Penthemeros-certificates in Graeco-Roman Egypt

Table of contents :
PENTHEMEROS-CERTIFICATES ΙΝ GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT
CONTENTS
Preface
Ι Πενθήμερος
a) Definition
b) Οrigin οf the πενθήμερος
c) The πενθήμερος, imposition and workers
d) Time in which the πενθήμερος takes place
e) Nature οf work carried out
II Καrασπορεύς
III Ναrύβιον
IV Lists of the certificates
a) With reference to the penthemeros
b) With reference to the naubia
V Prosopography and critical remarks
a) With reference to the penthemeros-list
b) With reference to the naubion-list
Appendix I
a) The waterways in the Fayûm
b) Other localities where work was carried out
Appendix II
Frequency of the penthemeros certificates according to time and place

Citation preview

PENTHEMEROS-CERTIFICATES GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT

ΙΝ

PAPYROLOGICA LUGDUNO-BATAVA EDIDIT

INSTITUTUM PAPYROLOGICUM UNIVERSITATIS LUGDUNO-BATAVΑΕ MODERANTIBUS Μ. DAVID et Β. Α. VΑΝ GRONINGEN VOLUMEN

ΧΙΙ

PENTHEMEROS-CERTIFICATES GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT ΒΥ

Ρ.

J. SIJPESTEIJN

LUGDUNUM BATAVORUM Ε.

J.

BRILL

1964

ΙΝ

This book was Ρήnted with financial support οί the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement οί Pure Research (Z.W.O.)

Copyright 1964 by Ε. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlαnds rights reserved. Νο pαrt ΟΙ this book mαy be reproduced or trαnslαted in αny lorm, by print, photoprint, microlilm or αny other meαns without written permission Irom the publisher

ΑΙΙ

PRINTED

ΙΝ ΤΗΕ

NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Page

Preface Ι

Πενθήμερος

a) b) c) d) e) Π

νιι Ι

Defihition the πενθήμερος The πενθήμερος, imposition and workers Time ίη which the πενθήμερος takes place Nature οί work carήed out Οήgin οί

4

8

10

12

Κor.τor.σπορεύς

ΠΙ

Νor.ύβιον

ΙV

Lists οί the certificates a) With reference to the penthemeros b) With reference to the naubia

ν

Ι

Prosop·ography and critical remarks a) With reference to the penthemeros-list b) With reference to the naubion -list

Appendix Ι a) The waterways ίη the Fayftm b) Other localities where work was carried out

79 81

Appendix Π Frequency

82

οί

the penthemeros certificates according to time and place

PREFACE Ιη 1917 F. Oertel (Die Liturgie. Studien zur Ρtοlemαϊschen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Agyptens, Leipzig 1917, ρρ. 64-69; ρρ. 76-77) succeeded ίη tabulating 104 certificates relating to five-day dyke-corvee and 19 certificates relating to work carried out οη the irrigation system, ίη terms οί a certain number οί naubia. Since then, owing to an increase ίη material, the number οί receipts ίη the first group has more than doubled (276) and ίη the second group has increased by more than five times (100). Ιη the present study Ι have collected and outlined all these receipts which enable us to achieve a better understanding οί the method οί imposing liturgical irrigation-system duties, and also to increase ουΓ knowledge concerning the economic and social history οί Roman Egypt. From the material thus arranged Ι have set out my conclusions concerning these two special kinds οί irrigation system duties ίη four chapters. Ι was, ίη this way, able to eliminate the problems which had, υρ till now, been left unsolved ίη Oertel's theory, although my solutions may not be satisfactory to everyone. Ι was, however, able partly to modify and partly to confirm the suggestions advanced ίη Oertel's study. Ι have refrained from supplying a bibliography ΟΓ indices because the layout οί the work renders this unnecessary and frequent references ίn the text will, it is hoped, compensate for this. It is not possible to mention here by name all those who have so kindly helped me by placing unedited papyri at my disposal ΟΓ by drawing my attention to new publications. It is, however, my great pleasure to mention Prof. Ν. Lewis, who furnished me with a great deal οί rough material, as well as my own teacher, Prof. Β. Α. van Groningen, to whom Ι am deeply indebted for reading through the manuscήΡt and rendering me his valuable assistance. The costs οί realising this study have been fully met by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Ζ. W.O.). Without the financial aid οί this organization Ι should not have been able to publish this work. Lastly Ι should like to mention Mrs. J. Μ. Robat-Farley who translated the manuscript into English for me.

CHAPTER

ΟΝΕ

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

Paragraph a) Definition The

iS an ob1igation to work uπερ χωματLκων ~ργων, which iS limited, ίη to five days once a year. The receipts Ι have collected concerning πενθ~μερoς all originate from the Fayum 2 and with the exception οί Ρ. Giss. 64 and Ρ. Oslo ίηv. no. 1023 recto (pub1ished ίη Symbo1ae Osloensis, fasc. XXXVI, ρρ. 45/6 = S.B. 9626) 3 all the other papyri ίη which πενθ~μερoς is mentioned come from this νομός. This is why all who have written about this 1iturgy 4 have assumed, with varying degrees οί reservation, that the πενθ~μερoς occurs on1y ίη the Fayum. Ι fully support this assumption ίη spite οί the two abovementioned papyri, the first οί which originates from the Apollonopolites Heptakomias (ίη Upper Egypt), the second from the Memphitic nome (ίη Lower Egypt). Ρ. Giss. 64 is a 1etter addressed to the strategus Appo1onius. It is extreme1y difficu1t to exp1ain because οί the muti1ated condition οί this papyrus. Α certain Hierax, who also has other duties, apparent1y has to collect παρOC χωμcxτεΠLμελ"ψων λόγον πενθ1jμε(ρ .. ) too. The question is, first οί all, whether this concerns the πενθ~μερoς = 1iturgica1 ίrήgatίοn system duties. However, ίί this is the case, it can a1so be exp1ained by the ear1y mention οί the πενθ~μερoς. Appo1onius was strategus οί the nome Apollonopolites from 12th June ΙΙ4 to 7th June ΙΙ9 5 • The first strict organisation οί the πενθ~μερoς institution by the Roman government was probab1y ίη about ΙΙ5 A.D. 6. It is possible that before that πενθ~μερoς 1

