense. Wolff (especially 1970; also 2002 and 1978 ) is a good place to start. See also Préaux (1954, 1963); Seidl (1962); Mélèze-­Modrzejewski (1966, 1977–8, 1984); Peremans (1973, 1982–3); Pestman (1985b); and Allam (1991).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

271

examinations for criminal matters could take different forms, based on the type(s) of wrongdoing committed and the desires of the litigants. Details on the protocol followed at Ptolemaic criminal trials are few, but it appears to have been the case that hearings of this type generally took place before small official audiences.106 Yet episkepseis by town and village police officials nevertheless featured some elements common to more formal courtroom settings. For instance, in addition to the accused and the presiding official or officials, the accuser was generally present at an episkepsis, as indicated by the following letter concerning the transport of a man bringing an accusation of assault to a trial before an archiphylakites: ‫ﷴ‬ 4 8 12

Ἡράκλειτος Δωρίωνι χαίρ[ειν]. Πτολεμαῖον τὸν καὶ Πᾶσιν τὸν ἐξσπασθέν-­ τα ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Ὀν-­ νῶφ[ρ]ιν Ἀχογρέους υἱὸν τὸν κατῃτιαμένον περὶ τῆς βίας ἀναζητήσας μὴ παρέργως κατάστησον ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ὅπως ἀποστα-­ λῶσιν ἐπὶ Φίλωνα τὸν ἀρχιφυλακίτην καὶ περὶ τῶν διασεσαφημένων γένηται ἡ προ{η}σούκουσα ἐπίσκεψις.

Herakleitos to Dorion, greetings. Make it your priority to seek out Ptolemaios, also known as Pasis, the man dragged out [4] of the temple by the agents of Antipatros and Onnophris, son of Achogres, who has made an accusation of [8] 106 The documents generally only indicate that an official settling a dispute did

precisely that. Occasionally, more than one official carried out an examination. For example, in P.Hib. II 202 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.) the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬ordered two epistatai to look into a petitioner’s claims. In P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.), the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬presided over an episkepsis while the basilikos grammateus was present.

272

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

bia (against them).107 Stand him before us so that he may be sent to Philon, [12] archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and the appropriate examination of the aforementioned events may 108 take place. (P.Athen. 8.1–15 [Arsinoite, 193–192 b­ .c.])109

This brief letter of instruction to a subordinate reads almost like an order to arrest: Herakleitos commands Dorion to bring in a man who has been removed from a temple for transfer to an archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s for trial. Were it not for the fact that we know that this man has made a formal complaint against the men who removed him from the temple, we would likely assume that he had been accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Indeed, this is a definite possibility, since we do not know why Ptolemaios was dragged out of the temple, or in what capacity (official or otherwise) the agents of Antipatros and Onnophris were acting when they removed him. If we admit the possibility that Ptolemaios was hauled off because of a charge against him, then his own charge of bia against the agents of Antipatros and Onnophris begins to look like retaliation. It is noteworthy that the presence of these agents at the examination is not expressly mentioned in the letter. One assumes that they would be present, given their involvement in the events. That there is no reference to ensuring their appearance at the trial suggests that they were officials associated with the author of the letter or the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s slated to hold the examination. There may have been a lot more to this case than initially meets the eye. In addition to accused and accusers, witnesses to the offense, often listed in petitions to law enforcement, were regularly summoned to episkepseis or their testimony presented in case they were unable to 107 On

the charge of bia in Graeco-­Roman Egypt, see Dahlmann (1968) and P.Heid. VIII 416 pp153–4 n. on 17 with the additional bibliography cited there. 108 Philon: Chapter 2, note 21. 109 See also, e.g., Chrest.Mitt. 12 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.), where a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was asked to summon both accusers and accused for an episkepsis; P.Cair.Zen. II 59140 (?, 256 b.c.), in which a man declared that a number of accusations against him were false and that he was prepared to stand trial against his accuser; and P.Enteux. 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.), a petition concerning assault, in the docket of which a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬orders an epistates‫ ﷴ‬to resolve matters himself or send the accuser and accused along for trial.

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

273

attend.110 In the following case, a woman wrote to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬concerning an assault and the culling of witnesses from those present at the scene: 4 8 12

[Ἀνικήτωι ἐπ]ιστάτει ­Εὐημερίας [παρὰ       ]ος τῆς Πετοσίριος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς. τῆι κα τοῦ Μεχεὶρ τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) ἔκ τινων ἀντιλογίαν πρός με συστησάμεναι Τνεφερσῶις Κεφάλωνος καὶ αἱ ταύτης θυγ[α]τέρες Δαφνὶς καὶ Σενβάγις καὶ οἱ υἱοί, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἀγνοῶ, [    πρ]οσπηδήσαντές μοι καὶ [ ca. 25 ] παρ[όντων πλειό]νων, οἷς καὶ ἐγ[ὼ] ἐπε-­ μαρτυράμην, ἀξιῶ ἐξαποσ[τεῖλαι] [ ca. 12 ]ε[     ] 

To Aniketos, epistates‫ ﷴ‬of Euhemeria, from [ – – ], daughter of Petosiris, of those from the same village.111 On the 21st of [4] Mecheir, year 39, Tnephersoïs, daughter of 110 Witnesses

listed: e.g., BGU VI 1470 (Elephantine, before 190 b.c.), a petition to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬concerning an offense committed in a marketplace and containing the names of no fewer than sixteen witnesses; P.Enteux. 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.), a petition to the king from a man who had been assaulted and claimed to have a number of witnesses; SB X 10271 (Magdola, 231 or 206 b.c.?), a notification to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬from a woman who had been attacked in the presence of four bystanders, all named; witnesses to appear: e.g., P.Enteux. 79 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.), a letter to the king from a man who had been assaulted and had arranged for witnesses to the assault to appear on his behalf; P.Grenf. I 38 (Pathyrite, 170 b.c.), a letter to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬concerning an assault and garment tearing for which the petitioner had procured witnesses; SB X 10271 (Magdola, 231 or 206 b.c.?), a petition concerning an assault, in the docket to which an epistates‫ ﷴ‬requests that an accused woman and a number of witnesses be delivered for an episkepsis; written testimonials: e.g., P.Enteux. 43 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), a petition to the king requesting that he have an epistates‫ ﷴ‬summon two witnesses and have their testimony sent to the strategos; P.Hamb. I 105 (Philadelphia, ‫ﷴ‬ 236 b.c.), written witness testimony concerning an assault for a trial before an archiphylakites; ‫ ﷴ‬P.Heid. VIII 416 (Herakleopolis, II b.c.), written witness ­testimony presented to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬concerning violence at a hayloft. 111 Aniketos: Pros.Ptol. 643 = 4550. Aniketos was both epistates‫ ﷴ‬and archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ of Euhemeria.

274

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Kephalon, her daughters Daphnis and [8] Zenbagis, and her sons, whose names I do not know, started an argument with me for reasons I do not understand, and attacking me … and … while many people were present, whom I called [12] to witness. I ask that you send. … (P.Giss.Univ. I 9 [Euhemeria, 131 b.c.])

It is unfortunate that some of the details of this incident are obscured by lacuna. Nevertheless, the outlines are clear: a street brawl had taken place, several men and women against one woman, allegedly for unknown reasons. Fortunately for the petitioner, the melée had been witnessed by bystanders. Now she is appealing to the epistate‫ﷴ‬s, likely to summon and then examine the alleged attackers and her claims. As part of this examination, the witnesses to the event, or written testimony of what they saw, would be presented. We know from other texts that other forms of evidence were also introduced at hearings like these, among these copies of petitions sent to law enforcement detailing the various offenses for which the accused was being examined.112 Compared with many of the other petitions to law enforcement officials we have seen thus far, this one seems oddly brief, and not just because it breaks off at line 13: it is short on the kinds of details one might expect in the recounting of an attack, especially one in which so many people were involved, and especially given that the petitioner does not describe the build-­up to the brawl beyond noting that it happened suddenly and inexplicably. One might conclude, therefore, that the petitioner was counting on her many witnesses to give her story some flesh. Epistatai, like the one in the previous example, were usually in charge of investigations of and trials for personal offenses committed in Egyptian towns and villages, though other police officials performed 112 E.g., P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.; Chapter 4), a petition to a strategos

‫ﷴ‬ concerning a series of assaults with a request that the document be sent to a pair of judicial officials so that an examination could be arranged; P.Tebt. I 264 (Tebtynis, II b.c.; Chapter 4), a petition to an unknown official concerning the arrest of an offender with a request that the recipient write to the appropriate officials and that the document be added to the official record; P.Tebt. III.1 796 (Tebtynis, 185 b.c.; Chapter  4), a petition to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬concerning a home invasion and theft with a request that the recipient see to it that a copy of the document was available at a hearing before the komarches. ‫ﷴ‬

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

275

these functions as well.113 If the alleged wrongdoing was tied to a certain sphere of administration, an official with competency in the area in question was commonly called on to preside over the proceedings.114 In cases where the village machinery was ill-­equipped to provide resolution, matters might be referred to higher authorities. Episkepseis were sometimes arranged before an official of nome-­level competency (an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n or strategos, for instance) or even the king and queen, ‫ﷴ‬ often without initial recourse to lower-­level officials.115 The trial of Menches, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, provides a glimpse into the workings of a village criminal trial in Ptolemaic times.116 Our details for this trial come from a letter Menches wrote to the sovereigns seeking protection against further prosecution following his release from some charges that had been brought against him (P. Tebt. I 43 [Alexandria, 117 b.c.]; Chapter 2). Menches and his brother, Polemon, had been arrested on charges of poisoning a man by an agent of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n in company with other police and civil officials.117 Two days later they were brought before the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n 113 Archiphylakitai:

P.Athen. 8 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.); P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256 b.c.); SB X 10272 (?) (Magdola, III b.c.); UPZ II 187 (Thebes, 127–126 b.c.); epistatai: e.g., P.Enteux. 3 (Magdola, 222 b.c.); P.Hib. II 202 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.); UPZ II 151 (Thebaid?, 259 b.c.); phrourarchoi: P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?); P.Hib. II 233 (?, III b.c.). 114 In BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), for instance, a petitioner requested that a woman be examined by an oikonomos. In P.Petr. II 10 (Arsinoite, 221–205 b.c.), an oikonomos was asked to send a petition to the logisterion for examination. In P.Meyer 1 (Arsinoite?, 144 b.c.), a petitioner ‫ﷴ‬ noted that the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬had previously carried out an investigation. In SB XXII 15546 (Theadelphia, II b.c.), an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬commanded an official with the title ho epi tais episkepsesin to make an investigation. 115 Epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: C.Ord.Ptol.2 30–1 (?, 183 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.); III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.); SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.); strategoi: e.g., P.Enteux. 37 (Magdola, ‫ﷴ‬ 222 b.c.); 82 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 780 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.); the sovereigns: P.Lond. VII 2188 (?) (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.). Evidently, Zenon occasionally held episkepseis as well: P.Cair.Zen. III 59495 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.); P.Mich. I 87 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.); PSI IV 353 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.). 116 On the trial of Menches, see also Chapter 2. 117 8–10: σὺν τῶι τῆς κώμης κωμάρχωι [καί] τινων (read τισι) τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν | [γ]εωργῶν καὶ Δημητρίωι τῶι διεξάγοντι τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστατείαν | καὶ ἀρχιφυλακιτείαν τῆς αὐτῆς καὶ ἄλλοις.

276

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

and the basilikos grammateus for trial. Justice was swift in this case: the two were released after proving their innocence.118 Yet in spite of his legal victory, Menches remained nervous about future prosecution on the same charges. He appealed, therefore, to the king and queen for additional support in the form of protection from the strategos (30–42). ‫ﷴ‬ Indeed, of the higher authorities empowered to make legal judgments in criminal cases, strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬seem to have administered trials most often. A large cache of documents from Magdola reveals that the strategos ‫ﷴ‬ was the judicial official of primary importance in the third century and had direct contact, via official correspondence, with epistatai in the towns and villages of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra.119 As these documents show, strategoi ‫ ﷴ‬frequently delegated judicial functions to epistatai and involved themselves only when an epistates‫ ﷴ‬was unable to reach a verdict. Epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n likewise administered criminal trials, though little evidence for their judicial functions survives, aside from that provided by the trial of Menches (P.Tebt. I 43 [Alexandria, 117 b.c.]; Chapter 2). A copy of a circular to the epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n from the king outlines various measures to be taken to curb bias in (their) legal judgments (C.Ord. Ptol.2 30–1 [?, 183 b.c.]; Chapter 2). The king asks in several instances that these officials carry out examinations (anakriseis) according to his and his ancestors’ pronouncements and that all who transgress his orders be sent to the royal court for punishment (31.10–14).120 118 The

reasons behind their release were misunderstood by the original editors of the text, who read παραχρῆμα ἀπελύθημεν διὰ τὸ ἀντίους | [ἀ]φανῆσαι at 21–2, a reconstruction which implied a victory by default, not innocence. As Crönert demonstrated (BL 7.269), however, the proper reading of the last two words is ἀν⟨αι⟩τίους φανῆναι, and the brothers were not guilty by reason of innocence. 119 See Chapter 3 and P.Enteux. introduction, pp. xlii–lxxii. The strategos ‫ ﷴ‬was the judicial official of “primary” importance in the third century in the sense that he had the “primary right of refusal.” As P.Enteux. demonstrates, the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬rarely involved himself in the machinery of criminal trials, preferring instead to instruct the competent epistates‫ ﷴ‬to handle such matters. Epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n do not seem to have delegated in a similar manner. 120 τὰς δ᾽ ἀνακρίσεις διεξάγετ[ε] κατὰ τὰ διαγράμματα καὶ τὰ ὑφ᾽ | ἡμῶ[ν] | καὶ τ[ο]ῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν προγόνων προστεταγμένα, καὶ τοὺς μὲν | εἰκῆι κ[α]ὶ ἀπροσ{σ}κέπτως ἀνάγοντάς τινας ἐπιπλήσσετε, | καθ[ότι π]ροσῆκ[ό]ν ἐστιν, τ[οὺ]ς δὲ διαφορᾶς ἢ σεισμοῦ χάριν κατα|πέ[μπετε] πρὸς ἡμᾶς παραχρῆμα (with BL 5.98 for reading).

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

277

As was the case with many other areas of police administration, no one official, or small cadre of officials, had a monopoly on organizing police investigations or dispensing criminal justice in Ptolemaic Egypt. A wide range of police officers in the towns and villages of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra performed the detective work necessary to resolve disputes. Investigations into wrongdoing involved specialized, often complicated tasks that were regularly entrusted to the lowest-­ranking officials in the law enforcement pyramid. We see here again evidence that the farming out of police duties to officials in Egyptian settlements proved effective and efficient. At criminal trials, the various circumstances of the case in question and the nature of the offense determined the government body competent to pronounce judgment. Numerous officials were empowered by the king to settle disagreements between individuals and often did so at the behest of petitioners. Here, too, an overall desire for village matters to be settled in the village was predominant. The Ptolemies doubtless sought to try as few time-­ and resource-­consuming cases as possible at the highest levels of the justice system. As a consequence, courts in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra were empowered and encouraged to take great strides in settling disputes. The Ptolemaic criminal court system permitted its administrators to exercise considerable autonomy in making their decisions and provided litigants with fast access to legal redress in their immediate vicinity.

Conclusions

This chapter has focused on four distinct steps in the processing of criminals and the solving of crimes by Ptolemaic officials: arrest, detention, investigation, and resolution. These terms effectively summarize the response of the Ptolemaic criminal justice system to most reported offenses. Police agents initially responded to a cry for help by rounding up suspects and evidence. Then, while an investigation was carried out and arrangements were being made for the resolution of the issue at hand, confiscated materials (goods and people) were detained. Finally, these same materials were sent along for processing by a competent official. It was, of course, not the rule that all wrongdoers in Ptolemaic times were arrested, detained, investigated, and transported for trial. Nevertheless, the frequency with which all four steps occurred argues

278

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

against a separate discussion of their individual characteristics. Let us briefly reconsider what we have said about these procedures. Arrests were usually carried out by those officials most closely connected to the administrative or geographic sphere in which malfeasance was detected. A broad range of police professionals at all levels of organization could perform the basic and essential functions of collecting the people (and things) necessary for an investigation. One should not be surprised that in a state as well organized as Ptolemaic Egypt, agents in all administrative areas and at all points in the law enforcement hierarchy were empowered to seize those suspected of wrongdoing. These officials helped to ensure the smooth and proper functioning of the great revenue­producing machine of the Ptolemies. As we have seen, arrests were carried out in response to requests from petitioners, by order of superiors, or on the basis of on-­site assessments by officials. A wide variety of offenses merited arrests. In fact, it appears that any illegal action might have been met with seizure or confiscation by police officers. In most cases, victims sought to have criminals arrested so as to effect the return of stolen items, to obtain remuneration for damage incurred, or to see to it that an offender was appropriately punished. The Ptolemies, in turn, sanctioned arrests because of a desire for order within the ranks of their work force and peaceful productivity in the chor‫ ﷳ‬a. A contented populace was a revenue­generating populace, and unchecked wrongdoing led to discontent. Detention, too, seems to have been motivated by a desire to maintain a certain level of control over the subject population. Imprisonment was never the consequence of a court or official judgment (i.e., the notion of incarceration as punishment did not exist in Ptolemaic Egypt), but it did shame, frighten, or demoralize wrongdoers. Debtors and other felons were imprisoned for indefinite periods of time in various sorts of jails. As petitions from prisoners reveal, the incarcerated were effectively cut off from the outside world and sometimes deprived of food and the other necessities of life. The only hope for release was assistance from friends, family, or other well-­connected people who could post bail, speak to police officials, or arrange for trials. The nature of ­imprisonment in Ptolemaic times was such that the populace might very well have viewed it as a form of punishment, if only in terms of the temporary elimination of several personal freedoms it entailed. In the government’s eyes, prisons provided an effective method of bringing

Arrest, Investigation, Detention, R ­ esolution

279

criminal activity to a halt while at the same time not permanently removing wrongdoers from the work force. As the horrors of imprisonment were very real and indefinite detention was always a possibility for those who took no initiative, someone in the lockup usually took steps to procure a release as soon as possible. The transfer of apprehended offenders to trials was delegated to officials in a similar fashion as the execution of arrests: that is, any of a number of government agents were employed, at various times and in various places, to ferry suspects to officials and tribunals. For the most part, police agents in Egyptian towns and villages, or their subordinates, escorted wrongdoers to places of justice, generally at the behest of a superior. Higher-­ranking officers occasionally intervened to transfer offenders to the appropriate place(s). Once transport had taken place, different officials with judicial powers tended to the legal needs of the populace. Criminal trials were usually simple audiences before a presiding official and a few others. Though they featured some elements common to civil trials (e.g., presentation of evidence, witness testimony), they were distinctly different. Justice was decisive, fast, and legally binding on the litigants. Criminal trials provide additional evidence that the Ptolemaic criminal justice system was designed to ensure broad access to remediation for victims of wrongdoing throughout the chor‫ ﷳ‬a. They likewise demonstrate that the Ptolemies were keen to provide resolution for village issues in Egyptian villages. Trials that took place in the settlements of the Egyptian countryside consumed few government resources and helped reduce congestion at the higher levels of the judicial system. Taken as a whole, the evidence for arrests, detention, investigation, and resolution in Ptolemaic Egypt paints a clear picture of a criminal justice system that was carefully articulated at every administrative and geographic level, provided individuals with access to government redress at multiple points, and empowered its officers to carry out a broad range of tasks. Three points deserve special attention. For one, the system was user-­friendly for the police officers who ran it. Officials from all administrative areas were empowered to arrest wrongdoers, often at the request of private individuals. Prisons of many sorts existed throughout the countryside for the temporary detention of those arrested. Investigations into illegal activity were carried out by various town and village officials soon after reports of wrongdoing were received. Final resolution often

280

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

came at the hands of the same administrators, acting independently of higher government agents. The Ptolemaic criminal justice system was not a slave to inflexible procedure and bureaucracy but was rather multifaceted and elastic, providing a full range of police services in all areas. The system was also surprisingly self-­governing. Though the Ptolemies sometimes spoke out against corruption in the ranks of the police and specified guidelines for police searches, arrests, and imprisonment (among other things), the administration of criminal justice was essentially left to the law enforcement officials in the towns and villages of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra. These officers, phylakitai chief among them, played major roles in bringing wrongdoers to justice. They regularly acted without supervision or explicit instructions from their superiors. That such a high degree of autonomy was permitted to the lowest-­level law enforcement officers is initially surprising. Yet direct government supervision of arrests, detentions, and prosecution of accused individuals, if guaranteeing a certain degree of administrative uniformity and control, was nevertheless costly and time-­consuming. The Ptolemies realized that village matters needed village attention and that empowering village officials to arrest, detain, and prosecute village offenders was the only logical solution to the problem of crime in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Finally, the system was, insofar as we are able to tell, unique in the ancient world: a dynamic balance between autonomous police officials and empowered civilians. On the one hand, an extensive network of interconnected police officials in the towns and villages of the Egyptian countryside monitored the citizenry and were authorized by the state to tend to its needs. On the other hand, the people living in the Ptolemaic countryside enjoyed an unparalleled degree of empowerment at law and regularly took decisive action – by contacting cops after crimes were committed – to obtain redress and, ultimately, to shape their own lives. The great many petitions to police and invocations of police procedure show not only that police tended to the day-­to-­day business of law and order very effectively but also that ordinary citizens placed significant faith in police. The beat cops, police chiefs, and commissioners that patrolled the Egyptian landscape performed a broad range of functions and provided the Egyptian people with services that were, as far as we know, unavailable in other ancient states. That the system worked so well must have surprised even the rulers of the kingdom.

­6 The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and Muscle

Sometime in 159 b.c., Soknopis, a monopoly superintendent, wrote to the police and civil officials of Tali seeking assistance in the successful completion of his business: 4 8 12 16

Σοκονῶπις ὁ πρὸς τῆι διαθέσει τῶν βασιλικῶν χαρ[τῶν] τ [ ]    μια ου εἰς τὸ κγ (ἔτος) τῶι ἐν Ταλὶ ἐπ[ι]στάτ[ηι καὶ ἀρχι]-­ φυλακίτηι κα[ὶ] φυλακείταις καὶ ἐρημοφύλαξι καὶ κω[μάρχηι] καὶ κωμογραμματεῖ χαίρειν. Πετωῦν ὁ ἐπιδι [    ] ἡμῖν ἐξείληφεν πα[ρ’ ἡ]μῶν τὴν διάθεσι[ν τῶν] βασιλικῶν χαρτῶν Ταλὶ εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ (ἔτος), ἔν[εστι (?) δὲ] αὐτῶι λαμβάνειν χ⟨ε⟩ιρογραφίας ὅρκου βασιλικοῦ παρὰ τῶν μονογράφων περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρῆσθαι ἰδιωτικοῖς φορτίοις τῶν τῆι ὠνῆι συνκυρόντων μηδὲ παρὰ τῶν δ[ια]-­ κολπιτευόντων συναγορᾶν, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν βα[σ]ιλικῶν πρατηρίων. ἐν οἷς ἂν οὖν ὑμῶν χρείαν ἔχηι τῶν πρὸ[ς] ταῦτα ἀνηκόντων, καλῶς ποιήσετε ἀντιλαμ-­ βανόμενοι προθύμως, καὶ ἐάν τινας ὑμῖν παραδί-­ δωι ἀντιπωλοῦντάς τι ἢ διακολπιτεύοντας, τ[οὺς] τοιούτους παραλαμβάνοντες σὺν οἷς ἐὰν ἔ[χωσι φορ]τίοις ἀποκαθείστατε ἐπὶ Ζώπυρον τ[ὸν ἐπιμ]ελητήν, ὅπως εἰσπραχθῶσιν τὰ κα-­ [θήκοντα] ἐπίτιμα. ἔρρωσο. (ἔτους) κγ Θωὺθ κς.

This chapter derives from the fifth chapter of my dissertation (Bauschatz [2005]) and a paper delivered at the 2007 American Philological Association conference. 281

282

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Soknopis, official in charge of the distribution of royal papyrus … for year 23 to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬in Tali and the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and the phylakitai and the eremophylakes and ‫ﷴ‬ 1 the ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫[ ﷴ‬4] and the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus, greetings. Petous, the …, has received from us the (contract for) distribution of royal papyrus at Tali for the same year, and he is empowered to receive written declarations of royal oaths from the [8] notaries that they will not employ private papyrus for matters pertaining to the contract, nor will they buy from smugglers, but from the royal markets. Therefore, in whatever respects he has need of you in [12] these matters, you will do well to assist him wholeheartedly. If he hands over to you individuals selling anything in opposition to the monopoly, or smuggling, you, receiving such individuals with their goods, if [16] they have them, do send them off to Zopyros, epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬so that they may be forced to pay the appropriate penalties.2 Farewell. Year 23, Thoth 26. (P.Tebt. III.1 709 [Tebtynis, 159 b.c.])

The letter from Soknopis sheds light on some of the most important duties of the Ptolemaic police, duties that in many key respects lay outside the realm of law enforcement. As we have seen, in rural Egyptian villages Ptolemaic law enforcement officials investigated crimes, arrested and detained offenders, and pronounced sentences at trials. For the most part, police were empowered by the state to tend to law and order in their communities without interference from above. But the Ptolemies also deployed their town and village police forces from above: as supervisors of forced agricultural work, as a state security force, and as a means of revenue extraction and crowd control. The picture that emerges suggests that the strong arm of the law not only provided a financial security force and a means of crowd control for the Ptolemies  – who specified, validated, and even encouraged the occasionally questionable behavior of police  – but also regularly reached deep into the pockets of the subject population to satisfy its needs and those of its employers. Here more than anywhere else we see proof that the administration in Alexandria had a vested interest in the operation of and control over police in the Egyptian backwater. Law enforcement officials in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra may have caught criminals and cracked cases, but they also worked full-­time extracting revenue and keeping the peace for the Alexandrian administration. 1 On 2 On

the Ptolemaic papyrus monopoly, see Chapter 2, note ­68. the Ptolemaic epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬see Chapter 2, note 46.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

283

One of the most important areas in which police officials flexed their government-­sanctioned muscles was the realm of security. As we have already seen, the Ptolemaic police filled important roles in the annual 3 guarding of crops, the genematophylakia. Archiphylakitai supervised the ‫ﷴ‬ process at the town and village level, while phylakitai and a contingent of phylakes (most importantly the aptly named genematophylakes) pro‫ﷴ‬ vided the manpower to assure that revenue was not lost. Police officers who gathered, transported, and watched over grain often received direct instructions from financial officials (most commonly oikonomoi and epimeletai). The latter served as an effective link between village labor ‫ﷴ‬ and higher officials and made sure that the genematophylakia proceeded ‫ﷴ‬ according to schedule. The village law enforcement officers employed for the same task provided a stern and intimidating presence for the workers. Ptolemaic police are seen acting as security forces in other situations as well. Phylakitai stood guard on ships and were expected to protect items that had been seized in police searches or raids.4 Phylakes of various sorts served in public and private capacities as protectors of villages, buildings, homes, and a wide variety of agricultural interests.5 Even police officials with administrative functions (e.g., archiphylakitai, epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n) seem to have been involved with the recruitment and mobilization of security forces. Security was one of the main concerns of the Ptolemaic police. The Ptolemies realized that investing village law enforcement officials with the protection of village interests was good policy. The protection of these interests sometimes involved coercion. Phylakitai, often accompanied by or under the command of archiphylakitai, were regularly responsible for extracting overdue rent from the subject population. Many petitions testify to this process and to the persistence (occasionally to the point of oppression) of the police officials employed for these operations. Law enforcement agents also provided muscle in other official settings, attending civil trials (where they effectively served as bailiffs) and appearing at government auctions of seized or forfeited properties. But at such proceedings police officials 3 Chapter 2; Chapter 3; 4 Chapter 2 and further 5 Chapter 3.

and the ensuing d­ iscussion. discussion in this chapter.

284

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

rarely took an active role. Their presence was intended, it seems, as an armed recommendation to private citizens to stay in line, wait their turn, follow the rules, and cooperate fully. They acted not only as security but also as symbols of law and order. Their presence also doubtless helped put a local face on central government activities in the settlements of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. Border Security

Security forces had a role to play at the fringes of the kingdom: the rivers and desert areas that bounded the arable sections of Egypt. In any large state security forces are necessary in border zones and those regions where civil strife has broken out. In Ptolemaic Egypt, the army generally provided such security.6 For the most part, police forces do not appear to have been dispatched to tend to riots or other civil disturbances. The security measures enjoined upon members of the Ptolemaic law enforcement system were connected with agricultural production and transport and usually involved well-­defined, specific tasks. Yet various Ptolemaic police officials and guards ( phylakitai and phylakes) occasionally played roles similar to the riot police and private security contractors of today. While these roles were certainly minor in comparison to the remainder of their police duties, they were nevertheless crucial for the safety and well-­being of Ptolemaic Egypt and its interests. To begin with, it appears that phylakitai had a regular and important task of serving as guards on board ships.7 In the first century (and perhaps earlier), they accompanied state grain shipments on a regular basis. A handful of Herakleopolite grain transport documents provides details on the nature of this aspect of their employment.8 Phylakitai selected 6 On

the Ptolemaic army as a security force during and after revolts, see e­ specially Préaux (1936); also Peremans (1978); Van ‘t Dack (1988) 18–19, 65, 247–71, 341, 372; and McGing (1997). 7 Four second-­century Arsinoite loading orders suggest that an official known as the hegoumenos phylakes‫ ﷴ‬might serve as a ship guard instead of a ‫ﷴ‬ phylakites: P.Erasm. II 23; 24; 25 (all 152 b.c.); and 35 (II b.c.). See also ‫ﷴ‬ Chapter 5, note 71. 8 BGU VIII 1742 (63 b.c.); 1743.i (63 b.c.); XVIII.1 2736 (87–86 b.c.); 2737 (86 b.c.); 2738 (86 b.c.?); 2739 (ca. 87–85 b.c.); 2740 (87–86 b.c.?); 2755;

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

285

for this task were required to submit oaths of office before receiving sealed samples (deigmata) of their ship’s cargo, which they carried on their persons.9 Phylakitai also occasionally served as epiploi, or cargo supervisors on board ships.10 River-­faring phylakitai might watch over a wide variety of items. As we have seen, in one private letter the writer asked the addressee to send him a flute player, a dancer, a goat, cheeses, a pot, vegetables, and condiments and to hand his requests over to the phylakitai who were to accompany the ship (P.Hib. I 54 [Oxyrhynchite, ca. 245 b.c.]: Chapter 2). Phylakitai and their supervisors were also responsible for the safety of river travelers, judging from a now-­familiar collection of third-­century ordinances primarily concerned with policing (P.Hib. II 198 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]).11 In one segment of this document, the sovereigns lay out a series of regulations for those seeking to travel on the Nile: [τοὺς δὲ] πλείον[τας κατὰ π]οταμὸν ὁρμίζεσθαι πρὸ τ[ ca. ? ] 112 ἐν τοῖς ἀ[ποδεδει]γμένοις τ[ό]ποις· νυκτὸς δὲ \μ/ μ[ ca. 11 ] οῦνται [ ca. 9 ] [      ἀπ]ολέσωσιν ευ [ ca. ? ] ἐὰν δέ τι[νες ὑπὸ] χειμῶνος [   ]κληθέντες [ ca. ? ] ἐπ’ ἀκτῆς ὁ[ρμισ]θῆναι παρελθόντ[ε]ς ἐπὶ τ[ὰ ca. ? ] 116 συγκύρον[τα] προσαγγελλέτωσαν τοῖς φυ[λακίταις τήν] τε αἰτίαν κ[α]ὶ τὸν τόπον ἐν ὧι ὡρμίσθησαν [καὶ τοῖς ­προσ]-­ αγγείλασιν συναποστελλέτω ὁ ἀρχιφυλακ[ίτης φυλακὴν] ἱκανὴν οἵτινες φυλάξουσιν τοὺς ὁρμοῦντα[ς ὅπως μηθὲν]

2756 (both ca. 78–77 b.c.); 2759 (I b.c.); P.Berl.Salmen. 17 (Herakleopolis, 77 b.c.); SB V 8754 (Herakleopolite?, 77 or 48 b.c.?). P.Tebt. III.1 824 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.?) is the sole non-­Herakleopolite Ptolemaic grain freight receipt that mentions the presence of a phylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬It is also the only non-­first­century text that attests to this function of the Ptolemaic police. 9 BGU XVIII.1 2740.10–12 (see previous note): ἐπιβιβασθέντ[ω]ν φυλακιτῶν κεκληρουχη|μένων τῶν καὶ μάλιστα πίστιν ἐχόντων οἷς κ[α]ὶ τὸ δεῖγμα | κατεσ[φραγισμέν]ον ἐπιτεθήσεται ἐν γεΐνοις [ὠ]μοῖς ἀγγείοις. 10 See Chapter 2; also P.Ryl. IV 576 (?, 246–221 b.c.), a series of deembarkation certificates, and P.Tebt. III.2 1035 (Tebtynis, 182–181 or 158–157 b.c.?), an account of wheat shipments. On epiploi in general, see Gofas (1989). 11 For more on this text, see Chapter 5.

286

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt 120 βίαιον γένηται· καὶ ἐάν τινες παρὰ τοῦ [βασιλέως ἀπεσ]-­ ταλμένοι κατὰ σπουδὴν πλείωσιν καὶ βούλ[ωνται πλεῖν] νυκτός, συμπρ[ο]πεμπέτωσαν τούτους καὶ [ ca. ? ]

(And they decree that) those sailing down the river are to come to anchor before … [112] in the prescribed places; but at night, … let them destroy. … And if any (are forced?) by a storm to come to anchor on a rugged bank, going to the [ – – ] [116] that they happen upon (?), let them inform the phylakitai of the reason and the place in which they have anchored. And to those who have made notification, let the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬send a sufficient guard who will protect those at anchor, so that nothing [120] violent may happen. And if any sent by the king are sailing in haste and wish to sail at night, let them [i.e., the phylakitai (?)] join in escorting these men; and … (P.Hib. II 198.110–22)

Details are few, but even these fragmentary guidelines suggest that the Ptolemaic police played an important role in assuring safety in the harbors and along the banks of the Nile. Why was this such an important concern to the sovereigns? The easiest assumption is that the regulations outlined here – but only partially preserved – applied in the main (or even exclusively) to officials transporting state assets (e.g., money, grain, monopoly wares). It would then go without saying that any boats driven to dry land by a storm would need to contact the local phylakitai immediately, so as to arrange for protection against any depredations by night or to make sure that there had been no foul play involved in what was initially described as an emergency landing. The end of this section of the papyrus is explicit about the connection between the river travelers and the state: government agents (the phylakitai, most likely) are authorized to assist in expediting state deliveries, should state officials require it. One can understand why a police guard might be necessary when traveling at night, as state boats without sufficient on-­board security would be easy prey for experienced river brigands. The phylakitai, then, had a variety of functions in the realm of security. Little evidence survives for the activities of upper-­level police officials in protective roles, but what does survive suggests that they were occasionally responsible for delegating various sorts of security details to lower-­level officers. For example, a pair of official orders to archiphylakitai and their subordinates demonstrates that police were occasionally instructed to carry out preventive security measures. In one, an

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

287

official ordered an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to prevent anyone from laying hands on some grain (P.Genova III 95 [Arsinoite, 216 b.c.?]). In the other, the oikonomos instructed the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and phylakitai of the nome not to allow beekeepers to remove beehives from the nome and to prevent anyone from removing cattle as well (P.Heid. VI 362 [Herakleopolite, 226 b.c.]; Chapter 2). One fragmentary text seems to suggest that upper­level police officials might also have taken a more active role in security patrols along certain pathways into the nome (P.Tebt. III.1 736 [Tebtynis, 143 b.c.]; Chapter 3). At one point in the document it appears that some epistatai phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬and others were responsible for transferring a battalion of Arabs, who were then forced to stand guard at a mountain.12 A badly fragmentary regulation concerning the security of embankments may reveal that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had some sort of supervisory position with reference to toparchai and kom ‫ ﷳ‬archai for the protection of dykes (P.Tebt. III.1 706 [Tebtynis, 171 b.c.]).13 Unfortunately, the document’s poor state of preservation prevents ­further conclusions. The officials who composed the ranks of the phylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt had a number of vital responsibilities when it came to the protection of the assets of the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra and the people living in it. As we 12 29–38:

τοῦ διαδεξαμέ[νου τὴν ἐπιστατείαν] | τῶν φυλακιτῶν καὶ Τιμοθέου \ἰδιώ[του]/ κα[ὶ τῶν] | ἄλλων ἐπιστατῶν τῶν φυ[λακιτῶν] | μεταλαβόντων, μετεπέμψαν[το δὲ τοὺς] | ἐκ Πτολεμαΐδος Ἀράβων Ἄραβε[ς (read Ἄραβα[ς) οἳ καὶ] | συνηνεγκάσθησαν παρεδρ[εύειν] | ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τὴν τήρησιν ἄ[γοντες (?)] | ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ λαβυρίνθου αὐλίζ[εσθαι] | καθ᾽ ἡμέραν πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀποσπᾶ[σθαι] | ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων. On this text, see Hennig (2003) 165–8. 13 It should be noted that the title of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬in this text is partially restored (3–9): κ[α]|[λῶς οὖν ca. 10 ποιήσει]ς ἐὰν φαίνηται συντάξ[αι] | [ca. 15 τοῖς] ἐπιστάταις τῶν δηλουμ[έ]|[νων φυλακιτῶν ἐάν τινα εὑ]ρίσκωσιν ἀφιστάμενο[ν] | [      τοὺς τοπάρχας καὶ κ]ωμάρχας απ[  ] οπτοι[ ]|[         διὰ νυκτ]ὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ποιεῖσθαι τὴν τήρη[σιν] | [τῶν χωμάτων ca. 9 ]φ[   ]ς ὑπὸ χεῖρα. The title ἐπιστάτης τῶν δηλουμένων φυλακιτῶν occurs nowhere else, though forms of δηλούμενος occur with both κώμη (P.Tebt. III.2 852.29 [Tebtynis, ca. 174 b.c.]) and τόπος (BGU IV 1187.33 [Herakleopolite, ca. 49–48 b.c.?]; VIII 1761.6 [Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.], τόπος restored). As epistatai often administered such districts, it perhaps makes more sense to restore τόπων or κωμῶν in the lacuna in line 6 instead of φυλακιτῶν.

288

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

have already mentioned, military and paramilitary officers also provided security in the countryside.14 Among these were guards ( phylakes) who served in both private and public capacities. While most phylakes did little more than provide a specific form of protection for their employers (i.e., whether for a garden, a threshing floor, or something similar), a handful of government phylakes held positions that involved occasional low-­level police business. Some were empowered to arrest malefactors; others worked closely with branches of the phylakitai to supervise government agricultural activities and protect assets and infrastructure. Desert was neither asset nor infrastructure, but Egypt had a lot of it. To protect it, the Ptolemies relied on ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes.15 The bulk of the evidence for these “desert guards” concerns their landholdings in the Arsinoite nome in the late second century.16 Egyptian names are common, which suggests that the ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes were predominantly Egyptian.17 Occasionally, we see ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes elevated to the katoikia, which demonstrates that, like the position of phylakite‫ﷴ‬s, that of ere‫ﷴ‬mophylax might occasionally lead to social promotion.18 Evidence for their day-­to-­day activities is decidedly scarce. Their title would suggest that they were commonly employed in border regions. Troops of ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes seem to be attested for the Memphite region and part of the Oxyrhynchite nome.19 A handful of government circulars 14 See Chapter ­3. 15 Chapter 3. 16 E.g., P.Tebt. I 61B.6–7 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.); III.2 833.14–22 (Tebtynis, II b.c.); IV 1108.12–15, 39–44 (Kerkeosiris, 124–121 b.c.). 17 E.g., P.Tebt. III.2 833.14–22 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), a list of landholders and their holdings: ἐρημοφυλάκων· | Ἁρθρ\ῶ/υς Φεμροήριος ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) κε, | Ἰμούθης Φθαῦτος ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ιε, | Παγκράτης Παχράτου ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ιε, | Ἁρμιῦσις Πετοσίριος ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ιε, | Ἁρμιῦσις Ἁρμιύσιος ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) κε, | Ἀμεννεὺς Ὥρου Μαρρείους ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ιε, | Φαυῆς Πετεύριος ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ι, | Φαᾶνις Πετεσούχου ἄρ(ο)υ(ραι) ε. 18 P.Tebt. I 61B.6–8 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.); 85.106 (Tebtynis, 112 b.c.?); IV 1117.155–6 (Kerkeosiris, 119 b.c.). On the katoikia in and around Kerkeosiris, see P.Tebt. I pp545–50 and Crawford (1971) 53–85. 19 Memphite: P.Yale I 50.2–3 (Memphis?, II b.c.): τῶν ὑπὲρ Μέμφιν ὄντων | [ ca. ? ἐρ]ημοφυλάκων; Oxyrhynchite (?): SB X 10448.2–10 (Magdola, III b.c.?): τ[ ]νων καὶ πη[ ca. ? τοῦ] | Ὀξυρυγχίτου [νομοῦ (?) ca. ? ] | βουλομένοις [ ca. ? ]|της ἐκ τῆ[ς (?) ca. ? ] | ἐρημοφυλακ[ ca. ? ] | καλῶς ποιήσ[εις (?) ca. ? ] | παραλειφθῆι π[ ca. ? ] | εἰς ἑκάστην τ[ ca. ? ] | ἐρημοφύλα[κ]α [ ca. ? ].

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

289

addressed in part to ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes suggests that they often worked in conjunction with town and village police officials (among these archiphylakitai and phylakitai) to see that government business ran smoothly.20 Details as to what their activities would have been in these contexts are vague, but it appears that they may have had some police powers: as we saw, Soknopis’s instructions to arrest smugglers and confiscate their goods went not only to police officials proper (the epistate‫ﷴ‬s, archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s, and phylakitai) but also to ere‫ﷴ‬mophylakes (P. Tebt. III.1 709 [Tebtynis, 159 b.c.]). The recipients were asked to perform the functions outlined and then hand the offenders and their contraband over to the epimele‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s. We know less about potamophylakes, who appear to have been charged primarily with border security, specifically at and around rivers, where they protected fords and bridges.21 Regulations on river travel (P.Hib. II 198.110–22 [Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.]) make it clear that the sovereigns placed a premium on river security, so it should not surprise us that they also charged a military corps with the protection of the Nile and those who sailed upon it. Unfortunately, aside from the fact that most potamophylakes were probably native Egyptians, further information on these officials – including on their likely connection to the phylakitai – is lacking.22 However, one text suggests that they might have been involved with the transfer of troops: ­Μανδρόβηι. Ἱέραξ ὁ παρὰ σ[ο]ῦ συμμείξας ἀπέδωκέ μοι ἃ ἐγεγράφει ὑπέρ τε τῶν ποταμοφυλάκων 20 P.Tebt.

III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); III.2 903 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); and 904 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.). 21 BGU XIV 2368.3–5 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.), an order for payment (?) of τοῖς ἀποτεταγμένοις | π[ρὸς τῆι τ]ηρήσει τῶν κατὰ ποταμὸν [πόρω]ν | [ποτα]μοφύλαξι. On potamophylakes, see Lewis (1977) 152–3 and Chapter 3. 22 E.g., BGU XIV 2437 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 2440 and 2441 (both Herakleopolite, both II–I b.c.). Potamophylakes listed: BGU XIV 2437: Σεμθέως τοῦ Ἁρφεκοίπιος (10); Πετοσῖρις [ ca. ? ] (46); 2440: Ὀννώφ[ριο]ς τοῦ Ὀννώφριος (51); Πενεβεῖος τοῦ Ἀφύγχιος (52); Πανετβε[ύ]ιος τοῦ Ὀννώφριος (53); Πεενωχρος    [ ca. ? ] (55); Ποήριος (56); Πετβάστιος (57); 2441: Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ἀρατομένου (225); Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Θεοχάριδος (227).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

290 4 8 12

καὶ ἄλλων. \τού/τοις μὲν οὖν (ποταμοφύλαξι) \τοῦ Πτολεμαικοῦ/ γέγραφα προπέμψαι ⟦ὑμᾶς⟧ \τὴν οὐραγίαν/ μέχρι Ἱερᾶς καὶ \παραδοῦναι/ τοῖς ἀπ[ὸ] τοῦ Τρωίτ[ου], κα⟨ὶ ἐ⟩κείνοις δὲ ὅπως σὺν ὑμῖν γένωντ[αι πρ]ὸς τὸ Χιὴ τοῦ Κυνο-­ πολίτου· ὀρθῶ[ς οὖν ποιήσ]ης τοὺς δηλου-­ μένους ποτα[μοφύλακα]ς συντάξας εὐθαρσεῖς ποι[εῖσθαι καμ]άτους, καὶ ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ τῶ[ν ca. 9 τόπ]ων γένωνται ποιων[ ca. 18 ἀπα]ύστως

To Mandrobes. Hierax, your agent, having met up with me, gave me what you had written on behalf of the potamophylakes [4] and the others. To the potamophylakes of the Ptolemaikos (river?), therefore, I have written to send the rear guard up to Hiera (Nesos) and to hand it over to those from the Troite nome,23 and to the others (I have written) so that they may be with you at Chie of the Kynopolite [8] nome. Therefore, you will do well to please ensure that the aforementioned potamophylakes are of good courage with respect to their labors, and whenever (?) they may be at the [ – – ] places, [12] they may ceaselessly do (?) … (BGU VIII 1784 [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.])