ΡήncίΡ1e,

Πενθήμερος is mentioned as well as πενθημερΙα. both ίn Liddell/Scott (Greek - English Lexicon, s.v.) and ίη Preisigke /Kiessling (W όrterbuch der griechischen Pαpyrusurkunden, s.v.) ; also ίη U. Wilcken (Griechische Ostrαkα Ι, ρ. 338 sqq.). Ιη the texts known to me ίη which this corvee is mentioned, Ι have never found πενθημερία. but σηΙΥ πενθήμερος (one σί the several collective compounds, cf. Ε. Schwyzer, Griechische Grαmmαtik ΙΙ. Ι.2, ρ. 40). As πενθημερία. was advanced ίη these lexicons, based ση abbreviations (Ρ. Lond. Π, 321C, ρ. 105; Ρ. Tebt. 641; 662), it is my personal σρίηίση that it would be more cσπect to interpret the abbreviations as πενθήμερος. The word πενθ1)μερΙα. can be discarded from the lexicons. 2 From B.G. U. 1634, a statement from the amphodarchus to the scribe σί the village ΔΙννης σί those who still have to perform their πενθήμερος, it appears that it is purely coincidental that we have σηΙΥ found certificates for the villages given ίη the list. 3 Ιη the margin σί Ρ. Princ. 72 (Hermupolis?, ΠΙ Α. D.) there is a reference to την πενθήμερον. We cannot conclude anything at all from the remaining words and letters. 4. F. Oertel, Die Liturgie, ρ. 65: "Das erstere (das Zeitsystem bei der Fronarbeit) findet sich im Gestalt der sog. πενθήμερος vor allem im Fayftm"; U. Wilcken, Grundziίge, ρ. 334: "Urkunden, die ίibrigens alle aus dem Faijftm stammen"; S. L. Wallace, Tαxαtion in EgyPt, ρ. 142: "the πενθήμερος, which, as far as we know, did not exist ίη Upper Egypt". δ cf. Η. Henne, Liste des strαteges des nomes egyptiens, ρ. 2. β Ι showed elsewhere (Les Certificαts de ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ αu Premier Siecle de notre Ere, Chronique d'Egypte χχχνπι (1962) ρρ. 342-347) that we are dealing with an innovation σί Trajan's. As a result the state would have begun to exert a stricter control ση this particular liturgy, which is made particularly clear in the wording used ίη the certificates issued.

Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava,

ΧΙΙ

2

time a

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

existed somewhere e1se outside the Fayum, either WΊth an officίal character, οτ as a resu1t οί Ρήνate initiative. As Ρ. Giss. 64 is not dated it cou1d be from the begίnning οί Apollonius' tenn οί office. Shou1d it be from a 1ater date than ΙΙ5 A.D., the occurrence οί the πενθ~μ,ερoς outside the Fayum might be exp1ained by the transitionary period required ίοτ the re-organisation οί this institution. Ρ. Oslo ίην. ηο. 1023 recto (= S.B. 9626) is dated 3rd May 214 ίη Caracalla's reign. The βcxσLλLκος γρσιμ,μ,α,τεός informs a subordinate official (?) to collect τούς έΠLλuθέντcxς μ,ΟL πενθημ,έρου των χωμ,CXΤLκων κα,ι. 8LωΡUΧLκων εργων τοίί llCXUVL μ,ψος κτλ. Although there are several ways οί interpreting this abnormal statement 1, it remains a strange phenomenon, which, how- ever, should not have too much emphasis laid οη it because οί the overwhelming mass οί evidence ίη favour οί the exclusive occurrence οί the πενθήμ,ερος ίη the Fayfιm. F. G. Kenyon 2 was the first to assume that the χωμ,CXΤLκόν 3 was paid as an adaeratio ίοτ the πενθήμ,ερος. Β. Ρ. Grenfell and Α. S. Hunt 4 were already opposed to this theory because there was not a single piece οί evidence to support it 5. F. Oerte1 6 took Kenyon's ίοnn οί πενθ~μ,ερoς

During Caraca11a's reign a number σί νομοί are joined together (cf. Henne, ορ. cit. ρ. 19). Although this is not known anywhere else and possibly lasted ίοτ a very short time, it could also have been the case ίη the Memphitic nome and (part of) the Arsinoite nome. It is also possible that because οί the absence οί the βα.σlλlκΟς γρα.μμα.τεύς οί (part οί) the Arsinoite nome someone else temporarily replaced him. The question is whether we are dealing with an arbitrary action οη the part οί the βα.σlλlκΟς γρα.μμα.τεύς οτ whether this papyrus refers to private possessions either ίη the Memphitic nome or ίη the Arsinoite nome (ίη this connection Ι would like to refer to Ρ. Mich. ίην. ησ. 5795, Ο. Μ. Pearl, The Inundαtion ofthe ΝίΙε in the SecondCentury A.D., Τ.Α.Ρ.Α. LXXXVII (1956), ρρ. 51-59). a Ρ. Lond. Π, ρ. 103. 8 This amounted to six drachms and four obols per annum but under certain circumstances this sum was raised αd libitum, cf. Ostr. Tait Ι, ΠΙ, 99; Ostr. Theb. 98, 36, 99. Privileged persons were also exempted οη this point, cf. Wa11ace, ορ. cit., ρ. 140. this sum was raised αd libitum, cf. Ostr. Tait 99; Ostr. Theb. 98, 36, 99. Privileged persons were also exempted οη this point, cf. Wa11ace, ορ. cit., ρ. 140. 4 Ιη the introduction to Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 288. δ Ιη Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 1409, 19-20 the strategus forbids an αdαerαtio instead οί personal work οη the dykes. It is true that this refers to dyke duties ίη general and not especia11y to πενθ~μεpoς, which wi11, however, have also come under the prohibition. Ιη the Byzantine Era personal work ση the irrigation system could be bought οίί by means οί paying tax (cf. G. Roui11ard, L'αdministrαtion civile de l'Egypte byzαntine, ρ. 84, note 5). Ostr. Mich. 12 gave rise to the supposition that the annual dyke duties could be replaced by payment, but Amundsen's reading οί the passage appears to be ίηcοπect (Η. C. Youtie, Notes on Ostrαcα Mich. Ι, Τ.Α.Ρ.Α. LXXI (1940), ρ. 636, note 49). The assumption οί the editor οί P.S.A. Athene 49 that money instead οί πενθ~μεpoς was accepted, appears, too, to be due to a faulty reading (cf. Youtie, loc. cit.). Ρ. Mich. 355 (Tebtynis, Ι A.D. Α contract ίοτ service to a weaver. Duplicate οί PSI 902. cf. Μ. DavidJB. Α. van Groningen, Pαpyrologicαl Primer ηο. 46) does not prove that work οη the embankments could be paid off. Harmiysis, son οί Petesuchos, engages himself to work ίοτ Heron, son οί Haryotes, a weaver, ίοτ a period οί two years. Heron is to pay the various taxes incumbent οη Harmiysis during the period οί his service. Beside po11-tax and tax ση weaver's craft we read ίη 11. 6-7: κα.Ι 8α.πα.νlJν κα.Ι έπlτρΙτου κα.Ι χωμα.τηα:ς lpyou κα:Ι βα:λα.νευτικου τέλεσμα. κα:Ι κρ~ν1jς κτλ. Ι do not believe that the writer makes a mistake by writing a genitive instead οί an accusative οτ that we must supply τέλεσμα: behind έπlτρΙτου and χωμα:τηα:ς lpyou as proposed by DavidJvan Groningen. These words depend οη 8α.πα.ν~ν (perhaps the words βοιλοινευτικου τέλεσμα: and κρ~ν1jς too. Ιη this case we must cοπect τέλεσμοι ίη line 7 and read τελέσμα:τος). We must translate: "and my