Interesting here is the mention of potamophylakes for a river other than the Nile, the river par excellence in Egypt. This opens up the possibility that potamophylakes were not necessarily concentrated in the Nile valley, but in fact could be found throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, at least wherever there were bodies of flowing water. We also see a connection between potamophylakes and the Ptolemaic military: the former are to transfer a body of troops, the rear guard (ouragia), to another location. Unfortunately, we cannot say with much certainty what the nature of the connection between the two groups was, or why the potamophylakes in this text were moving military men. The fragmentary end of the letter perhaps conjures up images of a military threat, though it is also possible that the words used by the author are not to be taken as an indication of trouble ahead but simply as a standard exhortation for some soldiers to do their jobs well. The evidence is inconclusive. 23 The precise location of the Ptolemaikos River seems to be unknown: Falivene

(1998) 185. On commanders of the rear guard in Ptolemaic Egypt (ouragoi), see I.Herm. 4, n. on 133 (p. 34) with footnote; P.Dion. p. 35; Martin and Nachtergael (1998) 111 n. on 2.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

291

A similar lack of evidence surrounds the posts of chersanippos and chersephippos.24 All one can conclude about these officials is that the latter rode a horse over desert regions and the former did not. Both perhaps had protective roles. At least one scholar has suggested that the chersephippos may have belonged to a special desert cavalry corps composed of Egyptians or, more likely, served in the same capacity as the 25 eremophylakes. A few land registers from Kerkeosiris mention cherse‫ﷴ‬ phippoi alongside eremophylakes as well as phylakitai.26 The proximity of ‫ﷴ‬ these police officials in land registers like this one could reflect a close association. Unfortunately, the evidence provides absolutely no indication of the nature of the employment of either the chersanippos or the chersephippos.

Agricultural Protection

Though the evidence is thin for the government-­mandated security roles played by the Ptolemaic police throughout the border regions of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra, an abundance of data survives for the activities of police officials in providing agricultural protection for arable land. One of the most important tasks of an archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s and his phylakitai was managing the gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia, the annual guarding of crops. The papyri illustrate different tasks associated with this yearly duty. An archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s was expected to enlist men, by means of written oaths, to act as gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakes for a harvest season and to carry out inspections (probably with the aid of underlings) of sown land or produce; he was perhaps aided in the performance of both of these duties by a sowing schedule.27 One especially detailed text provides crucial insights 24 For attestations of chersanippoi and chersephippoi, see Chapter 3, note ­134. 25 Hennig (2003) 146–65. See also P.Tebt. I p. 550. 26 Chersephippoi and phylakitai: P.Tebt. I 84 (118 b.c.); chersephippoi, eremophylakes,

‫ﷴ‬ and phylakitai: P.Tebt. I 60 (117 b.c.); 62 (119–118 b.c.); 63 (116–115 b.c.); 64 (115 b.c.); 89 (113 b.c.); IV 1110 (115 b.c.); 1114 (113–112 b.c.); 1118 (117 b.c.). 27 Enlisting: Chrest.Wilck. 331 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.); P.Mich. I 73 (?) (Philadelphia, III b.c.), a notification to two men informing them that they had been signed up as gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakes by a certain Noumenios (perhaps a

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

292

into the workings of the gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia. The document, a copy of a letter of censure written to one Hermias, ho epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n, concerns delinquencies in his administration of various aspects of the process:28 28 32 36 40

Ἑρμίαι Ἁρνελτώτου τοῦ ἐν τῶι Ὥρ[ου] βασιλικοῦ γραμματέως. ὑποτάξας ἡμῖν ἃ ἐγεγράφην σοι καταχωρίσας καὶ τὰ πρὸς Θεόδοτον τὸν πρὸς τῆι οἰκονομίαι καὶ ἀρχιφυλακιτείαι δι’ ὧν ἐδηλοῦτο ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι μεταπεμφθέντων εἰς κοινὸν συνέδριον τῶν κατὰ κώμην δεκανῶν τῶν φ[υ]λακιτῶν ληφθῆναι μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνώμης ἃς ὑπετίθετο χειρο-­ γραφίας ὅρκου βασιλικοῦ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἐπετείων ­γενημάτων τη[ρ]ήσεως, θαυμάζειν καὶ λείαν ἐπήρχετο εἰ τὰ πάνδεινα πεπονθὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ συσταθέντος πρὸς σὲ διαλογισμοῦ χάριν τοῦ μὴ προνοηθῆναι ἐν δέοντι καιρῶι μήτε τῆς τῶν χλωρῶν καὶ τ[ῶ]ν ἄλλων ἐπισπόρων ἐγδιοικήσεως μηδὲ τῆς τῶν γενημάτων φυλακίας ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πρὸς ταῖς οἰκονομίαις καὶ ἀρχιφυλακιτείαις ἀνθρώποις ἀξιολόγοις χρῆσθαι πᾶσι δὲ κακοῖς καὶ οὐδενὸς ἀξίοις ἐν τῆι αὐτῆι ταλαιπωρίαι διαμένεις οὐδαμῶς τὰ παρὰ τὸ δέ{ι}ον κεχειρισμένα διωρθωμένος. πλὴ[ν] ἴσθι μὲν ἔ\γ/κλητος ὑπάρχων ἔτι δὲ καὶ νῦν διαλαβὼν

phylakite‫ﷴ‬s: P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]); P.Tebt. III.1 731 (Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?), where an official with the title ho he‫ﷴ‬goumenos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n noted that four phylakitai assigned to the gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakia by the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s of the meris had failed to appear; inspecting: P.Tebt. III.2 927 (Tebtynis, ca. 140 b.c.?), a fragmentary statement concerning crops mentioning a number of gene‫ﷴ‬matophylakes and an archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s; sowing schedules: P.Yale I 36 (?, 190 b.c.), an official letter with instructions that a crop-­sowing schedule be sent to the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s. 28 This document (Chrest.Wilck. 331) contains four columns of text, of which the letter to Hermias fills up the middle two (lines 27–84). The first column consists of a series of forwarding instructions: Eirenaios, the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ﷴ‬ forwarded a copy of his original letter to Hermias to Asklepiades, ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫( ﷳ‬18–26); Asklepiades then sent a copy to Horos, the basilikos grammateus (11–17); finally, Horos sent the letter to the topogrammateis and kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateis (2–10). The fourth column of text (lines 85–111) contains another communication from Eirenaios that had reached him through Asklepiades and was eventually forwarded by Horos to the topogrammateis and kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateis. It concerns the activities of a man named Protarchos who had been delinquent in the collection and delivery of debts.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

293

μηδεμιᾶς τεύξεσθαι συνγνώμης ὀλιγωρηθέντος τινὸς ἵνα μὲν πρὸς ταῖς προειρημέναις χρείαις εὔθετοι κατασταθῶσιν προ  λιντη ι[ ]αι, ταξά[με]νος δὲ [τ]ὴν ἀδιαλίπτως προσφερο-­ μ[ένην σ]π[ο]υδὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀ[νήκουσιν εἰς] τὴν τῆς φορολογίας ἐπα[ύ]ξησιν καὶ παρὰ τῶ[ν κωμογραμ]ματέων ἐπιλαβὼν τὴν γραφὴν τῶν δυναμ[έ]νων ἐπι[σ]π[ασθ]ῆναι εἰς τὰς γενη-­ ματοφυλακίας ἀπό τε τ[ῶ]ν στρατευομένων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τόπους κατ[ο]ικούντων καὶ ἐν περιστάσει κειμένων καὶ πίστει καὶ ἀσφαλ[ε]ίαι διαφερόντων καὶ τοὺς ἐπιτηδείους καταστήσας πρὸς ταῖς κατὰ κώμην καὶ παρὰ μὲν τούτων καὶ τῶν ἐν ἑκάστηι φυλ[α]κι[τῶν] λα[β]ὼν χειρογραφίας ὅρκου βασιλικοῦ δισσὰς ἐπὶ τοῦ βελτίστου προστήσεσ[θαι τ]ῆς φυλακῆς καὶ μηθένα τῶν γεωργούντων τὴν βασιλικὴν καὶ τὴν ἐν ἀφέσει [γῆν] ἐφάψεσθαι τῶν χλωρῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων 56 ἐπισπόρων πλὴν τῶν εἰς [τὰς] τροφὰς τῶν γεωργικῶν κτηνῶν ἃ καὶ με[τὰ] τῶν κωμογραμματέων π[ροσ]χορηγηθήσεται καὶ τῶν ἐγδιοικηθησομ[ένων] ὧν αἱ τ{ε}ιμαὶ καὶ \τούτ/ων αἱ ἀσφάλε[ιαι δο]θεῖσαι κατατεθήσονται ἐπὶ [τ]ῶν τραπεζῶ[ν] πρὸς τὰ καθήκοντα εἰς τὸ βα[σιλικὸν] ἀκολούθως τοῖς προεγδεδομ[έ]νοις χρηματισμοῖ[ς] 60 φροντίζειν ὅπως καὶ τ⟨ὰ⟩ ἄλ[λα γέν]ηται κατὰ θερείαν ἐξ ὑγιοῦς, παρακομ[ί]ζειν δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀποδεδειγμένους [τόπου]ς καὶ μηθὲν τούτων καταπροήσε[σθαι ἀλλὰ] ἐπὰν καὶ {περὶ} τὸ περὶ τῆς [ἀφέσε]ως πρόγραμμα ἐκτεθῆι ἐὰν μὴ πάντ[ων] ὧν δέον ἐστὶ παραδοθέντω[ν καὶ] τῶν ἐφελκομένων πρὸς τοὺς ἔμ[π]ροσθεν χρ\ό/νους 64 ἐκπληρωθέντων ἐπισ[     , πα]ρά τε ὑμῶν ἢ τῶν πρὸς ταῖ[ς     ο]ἰκον[ο]μίαις τεταγμένων καὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν γραμματέων ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηθὲν ὀφ[εί]λειν τὸν ἐπὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν ἐπιγενη[μ]άτων παραγινόμενον μηδὲ πρὸ[ς] ἄλλα ἐγκλ\ή/{η}ματα 44 48 52

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

294 68 72 76 80

ἢ αἰτίας εἶναι κατόχιμα, προ[νο]εῖσθαι δὲ ἵνα πάντες [ὅπως] τάχιστα ἀποδῶσι τὰ εἰς τὸ βασιλικὸν γινόμενα, παρὰ δὲ τῶν πρὸς ταῖς ἀρχιφ[υ]λ[ακιτ]είαις προνοηθήσεσθαι ὡς κατὰ τ⟨ὰ⟩ αὐτὰ ἐπιτελεσθήσεται, μίαν μὲν καταθοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς τραπέζης τὴν δ’ ἑτέραν πέμψας ἡμῖν στόχασαι ὅπως καὶ ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ἐκτεθῆι προγράμματα δηλοῦντα μηδένα ἐπαφιέναι κτήνη{ι} εἰς τὴν ἐσπαρμένην χόρτωι καὶ τοῖς παρ[α]πλήσιοις γενή[μασι] μηδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισπόρων ἐφάπτεσθαι ἄνευ τοῦ δοῦναι τὴν ἀσφάλειαν καθότι πρόκειται, τῶν δὲ παρὰ ταῦτα ποιησόντων τά τε κτήνη{ι} ὑπὸ στέρεσιν ἀχθήσεσθαι πρὸς τὰ ἐκφόρια. καὶ μάλιστα ἐπα-­ γρύπνησον ὡς τῆς πάντων εἰσπράξεως πρωιμώτερον συστα-­ θείσης οὐ συμβήσεταί σοι τοῖς ὁμοίοις περιπίπτειν, καθόλου δ’ ἐν-­ θυμηθεὶς ἡλίκην συμβάλλεται ἡ περὶ τὰ ὑποδεικνύμεν[α] προσοχὴ{ι} τοῖς πράγμασι ῥοπὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἥγησαι τὸ{υ} μηθὲν ἁπ[λ]ῶς τῶ[ν] χρησίμων παραλειφθῆναι, αἰεὶ δέ τινος ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον προσεπινοουμένου ἕκαστα χωρῆσαι κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν πρόθεσιν. οὔτε γὰρ βίαν οὔθ’ ἑτέραν ἡνδηποτοῦν πρόφασιν προσδεξόμεθα, ἡ δ’ εἴσπραξις τῶν προεθησομένων παρὰ σοῦ κατὰ κράτος ἔσται. \ἧ/ι δ’ ἂν ἡμέραι κομίσηι τὴν ἐπιστ[ο]λὴν διασάφησον.

To Hermias.29 Harnemgotes, in the office of Horos the basilikos grammateus, [28] having instructed me on what to write to you, and also having sent 29 Hermias is not given a title at this point in the document but is identified as ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫ ﷳ‬in line 18.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

295

what was written to Theodotos, the man holding the offices of oikonomos and archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s,30 in which it was made clear that it was necessary for the dekanoi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n in each village to be sent to a common meeting,31 [32] and that, with his knowledge, for written declarations of a royal oath to be collected, which he proposed, concerning the protection of the annual crops, he [i.e., Harnemgotes (?)] was very much amazed that if, after having suffered dreadfully at the trial against you for [36] not having taken steps at the proper time for the collection of green crops and the other second crops, nor for the protection of the crops, and for not having employed men of repute for the offices of oikonomos and archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s,32 but instead men wholly [40] wicked and worthless, you continue to employ the same ineptitude and are not at all implementing the necessary measures. However, know that you are still liable to accusation even now; and, understanding that you will receive no pardon for anything that is neglected, take steps (?) [44] so that suitable persons are appointed to the aforementioned positions; and show, constantly, the appropriate enthusiasm for those matters that bear on increasing the revenues; and get from the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis [48] a list of those who are able to be impressed into service for the genematophylakia from those in the army and ‫ﷴ‬ the others living in the districts and surrounding areas and conspicuous for honesty and steadfastness, and appoint these [52] suitable men to the offices in each ­village.33 And from these men, and from the phylakitai in each village, obtain two copies of a royal oath that they will guard the crops as best they can and will allow none of those farming royal land or land en aphesei to lay hold of the green crops and the other [56] second crops, save for those designated as fodder for farm animals – these last shall be provided to (?) the ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis – and the crops which will be collected and for which prices and securities, once paid, will be deposited at the banks so as to meet the needs of the crown in accordance with the previously 30 Though

Theodotos is the only man explicitly attested in the evidence as both archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and oikonomos, it is clear that Ptolemaic archiphylakitai were able to hold multiple state offices in different spheres of government at the same time: among these, epistates, ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, and even epistates‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬kom phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. See Bauschatz (2007a) 193–4 for attestations. 31 Dekanoi phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬: Chapter 2. 32 On the meaning of the verb “employed” (χρῆσθαι, 39), see the ensuing discussion. 33 We will consider the evidence for the post of genematophylax being liturgical ‫ﷴ‬ later in this chapter.

296

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

issued ordinances.34 (And the oath should also state that) [60] they will see to it that all other proper steps are taken in the summer and that they will transport the crops to the designated places, and will release nothing until the proclamation about release is posted, and not unless all the necessary things have been handed over and the arrears from previous years [64] have been paid in full. And from you yourself, or from those appointed to the office of oikonomos, and from the basilikoi grammateis, (obtain oaths that) whoever comes to collect the remaining crops is not in debt to the crown, and that the crops are not to be sequestered for other accusations or causes, and that care is being taken that all may pay [68] what is due to the crown as quickly as possible. And from those appointed to the post of archiphylakites, ‫( ﷴ‬obtain oaths that) they will see to it that this business is concluded in the same way.35 Place one copy (of each oath) at the royal bank, and send the other to us. See to it that proclamations are posted in the villages indicating that no one is to pasture [72] an animal upon land sown with grass and similar crops, or lay his hands upon the remaining second crops without giving security as previously stated. The animals of those who act contrary to these regulations will be confiscated as payment for the rents. Above all see to [76] it that the extraction of all revenues is carried out more promptly and that you do not lapse into similar practices as before, and in general think about how much influence attention to the matters indicated above has on business, and treat it as most essential that even the most basic [80] measures be considered, and that by devising better practices everything may proceed in accordance with our plan. For we will not accept either violence or any other excuse whatsoever: rather, any losses will be exacted from you by force. Make clear on which day you receive this letter. (Chrest.Wilck. 331.27–84 [Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.])

As we learn here, Hermias had not been careful to select men of good repute for the position of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬but had rather employed less­respectable individuals for the job (37–41). He had also been remiss in collecting royal oaths, two per person, not only from those involved in crop guarding (with the approval of the archiphylakites), ‫ ﷴ‬but also from 34 No

oath specifically identified as that of a genematophylax survives, though a cheirographia phylakitike‫ ﷴ‬with provisions very similar to those enjoined upon Hermias does: P.Tebt. II 282 (Tebtynis, II b.c.). We examine this text in the following discussion. 35 No such oath survives.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

297

their supervisors, the archiphylakitai themselves (45–54). As for the content of these oaths, those serving as genematophylakes were required ‫ﷴ‬ to swear that they would allow none of the cultivators of crown land or land en aphesei to lay their hands upon green or secondary crops, with a few exceptions (54–9).36 They were also required to swear that they would see to it that summer agricultural preparations went smoothly, that produce was transported to the proper places, and that none of the crops was released (back to the farmers?) until the state had had its agricultural demands met (60–4). The archiphylakitai were required to swear that they would ensure that the genematophylakes followed these ‫ﷴ‬ instructions carefully (68–9). The letter to Hermias is of great importance for the information it provides on the position of the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬To begin with, it yields the only surviving evidence for the appointment of this official. As we have already seen, villagers aspiring to the position of phylakites‫ ﷴ‬were able to gain employment by contacting the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of their town or village and requesting that they be hired.37 A few surviving applications from aspiring phylakitai reveal the language typically employed: 4 8

Διοσκουρίδει ἀρχιφ[υλα]κί[τηι Κροκο]-­ δίλων πόλεως καὶ τῶν [ ca. ? -­σῶν] κωμῶν παρὰ Τιμάρχο[υ τοῦ Κρ]άτητ[ος ca. ? ] Σικυωνίου· ἀπογράφ[ο]μαι [ε]ἰς τοὺς περὶ Κροκοδίλων πόλιν κατὰ τὸ ἐκτε-­ θὲν ἔκθεμα {εἰς τοὺς} φ ­ υλακίτας· ἀξιῶ οὖν πρ[ο]σγραφῆναι μέ· (ἔτους) α Παχὼν κη.

To Dioskourides, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of Krokodilopolis and the (associated?) villages, from Timarchos, son of Krates … [4] Sikyonian.38 I am being registered into the phylakitai around Krokodilopolis in accordance with the publically posted edict. I ask, therefore, that I be added to the list. [8] Year 1, Pachon 28. (P.Genova III 101 [Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?]) 36 On

the possible meaning of the phrase τὴν ἐν ἀφέσει γῆν (55), see P.Tebt. IV pp2–4 and the additional sources cited there. 37 Chapter 2. 38 This Dioskourides is possibly to be identified with the homonymous archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬in P.Tebt. III.1 795 (Tebtynis, II b.c.; Pros.Ptol. 4565).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

298

The applicant’s request is simple enough, though the finer details of the hiring process are left unclear. To begin with, no “publicly posted edict” (ἐκτε|θὲν ἔκθεμα, 5–6) for recruitment of phylakitai survives, so the basic qualifications for the post as well as any other initial required steps (such as a registration payment or initial application to some sort of government clerk) are left to the imagination. The implication from this letter seems to be that the applicant has already made initial contact with an official who has given him the go-­ahead to contact the archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬The letter to the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬then, allows the police chief to make sure his roster of phylakitai is up-­to-­date and provides some independent confirmation for him that a given man actually has attempted to enroll into the police force. Perhaps unsurprisingly, police officials at higher levels in the chain of command had to do more than write a letter declaring their acceptance of a position to an immediate superior. Epistatai, for instance, were at least occasionally installed in their administrative domains by 39 the strategos. One would assume that the strategos ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬or his agents had done a certain amount of vetting and investigative work before making such appointments, though we cannot be sure. Though no evidence survives for the appointment of nome-­level police, it seems likely that these men, too, were hired by the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬of the nome in question (or one of his subordinates) or even the sovereigns themselves. In the letter to Hermias, however, we see not a village archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬appointed by a higher-­ranking police official, but one who worked in the financial sphere. It seems odd that the rulers of the kingdom would have desired that their village police chiefs, agents who also arrested wrongdoers and solved crimes, be direct appointees of fiscal bureaucrats. Yet the evidence for such a practice (this one text) is admittedly thin. Much hinges on the interpretation of the verb χρῆσθαι (39). It was perhaps the case that Hermais “employed” or “used” archiphylakitai to act as overseers for the genematophylakes but did not, in fact, “hire” ‫ﷴ‬ them. The use of the verb here is perhaps analogous to that observable 39 See

P.Tebt. III.1 788 (Oxyrhyncha, 143 b.c.; Chapter 3), where the kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches‫ﷴ‬ and the farmers in Oxyrhyncha noted that the strategos had been sent to ‫ﷴ‬ them to rectify certain abuses, make inspections, and appoint trustworthy epistatai.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

299

in relationships between bankers and clients in Athens. In these contexts the verb often implies a business relationship as well as a degree of social familiarity.40 Clients “used” bankers they knew and trusted when the need arose, but not necessarily at all times. The verb implies a temporary employment. If we extend this meaning to our present situation, then Hermias may have been ordered to “use” trustworthy archiphylakitai as supervisors for the genematophylakia but only as sea‫ﷴ‬ sonal hires. This seems likely, but it should be stressed that it cannot be proved conclusively. Regardless of the meaning of chresthai in the letter to Hermias, there ‫ﷴ‬ still remains the puzzling problem of how and why a financial official would be empowered to appoint police officers. Yet the recruitment process for archiphylakitai suggested by the letter to Hermias was perhaps not so strange. In fact, in many respects it even seems reasonable. The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was a police official who also had important administrative duties in the financial sphere.41 Such a position would have necessitated close ties to agents in other areas of government. The letter highlights this connection and further reveals that the post of archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬could in fact be held alongside that of a financial officer. One could also hold the offices of village archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epistates‫ ﷴ‬concurrently.42 The latter combination seems reasonable, given that both posts involved often overlapping police duties. Yet as the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬noted at the beginning of his letter to Hermias, previous orders concerning the genematophylakia had been given to an official named Theodotos with ‫ﷴ‬ the title ὁ πρὸς τῆι οἰκονομίαι καὶ ἀρχιφυλακιτείαι (9). Theodotos had 40 See E. Cohen (1992) 65–6 and the sources cited ­there. 41 Chapter 2. 42 Aniketos was both epistates and archiphylakites of Euhemeria:

P.Giss.Univ. I ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 7.1–2 (Euhemeria, II b.c.); 8.1–2 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.); SB VIII 9674.1–2 (Euhemeria, ca. 131 b.c.), epistates‫ ﷴ‬restored; Pros.Ptol. I 643 and addenda at VIII 643, to which add SB XIV 11883.1, 8 (Euhemeria, 170–116 b.c.); Demetrios held both posts in Soknopaiou Nesos: P.Mich. XV 688.1–­2 (Soknopaiou Nesos, II/I b.c.); another Demetrios held both at Tebtynis: P.Tebt. I 43.9–10 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.), as did Herakleides: P.Tebt. I 230 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.), no line numbers given; also Heliodoros from an undetermined village in the Fayyum: SEG XXXIII 1359.3–4 [cf. I.Fay. III 209] (Theadelphia?, 107–101 b.c.). On Ptolemaic archiphylakitai who held additional offices, see Bauschatz (2007a) 193–4.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

300

been charged with summoning the dekanoi to‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n in the villages to a meeting at which, with his approval, the season’s genematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ would be sworn in. The combination of titles seen in Theodotos is unparalleled but the close connection between the two posts he held is not. Indeed, the relationship between the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and the oikonomos was often very close.43 Without a doubt, financial acumen would have come in handy for the performance of the additional duties of the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬connected to the genematophylakia, among these agricultural transport, record ‫ﷴ‬ keeping, and the detection and prevention of criminal activity. We see that archiphylakitai inspected village granaries and threshing floors and were concerned with preventing theft in these locations. Consider the following case: 4 8

[(ἔτους) ca. ? ] Φαμενὼθ ιη. [προ]σάγγελμα Ὥρωι ἀρχιφυλακίτηι Ἀρσινόης τῆς κατὰ [Σε]βεννύτον καὶ τοῖ[ς] ἐπιστάταις τῆς Καρανίδος. τῆι η τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς παραγενόμενος μετῶν ἐπα-­ [κ]ολουθούντων εἰς τὴν προγ[ε]γραμμένην κώμην ὥστε μετρῆσαι τὴν ἐπεσταλμένην σιτομετρίαν Π οσιδωνίωι τῶι σιτολόγωι· ἐπισκοπούμενοι δὲ τὸν ὑπάρχοντα σῖτον ἐν τοῖς σάκκ[ο]ις, εὕρομεν λείαν [γε]γενημένην πυροῦ εἰς ἱκανόν. τί πλῆθος· ἔφην αὐτῶι. ἀπ[ήν]τησεν γέγ[ρ]αφε δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ Τιμοκράτει ­τῶι ἐπιστάτηι.

Year …, Phamenoth 18. Notification to Horos, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of Arsinoë near Sebennytos, and to the epistatai of Karanis.44 [4] On the 8th of the same month, I arrived with my attendants in the aforementioned village so as to perform the grain-­measurement for Posidonius the sitologos as ordered.45 Examining the [8] grain in the sacks, we discovered that a fair amount of plundering of the grain had 43 On

this relationship, and also the relationship between the Ptolemaic archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬see Bauschatz (2007a) 203–7. 44 Horos appears only ­here. 45 Sitologoi: see P.Erasm. II for an archive of texts connected with Arsinoite sitologoi in the second century b.c., and pp8–13 for a detailed description of the transportation of tax grain to Alexandria.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

301

occurred. “How much?” I said to him [i.e., Posidonios]. And he replied that he had written (about?) the same thing to Timokrates the epistates. ‫( ﷴ‬SB XVI 12813.1– 46 11 [Arsinoite, II b.c.?])

This letter, on the surface a simple notification of grain theft to some officials, actually has some small, unusual twists. For instance, the letter writer (a man named Pausanias, without title [line 12]) closes his notification by explicitly addressing it to Timokrates, epistates‫( ﷴ‬line 12), but begins his report by casting a wider addressee net: Horos, archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ of Arsinoë near Sebennytos and the epistatai of Karanis. Had he composed multiple copies of this notification with the broad addressee-­list at top, and then personalized each at bottom? Had he simply changed his mind about who should receive the report by the end of the letter? Particularly unusual is the mention of the epistatai of Karanis, as there would not normally have been more than one of these officials in office in a given village at any given time. Had there recently been some turnover in the office? If so, Pausanias might have not been sure about which epistates‫ ﷴ‬to contact – the outgoing or incoming – and thus have included both in his letter. Yet he specifies only one – Timokrates – in the body of his letter and then again at the very bottom. Also puzzling here is Pausanias’s decision to break into direct speech in his account of the discovery of the grain graft. Such a construction is unusual in this type of notification. Did Pausanias know that his report would be somewhat standard and lifeless, and therefore seek to inject a bit of liveliness into it? One can only guess. Other texts provide additional hints of the full range of tasks performed by archiphylakitai in the realm of agriculture. As one document reveals, archiphylakitai could also authorize the transfer of produce from one farmer’s allotment to another’s (P.Köln VI 274  [Moithymis, III b.c.]). In addition, archiphylakitai may have been responsible for carrying out on-­site agricultural inspections, to judge from a fragmentary report of the grammateus geo‫ﷳ‬rgo‫ﷳ‬n, including a list of names (P.Tebt. III.2 927 [Tebtynis, ca. 140 b.c.?]).47 The document seems to have concerned 46 See

also P.Genova III 95 (Arsinoite, 216 b.c.?), where an archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ received word that an itemized list of village threshing floors had been sent to him. 47 Grammateus geor‫ ﷳ‬gon‫ ﷳ‬: P.Heid. VI 382 p. 151, n. on 16–­17.

302

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

investigations to be carried out on a certain class of land by various officials, among these an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and eleven genematophylakes. That ‫ﷴ‬ the farmers note the necessity of leaving behind a number of people to serve as phylakes in the village suggests that some harvest produce needed protection. The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬was the primary Ptolemaic police official with administrative powers involved in the activities of the genematophylakia. ‫ﷴ‬ Evidence that epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n were likewise engaged is thin and only suggestive. As mentioned earlier, a second-­century regulation concerning the security of embankments may suggest that the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n had a role in supplying protection for agricultural infrastructure before or during the genematophylakia (P.Tebt. III.1 706 [Tebtynis, 171 b.c.]). ‫ﷴ‬ But the text is too fragmentary to permit further conclusions. The only additional support for a possible connection between this official and the annual guarding of crops comes from a register of official correspondence from the second century. One document in this collection, a copy of a letter sent to an epistates, ‫ ﷴ‬seems to contain a request that the epistates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n be present for grain measurement (P.Tebt. III.1 793.iii.19– iv.6  [Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.]). Unfortunately, specifics on the possible involvement of the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n in this activity are lacking owing to the lacunose nature of the text. While higher police officials did not actively engage in agricultural security activities, phylakitai did.48 We see phylakitai asked by villagers and officials to provide protection for animals and produce. In one case, a tax collector requested that the phylakitai watch over certain payments for the stephanos tax until they had been transferred to the crown (BGU VIII 1851.1–15  [Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.]).49 In another, a praktor‫ﷳ‬ (debt collector) asked that a subordinate obtain a receipt for some fodder and command the phylakitai to provide protection for a number of herds (P.Cair.Zen. I 59136.1–6 [Arsinoite, 256 b.c.]).50 Phylakitai also provided security for agricultural infrastructure. A regulation for the 48 Chapter 2. 49 Stephanoi were

“extraordinary crown taxes”: von Reden (2007) 93. See also P.Tebt. I 61B, pp223–4 n. on 254. 50 See also BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.), where a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬was asked to guard some ktene ‫( ﷴ ﷴ‬flocks); VIII 1818 (Herakleopolite, 60–59 b.c.), in which an

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

303

security of embankments mentions the stationing of phylakitai. The police officials seem to have been appointed for guard duty both day and night, but the document is too fragmentary to provide more specific information.51 Such details might prove useful for the successful completion of other police business. For example, in one instance a tax collector and a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬patrolling some reservoirs came upon and arrested a thief (P.Tebt. III.1 733 [Tebtynis, 143–142 b.c.]; Chapter 5).52 Phylakitai were also occasionally employed in land measurement, to judge from one text, a notification to the phylakitai from an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬P.Hib. I 75 [Herakleopolite, 232 b.c.]; Chapter 2). The phylakitai were to take the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus and measure an ­allotment, making sure that no more land had been released to a cultivator than had been authorized. As mentioned earlier, when it came time for grain to be harvested, transported, measured, and stored, the phylakitai and other individuals selected for the various elements of the genematophylakia were required ‫ﷴ‬ to submit written oaths of office. These oaths were intended to ensure that Ptolemaic agricultural machinery ran smoothly. A surviving cheirographia phylakitike‫ ﷴ‬provides an idea of what one of these oaths may have looked like:

Ἀσκληπιδει. χειρογραφία φυ(λακιτική)· εἶ μὴ παρειληφέναι τὰ ὑπογεγρ(αμμένα)

unknown official was asked to have the phylakitai protect crops; and PSI IV 344 (Philadelphia, 255 b.c.), official correspondence concerning collection of the chom ‫ ﷳ‬atikon and phylakitikon and phylakitai standing guard over pasturage and crops. In P.Cair.Zen. IV 59610 (?, III b.c.), officials of unknown rank seem to suggest that a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬was unwilling to supply them with the Egyptian phylakes necessary for the guarding of some vineyards. For more on the detaining activities of phylakitai, see Chapter 5; on praktor‫ ﷳ‬es in Ptolemaic Egypt, see the entry (“Praktor. II. Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt”) in Cancik and Schneider (2002–10) 11:777–8. 51 P.Tebt. III.1 706.15–18 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.): [ἀ]ποτάξας φυλακίτας συνοπ[τ  ]|[ca. 14]ηις. οἷς ἐπιμελὲς ἔσται ἐπισκοπ[εῖν] | [ca. 14]σε δι᾽ ἔτους διὰ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέ[ρας] | [ca. 9 καὶ ἐ]άν τινες ἀφίστωνται, διασημα[ιν  ]. The end of the document reveals that the text concerned the protection of dykes (28): [ ca. ? ] περὶ τῆς τῶν χω(μάτων) ἀσφαλείας. 52 For phylakitai protecting agricultural infrastructure, see also PSI IV 344 (Philadelphia, 255 b.c.), where a tax collector was urged to involve the phylakitai in the safeguarding (?) of irrigation implements.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

304 4 6a 8

πλήθηι καὶ μηθενὶ καταπροήσεσ(θαι) μηθὲν κατὰ μηδεμίαν παρεύρεσειν  νι ⟦τους καρπους απενεγκασθαι τω υπογεγρα(μμενω)⟧ ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον λάβ[ω]μεν γράμμ[α]τα καὶ \ἐπισταλῇ ἡμ[ε]ῖν τοῖς ὡς καθήκει   / ⟦    ⟧ καὶ φυ(λακὴν) ἀλ[λο]τρ[ί]ων κλή(ρων) συντήιρησιν ἀπὸ τ[ο]ῦ βελτίτου καὶ τ    ἄλλους πα [ ]μασικ( ) πρός τε τὰ ἐπέτεια καὶ τοὺς [ ]υμ   [ ] εὐορκοῦντι μέν μοι εὖ εἴη ἐφι[ορκοῦν]-­ τ[ι δὲ] τ[ὰ ἐναντ]ία· συν   [     ]

To Asklepiades. Guarding oath: We declare that we have received the aforementioned [4] amounts and that we will not release any of it to anyone, under any pretext, [6a] unless we first receive written instructions and there is sent to us … and protection of the allotments of others, [8] the best possible preservation, and … others … for the annual crops and the. … If I swear truly, may I prosper; but if I swear falsely, may the opposite things occur. … (P.Tebt. II 282A.2–11 [Tebtynis, II b.c.])

The contents of the oath are perhaps not all that surprising: the swearer swore that he had received a certain amount of material, that he would not release any of it without written instructions, and that he would provide the best possible protection so as to ensure delivery to the crown of its due. Of interest here are questions about the timing and applicability of the oath, as the title of the oath is potentially ­misleading. Cheirographia phylakitike‫ ﷴ‬could be understood to mean simply “oath pertaining to guarding,” but it could also be understood as “oath pertaining to a phylakite‫ﷴ‬s.” Here, the content of the oath itself makes it clear that it was not an oath of office for the latter official and thus would not have been sworn when the phylakite‫ﷴ‬s was hired (unless, of course, a man were hired as a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬at the moment when the performance of the duties outlined in the oath were job one; but such swearing would thus be coincidental). That phylakitai performed many of the duties described in the oath is clear, but we have also seen that phylakitai had numerous additional tasks that are not mentioned here. It seems likely that anyone playing an important protective role in the annual guarding of crops – phylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬phylax, or otherwise – might have reasonably been expected to swear such an oath, though the document’s fragmentary condition makes broad applicability of the oath uncertain.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

305

A group that would have likely sworn oaths similar to the preceding one were the crop guards, or genematophylakes, who provided a large ‫ﷴ‬ 53 portion of the labor base for the genematophylakia. Documents exist ‫ﷴ‬ that shed light on the activities of these officials. Unlike phylakitai, who applied for their posts, it appears that genematophylakes were not ‫ﷴ‬ only recruited but also impressed on a seasonal basis from Egyptian settlements. As we have seen, lists of potential “candidates” for the job of genematophylax were drawn up: in the letter to Hermias, the dioikete ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ﷴ‬ requested such a list (Chrest.Wilck. 331.12–16 [Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.]). The nominees were then notified of their appointment, perhaps generally by letter, as suggested by a notification to two men who had been assigned to work as genematophylakes on the kleroi ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬around the village of Kolonoura (P.Mich. I 73  [Philadelphia, III b.c.]; Chapter  3). Many, if not most, of these men were native Egyptians.54 This was ­perhaps the result of a government policy designed to decrease friction between the primarily native cultivators and the government representatives who received their grain. It was doubtless less unpleasant for Egyptians to hand over their crops to officials who bore a physical resemblance to them as opposed to foreign representatives of the occupation government.55 Sometimes phylakitai were assigned to the post of genematophylax for a period of time. In one case, four phylakitai ‫ﷴ‬ assigned to the genematophylakia by the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the meris did ‫ﷴ‬ not show up for duty, in spite of having taken their oaths of office. Official notification ensued:

Ἀπολ[λ]ώνιος ὁ ἡγούμενος τῶν ἐν Ἰβιῶνι (Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) φυλακιτῶν Μεστ[ασύτμει χαίρειν. Διο(?)]-­ τίμου Ε  υπιμίου καὶ Πετοσίρι⟨ο⟩ς τοῦ Ψενήσιος πρεσβυτέρου καὶ Π[ετοσίριος νεωτέρου]

53 For more on genematophylakes, see Chapter ­3. ‫ﷴ‬ 54 Of the twenty-­four genematophylakes listed in

the Pros.Ptol. (nos. 4903–26), ‫ﷴ‬ at least sixteen have Egyptian names. See, e.g., P.Tebt. III.2 927.10–15 (Tebtynis, ca. 140 b.c.?), which lists the following genematophylakes: Πάσιτος  ‫ﷴ‬ [ ca. ? ] | Πετεσούχου τοῦ Κολύλιος, Πκᾶμις | Νεχθενίβιος, Ὧρος Πετοσίριος, Ὧρ[ος] | Ψενθώτου, Τοθοῆς Ὥρου, Πᾶσις | Μαρρέους, Ἁρβῆχις Ὥρου, Πᾶσις Πετ[ ca. ? ], | Ὧρος Πάσιτος, Εὐνόου τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου. 55 The same sort of policy may also have applied to thesaurophylakes: see the ‫ﷴ‬ ensuing discussion.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

306 4 8

καὶ Πετοσίρι⟨ο⟩ς τοῦ Ὥρου τῶν ἐκ Τεβτύνεως φυλακιτῶν προχειρ[ισθέντων ὑπὸ] Πτολεμαίου τοῦ τῆς μερίδος ἀρχιφυλακίτου τῶν καὶ χειρογρα[φησάντων βασιλικὸν] ὅρκον ἔσεσθαι πρὸς τῆι γενηματοφυλακίᾳ τοῦ κθ (ἔτους) τοῦ προκ[ειμένου Ἰβιῶνος] καὶ Ξυλίτιδος οὐκ ἀπήντηκεν Πετοσῖρις Ψενήσιος νε[ώτερος ἐπὶ τὴν τή]-­ ρησιν. ἐπεὶ οὖν πρ[ο]ορώμεθα μήποτε καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἐγλίπωσιν τ[ὴν τήρησιν μηδεμιᾶς] ἐπιστροφῆς γινομένης, ᾤμεθα δεῖν γράψαι ἵν’, ἐὰν φαίνηται, ἀν[ενέγκῃς πρὸς       ] τῶν διαδόχων καὶ ἐπι{ε}μελητὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ λόγος τῶν [ ca. 15 ] πρὸς αὐτὸν γένηται. ἔρρω[σο. (ἔτους) κθ        ]

Apollonios, hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n of the phylakitai in Ibion Eikosipentarouron, to Mestasytmis, ‫ﷴ‬ greetings.56 Diotimos, son of E..upimios and Petosiris son of Psenesis the elder, and Petosiris the younger, and Petosiris son of Horos, (all) phylakitai from Tebtynis assigned by [4] Ptolemaios, archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬of the meris, and having made a written declaration on royal oath that they would be present at the genematophylakia for ‫ﷴ‬ year 29 in the aforementioned Ibion Eikosipentarouron and (at) Xylitis, Petosiris, younger son of Psenesis, did not appear for the guarding. Since, therefore, we are taking pains lest the others also abandon the watch if no [8] action is taken, we thought it necessary to write, so that, if it seems best, you may make report about him to X, of the diadochoi and epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬and so that there may be an account of the … against him. Farewell. Year 29, … (P.Tebt. III.1 731.1–11 [Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?])

Here we may find confirmation that the cheirographia phylakitike‫ ﷴ‬discussed previously (P.Tebt. II 282A.2–11 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]) was, in fact, 56 Apollonios:

Pros.Ptol. 4616. On the hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, see Chapter 2. The ‫ﷴ‬ recipient of this document, a certain Mestasytmis, is perhaps to be identified with the man of the same name in P.Tebt. III.1 733.6–7 (Tebtynis, 143–142  b.c.). The latter Mestasytmis was the stepson (progonos) of a tax official with the title τοῦ [ἐ]ξειληφότος τὴ[ν δ]ιά[θε]σιν ρ[    ] (4).

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

307

the oath taken by a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬before he was temporarily assigned the position of genematophylax. If not, something similar had occurred in ‫ﷴ‬ this case before one of the swearers had decided to take off. The reason for his doing so is not expressly stated in the letter and is not otherwise immediately clear. On the surface, one might conclude that the crop­guarding duties of a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬would have proved to be less dangerous on a daily basis than some of the other police tasks performed by these officials. On the other hand, the boredom associated with standing guard for (ostensibly) long periods of time might not have appealed to Petosiris the younger. Regardless of the reason for his departure, the leader of the crop-­guarding phylakitai in Ibion Eikosipentarouron – a man with the title hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, probably an intermediary between ‫ﷴ‬ the phylakitai and the archiphylakites – ‫ ﷴ‬decided to make an official report so as to (hopefully) discourage copycat activity. The fact that he brings up such a possibility suggests it had happened before. As we have seen, once they were ready to guard grain, genematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ were required to submit written oaths of office.57 When they assumed their posts, there was a set number of tasks they might be required to perform. First, they collected and transported grain to state threshing floors. In performing this task they sometimes had the help of other town or village officials: an agricultural report highlights an instance in which a kom had transported ‫ ﷳ‬arches, ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus, and some genematophylakes ‫ ﷴ‬kom ‫ﷴ‬ unsifted sesame to a threshing floor (P.Tebt. III.2 1057 [Oxyrhyncha?, 170–116 b.c.]; Chapter  3).58 To aid them in the collection of grain, genematophylakes might employ written records. In one case, a ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ and some genematophylakes notified the kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateus that they had ‫ﷴ‬ received a report on the crops and a list of landholders (P.Tebt. III.2 922.1–5 [Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.]). Second, they issued receipts to taxpayers. 57 Oaths: Chrest.Wilck. 331.52–4 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), where the necessity of

duplicate oaths from genematophylakes was specified; P.Tebt. II 282 (Tebtynis, ‫ﷴ‬ II b.c.), an oath of a phylakites‫ )?( ﷴ‬for the protection of crops; III.1 731 (Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?), a report concerning dereliction of duty by four phylakitai who had sworn oaths to serve as genematophylakes. ‫ﷴ‬ 58 See also Chrest.Wilck. 337 (Arsinoite, 222–221 b.c.), in which petitioners mentioned that some genematophylakes had transferred their grain and were ‫ﷴ‬ guarding it in a temple.

308

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Again, other officials sometimes participated in this process. One document reveals that the ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬could assist genematophylakes in perform‫ﷴ‬ ing this task (P.Tebt. IV 1135.1–7 [Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.]).59 After this, the genematophylakes guarded the grain until the financial needs of the ‫ﷴ‬ government had been met. A genematophylax did not necessarily have ‫ﷴ‬ to receive a receipt before he began to protect agriculture in earnest, as we learn from one text, a letter to a crop guard who was immediately deployed to the shaking of sesame on an allotment (P.Mich. XVIII 769 [Trikomia, 200 b.c.?]).60 Genematophylakes may have been necessary ‫ﷴ‬ not only to watch over grain at threshing floors but also to supervise other harvest activities.61 Aside from their main duties, genematophylakes might occasionally be ‫ﷴ‬ called on to provide security for areas in which financial wrongdoing connected to grain had been detected. In one case, the genematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ were informed of the activities of a defaulting ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬and perhaps ordered to keep an eye on him (P.Tebt. III.1 711.2–20  [Tebtynis, ca. 125 b.c.]). In another, a ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus seems to have requested that the genematophylakes make an arrest or confiscate something before secu‫ﷴ‬ rity for rent was obtained from a village (P.Tebt. III.1 715 [Tebtynis, II b.c.]). Genematophylakes may not always have embraced the duties of ‫ﷴ‬ their profession with honor and enthusiasm: we see them accused of shirking their duties and leaving cultivators with worm-­eaten grain (PSI V 490.6–15 [Philadelphia, 257 b.c.]) and failing to show up for duty (P.Tebt. III.1 731 [Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?]). Instances of dereliction of duty among genematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ are not surprising, given what must have been the limited availability of labor during the harvest season. The lack of documentation for payment of genematophylakes suggests that the post was liturgical and thus ‫ﷴ‬ may have created economic hardship for those appointed to it.62 59 See

also P.Gen. II 86C (Bacchias, 187 or 163 b.c.?), a receipt from a genematophylax for payment (in grain) of the statue tax (eikonon‫ ﷳ‬eisphora). ‫ﷴ‬ 60 Though he is not given a title here, the guard was probably a genematophylax: ‫ﷴ‬ see P.Mich. XVIII pp99–100 and p. 103 n. on 12. 61 See also PSI V 490.6–15 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.). 62 See also P.Mich. I 73 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), in which two men receive notice (from an archiphylakites?) ‫ ﷴ‬that they have been assigned duty as genematophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ (Chapter 3).