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

3

theory υρ again and is οί the ορίηίοη that an adaeratio for the πενθ~μερoς was possible. As S. L. Wallace 1 remarks, the sum οί six drachms and four obols for five days' work constίtutes a large amount as the wages οί an unskilled worker ίη the first two ceηtuήes A.D. and perhaps ίη the greater part οί the third century A.D. were less than a drachm per day 2. The χωμα.τικόν occurs both ίη Upper and Lower Egypt 3, whereas the πενθ~μερoς is not found ίη Upper Egypt 4. Consequently it is improbable that the χωμα.ΤLΚόν constituted an adaeratio for the πενθ~μερoς. Οη the other hand, it cannot be assumed that the πενθ~μερoς was a means οί paying the χωμα.τικόν tax ίη the Fayum, because the govemment would have lost by this arrangement. While οηlΥ one πενθ~μερoς and χωμα.τικόν certificate issued expenses and

the surtax οί one third and ίοτ the work οη the embankments". Ι do not believe that (the copy PSI 902 has έ!ργων. The usual expression is χωμσιτικών έ!ργων. The early date οί this papyrus explains the absence οί the more technical word πενθ~μεpoς) with a supplied τέλεσμσι = χωμσιτικόν (Daνid/νan Groningen). Harmiysis will have to hire a labourer to perform his πενθ~μεpoς and he and Heron now agree that Heron will pay the expends to hire a worker. 6 ορ. cit., ρ. 73. At the same time it may be remarked that the passage quoted by Oertel (B.G. U. 969, 25) offers ηο eνidence ίοτ this assumption, because it concerns πενθ~μεpoς ΙSνων not πενθ~μεpoς χωμάτων (cf. Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 91 sqq., οη πενθ~μεpoς ΙSνων). The owner οί the mules has to make his animals available ίοτ fiνe-day duties (οη dykes οτ elsewhere), οτ else to pay the equivalent in com (B.G.U. 969, 25 sqq.) οτ money (Ρ. RyΙ 195,5; Ρ. Mich. 223, 224, etc.) as an αdαerαtio ίοτ the work οί his mules, not his own personal work. 1 ορ. cit. ρ. 141. Ι cf. Α. C. Johnson, Romαn Egypt, ρ. 303. At the close οί the third century A.D.-but by then the institution οί the πενθ~μεpoς seems to haνe disappeared-the situation is different, which is connected with the general inflation οί the day. From papyrus 81 from the archives οί Aurelius Isidorus (A.E.R. Boak and Η. C. Youtie, The Archive 0/ Aurelius Isidorus) it appears that when Isidorus hires a replacement ίοτ his brother Peras, who has been appointed by the village οί Caranis to work οη "Trajan's River", he has to pay this man two silνer talents ίοτ the period οί two months and has to proνide his food which amounts to 200 drachms per day (297 A.D.). Ιη the edict οί Diocletianus (301 A.D.) a daily wage varying from 80 to 600 drachms is fixed ίοτ several skilled and unskilled labourers. Ιη 314 A.D. 400 to 500 drachms are paid per day (cf. Α. Segre, Circolαzione monetαriα e prezzi nel mondo αntico ed in pαrticolαre in Egitto, ρ. 118 sqq.). 8 Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 421, note 38. 4 It is not plausible that the χωμσιτικόν ίη Upper Egypt constituted an αdαerαtio ίοτ a number οί naubia, as they vary enormously ίη number (cf. table ίοτ νσιύβια.), whereas the χωμσιτικόν remains the same. The χωμσιτικόν ίη the Roman Era should not be confused with that ίη the Ptolemaic Era because ίη its earlier form it was a taxation οη landed property, intended as an αdαerαtio ίοτ dykeduties paid by owners οί catoecic land and land tv άφέσει. Ιη the second century B.C. it is replaced by the Egyptian word νσιύβιον (= nby, cf. W. Εήchsen, Demotisches Glossαr, ρ. 215 and Η. Thompson, Demotic Tαx-Receipts, P.S.B.A. ΧΧΧV (1913), ρρ. 150-153. Ιη an article byG. Mattha, TheChomαtikon: Its Form αnd Meαnings in Demotic αnd Greek Texts (Cairo Uniνersity, Bulletin οί the Faculty οί Arts, νοΙ XV, part ΙΙ (1953), ρρ. 63/4) an interesting theory is to be found ίοτ the derivation οί the Egyptian word). Ιη Ρ. Tebt 860 (138 B.C.) and 1043 (ca. 170 B.C.) χωμιχτικόν still occurs, so that we must assume a transitionary period when the two words occur side by side (οη the grounds οί the isolated appearance οί χωμιχτικόν ίη these two papyri it is, ίη my ορίηίοη, impossible to assume that they represented two different forms οί taxation, as CΙ Preaux does in her L'economie royαle des Lαgides, ρ. 399). Ιη Roman times the χωμιχτικόν is a taxation οί a person. The νΙΧύβιον κιχτοΙκων and the νΙΧύβιον tνιxφεσΙων seem to haνe been an αdαerαtio ίοτ the άνσιβoλ~ χωμάτων ίη Upper Egypt ίη the Roman Era (cf. J. Klass, Nαubion Abgαbe von Kαtoken- und Lehnslαnd in Tebtynis, Aegyptus ΧΧVΙΙ (1948), ρ. 100 sqq. Cf. also Ρ. RyΙ 192). ίοτ