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

309

Thesaurophylakes, the protectors of granaries, also had important roles ‫ﷴ‬ 63 to play in the successful execution of the annual genematophylakia. Much ‫ﷴ‬ of what we know about this group derives from tax rolls, accounts, and population lists. Three tax rolls list thesaurophylakes among the taxpay‫ﷴ‬ 64 ing inhabitants of certain Arsinoite villages. Two texts document pay65 ment of thesaurophylakes. These officials seem to have been employed ‫ﷴ‬ for more than just protecting thesauroi, though this task must have been ‫ﷴ‬ chief among their regularly assigned duties, as suggested by a letter to Zenon (P.Cair.Zen. III 59509 [Philadelphia, III b.c.]; Chapter 3). In this instance a granary guard urged Zenon, his boss, to obtain an additional granary, as the one Zenon possessed was not large enough to contain the year’s grain. This case, as well as one other, highlights an important fact: that not all thesauroi (granaries) or, accordingly, thesaurophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ belonged to the government.66 As was the case with other types of phylax, thesaurophylakes might serve in a private capacity as protectors of ‫ﷴ‬ personal property. But private and public thesaurophylakes were distinctly ‫ﷴ‬ different. While the latter was a specific official with state-­sanctioned responsibility for the reception, protection, and transmission of grain, the former might be any private employee charged with the supervision of a storage shed filled with crops. The flexibility of the Greek language allowed both men to use the same title.67 The activities of government thesaurophylakes generally concerned the ‫ﷴ‬ reception, transmission, and return of grain. A taxpayer might deliver his produce to a thesaurophylax, who would then provide the deposi‫ﷴ‬ 68 tor with a receipt. In advance of grain payments, the thesaurophylax ‫ﷴ‬ 63 See also Chapter 3. 64 P.Count 23.86–7 (Arsinoite,

254–231 b.c.); 26.3 (Trikomia, 254–231 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 90.40 (Tebtynis, I b.c.). 65 P.Cair.Zen. II 59292.155 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.) and P.Tebt. III.2 850.53 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.). 66 See also P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), in which a ­petitioner noted that she had made a deposit of grain with the thesaurophylax ‫ﷴ‬ of the private thesauros of a certain Antiphilos. ‫ﷴ‬ 67 For other types of privately hired phylakes, see Chapter 3. 68 See P.Tebt. III.2 957 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), in which petitioners noted that they had deposited grain with a thesaurophylax and had been issued a receipt ‫ﷴ‬ (Chapter 3). For private granaries, at least, terms of return might be worked

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

310

might be the recipient of a detailed list of grain that had been assessed or collected from taxpayers, such as that preserved in P.Tebt. III.2 862 (Letopolis, II b.c.). The prosopography suggests that most thesaurophylakes ‫ﷴ‬ were native Egyptians.69 The practice of entrusting the protection of state granaries to predominantly Egyptian officials was perhaps a carefully calculated policy, as may also have been the case with the selection 70 of genematophylakes. There is also evidence – in the form of the follow‫ﷴ‬ ing text, a list of grain amounts received – that the position might be combined with other posts, generally those held by Egyptians:

ιθ, ἐν Νείλου πό(λει) ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, οὗ θη(σαυρο)φύ(λακες) Διονύσιος Διονυ(σίου) ὃς καὶ [ ]της Φανήσιος κω(μογραμματεύς?), Αμα ης Ὀννώφριος κωμάρχ(ης),   χυθης Πετεμιύσιος γρ(αμματεὺς) γε(ωργῶν), Μεγχῆς Σοκονώπιος.

19th:71 in Neilopolis and on behalf of it, where the thesaurophylakes are Dionysios, ‫ﷴ‬ son of Dionysios, also known as .[.]tes, son of Phanesis, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus; and Ama.es, son of Onnophris, ko‫ﷳ‬marches; ‫ ﷴ‬and …chuthes, son of Petemiusis, grammateus geo‫ﷳ‬rgo‫ﷳ‬n; and Menches, son of Soknopis. (P.Tebt. III.2 848.1–3 [Arsinoite, II b.c.])

In consideration of the three officials with additional titles listed here, the original editors of this text suggested that the thesaurophylakes “were ‫ﷴ‬ a small board on which the regular village officials were strongly represented” (p. 52 n. on 1–3), but also stressed “that there was a φύλαξ proper permanently stationed at the granary … and that the name of θησαυροφύλαξ was generally applied to him alone” (p. 52 n. on 1–3). These conjectures are perfectly reasonable, though the bulk of the evidence reveals that most men designated as thesaurophylakes were only ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakes and nothing else. This document is an exceptional case, ‫ﷴ‬ and while it may reflect a broader truth about a two-­tiered thesaurophylax ‫ﷴ‬ out after a deposit was made: P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), a petition to a strategos ‫ ﷴ‬concerning a deposit of grain with the thesaurophylax of a private the sauros and a violation of the terms of release ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ (Chapter 3). 69 See CPR XIII pp87–9, especially the list of officeholders on p. 89. 70 As suggested earlier in this chapter. 71 The “19th” (ιθ) here is the day of an unidentified ­month.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

311

system, it is perhaps more likely that what we see on display here is outside of common practice. The Ptolemies employed police and other security forces for protective details throughout the Egyptian countryside. The phylakitai, phylakes, and other officials who carried out these security duties performed a broad range of functions, from defending border regions and insecure roads to watching over waterways and infrastructure. We see here the desire of the Ptolemies for security in Egyptian towns and villages to be managed by officials in these same settlements. The recruitment of special forces, among these eremophylakes, for security details ‫ﷴ‬ also demonstrates just how seriously these duties were taken. The most crucial protective roles played by the Ptolemaic police were in the fertile areas along the Nile where they served as the supervisors of the genematophylakia. Police were entrusted with important tasks crucial to ‫ﷴ‬ the financial well-­being of the state. Here as nowhere else do we see the active involvement of the Alexandrian administration in Egyptian towns and villages. Through their ties to the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬financial officials (among these the oikonomos and epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s) ‫ ﷴ‬relayed orders to the phylakitai and phylakes in charge of collecting grain in Egyptian villages. The same officers who enjoyed great autonomy in arresting criminals and solving crimes became carefully supervised tools of the state at harvest time.

Coercion

In addition to executing arrests, protecting crops, and investigating wrongdoing, Ptolemaic police were also called on to carry out other tasks for which coercion and force might be necessary. Police officers regularly appeared at public events, among these government auctions and trials, where their presence was intended to keep crowds under control and help maintain order. Law enforcement officials were also among those notified (via entolai – circulars – from other government agents) of appointments to office and developments in the financial sphere and encouraged to assist tax farmers and other government operatives. Perhaps the most important coercive function performed by the Ptolemaic police was in the area of tax collection. Here the phylakitai

312

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

(and their direct superiors, archiphylakitai) were crucial. They often made personal visits to the homes of those with outstanding debts to the government to exact payment. They also sometimes extracted payment themselves. Though they were at the disposal of locals for crime prevention and solving, the Ptolemaic police were also the officials most commonly called on by the central government to exert pressure on the Egyptian people to obey and behave. In the modern world, security and order are of prime importance at public events where money and goods change hands. It was no different in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Ptolemies regularly held auctions of confiscated or forfeited properties and other goods. Archiphylakitai, epistatai, epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, and phrourarchoi all appeared at these events, though in no case do we know the specific functions they filled.72 Sometimes more than one police official was present at a government auction, as a handful of records from such auctions reveals.73 Police officials ­occasionally served as bailiffs at civil trials. The minutes of a Krokodilopolite trial over a boundary dispute note that an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and a phrourarchos had been present at a previous official examination (not held by either) and that the same officials were present at a subsequent trial (Chrest. Mitt. 32 [Arsinoite, 181 b.c.]; Chapter 3). The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬had been 72 Archiphylakitai:

BGU VI 1219.50 (Hermopolite, II b.c.); 1222.61, 74–­5 (Hermopolite, 144 b.c.); P.Haun. I 11 exterior.ii.7 (Diospolis Magna, 182 b.c.); P.Tebt. III.2 871.5–6 (Krokodilopolis, 158 b.c.) and 1071.6 (Tebtynis, 158 b.c.), both from the same original; UPZ II 219.15 (Thebes, 130 b.c.); epistatai: UPZ II 219.15 and 221.i.10 (both Thebes, both 130 b.c.); epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: P.Ryl. II 253 verso.ii.5 (Hermoupolis Magna, 142 b.c.?); phrourarchoi: BGU VI 1219.50–1 (Hermopolite, II b.c.); Chrest.Wilck. 162.i.11 (Pathyris, 186 b.c.); P.Haun. I 11 exterior.ii.7 (Diospolis Magna, 182 b.c.). In P.Lond. III 1200 (Diospolis Magna, 209 b.c.) it was noted that a tax payment, most likely for the sale or mortgage of a house, had been carried out in accordance with the orders of an archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬No other evidence for a similar duty among other Ptolemaic police officials survives. 73 See BGU VI 1219.50–1 (Hermopolite, II b.c.), where an archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ and a phrourarchos were present for a government sale of property; BGU VI 1222.61 and 74–5 (Hermopolite, 144 b.c.), where two separate archiphylakitai and hyparchiphylakitai were present at two separate sales of property; and UPZ II 219.15 (Thebes, 130 b.c.), where an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and an epistates‫ﷴ‬ were recorded as being present for the auction of a forfeited Asklepieion.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

313

assigned the task of administering an oath, though the context of the oath is unclear.74 While the evidence for the activities of the Ptolemaic police at civil trials and auctions provides few indications of what they actually did, the data for their duties as collectors of tax arrears paint a much clearer picture. Government circulars (entolai) and notifications from tax collectors and other financial officials to law enforcement and civil administrators on matters connected to the fiscal well-­being of the state demonstrate that the enforcement of economic regulations was among the most important duties of the Ptolemaic police. For the most part, these documents addressed recent (and often major) changes in the administration of the state’s finances or changes in official appointments. Archiphylakitai, epistatai, epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, eremophylakes, phrourarchoi, ‫ﷴ‬ 75 and phylakitai received such notifications. Circulars of this sort were usually copied and distributed to multiple officials and served a number of functions.76 Entolai informed their recipients of the names of tax collectors and other financial officials, specified new fiscal regulations, and occasionally addressed reports of specific problems with agricultural and 74 1–5:

[το]ῦ δ᾽ ὅρκου γρα[φ]έντος | [ca. 20]ν ὄντος δὲ καὶ παρὰ το[ῦ] κωμο|[γραμματέως, καὶ προσταχ(?)]θέντος Ἑρ[μο]κράτει τῶι ἀ[ρχ]ιφυλα|[κίτηι, τὸν ὅρκον ἐπιτ]ελεσθῆναι, τοῦ δὲ χρόνου ἐν ὧι | [τὸν ὅρκον ἔδει ἐπιτελεῖσ]θαι μήπ[ω] ἐνεστηκότος. For the activities of police officials at criminal trials, see the previous chapter. 75 Archiphylakitai: e.g., P.Tebt. III.1 708 (Tebtynis, III b.c.); 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); SB XII 11078 (Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.); epistatai: e.g., P.Grenf. II 37 (Pathyris, 108 b.c.); P.Tebt. I 35 (Arsinoite, 111 b.c.); SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?); epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 47 (Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.); P.Gen. III 132 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.); SB XXII 15767 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), a memo requesting that an entole‫ ﷴ‬be sent; eremophylakes: P.Tebt. III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.); III.2 903 (Arsinoite, ‫ﷴ‬ II b.c.); 904 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.); phrourarchoi: e.g., C.Ord.Ptol.2 47 (Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.); 62 (Memphis, 99 b.c.); P.Rain.Cent. 45 (?, 197–190 b.c.); phylakitai: e.g., P.Rain.Cent. 46 (Arsinoite, II b.c.); P.Tebt. III.1 708 (Tebtynis, III b.c.); SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?). 76 For instance, P.Tebt. III.2 903 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), a circular from a contractor concerning unproductive land, was addressed to the archiphylakitai, epistatai, eremophylakes, machimoi, and other officials in Berenikis Thesmophorou ‫ﷴ‬ (Chapter 3).

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

314

economic issues in the vicinity.77 The officials who sent entolai generally asked the recipients to provide assistance to government officials in the performance of their duties. Much of the time police were simply asked to use their clout to help out.78 Where tax revenues were concerned, however, this assistance might involve the apprehension and transmission to the proper authorities of those who had been caught violating the exclusive rights of the tax collector to gather his income, as here: 4 8

Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Ἡ[ ca. ? ] οἱ ἐξειληφότες τὴν διάθ[εσιν] τῶν χαρτῶν τοῦ Ἀρσ[ι]νοίτου ν[ομοῦ] τῶι ἐν Τεβτύνει ἐπιστά[τηι] καὶ ἀρχιφυλακί[τη]ι καὶ τοῖς [ἄλλοις τοῖς] τὰ βασιλικὰ πραγματευ[ομένοις] χαίρειν. Ἁρμιύσιον τὸν τ[ῆι ὠνῆι (?)] [ὑπηρετοῦντα (?) ἀπὸ το]ῦ νῦν τ[ετάχαμεν (?)] [πρ]οπραγμα[τεύεσθαι τ]ὴν χαρτ[ηράν.]

77 Officials

named: e.g., P.Tebt. I 40 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), a letter to a basilikos grammateus from a collector of the beer and natron tax asking that the former write an entole‫ ﷴ‬to a number of Kerkeosirite officials; P.Tebt. III.1 708 (Tebtynis, III b.c.), an entole‫ ﷴ‬to officials in four nomes concerning a man who was being sent out to collect owed revenue (?); SB XII 11078 (Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.), a letter to a number of Tebtynite officials requesting assistance for an agent dispatched to collect the papyrus tax; regulations: P.Tebt. I 35 (Arsinoite, 111 b.c.), a circular regulating the price of myrrh in the Polemon meris; trouble: e.g., P.Heid. VI 362 (Herakleopolite, 226 b.c.), a pair of letters from the oikonomos to the Herakleopolite archiphylakitai and phylakitai concerning the illegal migration of bees, beekeepers, and cows out of the nome; P.Lille 3.71–85 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.), an entole‫ ﷴ‬from the oikonomos concerning a debtor topogrammateus who had fled; SB XXII 15767 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), a memo requesting that an unnamed official write to a number of police agents concerning reports of people in arrears with tax payments. 78 See also, e.g., P.Mich. XVIII 770 (Trikomia, 197 b.c.?), an entole‫ ﷴ‬to phylakitai (among others, lost in lacuna) concerning a tax collector and asking that the recipients provide him with the requisite aid; and SB XII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?), a circular concerning the appointment of a collector for the wool tax and asking that the letter’s recipients aid him in his activities (Chapter 2).

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle 12 16 20

315

[καλῶς οὖν ποιήσετε] συνερ[γοῦντες] [αὐ]τῶ[ι προ]θύ[μω]ς, καὶ ἐάν [τινας (?)] παραδιδῷ ἀσυντάκτο[υς ὄντας (?)] ἢ καὶ χρωμένους ἀχαρά[κτοις] τούτους παραλαμβάνο[ντες] {παραλαμβάνοντες} σ[ὺν τοῖς] ἐπιτίμοις ἐξαποστέ[λλετε] παραχρῆμα ἐφ’ οὓς καθή[κει] ὅπως δύνωνται ἀνεμ[ποδίστως] ἐκπληροῦν τὰ βασιλικά. ἔρρωσθε. (ἔτους) α [ ca. ? ]

Ammonios and Ammonios and He[ – – ], those who have received the contract for the distribution of papyrus sheets for the Arsinoite nome [4] to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬in Tebtynis, and (to) the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬and (to) the others in charge of royal business, greetings. We have appointed (?) Harmiusios, [8] our assistant for the contract (?), to administer papyrus business on our behalf from this point on. Therefore, you will do well to work cooperatively with him wholeheartedly, and if [12] he hands over to you any people who are not registered, or are even using unstamped papyrus, taking hold of these people along with their [16] contraband, send them immediately to those concerned with such matters, so that they [i.e., those concerned] may be able to fulfill their obligations to the crown unhindered. [20] Farewell. Year 1. [ – – ] (SB XII 11078 [Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.])

Of immediate interest here is the addressee-­list of the letter: the three papyrus contractors explicitly mention the two top-­level police officials of the village – the archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s and the epistate‫ﷴ‬s – and then use a generic catchall to denote anyone else potentially involved in their business (5–6: τοῖς [ἄλλοις τοῖς] | τὰ βασιλικὰ πραγματευ[ομένοις], “the others in charge of royal business”). Thus, it is clear from the very beginning that the primary concerns of the three writers are in the realm of law enforcement. The tone of the letter lies somewhere between that of a stern official instruction to a subordinate and a polite request for assistance from a colleague, and this is understandable: the contractors were not regular village officials in positions superior to the epistates‫ ﷴ‬and the archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬so a certain degree of kindness when addressing them was necessary. At the same time, as monopoly superintendants, they represented the central government and had as their

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

316

primary concern the protection of state revenues, so there was definitely some force behind their request for assistance. Occasionally, circulars like the preceding one were employed to inform police of the necessity of protecting individuals or their financial contributions to the crown. In one such letter, the king and queen asked that strategoi, ‫ ﷴ‬phrourarchoi, epistatai phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, archiphylakitai, and others (in that order) provide protection for some priests and their revenues from embezzlement (C.Ord.Ptol.2 47 [Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.]). In another, the sovereigns forwarded a copy of a petition they had received from the chief of an embalmer’s guild with instructions for the recipients – the strategos, phrourarchos, epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, archiphylakites, ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬and other Memphite officials – to see to it that the petitioner and his home be protected from those who had been harassing him: [β]ασιλεὺ[ς Π]τολεμαῖος ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Ἀλέξα[ν]δρος καὶ βασ[ίλισσα Βερενί]κ[η] [ἡ] ἀδελφὴ τῶι στρατη[γ]ῶι τοῦ Μεμφίτου κ[αὶ] τῶι φρουράρχωι [καὶ τ]ῶι ἐπισ[τά]τηι [τ]ῶν φυλα[κιτ]ῶν καὶ ἀρχιφυλακίτηι καὶ τῶι ἐπὶ [τ]ῶν προσόδ[ων] καὶ βασιλι[κ]ῶι 4 [γρ]αμματεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐπιστάταις τῶν ἱερ[ῶ]ν καὶ ἀρχ{ι}ιερεῦσι καὶ] τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς [τ]ὰ βασιλικὰ πραγματευομένοις χαίρει[ν]. τῆς δεδομέν[ης] ἡμῖν ἐντεύ-­ [ξ]εως ὑπὸ Πετήσιος, περὶ ὧν προφέρεται [π]αρ’ ἕκαστο[ν σ]κύλλεσθ[α]ι [ὑ]π’ ἐνίων, ἀντίγραφ[ο]ν ὑπόκειται. γινέσθ[ω ο]ὖν ἕκαστα [κα]θάπερ ἀξιοῖ. 8 (hand 2) ἔρρωσ[θε. (hand 1) (ἔτους) ις Δίου] κθ Θῶ[υ]θ κθ. [β]ασιλεῖ Πτο[λεμ]αίωι τῶι κ[α]ὶ Ἀλεξάνδρ[ω]ι θεῶι Φ[ιλομήτορι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Βερενίκηι] [τ]ῆι ἀδελ[φ]ῆι θεᾶι Φιλα[δέλ]φωι χαίρειν Πετῆ[σις Χενούφιος ἀρχενταφιαστὴς] Ὀσοράπιος καὶ Ὀσορομνέ[υ]ιος θεῶν ἀειζώ{ι}ων με[γίστων. χρείας πλείους κα]ὶ ἀναγκαί[ας] 12 [π]αρεχόμενος τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις θεοῖς τὰς χ[ε]ῖρ[ας α]ὐτ[οῖ]ς πρ[ο]σφέ[ρων καὶ τ]ὰς ὑπὲρ

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

317

[ὑ]μῶν, μέγιστοι θεοὶ κα[ὶ] νικηφόροι, εὐχὰς καὶ θυσία[ς ἐ]πιτελῶ[ν διδόναι ὑμῖ]ν ὑγίειαν [ν]ίκην κράτος σθένος κυριείαν τῶν [ὑ]πὸ τὸν οὐρ[αν]ὸν χωρῶ[ν, σκυλλόμεν]ος δὲ καὶ διασειόμενος παρ’ ἕκαστον εἰκῇ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν [ὑ]πό τινω[ν ἐπὶ] τῶν τόπων, τὴν 16 [ἐ]φ’ ὑμᾶς καταφυγὴν πεποίημαι καὶ ἀξιῶ δεό[μεν]ος ἐὰν [δοκ]ῆι, προστάξαι Φιλοκράτει τῶι συγγενεῖ καὶ ἐπιστολογράφωι ἐγδοῦναι περὶ ἐμ[οῦ] καὶ τῆς οἰ[κία]ς μου ἐντολὴν περι-­ έχουσαν μηθενὶ ἐξεῖναι εἰσβιάζεσθαι εἰς αὐτ[ὴ]ν μηδ’ ἐκ [τα]ύτης περισπᾶν κ[α]τὰ μηδένα τρόπον μηδὲ διασ⟨ε⟩ίειν με μηδ’ ἐπιβάλλειν [μοι] τὰς χεῖρα[ς] καί, , ἐπ’ αὐτῆς δὲ 20 τ[ῆ]ς ο[ἰ]κίας π[ρ]ο[θ]εῖν[α]ι [ἐν λ]ευκώμα[τ]ι καὶ τῶι [β]ασ[ιλι]κῶι γραμ[μα]τεῖ προσφωνηθῆν[αι], ἵν[α] τυχὼν τῆς παρ’ ὑ[μ]ῶν φιλ[αν]θρ[ω]πίας [ἐ]πιτελῶ{ι} τὰς τῶν θεῶν λε[ι]τουργίας. εὐτ[υ]χεῖτε.

King Ptolemy, the one called Alexander, and queen Berenike the sister, to the strategos ‫ ﷴ‬of the Memphite nome and the phrourarchos and the epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n and the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫ ﷳ‬and the basilikos [4] grammateus and the epistatai of the temples and the archiereis and the others in charge of royal revenues, greetings.79 A copy of the petition submitted to us by Petesis, concerning the matters that are allegedly being perpetrated against individuals by certain men, is subjoined. Let him have the resolution he seeks in every respect. [8] Farewell. Year 16, Dios 29, Thoth 29.80 To king Ptolemy, the one also called Alexander, mother-­loving god, and to queen Berenike the sister, brother-­loving goddess, greetings, Petesis, son of Chenouphis, chief of the embalmers’ guild for the greatest, immortal gods

79 On the post of epistates hieron, which was not a civil post, see Chapter 3, note

‫ﷳ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 19; on the archiereus, Chapter 2, note 65. The king addressing the document is Ptolemy X Alexander I (107–88 b.c.). 80 On the double date, see Chapter 2, note 81.

318

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Osorapis and Osoromneuis.81 Though furnishing great services and the necessities [12] to the aforementioned gods, holding out my hands to them, and performing prayers and sacrifices on your behalf, o greatest gods and bringers of victory, so as to grant you health, victory, power, strength, and lordship over the lands under heaven, I am nevertheless being mistreated and extorted at random in regard to each of my services, and, as it happened, by certain of those in the districts. [16] I have thus fled to you, and I ask you, as I am in need, that you please – if it seems right – command Philokrates, syngene‫ﷴ‬s and epistolographos,82 to send out, concerning both me and my household, a circular letter containing the provisions that no one is permitted to transgress its contents, or to plunder in any way or extort me or to put his hands upon me; and, if it seems right, (I ask that you command Philokrates) to place it in front of [20] my house on a public notice board, and that directions be issued to the basilikos grammateus, so that encountering your humanity I may perform the services of the gods. Farewell. (C.Ord.Ptol.2 62 [Memphis, 99 b.c.])

One of the most immediately striking aspects of Petesis’s petition is its lack of specificity. As we have seen, among the most common characteristics of petitions to officials complaining of wrongdoing by others is the great care with which the identity of the accused is spelled out. Here, however, Petesis alleges a great deal of mistreatment but identifies his mistreaters only as “certain of those in the districts” (τινω[ν ἐπὶ] τῶν τόπων, 15), not bothering to mention a name or two, or even the fact that he does not know their names (which is common enough in petitions). He also does not seem to have a good idea of which officials to invoke for protection: instead, he asks that the king have a circular sent out requiring that protection be given, perhaps under the assumption that the basilikos grammateus will spearhead the protection efforts and post the order of protection publicly. 81 Osarapis/Oserapis

was the “Osiris Apis,” the deified Apis bull. He became associated with Sarapis/Serapis under the Ptolemies (Bonnet [2000, 1952] 650). Osoromneuis was the “Osoris Mneuis,” the deified Mneuis bull (Bonnet [2000, 1952] 469). Under the Ptolemies, both bulls had cults in Memphis: see UPZ I pp25–9 (Apis) and pp41–2 (Mneuis). 82 The epistolographos (literally “letter writer”) was evidently one of the ­administrators of the royal records office. He could also be attached to an official. See P.Tebt. III.1 703 introduction, pp68–70.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

319

The king, in turn, has the letter (perhaps via the epistolographos) sent out to a number of high-­ and low-­level police and civil and financial officials in order to make sure that the embalmer is not abused. Though the king’s technique is the opposite of the embalmer’s  – that is, he specifies a number of officials, whereas the embalmer does not  – the net result is the same: he effectively casts a very wide net. The reasons for doing so are not immediately clear. It goes without saying that the protection of revenue was a high priority for the Ptolemies and threats to its generation were not taken lightly. When necessary, a broad spectrum of police officials was engaged to ensure that profits rolled in. Here, though, the threat seems to be more symbolic: an attack on the embalmer represents an attack on Egyptian culture, on the cult of the king, and, more directly, on the Egyptian priestly caste. Maintaining and publicizing royal support for Egyptian temples and those who worked in them was good policy for an occupation government, especially one that had experienced its share of ethnic tensions and revolts by the time this ­letter was written.83 The Ptolemaic police performed various functions in the realm of collecting and managing overdue taxes. The phylakitai and their superiors had important roles in ensuring that the Ptolemies received the revenues due them. The evidence reveals that police administrators were charged with collecting arrears, while phylakitai might accompany police administrators on their collection rounds or be deployed to bring in pilfered tax revenues. We see phylakitai ordered to recover some stolen grain (P.Cair.Zen. II 59232 [Arsinoite, 253 b.c.]),84 and the agents of an archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬probably phylakitai) seizing a ship’s crew and demanding a tax payment (P.Cair.Zen. III 59343  [Philadelphia?, 246 b.c.]).85 Sometimes the phylakitai employed as debt collectors by the state submitted fraudulent returns. The problem had become sufficiently widespread by the end of the second century to merit a royal 83 On native Egyptian revolts in Ptolemaic Egypt, see McGing ­(1997). 84 For a similar case of extraction of tax revenues by phylakitai, see P.Tebt.

III.2 1067 (Tebtynis, 205–180 b.c.?), a fragmentary list of fines, two of which appear to have been collected by a phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ 85 See also P.Cair.Zen. III 59407 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), where rent was to be transmitted to the crown by the oikonomos and a phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

320

decree releasing from punishment those phylakitai who had cheated the state, as well as those who had run away for fear of retribution (C.Ord. Ptol.2 53.188–92 [Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.]; Chapter 2). The decree demonstrates not only that the Ptolemies did not always receive all that they thought they should but also that the phylakitai were essential cogs in the debt-­collecting machine. The collection of tax arrears from the subject population was one of the chief tasks of an archiphylakites. ‫ ﷴ‬The earliest piece of evidence for the association of this official with tax collection comes from the “revenue laws” of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ruled 285–246 b.c.), which contain a commandment addressed to a long list of officials, ending with archiphylakitai, the only town or village police agents mentioned:86 [βασιλε]ὺς Πτολεμαῖος [τοῖς στ]ρατηγοῖς καὶ τοῖ[ς ἱππάρχοις] [κα]ὶ τοῖς ἡγεμόσι καὶ το[ῖ]ς νομάρχαις καὶ τοῖς το[πάρχαις καὶ το]ῖς [οἰκ]ονόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἀντιγραφεῦσι καὶ τοῖς βασιλ[ικοῖς γραμμ]ατεῦσι 4 [κ]αὶ τοῖς λιβυάρχαις καὶ τοῖς ἀρχιφυλακίτα[ις πᾶσι χα]ίρειν. [ἀ]πεστάλκαμεν ὑμῖν τ⟨ὰ⟩ ἀντίγραφα τοῦ προγ[ράμματος κα]θ’ ὃ δεῖ [συ]ντελεῖν τὴν ἕκτην τῆι Φιλαδέλφωι. ἐπ[ιμελὲς οὖν ὑμῖ]ν γινέ-­ [σθ]ω, ὅπως ἂν γίνηται κατὰ ταῦτα. 8 ἔρρωσθε. (ἔτους) κγ Δίου β[ ]. [ὅσοι ἔ]χουσιν ἀμπελῶνας ἢ παραδείσους τρόπωι ὡιτ[ινιοῦ]ν [διδό]τωσαν πάντες τοῖς \τε/ παρὰ Σατύρου πραγματ[ευομένοις] [καὶ το]ῖς παρὰ Διονυσοδώρου τεταγμένοις ἐγλογι[σταῖς κατὰ] 12 [νο]μοὺς χειρογραφίας ἢ αὐτοὶ ἢ οἱ διοικοῦντες ἢ [οἱ γεωργοῦ]-­ [ν]τες τὰ κ[τ]ήματα αὐτῶν, ἀπὸ (ἔτους) ιη ἕως [(ἔτους) κα] τό τε πλῆθος τῶν γενημάτων καὶ εἰς ποῖον ἱερὸν [ἐδ]ίδο-­ [σ]αν τὴν γινομένην ἕκτην, καὶ πόσον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ· ὡσαύ-­ 16 τως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐκ ποίου κτήματος ἕκαστος ἐλάμβανον

86 The



“revenue laws” are actually a collection (made by an unknown person) of fiscal ordinances which touch on a number of areas of the Ptolemaic economy. A good introduction to the material – followed by a translation – can be found at Bagnall and Derow (2004) 181.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

321

κ[α]ὶ πόσον οἶνον ἢ ἀργύρ[ι]ον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ· ὁμοίως δὲ διδ[ό]τωσα[ν] καὶ οἱ βασιλικοὶ γραμματεῖς [κ]αὶ οἱ ca. 15 ] [    ] τούτ[ων χ]ειρογραφ[ί]α[ς ca. ? ]

King Ptolemy to the strategoi and the nomar‫ ﷴ‬and the hipparchai and the hegemones ‫ﷴ‬ chai and the toparchai and the oikonomoi and the antigrapheis and the basilikoi grammateis [4] and the libyarchai and the archiphylakitai, all (of the aforementioned), greetings.87 We have sent to you copies of the decree, in accordance with which it is necessary to pay the sixth to Arsinoë Philadelphos.88 Therefore, let it be a matter of concern to you that payment occur in accordance with these regulations. [8] Farewell. Year 23, Dios 2[.]. As many as have vineyards or gardens in any way whatsoever, let them all – either they themselves or their managers or those farming their possessions – give oaths from year 18 to year 21 to the agents of Satyros and the eklogistai appointed by Satyros,89 in accordance with [12] the laws, (oaths indicating) the amount of their produce and to what temple they gave the one-­sixth tax (apomoira) and how much (they gave) this year. And similarly, [16] (let) the priests also, each of them, (give oaths indicating) from what kind of property they were receiving however much wine or money (they received) in this year. And similarly, let the basilikoi grammateis and the … give oaths. … (C.Ord.Ptol.2 18 [Arsinoite?, 259–258 b.c.])

The commandment states that the recipients had received an edict regarding the assessment of the sixth (hekte‫)ﷴ‬. They were then asked to make sure that written statements concerning the amounts and types of produce paid and received, respectively, in the past were collected from the owners of orchards and vineyards, as well as from the priests who received crop payments from these cultivators. Significant for our purposes is the inclusion of archiphylakitai in the list of addressees. Why would the king make village-­level police officials recipients of a series of instructions for tax payment? Given that the Ptolemaic 87 Libyarchai

(literally “rulers of Libya”): according to Cancik and Schneider (2002–10) 7:514, the Libyarchs mentioned here were “part of the financial administration or the ‘police’ of certain areas of Egypt west of the Nile (the ‘Libyan’ district?).” 88 On the Ptolemaic “sixth” (the apomoira), see Chapter 5, note 15. 89 Eklogistes: ‫ ﷴ‬an accountant.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

322

government had plenty of other officials at hand to record tax payments, collect produce, and ship it to the appropriate place(s), one might assume that the archiphylakitai were intended to serve as muscle for the tax collection. In particular, they might have been called in to deal with situations in which tax payments were not forthcoming or were overdue. As it happens, that archiphylakitai would have been responsible for much of the physical collection of any overdue payments for the sixth is suggested by petitions and letters from people who highlighted the aggressive debt-­extracting practices of archiphylakitai. In one case, an agent of Zenon noted that he was being pressed for payment of the phylakitikon by an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬and was also being compelled to draw up a contractual agreement regarding some grain (P.Cair. Zen. III 59404  [Philadelphia?, III b.c.]).90 Another man related that an archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬apparently working with two other phylakitai, had purloined his taxable livestock (BGU III 1012.7–8  [Philadelphia, 170  b.c.]: ὑποτελῆ λείαν | πρόβατα [ ]ε; Chapter 5). Higher officials took notice of the complaints of citizens concerning harassment from tax collectors. On one occasion, an epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬ordered an archiphylakites‫ﷴ‬ not to trouble certain individuals over tax payments still owed until he (the epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s) ‫ ﷴ‬could make a personal inquiry into the matter (P.Tebt. III.1 741 [Tebtynis, 187–186 b.c.]).91 The archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬could also act in an official capacity to force tenants to pay a landowner’s rent. At a court in Herakleopolis, the prosecution asserted that a plot of land had been sowed and harvested by an outsider while the owner had been imprisoned:

(hand 2) α       [ ca. ? ] (hand 1) [ἔτους β  Φ]αῶφι ζ ἐν Ἡρακλέους πόλει τῆ[ι ὑπὲρ Μέμφιν, ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνος συγγενοῦς] καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων vac [καταστάντος τοῦ ἐπι]-­

90 Phylakitikon: Chapter ­2. 91 See also BGU VIII 1798

(Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.) for a similar order to an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬to cease and desist.

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

323

δόντος ὑπόμνημα Ἰμούθου τοῦ προστατοῦντος [τοῦ δεῖνος καὶ τῶν τούτου] υἱῶν καὶ διὰ τούτου προενεγκαμένου ὑπάρχειν τοῖς προγεγρ[αμμέν]οις π[ερὶ Βουσῖριν] ἐκ τοῦ Φίδωνος φυλακιτικὸν κλῆρον ἀρουρῶν ι, ὧν καὶ τὰ καθήκ[οντ]α βασιλικὰ τοῦ κα (ἔτους) αὐτὸν τετάχθαι, περὶ δὲ τὸν Μεσορὴ μῆνα τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους συ[σχ]εθέντος καὶ μείναν[τος] 8 ἕως Ἐπεὶφ τοῦ κβ (ἔτους) ἐν τῆι εἱρκτῆι Θεμίσωνα τῶν καταγινομένων ἐν τῆι Βουσίρει κατα-­ γνόντα βιαίως ἐμβεβατευκέναι ἐν τῶι κβ (ἔτει) καὶ κατεσπαρκέναι τὸν δηλούμενον κλῆρον καὶ τὰ γενήματα ἀπενηνέχθαι, διεθέντος δ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ λογοποιησαμένου περὶ τῶν ἐκφο-­ ρίων τὸν Θεμίσωνα στήσαντα ἐκτείσειν μηδεμίαν ἐπιστροφὴν πεποιῆσθαι τῆς ἀπο-­ 12 δόσεως ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶι αὐτῶι τρόπωι χρησάμενον ἐν τῶι κγ (ἔτει) κατεσπαρκέναι τὸ ἔδαφος, ἑαυτοῦ σωματικῆι ἀσθενείαι κατεχομέν[ου] ἀξιοῦντός τε τοῦ σπόρου ἀθίκτου ὄν[τος] γραφῆναι τῶι ἀρχιφυλακίτηι Νεάρχωι π[ρᾶ]ξαι τὸν Θεμίσωνα τὰ ἐκφόρια [τοῦ   (ἔτους)] ἐκ δεκαρτάβου κατὰ τὸν τῶν ἐμβατευόν[των] νόμ[ον ]ε       εἰς τὰ ἐδάφ[η] traces [ ca. ? ] τῶι Θεμί[σωνι] 4

Year 2[.], Phaophi 7, in Herakleopolis below Memphis, before [ – – ], syngenes‫ ﷴ‬and strategos ‫ ﷴ‬and ho epi ton‫ ﷳ‬prosodon‫ ﷳ‬. Imouthes, the man who submitted [4] the petition, guardian of [ – – ] and his sons, appeared in court. By Imouthes it was made clear that there belonged to the aforementioned around Bousiris a phylakitikos kleros ‫ ﷴ‬from Phidon, 10 arouras, and that he himself [i.e., Imouthes] had paid the royal taxes on it for the twenty-­first year.92 But around the month of Mesore in the same year he had been detained in the heirkte‫ ﷴ‬and remained in detention [8] until Epeiph, year 22.93 Themison, one of those who lived in Bousiris, having learned of this, came into 92 On phylakitikoi kleroi, ‫ ﷴ‬see Chapter ­2. 93 On detention under the Ptolemies, see now Bauschatz (2007b) and Chapter 5.

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

324

possession of the aforementioned allotment by force in year 22 and sowed it and carried off the produce. When Imouthes was released, and when he attempted to settle the accounts about the rents, he stated that Themison, though he pledged that he would pay, made no attempt at payment, [12] and even employed the same method as before and sowed the plot in year 23. Imouthes, since he was crippled by a bodily illness and since the seed was untouched, thought it best to write to Nearchos, archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬to extract from Themison the rents for year [..] for the 10-­artaba tax (?), in accordance with the law about those who come into possession of allotments … into the plots … to Themison. … (BGU VIII 1773 [Herakleopolis, 58 b.c.?])94

The fragmentary end of this papyrus makes firm conclusions about this case difficult, but enough of the papyrus survives to permit some clarity. On the surface, the dispute seems straightforward: an interloper had taken unlawful possession of a man’s allotment while he was ­imprisoned and then refused to pay rent on the produce he had harvested from the plot during the imprisonment. He had then repeated the wrongdoing in the subsequent year, even after the plaintiff had been released from jail. The plaintiff had turned to the archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬for assistance, evidently knowing well that this official had within his occupational domain the extraction of royal debts and, in addition, armed with a law regarding those who came into the possession of the allotments of others under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, the specifics of this law are lost after the break, but one might reasonably suggest that it applied in cases where a landowner had been arrested, imprisoned, or otherwise forcibly removed from his land and another had simply stepped in and taken it over. In a state like Ptolemaic Egypt, where revenue production was prioritized and carefully regulated, one could assume that such a scenario would have been looked upon favorably: fallow land was not useful land. One could also assume, however, that the man responsible for sowing and reaping would also have been held responsible for paying the rent. If he did not, the state had other ways to make sure that the profits rolled in. 94 In

addition to the examples cited here, three first-­century petitions of Herakleopolite provenance highlight archiphylakitai collecting arrears: BGU VIII 1798 (64–44 b.c.); 1822 (60–55 b.c.); and 1836 (51–50 b.c.).

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

325

Conclusions

The officers of the Ptolemaic law enforcement system had duties that depended in large part on the application of coercion and force for successful execution. As we have seen, police officers appeared at government auctions and trials, where they may have ensured that crowds stayed under control and that government business was transacted without complication. Circulars to police officials sought this same sort of security and ease of operation for economic matters. In these documents, police were asked to aid financial agents in the successful discharge of their offices, generally by applying pressure when and where specified. Though in many cases they were expected to use the same police powers they employed for the apprehension of criminals (e.g., arresting, detaining, confiscating), much of the time they were simply asked to put their powers of persuasion and coercion at the disposal of other government agents. This was also true for the collection of tax arrears, where the involvement of the Ptolemaic police was regular and active. Phylakitai and archiphylakitai gathered revenue, made inquiries into financial matters, confiscated overdue rents, and perhaps even issued receipts to taxpayers. In the performance of these duties police depended on the cooperation of the populace. When cooperation was in short supply, law enforcement officials were not above arm twisting to get what they needed. The rulers of the kingdom were determined to extract their due and employed the police as the muscle necessary to do so. Previous chapters have demonstrated how the Ptolemaic police system functioned as a largely autonomous body that was often at the disposal of the populations it served. Though nominally agents of the central government, most Ptolemaic police officers dealt with village issues and had little to no contact with higher levels of power. Yet, as we have seen, these same officials were in fact closely connected to the administration in Alexandria. Town and village policemen provided state-­sanctioned and state-­organized security, a controlling presence at state-­run village events, and an effective means of gathering and transporting produce. Such activities were crucial to the well-­being of the Ptolemaic state. Their proper functioning depended in large part on a strong physical presence and a command of respect, assets provided by police officers.

326

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

Security in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra was a major issue for the Ptolemies. Various branches of the army generally prevented incursions of hostile forces, manned garrisons in strategically important places, and quelled civil strife. Police officials and other agents with police powers likewise protected the countryside. As we have seen, a handful of military officers (e.g., eremophylakes, potamophylakes) provided protection at strategically ‫ﷴ‬ important points along the state’s borders and occasionally performed certain police duties, among these arresting smugglers and black marketeers. Officials from within the ranks of the phylakitai also provided security on occasion. For the most part, their jurisdictions surrounded sensitive pieces of agricultural infrastructure (e.g., dykes, fields) within inhabited regions and not border areas. These work details were generally managed at the town or village level but assigned by higher government agents. Ptolemaic police forces had their most important security roles ­during the genematophylakia. Both the Ptolemaic police proper ­( phylaki‫ﷴ‬ tai and their commanding officers) and a few types of security guard (e.g., genematophylakes, thesaurophylakes) had crucial parts to play in the ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ guarding of crops. Archiphylakitai were in charge of recruiting labor and seeing to it that preparations and operations ran smoothly; phylakitai and additional officials, many of them seasonal hires (such as the genematophylakes), followed orders. Though police administrators ‫ﷴ‬ acted as supervisors, higher government (financial) officials sent out the instructions for how the gathering and transport of crops were to proceed. The possibility of lost revenue meant the active involvement of the Alexandrian administration in town and village affairs. Policemen served the state’s interests by capturing crooks, imprisoning offenders, and solving crimes with minimal interference from above. During the genematophylakia, they ran the show in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra but received their orders ‫ﷴ‬ from higher-­ups. The collection of tax arrears by phylakitai and archiphylakitai is a variation on the latter theme. Here, too, we see village police machinery involved in village business, but under orders from higher officials; here, too, police officers enjoyed broad autonomy in action, but an autonomy clearly mandated by a higher authority and for the performance of a specific task. The collection of overdue taxes was of paramount

The Strong Arm of the Law: Security and ­Muscle

327

importance for the fiscal health of the Ptolemaic state. That close scrutiny and supervision of this process by nome-­level and higher officials took place is not surprising. But the involvement of town and village police in matters of great importance to Alexandria was not limited to the collection of tax arrears. Police served as bailiffs at civil trials and appeared at government auctions. They were employed at both to keep private citizens in line and to ensure full cooperation with the government officials in charge. Police not only provided security at these events but also helped reinforce the authority of the royal house. The Ptolemaic police throughout the cho‫ﷳ‬ra had close ties to the administration in Alexandria. The phylakitai, their superiors, and other officers with police functions were highly autonomous officials, generally with town or village jurisdictions. Nevertheless, they often had important duties for which they answered to higher authorities. As far as we know, this division of law enforcement labor was unparalleled in antiquity and suggests that the Ptolemies understood the ­importance of limited control over life in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. As long as the countryside remained safe and peaceful and the grain kept rolling in, the rulers of the kingdom were only too happy to distance themselves from the minutiae of daily village life.

­7 Conclusion

The primary goal of this book has been to detail the functions of the Ptolemaic police and the institutions by which the Ptolemies exerted social control over the cho‫ﷳ‬ra. In the preceding chapters, we have examined the hierarchy of law enforcement, the petitioning process, the mechanics of arrest, detention, investigation and resolution, and the role of police as security and muscle. Our investigation began with a number of general assumptions about policing in antiquity.1 In many parts of the ancient Mediterranean world, evidence suggests that victims of crime were responsible for performing the majority of the work necessary for the successful resolution of disputes (arresting suspects, gathering witnesses and evidence, confiscating property, and preparing and arranging court cases). Personal and financial resources, official connections, and a strong will to prevail were all prerequisites to success at law. Security was likewise the responsibility of private citizens. Though ancient states assembled armies when outside forces threatened, they took few steps to protect their populations from themselves. Organized civil police forces that patrolled city streets, kept watch in trouble areas, and arrested wrongdoers do not surface in our evidence. In sum, policing in the ancient world appears to have been, for the most part, the domain of individuals, not institutions. As we have seen, this was not the case in Ptolemaic Egypt. The story of crime, criminals, police, and policing in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra is one primarily of government organizations and officials. The rulers of the kingdom established an extensive network of interconnected 1 See

328

the introduction (Chapter ­1).

­Conclusio

329

police officers in the towns and villages of the countryside to monitor the ­subject population. They carried out arrests, detained suspects, launched investigations, visited crime scenes, compiled evidence, sealed homes, confiscated goods, and even held trials, often without instruction from superiors. Supervision of these officials extended from the smallest settlements of the Egyptian backwater all the way up to the seat of the central administration in Alexandria. Police occupied all points in the geographic or administrative hierarchy (village, toparchy, meris, nome), and interofficial communication was evidently swift and effective. Officers at the highest levels of power made sure that the police and their supervisors in the countryside followed orders and that government business was carried out promptly and in full. Ptolemaic Egypt provides a well-­documented exception to the apparent rule of ancient criminal justice. Why have classicists and social historians neglected it for so long? Perhaps for the same reason why Egypt is so often rejected as a model for Greco-­Roman social or cultural phenomena: the belief that Egypt was fundamentally different from the rest of the ancient world.2 In many respects the Egypt of the Ptolemies was quite unlike anything else in classical antiquity. The rulers of the kingdom were transplanted Greeks who adopted pharaonic titulature, dress, and airs, and like their predecessors, they also demanded compulsory labor from the Egyptian populace to fill the state’s coffers. Yet the royal court at Alexandria attracted the best and brightest scholars, poets, and philosophers of the day and was an outpost of Greek culture quite unlike any other settlement in the state.3 In the extensive countryside to the south of the royal base of operations, Greeks and Egyptians lived side by side, conducted business with each other, paid 2 On the “otherness” of Egypt in Greek and Roman thinking, see E. M. Smith

(1928, Egypt in the Greek novel); Froidefond (1971); Reinhold (1980, Roman attitudes); Rotroff (1997, Hellenistic demography via figurines and pottery); Vasunia (2001); Hartog (2002); Rowlandson (2003) 259–63; Stephens (2003, Alexandrian poets/poetry and their relationship with Egypt/ Egyptians); W. V. Harris and Ruffini (2004, essays on multiculturalism in Ptolemaic Egypt); and Nimis (2004). 3 On the literary and intellectual culture of Ptolemaic Alexandria, see, e.g., Fraser (1972), part II (pp.  305–793); Green (1985); Erskine (1995, the Museum and Library); and Rodenbeck (2001–2) 524–42.

330

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

taxes, intermarried, toiled for the government in a variety of roles, and generally coexisted, sometimes uneasily. Ptolemaic Egypt was clearly not a microcosm of Greece. But just how different was it from Athens or Macedon? Behind the royal costume, the tolerance and cultivation of Egyptian gods, the adoption of native customs, and the other necessary adjustments to life in the Egyptian cho‫ﷳ‬ra, how “Greek” was Ptolemaic Egypt?4 Even in the countryside, where a uniform Egyptian culture had existed for millennia, the rulers of the kingdom exerted a great deal of influence. Towns and villages in the cho‫ﷳ‬ra retained certain aspects of the traditional Egyptian infrastructure (scribal offices and temples, for instance) but made room for a massive number of buildings and institutions with decidedly Greek origins: courtrooms (dikasteria, kriteria), prisons (desmo‫ﷳ‬teria), offices (logisteria), ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ 5 archives (demosia), and countless others. Officials with Greek titles (e.g., ‫ﷴ‬ judges [dikastai, kritai], tax collectors [telo‫ﷳ‬nai], soldiers [stratio‫ﷳ‬tai, hippeis, pezoi], heralds [kerukes]), many themselves Greeks, populated these ‫ﷴ‬ public places. Greek political philosophy, infrastructure, and bureaucracy was inescapable even in the smallest Egyptian settlements. But it was not just the machinery of public life that took on a new appearance under the Ptolemies. Even the smallest facets of day-­to-­day existence were altered by the new regime. Business, especially, became dominated by Greeks.6 Though many Egyptian measures were retained for convenience, sums were calculated and expressed in Greek numbers and bills paid and purchases made with Greek currency (drachmas and obols).7 Private transactions between Egyptians were still carried out in the native language, but contracts with the state, as well as private deals involving at least one Greek participant, were recorded in Attic Greek and reflect what is often more than a basic understanding 4 On

the inherent “Greekness” of Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bell (1922); Samuel (1983) 63–117. 5 In recent decades archaeological finds from Greco-­Roman Egypt have increased significantly in quantity and quality. The survey of Bagnall (2001) provides an overview of significant finds from 1995 to 2000. 6 Greeks and business in Ptolemaic Egypt: see the note on the economy of Ptolemaic Egypt, Chapter 3, note 57. 7 Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: e.g., Maresch (1996); von Reden (2007).

­Conclusio

331

of Greek economic practice.8 Even without additional evidence, the ­regular and effective employment of Greek not only by the governing class but also by the native population demonstrates that Greek influence on Egyptian society was powerful. We see a similar influence at work when we turn to the ranks of the Ptolemaic police.9 Though the ranks of the primary law enforcement officials under the Ptolemies ( phylakitai), as well as the phylakes and other civil and military officials who sometimes performed police functions, were filled with Egyptians, their overseers were primarily Greeks. The Ptolemaic police worked for a Greek administration and communicated in Greek with a broad spectrum of officials in other spheres of government, many (if not most) of whom were Greeks. Law enforcement officials employed an epistolary communications system that depended on the fast and reliable composition and transport of correspondence in (mostly) Greek. Petitioners, too, the majority of whom were Egyptians, used the Greek language in their appeals to police officers.10 They realized that for the best chance of satisfaction at law, petitions to police officers had to be comprehensible. Bilingualism was certainly not uncommon, but it seems unlikely that a policeman would have gone out of his way to translate a request scribbled in an undecipherable Demotic on a scrap of papyrus.11 Greek was a must. Even if one rejects the notion that Ptolemaic Egypt was a thoroughly Greek kingdom, it should be clear from the preceding that it was also not the “other” many have long maintained it to be. The Ptolemies inherited a rigidly structured social and political system. They allowed most aspects of Egyptian culture and society to remain intact and unchanged, supplemented others with Greek flourishes, and transformed still others along Greek lines.12 Whatever sort of entity it was, Ptolemaic Egypt 8 Greek

as the language of business in Ptolemaic Egypt: Chapter  1, note 141. 9 The ethnic makeup of the Ptolemaic police is discussed in Chapter 2. On ethnicity in the kingdom more generally, see Chapter 4, note 29. 10 Petitions and police communication are discussed in depth in Chapter 4. 11 Bilingualism: see Chapter 4, note 29, and the note on literacy (Chapter 1, note 142). 12 On the Ptolemies’ tolerance for Egyptian religious and cultural phenomena, see, e.g., Samuel (1983) 75–101 and Manning (2009).

332

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

was not simply the land of the pharaohs dressed up in Greek clothing. The ample documentation for Greek Egypt is potentially of great value for scholars of Greece, Rome, and elsewhere and should not be dismissed out of hand. By admitting the possibility that Ptolemaic Egypt was not fundamentally different from every other ancient state, we also admit that the Ptolemaic evidence may reveal a great deal about these same states. For our purposes, this evidence could provide a number of revelations about criminal justice systems in antiquity. The documentation also raises questions. To begin with, where did the Ptolemaic police system come from? Did the Ptolemies modify an existing system, or create their own police and employ an ethnically mixed bag of officials for the sake of convenience or to ensure greater compliance from villagers? The former was perhaps the case, though the makeup of the police forces doubtless owes something to the latter. We have seen that the criminal justice system contained both Egyptians and Greeks. In Ptolemaic Egypt a cho‫ﷳ‬ra-­wide organization of primarily Egyptian officials (at least among the lowest-­level police, the phylakitai and phylakes) served primarily Egyptian villagers but worked within a Greek infrastructure, answered to Greek administrators, and carried out interofficial communication exclusively in Greek. The rulers of the kingdom filled the highest levels of police organization with Greeks for administrative efficiency but continued to employ Egyptians for much day-­to-­day police work. This is suggestive. Perhaps the Ptolemies adapted a preexisting system trusted by and familiar to the native population and allowed it to continue to operate as it always had. The Greeks, like the pharaonic administrations before them, ran the show from above but granted the settlements of the cho‫ﷳ‬ra a great deal of law enforcement self-­governance. At present, a connection between the pharaonic system of law and order and that of the Ptolemies is uncertain. Only a careful reconsideration of the evidence for police forces in pharaonic Egypt will reveal to what degree the Ptolemies inherited their law enforcement mechanisms from their predecessors. The data, however, suggest few connections between the two systems. Security was one of the primary concerns of the pharaohs and the Ptolemies, and both employed police to provide it. But security is a major issue for any state, and that this was true in Egypt is not surprising. Police officials in pharaonic Egypt were

­Conclusio

333

employed primarily for the protection of the state’s assets, as were the Ptolemaic police. But Ptolemaic law enforcement officials had much smaller roles to play in this area than their pharaonic counterparts, who seem frequently to have served as little more than security guards. The pharaonic criminal justice system had a strong, central authority for the effective administration of justice and supervision of lower civil authorities (the vizier); a powerful military presence for the guarantee of security along borders and in sparsely populated areas (the army and the Medjay); and a general policy of laissez-­faire with regard to the personal problems of the Egyptian people, who were expected to bring law enforcement issues to the attention of village or higher administration. Admittedly, these were all characteristics of the Ptolemaic criminal justice system as well. But centralized power, border patrols, and government indifference to the suffering of the subject population were far from uncommon in other ancient civilizations. One cannot conclude that the Ptolemies inherited these traits from their predecessors simply because they are expressed in the evidence. Though the pharaonic state seems to have had a strong interest in punishing state offenders, it took little notice of private wrongdoing. Village machinery was in place for the resolution of village disputes, but an organized police system seems never to have been fully developed. On the other hand, in Ptolemaic Egypt an empowered police system saw to the needs of the rulers of the kingdom but also prioritized law and order in Egyptian towns and villages and ensured that most people could lead safe and productive lives. Though many similarities exist, on the whole the pharaonic and Ptolemaic criminal justice systems appear to have been different sorts of organizations. For the most part, in the realm of Egyptian law enforcement the Ptolemies seem to have been innovators rather than adopters. Nevertheless, a more thorough comparison of the Ptolemaic and pharaonic criminal justice systems will shed welcome light on the antecedents to the Greek organization and the connections between the two systems. On a related note, one might also ask what eventually happened to the Ptolemaic police system. How was the Greek law enforcement organization adapted and ultimately eliminated by the Romans? In the Roman period, there is an increase in documentation and, correspondingly, in the evidence for law enforcement structures. Augustus

334

Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic ­Egypt

instituted changes in the Ptolemaic police system, and subsequent emperors made additional modifications. Over time, we see soldiers playing more prominent roles as police, the centurion assuming the position of primary law enforcement competence, some police posts becoming liturgical, and many additional changes being introduced. There is an abundance of scholarship on police and policing in the province of Egypt, but no synthesis of the material currently exists. When the necessary work has been done, we will perhaps finally be able to trace the decline and eventual disappearance of the Ptolemaic police forces. Finally, one wonders to what degree the law enforcement infrastructure visible in Ptolemaic Egypt is applicable to other ancient states. The Egyptian police system existed and flourished in small, rural settlements scattered throughout the Ptolemaic countryside. But the preponderance of documentation for the rest of classical antiquity describes the operation of law and order in primarily urban settings. If there is one thing we can say for certain about criminal justice systems in antiquity, it is that nowhere do we have the full story. Outside of Egypt, abundant source materials provide valuable information on how some aspects of ancient law enforcement operated. We are well informed as to how court procedure was carried out in both Greece and Rome, how the military was sometimes employed for crowd control, how individuals took steps to obtain justice from offenders, and how punishment was meted out to those found guilty of committing crimes. But the sources that provide this information are primarily literary and detail the functioning of primarily urban systems. They tell us a great deal about the privileged classes in the Greek poleis and the involvement of state structures in criminal justice, but reveal next to nothing about how law enforcement was carried out in the cho‫ﷳ‬rai and provinces of ancient states, where contact with the central government was not always close, frequent, or even possible. The story of day-­to-­day existence in the rural areas of the ancient Mediterranean, and more specifically that of crime and punishment, has not been told in full. Perhaps the Egyptian evidence serves as the other side of the coin. But this is a topic for another book.

­Glossary

tw officers.  At (pharaonic) Deir el-­Medina, these officials served as a village police force and investigators of crimes. (ho) [..]este‫ﻼ‬ko‫ﻼ‬s to‫ﻼ‬n phylako‫ﻼ‬n (pl. hoi [..]este‫ﻼ‬kotes to‫ﻼ‬n phylako‫ﻼ‬n).  “(The man) in charge (?) of the phylakai.” Probably a police official in charge of a phylake‫ ﷴ‬who could receive certain prisoners. aedilis (pl. aediles).  Aedile. A Roman magistrate who had a number of responsibilities connected with public welfare and order. agens in rebus (pl. agentes in rebus).  “Agent in affairs.” A Roman military police official who had intelligence responsibilities and informed the central government about affairs in the provinces. agora (pl. agorai  ).  Literally “marketplace.” In a Greek city, the agora was the city center and the main area of business and government. agoranomion (pl. agoranomia).  The office of the agoranomos. agoranomos (pl. agoranomoi  ).  “Clerk of the marketplace.” A public notary. akrophylax (pl. akrophylakes).  “Citadel guard.” anachor‫ ﻼ‬es‫ ﻼ‬is (pl. anachor‫ ﻼ‬es‫ ﻼ‬eis).  Literally “withdrawal.” The phenomenon of flight from landholdings so as to avoid tax responsibility, a regular problem for the Ptolemies. anakrisis (pl. anakriseis).  An “examination,” often before an official. antigrapheus (pl. antigrapheis).  “Checking clerk.” A supervisor of tax collectors in Ptolemaic Egypt. aoi‫ ﻼ‬lion (pl. aoi‫ ﻼ‬lia).  An Egyptian measure of capacity equivalent to two cubic cubits. apomoira (pl. apomoirai  ).  The “portion.” A tax of one-­sixth on orchards and vineyards in Ptolemaic Egypt. The proceeds supported the cult of Arsinoë II. Also known as the hekte (sixth). ‫ﷴ‬ 335

336

­Glossar

apparitor (pl. apparitores).  A generic term for an attendant on a Roman magistrate. arabotoxote‫ﻼ‬s (pl. arabotoxotai  ).  “Arab archer.” An official who perhaps could serve as an attendant on another official. Araps (pl. Arabes).  “Arab.” An ethnic designation, which also seems to have referred to a class of officials with quasi-­police duties from time to time. archephodos (pl. archephodoi  ).  “Chief wayfarer.” In Greco-­Roman Egypt, this was a supervisor of ephodoi (wayfarers), officials who performed a number of police functions on and around roads (hodoi). archiereus (pl. archiereis).  “Chief priest.” One finds these officials in supervisory positions in Egyptian temples under the Ptolemies. archiereus machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n (pl. archiereis machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n).  “Chief priest of the machairophoroi.” See machairophoros. archimachimos (pl. archimachimoi  ).  “Chief machimos.” A commander of machimoi. archipho‫ﻼ‬r (pl. archipho‫ﻼ‬res).  Literally “chief thief ” or (perhaps) “chief thief catcher.” According to Diodorus (1.80), Egyptians who wanted to take up the profession of thief ( pho‫ﷳ‬r) had to register with the archipho‫ﷳ‬r. One Ptolemaic text mentions this official, likely a commander of a group of thief catchers ( pho‫ﷳ‬res). archiphylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. archiphylakitai  ).  “Chief policeman” (police chief). The commander of a group of police (phylakitai) in a region (e.g., town, village, district) of Ptolemaic Egypt. archiso‫ﻼ‬matophylax (pl. archiso‫ﻼ‬matophylakes).  “Chief bodyguard.” A Ptolemaic court title. architekto‫ﻼ‬n (pl. architektones).  “Architect.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, this official was more of a “chief builder” responsible for supervising the construction and repair of public works. archithyro‫ﻼ‬ros (pl. archithyro‫ﻼ‬roi  ).  “Chief doorman,” the leader (?) of a group of home/building security guards. archo‫ﻼ‬n (pl. archontes).  “Ruler.” In the Jewish settlement in Ptolemaic Herakleopolis, the archontes were a judicial board headed by a politarches‫ﷴ‬ (city leader). In classical Athens (as elsewhere), the archontes were the chief magistrates. aroura (pl. arourai  ).  An Egyptian land measure equal to one hundred square cubits.

­Glossar

337

Arsinoëa, ta.  The festival of Arsinoë II, deified queen of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. artabe‫( ﻼ‬pl. artabai  ).  An Egyptian unit of dry measure, roughly equivalent to forty choinikes (or approximately 39.2 liters). aulophylax (pl. aulophylakes).  “Courtyard guard.” basilikos grammateus (pl. basilikoi grammateis).  “Royal scribe.” The highest rung of the scribal hierarchy in Greco-­Roman Egypt, the basilikos grammateus was one of the most important civil officials in a given nome (province). basilikos pho‫ﻼ‬r (pl. basilikoi pho‫ﻼ‬res).  Literally “royal thief ” or, more likely, “royal thief catcher.” Probably a government official in charge of hunting down thieves or stolen goods. bia (pl. biai  ).  Greek for “violence, abuse.” The word could also have specific legal connotations: a charge of bia could be made against someone who had committed robbery or rape. bibliophylax (pl. bibliophylakes).  “Book (document) guard.” boule‫( ﻼ‬pl. boulai  ).  “Council.” Boulai were common fixtures in Greek poleis (city-­states). At Athens, the boule‫ ﷴ‬was the main advisory body, a five­hundred-­member deliberative council. censor (pl. censores).  A Roman magistrate with various disciplinary powers, among other things the ability to punish those who accepted bribes, forged auspices, or committed perjury. chalkiophylax (pl. chalkiophylakes).  “Cauldron guard.” cheiriste‫ﻼ‬s (pl. cheiristai  ).  “Manager, administrator.” In one text this word seems to designate an assistant to an epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. cheirographia phylakitike‫( ﻼ‬pl. cheirographiai phylakitikai  ).  A “handwritten guarding” oath, according to which a man swore to protect some crops. One copy of such an oath survives. chersanippos (pl. chersanippoi  ).  Literally “desert man without a horse,” probably a type of desert security guard. Compare chersephippos. chersephippos (pl. chersephippoi  ).  Literally “desert man on a horse,” probably a type of desert security guard. Compare chersanippos. choinix (pl. choinikes).  A dry measure (equivalent to approximately .98 liters). cho‫ﻼ‬matikon (pl. cho‫ﻼ‬matika).  A tax for the support of dykes (cho‫ﷳ‬mata). cho‫ﻼ‬matophylax (pl. cho‫ﻼ‬matophylakes).  “Dyke guard.”

338

­Glossar

cho‫ﻼ‬ra (pl. cho‫ﻼ‬rai  ).  “Countryside.” In ancient Greek city-­states, the chor‫ ﷳ‬a consisted of the territory outside the polis (city-­state) proper. In Ptolemaic Egypt, the cho‫ﷳ‬ra was all of the land outside of the Greek poleis Alexandria, Naukratis, and Ptolemais. chortophylax (pl. chortophylakes).  “Hay guard.” chrem were judges for civil ‫ ﻼ‬atistes‫( ﻼ‬pl. chrem ‫ ﻼ‬atistai  ).  The chrematistai ‫ﷴ‬ cases involving both Greeks and Egyptians. See also laokrites. ‫ﷴ‬ chrem ‫ ﻼ‬atophylax (pl. chrem ‫ ﻼ‬atophylakes).  “Money guard.” cohors urbana (pl. cohortes urbanae).  One of three Roman military detachments created by Augustus that policed the city of Rome. dekadarche‫ﻼ‬s to‫ﻼ‬n Arabo‫ﻼ‬n (pl. dekadarchai to‫ﻼ‬n Arabo‫ﻼ‬n).  Literally “commander of ten (of the) Arabs.” Apparently an administrator of Arabes. dekanikos (pl. dekanikoi  ).  Probably “commander of ten men.” This official may have been identical with the dekanos, though he may also have been a military official along the lines of the Roman decurio (commander of ten cavalrymen). dekanos (pl. dekanoi  ).  “Commander of ten (men).” This term may occasionally have been used to refer to the dekanos phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. dekanos phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. dekanoi phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  Literally “commander of ten phylakitai.” This (rarely attested) official probably supervised small detachments of policemen. dem ‫ ﻼ‬osion (pl. dem ‫ ﻼ‬osia). A public archive. de‫ﻼ‬mosios (pl. de‫ﻼ‬mosioi  ).  A public slave. In Egypt (and elsewhere) under the Romans, these sometimes had police functions. desmophylakion (pl. desmophylakia).  The “prisoner guarding place.” A type of prison. desmophylax (pl. desmophylakes).  “Prison guard.” These men worked in Ptolemaic jails, transferred prisoners, and received bail payments, among other things. desmot‫ ﻼ‬er‫ ﻼ‬ion (pl. desmot‫ ﻼ‬er‫ ﻼ‬ia).  A “place of bondage.” A common term for prison in Ptolemaic Egypt; also the term used to describe the prison at Athens. desmo‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬s (pl. desmo‫ﻼ‬tai  ).  A “bound person.” Term for a prisoner, perhaps often a shackled prisoner. diadochos (pl. diadochoi  ).  “Successor.” In the period after Alexander the Great (323–30 b.c.), the term commonly refers to the generals who came to control the kingdoms carved out of his empire, eventually

­Glossar

339

known as the Hellenistic kingdoms. Also used as a court title under the Ptolemies. dikaste‫ﻼ‬rion (pl. dikaste‫ﻼ‬ria).  In Ptolemaic Egypt, this “court” served Greeks and non-­Egyptians. dikaste‫ﻼ‬s (pl. dikastai  ).  A juryman. dioike‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬s (pl. dioike‫ﻼ‬tai  ).  “Administrator, treasurer.” The dioike‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s was the most important financial official under the Ptolemies. doorkeeper ( jrj-­).  At pharaonic Deir el-­Medina, this official watched over government supplies and could serve as a bailiff or tax collector. drapetago‫ﻼ‬gion (pl. drapetago‫ﻼ‬gia).  The “place for bringing runaway slaves,” a type of detention facility. duumvir iure dicundo (pl. duoviri iure dicundo).  Literally “one of two men in charge of prescribing law.” An official in towns with Roman charters who was responsible for law and order. eikono‫ﻼ‬n eisphora (pl. eikono‫ﻼ‬n eisphorai  ).  Evidently a tax for the creation or maintenance of statues. eire‫ﻼ‬narche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. eire‫ﻼ‬narchai  ).  Literally “chief of the peace.” In the Roman East, this official was in charge of local militias. eisago‫ﻼ‬geus (pl. eisago‫ﻼ‬geis).  “Introducer.” This official introduced cases into Ptolemaic courts. eisangeleus (pl. eisangeleis).  “Announcer.” This term generally designated a subordinate and possibly an usher. ekkle‫ﻼ‬sia (pl. ekkle‫ﻼ‬siai  ).  “Assembly.” At Athens this was the main voting assembly, in theory composed of all citizens over the age of thirty. eklogiste‫ﻼ‬s (pl. eklogistai  ).  “Accountant.” A term for a financial official in Ptolemaic Egypt. emporos (pl. emporoi  ).  “Merchant.” en aphesei.  A phrase that appears in a number of Ptolemaic texts to describe land (ge). ‫ ﷴ‬It literally means “in release” and perhaps refers to privately owned land (as opposed to state land), though this is disputed. enteuxis (pl. enteuxeis).  Literally a “meeting with.” This was a term for a petition, often to a high-­ranking official or the king or queen. entole‫( ﻼ‬pl. entolai  ).  A circular letter, often distributed to regional (town, village, district, etc.) officials. ephe‫ﻼ‬ge‫ﻼ‬sis (pl. ephe‫ﻼ‬ge‫ﻼ‬seis).  A term for arrest (meaning literally “leading to”) denoting (at Athens, at least) a magistrate being led to an accused by an accuser.

340

­Glossar

ephe‫ﻼ‬mereute‫ﻼ‬rion (pl. ephe‫ﻼ‬mereute‫ﻼ‬ria).  The “place for day-­guards.” Also a place of detention. ephodikos kle‫ﻼ‬ros (pl. ephodikoi kle‫ﻼ‬roi  ).  Literally “allotment of a wayfarer.” This was a government land grant to an ephodos. ephodos (pl. ephodoi  ).  “Wayfarer.” A Ptolemaic official who probably worked near and along roads (hodoi) and had police duties. (ho) epi tais episkepsesi(n) (pl. (hoi) epi tais episkepsesi(n)).  “(The man) in charge of the examinations.” A judicial official. (ho) epi tes‫ ﻼ‬phylakes‫( ﻼ‬pl. (hoi) epi tes‫ ﻼ‬phylakes‫) ﻼ‬.  “(The man) in charge of the phylake.” ‫ ﷴ‬One text suggests that such an official could block the passage of travelers on the Nile. Perhaps to be equated with (ho) epi tou phylakeiou? (ho) epi ton ‫ ﻼ‬myrion ‫( ﻼ‬pl. (hoi) epi ton ‫ ﻼ‬myrion ‫) ﻼ‬.  “(The man) in charge of the ten thousand.” (ho) epi ton ‫ ﻼ‬phylakiton ‫( ﻼ‬pl. (hoi) epi ton ‫ ﻼ‬phylakiton ‫) ﻼ‬.  “(The man) in charge of the phylakitai.” This title – if actually a title – is rare and suggests an official with supervisory powers over phylakitai. (ho) epi to‫ﻼ‬n prosodo‫ﻼ‬n (pl. (hoi) epi to‫ﻼ‬n prosodo‫ﻼ‬n).  “(The man) in charge of the revenues.” This official had organizational duties connected with the harvest in Egyptian villages. (ho) epi tou en tei‫ ﻼ‬aulei‫ ﻼ‬kriter‫ ﻼ‬iou (pl. (hoi) epi tou en tei‫ ﻼ‬aulei‫ﻼ‬ krite‫ﻼ‬riou).  “(The man) in charge of the court in the (royal) court.” (ho) epi tou phylakeiou (pl. (hoi) epi tou phylakeiou).  “(The man) in charge of the phylakeion (guard-­place).” This title is perhaps to be equated with that of (ho) epi tes‫ ﷴ‬phylakes. ‫ﷴ‬ epigone‫( ﻼ‬pl. epigonai  ) (also epigone‫ﻼ‬s, “of the epigone‫ ;”ﻼ‬epigono‫ﻼ‬n, “of the epigonai”).  “Offspring.” The exact meaning of this term as it applies to certain classes of people in Ptolemaic Egypt has long been a matter of dispute. It was used to designate classes of settlers by ethnicity, real or artificial. epimelet‫ ﻼ‬es‫( ﻼ‬pl. epimelet‫ ﻼ‬ai  ).  “Curator, manager.” The Ptolemaic epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷴ‬was an upper-­level official with authority in certain areas of the economy. epiploos or epiplous (pl. epiploi  ).  Literally “(man) on board ship.” A security guard on a boat. episkepsis (pl. episkepseis).  An “examination,” often before an official or officials.

­Glossar

341

episkopos (pl. episkopoi  ).  “Overseer.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, this (rarely attested) official apparently had judicial duties. epispoudaste‫ﻼ‬s (pl. epispoudastai  ).  Literally “the man who makes haste.” A grain transport official. epistate‫ﻼ‬s (pl. epistatai  ).  Literally “man in charge.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, epistatai were the chief civil officials in towns and villages and had direct contact with police ( phylakitai) and provincial governors (strategoi). ‫ﷴ‬ epistate‫ﻼ‬s hierou/hiero‫ﻼ‬n (pl. epistatai hierou/hiero‫ﻼ‬n).  “Man (put) in charge of (a) temple/temples.” This seems to have been an official with financial oversight over the temple(s) under his authority. epistate‫ﻼ‬s (to‫ﻼ‬n) phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. epistatai (to‫ﻼ‬n) phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “Man in charge of the police” (or “police commissioner” to further distinguish the post from other positions with supervisory powers over the phylakitai). A nome-­level official in Ptolemaic Egypt in charge of the phylakitai in his province. epistolographos (pl. epistolographoi).  “Letter writer.” An administrator of the royal records office. He could also be attached to an official. epistrate‫ﻼ‬gos (pl. epistrate‫ﻼ‬goi  ).  Something like “chief strate‫ﷴ‬gos.” In Egypt, essentially a governor over an especially large or important region (i.e., more than one nome/province, or a problematic area). ere‫ﻼ‬mophylax (pl. ere‫ﻼ‬mophylakes).  “Desert guard.” erganophylax (pl. erganophylakes).  “Guard of (agricultural?) tools.” frumentarius (pl. frumentarii  ).  Literally “grain-­foraging (soldier).” A type of Roman military policeman with intelligence-­gathering and supervisory powers. gazophylax (pl. gazophylakes).  “Treasure guard.” gene‫ﻼ‬matophylakia (pl. gene‫ﻼ‬matophylakiai  ).  “Guarding of crops.” A designation for the annual state harvest in Ptolemaic Egypt, during which crops were gathered, measured, transferred, and protected. gene‫ﻼ‬matophylax (pl. gene‫ﻼ‬matophylakes).  “Crop guard.” These officials gathered crops, transferred them to granaries and threshing-­floors, and protected them. gerrophylax (pl. gerrophylakes).  Literally “wicker guard.” This was probably a guard of some kind of wicker barrier. grammateus (pl. grammateis).  Generic term for a “scribe,” whose duties – in theory, at least – were primarily clerical.

342

­Glossar

grammateus geo‫ﻼ‬rgo‫ﻼ‬n (pl. grammateis geo‫ﻼ‬rgo‫ﻼ‬n).  Literally “scribe of the farmers.” grammateus phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. grammateis phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “Scribe of the police.” This official (rarely attested) seems to have kept accounts for the phylakitai and their superiors and may have paid police wages. Great Prison (hnrt wr(t)).  A multipurpose government building at (Egyptian) Thebes that, among other things, housed offenders awaiting punishment. guardian (swtj / sw).  At (pharaonic) Deir el-­Medina, these officials served as guards and investigators and were occasionally present at court. halo‫ﻼ‬nophylax (pl. halo‫ﻼ‬nophylakes).  “Guard of a threshing-­floor.” heb‫ ﻼ‬on ‫( ﻼ‬pl. heb‫ ﻼ‬ontes).  “Youth.” At Sparta, a body of three hundred hebontes ‫ﷴ‬ acted as a bodyguard for the kings. heg‫ ﻼ‬emon ‫( ﻼ‬pl. heg‫ ﻼ‬emones) (also ton ‫ ﻼ‬heg‫ ﻼ‬emonon ‫) ﻼ‬.  “Leader” (“of the leaders” for to‫ﷳ‬n hegemono ‫ﷳ‬n). ‫ﷴ‬ heg‫ ﻼ‬emon archaio n ‫ﻼ‬ ‫ ﻼ‬phylakiton ‫( ﻼ‬pl. heg‫ ﻼ‬emones archaion ‫ ﻼ‬phylakiton ‫) ﻼ‬. Literally “leader of former phylakitai,” probably a low-­level police administrator. Attested in only a few texts. See also hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. ‫ﷴ‬ he‫ﻼ‬gemo‫ﻼ‬n ep’ andro‫ﻼ‬n (pl. he‫ﻼ‬gemones ep’ andro‫ﻼ‬n).  “Leader over men.” A designation for a commander of troops on active duty. he‫ﻼ‬gemo‫ﻼ‬n phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. he‫ﻼ‬gemones phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “Leader of phylakitai,” probably a low-­level police administrator. Attested in only a few texts. See also (ho) hegoumenos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. ‫ﷴ‬ heg‫ ﻼ‬emonia phylakiton (pl. heg‫ ﻼ‬emoniai phylakiton ‫ﻼ‬ ‫) ﻼ‬.  The position of hegemo phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. ‫ﷳ‬n (to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n or (ho) hegoumenos ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ (ho) heg‫ ﻼ‬oumenos tes‫ ﻼ‬phylakes‫( ﻼ‬pl. (hoi) heg‫ ﻼ‬oumenoi tes‫ ﻼ‬phylakes‫) ﻼ‬.  “(The man) leading the watch,” a security officer on board a ship. (ho) heg‫ ﻼ‬oumenos (ton ‫ ) ﻼ‬phylakiton ‫( ﻼ‬pl. (hoi) heg‫ ﻼ‬oumenoi (ton ‫) ﻼ‬ phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “Leader of phylakitai,” probably a low-­level police administrator. Attested in only a few texts. See hegemo n‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬. ‫ﷴ‬ heirkte‫( ﻼ‬pl. heirktai  ).  An “enclosure.” A type of detention facility. hekte‫( ﻼ‬pl. hektai  ).  The “sixth,” a tax of one-­sixth levied on orchards and vineyards and used to support the cult of Arsinoë II. Also known as the apomoira. (hoi) hendeka.  “The Eleven.” At Athens, a group of magistrates who had criminal justice duties.

­Glossar

343

(hoi) hepta kat’ agoran.  “The seven in the marketplace.” In Hellenistic Crete, these officials perhaps maintained order in city centers (agorai). hiereus machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n (pl. hiereis machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n).  “Priest of the machairophoroi.” See machairophoros. hipparche‫ﻼ‬s ep’ andro‫ﻼ‬n (pl. hipparchai ep’ andro‫ﻼ‬n).  “Cavalry commander over men.” A Ptolemaic title denoting a commander over men on active (cavalry) duty. hipparchia (pl. hipparchiai  ).  A “command over cavalry.” A division of the Ptolemaic cavalry. hippeus (pl. hippeis).  “Horseman.” A Ptolemaic cavalryman. hormophylax (pl. hormophylakes).  “Harbor guard.” horophylax (or orophylax?) (pl. horophylakes (or orophylakes?)).  “Border guard” (or “mountain guard?”). Attested in Ptolemaic Egypt and other Hellenistic kingdoms; the proper spelling and pronunciation of the term are perhaps unattainable. hunter (nw).  A (pharaonic) Egyptian official who patrolled desert areas looking for fugitives. hybris (pl. hybreis).  Both “insolence” more generally and a legal term for an outrageous offense committed against an individual. hydrophylax (pl. hydrophylakes).  “Water ­guard.” hyparchiphylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. hyparchiphylakitai  ).  Literally “sub­archiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s.” This official (rarely attested) appears to have been something of a deputy for a Ptolemaic police chief (archiphylakites). ‫ﷴ‬ hype‫ﻼ‬rete‫ﻼ‬s (pl. hype‫ﻼ‬retai  ).  Greek for “subordinate.” Many officials in Ptolemaic Egypt had hyperetai. ‫ﷴ‬ hypodioike‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬s (pl. hypodioike‫ﻼ‬tai  ).  “Subtreasurer.” A subordinate or appointee of the dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s. ‫ﷴ‬ hypomne‫ﻼ‬ma (pl. hypomne‫ﻼ‬mata).  “Memorandum.” A designation for, among other things, a type of petition to an official in Ptolemaic Egypt. hypostrate‫ﻼ‬gos (pl. hypostrate‫ﻼ‬goi  ).  “Sub-­strategos.” A subordinate of the ‫ﷴ‬ strategos. ‫ﷴ‬ kakourgos (pl. kakourgoi  ).  “Wrongdoer.” (ho) kata polin (pl. (hoi) kata polin).  “(The man) in the city.” This designation may have occasionally been applied to the post of rhabdophoros. katalochismos (pl. katalochismoi  ).  “Register.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, this was the government’s land-­grant register.

344

­Glossar

katoche‫( ﻼ‬pl. katochai  ).  “Detention.” In Ptolemaic texts, this generally refers to a kind of self-­imposed (?) detention in Egyptian temples. katoikia (pl. katoikiai  ).  “Settlement.” A term that usually refers to the military colonists of Ptolemaic Egypt and their landholdings. kekle‫ﻼ‬rouche‫ﻼ‬menos phylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. kekle‫ﻼ‬rouche‫ﻼ‬menoi phylakitikai  ). Literally “policeman who has received a land grant.” The name designates a phylakites‫ ﷴ‬in the Ptolemaic government’s land-­grant register. kenbet (qnbt).  An informal court at the (pharaonic Egyptian) New Kingdom worksite at Deir el-­Medina. kerke‫ﻼ‬ris (pl. kerke‫ﻼ‬reis).  A type of aquatic bird in Egypt. ker‫ ﻼ‬ux (pl. ker‫ ﻼ‬ukes).  A herald. klepte‫ﻼ‬s (pl. kleptai  ).  “Thief.” kler‫ ﻼ‬os (pl. kler‫ ﻼ‬oi  ).  An allotment of land, often granted to someone by the government. kler‫ ﻼ‬ouchikon (pl. kler‫ ﻼ‬ouchika).  A tax on allotments of land (kleroi). ‫ﷴ‬ kle‫ﻼ‬rouchos (pl. kle‫ﻼ‬rouchoi  ).  A possessor of a kleros, a grant of land from the ‫ﷴ‬ Ptolemaic government. koinon synedrion (pl. koina synedria).  The “common council,” ­evidently a tribunal of sorts over which the strategos, ‫ ﷴ‬basilikos grammateus, and others presided. koite‫( ﻼ‬pl. koitai  ).  “Lodging, entertainment.” ko‫ﻼ‬marche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. ko‫ﻼ‬marchai  ).  “Village chief.” The ko‫ﷳ‬marches‫ ﷴ‬appears to have been an Egyptian civil official with largely agricultural jurisdiction over a village (ko‫ﷳ‬me). ‫ﷴ‬ kom ‫ ﻼ‬archia (pl. kom ‫ ﻼ‬archiai  ).  The office of kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches. ‫ﷴ‬ ko‫ﻼ‬me‫( ﻼ‬pl. ko‫ﻼ‬mai  ).  “Village.” kom ‫ ﻼ‬ogrammateus (pl. kom ‫ ﻼ‬ogrammateis).  “Village scribe.” An important village official in the towns of Greco-­Roman Egypt with a wide variety of civil duties and some police powers as well. ko‫ﻼ‬mophylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. ko‫ﻼ‬mophylakitai  ).  “Village policeman.” A phylakites‫ﷴ‬ (police officer) of a kom ‫ ﷳ‬e‫( ﷴ‬village). The word occurs in only one text. krite‫ﻼ‬rion (pl. krite‫ﻼ‬ria).  A courtroom. krites‫( ﻼ‬pl. kritai  ).  A judge. laokrite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. laokritai  ).  Literally “judge of the people.” These judges handled civil disputes between Egyptians. See also chrematiste s. ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬

­Glossar

345

libyarche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. libyarchai  ).  Literally “ruler of Libya.” A libyarches‫ ﷴ‬perhaps had civil or policing duties in certain areas of Egypt west of the Nile. lictor (pl. lictores).  An attendant on a Roman magistrate who gave an official’s commands a physical form. logiste‫ﻼ‬rion (pl. logiste‫ﻼ‬ria).  The “place of the auditor.” The “auditor” was the logistes, ‫ ﷴ‬an official who audited the accounts of officials going out of office. lonchophoros (pl. lonchophoroi  ).  “Spear bearer.” Perhaps an armed attendant on an official. machairophoros (pl. machairophoroi  ).  “Sword bearer.” The title generally refers to an armed attendant on an official. machimos (pl. machimoi  ).  Greek term for a type of native Egyptian soldier in Ptolemaic Egypt. These soldiers often performed police tasks. mastigophoros (pl. mastigophoroi  ).  “Whip bearer.” These officials served as attendants on other officials and likely also could provide floggings. Medjay (mdꜣy).  During the Egyptian New Kingdom ­(1570–1070 b.c.), these peoples served as something of a national police or security force. Medjay chief (hrj mdꜣy).  A commander of Medjay. meridarche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. meridarchai  ).  “Division commander.” An administrator of a meris. meris (pl. merides).  “Division.” In certain nomes (provinces) of Greco­Roman Egypt, merides were geographic subdivisions containing multiple villages. A meridarches‫ ﷴ‬might command one. See also toparchia. met‫ ﻼ‬ropolis (pl. met‫ ﻼ‬ropoleis).  “Mother city.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, a me‫ﷳ‬tropolis was the chief city of a nome (province). misthophoros hippeus (pl. misthophoroi hippeis).  A “mercenary cavalryman.” naubion (pl. naubia).  An Egyptian measure of capacity equivalent to two cubic cubits. Also equivalent to the ao‫ﷳ‬ilion. naukler‫ ﻼ‬os (pl. naukler‫ ﻼ‬oi  ).  Literally “man assigned to a ship.” nauphylax (pl. nauphylakes).  “Ship guard.” neotas (pl. neotates).  “Youth.” In Hellenistic Crete, a body of neotates perhaps served as a security force. nomarches‫( ﻼ‬pl. nomarchai  ).  “Nome (province) commander.” The nomarches‫ ﷴ‬had primarily agricultural administrative duties in the largest geographic subdivisions of Ptolemaic Egypt, nomes (nomoi).

346

­Glossar

nomarchia (pl. nomarchiai  ).  The office of nomarches. ‫ﷴ‬ nomophylax (pl. nomophylakes).  “Law guard.” Among other things, this official (one of a college) archived copies of laws and official documents. nomos (pl. nomoi  ).  In Greco-­Roman Egypt, a nomos (nome) was a large geographic or administrative district, effectively a province or satrapy. nyktophylax (pl. nyktophylakes).  “Night guard.” This official provided security, likely primarily at night, in the Roman East. ochyrom ‫ ﻼ‬a (pl. ochyrom ‫ ﻼ‬ata).  “Fortress.” oikes‫ ﻼ‬is (pl. oikes‫ ﻼ‬eis).  “Quarters.” In at least one text, the oikesis ‫ ﷴ‬of an archiphylakites‫ ﷴ‬is mentioned; this was perhaps a police station of some sort. oikonomos (pl. oikonomoi  ).  “Manager, steward.” The oikonomos was one of the most important economic officials in the Ptolemaic state. orophylax (or horophylax?) (pl. orophylakes, or horophylakes?).  See horophylax. ouragia (pl. ouragiai  ).  The “rear guard” of an army. ouragos (pl. ouragoi  ).  The “leader of the rear guard” of an army. overseer of all disputes ( jmj-­r snt t nbt).  Pharaonic Egyptian official with judicial jurisdiction, likely over districts or fortresses. overseer of all police patrols on water and on land ( jmj-­r šnꜥ w nb hr mw hr tꜣ).  Pharaonic Egyptian official, perhaps with jurisdiction over “patrols.” overseer of desert blockhouses and royal fortresses ( jmj-­r rthw zmwt mnnw nswt) or overseer of the affairs of the fortresses ( jmj-­r wpt mnnw).  A (pharaonic) Egyptian official charged with general supervision of frontiers and wadis and perhaps other types of royal infrastructure. paradeisophylax (pl. paradeisophylakes).  “Garden guard.” paramone‫( ﻼ‬pl. paramonai  ).  Literally “remaining.” This was a legal term in Ptolemaic Egypt for the obligation to appear at an inquiry. paraphylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. paraphylakitai  ).  Literally “side policeman.” A paramilitary (?) official attested in the Hellenistic period outside of Ptolemaic Egypt in a handful of sources. pastophorion (pl. pastophoria).  The “place of the pastophoroi.” A room assigned to pastophoroi. pastophoros (pl. pastophoroi  ).  “Shrine-­carrier.” Term for an assistant priest who, among other things, carried the shrine of his god. patrols (phrt).  Guards of border regions in pharaonic times, perhaps supervised by the “overseer of all police patrols on water and on land.”