χωμσιτησις έ!ργου

4

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

for the same year and the same person could giνe absolute certainty 1, Ι think we must for the moment assume that the inhabitants οί the Fayum both paid χωμα.ΤLκόν and performed πενθ~μερoς corνee. The Fayum was a ήch area and enjoyed special attention οη the part οί the goνernment. Its inhabitants had to pay for the greater affluence they enjoyed. lη the leνying οί λα.ογρα.ψΙα. we find a similar injustice; ίη this case too, the inhabitants οί the Fayum had to pay a larger sum οί money 2. Paragraph b) Origin

ΟΙ the πενθ~μερoς

The question οί the origin οί the πενθ~μερoς ίη the form ίη which it occurs ίη the Roman era is related to its date οί origin. The first certificate for πενθ~μερoς dates from the year 45 A.D. (Ρ. Βοη. 31 from Tebtynis. Ρ. Fay. Description 286 from Euhemeria is dated between 40 and 54 A.D.; this cannot howeνer be more closely determined chronologically) and we also find certificates from the third century A.D. (the ostraca from Caranis ίη the Uniνersity οί Michigan. The last certificate that can be accurately dated is Ρ. Lond. ΠΙ, 1267a, ρ. 60, from Socnopaeu Nesus, 218 A.D.). It is plain that work οη the irrigation system was a most νital issue ίη the time οί the pharaohs as well as ίη Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt 3; this is still true ίη present-day Egypt. The problem is, howeνer, when this particular type οί work, the πενθ~μερoς, was first carried out-whether it existed ίη the Ptolemaic era (or eνen earlier) or whether we are dealing with one οί the many innoνations the Romans introduced ίη their administration οί Egypt. Although the use οί soldiers by Augustus 4 to repair the irrigation system may haνe been an emergency measure to bring the system into working order again as quickly as possible-a priority measure comparable to the achieνements οί Ptolemaeus Ι Soter and Ptolemaeus Π Philadelphus 5 - we eνen find χωμα.τεργολOCβΟL ίη Caligula's day (Ρ. Fay. The following certificates bear the closest resemblance to each other: the one (ηο. 99) about the πενθήμερος performed οη behalf οί Caranis for the seventh year (144 A.D.) οί the reign οί Antonius Pius by Pnepheros, son οί Petheus and Thaisas, grandson οί Petesuchus and the one for the payment οί the same person οί the χωμα.τικ6ν over the past sixth year (143 A.D.) οί the reign οί Antonius Pius, a certificate drawn υρ by Socrates and his fellow πράκτορες ά:ΡΥυρικών οί Caranis (= S.B. 9428). s Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 121 sqq. 3 cf. Η. Bolkestein, Sociαle Politiek en Sociαle Opstαndigheid in de Oudheid, ρ. 29; Μ. Rostovtzeff, Sociαl αnd Economic History of the Hellenistic World, ρ. 275; Μ. Brion, Histoire de l'Egypte, ρ. 9 sqq. From the many passages ίη the classical authors dealing with the flooding οί the river Nile, see the significant passage ίn ΡΙίnΥ, Ν.Η. ν, 10: in ΧΙΙ cubitisfαmem sentit, in ΧΙΙΙ etiαmnum esurit, ΧΙΙΙΙ cubitα hilαritαtem αdferunt, XV securitαtem, XVI deliciαs. Ιπίgatίοη system duties have been performed throughout the history οί Egypt and undoubtedly this sometimes involved violence (cf. Α. Β. Ranowitsch, Der Hellenismus und seine geschichtliche Rolle, ρ. 168). Everyone was obliged to do a certain amount οί work (cf. Preaux, ορ. cit., ρ. 395 sqq.). 4 cf. Suet. VitαAugusti 18; Dio Cassius LI, 18, 7; C.I.L. Suppl. 6627 and C.I.G. ΠΙ, 4716d, 15. This method was again used later by the Emperor Probus (S.H.A. Vitα Probi 93). cf. Ε. Sander, Die Kleidung des romischen Soldαten, Historia ΧΙΙ (1963), ρ. 144 and note 5. This, οί course, is a different way οί using soldiers from the one ίn the passages where we read that soldiers are sent out to force unwilling workers to caΠΥ out the duties imposed οη them (Ρ. Rein. 52, 7; ΙΙ5, 6). 6 Rostovtzeff, ορ. cit., ρρ. 264 and 272.

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

5

37 A.D.) 1 as well as ίη the Ptolemaic era. The earliest certificate concerning πενθ~μερoς our possession, dates from 45 A.D. and differs from the regular form οί the later ones (see below) so that this certificate (like the others from the first century A.D.) strongly suggests an innoνation being tried out for the first time. It is also rather improbable to suppose that Augustus would not haνe taken oνer the practice οί πενθ~μερoς ίί this had existed, and reνiνed it as he did with so many other institutions 2. Α striking parallel, reported by U. Wilcken ίη Archiν ιν (Ι9Ο8), ρ. Ι45 and to my mind not made sufficient use οί, furnishes us with proof positiνe. The following clause is included ίη the lex Ιul. Gen. 3: Quamcumque munitionem decuriones huiusce coloniae decreverint si m (aior) Ρ (ars) decurionum atfuerit cum e (α) r (es) consuletur, eam munitionem fieri liceto dum ne amplius in annos sing(ulos) inque homines singulos puberes operas quinas et in iumenta plaustraria iuga sing(ula) operas ternas decernant. This is not, ίη itself, conclusiνe, because it, too, could have been taken over from Egypt 4, but the age limits are given as Ι4 to 60 years, the same as for the λαογραψΙα, which was definitely introduced by the Romans. This is too striking a parallel not to suppose that it would haνe served as an example, since it had already giνen good results. As this lex dates from as early as 44 B.C., whereas the earliest certificate concerning πενθ~μερoς only from 45 A.D.-I wish to exclude the possibility οί chance owing to the present amount οί material-I assume that the πενθ~μερoς, ίη the form ίη which it occurs from the first century A.D. onwards, was first introduced by the Romans as a new element ίη their administration οί Egypt 5. 2Ι4,