­Glossar

347

peripolion (pl. peripolia).  “Guard house.” A station for peripoloi. peripolos (pl. peripoloi  ).  “Watchman.” A term for a type of guard during the Hellenistic period but unattested in Ptolemaic Egypt. pezos (pl. pezoi  ).  Generic term for a foot soldier. philos (pl. philoi; also philo‫ﻼ‬n).  “Friend” (and “of the friends” for philo‫ﷳ‬n). The word had specific meanings across the time and space of Ptolemaic rule as a court title. pho‫ﻼ‬r (pl. pho‫ﻼ‬res).  Most commonly used to mean “thief,” it seems to have been the case that the Ptolemies also had officials known as pho‫ﷳ‬res who were in charge of catching thieves. pho‫ﻼ‬ra basilike‫( ﻼ‬pl. pho‫ﻼ‬rai basilikai  ).  “Theft from the crown.” phrourarchos (pl. phrourarchoi  ).  “Garrison chief.” The commander of a phrourion. phrourion (pl. phrouria).  “Garrison.” A fortified station for guards. phrouros (pl. phrouroi  ).  “Guard, watcher.” A security guard during the Hellenistic period; the plural can mean “garrison.” phylake‫( ﻼ‬pl. phylakai  ).  The word can mean “watch” or “guard,” but in texts dealing with policing under the Ptolemies, it usually refers to a type of all-­purpose police building that housed a prison. phylakeion (pl. phylakeia).  “Guard place.” Perhaps another term for phylake.‫ ﷴ‬There is a phylakeion attested for Memphis. phylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. phylakitai  ).  “Policeman.” The most common type of law enforcement official in the towns and villages of Ptolemaic Egypt. phylakite‫ﻼ‬s to‫ﻼ‬n hamaxo‫ﻼ‬n (pl. phylakitai to‫ﻼ‬n hamaxo‫ﻼ‬n).  Literally “policeman of the wagons.” The title appears in only one text. phylakitikon (pl. phylakitika).  “Police tax.” This appears to have been levied to support police activities and pay the wages of phylakitai and their superiors. phylakitikos kle‫ﻼ‬ros (pl. phylakitikoi kle‫ﻼ‬roi  ).  An allotment of land belonging to a phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ phylax (pl. phylakes).  “Guard.” A generic term used to describe someone with supervisory or protective duties, but also used to describe an actual position. phyle‫( ﻼ‬pl. phylai  ).  “Tribe.” In Greek city-­states (poleis), this term often designated a regional subdivision of the population. plagiophylax (pl. plagiophylakes).  “Flank guard.” Probably a guard for an army in transit.

348

­Glossar

plebs (pl. plebes).  In republican Rome, most citizens belonged to this (in many respects lower) class. It was distinct from the patrician class, which controlled the majority of the magistracies. polis (pl. poleis).  A Greek “city-­state,” consisting of the city proper (polis) plus an amount of surrounding territory (the cho‫ﷳ‬ra) belonging to the polis. politarche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. politarchai  ).  In Ptolemaic Herakleopolis, the Jewish politeuma (body of citizens) was served by a board of judicial officials (archontes, “leaders”) headed by a politarches‫( ﷴ‬city leader). politeuma (pl. politeumata).  A “body of citizens.” There was a Jewish politeuma in Ptolemaic Herakleopolis that had a judicial body of archontes (leaders) headed by a politarche‫ﷴ‬s (city leader). potamophylax (pl. potamophylakes).  “River guard.” pote‫ﻼ‬rion (pl. pote‫ﻼ‬ria).  A cup or jar. praefectus urbi (pl. praefecti urbi  ).  Literally “the man (put) in charge of the city.” A Roman official who tended to law and order and tried various types of cases. praefectus vigilum (pl. praefecti vigilum).  Literally “the man (put) in charge of the watches.” At Rome, he commanded the night fire brigades (vigiles). He also could try certain cases and mete out punishments. praetorianus (pl. praetoriani  ).  A praetorian guard, a member of a body of nine cohorts of five hundred men under the personal command of the Roman emperor. These soldiers served as a bodyguard, among other things. prakto‫ﻼ‬r (pl. praktores).  “Extractor.” A state debt collector. praktoreion (pl. praktoreia).  The office of the prakto‫ﷳ‬r, also a place where people could be detained. (ho) proeste‫ﻼ‬ko‫ﻼ‬s (to‫ﻼ‬n) phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. (hoi) proeste‫ﻼ‬kotes (to‫ﻼ‬n) phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “(The man placed) in charge of the phylakitai.” This official was probably low on the administrative ladder but had supervisory powers over a number of police officers. Probably identical with prostates‫ﷴ‬ phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. (ho) pros tais anakrisesi(n)) (pl. (hoi) pros tais anakrisesi(n)).  “(The man) in charge of the examinations.” (ho) pros tais phylakais tetagmenos (pl. (hoi) pros tais phylakais tetagmenoi  ).  “(The man) assigned to the phylakai.” In one text, this official makes a confiscation. See phylake.‫ﷴ‬

­Glossar

349

(ho) pros tais syntaxesi(n) (pl. (hoi) pros tais syntaxesi(n)).  “(The man) in charge of the assignments.” An official in charge of individuals who granted their government-­assigned land to others to administer. (ho) pros te‫ﻼ‬i exago‫ﻼ‬ge‫ﻼ‬i tou sitou (pl. (hoi) pros te‫ﻼ‬i exago‫ﻼ‬ge‫ﻼ‬i tou sitou).  Literally, “(the man) in charge of the export of grain.” prosangelma (pl. prosangelmata).  A “notification” from a private individual to an official, or from one official to another. prostagma (pl. prostagmata).  A “command” from an official, often in written form. prostate‫ﻼ‬s machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n (pl. prostatai machairophoro‫ﻼ‬n).  “(The man placed) in charge of the machairophoroi.” Evidently a commander of machairophoroi. prostate‫ﻼ‬s phylakito‫ﻼ‬n (pl. prostatai phylakito‫ﻼ‬n).  “(The man placed) in charge of the phylakitai.” This official probably had supervisory powers over a number of police officers. Likely identical with (ho) proesteko ‫ﷳ ﷴ‬s (to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n. pro‫ﻼ‬tos philos (pl. pro‫ﻼ‬toi philoi; also (to‫ﻼ‬n) pro‫ﻼ‬to‫ﻼ‬n philo‫ﻼ‬n) “First friend” (or “of the first friends” for (to‫ﻼ‬n) pro‫ﻼ‬to‫ﻼ‬n philo‫ﻼ‬n). A Ptolemaic court title. regionarius (pl. regionarii  ).  A “regional” soldier. In Roman Egypt, these often had police tasks, such as transporting witnesses, granting bail, and interrogating suspects. rhabdophorikon (pl. rhabdophorika).  “Club-­bearer tax.” A tax levied to support the activity of rhabdophoroi. rhabdophoros (pl. rhabdophoroi  ).  “Club bearer.” Aside from what the name implies, these officials may have had security functions. scriba (pl. scribae).  “Scribe.” Refers to a clerical member of the Roman civil service who also had some police or security functions. sitologos (pl. sitologoi  ).  An official who kept records (logoi) of grain (sitos). skeuophylax (pl. skeuophylakes).  “Baggage guard.” so‫ﻼ‬ma (pl. so‫ﻼ‬mata).  “Body.” The word often has the meaning “slave.” so‫ﻼ‬matophylax (pl. so‫ﻼ‬matophylakes).  “Bodyguard.” A Ptolemaic court title. speculator (pl. speculatores).  “Spy, sentinel.” A secret policeman, one of the praetoriani; created by Augustus and charged with a number of special duties. stationarius (pl. stationarii  ).  A Roman soldier stationed in a ­military detachment along a public road.

350

­Glossar

stephanos (pl. stephanoi  ).  “Crown.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, this was a special (extraordinary) tax levied by the state. strate‫ﻼ‬gos (pl. strate‫ﻼ‬goi  ).  “General.” The most important civil official in each of the nomes (provinces) of Ptolemaic Egypt; effectively a governor. stratio‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬s (pl. stratio‫ﻼ‬tai  ).  A soldier. symbolophylax (pl. symbolophylakes).  “Receipt guard.” syngene‫ﻼ‬s (pl. syngeneis).  “Companion.” This was a Ptolemaic court title. syngraphophylax (pl. syngraphophylakes).  “Contract guard.” synoche‫( ﻼ‬pl. synochai  ).  Literally a “holding together.” The word can be used to refer to detention in general as well as a place of detention. synphylakite‫ﻼ‬s (pl. synphylakitai  ).  Literally a “phylakite‫ﷴ‬s with (someone).” The word occurs in only one text. telo‫ﻼ‬ne‫ﻼ‬s (pl. telo‫ﻼ‬nai  ).  A tax collector. temenos (pl. temenoi  ).  A sacred precinct. (ho) tetagmenos epi tou desmo‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬riou (pl. (hoi) tetagmenoi epi tou desmo‫ﻼ‬te‫ﻼ‬riou).  “(The man) appointed to the prisoner place (desmo‫ﷳ‬terion),” ‫ﷴ‬ probably a designation for a type of jailor. theagos (pl. theagoi  ).  Literally “god leader.” A priest who had as a primary occupation the conveyance of mummified animals in procession. the‫ﻼ‬rophylax (pl. the‫ﻼ‬rophylakes).  “Beast-­guard.” This term may have designated a type of hunter, or perhaps someone who guarded wild beasts that had been captured. the‫ﻼ‬sauros (pl. the‫ﻼ‬sauroi  ).  “Treasury.” This was also a common word for a granary. the‫ﻼ‬saurophylakikon (pl. the‫ﻼ‬saurophylakika).  Literally “granary guard tax.” A tax for the maintenance of granaries, perhaps also used to pay the wages of thesaurophylakes, “granary guards.” Sometimes called ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakitikon. ‫ﷴ‬ the‫ﻼ‬saurophylakitikon (pl. the‫ﻼ‬saurophylakitika).  See thesaurophylakikon. ‫ﷴ‬ the‫ﻼ‬saurophylax (pl. the‫ﻼ‬saurophylakes).  “Granary guard.” These worked in both public and private capacities in Ptolemaic Egypt. thesmophylax (pl. thesmophylakes).  “Law guard.” In Ptolemaic Egypt, a body of thesmophylakes could assess contracts for correctness and enforce their terms. thyro‫ﻼ‬ros (pl. thyro‫ﻼ‬roi  ).  “Doorman.” A guard posted at the front of a home or building.

­Glossar

351

toparche‫ﻼ‬s (pl. toparchai  ).  The “commander of a topos (district).” He had primarily agricultural jurisdiction. toparchia (pl. toparchiai  ).  The position of toparches, ‫ ﷴ‬who had sway over a topos. Sizewise, a topos was in between a province and a village and comparable to a meris. topogrammateus (pl. topogrammateis).  The “scribe of a topos.” These officials sat in the middle of the scribal hierarchy in Ptolemaic Egypt, between kom ‫ ﷳ‬ogrammateis (at the bottom) and basilikoi grammateis (at the top). topos (pl. topoi  ).  Literally a “place” or “region.” In Greco-­Roman Egypt, topoi were geographic or administrative divisions between nomoi (nomes) and villages, similar in size to merides. toxote‫ﻼ‬s (pl. toxotai  ).  “Archer.” At Athens, the toxotai were a group of public slaves from Scythia who were employed as brute force by certain magistrates. tribunus (pl. tribuni  ).  Tribune. A Roman magistrate with a variety of police powers. triumvir capitalis (pl. tresviri capitales).  Literally “one of three men concerned with capital offenses.” A Roman magistrate who among other things supervised jails, led searches for fugitive slaves, and presided over certain judicial proceedings. viator (pl. viatores).  “Wayfarer.” In the Roman West, this official helped guard against bandits and civil strife. vigil (pl. vigiles).  A “watch.” At Rome, vigiles were night fire brigades composed of public slaves. Aside from fighting fires, they also dealt with burglary and assault, among other things. vizier (tꜣ tj  ).  In pharaonic Egypt, the vizier was the chief civil magistrate and deputy of the pharaoh.

Works ­Cited

Abbott, F. F. 1963 [1911]. A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. 3rd ed. New York: Biblo and Tannen. Adam, S. 2007. “Réponse à Edward Harris.” In Symposion 2005, ed. E. Cantarella. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 177–82. Allam, S. 1991. “Egyptian Law Courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic Times.” JEA 77: 109–27. ———. 2008. “Regarding the Eisagogeus (εἰσαγωγεύς) at Ptolemaic Law Courts.” JEgH 1: 3–19. Allen, D. S. 1997. “Imprisonment in Classical Athens.” CQ 47: 121–35. Allen, R. E. 1983. The Attalid Kingdom: A Constitutional History. Oxford: Clarendon. Alston, R. 1994. “Violence and Social Control in Roman Egypt.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23–29 August 1992, ed. A. Bülow-­Jacobsen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. 517–21. ———. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History. New York: Routledge. Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl. 1964. Die Araber in der alten Welt. Vol. 1: Bis zum Beginn der Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Aly, Z. 1995 [1943–4]. “The Judicial System at Work in Ptolemaic Egyptian Law-­Courts.” In Essays and Papers: A Miscellaneous Output of Greek Papyri from Graeco-­Roman Egypt. Athens: Greek Papyrological Society. 9–34. (Reprinted from BSRAA 36 [1943–4]: 54–82.) Ambaglio, D. 1987. “Tensioni etniche e sociali nella chóra tolemaica.” Studi ellenistici 2. Biblioteca di studi antichii 54. Ed. B. Virgilio. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori. 129–62.

353

354

Works ­Cited

Arias-­Bonet, J. A. 1957–8. “Los ‘agentes in rebus.’ Contribucion al estudio de la policia en el Bajo Imperio romano.” AHDE 27–8: 197–219. Attinger, P. 2003. “L’hymne à Nungal.” In Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 15–34. Aubert, J.-­J. 1994. “Policing the Countryside: Soldiers and Civilians in Egyptian Villages in the 3rd and 4th centuries a.d.” In Le hiérarchie (Randordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le Haut-­Empire: actes du congrès de Lyon (15–18 septembre 1994), ed. Y. Le Bohec. Paris: De Boccard. 257–65. Austin, M. M. 2006. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, N. J. E., and B. Rankov. 1995. Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople. London: Routledge. Aymard, J. 1951. Essai sur les chasses romaines des origins à la fin du siècle des Antonins (Cynegetica). Paris: De Boccard. Baade, E. C. 1956. “Jurisdiction in Roman Egypt.” Diss. Yale University. Badian, E. 1989. “The scribae of the Roman Republic.” Klio 71: 582–603. Bagnall, R. S. 1969. “Some Notes on P.Hib. 198.” BASP 6: 73–118. ———. 1977. “Army and Police in Roman Upper Egypt.” JARCE 14: 67–86. ———. 1989. “Official and Private Violence in Roman Egypt.” BASP 26: 201–16. ———. 1993. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ———. 2001. “Archaeological Work on Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 1995–2000.” AJA 105: 227–43. Bagnall, R. S., ed. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bagnall, R. S., and P. Derow, eds. 2004. The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Baines, J. 1983. “Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society.” Man (n.s.) 18: 572–99. Baines, J., and C. J. Eyre. 1983. “Four Notes on Literacy.” GM 61: 65–96. Balcer, J. M. 1977. “The Athenian episkopos and the Achaemenid ‘King’s Eye.’” AJPh 98: 252–63.

Works ­Cited

355

Baldwin, R. 1963. “Crime and Criminals in Graeco-­Roman Egypt.” Aegyptus 43: 256–63. Bar-­Kochva, B. 1976. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barmash, P. 2004. “Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide during the Second and First Millennia b.c.e.” JNES 63: 183–99. Barrow, R. H. 1973. The Relationes of Symmachus, a.d. 384. Oxford: Clarendon. Bastianini, G. 1981. “Un abbozzo di enteuxis (P. Vindob. Barbara 9).” ZPE 44: 147–52. Bauman, R. A. 1996. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Bauschatz, J. 2005. “Policing the Chor‫ ﷳ‬a: Law Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Diss. Duke. ———. 2007a. “Archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Hierarchy of Equals?” SyllClass 18: 181–211. ———. 2007b. “Ptolemaic Prisons Reconsidered.” CB 83: 3–48. ———. 2007c. “The Strong Arm of the Law? Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt.” CJ 103: 13–39. Beare, R. 1980. “Ptolemy’s Daimon and Ruler-­Cult.” Klio 62: 327–30. Bedell, E. D. 1974. “Criminal Law in the Egyptian Ramesside Period.” Diss. Brandeis University. Bell, H. I. 1922. “Hellenic Culture in Egypt.” JEA 8: 139–55. Bengston, H. 1964–7. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck. Berneker, E. 1930. Zur Geschichte der Prozess-­einleitung im ptolemäischen Recht. Ansbach: C. Brügel & Sohn. ———. 1935. Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens. Munich: Beck. Bertrand-­Dagenbach, C., A. Chauvot, M. Matter, and J.-­M. Salamito, eds. 1999. Carcer: Prison et privation de liberté dans l’antiquité classique. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (5 et 6 décembre 1997). Paris: De Boccard. Bertrand-­Dagenbach, C., J.-­M. Salamito, and D. Vaillancourt, eds. 2004. Carcer II: Prison et privation de liberté dans l’Empire romain et l’Occident médiéval. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (décembre 2000). Paris: De Boccard. Bevan, E. R. 1968. The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Chicago: Argonaut.

356

Works ­Cited

Bickerman, E. 1983. “The Seleucid Period.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1, ed. E. Yarshater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–20. Biederman, E. 1913. Studien zur ägyptischen Verwaltungsgeschichte in ptolemäisch-­römischer Zeit. Der Βασιλικὸς Γραμματεύς. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Biezunska-­Malowist, I. 1979. “Les esclaves impériaux dans l’Égypte romaine.” In Schiavitù, manomissione e classi dipendenti nel mondo antico, ed. M. Capozza. Rome: L’Erma. 175–83. Bilde, P., T. Engberg-­Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, eds. 1992. Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Blackman, A. M. 1925. “Oracles in Ancient Egypt I.” JEA 11: 249–­55. ———. 1926. “Oracles in Ancient Egypt II.” JEA 12: 176–85. Bleicken, J. 1968. Das Volkstribunatder klassischen Republik. Studien zu seiner Entwicklung zwischen 287 und 133 v. Chr. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck. Blockeley, R. C. 1969. “Internal Self-­Policing in the Late Roman Administration: Some Evidence from Ammianus Marcianus.” C&M 30: 403–19. Blum, W. 1969. Curiosi und Regendarii: Untersuchungen zur Geheimen Staatspolizei der Spätantike. Munich: UNI-­Druck. Bonner, R. J., and G. Smith. 1938. The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonnet, H. 2000 [1952]. Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Borkowski, A., and P. du Plessis. 2005. Textbook on Roman Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borkowski, Z. 1971. “Toll-­Receipts.” JJP 16–17: 131–9. Bottéro, J. 1992. Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Trans. Z. Bahrani and M. Van De Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bradley, K. R. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. Brussels: Latomus. ———. 1994. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braund, D. 1999. “The Governor’s Entourage (cohors) and the Ideology of Roman Imperialism.” VDI 228: 73–85. [In Russian; English summary at 84–5] Brélaz, C. 2005. La sécurité publique en Asie Mineure sous le Principat (Ier–IIIe s. ap. J.-­C.): institutions municipales et institutions impériales dans l’Orient romain. Basel: Schwabe.

Works ­Cited

357

Bresciani, E. 1986. “Iconografia e culto di Premarres nel Fayum.” EVO 9: 49–58. Briant, P. 1990. “The Seleucid Kingdom, the Achaemenid Empire and the History of the Near East in the First Millennium bc.” In Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, ed. P. Bilde, T. Engberg­Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 40–65. Brunt, P. A. 1971. Italian Manpower, 225 b.c.–a.d. 14. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1975. “The Administration of Roman Egypt.” JRS 65: 124–47. Bulloch, A., E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart, eds. 1993. Images and Ideologies: Self-­Definition in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Burton, G. P. 1975. “Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire.” JRS 65: 92–106. Calderini, A. 1924. ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΙ. Ricerche di topografia e di storia della pubblica amministrazione nell’ Egitto greco-­romano. Milan: Aegyptus. Camp, J. M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London: Thames and Hudson. Cancelli, F. 1956. “A proposito di ‘tresviri capitales.’” In Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci, vol. 3. Milan: Dott. Antonino Giuffrè. 15–35. Cancik, H., and H. Schneider, eds. 2002–10. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World; Antiquity. 16 vols. Leiden: Brill. Carawan, E., ed. 2007. Oxford Readings in the Attic Orators. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carey, C. 1997. Trials from Classical Athens. London: Routledge. Cascione, C. 1999. “Tresviri capitales”: storia di una magistratura minore. Naples: Ed. Scientifica. Casini, M. 1990. “‘Carcere’ nella terminologia accadica.” EVO 13: 127–34. Cerný, J. 1973. A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. ———. 2008. “Policing the Hellenistic Countryside: Realities and Ideologies.” In Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes, ed. C. Brélaz and P. Ducrey. Geneva: Fondation Hardt. 103–45. Chankowski, A. S. 2004. “L’entraînement militaire des éphèbes dans les cites grecques d’Asie Mineure à l’époque hellénistique: nécessité pratique ou tradition atrophée?” In Les cités grecques et la guerre en Asie

358

Works ­Cited

Mineure à l’époque hellénistique, ed. J.-­C. Couvenhes and H.-­L. Fernoux. Tours: Presses Universitaires François-­Rabelais. 55–76. Chastagnol, A. 1960. La préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas–Empire. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. ———. 1962. Les fastes de la Préfecture de Rome au Bas-­Empire. Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines. Chauveau, M. 2000. Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra: History and Society under the Ptolemies. Trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Chauvot, A. 1999. “Conclusion.” In C. Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al., 221–4. Clarysse, W. 1976. “Harmachis, Agent of the Oikonomos: An Archive from the Time of Philopator.” AncSoc 7: 185–207. ———. 1986. “UPZ I 6a, a Reconstruction by Revillout.” Enchoria 14: 43–­9. ———. 1989. “Slaven en papyri.” Kleio 19: 1–22. [In Dutch] ———. 1997. “Nomarchs and Toparchs in the Third Century Fayum.” In Archeologia e papyri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del convegno internazionale. Siracusa, 24–25 maggio 1996. Syracuse: Istituto Internazionale del Papiro. 69–76. ———. 1998. “Ethnic Diversity and Dialect among the Greeks of Hellenistic Egypt.” In The Two Faces of Graeco-­Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-­Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman, ed. A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming. Leiden: Brill. 1–13. ———. 2002. “Three Ptolemaic Papyri on Prisoners.” APF 48: 98–106. Clarysse, W., and D. Thompson. 2005. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (P.Count). Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. Clarysse, W., and K. Vandorpe. 1995. Zenon, un homme d’affaires grec à l’ombre des pyramides. Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain. ———. 1998. “The Ptolemaic apomoira.” In Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles, 10 mai 1995, ed. H. Melaerts. Leuven: Peeters. 5–42. Clauss, M. 1973. “Untersuchungen zu den principales des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian. Cornicularii, speculatores, frumentarii.” Diss. Ruhr-­Universität Bochum. Coffey, M. 1989. Roman Satire. 2nd ed. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Cohen, B. 1970. “Administrative Status Groups in Rome.” In Commentationes ad antiquitatem classicam pertinentes: in memoriam Benzionis Katz, ed. W. Rozelaar and B. Shimron. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 78–102. [In Hebrew] Cohen, D. 1995. Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Works ­Cited

359

———. 2005. “Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens.” In The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, ed. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 211–35. Cohen, E. 1992. Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cohen, G. M. 1978. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Colin, F. 1994. “Identités ethniques et interactions culturelles dans l’antiquité. Réflexions autour de l’ouvrage Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt.” AC 63: 253–62. Coulson, W. D. E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1981. Cities of the Delta, I: Naukratis; Preliminary Report on the 1977–78 and 1980 Seasons. Malibu, Calif.: Undena. Cowey, J. M. S. 1995. “New Readings in an Edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (BGU II 372).” ZPE 106: 195–9. Crawford, D. J. 1971. Kerkeosiris: An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1978. “The Good Official of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka. 195–202. Criscuolo, L. 1978. “Richerche sul komogrammateus nell’Egitto tolemaico.” Aegyptus 58: 3–101. ———. 1981. “Orphanoi e orphanoi kleroi: ‫ ﷴ‬nuovi aspetti dell’ evoluzione del diritto cleruchico.” In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York, 24–31 July 1980, ed. R. S. Bagnall. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. 259–65. Crook, J. A. 1967. Law and Life of Rome, 90 b.c.–a.d. 212. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Cuvigny, H. 1984. “La surveillance des récoltes (γενηματοφυλακία).” CE 59: 123–35. Dahlmann, W. 1968. “Ἡ βία im Recht der Papyri.” Diss. Köln. Dahlquist, M. R. 1971. “Corporal Punishment under the Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary. Daris, S., ed. 1978–83. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-­romano. Vol. 3. Milan: Cisalpino-­Goliardica. ———. 1988. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco­romano. Supplemento 1. Milan: Cisalpino-­Goliardica. ———. 2007. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco­romano. Supplemento 4. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra. Davies, R. W. 1968. “Police Work in Roman Times.” History Today 18: 700–7.

360

Works ­Cited

———. 1973. “The Investigation of Some Crimes in Roman Egypt.” AncSoc 4: 199–212. ———. 1977. “Augustus Caesar: A Police System in the Ancient World.” In Pioneers in Policing, ed. P. J. Stead. Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith. 12–32. Decker, W., and M. Herb. 1994. Handbuch der Orientalistik. 1, Der Nähe und der Mittlere Osten. 14, Bildatlas zum Sport im alten Ägypten: Corpus der bildlichen Quellen zu Leibesübungen, Spiel, Jagd, Tanz und verwandten Themen. Leiden: Brill. Delekat, L. 1964. Katoche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung. Munich: Beck. Delia, D. 1996. “‘All Army Boots and Uniforms?’ Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Alexandria and Alexandrianism: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by The J. Paul Getty Museum and The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Held at the Museum, April 22–25, 1993. Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum. 41–53. Della Monica, M. 1980. La classe ouvrière sous les pharaons: étude du village de Deir el Medineh. 2nd ed. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. di Bitonto Kasser, A. 1967. “Le petizioni al re. Studio sul formulario.” Aegyptus 47: 5–57. ———. 1968. “Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico. Studio sul formulario.” Aegyptus 48: 53–107. ———. 1976. “Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico. Studio sul formulario.” Aegyptus 56: 109–43. Dils, P. 1995. “Les tꜣj (nꜣ) ntr.w ou θεαγοί. Fonction religieuse et place dans la vie civile.” BIFAO 95: 153–71, 649. Dmitriev, S. 2005. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drapkin, I. 1989. Crime and Punishment in the Ancient World. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington. Drecoll, C. 1997. Die Liturgien im römischen Kaiserreich des 3. und 4. Jh. n. Chr. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Ducat, J. 2006. Spartan Education: Youth and Society in the Classical Period. Trans. E. Stafford and P. J. Shaw. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. ———. 2007. “Xénophon et la selection des hippeis (Lakedaimonion‫ ﷳ‬politeia, IV, 1–6).” Ktema 32: 327–40. Dunand, F. 1969. “Une plainte de pastophores.” CE 44: 301–12. Durry, M. 1968 [1938]. Les cohortes prétoriennes. Paris: De Boccard. Echols, E. 1957–8. “Roman City Police.” CJ 53: 377–85. Edson, C. 1958. “Imperium Macedonicum: The Seleucid Empire and the Literary Evidence.” CPh 53: 153–70.

Works ­Cited

361

Elguera, E. R. 1968–9. “Situación juridical de las personas libres que trabajan como scribae.” In Studi in onore di Giuseppe Grosso, vol. 2. Turin: Giappichelli. 147–56. El-­Mosallamy, A. H. S. 1992. “Trees in Graeco-­Roman Egypt.” In Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo, 2–9 September 1989, ed. A. H. S. El-­Mosallamy. Cairo: Ain Shams University, Center of Papyrological Studies. 513–42. Emsley, C. 1991. The English Police: A Political and Social History. 2nd ed. London: Longman. Engers, M. 1909. De Aegyptiarum ΚΩΜΩΝ administratione qualis fuerit aetate Lagidarum. Groningen: J. B. Wolters. Errington, R. M. 2002. “König und Stadt im hellenistischen Makedonien: Die Rolle des Epistates.” Chiron 32: 51–63. Erskine, A. 1995. “Culture and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and Library of Alexandria.” G&R 42: 38–48. Evans, T. V. 2004. “Orality, Greek Literacy, and Early Ptolemaic Papyri.” In Oral Performance and Its Context, ed. C. J. Mackie. Leiden: Brill. 195–208. Eyre, C. J. 1984. “Crime and Adultery in Ancient Egypt.” JEA 70: 92–105. Falivene, M. R. 1991. “Government, Management, Literacy: Aspects of Ptolemaic Administration in the Early Hellenistic Period.” AncSoc 22: 203–27. ———. 1998. The Herakleopolite Nome: A Catalogue of the Toponyms with Introduction and Commentary. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Fantham, E. 1977. “Censorship, Roman Style.” EMC 21: 41–53. Faulkner, R. O. 1953. “Egyptian Military Organization.” JEA 39: 32–47. Ferguson, M. C. 1961. “A Day in Court in Justinian’s Rome: Some Problems of Evidence, Proof and Justice in Roman Law.” Iowa Law Review 46: 732–72. Filippi, E. 2005. “Droit privé et autonomie juridique des municipes de cives sine suffragio soumis à la juridiction des praefecti iure dicundo.” RHD 83: 533–51. Finkelstein, J. J. 1966. “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws.” JAOS 86: 355– 72. Finley, M. I. 1983. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzgerald, W. 2007. Martial: The World of the Epigram. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foster, B. R. 1970. “Agoranomos and Muhtasib.” JESHO 13: 128–44.

362

Works ­Cited

Foucault, M. 1975. Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard. Fraser, P. M. 1949. “A New Letter of Apollonius.” CE 24: 289–94. ———. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon. Freis, H. 1967. Die Cohortes Urbanae. Cologne; Graz: Böhlau. Freudenberg, K. 2001. Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. ed. 2005. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frier, B. W. 1989. A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Frier, B. W., and T. A. J. McGinn. 2004. A Casebook on Roman Family Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Froidefond, C. 1971. “Le mirage égyptien dans la literature grecque d’Homère à Aristote.” Diss. Université de Paris. Frösén, J. 1978. “Le transport du blé et le ro﻾le des ἐπίπλοοι.” Arctos 12: 5–17. Fuhrmann, C. 2011. Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration and Public Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fuks, A. 1984. Social Conflict in Ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill. Gardner, F. F. 1986. Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Garofalo, L. 1989. Il processo edilizio. Contributo allo studio dei iudicia populi. Padua: Cedam. Gascou, J. 1990. “La prefectura iure dicundo dans les cites de l’Afrique romaine.” In L’Afrique dans l’occident romain (Ier siècle av. J.C.–IVe siècle ap. J.C.): actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome sous le patronage de l’Institut national d’archéologie et d’art de Tunis (Rome, 3–5 décembre 1987). Paris: De Boccard. 367–80. Gaughan, J. E. 2010. Murder Was Not a Crime: Homicide and Power in the Roman Republic. Austin: University of Texas Press. Geraci, G. 1981. “L’ ‘ho pros tei suntaxei’: Note sull’amministrazione militare nell’Egitto tolemaico.” In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York, 24–31 July 1980, ed. R. S. Bagnall. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. 267–76. Giardina, A. 1977. Aspetti della burocrazia nel basso impero, con una Prosopografia degli agentes in rebus. Urbino: Univ. di Urbino Ist. di Filol. class. Gichon, M. 1989. “Military Intelligence in the Roman Army.” In Labor omnibus unus. Gerold Walser zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. H. E. Herzig and R. Frei-­Stolba. Stuttgart: Steiner. 154–70.

Works ­Cited

363

Gofas, D. C. 1989. “Epiplous: une institution du droit maritime grec, antique, hellénistique, byzantin et postbyzantin.” In Symposion 1985: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. G. Thür. Cologne: Böhlau. 425–44. Good, E. M. 1967. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Stanford Law Review 19: 947–77. Gordon, C. H. 1957. Hammurapi’s Code: Quaint or Forward-­Looking? New York: Rinehart. Goudriaan, K. 1988. Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: Gieben. Grajetzki, W. 2009. Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. London: Duckworth. Greengus, S. 1995. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1, ed. J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman, and K. S. Robinson. New York: Scribner’s. 469–84. Gregory, T. E. 1983. “Urban Violence in Late Antiquity.” In Aspects of Graeco-­Roman Urbanism: Essays on the Classical City, ed. R. T. Marchese. Oxford: BAR. 138–61. Griffith, G. T. 1968 [1935]. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis N.V. Publishers. Gruen, E. S. 1968. Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 b.c. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Grzybek, E. 1990. Du calendrier macedonien au calendrier ptolémaïque: problèmes de chronologie hellénistique. Basel: Reinhardt. Guerra y Gómez, M. 1962. Epíscopos y presbíteros. Evolución semántica de los terminos episkopos-­presbyteros desde Homero hasta el siglo Segundo después de J. C. Burgos: Publ. Semin. Metropol. De Burgos Ser. A. Güterbock, H. G. 1954. “Authority and Law in the Hittite Kingdom.” JOAS Supplement 17: 16–24. Habermann, W. 1998. “Zur chronologischen Verteilung der papyrologischen Zeugnisse.” ZPE 122: 144–60. Hammond, N. G. L. 1999. “The Roles of the epistates in Macedonian Contexts.” ABSA 94: 369–75. Handrock, P. 1967. “Dienstliche Weisungen in den Papyri der Ptolemäerzeit.” Diss. Köln. Hansen, E. V. 1971. The Attalids of Pergamon. 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Hansen, M. H. 1976. Apagoge, Endeixis, and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi, and Pheugontes: A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the 4th Century B.C. Odense: Odense University Press. Harper, G. M., Jr. 1934. “Menches, komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris.” Aegyptus 14: 14–32.

364

Works ­Cited

Harries, J. 2007. Law and Crime in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, E. 2007. “Who Enforced the Law in Classical Athens?” In Symposion 2005, ed. E. Cantarella. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 159–76. Harris, W. V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Harris, W. V., and G. R. Ruffini, eds. 2004. Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Leiden: Brill. Harrison, A. R. W. 1968–71. The Law of Athens. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Hartog, F. 2002. “The Greeks as Egyptologists.” Trans. A. Nevill. In Greeks and Barbarians, ed. T. Harrison. New York: Routledge. 211–28. Hatzopoulos, M. B. 1996. Macedonian Institutions under the Kings. 2 vols. Athens: Kentron Hellenikes kai Romaïkes Archaiotetos; Paris: De Boccard. ———. 2003–4. “Quaestiones Macedonicae: lois, décrets et épistates dans les cités macédoniennes.” Tekmeria 8: 27–60. Hauben, H. 1997a. “Liste des propriétaires de navires privés engages dans le transport de blé d’État à l’époque ptolémaïque.” APF 43: 31–68. ———. 1997b. “Les propriétaires de navires privés engages dans le transport de blé d’état à l’époque ptolémaïque.” In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.–19.8.1995, ed. B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler, and G. Poethke. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner. 430–48. Hay, D., and F. Snyder, eds. 1989. Policing and Prosecution in Britain, 1750– 1850. New York: Oxford University Press. Hazzard, R. A. 1987. “The Regnal Years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos.” Phoenix 41: 140–58. ———. 1999. “The Use of the Macedonian Calendar under Ptolemies V and VI.” In Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, ed. M. Amandry and S. Hurter. London: Spink. 147–59. Hélmis, A. 1986. “Crime et châtiment dans l’Égypte ptolemaïque. Recherches sur l’autonomie d’un modèle penal.” Diss. Paris. Henne, H. 1933. “Sur l’interprétation de quelques texts récemment publiés.” Aegyptus 13: 381–405, 690. Hennig, D. 2002. “Nyktophylakes, Nyktostrategen, und die παραφυλακὴ τῆς πόλεως.” Chiron 32: 281–95. ———. 2003. “Sicherheitskräfte zur Überwachung der Wüstengrenzen und Karawanenwege im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” Chiron 33: 145–74. Héral, S. 1990. “Deux equivalents démotiques du titre de νομάρχης.” CE 65: 304–20.

Works ­Cited

365

Hobson, D. W. 1993. “The Impact of Law on Village Life in Roman Egypt.” In Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 193–219. Hoffman, R. J. 1976. “Civil Law Procedures in the Provinces of the Late Roman Republic.” Irish Jurist 11: 355–74. Hoffmeier, J. K. 2006. “‘The Walls of the Ruler’ in Egyptian Literature and the Archaeological Record: Investigating Egypt’s Eastern Frontier in the Bronze Age.” BASOR 343: 1–20. Hoffner, H. A. 1995. “Legal and Social Institutions of Hittite Anatolia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. 555–69. ———. 1997. The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill. Hohlwein, N. 1969. Le stratège du nome. Brussels: Fond. Égypt. Reine Élisabeth. Hölbl, G. 2000. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Trans. T. Saavedra. London: Routledge. Holleaux, M. 1938–68. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques. 6 vols. Paris: De Boccard. Hombert, M., and C. Préaux. 1942. “Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque.” CE 17: 259–86. Homo, L. 1962 [1929]. Roman Political Institutions: From City to State. Trans. M. R. Dobie. New York: Barnes & Noble. Homoth-­Kuhs, C. 2005. Phylakes und Phylakon–Steuer im griechisch­römischen Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des antiken Sicherheitswesens. Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur. Honigman, S. 2002. “Les divers sens de l’ethnique Ἄραψ dans les sources documentaries grecques d’Égypte.” AncSoc 32: 43–72. Hooley, D. M. 2007. Roman Satire. Oxford: Blackwell. Hopwood, K. 1983. “Policing the Hinterland: Rough Cilicia and Isauria.” In Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, ed. S. Mitchell. Oxford: B.A.R. 173–87. ———. 1986. “Towers, Territory and Terror: How the East Was Held.” In The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, ed. P. Freeman and D. Kennedy. 2 vols. Oxford: B.A.R. 343–56. Hunter, V. 1994. Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, ­420– 320 b.c. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ———. 1997. “The Prison of Athens: A Comparative Perspective.” Phoenix 51: 296–326.

366

Works ­Cited

Hunter, V., and J. Edmondson, eds. 2000. Law and Social Status in Classical Athens. New York: Oxford University Press. Jackson, B. S. 1972. “Principles and Cases: The Theft Laws of Hammurabi.” Irish Jurist 7: 161–70. Jacob, O. 1928. Les esclaves publics à Athènes. Liège: H. Vaillant-­Carmanne. Jacobsen, T. 1959. “An Ancient Mesopotamian Trial for Homicide.” In Studia Biblica et Orientalia III. Oriens Antiquus. Rome: Pont. Ist. Bibl. 130–50. Janssen, J. J. 1997. Village Varia: Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir el-­Medina. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Janssen, J. J., E. Frood, and M. Goecke-­Bauer. 2003. Woodcutters, Potters and Doorkeepers: Service Personnel of the Deir el-­Medina Workmen. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Jerphagnon, L. 1982. “Agentes in rebus et autres fonctionnaires très spéciaux au Bas-­Empire.” Cahiers de philosophie politique et juridique de l’Université de Caen 2: 33–43. Johnston, D. 1999. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, A. 1997. “On the Reconstructed Macedonian and Egyptian Lunar Calendars.” ZPE 119: 157–66. Jones, A. H. M. 1949. “The Roman Civil Services (Clerical and Sub-­clerical Grades).” JRS 38–55. ———. 1972. The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate. Oxford: Blackwell. Jördens, A. 2008. “Neue Texte aus der ptolemäischen Dorfverwaltung: Ein bilingues Archiv aus Busiris.” In Greco-­Roman Fayum  – Texts and Archaeology, ed. S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 143–52. Joshel, S. R. 2010. Slavery in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jouguet, P. 1896. “Inscriptions grecques d’Égypte.” BCH 20: 167–96. Kadry, A. 1982. Officers and Officials in the New Kingdom. Budapest: Készült az ELTE Sokszorosító üzemében. Keane, C. C. 2006. Figuring Genre in Roman Satire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelly, B. 2003. “The Repression of Violence in the Roman Principate.” Diss. Oxford University. Kleber, K., and E. Frahm. 2006. “A Not-­So-­Great Escape: Crime and Punishment According to a Document from Neo-­Babylonian Uruk.” JCS 58: 109–22.

Works ­Cited

367

Knapp, P. C. 1980. “Festus 262L and Praefecturae in Italy.” Athenaeum (n.s.) 58: 14–38. Koenen, L. 1993. “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure.” In Image and Ideologies: Self-­Definition in the Hellenistic World, ed. A. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart. Berkeley: University of California Press. 25–115. Kool, P. 1954. Die Phylakieten in Grieks-­Romeins Egypt. Amsterdam: Poortpers. Kopel, D. B., P. Gallant, and J. D. Eisen. 2007–8. “The Human Right of Self-­Defense.” BYU Journal of Public Law 22: 43–178. Kortenbeutel, H. 1936. “Zum Sondergericht der Aposkeuai.” Aegyptus 16: 292–5. Koumanoudis, S. N. 1984. “Perhaps, Usually, Certainly.” Horos 2: 71–81. Kraus, T. J. 2000. “(Il)Literacy in Non-­literary Papyri from Graeco-­Roman Egypt: Further Aspects of the Educational Ideal in Ancient Literary Sources and Modern Times.” Mnemosyne 53: 322–42. Krause, J.-­U. 1996. Gefängnisse im römischen Reich. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. ———. 1999. “Prisons et crimes dans l’Empire romain.” In C. Bertrand­Dagenbach et al., 117–28. ———. 2004. Kriminalgeschichte der Antike. Munich: Beck. Kruit, N., and K. A. Worp. 1999. “Metrological Notes on Measures and Containers of Liquids in Graeco-­Roman and Byzantine Egypt.” APF 45: 96–127. Kruse, T. 1997. “Zum βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς im ptolemäischen Ägypten: Bemerkungen zu John F. Oates, The Ptolemaic basilikos grammateus.” Tyche 12: 149–58. Kunderewicz, C. 1965. “Ad Papyrus Hibeh 198.” JJP 15: 139–43. La’ da, C. A. 1994. “Ethnicity, Occupation and Tax-­Status in Ptolemaic Egypt.” EVO 17: 183–9. La Rosa, F. 1957. “Note sui ‘tresviri capitales.’” Labeo 3: 231–45. Laffi, U. 2002. “‘Quattuorviri iure dicundo’ in colonie romane.” In Λόγιος ἀνὴρ: studi di antichità in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi, ed. P. G. Michelotto. Milan: Cisalpino. 243–61. Lafont, B. 2001. “The Ordeal.” In Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. J. Bottéro and A. Finet. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 199–209. Lafont, S. 1999. Femmes, droit et justice dans l’Antiquité orientale. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lavency, M. 1964. Aspects de la logographie judiciaire attique. Leuven: Bureaux du recueil, Bibliothèque de l’Université.

368

Works ­Cited

Lavigne, E. 1945. De epistates van het Dorp in Ptolemaeisch Egypte. Leuven: Bibliotheca Universitatis. Leahy, A. 1984. “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt.” JESHO 27: 199–206. Lesko, L. H. 1994. Pharaoh’s Workers: The Villagers of Deir el Medina. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Lesquier, J. 1911. Les institutions militaires de l’Égypte sous les Lagides. Paris: E. Leroux. Lewald, H. 1910. Zur Personalexecution im Recht der Papyri. Leipzig: Veit & Comp. Lewis, N. 1968. “P.Hibeh, 198 on Recapturing Fugitive Soldiers.” AJP 89: 465–9. ———. 1974. Papyrus in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1977. “Notationes Legentis.” BASP 14: 149–60. ———. 1996. “Notationes Legentis.” BASP 33: 64–5. ———. 1997a. The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt. 2nd ed. Florence: Gonnelli. ———. 1997b. “Notationes Legentis.” BASP 34: 21–33. ———. 2000. “Brief Footnotes on Banditry in the Papyri.” BASP 37: 95–6. ———. 2001. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World. 2nd ed. Oakville, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists. Lichtheim, M. 1973, 1976, 1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liesker, W. H. M., and A. M. Tromp. 1986. “Zwei ptolemäische Papyri aus der Wiener Papyrussammlung.” ZPE 66: 79–89. Lindsay, J. 1965. Daily Life in Roman Egypt. New York: Barnes & Noble. Lintott, A. W. 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London: Routledge. ———. 1999. Violence in Republican Rome. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. Lock, J. 1990. Dreadful Deeds and Awful Murders: Scotland Yard’s First Detectives, 1829–1878. Lydeard St. Lawrence: Barn Owl Books. Lopuszanski, G. 1951. “La Police romaine et les chrétiens.” AC 20: 5–46. Lorton, D. 1977. “The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt through the New Kingdom.” In The Treatment of Criminals in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson. Leiden: Brill. 2–64. Ma, J. 2000. “Fighting poleis of the Hellenistic World.” In War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. H. van Wees. London: Duckworth and the Classical Press of Wales. 337–76. MacDowell, D. M. 1978. Law in Classical Athens. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Works ­Cited

369

Maehler, H. 1970. “Griechische Inschriften aus Elephantine.” MDAI Abt. Kairo 26: 169–72. Maehler, H., and V. M. Strocka, eds. 1978. Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz: von Zabern. Maffi, A. 1999. “Emprisonnement pour dettes dans le monde grec.” In C. Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al., 7–17. Mann, J. C. 1988. “The Organization of the frumentarii.” ZPE 74: 149–50. Manning, J. G. 2003. Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Structure of Land Tenure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2009. The Last Pharaohs: Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305–30 b.c. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Marcone, A. 1999. “La privation de liberté dans l’Égypte gréco-­romaine.” In C. Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al., 89–98. Maresch, K. 1996. Bronze und Silber. Papyrologische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wahrung im ptolemaischen und römischen Ägypten zum 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Opladen: Westdeutscher. Martin, A., and G. Nachtergael. 1998. “Papyrus du Musée du Caire. II.” CE 73: 99–115. Martina, M. 1980. “‘Grassatores’ e ‘carmentarii.’” Labeo 26: 155–75. Martini, G. 1980–1. “I milites frumentarii.” AIV 139: 143–51. Mason, G. 2004. The Official History of the Metropolitan Police: 175 Years of Policing in London. London: Carlton. Matter, M. 1999. “Privation de liberté et lieux de détention en Égypte romaine.” In C. Bertrand-­Dagenbach et al., 99–104. McDowell, A. G. 1990. Jurisdiction in the Workmen’s Community of Deir el­Medina. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. McGing, B. 1997. “Revolt Egyptian Style. Internal Opposition to Ptolemaic Rule.” APF 43: 273–314. ———. 1998. “Bandits, Real and Imagined, in Greco-­Roman Egypt.” BASP 35: 159–83. ———. 2002. “Illegal Salt in the Lycopolite Nome.” APF 48: 42–66. McKenzie, J. 2007. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, c. 300 b.c. to a.d. 700. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Meiggs, R. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon. Melaerts, H., ed. 1998. Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles, 10 mai 1995. Leuven: Peeters.

370

Works ­Cited

Mélèze-­Modrzejewski, J. 1966. “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque.” In Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles, ed. A. E. Samuel. New Haven, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists. 125–73. ———. 1975. “Chrématistes et laocrites.” In Le Monde grec: pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Hommages à Claire Préaux, ed. J. Bingen, G. Cambier, and G. Nachtergael. Brussels: Ed. de l’Univ. 699–708. ———. 1977–8. “Papyrologie et droits de l’antiquité.” AEHE (section 4) 110: 351–72. ———. 1984. “Droit et justice dans le monde hellénistique au IIIe siècle avant notre ère: expérience lagide.” In Mneme Georgiou A. Petropoulou (1897–1964), ed. P. D. Dimakis. Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas. 1:53–77. Meyer, P. M. 1900. Das Heerwesen der Ptolemäer und Römer in Ägypten. Leipzig: Teubner. ———. 1906. “Zum Rechts-­ und Urkundenwesen im ptolemäisch­römischen Ägypten.” Klio 6: 420–65. ———. 1920. Juristische Papyri: Erklärung von Urkunden zur Einführung in die juristische Papyruskunde. Berlin: Weidmannsche. Mierow, H. E. 1926. The Roman Provincial Governor as He Appears in the Digest and Code of Justinian. Colorado Springs: Colorado College Publ. Mitford, T. B. 1939. “Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus.” APF 13: 13–38. Montevecchi, O. 1981. “Una donna ‘prostatis’ del figlio minorenne in un papiro del IIa.” Aegyptus 61: 103–15. ———. 1988. La papirologia. 2nd ed. Milan: Vita e pensiero. Mooren, L. 1975. Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën. ———. 1977. La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque. Contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l’époque hellénistique. Leuven: Univ. cathol. ———. 1984. “On the Jurisdiction of the Nome Strategoi in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983). Naples: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi. 1217–25. Muhs, B. 2005. Tax Receipts, Taxpayers, and Taxes in Early Ptolemaic Thebes. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Müller, H. 2000. “Der hellenistische archiereus.” Chiron 30: 519–42. Müller, K. 2006. Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World. Leuven: Peeters. Müller, M. 1995. “A Circular Letter and a Memo (P.Mich. inv. 6980).” ZPE 105: 237–43.

Works ­Cited

371

Mumford, G. 2006. “Tell Ras Budran (Site 345): Defining Egypt’s Eastern Frontier and Mining Operations in South Sinai during the Late Old Kingdom (Early EB IV/MB I).” BASOR 342: 13–67. Muñiz Coello, J. 1982. Empleados y subalternos de la administración romana. I. Los “scribae.” Huelva: Colegio Universitario de la Rabida. ———. 1996. “Viatores magistratum.” In Homenaje a José Ma Blázquez, vol. 3: Historia de Roma, ed. J. Mangas and J. Alvar. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. 193–203. Musti, D. 1984. “Syria and the East.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 7.1, ed. F. W. Walbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 175–220. Nardoni, E. 2004. Rise up, O Judge: A Study of Justice in the Biblical World. Trans. S. C. Martin. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Nicholas, B. 1962. An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Nimis, S. 2004. “Egypt in Greco-­Roman History and Fiction.” Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics 24: 34–67. Nippel, W. 1995. Public Order in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oates, J. F. 1963. “The Status Designation Πέρσης τῆς ἐπιγονῆς.” YCIS 18: 1–129. ———. 1994. “Axapes, a Basilikos Grammateus and the Machimoi.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23–29 August 1992, ed. A. Bülow-­Jacobsen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. 588–92. ———. 1995. The Ptolemaic Basilikos Grammateus. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Oertel, F. 1965. Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens. Aalen: Scientia. Orrieux, C. 1983. Les papyrus de Zénon. L’horizon d’un Grec en Égypte au IIIe siècle av. J.C. Paris: Éd. Macula. ———. 1985. Zénon de Caunos parépidèmos et le destin grec. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Paoli, U. E. 1957. “Les pouvoirs du magistrat de police dans le droit attique.” RIDA 4: 151–64. Paparriga-­Artemiadi, L. 2003. “’Εἰρηνάρχες’ της Μ. Ασίας. Παρατηρήσεις επί των αρμοδιοτήτων και ενεργειών τους σε υποθέσεις ληστείας (D.48.3.6, Marc. De jud. Publ.).” EHHD 37: 9–27. Papazoglou, F. 2000. “Polis et souveraineté.” ZA 50: 169–76. Parca, M. 1985. “Prosangelmata ptolémaïques: une mise à jour.” CE 60: 240–7.

372

Works ­Cited

Paschoud, F. 1983. “Frumentarii, agentes in rebus, magistriani, curiosi, veredarii: problèmes de terminologie.” Bonner Historia-­Augusta-­Colloquium 1979– 1981: 215–43. Passerini, A. 1939. Le coorti pretorie. Rome: Angelo Signorelli. Passioni Dell’Acqua, A. 1981. “Ricerche sulla versione dei LXX e I papyri. I. Pastophorion.” Aegyptus 61: 171–211. Peet, T. E. 1925. “Fresh Light on the Tomb Robberies of the Twentieth Dynasty at Thebes. An Additional Note.” JEA 2: 162–4. ———. 1930. The Great Tomb-­Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Peremans, W. 1972. “Égyptiens et étrangers dans l’armée de terre et dans la police de l’Égypte ptolémaïque.” AncSoc 3: 67–76. ———. 1973. “Égyptiens et étrangers dans le clergé, le notariat et les tribunaux de l’Égypte ptolémaïque.” AncSoc 4: 59–69. ———. 1978. “Les révolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides.” In Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin, ed. H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka. Mainz: von Zabern. 39–50. ———. 1982a. “Die Amtsmissbrauche un ptolemaischen Ägypten.” In Korruption im Altertum: Konstanzer Symposium, Oktober 1979, ed. W. Schuller. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 103–33. ———. 1982b. “Sur le bilinguisme dans l’Égypte des Lagides.” In Studia Paulo Naster oblata, II: Orientalia antiqua, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. 143–54. ———. 1982–3. “Égyptiens et étrangers dans l’organisation judiciaire des Lagides.” AncSoc 13: 147–59. ———. 1983. “Le bilinguisme dans les relations gréco-­égyptiennes sous les Lagides.” In Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24–26 May 1982, ed. E. Van‘t Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. van Gucht. Leuven: Orientaliste. 253–80. Pestman, P. W. 1963a. “A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris. I.” Aegyptus 43: 10–14. ———. 1963b. “A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris. II. Persai tes epigones.” Aegyptus 43: 15–53. ———. 1981. A Guide to the Zenon Archive. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1985a. “Agoranomoi et actes agoranomiques: Krokodilopolis et Pathyris, 145–88 av. J.-­C.” In Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, demotique et copte, ed. P. W. Pestman. Leiden: Brill. 9–44. ———. 1985b. “The Competence of Greek and Egyptian Tribunals According to the Decree of 118 B.C.” BASP 22: 265–9.

Works ­Cited

373

———. 1990. The New Papyrological Primer. Leiden: Brill. Petraccia Lucernoni, M. F. 2001. Gli stationarii in età imperiale. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Petropoulou, A. 1985. Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-­ und Gesellschaftsgeschichte Kretas in hellenistischer Zeit. Frankfurt: Lang. Plassart, A. 1913. “Les archers d’Athènes.” REG 26: 151–213. Pollard, N. 2000. Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Posener, G. 1970. Dictionnaire de la civilisation égyptienne. Paris: Fernand Hazan. Postgate, J. N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. New York: Routledge. Préaux, C. 1936. “Esquisse d’une histoire des révolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides.” CE 11: 522–52. ———. 1937. “Les modalités de l’attache à la glèbe dans l’Égypte grecque et romaine.” RSJB 2: 35–66. ———. 1954. “Les villes hellénistiques, principalement en Orient: leurs institutions administratives et judiciaires.” RSJB 6: 69–134. ———. 1963. Review of H. J. Wolff, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer. CE 38: 329–38. ———. 1965. Review of J. F. Oates, The Status Designation, Πέρσης, τῆς ἐπιγονῆς. CE 40: 502–4. Pritchard, J. B. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Purcell, N. 1983. “The apparitores. A Study in Social Mobility.” PBSR 51: 125–73. ———. 2001. “The ‘ordo scribarum’: A Study in the Loss of Memory.” MEFRA 113: 633–74. Purpura, G. 1973. “I curiosi e la schola agentum in rebus.” ASGP 34: 165– 275. Quaegebeur, J. 1984. “La désignation ‘porteur(s) des dieux’ et le culte des dieux crocodiles dans les texts des époques tardives.” In Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub. Montpellier: Institut d’Égyptologie de l’Univ. Paul Valéry. 161–76. Raïos-­Chouliara, H. 1981. “La chasse et les animaux sauvages d’après les papyrus grecs.” Anagennesis 1: 45–88. Rankov, N. B. 1990. “Frumnetarii, the castra peregrina and the provincial officia.” ZPE 80: 176–82. ———. 2006. “Les frumentarii et la circulation de l’information entre les empereurs romains et les provinces.” In La circulation de l’information

374

Works ­Cited

dans les états antiques, ed. L. Capdetrey and J. Nelis-­Clément. Paris: De Boccard. 129–40. Rapske, B. 1994. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. 3: The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans. Raschke, M. G. 1974. “The Office of agoranomos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.” In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Marburg/ Lahn, 2–6 August 1971, ed. E. Kiessling and H.-­A. Rupprecht. Munich: Beck. 349–56. Rathbone, D. W. 1990. “Villages, Land and Population in Graeco-­Roman Egypt.” PCPhS 36: 103–42. ———. 2002. “The Ancient Economy and Graeco-­Roman Egypt.” In The Ancient Economy, ed. W. Scheidel and S. von Reden. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 155–69. Ratti, E. 1974–5. “I praefecti iure dicundo e la praefectura come distinzione gromatica.” CSDIR 6: 251–64. Rees, B. R. 1956. Review of Kool, Die Phylakieten in Grieks-­Romeins Egypt. JHS 76: 144. Reinhold, M. 1980. “Roman Attitudes towards Egyptians.” AncW 3: 97–103. Rémondon, R. 1964. “Problèmes du bilinguisme dans l’Égypte lagide (U.P.Z. I, 148).” CE 39: 126–46. Reuter, M. 1999. “Die frumentarii: Neugeschaffene ‘Geheimpolizei’ Traians?” In Traian in Germanien, Traian im Reich: Bericht des Dritten Saalburgskolloquiums, ed. E. Schallmayer. Bad Homburg v. d. H.: Saalburgmuseum. 77–81. Reynolds, P. K. B. 1926. The vigiles of Imperial Rome. London: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, P. J. 1972. The Athenian Boule. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1979. “εἰσαγγελία in Athens.” JHS 99: 103–14. ———. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1984. Aristotle: The Athenian Constitution. New York: Penguin. Rickman, G. E. 1984. “Trees.” Review of Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. CR (n.s.) 34: 120–2. Riemschneider, K. K. 1977. “Prison and Punishment in Early Anatolia.” JESHO 20: 114–26. Rimell, V. E. 2009. Martial’s Rome: Empire and the Ideology of Epigram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Works ­Cited

375

Robinson, O. F. 1968. “Private Prisons.” RIDA 15: 389–98. ———. 1992. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London: Routledge. ———. 1995. The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Rodenbeck, J. 2001–2. “Literary Alexandria.” Massachusetts Review 42: 524–72. Rossignano, M. S. 1991. “I praefecti iure dicundo nell’Italia settentrionale.” In Epigraphia: actes du colloque international d’épigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi pour le centenaire de sa naissance: Rome, 27–28 Mai 1988. Rome: Univ. de Roma-­La Sapienza École française de Rome. 515–37. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1906. “Kornerhebung und -­transport im griechisch­römischen Ägypten.” APF 3: 201–24. ———. 1910. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates. Leipzig: Teubner. ———. 1922. A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century b.c.: A Study in Economic History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ———. 1959. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Clarendon. Roth, M. T. 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rotroff, S. I. 1997. “The Greeks and the Other in the Age of Alexander.” In Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the Interactions between Greeks and Non­Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism, ed. J. E. Coleman and C. A. Walz. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press. 221–35. Rowlandson, J. 2003. “Town and Country in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In A Companion to the Hellenistic World, ed. A. Erskine. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 249–63. Rucin ski, S. 2003. “Le rôle du préfet des vigils dans le maintien de l’ordre public dans la Rome impériale.” Eos 90: 261–74. Rupprecht, H.-­A. 1993. “Hybris. Anmerkungen zu einem Delikt in den Papyri der ptolemäischen und römischen Zeit.” In Überlieferung, Bewahrung und Gestaltung in der rechtsgeschichtlichen Forschung. Ekkehard Kaufmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. S. Buchholz, P. Mikat, and D. Werkmüller. Paderborn: F. Schöningh. 269–75. Sabbatucci, D. 1954. L’edilità romana: magustratura e sacerdozio. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Sadr, K. 1990. “The Medjay in Southern Atbai.” ANL 4: 63–86. Salmenkivi, E. 2003. “A Note on the Ptolemaic ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων.” Arctos 37: 123–32.

376

Works ­Cited

Samuel, A. E. 1962. Ptolemaic Chronology. Munich: Beck. ———. 1966. “The Internal Organization of the Nomarch’s Bureau in the Third Century b.c.” In Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles, ed. A. E. Samuel. New Haven, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists. 213–29. ———. 1972. Greek and Roman Chronology: Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity. Munich: Beck. ———. 1983. From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt. Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste. Sandy, D. B. 1989. The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sargent, R. L. 1924. The Size of the Slave Population at Athens during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries before Christ. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Sarnowski, T. 1988. “Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den Polizeikräften in Niedermösien.” Eos 76: 99–104. Sasson, J. M., ed. 1977. The Treatment of Criminals in the Ancient Near East (  JESHO 20). Leiden: Brill. Sasson, J. M., J. Baines, G. Beckman, and K. S. Robinson, eds. 1995. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Scribner’s. Scholl, R. 1988. “‘Theagos Souchou’ / ‘t ꜣ j ntr.w Sbk.’” Enchoria 16: 135–6. Schönborn, H.-­B. 1976. Die Pastophoren im Kult der ägyptischen Götter. Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain. Schuller, W. 1975. “Grenzen des spätrömischen Staates. Staatspolizei und Korruption.” ZPE 16: 1–21. Scouflaire, M.-­F. 1989. “Premières réflexions sur l’organisation des ‘prisons’ dans le royaume de Mari.” In Reflets des deux fleuves. Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Leuven: Peeters. 157–60. Seider, R. 1938. Beiträge zur ptolemäischen Verwaltungsgeschichte. Der Nomarches. Der Dioketes Apollonios. Heidelberg: Bilabel. Seidl, E. 1962. Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte. 2nd ed. Gluckstadt: J. J. Augustin. Semeka, G. 1913. Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht. Studien zur ptolemäischen Gerichtsverfassung und zum Gerichtsverfahren. Munich: Beck. Sethe, K. 1913. Sarapis und die sogennante κάτοχοι des Sarapis. Zwei Probleme der griechisch-­aegyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Sheldon, R. M. 2005. Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome: Trust in the Gods, but Verify. London: Frank Cass. Sherwin-­White, S., and A. Kuhrt. 1993. From Samarkand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Works ­Cited

377

Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1978. “Three New Ptolemaic Documents on Transportation of Grain.” CE 53: 107–16. ———. 1993. “Two London Papyri.” ZPE 95: 127–30. Sinnigen, W. G. 1957. The officium of the Urban Prefecture during the Later Roman Empire. Rome: American Academy in Rome. ———. 1959. “Two Branches of the Late Roman Secret Service.” AJPh 80: 238–54. ———. 1961. “The Roman Secret Service.” CJ 57: 65–72. ———. 1962a. “The Origins of the frumentarii.” MAAR 27: 211, 213–24. ———. 1962b. “Three Administrative Changes Ascribed to Constantius II.” AJPh 83: 369–82. Sivonen, P. 2006. Being a Roman Magistrate: Office-­Holding and Roman Identity in Late Antique Gaul. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Slootjes, D. 2006. The Governor and His Subjects in the Later Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. Smith, E. M. 1924. Naukratis: A Chapter in the History of the Hellenization of Egypt. Vienna. ———. 1928. “The Egypt of the Greek Romances.” CJ 23: 531–7. Smith, H. S., and G. R. Hughes. 1980. “The Story of ‘Onchsheshonqy.” Serapis 6: 133–56. Smith, P. T. 1985. Policing Victorian London: Political Policing, Public Order, and the London Metropolitan Police. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Solidoro Maruotti, L. 1993. “Aspetti della ‘giurisdizione civile’ del ‘praefectus urbi’ nell’età severiana.” Labeo 39: 174–233. Sosin, J. D., and J. Bauschatz. 2002. “Four Duke Papyri concerning Pesouris, Basilikos Grammateus.” ZPE 141: 177–90. Spalinger, A. J. 1994. “Under the Moon of Earth.” In Revolutions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendrics, ed. A. J. Spalinger. San Antonio, Tex.: Van Siclen Books. 61–83. Speidel, M. P. 1984. “Regionarii in Lower Moesia.” ZPE 57: 185–8. Sperber, D. 1970. “On Pubs and Policemen in Roman Palestine.” ZDMG 120: 257–63. Spisak, A. L. 2007. Martial: A Social Guide. London: Duckworth. Steinkeller, P. 1991. “The Reforms of Urukagina and an Early Sumerian Term for ‘Prison.’” AuOr 9: 227–34. Stephens, S. A. 2003. Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press. Strack, M. L. 1906. “Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit III.” APF 3: 127–39.

378

Works ­Cited

Sullivan, J. P. 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic; A Literary and Historical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suolahti, J. 1963. The Roman Censors: A Study on Social Structure. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Tatum, W. J. 1999. The Patrician Tribune: Publius Coldius Pulcher. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Taubenschlag, R. 1959a [1940]. “L’emprisonnement dans le droit gréco­égyptien.” In Opera Minora, vol. 2. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 713–19. ———. 1959b [1906]. “Die ptolemäischen Schiedsrichter und ihre Bedeutung für die Rezeption des griechischen Rechts in Ägypten.” In Opera Minora, vol. 2. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 575– 636. Terry, W. C., III, and K. V. Hartigan. 1982. “Police Authority and Reform in Augustan Rome and Nineteenth-­Century England. Localizing and Nationalizing Police Work in Traditional and Modern Societies.” Law and Human Behavior 6: 295–311. Tetlow, E. M. 2004. Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society. Vol. 1: The Ancient Near East. New York: Continuum. Thissen, H.-­J. 1984. Die Lehre des Anchscheschonqi (P. BM 10508). Bonn: Habelt. Thomas, J. D. 1967. “The Nome Lists in the Papyrus of the Revenue Laws.” Aegyptus 47: 217–21. ———. 1978. “Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: The Dioiketes and the Nomarch.” In H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, 187–94. ———. 1982. The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Vol. 2: The Roman epistrategos. Opladen: Westdeutscher. Thommen, L. 1989. Das Volkstribunat der späten römischen Republik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH. Thompson, D. B. 1973. Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience: Aspects of the Ruler-­Cult. Oxford: Clarendon. Thompson, D. J. 1983. “Nile Grain Transport under the Ptolemies.” In Trade in the Ancient Economy, ed. P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins, and C. R. Whittaker. London: Chatto & Windus. 64–75, 190–2. ———. 1988. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ———. 1992a. “Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt.” In Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, ed. P. Bilde, T. Engberg-­Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 39–52.

Works ­Cited

379

———. 1992b. “Literacy and the Administration in Early Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Life in a Multi-­cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond, ed. J. H. Johnson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 323–6. ———. 1994a. “Conquest and Literacy: The Case of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Literacy: Interdisciplinary Conversations ed. D. Keller-­Cohen. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton. 71–89. ———. 1994b. “Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, ed. A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 67–83. ———. 1997. “Policing the Ptolemaic Countryside.” In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.–19.8.1995, ed. B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler, and G. Poethke. Stuttgart; Leipzig: Teubner. 961–6. ———. 1999. “Irrigation and Drainage in the Early Ptolemaic Fayyum.” In Agriculture in Egypt: from Pharaonic to Modern Times, ed. A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan. New York: Oxford University Press. 107–22. ———. 2001. “Hellenistic Hellenes: The Case of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Thompson, F. H. 2003. The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Duckworth. Todd, S. C. 1993. The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Toivari, J. 1997. “Man versus Woman: Interpersonal Disputes in the Workmen’s Community of Deir el-­Medina.” JESHO 40: 153–73. Tovar, S. T., and I. P. Martín, eds. 2003. Castigo y reclusión en el mundo antiguo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Tyldesley, J. 2000. Judgement of the Pharaoh: Crime and Punishment in Ancient Egypt. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Tysse, W. 2004. “The Roman Legal Treatment of Self Defense and the Private Possession of Weapons in the Codex Justinianus.” Journal on Firearms and Public Policy 16. Not paginated. Van de Mieroop, M. 2004. King Hammurabi of Babylon: A Biography. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. London: Kegan Paul International. van Hooff, A. J. L. 1988. “Ancient Robbers. Reflections behind the Facts.” AncSoc 19: 105–24. van Minnen, P. 2000. “Prisoners of War and Hostages in Graeco-­Roman Egypt.” JJP 30: 155–63.

380

Works ­Cited

Van ’t Dack, E. 1948. “Les stratèges dans les archives d’Assiout.” In Studia Hellenistica 5, ed. L. Cerfaux and W. Peremans. Lugduni Batavorum: Brill. 45–55. ———. 1949. “Recherches sur l’administration du nome dans la Thébaïde au temps des Lagides.” Aegyptus 29: 3–44. ———. 1951. Ptolemaica. Leuven: E. Nauwelaerts. ———. 1988. Ptolemaica Selecta: études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1989. “L’Épistate Artemo﻾n: un des fonctionnaires Lagides προκαθήμενοι τῆς χώρας.” AncSoc 20: 147–58. van Wees, H. 2008. “‘Stasis, Destroyer of Men’: Mass, Elite, Political Violence and Security in Archaic Greece.” In Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes, ed. C. Brélaz and P. Ducrey. Geneva: Fondation Hardt. 1–39. Vanderpool, E. 1976. “The Prison of Socrates.” ILN 264.6: 87–8. ———. 1980. “The State Prison of Ancient Athens.” In From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, ed. K. DeVries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 17–31. Vandersleyen, C. 1988. “Suggestions sur l’origine de Πέρσαι, τῆς ἐπιγονῆς, II.” In Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology, Athens 25–31 May 1986, ed. B. Mandilaras. Athens: Greek Papyrological Society. 191–201. Vandoni, M. 1971. Gli epistrategi nell’Egitto Greco-­romano. Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino. Vandorpe, K. 2009. “Archives and Dossiers.” In The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. R. S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 216–55. Vasunia, P. 2001. The Gift of the Nile: Hellenizing Egypt from Aeschylus to Alexander. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Verhoogt, A. M. F. W. 1997. Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120– 110 b.c.). New York: Brill. Vernus, P. 2003. Affairs and Scandals in Ancient Egypt. Trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. VerSteeg, R. 2002. Law in the Ancient World. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Vitucci, G. 1956. Ricerche sulla praefectura urbi in età imperiale (sec. 1–3). Rome: L’Erma. von Reden, S. 2007. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century b.c. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Works ­Cited

381

von Woess, F. 1923. Das Asylwesen Ägyptens in der Ptolemäerzeit und die spätere Entwicklung. Eine Einführung in das rechtsleben Ägyptens besonders der Ptolemäerzeit. Munich: C. H. Beck. Walbank, F. W. 1957. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I: Commentary on Books I–VI. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallace, S. L. 1938. Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Wallat, K. 2004. Sequitur clades: Die Vigiles im antiken Rom. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Watson, A. 1971. Roman Private Law around 200 B.C. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ———. 1988. “Roman Law.” In Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, 3  vols., ed. M. Grant and R. Kitzinger. New York: Scribner’s. 1:607–29. Wells, B. 2005. “Law and Practice.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, ed. D. C. Snell. Oxford: Blackwell. 183–95. Wenger, L. 1903. “Rechtsurkunden aus Tebtynis.” APF 2: 483–514. Westbrook, R., ed. 2003. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Leiden: Brill. Whitehead, D. 1986. The Demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 b.c.: A Political and Social Study. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Whitehorne, J. E. G. 1988. “Recent Research on the strategi of Roman Egypt (to 1985).” ANRW II 10.1: 598–617. ———. 2006. Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt. Florence: Gonnelli. Willetts, R. F. 1954. “The neotas of Gortyna.” Hermes 82: 494–8. ———. 1957. “A neotas at Dreros?” Hermes 85: 381–4. Wiltshire, S. F. 1992. Greece, Rome, and the Bill of Rights. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Winnicki, J. K. 1985. “Die Ägypter und das Ptolemäerheer.” Aegyptus 65: 41–55. ———. 1989. “Das ptolemäische und das hellenistische Heerwesen.” In Egitto e storia antice dall’ellenismo all’età araba. Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del colloquio internazionale, Bologna 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987, ed. L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci. Bologna: CLUEB. 213–30. ———. 2009. Late Egypt and Her Neighbours: Foreign Population in Egypt in the First Millennium b.c. Warsaw: Faculty of Law and Administration of Warsaw University and Fundacja im. Rafala Taubenschlaga. Wipszycka, E. 1996. “Encore sur la question de la literacy après l’étude de W. V. Harris.” In Études sur la christianisme dans l’Égypte de l’antiquité tardive. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum. 127–35.

382

Works ­Cited

Wolff, H. J. 1951. Roman Law: An Historical Introduction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ———. 1966. “Organisation der Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle der Verwaltung im ptolemäisch-­römischen Ägypten bis Diokletian.” RHD 34: 1–40. ———. 1970. Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck. ———. 2002 and 1978. Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats. Vol. 1: Bedingungen und Triebkräfte der Rechtsentwicklung. Vol. 2: Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs. Munich: Beck. Worthington, I. 2006. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Wrede, H. 1981. “Scribae.” Boreas 4: 106–32. Yarshater, E. 1983. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3.1: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sassanian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources

APF 48 (2002) 45–6 (Lykopolite, 154 or 143 b.c.?), 127, 128 APF 48 (2002) 98–9 (Alexandria?, 225 b.c.), 254 BGU III 1006 (?, III b.c.), 104, 107, 166, 208 BGU III 1007 (?, 243 or 218 b.c.), 65, 166, 190 BGU III 1012 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.), 166, 190, 203, ­207 BGU IV 1187 (Herakleopolite, ca. 49–48 b.c.?), 287 BGU IV 1190 (Herakleopolite, after 80 b.c.), 155, 190, 191 BGU IV 1192 (Bousiris, 55 b.c.), 156 BGU VI 1214 (Arsinoite, ca. 185–165 b.c.), 104, 107 BGU VI 1215 (?, III b.c.), 137 BGU VI 1216 (Memphis, 110 b.c.?), 149 BGU VI 1219 (Hermopolite, II b.c.), 132, 312 BGU VI 1222 (Hermopolite, 144 b.c.), 74, 312 BGU VI 1244 (Herakleopolite, 225 b.c.?), 87, 88, 102, 128, 187, 191, 200, 203, 207, 208, 212, 237, 269, 270, 275 BGU VI 1248 (?, 137 b.c.?), 55, 270 BGU VI 1251 (Philadelphia, 155 or 144 b.c.), 104

BGU VI 1252 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 79, 90, 177, 223, 230, 237 BGU VI 1253 (?, II b.c.), 59, 66, 208, 209, 266, 270, 302 BGU VI 1254 (Arsinoite, 154 or 143 b.c.?), 119, 166, 190 BGU VI 1271 (Philadelphia?, 180–145 b.c.), 135 BGU VI 1272 (Arsinoite?, 173 b.c.), 66 BGU VI 1470 (Elephantine, before 190 b.c.), 273 BGU VI 1491 (?, II/I b.c.), 137 BGU VIII 1742 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.), 64, 284 BGU VIII 1743 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.), 284 BGU VIII 1757 (Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.), 126 BGU VIII 1758 (Herakleopolite, 60–57 b.c.), 191 BGU VIII 1761 (Herakleopolite, 50 b.c.), 126, 166, 177, 200, 203, 204, 207, 208, 214, 261, 269, 270, ­287 BGU VIII 1770 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.), 156 BGU VIII 1773 (Herakleopolis, 58 b.c.?), 63, 245, 324 BGU VIII 1774 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 223, 270 BGU VIII 1778 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 155, 223 BGU VIII 1779 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.), 121

383

384 BGU VIII 1780 (Herakleopolite, 57 or 50 b.c.?), 149, 155, 223, 269 BGU VIII 1784 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 141, 290 BGU VIII 1787 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 137 BGU VIII 1796 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 119 BGU VIII 1798 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 77, 322, 324 BGU VIII 1808 (Herakleopolite, after 52/51 b.c.), 66 BGU VIII 1818 (Herakleopolite, 60–59 b.c.), 63, 262, 302 BGU VIII 1821 (Herakleopolite, 57 b.c.), 116, 228, 240, 244 BGU VIII 1822 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.), 170, 190, 193, 324 BGU VIII 1824 (Herakleopolite, 60–55 b.c.), 187, 188, 208 BGU VIII 1826 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), 223 BGU VIII 1828 (Herakleopolite, 52–51 b.c.), 118, 178, 190, 207, 209 BGU VIII 1829 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), 188 BGU VIII 1832 (Herakleopolite, 51 b.c.), 166, 181, 190, 197, 209, 214, 223, 233 BGU VIII 1833 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.), 170, 191 BGU VIII 1836 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 b.c.), 166, 187, 188, 324 BGU VIII 1844 (Herakleopolite, 50–49 b.c.), 130, 132, 170, 212, 237, 270 BGU VIII 1847 (Herakleopolite, 51–50 or 50–49 b.c.?), 175, 187, 228, 245, 253, 270 BGU VIII 1851 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 59, 302 BGU VIII 1854 (Herakleopolite, 74–73 or 45–44 b.c.?), 113 BGU VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 118, 149, 166, 184 BGU VIII 1856 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 118 BGU VIII 1859 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 120, ­121

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources BGU VIII 1881 (Herakleopolite, 80–30 b.c.), 137, 244 BGU X 1903 (?, III b.c.), 187, 207 BGU X 1909 (Memphis?, I b.c.), 107 BGU X 1912 (Arsinoite or Herakleopolite, ca. 250 b.c.), 223, 237, 270 BGU X 1956 (Oxyrhynchite?, 200–199 b.c.), 93 BGU X 1988 (?, III b.c.), 134 BGU XIV 2368 (Herakleopolite, 63 b.c.), 141, 289 BGU XIV 2428 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 137 BGU XIV 2433 (Herakleopolite, ca. 150 b.c.), 153 BGU XIV 2437 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 66, 149, 289 BGU XIV 2438 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 65 BGU XIV 2439 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 63 BGU XIV 2440 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), 65, 93, 289 BGU XIV 2441 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), 66, 289 BGU XIV 2444 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), 64 BGU XIV 2445 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), 64, 93, 94 BGU XIV 2447 (Herakleopolite, II–I b.c.), 93, 94 BGU XVIII.1 2736 (Herakleopolite, 87–86 b.c.), 59, 64, 284 BGU XVIII.1 2737 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.), 155, 284 BGU XVIII.1 2738 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.?), 155, 284 BGU XVIII.1 2739 (Herakleopolite, ca. 87–85 b.c.), 284 BGU XVIII.1 2740 (Herakleopolite, 87–86 b.c.?), 284, 285 BGU XVIII.1 2750 (Herakleopolite, 87 b.c.), 156 BGU XVIII.1 2751 (Herakleopolite, 86 b.c.), 156 BGU XVIII.1 2755 (Herakleopolite, ca. 78–77 b.c.), 284

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources BGU XVIII.1 2756 (Herakleopolite, ca. 78–77 b.c.), 285 BGU XVIII.1 2759 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 285 Chrest.Mitt. 5 (Arsinoite, ca. 218 b.c.), 125, 175, 187, 191, 208, 214, 223, 253, 258 Chrest.Mitt. 12 (Arsinoite, 244–222 b.c.), 102, 187, 193, 208, 272 Chrest.Mitt. 30 (Alexandria, 228 b.c.), 270 Chrest.Mitt. 32 (Arsinoite, 181 b.c.), 76, 132, 312 Chrest.Mitt. 35 (Itos?, 133 b.c.), 258 Chrest.Mitt. 45 (Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.?), 138, 240, 258 Chrest.Wilck. 1 (Arsinoite, ca. 246 b.c.), 249 Chrest.Wilck. 55 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 104 Chrest.Wilck. 162 (Pathyris, 186 b.c.), 132, 312 Chrest.Wilck. 166 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.), 70, 125, 190, 207, 208, 213, 226, 236, 240, 259 Chrest.Wilck. 244 (?, 224–223 b.c.), 264 Chrest.Wilck. 262 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 66, 191 Chrest.Wilck. 331 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 59, 74, 91, 93, 291, 292, 296, 305, 307 Chrest.Wilck. 337 (Arsinoite, 222–221 b.c.), 307 C.Jud.Syr.Eg. 5 (Pelousion or Mendes?, 102 b.c.), 42 C.Ord.Ptol.2 18 (Arsinoite?, 259–258 b.c.), 321 C.Ord.Ptol.2 27 (Alexandria?, 237 b.c.), 258 C.Ord.Ptol.2 30–1 (?, 183 b.c.), 80, 81, 275, 276 C.Ord.Ptol.2 34 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.), 39, 66, 237, 245, 250 C.Ord.Ptol.2 47 (Kerkeosiris?, 139 b.c.), 132, 203, 313, 316 C.Ord.Ptol.2 53 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.), 60, 76, 79, 237, 245, 249, 250, 320 C.Ord.Ptol.2 53ter (Arsinoite, after 113 b.c.), 65 C.Ord.Ptol.2 55 (Tebtynis, ca. 118 b.c.), 223, 245, 250

385

C.Ord.Ptol.2 62 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), 79, 88, 107, 133, 203, 209, 313, 318 C.Ord.Ptol.2 73 (Herakleopolite, 79 or 50 b.c.), 153 CPR XXVIII 11 (Herakleopolite?, 191 b.c.?), 126 Diodorus 1.80, 152, 336 Diodorus 3.12–4, 38, 255 Herodotus 2.121.β2, 152 Herodotus 2.121.γ1, 152 Herodotus 2.121.ε1, 152 Herodotus 2.121.ε2, 152 Herodotus 2.121.ε3, 152 Herodotus 2.121.ε5, 152 Herodotus 2.121.ζ2, 152 I.Alex.Ptol. 43 (Alexandria, II/I b.c.), 137, 194 I.Fay. III 209 (Theadelphia?, 107–101 b.c.), ­299 I.Prose 38 (Euhemeria, 69 b.c.), 155, 209 O.Ashm.Shelt. 42 (Thebes, II b.c.), 107 O.Bodl. I 14 (Thebes?, 236 b.c.), 154 O.Bodl. I 17 (Thebes?, 232 b.c.), 154 O.Bodl. I 111 (Thebes, 140 b.c.), 104 OGIS I 229 (Magnesia-­by-­Sipylos, soon after 242 b.c.?), 64 O.Oslo 2 (?, III/II b.c.), 63 P.Amh. II 33 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.), 127, 178, 190, 270 P.Amh. II 34 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.), 127 P.Amh. II 35 (Soknopaiou Nesos, 132 b.c.), 177, 190, 209, 223 P.Athen. 8 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.), 68, 223, 269, 272, 275 P.Berl. I 15522 (Elephantine, 323–30 b.c.), 104 P.Berl.Salmen. 17 (Herakleopolis, 77 b.c.), 285 P.Berl.Zill. 1 (Herakleopolis, 155 b.c.), 245 P.Bingen 34 (Herakleopolite?, III/II b.c.), 269

386 P.Bingen 44 (?, I b.c.), 102, 270 P.Brit.Mus. II 10508 (?, 323–30 b.c.?), 257 P.Bürgsch. 7 (Krokodilopolis?, 202 b.c.), 41, 258 P.Bürgsch. 8 (Krokodilopolis?, 202 b.c.), 41 P.Bürgsch. 16 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 41, 188, 258 P.Bürgsch. 17 = P.CorpusRevillout II 3 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 42 P.Bürgsch. 22 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.), 41, 77, 188 P.Bürgsch. 23 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.), 41, 88 P.Cair.Zen. I 59006 (Palaistine, 259 b.c.?), 137 P.Cair.Zen. I 59031 (Alexandria, 258 b.c.), 248 P.Cair.Zen. I 59036 (Karia, 257 b.c.), 134 P.Cair.Zen. I 59080 (Memphis, 257 b.c.), 153, 190, 208 P.Cair.Zen. I 59113 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.), 60 P.Cair.Zen. I 59136 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.), 59, 302 P.Cair.Zen. II 59140 (?, 256 b.c.), 178, 269, 272 P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256 b.c.), 166, 176, 208, 261, 275 P.Cair.Zen. II 59214 (?, 254 b.c.), 60 P.Cair.Zen. II 59224 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.), 174, 208, 223, 225 P.Cair.Zen. II 59230 (Philadelphia, 253 b.c.), 156 P.Cair.Zen. II 59232 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.), ­319 P.Cair.Zen. II 59236 (Philadelphia, 253–252 b.c.), 126 P.Cair.Zen. II 59275 (Arsinoite, 251 b.c.), 120 P.Cair.Zen. II 59289 (Alexandria?, 250 b.c.), 249 P.Cair.Zen. II 59292 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.), 60, 134, 137, 142, 309 P.Cair.Zen. II 59296 (Arsinoite, 250 b.c.), 156, 247 P.Cair.Zen. III 59312 (Arsinoite, 250 b.c.), 63

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Cair.Zen. III 59329 (Philadelphia?, 249 b.c.), 134 P.Cair.Zen. III 59341A (Alexandria, after 247 b.c.), 128 P.Cair.Zen. III 59343 (Philadelphia?, 246 b.c.), 178, 319 P.Cair.Zen. III 59366 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.), 65 P.Cair.Zen. III 59368 (Memphis?, 241 b.c.), 128, 134, 223, 240, 241, 248, 257, 258, 269 P.Cair.Zen. III 59369 (Krokodilopolis, 241 b.c.), 223, 233, 241 P.Cair.Zen. III 59373 (Philadelphia, 239 b.c.), 178 P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 (Philadelphia, ca. 254–251 b.c.), 57, 262, 268 P.Cair.Zen. III 59392 (?, III b.c.), 248 P.Cair.Zen. III 59404 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), 65, 322 P.Cair.Zen. III 59407 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), 60, 319 P.Cair.Zen. III 59421 (Memphis, 258–256 b.c.), 258 P.Cair.Zen. III 59451 (Sophthis, III b.c.), 170, 209 P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 56, 177, 224, 227, 292 P.Cair.Zen. III 59482 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 248 P.Cair.Zen. III 59484 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 240, 241 P.Cair.Zen. III 59492 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 190, 240, 248 P.Cair.Zen. III 59495 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), 180, 253, 275 P.Cair.Zen. III 59496 (Krokodilopolis, 248–241 b.c.), 214 P.Cair.Zen. III 59499 (Philadelphia?, 254 b.c.), 228 P.Cair.Zen. III 59509 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 144, 180, 309 P.Cair.Zen. III 59520 (Krokodilopolis?, III b.c.), 192, 240, 248 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59601 (Aphroditopolis?, III b.c.), 248

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Cair.Zen. IV 59610 (?, III b.c.), 61, 303 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59619 (Memphite?, III b.c.), 241, 248 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59620 (Arsinoite?, 248–239 b.c.), 57, ­262 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59626 (?, III b.c.), 170, 239, 248, 253, 270 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59690 (Memphis?, 257–256 b.c.), 134 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59745 (Philadelphia?, 255–254 b.c.), 156 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59753 (?, III b.c.), 154 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59799 (Philadelphia, 254–250 b.c.), 134 P.Col. III 55 (Arsinoite?, 250 b.c.), 65 P.Col. IV 92 (Philadelphia? 241 b.c.), 63 P.Coll.Youtie I 12 (Krokodilopolis, 177 b.c.), 187, 190, 214, 258 P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (Arsinoite, 109 b.c.?), 77, 151, 166, 193, 223, 224, 262 P.CorpusRevillout II 3 = P.Bürgsch. 17 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 74 P.CorpusRevillout II 4 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 42, 74 P.Count 2+3 (Arsinoite, 229 b.c.), 41 P.Count 4 (Arsinoite, 243–231 b.c.), 41 P.Count 8 (Mouchis, 243–217 b.c.), 41 P.Count 9 (Arsinoite, after 251/250 b.c.), 41 P.Count 11 (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.), 66 P.Count 12 (Arsinoite, 243–217 b.c.), 64, 149 P.Count 14 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), 152, 153 P.Count 23 (Arsinoite, 254–231 b.c.), 66, 309 P.Count 26 (Trikomia, 254–231 b.c.), 309 P.Count 30 (Arsinoite, 254–231 b.c.), 66 P.Count 53 (Lykopolite, II b.c.), 41 P.Dion. 9 (Hermopolite, ca. 139 b.c.), 209, 269 P.Dion. 10 (Hermopolite, 109 b.c.), 264 P.Dion. 11 (Hermoupolis Magna, 108 b.c.), 102, 107, 207, 208 P.Diosk. 1 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?), 132, 186, 192, 209, 234 P.Diosk. 2 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?), 132, 192

387

P.Diosk. 3 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?), 131, 132, 208 P.Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolite, 153 b.c.?), 79, 126, 131, 223, 237, 270 P.Diosk. 5 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.?), 131, 132, 190, 208, 228, 234, 240 P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), 131, 132, 168, 169, 174, 183, 203, 237, 245, ­274 P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?), 130, 131, 208, 237, 270, 275 P.Diosk. 8 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), 131 P.Diosk. 9 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), 131, 237, 241, 245, 251 P.Diosk. 12 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.), 130, 187, 270 P.Dryton 31 (?, 140–130 b.c.), 127 P.Dryton 33 (?, 136 b.c.), 77, 232 P.Eleph. 12 (Diospolis Magna, 222 b.c.), 240, 241, 268 P.Eleph. 26 (Apollonopolis, 223 b.c.), 107 P.Eleph.Wagner I (Elephantine, 241–240 b.c.?), 255 P.Enteux. 3 (Magdola, 222 b.c.), 208, 275 P.Enteux. 4 (Arsinoë [recto], Ghoran [verso]; 219–218 b.c.), 174 P.Enteux. 6 (Athenas kome, 222 b.c.), 207 P.Enteux. 8 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 200, 214 P.Enteux. 9 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.), 190 P.Enteux. 10 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 104 P.Enteux. 12 (Sebennytos, 244 b.c.), 214 P.Enteux. 14 (Magdola, 222 b.c.), 104, 208 P.Enteux. 22 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 191 P.Enteux. 24 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 110, 202, 212, 270 P.Enteux. 25 (Ghoran, 222 b.c.), 199 P.Enteux. 28 (Theogonis, 218 b.c.), 57, 201, 237 P.Enteux. 29 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 209 P.Enteux. 35 (Magdola, 222 b.c.), 209 P.Enteux. 37 (Magdola, 222 b.c.), 275 P.Enteux. 43 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 104, 183, 273 P.Enteux. 48 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 179, 200 P.Enteux. 49 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 193