ίη

1 This is a unique reference. We do not gain any further information about these persons, but thej' may be comparable with the Ptolemaic έργόλοιβοι (Ρ. Petrie ΠΙ 42F(C) 13; 43(2)R ΠΙ 5, ιν 41, V ΠΙ 12, V Ι ι) and skilled ίn dyke duties. 2 cf. ίοτ fiscal system U. Wilcken, Chrestomαthie, ρ. 186 sqq. Ιη general, Μ. Rostoνtzeff, Sociαl αnd Economic History ΟΙ the Romαn Empire, ρ. 560, note ι ι. 3 C.I.L. Π Suppl. 5439 XCVIII, lex Uronensis. This column also shows other striking similarities to conditions ίη Egypt. Cf. Η. Η. Scullard, From the Grαcchi to Nero, ρ. 150, note 21. 4 This could (also) haνe been influenced by Egypt, cf. Μ. Rostoνtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Kolonαtes (Archiν, Beiheft Ι, 1910), ρ. 314, note 2. δ It cannot be said with any certainty ίη what way work was distributed ίη Ptolemaic Egypt. (cf. Κ. Fitzler, Steinbriίche und Bergwerke im ptolemiiischen und romischen Agypten, ρρ. 73-85: Exkurs iίber die Vergebung der Dαmm- und Kαnαlαrbeiten). Howeνer, it is highly probable that thirty naubia were required per head οί the population. Based οη three naubia per day, this would amount to ten days, i.e. one Egyptian week (Oertel, ορ. cit., ρ. 17, note ι; Preaux, ορ. cit., ρ. 396 sqq. Oertel presumes οη the same page (17) that the conclusion can be drawn that payment was made for the performance οί duties from Ρ. Paris 66. Wilcken (Griechische Ostrαkα Ι, ρ. 338) a!so accepts this possibility but ίη U.P.Z. Π, ρ. 15, howeνer, he takes the !ine that "diese Arbeiten dem agyptischen Vo!k als Fronden ohne Entge!t aufer!egt waren" This νiew is also shared by V Ehrenberg, Die Stααt der Griechen Π, ρρ. 75/76). Α πενθ~μεpoς οτ a specia!, different position οί the Fayum is out οί the question. Mattha's statement, ίη his article cited οη page 3, note 4, without specifying the period he is referring to, that between the beginning οί July and mid-August the officia!s selected a certain number of persons from eνery νillage to work οη the dykes for fiνe days (a theory which he had already propounded ίη his Demotic Ostrαcα ρρ. 51/2, where he does not furnish a chronologica! specification), is misleading as it is suggested that the πενθ~μεpoς already occurs before the Roman Era (it is completely wrong to say that the officials selected a certain nurnber of persons from every νillage to work for live days οη the dykes). Indeed, a certificate for penthemeros corνee οη the ίπίgatίοη system from this period has not been found, a!though certificates from the Ptolernaic Era haνe, ίη fact, been found for dyke duties (B.G. U. 1461; W.o. 1023. 1025; Ο. Cairo 7; Ο. Tait Ι, Ι, 242-247).

6

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

Introduction οί the πενθ~μερoς by the Romans is also made plausible by the development οί the wording used ίn the certificates. Oertel 1 had noticed that the majοήtΥ οί the certificates exhibited stereotype wording 2 (and this conclusion has moreover been confirmed and perfected due to the increased mateήaΙ available). The following items are mentioned ίn these certificates: ι)

the year

ίn

which the certificate is issued.

2)

ε(ργιχσΤΙΧL όπερ χωμιχττκων 3

3)

the year for which the certificate is issued 4:

4) 5)

the month and days ίn which work was performed, e.g.: Έπε1.ψ Lςκ δ. locality where the work is carήed out, e.g.: έν ήj ΈπιχγΙΧθLιχνη 8LώρυγL

τοσ ιχύτοσ Χ ~τoυς

or

τοσ 8Lελ'ηλυθότος

Χ ~τoυς.

1

ορ. cit. ρρ. 73/4.

6

S.B. 9231b (= ηο. 97) from 115 A.D. is the earliest certificate with this stereotype wording. Number 94 from 106 A.D. shows a minor variation-the month is mentioned twice and point 6 precedes point 5-yet contains all the elements οί the plan. Ιη number 7 point 5 precedes point 4. Number 95 from 108 A.D. has all the elements οί the later certificates, but as ίη number 7 (from 107 A.D.) point 5 precedes point 4. Moreover, την πενθl)μερον is written twice ίη these certificates. Number 96 from 114/5 A.D. (= Ρ. Os10, ίην. ηο. 134. ΑΙΙ the unedited papyri from the Os10 collection were sent to me by post by Mrs. Μ. Η. Eliassen-De Kat) probably has all the points (Ι, 2a, έφ' ~μέpaι.ς πέντε (presumably representing point 4), 2b, 3, 6, 5, 7, 8) although the order still differs from the plan ίn general use later οη (point 6 precedes point 5; the reηdeήng οί point 4 is not certain). 8 The verbal form usually employed is the ind. perf. medii (ε(pyaι.στaι.ι), but occasionally the ind. αΟΥ. medii (i)ΡΥ&σaι.το οτ εΙΡΥ&σατο) is used (Ρ. Cornell ίην. Ι 5; Ρ. Βοη. 31; Ρ. Princ. 40). Ύπl:ρ χωματικων (abbreviated) is the form most often used; sometimes ~pyων is added (Ρ. Ryl. 210; Ρ. Fay 77). ΕΙς χω (μaι.τικιχ) ~py(aι.) ίη Ρ. Fay 78 and Ρ. Aberdeen 36b is a rare form οί wording. ι Instead οί τοσ aι.ότoσ Χ (omitted ίη Ρ. Os10 ίην. πο. 134) ~τoυς (usually abbreviated), the following also occurs: τοσ (the same number as mentioned ίη the dating (ίn figures: P.S.I. 1046, οτ written ίπ full: P.S.I. 1045)) ~τoυς (S.P.P. ΧΧΠ, 162), with the omission οί τοσ (Ρ. Aberdeen 36d), with the omission οί a number (Ρ. Lond. ΠΙ, 841a, ρ. 59). Mention is rarely made οί τοσ ένεστωτος (same number as ίn the dating) ~τoυς (S.B. 9437b). δ The most usual ways οί indicating the month and the days are: a) the month and the days: Θωθ ζιaι. (Ρ. Strassb. 249b-d). b) the month, date ~ως date: ΈπεΙφ ε Εως θ (Ρ. Strassb. 249f; 166-168). Sometimes the month, (usually οπlΥ the proper name, occasionally preceded by "month of" (Ρ. Μίl. Vogl. 91) ) is put after the second date (S.B. 923Ib). Sometimes the peήοd covers two months: ΈπεΙφ κη ~ως Μεσορ-η β (S.B. 9437b), when the first month is sometimes not mentioned (Ρ. Strassb. 16, 249a). Once οτ twice Εως is omitted (Ρ. Os10 ίπν. πο. 1021). The starting-point is sometimes further specified by the addition οί &πό (Ρ. Μίl. Vogl. 91: &πο ια Εως ιε τοσ Πaι.σνι μηνός). c) Άπο ΠαuνιθΙΥίsakiπdοfίπtermedίatefοrm betweena) and b) (B.G.U. 876; S.B. 9263). d) The following are cases apart: Ρ. Lond. Π, 139b, ρ. 103; Ρ. Princ. 40: &πο (έν) μηνος (μηνΙ) proper name, date (from which is calculated) έφ' rιμέpaι.ς πέντε (τ-ην πενθl)μερον); Ρ. Os10 ίην. πο. 1033: month, date έφ' rιμέρας πέντε (S.B. 9097 is the opposite: Εως month, date, τ-ην πενθl)μερον: not the starting-point, but the day up to which work was carried out); Ρ. Fay 78: Μεσορ-η ζ κaι.Ι η is an exception, as ίη this particular case an order ίοτ two days' extra work is given. δ Α glance at Column V shows us that very different canals were worked οη (cf. Appendix 1). The way ίη which these canals are mentioned depends οπ the person who issued the certificate. a

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

6)

administratiνe

credited), e.g.:

7)

name

8)

signature:

οί

unit

(νillage

7

to which the worker belongs and to which his labour is

ΣοκνοπιχΙου N~σoυ 1

the worker:

δ 8εΤνιχ 2.

δ 8εΤνιχ κιχτιχσπορευς σε!ΠJμεLωμΙΧL 3

The following numbers differ from this basic layout: no. 177 is as follows: ι, 2a (ε~ΡγιχσΤΙΧL), 5, 3, 2b (uπεΡ χωμιχηκων), 6, 7. Numbers 4 and 8 are lacking. From 45 A.D. nos. 1-3 and 56 are as follows: 1,4, 5, 2a, 7, 6, 8. Numbers 3 and 2b are lacking. From 49 A.D. no. 4 is as follows: ι, 2a, 5, 4, 2b, 3, 6-8. Nothing lacking. From 51 A.D. no. 178 is as follows: 1,4,5, 2a, 7, 6, 8. Numbers 3 and 2b are lacking. From 51 A.D. no. 4a is as follows: ι, 2a, 5, 2b, 3, 6-8. Number 4 is lacking. From 51/2 A.D. no. 57 is as follows: ι, 2a, 5, 2b, 3, 6-8. Number 4 is lacking. From 52/3 A.D. no. 58 is as follows: ι, 2a, 4, 2b, 3, 6-8. Number 5 is lacking. From 63/4 A.D. nos. 5-6 are as follows: ι, 2, 5, 3, 6-8. Number 4 is lacking. From 69 A.D. From the aboνe we can conclude that the number οί items increases and that there is a gradual deνelopment towards a fixed wording ίη the later certificates 4. The customary wording would seem to stem from the first half οί the second century A.D. δ. The deνelop­ ment outlined aboνe also points to the introduction οί the πενθ~μεpoς by the Romans. 1 As sixth point αί the fixed wording αί the penthemeros certificates, Oertel (ορ. cit., ρ. 74, note 2) gives: "Repartitionsort" (= administrative unit), which is too vague and the difference with ''Arbeitsort'' (= site αί work) is obscured because the name αί the village is translated, as if it would constitute a localising αί the canal ατ the site, given as the place where work is ίη progress (cf. Ρ. Merton 69: "αη the Argaited canal αί Bacchias" : Ρ. Aberdeen 36a: "αη the dyke at Socnopaei Nesus"). However, ίη this point the village is mentioned from whose quotum the work performed is deducted. Α person does not necessarily have to perform his corvee ίη the village to which he belongs (cf. Ο. Μ. Pearl, ΕΞΑΘΥΡΟΣ, Irrigαtion Works αnd Cαnαls in the Arsinoite Nome, Aegyptus ΧΧΧΙ (1951), ρ. 223 sqq.). Ν. Hohlwein (Euhέmeriα du Fαyoum, J.J.P. ΠΙ (1949), ρ. 79) stil1 adheres to the view that the vil1age mentίoned constitutes a localising αί the canal. 2 The worker, αί course, is described as accurately as possible: his own name, those αί his father, mother and grandfather. Occasional1y one ατ more αί these names are omitted. Very seldom is the name αί the performer ατ those αί his father, mother and grandfather abbreviated. The performer's name is nearly always written ίη full, but the names αί the other persons are sometimes abbreviated. Ιη that case we do not find a uniform way οί abbreviation. His trade ατ capacity are hardly ever mentioned (cf. page 9, note 5). 3 Compare ρ. 17 concerning the four different ways ίη which this point is represented. 4 Ι have shown elsewhere (cf. page ι, note 5) that it is not permissible to conclude from this particular wording, still ίη the process αί development, (Ν. Lewis, The First-Century Certificαtes for Dike-Corvee, Chron. d'Egypte χχχιν (1959), ρ. 285 sqq.) that two different ways οί receipting existed. The fact that one and the same κιχτιχσπορεός (Corax, signing both nos. 4 and 4a) could use two different wordings (cf. ρ. 7) can now be added to my arguments put forward ίη the above-mentioned article. δ cf. page ι, note 5.