388

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources

P.Enteux. 50 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 110, 170, 202, 212, 269 P.Enteux. 51 (Magdola, after 222 b.c.?), 104 P.Enteux. 54 (Bakchias, 218 b.c.), 190 P.Enteux. 55 (Magdola, 222 b.c.), 140, 190 P.Enteux. 60 (Kaminoi, 218 b.c.), 166 P.Enteux. 64 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 197 P.Enteux. 65 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 57, 113, 174, 266 P.Enteux. 70 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 57, 162, 202 P.Enteux. 72 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 106, 162, 166, ­208 P.Enteux. 74 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 221 b.c.), 162, 183, 202, 272, 273 P.Enteux. 79 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.), 162, 175, 183, 273 P.Enteux. 81 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 191, 259 P.Enteux. 82 (Trikomia, 221 b.c.), 77, 110, 202, 223, 229, 237, 275 P.Enteux. 83 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 113, 166, 243, 261 P.Enteux. 84 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.), 138, 139, 240, 241, 247, 248, 251 P.Enteux. 87 (Alabanthis, 222 b.c.), 102 P.Erasm. I 1 (Oxyrhyncha, 148–147 b.c.), 66, 173, 176 P.Erasm. I 4 (Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.), 104 P.Erasm. I 10 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 134 P.Erasm. I 13 (Kaine, 152 b.c.?), 135 P.Erasm. II 23 (Arsinoite, 152 b.c.), 249, 284 P.Erasm. II 24 (Arsinoite, 152 b.c.), 249, 284 P.Erasm. II 25 (Arsinoite, 152 b.c.), 249, 284 P.Erasm. II 35 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 249, 284 P.Frankf. 3 (Tholthis, 212 b.c.), 77, 185, 213, 267 P.Gen. II 86C (Bakchias, 187 or 163 b.c.?), 140, 308 P.Gen. III 128 (Herakleopolite, 163–156 b.c.?), 126, 191 P.Gen. III 132 (Herakleopolite?, II b.c.), 76, 77, 79, 88, 132, 133, 313 P.Gen. III 133 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), 264 P.Genova II 55 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.), 60

P.Genova III 95 (Arsinoite, 216 b.c.?), 287, 301 P.Genova III 101 (Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?), 73, 297 P.Genova III 102 (Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?), 73, 77 P.Giss. 108 (Pathyris, 134 b.c.), 107 P.Giss.Univ. I 7 (Euhemeria, II b.c.), 71, 77, 299 P.Giss.Univ. I 8 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.), 63, 191, 299 P.Giss.Univ. I 9 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.), 183, 274 P.Giss.Univ. I 10 (Euhemeria, 145–116 b.c.), 264, 266 P.Grad. 6 (?, 223–222 b.c.), ­65 P.Grad. 8 (?, 223 b.c.?), 60 P.Grenf. I 38 (Pathyrite, 170 b.c.), 179, 183, 186, 273 P.Grenf. II 37 (Pathyris, 108 b.c.), 63, 104, 313 P.Gur. 5 (Lysimachis, ca. 215 b.c.), 113 P.Gur. 8 (Apollonias [Arsinoite], 210 b.c.), 120, 122 P.Gur. 20 (Andromachis, III b.c.), 116 P.Gur. 21 (?, III b.c.), 116 P.Gur. 26 (Arsinoite, 214–211 b.c.?), 65 P.Gur. 29 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), 65 P.Hal. 1 (Apollonopolite, after 259 b.c.), 135 P.Hal. 7 (Thebaid, 232 b.c.), 149 P.Hal. 22 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 65, 66 P.Hamb. I 91 (Herakleopolite, 167 b.c.), 201 P.Hamb. I 105 (Philadelphia, 236 b.c.), 183, 273 P.Hamb. II 168 (?, III b.c.), 135 P.Hamb. II 172 (Oxyrhynchite, 246 b.c.), 66, 89, 96 P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.), 191, 197, 202, 203, 213 P.Haun. I 11 (Diospolis Magna, 182 b.c.), 76, 132, 312 P.Heid. II 217 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.), 63 P.Heid. VI 362 (Herakleopolite, 226 b.c.), 63, 223, 287, 314 P.Heid. VI 379 (Boubastos, 204 b.c.), 128

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Heid. VI 382 (Samareia, after 158 b.c.?), 127 P.Heid. VII 393 (Arsinoite or Memphite, III b.c.), 68, 129, 237, 270 P.Heid. VIII 416 (Herakleopolis, II b.c.), 102, 183, 273 P.Heid. VIII 417 (Herakleopolis, 190 or 189 b.c.), 240 P.Heid. IX 422 (Tinteris, 158 b.c.), 123 P.Heid. IX 423 (Tebetny [Herakleopolite], 158 b.c.), 119, 120, 123 P.Heid. IX 423 Anhang (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), 49, 52, 123, 262, 265 P.Heid. IX 428 (Herakleopolis, 158 b.c.), 142 P.Heid. IX 433 (Herakleopolite, 161–155 b.c.), 120, 127 P.Hels. I 2 (Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.), 186, 224, 227, 231 P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite, 243 b.c.), 108, 109, 170, 196, 224, 240, 247, 248 P.Hib. I 36 (Talaë, 229 b.c.), 63, 177, 185, 192 P.Hib. I 37 (Talaë, 235 b.c.?), 177, 185, 192 P.Hib. I 41 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 261 b.c.), 258, 270 P.Hib. I 54 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 245 b.c.), 62, 285 P.Hib. I 72 (Herakleopolite, 241 b.c.), 203, 207 P.Hib. I 73 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.), 77, 109, 155, 196, 213, 224, 240, 247, 248, 259, 269 P.Hib. I 75 (Herakleopolite, 232 b.c.), 60, 303 P.Hib. I 92 (Muchinaryo, 264 b.c.), 258 P.Hib. I 105 (Herakleopolite?, 228 b.c.), ­66 P.Hib. I 110 (?, 270 b.c.), 64 P.Hib. I 127 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 250 b.c.), 269 P.Hib. I 144 (Herakleopolite?, 229 b.c.), 177, 192 P.Hib. I 147 (?, III b.c.), 137 P.Hib. II 198 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), 7, 40, 57, 116, 152, 231, 248, 249, 251, 261, 285, 286, 289

389

P.Hib. II 201 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.), 212 P.Hib. II 202 (Oxyrhynchite?, ca. 250–240 b.c.), 209, 262, 271, 275 P.Hib. II 203 (?, 246–221 b.c.), 104, 247 P.Hib. II 233 (?, III b.c.), 130, 133, 275 P.Hib. II 238 (Oxyrhynchite?, 246–221 b.c.), 166 P.Hib. II 268 (?, ca. 260 b.c.), 134 P.Hib. II 269 (?, ca. 270–250 b.c.), 66 P.Iand.Zen. 17 (Philadelphia, ca. 258–256 b.c.), 60 P.Iand.Zen. 36 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 63 P.Iand.Zen. 50 Appendix (Krokodilopolis, mid-­III b.c.), 240 P.IFAO II 4 (?, 103 b.c.), 149 P.Köln III 140 (Arsinoite, 244–242 or 219–217 b.c.?), 104, 107, 192, 236 P.Köln V 216 (Moithymis, 209 b.c.), 185 P.Köln VI 274 (Moithymis, III b.c.), 301 P.Köln VII 313 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.), 79 P.Lille I 3 (Magdola, after 216–215 b.c.), 55, 76, 124, 126 P.Lille I 25 (Ghoran, III b.c.), ­66 P.LilleDem. I 3 (Ghoran, 243 b.c.), 41, 138, 247 P.LilleDem. I 4 (Ghoran, 247 b.c.), 42, 88, 89, 188, 259 P.LilleDem. I 5 (Ghoran, 245 b.c.?), 42, 254 P.LilleDem. I 32 (Ghoran, 264/263 or 226/225 b.c.), 42, 254 P.Lips. II 124 (Herakleopolite or Arsinoite?, 137 b.c.?), 66 P.Lond. III 683 (Pathyrite, II b.c.), 190 P.Lond. III 880 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.), 245, 246 P.Lond. III 1200 (Diospolis Magna, 209 b.c.), 312 P.Lond. III 1204 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.), 245, 246 P.Lond. VII 1945 (Alexandria, 257 b.c.), 249 P.Lond. VII 1953 (?, 257 b.c.), 60 P.Lond. VII 1954 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.?), 126

390 P.Lond. VII 1980 = 1981 (Ammonias, 252 b.c.), 119, 128 P.Lond. VII 1996 (Philadelphia, ca. 250–249 b.c.?), 65 P.Lond. VII 2008 (Philadelphia, 247 b.c.), 65 P.Lond. VII 2010 (Philadelphia, ca. 244–243 b.c.), 66 P.Lond. VII 2045 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 252 P.Lond. VII 2188 (Hermonthis, 148 b.c.), 39, 68, 77, 107, 169, 270, 275 P.Lond. VII 2190 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.), 149 P.Lond. VII 2191 (Pathyris, 116 b.c.), 245, 246 P.Louvre II 98 (?, 157 b.c.), 156 P.Mert. I 5 (Ptolemais, 149–135 b.c.), 105, 208, 213 P.Meyer 1 (Arsinoite?, 144 b.c.), 275 P.Mich. I 34 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.), 177, 178, 192 P.Mich. I 39 (Arsinoite, 254 b.c.), 223 P.Mich. I 73 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 141, 291, 305, 308 P.Mich. I 85 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 237, 253, 257, 259 P.Mich. I 87 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), 181, 192, 248, 253, 275 P.Mich. III 173 (Philadelphia, 169 b.c.), 105, 192, 270 P.Mich. XV 688 (Soknopaiou Nesos, II/I b.c.), 166, 299 P.Mich. XVIII 769 (Trikomia, 200 b.c.?), 140, 308 P.Mich. XVIII 770 (Trikomia, 197 b.c.?), 314 P.Mich. XVIII 773 (Oxyrhyncha/ Krokodilopolis, ca. 194 b.c.), ­154 P.Mich. XVIII 774 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 194–193 b.c.), 127, 154, 228, 262 P.Mich. XVIII 778 (Mouchis, after 193–192 b.c.), 126, 187, 191, 202, 223, 237 P.Mich. XVIII 779 (Mouchis, after 192 b.c.), 264 P.Mil.Congr.XVII pp5/6 (Arsinoite, 142 b.c.), 191

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Mil.Congr.XVII pp21/22 (Arsinoite, after 142–141 b.c.), 245 P.Mil.Congr.XVIII p. 10 (Arsinoite, ca. 143–141 b.c.), 102, 209 P.Münch. III.1 55 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), 102 P.Oxy. IV 710 (Oxyrhynchus, 111 b.c.), 149 P.Oxy. XII 1465 (Oxyrhynchite, I b.c.), 135, 177 P.Oxy. XVI 2056 (Oxyrhynchus, VII a.d.), 67 P.Paramone 10 (?, II b.c.), 92 P.Petr. II 1 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 127, 209 P.Petr. II 6 (Arsinoite, 256 b.c.), 135 P.Petr. II 10 (Arsinoite, 221–205 b.c.), 244, 275 P.Petr. II 13 Fr3 (Arsinoite, 255 b.c.), 246, 255 P.Petr. II 13 Fr4 (Arsinoite, 256 or 255 b.c.), 255 P.Petr. II 19 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 166, 240, 253, 257 P.Petr. II 25 FrA (Ptolemais Hormou, 226 b.c.), 107 P.Petr. II 32 Fr1 (Krokodilopolis, 197 b.c.), 57 P.Petr. II 32 Fr2A (Arsinoite, 217 b.c.), 183 P.Petr. II 38 FrA (Lysimachis, 198 b.c.), 119 P.Petr. II 39 FrD (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 114 P.Petr. III 21 FrA (Krokodilopolis, 227 b.c.), 223 P.Petr. III 26 (Arsinoite, ca. 240 b.c.), 116 P.Petr. III 28 FrE recto (Sebennytos?, 224–218 b.c.), 57, 247 P.Petr. III 32 FrG,B recto (Sebennytos?, 217 b.c.), 267 P.Petr. III 34 FrA (Lysimachis, 210–183 b.c.), ­119 P.Petr. III 36 FrA recto (Herakleopolite, 218–217 b.c.), 191, 253, 257 P.Petr. III 64 FrB (Krokodilopolis, 239 b.c.), 96 P.Petr. III 64 FrC (Krokodilopolis, after January 19, 239 b.c.), 96 P.Petr. III 109 (Arsinoite, 248 b.c.), 65 P.Petr. III 111 (Arsinoite, 238 b.c.), 65

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Petr. III 112 (Arsinoite, 221–220 b.c.), 65, 66 P.Petr. III 119 FrB (Arsinoite, after 222–221 b.c.?), 245 P.Petr. III 128 (Arsinoite, 239 b.c.), 64, 66, 88, 149 P.Petr. III 130 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 77, 79, 88 P.Polit.Iud. 1 (Herakleopolite, 135 b.c.), 192 P.Polit.Iud. 2 (Herakleopolite, ca. 135 b.c.), 190, 192, 208 P.Polit.Iud. 12 (Herakleopolite, 135 b.c.), 270 P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), 103, 142, 144, 185, 191, 224, 237, 309, 310 P.Rain.Cent. 45 (?, 197–190 b.c.), 104, 132, 313 P.Rain.Cent. 46 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 132, 313 P.Rain.Cent. 50 (Phthemphouth, I b.c.), 207 P.Rev.2 (Arsinoite?, 259 b.c.), 134, 149 P.Ross.Georg. II 10 (Pathyris, 88 b.c.), 107, 156 P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.), 79, 90, 166, 193, 219, 223, 237, 269, 270 P.Ryl. II 253 verso (Hermoupolis Magna, 142 b.c.?), 79, 312 P.Ryl. IV 570 (Krokodilopolis, ca. 254–251 b.c.), 55, 116, 240 P.Ryl. IV 572 (Arsinoite?, II b.c.), 87, 104, 112 P.Ryl. IV 576 (?, 246–221 b.c.), 59, 60, 285 P.Select 8 (Oxyrhynchus, a.d. 421), 67 PSI IV 332 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.), 154 PSI IV 344 (Philadelphia, 255 b.c.), 66, 303 PSI IV 345 (Philadelphia, 256 b.c.), 137 PSI IV 347 (Philadelphia, 255 or 254 b.c.?), 257 PSI IV 353 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.), 145, 240, 275 PSI IV 366 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.), 223

391

PSI IV 380 (Philadelphia, 249 b.c.), ­240 PSI IV 388 (Philadelphia, 243 b.c.), 65 PSI IV 393 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.), 57, 66 PSI IV 396 (Philadelphia, 241 b.c.), 261 PSI IV 399 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 154, 155 PSI IV 406 (Philadelphia, 260–258 b.c.), 137, 240, 257 PSI IV 416 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 248 PSI IV 419 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 192, 248, 253 PSI IV 423 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 256 PSI IV 483 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.), 153 PSI V 490 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.), 308 PSI V 509 (Philadelphia, 256 b.c.), 65 PSI V 519 (Philadelphia, 250 b.c.), 157 PSI V 529 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 228 PSI V 532 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 208, 240, 248, 253 PSI V 538 (Philadelphia, 258–256 b.c.?), 157 PSI V 542 (Arsinoite?, ca. 185–165 b.c.), 270 PSI VII 816 (Aphroditopolis, II b.c.), 270 PSI VII 868 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 65 PSI X 1098 (Tebtynis, 51 b.c.), 63 PSI XIII 1315 (Arsinoite, 127 b.c.), 248, 254 PSI XIII 1317 (Thinite, 118 b.c.), 152 PSI XIV 1514 (?, II/I b.c.), 264 PSI Congr. XXI 6 (?, 116–107 b.c.), 170 P.Sorb. I 34 (Arsinoite?, 230 b.c.), 137 P.Stras. II 85 (Pathyris, 113 b.c.), 245, 246 P.Stras. II 100 (?, II b.c.), 102, 268 P.Stras. VII 662 (Oxyrhynchite, 239 b.c.), 66, 128 P.Stras. VIII 781 (Herakleopolite, II b.c.), 207 P.Tebt. I 13 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.), 113, 120 P.Tebt. I 15 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.), 122, 240, 241, 245, 251 P.Tebt. I 24 (Ptolemais Euergetis, 117 b.c.), 120 P.Tebt. I 29 (Kerkeosiris, ca. 110 b.c.), 120

392 P.Tebt. I 35 (Arsinoite, 111 b.c.), 156, 313, 314 P.Tebt. I 38 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 236, 237 P.Tebt. I 39 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.), 156, 166 P.Tebt. I 40 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), 76, 124, 314 P.Tebt. I 41 (Kerkeosiris, 105–90 b.c.), 71, 192, 208 P.Tebt. I 43 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.), 84, 88, 112, 124, 170, 193, 209, 271, 275, 276, 299 P.Tebt. I 47 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 119 P.Tebt. I 53 (Kerkeosiris, 110 b.c.), 119, 120 P.Tebt. I 60 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 61B (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), 288 P.Tebt. I 62 (Kerkeosiris, 119–118 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 63 (Kerkeosiris, 116–115 b.c.), 140, 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 64 (Kerkeosiris, 115 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 72 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 144 P.Tebt. I 84 (Kerkeosiris, 118 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 85 (Tebtynis, 112 b.c.?), 140, 288 P.Tebt. I 89 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 144, 155, 291 P.Tebt. I 90 (Tebtynis, I b.c.), 149, 309 P.Tebt. I 94 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.), 144 P.Tebt. I 105 (Kerkeosiris, 103 b.c.), 155 P.Tebt. I 116 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.), 145 P.Tebt. I 120 (Tebtynis, 97 or 64 b.c.), 65, 145 P.Tebt. I 121 (Arsinoite, 94 or 61 b.c.), 66, 145, 153 P.Tebt. I 179 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 66, 149, 153 P.Tebt. I 183 (Tebtynis, 125–100 b.c.), 118 P.Tebt. I 230 (Kerkeosiris?, II b.c.), 236, ­299 P.Tebt. I 251 (Arsinoite, I b.c.), 92, 155 P.Tebt. I 264 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 207, 274

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Tebt. II 282 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 296, 304, 306, 307 P.Tebt. II 283 (Tebtynis, 93 or 60 b.c.), 192 P.Tebt. III.1 701 (Tebtynis, 235 or 210 b.c.?), 117 P.Tebt. III.1 703 (Tebtynis, ca. 210 b.c.), 190, 216 P.Tebt. III.1 706 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.), 287, 302, 303 P.Tebt. III.1 708 (Tebtynis, III b.c.), 76, 313, 314 P.Tebt. III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.), 76, 140, 223, 234, 282, 289, 313 P.Tebt. III.1 711 (Tebtynis, ca. 125 b.c.), 308 P.Tebt. III.1 715 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 121, 141, 308 P.Tebt. III.1 730 (Tebtynis, 178 or 167 b.c.), 121, ­122 P.Tebt. III.1 731 (Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142– 141 b.c.?), 77, 93, 292, 306, 308 P.Tebt. III.1 733 (Tebtynis, 143–142 b.c.), 57, 224, 303, 306 P.Tebt. III.1 736 (Tebtynis, 143 b.c.), 112, 156, 287 P.Tebt. III.1 741 (Tebtynis, 187–186 b.c.), 322 P.Tebt. III.1 746 (Tebtynis, 243 b.c.), 104 P.Tebt. III.1 747 (Tebtynis, 243 b.c.), 109 P.Tebt. III.1 749 (Tebtynis, ca. 243 b.c.), 61 P.Tebt. III.1 752 (Tebtynis, early II b.c.), 74 P.Tebt. III.1 764 (Tebtynis, 185 or 161 b.c.?), 60 P.Tebt. III.1 769 (Tebtynis, 237–236 or 212–211 b.c.?), 114 P.Tebt. III.1 772 (Tebtynis, 236 b.c.), 228 P.Tebt. III.1 776 (Tebtynis, III b.c.), 128 P.Tebt. III.1 777 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 138, 166, 208, 248, 258 P.Tebt. III.1 780 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.), 208, 275 P.Tebt. III.1 782 (Tebtynis, ca. 153 b.c.), 191, 204 P.Tebt. III.1 785 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.), 170

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources P.Tebt. III.1 786 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.), 166 P.Tebt. III.1 787 (Oxyrhyncha, ca. 138 b.c.), 170 P.Tebt. III.1 788 (Oxyrhyncha, 143 b.c.), 110, 298 P.Tebt. III.1 790 (Oxyrhyncha, 127–124 b.c.), 137, 170, 195 P.Tebt. III.1 793 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 183 b.c.), 79, 119, 120, 121, 261, 302 P.Tebt. III.1 795 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 77, 297 P.Tebt. III.1 796 (Tebtynis, 185 b.c.), 113, 182, 192, 262, 274 P.Tebt. III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.), 72, 181, 236, 262, 270, 275 P.Tebt. III.1 798 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.), 120, 183 P.Tebt. III.1 800 (Tebtynis, 153 or 142 b.c.?), 120 P.Tebt. III.1 802 (Tebtynis, 135 b.c.), 135, 136, 142, 166 P.Tebt. III.1 803 (Oxyrhyncha, 143–138 b.c.), 170 P.Tebt. III.1 808 (Tebtynis, 151 or 140 b.c.), 63 P.Tebt. III.1 824 (Tebtynis, 171 b.c.?), 285 P.Tebt. III.2 826 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 172 b.c.), 149 P.Tebt. III.2 830 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.), 149 P.Tebt. III.2 833 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 140, 288 P.Tebt. III.2 838 (Tebtynis, 139 b.c.), 155 P.Tebt. III.2 848 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 142, 310 P.Tebt. III.2 850 (Arsinoite, 170 b.c.), 65, 309 P.Tebt. III.2 852 (Tebtynis, ca. 174 b.c.), 287 P.Tebt. III.2 857 (Herakleopolite, 162 b.c.), 79, 124 P.Tebt. III.2 862 (Letopolis, II b.c.), 142, 310 P.Tebt. III.2 871 (Krokodilopolis, 158 b.c.), 76, 312 P.Tebt. III.2 875 (Kerkesoucha, II b.c.), 245 P.Tebt. III.2 890 (Herakleopolite, ca. 137 b.c.), 88, 96

393

P.Tebt. III.2 893 (Oxyrhyncha?, II b.c.), 137 P.Tebt. III.2 895 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, ca. 175 b.c.), 124 P.Tebt. III.2 903 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 140, 145, 289, 313 P.Tebt. III.2 904 (Oxyrhyncha, 115 b.c.), 140, 241, 244, 245, 289, 313 P.Tebt. III.2 922 (Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.), 307 P.Tebt. III.2 927 (Tebtynis, ca. 140 b.c.?), 292, 301, 305 P.Tebt. III.2 951 (Tebtynis, III b.c.), 93 P.Tebt. III.2 952 (Tebtynis, ca. 145–144 b.c.), 179 P.Tebt. III.2 957 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 142, 144, 309 P.Tebt. III.2 958 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, 162 b.c.?), 120 P.Tebt. III.2 961 (Tebtynis, 150 or 139 b.c.?), 270 P.Tebt. III.2 962 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 156 P.Tebt. III.2 986 (Herakleopolite, 139 b.c.), 155 P.Tebt. III.2 988 (Herakleopolite, 139 b.c.), 155 P.Tebt. III.2 992 (Herakleopolite?, 139 b.c.), 155 P.Tebt. III.2 1006 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 74 P.Tebt. III.2 1035 (Tebtynis, 182–181 or 158–157 b.c.?), 59, 60, 285 P.Tebt. III.2 1057 (Oxyrhyncha?, 170–116 b.c.), 140, 307 P.Tebt. III.2 1061 (Tebtynis, 228–227 b.c.), 66 P.Tebt. III.2 1067 (Tebtynis, 205–180 b.c.?), 319 P.Tebt. III.2 1071 (Tebtynis, 158 b.c.), 312 P.Tebt. IV 1108 (Kerkeosiris, 124–121 b.c.), 288 P.Tebt. IV 1110 (Kerkeosiris, 115 b.c.), 155, ­291 P.Tebt. IV 1114 (Kerkeosiris, 113–112 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. IV 1116 (Kerkeosiris, 132–121 b.c.?), 149, 155 P.Tebt. IV 1117 (Kerkeosiris, 119 b.c.), 149, 288

394

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources

P.Tebt. IV 1118 (Kerkeosiris, 117 b.c.), 155, 291 P.Tebt. IV 1135 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.), 140, 308 P.Tebt. IV 1136 (Kerkeosiris, ca. 114 b.c.), 137 P.Tebt. IV 1140 (Kerkeosiris, 114 b.c.), 149 P.Tebt. IV 1150 (Kerkeosiris, 115–114 b.c.), 137 P.Tebt. V 1151 (Kerkeosiris, 112 b.c.), 134, 145, 155 P.Tor.Amen. 7 (Thebes, 119–117 b.c.), 102, 107 P.Tor.Choach. 4 (Thebes?, 111 b.c.), 190, 197, 202 P.Tor.Choach. 5B (Thebes, 110 b.c.), 107 P.Tor.Choach. 8 (Thebes, after September 24–October 23, 127 b.c.), 130, 131, 203, 237, 270 P.Tor.Choach. 11 (Thebes?, 119 b.c.), 166 P.Tor.Choach. 11bis (Thebes, 119 b.c.), 105 P.Wisc. II 78 (Philadelphia, 248 b.c.), 156 P.Yale I 33 (Ankyron, 253 b.c.), 116 P.Yale I 36 (?, 190 b.c.), 292 P.Yale I 46 (?, 246–221 b.c.), 270 P.Yale I 50 (Memphis?, II b.c.), 288 P.Yale I 53 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 113 P.Zen.Pestm. 1 (Arsinoite, 257 b.c.), 60 P.Zen.Pestm. 24 (Philadelphia, 257 b.c.), 223 P.Zen.Pestm. 41 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 135 P.Zen.Pestm. 55 (Arsinoite, 257 b.c.), 60 P.Zen.Pestm. 61 (Arsinoite, 246 or 245 b.c.?), 249 SB I 294 (Panopolis, 323–30 b.c.), 135 SB I 624 (Arsinoite, 323–30 b.c.?), 156 SB I 1918 (Syene, 144–142 b.c.), 137 SB I 4309 (Arsinoite, III b.c.?), 94, 102, 121, 166, 240, 265 SB I 4369 (Arsinoite, III b.c.), 145, 224 SB III 7177 (Herakleopolite, 243 b.c.), 102 SB III 7202 (Arsinoite, 227 b.c.), 100, 138, 139, 228, 248

SB IV 7285 (Philadelphia, 237 or 212 or 195 b.c.?), 118, 178, 259 SB IV 7451 (Ptolemais Hormou, before 210 b.c.), 254 SB V 7569 (Tholthis [Oxyrhynchite]?, 213 b.c.), 89 SB V 8009 (?, I b.c.), 192 SB V 8754 (Herakleopolite?, 77 or 48 b.c.?), 64, 155, 285 SB V 8872 (Athribis, 205–180 b.c.), ­89 SB V 8929 (Memphis, 176, 165 or 112 b.c.), 156 SB VI 8993 (Oxyrhynchite?, 176–175 b.c.), 144 SB VI 9065 (Herakleopolite, 50/49 b.c.), 174, 177, 193, 203 SB VI 9104 (Arsinoite, 195 b.c.), 61, 64, 74 SB VI 9108 (Aphroditopolite, 173–169 b.c.), 237 SB VI 9150 (Arsinoite, V a.d.), 67 SB VI 9215 (Oxyrhynchus, 250 b.c.), 95, 152, 153 SB VI 9556 (Arsinoite, 245 b.c.), 154, 191, 209, 270 SB VIII 9674 (Euhemeria, ca. 131 b.c.), 71, 299 SB VIII 9790 (Herakleopolite, I b.c.), 190 SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.), 3, 79, 90, 112, 193, 237, 261, 275 SB X 10271 (Magdola, 231 or 206 b.c.?), 273 SB X 10272 (Magdola, III b.c.), 110, 275 SB X 10448 (Magdola, III b.c.?), 140, 288 SB XII 11061 (Tholthis, 218 b.c.), 93 SB XII 11078 (Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.), 234, 313, 314, 315 SB XIV 11626 (Lykopolis, 125 b.c.), 209 SB XIV 11639 (Philadelphia, 248 b.c.), 253 SB XIV 11860 (?, II/I b.c.), 73, 77 SB XIV 11883 (Euhemeria, 170–116 b.c.), 118, 299

Index of Greek and Demotic Sources SB XIV 11966 (Euhemeria, 170–116 b.c.), 223 SB XIV 12089 (Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.), 94, 261, 266 SB XIV 12093 (?, II b.c.), 107 SB XVI 12375 (Arsinoite?, ca. 180 b.c.), 145, 153 SB XVI 12468 (? [Arsinoite?], III b.c.), 145, 147, 214, 222, 254 SB XVI 12813 (Arsinoite, II b.c.?), 301 SB XVIII 13160 (Moëris, 244 or 219 b.c.?), 57, 181, 267 SB XVIII 13312 (Magdola, 224–218 b.c.), 208 SB XVIII 13837 (Mouchis, 224–218 b.c.), 202 SB XVIII 13840 (Mouchis, 224–218 b.c.), 174, 200 SB XVIII 13842 (Mouchis, 223–218 b.c.), 270 SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 151 b.c.), 115, 126, 149, 191, 237, ­241 SB XX 14999 (Krokodilopolis?, 217 b.c.), 191 SB XX 15001 (Krokodilopolis, 217 b.c.), 57 SB XXII 15542 (Oxyrhyncha, II b.c.), 191 SB XXII 15546 (Theadelphia, II b.c.), 275 SB XXII 15762 (Krokodilopolis, 210 b.c.), 119, 120 SB XXII 15766 (Arsinoite, 223 or 181 b.c.?), 63, 76, 79, 88, 89, 313, 314 SB XXII 15767 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 91, 313, 314 SB XXIV 16285 (Krokodilopolis, 202 b.c.), 191, 244, 251 SB XXIV 16295 (Oxyrhyncha, 199 b.c.), 269 SB XXVI 16742 (Arsinoite, ca. 140/139 b.c.), 196 SB XXVI 16743 (Arsinoite, ca. 140/139 b.c.), 196, 208 SB XXVI 16744 (Arsinoite, ca. 140/139 b.c.), 196 SEG XXXIII 1359 (Theadelphia?, 107–101 b.c.), 299

395

Serapis 6 (1980) p. 166 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 42 UPZ I 5 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 57, 74, 75, 77, 166, 188, 196, 211, 237, 266 UPZ I 6 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 77, 188, 196, 266 UPZ I 6a (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 188, 196, 266 UPZ I 7 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 200, 209, 211, 214 UPZ I 20 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 212 UPZ I 69 (Memphis, 152 b.c.), 107 UPZ I 89 (Memphis, 159 b.c.), 137 UPZ I 107 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), 170 UPZ I 108 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), 107, 187, 209 UPZ I 110 (Memphis?, 164 b.c.), 87, 112 UPZ I 119 (Memphis, 156 b.c.), 237, 244 UPZ I 123 (Memphis, ca. 157/156 b.c.), 170 UPZ I 124 (Memphis, 175 or 165 b.c.?), 113, 170, 237, 270 UPZ I 125 (Memphis, 89 b.c.), 249 UPZ I 149 (Memphis, ca. 208–206 b.c.?), 248, 254 UPZ II 151 (Thebaid?, 259 b.c.), 208, 275 UPZ II 157 (Thebes, 241 b.c.), 154 UPZ II 185 (Thebes, 152–146 or 141–132 b.c.), 213 UPZ II 187 (Thebes, 127–126 b.c.), 77, ­275 UPZ II 218 (Thebes, 131–130 b.c.), 249 UPZ II 219 (Thebes, 130 b.c.), 76, 104, 312 UPZ II 221 (Thebes, 130 b.c.), 104, 312 ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), 50, 120, 123, 237, 262, 265 ZPE 141 (2002) 189–90 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), 49, 213, 262, 265 ZPE 146 (2004) 168 (Oxyrhyncha, 154–153 or 143–142 b.c.), 261 ZPE 152 (2005) 191 (Arsinoite, 196/195 b.c.?), 127

Index of Documents Translated

BGU VI 1244 (Arsinoite, 184 or 160 b.c.?), 85–7 BGU VI 1252 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 229–30 BGU VI 1253.1–23 (?, II b.c.), 58–9 BGU VIII 1773 (Herakleopolis, 58 b.c.?), 322–4 BGU VIII 1784 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 289–­90 BGU VIII 1828.1–5 (Herakleopolite, 52/51 b.c.), 177–8 BGU VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite, 64–44 b.c.), 183–4 Chrest.Wilck. I 166 I, II.1–11 (Arsinoite, 218 b.c.), 68–70 Chrest.Wilck. I 331.27–84 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 292–6 C.Ord.Ptol.2 18 (Arsinoite?, 259–258 b.c.), 320–1 C.Ord.Ptol.2 30–1 (?, 183 b.c.), 80–1 C.Ord.Ptol.2 34.ii.10–20 (Oxyrhynchus?, 186 b.c.), 250 C.Ord.Ptol.2 53.188–92 (Kerkeosiris?, 118 b.c.), 60 C.Ord.Ptol.2 62 (Memphis, 99 b.c.), 316–18 P.Amh. II 33.1–6 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ca. 157 b.c.), 178 P.Athen. 8.1–15 (Arsinoite, 193–192 b.c.), 271–2 P.Cair.Zen. II 59224 1–10 (Arsinoite, 253 b.c.), 224–5

P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 (Philadelphia, ca. 254–251 b.c.), 267–8 P.Cair.Zen. III 59475 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 55–6 P.Cair.Zen. III 59495 1–3 (Philadelphia?, III b.c.), 180 P.Cair.Zen. III 59509 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 142–4 P.Cair.Zen. III 59509, 9–14 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 180 P.Cair.Zen. IV 59626.1–21 (?, III b.c.), 239 P.Coll.Youtie I 16 (?, 109 b.c.?), 149–51 P.Dion. 10 (Hermopolite, 109 b.c.), 262–4 P.Diosk. 1.32–6 (Herakleopolite, 154 b.c.?), 186 P.Diosk. 6 (Herakleopolite, 146 b.c.), 166–9 P.Diosk. 7 (Herakleopolite, ca. 153 b.c.?), 130–1 P.Enteux. 25.1–15 (Ghoran, 222 b.c.), 197–9 P.Enteux. 28.8–12 (Theogonis, 218 b.c.), 200–­1 P.Enteux. 48.1–2 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 179 P.Enteux. 72.1–10 (Magdola, 218 b.c.), 105–6 P.Enteux. 79.1–13 (Krokodilopolis, 218 b.c.), 160–2 P.Enteux. 83.1–11 (Magdola, 221 b.c.), 241–3 P.Enteux. 84 (Ghoran, 285–221 b.c.), 138–9

397

398 P.Erasm. I 1 (Oxyrhyncha, 148–147 b.c.), 171–3 P.Genova III 101 (Arsinoite, 221 b.c.?), 297 P.Giss.Univ. I 9 (Euhemeria, 131 b.c.), 273–4 P.Grenf. I 38.3–6 (Thebaid, 170 b.c.), 179 P.Grenf. I 38.16–20 (Thebaid, 170 b.c.), 186 P.Hamb. I 91.25–34 (Herakleopolite, 167 b.c.), 201 P.Hamb. IV 238 (Herakleopolite?, 159 b.c.), 204–6 P.Heid. IX 423, Anhang (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), 51–2 P.Heid. IX 428.2–18 (Herakleopolis, 158 b.c.), 141–2 P.Hels. I 2 (Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.), 226–7 P.Hels. I 2.22–5 (Arsinoite, ca. 195–192 b.c.), 185–6 P.Hib. I 54.1–32 (Oxyrhynchite, ca. 245 b.c.), 61–2 P.Hib. I 73 (Oxyrhynchite, 244–243 b.c.), 108–9 P.Hib. II 198 = C.Ord.Ptol.2 1–4, 11–16, 26, 77, 78 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), lines 85–105, 231–3 P.Hib. II 198 = C.Ord.Ptol.2 1–4, 11–16, 26, 77, 78 (Arsinoite?, after 242 b.c.), lines 110–22, 285–6 P.Lond. VII 2045 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 252 P.Mich. I 34.3–6 (Philadelphia, 254 b.c.), 178 P.Mich. I 87.5–9 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), 180–1 P.Petr. II 13 Fr3 recto (Arsinoite, 255 b.c.), 245–6 P.Princ. III 117.1–26 (Theadelphia, 55–54 or 4–3 b.c.?), 102–3 P.Ryl. II 68 (Hermoupolis Magna, 89 b.c.), 218–19 P.Tebt. I 38.10–28 (Kerkeosiris, 113 b.c.), 234–6 P.Tebt. I 43.1–22 (Alexandria, 117 b.c.), 82–4

Index of Documents Translated P.Tebt. II 282A.2–11 (Tebtynis, II b.c.), 303–4 P.Tebt. III.1 701.332–47 (Tebtynis, 235 or 210 b.c.?), 117 P.Tebt. III.1 709 (Tebtynis, 159 b.c.), 281–2 P.Tebt. III.1 731.1–11 (Tebtynis/Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 153–152 or 142–141 b.c.?), 305–­6 P.Tebt. III.1 790 (Oxyrhyncha, 127–124 b.c.), 193–5 P.Tebt. III.1 796 (Tebtynis, 185 b.c.), 181–2 P.Tebt. III.1 797 (Berenikis Thesmophorou, II b.c.), 71–2 P.Tebt. III.1 802 (Tebtynis, 135 b.c.), 135–6 P.Tebt. III.2 848.1–3 (Arsinoite, II b.c.), 310 P.Tebt. III.2 952.4–7 (Tebtynis, ca. 145–144 b.c.), 179 PSI IV 423.1–36 (Philadelphia, III b.c.), 255–6 SB III 7202.1–20 (Arsinoite, 227 b.c.), 99–100 SB III 7202.34–7 (Arsinoite, 227 b.c.), 139–40 SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 b.c.), 2–3 SB XII 11078 (Arsinoite, ca. 100 b.c.), 314–15 SB XIV 12089.1–10 (Herakleopolite, 130 b.c.), 265–6 SB XVI 12468 (Arsinoite?, III b.c.), 146–7 SB XVI 12813.1–11 (Arsinoite, II b.c.?), 300–1 SB XX 14708.36–59 (Theadelphia, 151 b.c.), 114–15 UPZ I 5.1–13 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 75 UPZ I 7.1–40 (Memphis, 163 b.c.), 210–11 ZPE 141 (2002) 185–7, 2–13 (Herakleopolite, 137 b.c.), 49–50

Select Index of Greek Terms

ἀβοήθητος, 150 ἀγανακτέω, 160 ἀγένητος, 85 ἀγνώμων, 204 ἄγω, 80, 150, 226 ἀγωγή, 167 ἀγώγιμος, 232 ἀδιάλειπτος, 293 ἀδικέω, 105, 138, 143, 160, 179, 197, 204, 210, 241 ἀδίκημα, 250 ἄδικος, 161, 175 ἀθετέω, 171 αἱρέω, 232 αἰτία, 114, 138, 168, 229, 294 αἴτιος, 3, 108, 263 ἀληθής, 105, 161, 186, 198, 204, 242 ἀλογέω, 167, 187, 210 ἄλογος, 161 ἁμαρτάνω, 180 ἀναγκάζω, 171, 204 ἀναγκαῖος, 91, 187, 252 ἀνάγω, 49, 51, 80, 83, 99, 108, 138, 175, 219, 230, 250, 276 ἀναζητέω, 2, 263, 271 ἀναζήτησις, 152, 265 ἀναίτιος, 83, ­276 ἀνακαλέω, 146, 172, 239, 242 ἀνακομίζω, 72 ἀνάκρισις, 80, 276 ἀναλόω, 171 ἀνάλυσις, 171

ἀναμάρτητος, 180 ἀναπέμπω, 86, 168 ἀναφέρω, 51, 122, 143, 265, 306 ἀναχωρίζω, 146, 265 ἀνενόχλητος, 194 ἀντιλαμβάνω, 184, 281 ἀντιλέγω, 198 ἀντίληψις, 168, 187, 188 ἀντιλογία, 218, 273 ἀντιλοιδορέω, 160 ἄντιος, 83, 276 ἀντιπωλέω, 281 ἄνω ἔργα, 254 ἀξία, 261 ἀξιόλογος, 292 ἄξιος, 72, 136, 181, 182, 242, 292 ἀξιόω, 69, 85, 103, 115, 130, 136, 139, 147, 150, 166, 168, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 194, 201, 204, 210, 227, 273, 297, 316, 317, 323 ἀπάγω, 99, 108, 115, 138, 175, 180, 239, 250, 252 ἀπειθέω, 108 ἀποβιάζομαι, 58, 85, 198 ἀπογράφω, 297 ἀποδίδωμι, 102, 108, 147, 200, 204, 242, 267, 289 ἀπόδοσις, 108, 323 ἀποκαθίστημι, 225, 263, 281 ἀποκατάστασις, 51, 141 ἀποκλείω, 55

399

400 ἀπόλλυμι, 3, 136, 261, ­285 ἀπολύω, 83, 108, 117, 150, 276 ἀπονοέομαι, 210 ἀποσπάω, 287 ἀπόστασις, 210 ἀποστατικός, 58 ἀποστέλλω, 85, 99, 105, 139, 161, 171, 194, 198, 200, 204, 232, 242, 243, 271 ἀποτάσσω, 289, 303 ἀποφέρω, 150, 171, 323 ἀπρεπής, 136 Ἄραψ, 156, 287 ἀρκέω, 204 ἁρπάζω, 198 ἀρρωστέω, 219 ἀρχέφοδος, 184 ἀρχιθυρωρός, 193 ἀρχιμάχιμος, 146 ἀρχιφυλακιτεία, 83, 292, 294, 299 ἀρχιφυλακίτης, 50, 51, 69, 71, 74, 75, 108, 150, 171, 178, 181, 224, 226, 234, 271, 281, 285, 297, 300, 306, 314, 316, 320, 323 ἀσύντακτος, 315 ἀσφαλεία, 293 ἀσφαλίζομαι, 3, 51, 58, 168, 185, 219, 227 αὐλίζομαι, 287 ἀφαιρέω, 71, 108, 146, 232, 242, 267 ἀφίστημι, 287 ἀχάρακτος, 315 ἁψιμαχία, 136 βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς, 83, 91, 133, 203, 292, 293, 316, 317, 320, 321 βασιλικὸς φώρ, 152, 261 βία, 86, 108, 184, 198, 271, 294 βίαιος, 184, 286, 323 βλάβος, 58, 230, 235 βλάπτω, 180, 229, 230 βοηθεία, 86 βοηθέω, 115, 150, 167 βοηθός, 167, 252 γενηματοφυλακία, 293, 306 γραμματεὺς φυλακιτῶν, 96

Select Index of Greek Terms δάκνω, 167 δεκανὸς φυλακιτῶν, 91, 92, 292 δέομαι, 56, 105, 138, 139, 161, 171, 180, 187, 198, 200, 242, 317 δεσμοφύλαξ, 99, 138, 139, 177, 254 δεσμωτήριον, 108, 138, 145, 177, 180, 181, 239 δεσμώτης, 245, 255 διαγιγνώσκω, 242 διάγραμμα, 80, 108, 276 διακολπιτεύω, 281 διακούω, 239 διακρίνω, 105, 161, 243 διαλαμβάνω, 80, 184, 186, 201, 211, 219, 292 διαλέγω, 171 διαλύω, 105, 198, 243 διαπράσσω, 58, 72, 201 διαρπάζω, 51, 180 διασαφέω, 51, 167, 168, 271 διασείω, 150, 194, 317 διασκεδάννυμι, 58 διατίμησις, 141 διαφέρω, 265 διαφορά, 80, 276 διάφορος, 114 διαφωνέω, 245 διαχωρίζω, 136 δίδωμι, 136, 141, 146, 267, ­316 διεγγυάω, 51 διεξάγω, 80, 171, 276 διεξαγωγή, 51 διίημι, 69, 114, 139, 242, 323 δικαιολογία, 182 δίκαιος, 103, 105, 117, 161, 186, 187, 198, 200, 210, 211, 219, 225, 239, 242 δικαιοσύνη, 187, 188 δικαστήριον, 218 διοικήτης, 69, 245 διορθόω, 292 διώκω, 55 ἐάω, 267 ἐγγυάω, 252 ἔγγυος, 198, 252 ἐγκαλέω, 85, 160, 175, 181, 242 ἐγκλείω, 75

Select Index of Greek Terms ἔγκλημα, 293 ἔγκλητος, 292 ἐγκόπτω, 71 ἔθω, 120, 186 εἱρκτή, 187, 250, 323 εἰσαγωγεύς, 171 εἰσβιάζομαι, 85, 167, 172, 194, 210, 317 εἴσπραξις, 294 εἰσπράσσω, 281 ἐκβάλλω, 242 ἐκδίδωμι, 317 ἐκδύω, 242, 263 ἐκκλάω, 136 ἐκκομίζω, 147 ἐκλείπω, ­306 ἐκλύω, 232, 261 ἐκσπάω, 71, 210, 226, 271 ἐκτίνω, 58, 114, 323 ἐλεέω, 180 ἐμβάλλω, 242 ἐμπηδάω, 136 ἐμπτύω, 160 ἐνδεής, 252 ἐνεχυράζω, 172, 194 ἐνεχυρασία, 171 ἐνέχω, 114 ἔνοχος, 231, 232, 261 ἐνσείω, 167 ἔντευξις, 161, 171, 194, 198, 267, 316 ἐντυγχάνω, 117, 146, 268 ἐξάγω, 108 ἐξακολουθέω, 263 ἐξαποστέλλω, 72, 186, 211, 263, 273, 315 ἐξαφίστημι, 58 ἔξειμι, 317 ἐξελέγχω, 232 ἐξυβρίζω, 184 ἐπαγωγή, 184 ἐπαναγκάζω, 58, 103, 108, 171, 200, 210, 242 ἐπανάγω, 231, 232 ἐπαράσσω, 160 ἐπεκπηδάω, 130, 167 ἐπιβάλλω, 262, 317 ἐπιγιγνώσκω, 185, 219, 227 ἐπίγνωσις, 51 ἐπιδείκνυμι, 261

401 ἐπιδίδωμι, 2, 50, 58, 72, 83, 166, 182, 186, 194, 235, 263, 323 ἐπιεικεία, 239 ἐπίθεσις, 167, ­263 ἐπικαλέω, 143 ἐπιλαμβάνω, 49, 50, 56, 150 ἐπίληψις, 83 ἐπιμαρτύρομαι, 160, 273 ἐπιμελητής, 68, 250, 281, 306 ἐπίπληξις, 58, 72, 130, 230 ἐπιπλήσσω, 80, 276 ἐπιρρίπτω, 194 ἐπισκέπτομαι, 86, 130, 181, 200 ἐπίσκεψις, 3, 51, 72, 83, 167, 271 ἐπισκοπέω, 300 ἐπίσκοπος, 114 ἐπισπάω, 160 ἐπίστασις, 184 ἐπιστατεία, 83 ἐπιστατεία φυλακιτῶν, 287 ἐπιστάτης, 49, 82, 86, 99, 103, 105, 107, 135, 152, 161, 172, 186, 194, 198, 200, 201, 204, 232, 234, 242, 250, 261, 273, 281, 300, 314 ἐπιστάτης φυλακιτῶν, 2, 49, 51, 72, 77, 80, 82, 85, 88, 96, 133, 203, 218, 230, 287, 316 ἐπιστέλλω, 2, 304 ἐπισυνάγω, 167 ἐπιτελέω, 294, 313 ἐπίτηδες, 167 ἐπιτηδεύω, 58 ἐπιτίθημι, 2, 141, 167, 184 ἐπιτιμάω, 136, 160, 161, 167 ἐπίτιμος, 231, 232, 235, 281, 315 ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων, (ὁ), 133, 203 ἐπιφέρω, 85, 114 ἐπιχειρέω, 210 ἔρευνα, 152, 232, 235, 261 ἐρευνάω, ­75 ἐρημοφύλαξ, 281, 288 εὐγνώμων, 187 εὔθετος, 293 εὔλογος, 167 εὐορκέω, 304 εὑρίσκω, 3, 75, 210, 224, 235, 265, 300 εὔτακτος, 252

402 ἐφημερευτήριον, 244 ἐφιορκέω, 304 ἐφίστημι, 198 ἔφοδος, 114, 150 ἔχθρα, 250 ἔχω, 108, 146, 242, 267 ζημία, 114, 161 ἡγεμονία φυλακιτῶν, 93, 94 ἡγούμενος φυλακιτῶν, 305 θηροφύλαξ, 77 θησαυροφύλαξ, 102, 310 θόρυβος, 167 ἱκετέω, 180 ἱκέτης, 252 ἵστημι, 232 καθαρός, 175 καθήκω, 116, 120, 123, 171, 182, 183, 194, 204, 219, 235, 281, 304, 315 καθίστημι, 51, 103, 139, 184, 194, 198, 199, 271, 322 καθυπνοέω, 167 κακουργία, 80 κακουργός, 138, 232 καταβάλλω, 210 καταβοάω, 242, 252 καταβραβεύω, ­204 καταγιγνώσκω, 150, 204, 242 καταδυναστεύω, 175 καταιτιάομαι, 271 κατακαίω, 141 κατακίζω, 167 καταλαμβάνω, 235 καταπέμπω, 80, 86, 276 καταπομπή, 80 καταπροΐημι, 304 κατάστασις, 171 κατασφραγίζω, 265, 285 καταφεύγω, 225, 252 καταφθείρω, 187, 201 καταφρονέω, 198 καταφυγή, 171, 204, 317 καταχωρίζω, 186

Select Index of Greek Terms κατέχω, 117, 210 κατοχή, 75, 210 κατόχιμος, 294 κινδυνεύω, 130, 167, 219 κίνδυνος, 184 κλέπτω, 142, 252 κλοπή, 172 κοινὸν συνέδριον, 91, 292 κράτος, 2, 294 κρίμα, 116 κρίνω, 85, 171 κρίσις, 80, 85 κωλύω, 171, 232 κωμάρχης, 82, 117, 133, 182, 242, 268, 275, 281, 310 κωμογραμματεύς, 49, 51, 82, 83, 133, 281, 293, 310, 313 κωμοφυλακίτης, ­2 λάκτισμα, 105, 226 λαμβάνω, 55, 108, 219, 229, 304 λαοκρίτης, 243 λεία, 141, 182, 232, 265, 292, 300 λείω, 252 λῃστήριον, 2 λῃστής, 224, 231, 232 λῃστικός, 262 λιβυάρχης, 320 λιμός, 175 λόγος, 2, 112, 123, 168, 171, 229 λοιδορέω, 160, 198 λοιδορία, 105 μαρτυρία, 115 μαστιγόω, 71, 167 μαχαιροφόρος, 108 μάχιμος, 149, 150 μεθύω, 167 μέμψις, 71 μεριδάρχης, 183 μεταλαμβάνω, 265, 287 μεταπέμπω, 51, 91, 130, 287, 292 μεταφέρω, 265 μισοπονηρία, 184 μισοπόνηρος, 184, 211 μοιχεύω, 167 μοχθηρός, 114

Select Index of Greek Terms ναυφυλακέω, 136 νομάρχης, 116, 117, 133, 320 νόμος, 323 οἰκονομία, 292, 293, 299 οἰκονόμος, 69, 85, ­133, 250, 320 ὀλιγωρέω, 293 ὀμνύω, 252 ὁρισμός, 80 ὅρκος, 91, 306, 313 οὐραγία, 290 ὀφείλημα, 250 ὀχύρωμα, 167, 245 παραβαίνω, 80 παραγγέλλω, 205 παραδείκνυμι, 224, 268 παραδίδωμι, 114, 139, 167, 201, 227, 229, 245, 281, 290, 315 παράδωσις, 94 παραλαμβάνω, 50, 75, 114, 152, 232, 234, 261, 281, 303, 315 παραμονή, 252 παραπόλλυμι, 175, 187 παραπωλέω, 234 παρασφραγίζω, 51, 99 παρασφραγισμός, 50, 51 παρεδρεύω, 287 παρεισφέρω, 234 πέμπω, 51 περιίστημι, 184 περικόπτω, 224 περισπάω, 172, 226, 317 πίστις, 171, 293 πληγή, 58, 71, 105, 114, 130, 136, 150, 218, 242 πλήγνυμι, 218 ποταμοφύλαξ, 141, 289, 290 πρᾶξις, 108 πράσσω, 80, 105, 108, 171, 175, 230, 323 προδίδωμι, 171, 265 προήκω, ­271 προΐστημι, 265, 293 προπέμπω, 290 προσαγγελία, 2, 80, 83, 263 προσαγγέλλω, 3, 58, 219, 229, 234, 285

403 προσάγγελμα, 178, 186, 300 προσάλλομαι, 130 προσαπάγω, 56, 146, 242 προσγράφω, 297 προσδέομαι, 194 προσεκδύω, 2 προσεκσκύλλω, 150 προσέχω, 69, 80, 139 προσήκω, 2, 3, 80 112, 123, 168, 171, 184, 230, 276 προσκατεγγυάω, 114 προσλαμβάνω, 171 προσμαστιγόω, 58 προσπηδάω, 226, 273 προσπικραίνω, 138 πρόσταγμα, 108 προστάσσω, 80, 172, 194, 219, 276, 313 προστάτης φυλακιτῶν, 94 προσυποτάσσω, 235 προσφέρω, 80, 115 προφέρω, 175 προχειρίζω, 306 πυγμή, 105, 226 ῥάβδος, 58 ῥήγνυμι, 160 ῥίπτω, 58 σεισμός, 80, 276 σκυλάω, 194 σκύλλω, 316, 317 σκυλμός, 150, 194 σκῦλον, ­201 στρατηγέω, 194 στρατηγία, 193 στρατηγός, 2, 52, 75, 88, 102, 105, 112, 116, 133, 136, 149, 161, 166, 177, 195, 198, 200, 203, 210, 242, 250, 263, 316, 320, 322 συγκλείω, 210 συγκρίνω, 161 συγνώμη, 293 συμπέμπω, 150 συμποιέω, 242 συμπροπέμπω, 286 συμφυλακίτης, 262 συναναγκάζω, 114, 150, 287

404 συναποστέλλω, 285 συναρπάζω, 145 συνέδριον, 51 συνεργέω, 315 σύνεργος, 171 συνέχω, 69, 103, 138, 146, 242, 250, 323 συνίστημι, 273 συντελέω, 167, 184, 242 συντηρέω, 114 συντήρησις, 304 συντρίβω, 184 σωτηρία, 187 ταλαιπωρία, 292 τήρησις, 91, 287, 289, 292, 306 τιμάω, 167 τιμή, 181, 242 τιμωρέω, 180 τοπάρχης, 102, 116, 133, 287, 320 τραυματίζω, 71 τρυγάω, ­184 τυγχάνω, 3, 58, 72, 86, 103, 105, 117, 130, 161, 166, 168, 184, 186, 187, 188, 198, 200, 205, 211, 225, 230, 239, 242, 263, 293, 317 τύπτω, 72, 130, 210, 226 ὑβρίζω, 130, 160, 161 ὕβρις, 150, 194 ὑπερβαίνω, 181 ὑποδέχομαι, 232 ὑπολαμβάνω, 263 ὑπόμνημα, 55, 86, 102, 141, 146, 166, 168, 194, 204, 205, 323

Select Index of Greek Terms ὑπονοέω, 204 ὑπόνοια, 80 ὑφαιρέω, 267 φεύγω, 114 φιλανθρωπέω, 187 φιλανθρωπία, 166, 317 φόνος, 85 φρούραρχος, 88, 130, 132, 133, 166, 167, 203, 316 φρούριον, 167 φυγή, 167, 235 φυλακεῖον, 249 φυλακή, 99, 114, 115, 139, 146, 175, 187, 232, 242, 249, 285, 293, 304 φυλακία, 292 φυλακίτης, 49, 51, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 71, 75, 93, 99, 114, 138, 146, 171, 227, 229, 231, 261, 265, 268, 281, 285, 287, 293, 297, 306 φυλακιτικός, 303, 323 φύλαξ, 58, 142, 310 φυλάσσω, 143, 180, 285 φώρ, 152, ­232 φωρά, 232 φωράω, 153 χειμών, 171 χειρογραφέω, 306 χρηματίζω, 205 χρηματισμός, 80, 114, 171, 186, 293 χρηματιστής, 85, 171, 250 ψευδής, 252

General ­Index

aedile, 24 agens in rebus, ­26 agoranomion, 205 agoranomos, 205 Akkad, 11, 13 akrophylax, 137 Alexandria, 38–9 policing in, 44–5, 67 royal court in, 34, 35, 36, 282, 311, 325, 326–7, 329–30 anacho‫ﷳ‬resis, 92 ‫ﷴ‬ Anoubieion, Memphis, 75, 78, 211 police officials in, 75, 76, 78, 107 antecedents to Ptolemaic police, 17–18, 332–3 Antigonid Empire, 23 antigrapheus, 227, 321 ao‫ﷳ‬ilion, 256 Apollonios, dioike‫ﷴ‬te‫ﷴ‬s, 95, 134, 192, 225, 246 apomoira, 227, 321 Arabes (Arabs), 156, 157, 287 arabotoxotes, 156 ‫ﷴ‬ archephodos, 27, 149, 184, 185 archiereus, 75, 317 archiereus machairophoro‫ﷳ‬n, 156 archimachimos, 145–8 archiphor‫ ﷳ‬, 152, 153 archiphylakites, ‫ ﷴ‬39, 50, 52, 53, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 101, 102, 105, 109, 112, 122,

123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 140, 151, 153, 165, 172, 173, 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 191, 196, 215, 224, 226, 227, 229, 235, 236, 259, 262, 263, 264, 267, 269, 282, 283, 286, 289, 291, 295, 296, 297, 298, 303, 305, 306, 307, 311, 312, 336, 343, 346 administrative domains of, 3, 70, 75, 77–8, 88, 89 agricultural duties of, 292, 300–2, 308 arresting, 68–71, 127, 213, 224–5, 236, 237, 247, 262 at auctions, 312 collecting debts, 314–16 connections to epistatai, 102, 104, 107–11, 202, 259–60, 300 connections to epistatai (to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 79, 88–90, 107 connections to strategoi, 90, 104 ‫ﷴ‬ enlisting phylakitai, 73–4, 297–8 enlistment of, 74, 299 financial duties of, 124, 283, 291–7, 300–2, 311–12, 314–16, 319–24, 325, 326–7 hierarchy of, 53, 77, 78, 92 holding multiple posts, 77, 83, 84, 89, 273, 295, 299–300 holding trials, 271–2, 273, 275 investigating, 110, 174, 213, 262, 266 payment of, 66 providing protection, 316

405

406 archiphylakites‫( ﷴ‬cont.) providing security, 76–7, 127, 283, 286–7, 316–19 receiving documents, 49, 71–3, 76, 120, 123, 127, 183, 188, 192, 202, 207, 212, 223, 258, 261, 274, 292, 301, 313–17, 322 requisitioning manpower, 74 similarities to phrourarchoi, 129, 131–2 subordinates of, 55, 61, 74–6, 312, 319 at trials, 312–13 transporting, 270 archiso‫ﷳ‬matophylax, 134, 196 archithyro‫ﷳ‬ros, 137, 194 archon‫ﷳ‬ of the Jews, Ptolemaic Herakleopolis, ­192 arithmetikon phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 64 aroura, 103 arrests at Athens. See Athens, arrests in in pharaonic Egypt, 15 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 47–8, 55–7, 68–71, 102–4, 128–9, 131, 219–21, 223–38, 278 at Rome, 24 Arsinoea, ta, 268 artabe, 182 ‫ﷴ‬ Athens, 299, 330 arrests in, 18, 20, 220 courts in. See courts, at Athens crime and criminals in, 18 law enforcement in, 8, 18–21, 22, 24, 45, 48 lawsuits in, 19–20 prison in. See desmo‫ﷳ‬terion, at Athens ‫ﷴ‬ punishment in, 18, 19, 20 self-­help in. See self-­help in policing, at Athens Attalid Empire, 23 Attic orators, 46 aulophylax, 134 Babylon, 13 bail in Anatolia, 12

General ­Index in Athens, 20 in Ptolemaic Egypt (paramone), ‫ ﷴ‬41, 42, 138, 188, 222, 247, 248, 258–9 in Rome, 27 basilikos grammateus, 49, 84, 87, 95, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 153, 155, 213, 236, 271, 276, 292, 294, 296, 314, 317, 318, 321 law enforcement duties of, 121–4 relationship with ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateis, 120, 123, 234–­6 basilikos pho‫ﷳ‬r, 152, 233 bia, 109, 272 bibliophylax, 134 bilingualism in Ptolemaic Egypt, 41, 174, 331 boule‫ﷴ‬, 18, 19, 45 calendar, Ptolemaic, 81, 106 censor, 24 chalkiophylax, 134 change over time in Ptolemaic policing, 42 cheiristes‫ﷴ‬ of the epistate‫ﷴ‬s phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 88 cheirographia phylakitike,‫ ﷴ‬303–4, 307 chersanippos, 154–5, 291 chersephippos, 154–5, 291 choinix, 147, 182 chom ‫ ﷳ‬atophylax, 135 cho‫ﷳ‬ra as location of Ptolemaic police, 45 chortophylax, 129, 134, 241 chrematiste s, ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬86, 90, 127, 172, 174, 191, 203, 250 chrematophylax, 134 ‫ﷴ‬ circulars (entolai), Ptolemaic, 7, 36, 62, 63, 76, 79, 80, 91, 92, 124, 126, 132, 140, 145, 203, 209, 276, 288, 311, 313–19, 325 coercion in Ptolemaic policing, 152, 173, 283–4, 324, 325 cohors urbana, 25 corruption, police, 1 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 36, 66, 149, 241–4, 280

General I­ ndex courts in the ancient Near East, 10–11 at Athens, 19–20 in the Hellenistic kingdoms, 22 in pharaonic Egypt, 13–14, 15, 16 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 6, 47–8, 221, 269–77, ­279 at Rome, 26, 28–9, 162 Crete, Hellenistic, 23 crime and criminals, 1–2 in the ancient Near East, 9–12 at Athens, 19–21 in pharaonic Egypt, 13–15 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 4, 6, 7, 32, 44, 47–8, 165–70, 223–38 at Rome, 28–9 decrees, royal in Ptolemaic Egypt, 7, 36, 39–40, 66, 79–82, 87, 135, 209, 248, 250–1, 260, 286, 320, 322 Deir el-­Medina court, 14 police, 15–16 dekadarche‫ﷴ‬s to‫ﷳ‬n Arabo‫ﷳ‬n, 157 dekanikos, 93 dekanos, 92 dekanos phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 64, 68, 91–2, 93, 95, 295, 300 demosios, 27 ‫ﷴ‬ Demotic texts, as evidence for Ptolemaic policing, 40–2, 67, 188–9, 258–9, 331 desmophylakion, 244 desmophylax, 56, 100, 133, 137, 138–40, 178, 190, 228, 247–8, 254, 258 desmot‫ ﷳ‬erion ‫ﷴ‬ at Athens, 20–1, 222, 241 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 56, 109, 139, 145, 178, 181, 239, 244, 247–9, 250, 251, 253, 257, 260, 330 diadochos, 3, 136 dikasterion, 219, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ dikastes, 330 ‫ﷴ‬

407 dioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬70, 74, 87, 95, 112, 113, 116, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 149, 155, 157, 191, 192, 202, 204, 207, 208, 212, 216, 224, 225, 246, 258, 264, 275, 292, 299, 305 law enforcement duties of, 125–7 subordinates of, 200, 212, 264 Diophanes, strate‫ﷴ‬gos, 106, 161, 162, 199, 201, 243 doorkeepers ( jrj-­), 16 drapetago‫ﷳ‬gion, 244 duumvir iure dicundo, 26 eirenarche s, 27 ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ eisago‫ﷳ‬geus, 172 eisangeleus, 151 eklogistes, 321 ‫ﷴ‬ ektethen ekthema/programma, 73 enteuxis, 176–7 entole‫ﷴ‬. See circulars (entolai), Ptolemaic ephemereute rion, 244, 251 ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ ephodikos kleros, 149 ‫ﷴ‬ ephodos, 115, 148, 153, 156, 233 holding ephodikoi kleroi, 149 ‫ﷴ‬ law enforcement duties of, 148–52 social status of, 148, 149 subordinate to archephodoi, 149 epi te‫ﷴ‬s phylake‫ﷴ‬s, ho, 248 epi ton‫ ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, ho, 68, 95, 153 epi to‫ﷳ‬n prosodo‫ﷳ‬n, ho, 74, 91, 125, 136, 178, 291–7, 317, 323 epi tou en te‫ﷴ‬i aule‫ﷴ‬i krite‫ﷴ‬riou, ho, 169 epi tou phylakeiou, ho, 248 epigone, 105 ‫ﷴ‬ epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬69, 120, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 175, 191, 204, 207, 213, 214, 224, 250, 258, 259, 275, 282, 283, 289, 306, 311, 322 law enforcement duties of, 125, 127–8 relationship with archiphylakites, 300 ‫ﷴ‬ relationship with oikonomos, 128 epiploos, 59, 60, 285 epiplous. See epiploos episkepsis, 241, 271, 272, 273, ­275 episkopos, 115 epispoudastes, 151 ‫ﷴ‬

General ­Index

408 epistateia phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 64 epistate‫ﷴ‬s, 23, 53, 54, 64, 83, 87, 90, 91, 94, 100, 101–11, 112, 113, 117, 121, 122, 128, 130, 136, 157, 162, 165, 173, 185, 186, 193, 195, 201, 203, 215, 224, 228, 233, 235, 236, 240, 243, 250, 251, 265, 282, 289, 302 administrative domains of, 107, 287 appointment of, 157, 298 arresting, 102–4, 128, 224, 236, 237 at auctions, 104, 312 Attalid, 23 attending government auctions, 312 collecting debts, 104, 314–16 delivering summonses, 104 expelling squatters, 104 financial duties, 124, 314–16 holding multiple posts, 84, 273, 295, 299 holding trials, 106, 213, 271, 272, 273–4, 275, 276 investigating crimes, 102–4, 174, 268 issuing receipts, 104 providing protection, 316 receiving documents, 104, 110, 128, 174, 192, 196, 197, 199, 202, 203–6, 207, 212, 213, 214, 259, 262, 273, 300–1, 313 relationship with strate‫ﷴ‬gos, 104–7, 111, 193–6, 197–200, 276, 298 Seleucid, 22 sitting in council, 104 subordinates of, 127 supervising archiphylakitai, 107–10, 259–60, 300 at trials, 312 transporting, 105–6, 183, 247, 270, 273 epistates‫ ﷴ‬hierou, 107, 317 epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 3, 50, 52, 53, 68, 72, 73, 79–90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 101, 102, 107, 116, 123, 124, 127, 128, 149, 153, 156, 165, 192, 203, 215, 218, 219, 221, 230, 283, 287, 337 administrative domain of, 64, 73, 88–9 agricultural duties of, 302

arresting, 84, 90, 236, 237, 262 at auctions, 79, 312 earliest attested, 88 as higher level of appeal, 84–7 holding multiple posts, 77, 89, 295 holding trials, 42, 81–4, 90, 112, 271, 275–6 investigating crimes, 79, 124 as legal consultant, 87–8 managing collection of taxes, 79 present at courts, 79 providing security, 287, 316–19 receiving documents, 49, 79, 81, 84–7, 90, 123, 193, 212, 237, 261, 313–17 relationship with strategos, 90, 112–13 ‫ﷴ‬ subordinates of, 55, 88 transporting, 79, 270 at trials, 312 epistolographos, 318, 319 epistrategos ‫ﷴ‬ Roman, 27 eremophylax, 133, 137, 140–1, 244, 282, ‫ﷴ‬ 288–9, 291, 311, 313, 326 erganophylax, 134 [..]esteko ‫ ﷴ‬s‫ ﷳ‬ton‫ ﷳ‬phylakon‫ ﷳ‬, ho, 248 ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt, 33, 40–2, 44–5, 168, 174, 179 of petitioners to police, 32, 41, 177–8, 189, 190 of police officials, 41, 44, 66–7, 116, 138, 332 and tension, 32, 319 Foucault, Michel, 222 frumentarius, 26 gazophylax, 134 genematophylakia, 48, 59, 74, 91, 93, 135, ‫ﷴ‬ 140, 283, 291–311, ­326 genematophylax, 133, 137, 140–1, 305–8 ‫ﷴ‬ agricultural duties of, 59, 121, 140–1, 292, 302–3, 307–8, 326 ethnic makeup of, 305 oaths of, 295, 296, 297, 300, 303–4, 307 payment of, 308

General I­ ndex phylakitai as, 48, 59, 93, 283, 291, 298–9, 302–3, 305–7, 326 recruitment and impression of, 141, 291, 292, 295, 298–9, 305–7, 310 ge‫ ﷴ‬en aphesei, 295, 297 geography and Ptolemaic policing, 31, 42, 44–5, 54, 78, 89, 97, 106–7, 111, 158, 196, 217, 248, 278, 279, 329 gerrophylax, 136, 137 governor, Roman, 26 grammateia phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 64 grammateus, 212 grammateus geo‫ﷳ‬rgo‫ﷳ‬n, 301, 310 grammateus phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 64, 88, 95–6, 97 Great Prison, Thebes ( ḫnrt wr(t)), 15 Greek texts, as evidence for Ptolemaic policing, 41 guardians (swtj/sw), 16 halon‫ ﷳ‬ophylax, 133, 135 Hammurabi law code of, 9–10 Hay, Douglas, 5, 19 hebo ‫ ﷴ‬n‫ ﷳ‬, 23 hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n, 131, 168, 205, 321 ‫ﷴ‬ hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n (to‫ﷳ‬n) archaio‫ﷳ‬n phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 93, 94 ‫ﷴ‬ he‫ﷴ‬gemo‫ﷳ‬n (to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 68, 93–4, 95, 306, 307 hegemo ‫ﷳ‬n ep’ andro‫ﷳ‬n, 131 ‫ﷴ‬ he‫ﷴ‬gemonia (to‫ﷳ‬n) phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 93, 94 (ton‫ ) ﷳ‬phylakiton‫ ﷳ‬, ho, hegoumenos ‫ﷴ‬ 93–4, 292, 306 hegoumenos tes‫ ﷴ‬phylakes, ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬ho, 249, 284 heirkte‫ﷴ‬, 244, 245, 250, 251, 323 hekte.‫ ﷴ‬See ­apomoira Hellenistic kingdoms , 21–3 guards in, 22, 23, 137 judicial systems of. See courts, in the Helenistic kingdoms military and civil officials of, 22, 23 policing in. See police and policing, in the Hellenistic kingdoms protection of territories of, 22 Hélmis, Andréas, 6

409 hendeka, hoi, 19 hiereus machairophoron‫ ﷳ‬, 156 hipparches, 321 ‫ﷴ‬ hipparches‫ ﷴ‬ep’ andro‫ﷳ‬n, 136 hipparchia, 179 hippeus, 143, 330 Hittite Anatolia, 11 court system of. See courts, in the ancient Near East imprisonment in, 11 law codes of, 11 penalties in, 11 hormophylax, 135 horophylax, 22, 137 Hunter, Virginia, 5, 19 hunting in pharaonic Egypt, 17, 230 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 77, 135, 229–30 hybris, 151, 161, 184, 185, 195 hydrophylax, 134 hyparchiphylakite‫ﷴ‬s, 74, 200, 312 hypodioikete ‫ ﷴ‬s, ‫ ﷴ‬126, 200, 212 hypomnema, 176–7 ‫ﷴ‬ hypostrategos, 200, 270 ‫ﷴ‬ imprisonment. See prisons and prisoners inscriptions as evidence for Ptolemaic policing, ­38 Instruction of ‘Onchsheshonqy, 258 investigation of crimes, 30 at Athens, 19, 21 in pharaonic Egypt, 14, 16 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 45, 48, 57–9, 185–7, 220–1, 260–9, 277 at Rome, 28 kata polin, ho, 154 katalochismos Ptolemaic, 61, 64, 74 Seleucid, 64 katoche, 75 ‫ﷴ‬ in the Memphite Anoubieion, 75, 211 katoikia, 288 of Kerkeosiris, 288 kekle‫ﷴ‬rouche‫ﷴ‬menos phylakite‫ﷴ‬s. See phylakitikos kleros ‫ﷴ‬ kenbet (qnbt), 13–14

410 kerux, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ kleptes, 152 ‫ﷴ‬ kleros ‫ﷴ‬ of phylakitai. See phylakitikos kle‫ﷴ‬ros klerouchikon, 66 ‫ﷴ‬ klerouchos phylakites. ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ ﷴ‬See phylakitikos kleros ‫ﷴ‬ koinon synedrion, 124 koite, 153 ‫ﷴ‬ kom ‫ ﷳ‬arches, ‫ ﷴ‬83, 84, 92, 116, 118, 126, 127, 149, 155, 182, 241, 268, 298, 307, 308, 310 law enforcement duties of, 113–16, 154, 174, 183, 191, 244, 268, 282 subordinates of nomarchai, 117–18 ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus, 49–52, 82–4, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 141, 158, 235, 251, 265, 275–6, 282, 292, 295, 303, 307, 310 contact with basilikoi grammateis, 49–50, 120, 122–3, 124, 234–6 law enforcement duties of, 119–21, 124, 127, 128, 158, 191, 265, 308, 344 ko‫ﷳ‬mophylakites, 3, ­ 193 ‫ﷴ‬ Kool, Pieter, 5, 6, 54, 64, 67, 68, 78, 79, 81, 88, 89, 90, 96 kriterion, 169, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ krites, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ laokrites, ‫ ﷴ‬90, 243, 264 law codes, 8 in Mesopotamia, 9–10, 11, 12 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 5, 12 at Rome, 28 libyarches, 321 ‫ﷴ‬ lictor, 24, 27 logisterion, 275, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ lonchophoros, 155 Macedonian calendar in Ptolemaic Egypt, 81, 106 machairophoros, 155–6 as armed attendants, 92, 109 law enforcement duties of, 155–6 priests of, 156 supervised by prostatai machairophoro‫ﷳ‬n, 156

General ­Index machimos, 53, 66, 116, 145–8, 149, 151, 153, 157, 313 law enforcement duties of, 145–8, 224 subordinates of archimachimoi, 145–8 mastigophoros, 154 as armed attendants, 153 providing whippings, 153 Medjay (mdꜣy), 15, 16, 17, 333 Menches, ko‫ﷳ‬mogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, 82–4, 112, 120, 122–3, 124, 275–6 meridarches, ‫ ﷴ‬118, 184, 207 meris, Ptolemaic, 67, 77, 78, 89, 100, 107, 118, 329 Mesopotamia, 9–12, 13, 18 courts in. See courts, in the ancient Near East evidence for policing in, 8, 9, 22 imprisonment in. See prisons and prisoners, in the ancient Near ­East law codes of. See law codes, in Mesopotamia ordeals in, 10 punishment in, 9–10, 11 military policing, 32 in Greece, 334 in the Hellenistic kingdoms, 22–3 in pharaonic Egypt, 15, 16, 17, 333 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 6, 47, 52, 53–4, 64, 101, 129–59, 164, 185, 191, 203, 249, 287–91, 326, 331 at Rome, 26–7, 334 misthophoros hippeus, 263 Mneuis, 318 murder, 1 in Hittite Anatolia, 11 in Mesopotamia, 10 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 86, 121 at Rome, 28 naubion, 256 naukleros, 142 ‫ﷴ‬ nauphylax, 133, 135–6, 142 911 alert system, 165, 166 999 alert system, 165 Nippur, 12

General I­ ndex nomarches, ‫ ﷴ‬113, 118, 321 law enforcement duties of, 116–18 subordinates of, 116, 117–18, 228 supervisors of, 118 nomarchia, 103 nomophylax, 135 Nungal, 11 nyktophylax, 27, 134 oaths in Hittite Anatolia, 11 in Mesopotamia, 10 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 91, 132, 252, 282, 285, 291–7, 303–4, 305–7, 313, 321 ochyro‫ﷳ‬ma, 22, 168, 169, 244, 245–6, ­255 oikonomos, 70, 74, 86, 87, 91, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 158, 191, 203, 207, 212, 223, 224, 227, 237, 250, 257, 259, 267, 283, 287, 295, 296, 300, 311, 314, 319, 321 law enforcement duties of, 127, 128–9, 241, 248, 258, 275 relationship with epimelete ‫ ﷴ‬s, 128 ‫ﷴ‬ subordinates of, 128 oil Ptolemaic, production and sale, 100, 101, 124, 126, 137, 228, 234–6, 237 orophylax, 22, 136, 137 orphans in Ptolemaic Egypt, 189, 190 Osarapis. See Oserapis Oserapis, 318 Osoromneuis, 318 ouragos, 290 overseer of all disputes ( jmj-­r sntt nbt), 17 overseer of desert blockhouses and royal fortresses ( jmj-­r rthw zmwt mnnw nswt), 17 overseer of the affairs of the fortresses ( jmj-­r wpt mnnw), 17 papyri as evidence for Ptolemaic police, 7, 8, 31, 37, 38–9, 41, 42, 44, 234 Ptolemaic monopoly on, 76, 124, 234, 281–2, 314–16

411 paradeisophylax, 133, 134 paramone.‫ ﷴ‬See bail, in Ptolemaic Egypt ( paramone)‫ﷴ‬ pastophorion, 237 pastophoros, 179 Patron, archiphylakites, 108–10 ‫ﷴ‬ Perses‫ ﷴ‬tes‫ ﷴ‬epigones, 105 ‫ﷴ‬ petitioners, Ptolemaic. See petitions, Ptolemaic petitions, Ptolemaic, 2, 4, 7, 32–3, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 45, 46, 47, 55, 57, 59, 63, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 94, 97, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 139, 140, 142, 147, 148, 152, 154, 155, 159, 160–217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 283, 307, 309, 310, 316, 317, 318, 322, 323, 324, 328, 331 alternatives to, 173–5 bias in, 39, 176 cataloging of, by officials, 165 complaints of petitioners in, 166–70 concluding formulae of, 188 dockets on, 162, 197–200 employment of scribes for, 165, 174 format of, 177–88 forwarding of, 197–206 Greek as primary language of, 188–9 Greek terminology of, 164–5, 176–7 highlighting personal initiative of victims, 162–3 identities of accused in, 178–9 identities of petitioners in, 177–8, 189–91 lists of stolen or damaged goods in, 181–3 made into circulars, 203

412 petitions, Ptolemaic (cont.) mishandling of, 164 multiple levels or rounds of appeal in, 193–6 narrative sections of, 183–5 notes of previous police intervention in, 185 pathos in, 170–3, 179–81 recipients of, 191–6 as records in court, 174–5 requests of petitioners in, 185–7, 207–13 responses to, speed of, 214 witnesses in, 183 pezos, 66, 330 Pharaoh legal powers of, 14, 15 as symbol of law and order, ­15 pharaonic Egypt, 8, 12–18, 41, 172, 230, 332–3 court system of. See courts, in pharaonic Egypt law enforcement officers, 5, 13, 15–16 penalties in, 14 prisons in. See prisons and prisoners, in pharaonic Egypt security in, 16–17, 332, 333 self-­help in. See self-­help in policing, in pharaonic Egypt types of wrongdoing in, 13 philoi, hoi, 75, 168, 211 philo‫ﷳ‬n, to‫ﷳ‬n. See philoi, hoi pho‫ﷳ‬r, 95, 152–3, 233 phor‫ ﷳ‬a basilike, 232 ‫ﷴ‬ phrourarchos, 53, 129, 317 answering to strategoi, 133, 212 ‫ﷴ‬ law enforcement duties of, 127, 129–33, 140, 145, 166–70, 174, 186, 192, 208, 234, 236, 237, 241, 251, 270, 275, 312, 313, 316 provenances of, 131 Seleucid, 22 subordinates of, 132, 228 phrourion, 22, 129, 168

General ­Index phrouros, 22 phylake‫ﷴ‬ meaning “guard,” 269, 270 meaning “prison,” 100, 115, 131, 140, 147, 232, 242, 244, 247, 248–9, 250, 251, 253, 254, 257, 258, 260 meaning “watch,” 249, 284 phylakeion, 248, 249 phylakite‫ﷴ‬s, 3, 5, 6, 31, 35, 37, 42, 46, 49–68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 138, 139, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 156, 157, 158, 171, 172, 173, 174, 183, 186, 192, 200, 201, 208, 213, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 241, 244, 248, 254, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 295, 297, 298, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 311, 313, 314, 319, 322, 325, 326, 327, 332 agricultural duties of, 302–4 arresting, 226–8 collecting debts, 319–20 confiscating property, 261–2 ethnicity of, 66 as gofers, 60–2 investigating crimes, 260–9 oaths, as genematophylakes, 285 ‫ﷴ‬ receiving documents, 63 as security guards, 284–6 tax payments to and from, 66 transporting, 270 phylakitikon, 65–6, 96, 303, 322 phylakitikos kleros, ‫ ﷴ‬63–4, 323 phylax, 6, 22, 27, 35, 37, 43, 53, 58, 59, 61, 122, 133–45, 209, 283, 284, 288, 302, 303, 304, 309, 311, 331, 332 plagiophylax, 137 police and policing, 1–2, 8–9 in the ancient Near East, 9–12

General I­ ndex at Athens, 18–21 in the Hellenistic Kingdoms, 21–3 in pharaonic Egypt, 12–18, 332–3 at Rome, 8, 23–30 politarches, 192 ‫ﷴ‬ politeuma, 192 potamophylax, 133, 137, 141–2, 289–90, 326 praefectus iure dicundo, 26 praefectus urbi, 26 praefectus vigilum, 24, 25 praetorianus, 25 prakto‫ﷳ‬r, 250, 302, ­303 praktoreion, 244, 250 prisons and prisoners in the ancient Near East, 10, 11, 12 at Athens. See desmo‫ﷳ‬te‫ﷴ‬rion, at Athens in pharaonic Egypt, 14–15 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 4, 6, 7, 37–8, 41, 42, 48, 55–6, 99–100, 116, 117–18, 125, 131, 138–40, 166, 168, 188, 190, 208, 214, 221–2, 223, 236, 238–60, 278–9, 322–4 at Rome, 29 pros tais anakrisesin, hoi, 169 pros tais phylakais tetagmenoi, hoi, 248 pros tei‫ ﷴ‬exago‫ﷳ‬gei‫ ﷴ‬tou en to‫ﷳ‬i Arsinoitei‫ ﷴ‬basilikou sitou, ho, 190 prosangelma, 176–7, 178 prostagma, 7, 63, 108, 133, 259 prostates‫ ﷴ‬machairophoro‫ﷳ‬n, 156 prostates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 68, 94–5 pro‫ﷳ‬toi philoi, hoi, 75, 194 Ptolemaic Egypt archaeology of, 38, 330 courts of. See courts, in Ptolemaic Egypt foreign ethnics in, 179 geography of, 31, 38, 42, 44–5, 54, 78, 88–9, 97, 100, 106–7, 111, 138, 158, 196, 217, 248, 278, 279, 329 “Greekness” of, 329–32 imprisonment in. See prisons and prisoners, in Ptolemaic Egypt money in, 61, 64, 65, 109, 157, 201, 208, 261, 262, 286, 312, 321, 330

413 monopolies in, 76, 124, 126, 195, 234–6, 281–2, 286, 314–16 as the “Other,” 280, 329, 331–2, 334 petitions in. See petitions, Ptolemaic population of, 31–7, 45–6, 47, 160– 217, 282, 325, 328–9, 330–2, 333 prisoners in. See prisons and prisoners, in Ptolemaic ­Egypt prisons in. See prisons and prisoners, in Ptolemaic Egypt religious tolerance in, 164, 331 robbers and robbery in. See robbers and robbery, in Ptolemaic Egypt scribes of, 118–24 social control in. See social control, in Ptolemaic Egypt Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias, 74–6, 210–12 records court, 11, 38, 128, 174, 175, 186, 189, 213, 274 police, 1, 129, 165, 173, 174, 175, 176, 199, 241, 266 regionarius, 27 responses of police speed of, in Ptolemaic Egypt, 164, 203–6, 213–14, 217 Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 320–2 revolts in Ptolemaic Egypt, 153, 284, 319 rhabdophorikon, 154 rhabdophoros, 154, 228, 262 robbers and robbery in Mesopotamia, 9, 11 in pharaonic Egypt, 16 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 3, 122, 141–2, 174, 181–3, 185, 213, 224–5, 231–3, 261–9 at Rome, 25 Roman Egypt police and policing in, 5, 6, 7, 27, 37, 38, 43, 44, 64, 67, 103, 133, 272, 334 Rome, 27, 41, 46, 329 crime and criminals in, 28, 162

414 Rome (cont.) criminal justice system of. See courts, at Rome imprisonment at. See prisons and prisoners, at Rome law enforcement magistrates of, 24–7 policing at. See police and policing, at Rome Samothrakion, 227 Sarapieion, 3, 75, 195, 211, ­266 Sarapis. See Serapis scriba, 27 security, 31, 328, 332 at Athens, 19, 20 in the Hellenistic kingdoms, 23 in pharaonic Egypt. See Pharaonic Egypt, security in in Ptolemaic Egypt, 6, 32, 36, 48, 53, 59, 67, 76–7, 97, 100, 121, 129, 134, 135, 137, 141, 144, 145, 154, 156, 157, 159, 236, 249, 281–311, 312, 316–19, 325, 326, 327, 328, 332 in Roman Egypt, 43 at Rome, 24, 27 Seleucid Empire administration of, 22, 23 Greek judiciaries in, 22 law enforcement officials of, 22 military officials of, 22, 64 self-­help in policing, 2, 8, 162 at Athens, 18, 19, 21, 162 in pharaonic Egypt, 13 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 21, 47, 160–217 at Rome, 29, 162 Serapieion. See Sarapieion Serapis, 3, 318 sitologos, 300 skeuophylax, 135 slavery at Athens, 18, 19 in Mesopotamia, 10 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 27, 62, 86, 95, 131, 144, 201, 205, 232, 234, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 250, 251, 255 in Roman Egypt, 27

General ­Index at Rome, 24, 27, 28 Snyder, Francis, 5, 19 Sobek. See Souchos social control, 31, 32, ­334 in Mesopotamia, 9 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 4, 5, 35, 36, 73, 76, 77, 97, 217, 278, 280, 282, 311, 325, 327, 328 at Rome, 25, 26 som ‫ ﷳ‬atophylax, 134 Souchos, 179 speculator, 25 speeches, court, 8 at Athens, 18, 46 in Mesopotamia, 11 in pharaonic Egypt, 14 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 115, 126, 183, 221, 272, 273, 274, 279 stationarius, 27 stephanos, 302 strate‫ﷴ‬gos, 3, 52, 53, 54, 75, 80, 84, 87, 91, 103, 104, 107, 112, 113, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 133, 136, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 162, 165, 168, 170, 178, 183, 186, 188, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221, 223, 224, 228, 232, 233, 240, 250, 259, 261, 263, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 298, 310, 317, 321, 323 in the Attalid Kingdom, 23 and epistate‫ﷴ‬s, 104–7, 110–11, 193–6, 197–200, 276, 298 and epistates‫ ﷴ‬phylakito‫ﷳ‬n, 42, 90 law enforcement duties of, 111–13, 193, 210–12, 237, 241–3, 270, 275, 276, 298, 316 and phrourarchos, 133 Roman, 27 stratio‫ﷳ‬tes, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ Sumer, 11, 12, 13 symbolophylax, 134 synedrion, 124 syngene‫ﷴ‬s, 151, 178, 318, 323 syngraphophylax, 135 synoche, 244, 250 ‫ﷴ‬ synphylakites, ­ ‫ ﷴ‬263

General I­ ndex telon‫ ﷳ‬es, 330 ‫ﷴ‬ theagos, 184, 185 therophylax, 135 ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakikon, 144 ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylakitikon. See thesaurophylakikon ‫ﷴ‬ ‫ﷴ‬ thesaurophylax, 102, 103, 133, 137, 142–4, ‫ﷴ‬ 309–11, 326 compiling lists of grain, 310 ethnic makeup of, 310 holding multiple posts, 310–11 issuing receipts, 144, 309 payment of, 144, 309 protecting granaries, 142, 144, 309 receiving grain, 103, 144, 309 returning grain, 103, 144, 309 transferring grain, 144, 309 thesauros, 143, 309, 310 ‫ﷴ‬ thesmophylax, 135 thyro‫ﷳ‬ros, 137, 244 toparche‫ﷴ‬s, 103, 113, 116, 118, 287, 321 toparchia, 67, 77, 78, 89, 103, 107, 109, 259, 329 topogrammateus, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 153, 292, 314 toxotes, 19 ‫ﷴ‬ trees in Ptolemaic Egypt, 70, 95, 109 tribune, 24, 28 triumvir capitalis, 24 viator, 27 victims of crime, 2, 30, 328 at Athens, 162 in pharaonic Egypt, 13, 14 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 4, 7, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48,

415 55, 56, 57, 72, 73, 89, 106, 112, 121, 160–217, 220, 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 238, 243, 244, 262, 266, 268, 278, 279 at Rome, 28, 29, 162 vigil, 24, ­25 vigilantism, 162 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 162–3, 173–5 vizier ( tꜣ tj), 13, 15, 17, 333 watches. See phylake,‫ ﷴ‬meaning “watch” witnesses to crimes, 2 in the ancient Near East, 10 at Athens, 19, 20 in pharaonic Egypt, 13 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 31, 33, 44, 48, 57, 102, 104, 106, 115, 161, 170, 175, 183, 208, 220, 221, 223, 227, 228, 267, 272, 273, 274, 279, 328 at Rome, 27 women at law in the ancient Near East, 9 at Athens, 162 in Ptolemaic Egypt, 32, 191 wood in Ptolemaic Egypt. See trees, in Ptolemaic Egypt Zenon of Kaunos, 55–7, 95, 116, 134, 137, 142–4, 145, 153, 157, 180–1, 192, 214, 224–5, 228, 238–40, 248, 252–3, 254–7, 259, 261, 267–9, 275, 309, 322

tw officers, 16