8

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

Paragraph c) The

πενθ~μερoς,

imposition

αnd

workers

The imposition

οί this liturgy takes p1ace as usua1 a10ng hierarchica1 1ines. The is the first authοήtΥ we come across. He, ίη his turn, will have received his instructions via the strategus (cf. Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 1409) from the prefect. Ρ. Strassb. ίην. ηο. 139 (Archiv ιν (1908), ρρ. 51-59) informs us that when a specia1 extra duty was imposed the division οί the quantum was dea1t with directly by the roya1 scribe ίη compliance with orders he had received (άκολοΙΙθως τo~ς κελευσθε~σι cf. numbers 13, 26-28, 31,34,35,38,65,87, 188, 194). From Ρ. Soknobr. 21 (= S.B. 9339), however, we 1earn that the βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς a1so undertook this division under norma1 conditions. From Ρ. Gen. ίην. ηο. 68 (Chronique d'Egypte χχχνιι (1962), ρ. 154) edited by Prof. Ν. Lewis, it appears indirectly that the βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς was a1so concerned with and responsib1e for the performance οί the work. Ιη the above-mentioned papyrus the κιχτιχ­ σπορεΙΙς is checked by the γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς οί the βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς (cf. Chapter IVa, ηο. 58). Ιη Ρ. Oslo ίην. ηο. 1479 (a 1etter without a sender or addressee with the following contents: "Do not WΉte out the πενθ~μερoς 1ists before you have been to the office οί the strategus") from the third century A.D., we are probab1y dealing with the orders οί the βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς to the κωμογρlχμμlχτεΙΙς to wait until he has been to the office οί the strategus before drawing up a list οί persons eligib1e for πενθ~μερoς, presumab1y for specia1 ίη­ structions ίη connection with an expected emergency (cf. a1so Ρ. Iandana 139; Wilcken, Chrestomαthie, 389). B.G. U. 618 gives us a list οί names drawn up by the κωμογρlχμμlχτεΙΙς 1 οί those who were obliged to perform the πενθ~μερoς. This list was sent οη to the βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς who chose the number οί persons he required immediately (it is not known according to what ΡήηcίΡΙe but this might be guessed at ίη certain cases), the rest were kept for emergencies or for a later date. Lists were kept ίη the villages οί those who had actually performed the work imposed (Ρ. Mich. νι, 380 and 381; S.B. 5124; B.G.U. 513; Ρ. Mich. ίην. ηο. 4793a+4799b ) 2. Α glance at Co1umn νι οί the penthemeros-list shows that the obligation to \vork for five days οη the dykes cou1d be de1egated 3. Ιη certain instances a βιχσιλικος γρlχμμlχτεΙΙς

1 B.G.U. 1634 offers a lίst οί persons from 229{30 A.D. (a total οί 406, among whom sons οί veterans, κτηνοτρόφοι and 80υλοι). The lίst has been drawn υρ by the amphodarchus Aurelius Aphrodisius and addressed to the κωμογριχμμιχτεύς οί the village Dinnys (read ίn line 2 the suppletion κωμογρ(ιχμμιχτεί) instead οί κωμογρ(ιχμμιχτε!ιχς) ). This papyrus concerns those persons who still have some work to perform over the previous year and some for the cuπent year. From such lists the κωμογριχμμιχτεύς selected the persons for the list he sent to the βιχσιλικος γριχμμσιτεύς. a Ρ. Bouriant 39 is a λόγος πενθ1)μέρου (Ρ. Giss. 64 has to be supplied λόγον πενθ1)μέ(ρου) instead οί the editor's πενθ1)μέ(ρων)) submitted the κιχτιχσπορεύς Aurelius Heron to an unknown person whose name and capacity have to be read ίη the first line. It might be a piece οί information sent to the κωμογρσιμμσιτεύς, who did keep a list οί those who really had performed their πενθήμερος, stating the persons who had performed their dyke-corvee (from Payni 14-18? Should the lines 2{3 not be read as: Πσιυνι ι8 fως Ι1)?). This is a more logical explanation than that we are dealing with a report to the authοήtΥ ίη charge οί the distήbution οί labour, as this person was not interested ίη work already performed. 8 Ι cannot, then, agree with Μ. Schnebel, when he states (Die Lαndwirtschαft im hellenistischen Agypten, ρρ. 61 {2: "die Fronde war persOnlίch". Ρ. Qxy 1409, adduced by him as a piece οί evidence

9

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

replacement seems to have been hired 1, ίη other cases a slave did the work 2. People could also be exempted from this corvee. We have evidence οί this ίη the case οί priests and their slaves ίη B.G. U. 176 (from the time οί Ηadήan = Wilcken, Chrestomαthie, 83) and Ρ. Aberdeen 163. There were probably other categories οί privileged persons too, but conclusive evidence is lacking. From the certificates for the χωμOCΤLκόν ίη the Αrsίnοϊtes it would appear that the μψροπολΙΤOCL οί Arsinoe did not have to comply with this form οί taxation 4. Roman citizens and citizens οί ΑΙeχandήa would definitely have been exempted. From this we might conclude that these classes were not called υρ for the πενθήμερος either. Wilcken (Archiv ιν (1908), ρ. 145) concludes from the names οί the persons who performed πενθήμερος that only the lowest classes οί the population, the λocογρocφοuμενΟL, were obliged to perform πενθήμερος corvee; this is, however, contradicted by the names known nowadays (cf. Chapter IV). ΑΙΙόμόλογΟL weresubjected tothisliturgy δ. for this assumption, dates from the third (278 A.D.) year οί the reign οί the Emperor Probus, who is well-known for his efforts to improνe conditions ίη Egypt. Consequently, the data ίη this papyrus cannot be applied to the full period οί the Roman administration. 1 cf. P.S.I. 1045, 1046 a-b; B.G. U. 723, S.P.P. ΧΧΙΙ, 160, et αΙία. Stotoetis, son οί Apynchis and Tekiasis, grandson οί Stotoetis, οί whom we possess a number οί certificates for his own πενθήμερος (nos. 17-19, 21, 26, 33, 34) appears to haνe made a regular trade-together with his relatiνes-of performing the πενθήμερος for other people. He, himself, perfoms the corνee for somebody else ίη numbers 27 and 30, his father ίη number 28 and his brother replaces someone else ίη number 29. a It is highly probable that the slaνes are owned by those for whom they work, although this is not specifically stated. Compared with the rest οί the ancient world, slaνes are seldom found ίη Egypt and are, consequently, expensiνe. Based οη the fact that wages for workers were νery low ίη Egypt (probably less than one drachm per day for an unskilled worker, cf. Johnson, ορ. cit., ρ. 303) it is also unlikely that slaνes were hired out ίη order to earn money for their masters which, ίη fact, was common practice elsewhere (Athens). 8 These papyri date from the beginning οί the second century A.D. It appears from seνeral complaints made by priests, who suffered injustice, that the officials did not always abide by the letter οί the law (cf. Ε. J. Knudtzon, Bakchiastexte, ρρ. 15/6). From Ρ. Yale 349 (= Ρ. Soknobraisis ΧΙΧ = S.B. 9328) it appears that conditions haνe worsened for the priests and that, to a certain extent, they could be requisitioned for dyke-corνee (Cf. Ρ. Yale 351 = Ρ. Soknob. ΧΧ = S.B. 9329; Ρ. Fouad 13 = Ρ. Soknob. ΧΧΙΙ, Ρ. Lund 3.8 Ρ. Yale 348 = Ρ. Soknob. ΧΧΙ = S.B. 9339). Based οη B.G. U. 194 (= Wilcken, Chrestomathie, 84) it must be assumed that ίη principle priests were not exempted from liturgies, but that the local officials made special arrangements. It appears from papyrus no. 1 from the Bakchias texts (= S.B. 9340) that priests, who had paid a special tax οί eight drachms, could not be called υρ for personallabour (σωματικως, too, ίη Ρ. Soknob. ΧΧΙ, 15 (= S.B. 9339) and ΧΧΙΙ, 8 (= Ρ. Fouad 13) probably refers to this matter). Ιη Ρ. Mich. 381 (cf. note ad lines 6-13) the names οί the priests who had originally been called υρ for πενθήμερος are crossed out later οη; they had been exempted. 4 Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 420, note 2]. δ When examing the trades mentioned ίη the Charta Borgiana (= S.B. 5124). we find, ίη alphabetical order:

+

&λιεός OCρτυμάτιχς ιχuλ7jτης

βουκόλος

γέρ8ις

ΓVιxιpεός

(1 ) (1 ) (2 ) (1) (4) (4)

iλαιουργός κεριχμεός κουρεός

λιχχανοπώλ7jς μ7jχιχνάρις ότηλάτης

(1 ) (2) ω (6) (1 ) (10)

10

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

Paragraph d) Time in which the

πενθ~μεpoς tαkes plαce

With the material theη available Oertel could ηot discover wheη the duties covered by the πενθ~μεpoς liturgy took place. Wheη the mateήaΙ ηow available is worked out statistically we arrive at certaiη coηclusioηs. The followiηg facts emerge: Total ηumber οί peηthemeros certificates for the curreηt year for the previous year

152

uηkηowη

101 Ι

ι)

2)

3) 4) 5)

6)

7)

Thoth Phaophi Hathyr Choiak Tybi Mecheir Pharmuthi

9)

Pachoη

ιι)

12)

13)

4

πι

6 7 7

2

15

Ι

15

2

ι

4

Epeiph Mesore

21

14

Uηkηowη

9

7

2

3 5 8

2

6

47 33

ιν 1

2

ι

6 8

Payηi

23

Π

ι

Phameηoth

8) 10)

7 7

276

8 9

Ι

15

Ι

51

14 55

42 37

66

Oerte1 2 thought that the meηtioη οί a special order eηabled him to coηclude that the certificates coveriηg the moηths οί Thoth, Hathyr aηd Choiak aηd drawη up for the γριχφεύς

(ι )

This is presumably a clerica! euor γvιxφεύς 8ιάκων

(6)

ποιμ ~ν ίοτ:

ρΙΧβ8εΙστης

(7 )

(2)

τέκτων

(ι )

ψιχθοπλόκος

(ι

)

The trade is given οί 54 οί the 342 men (Ι have οηlΥ selected the trades mentioned ίη the first 12 columns, because the other ones are too mutilated to provide any information), ίοτ the greater part trades that are usually plied by simple folk (a large number οί the above-mentioned occupations are consistent with work οη the dykes). This does not ίαιρΙΥ that the other persons mentioned were unemployed. We seldom find qualifications οτ trades stated ίη the certificates (ηο. 4a. κοσκινεύτης; ηο. 56 8εκιχνός; ηο. 122 Ιερεύς; ηο. 140 8ιάκων; ηο. 148 στριχτιώτης; ηο. 153 λΙΧΧΙΧΥοπώλ1)ς; ηο. 167 βουκόλος). Among these persons are also slaves working ίοτ their masters, ίτοαι which we may conclude that these persons were not wholly destitute. Neither can we conclude with certainty that οηlΥ the lower classes had to fulfil this obligation. 1 As ίη the list οη page 20, the columns represent: Column Ι cuuent year Column Π previous year Column ΠΙ definitely ίη this month, but not known whether the receipt has been issued ίοτ the cuuent year οτ the previous year Column ιν Total ι ορ. cit., ρ. 70 sqq.

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

ΙΙ

preνious year referred to the days made υρ oνer the preνious year. Ιη the case οί the certificates issued ίοτ the current year ίη those months he took the line that they were credit eηtήes because the obligation οί πενθ~μερoς would not haνe exceeded ten days per year (= Egyptian week. Numbers 176 and 275 οί the penthemeros list are indeed certificates ίοτ ten days' work with ηο mention being made οί special orders) and these days would be the eleνenth to fifteenth days 1. Thus Oertel assumed that work was performed οη the irrigation system ίη the months οί Payni-Mesore and that remaining days were worked off ίη the months Thoth-Choiak οτ extra time was possibly worked then to be counted ίοτ the following year. Ιη the first category he is confronted with the difficulty that οί the ten certificates adduced by him three do not mention this special order and now it appears that οί the twenty-four certificates issued ίοτ the preνious year fourteen make ηο mention οί it either. Ιη the second group the (to my mind) unaccountable question aήses οί why these so-called credit eηtήes were spread oνer seνeral months, νίΖ. the first ίουτ months οί the Egyptian year, instead οί being entered all ίη one month, which would haνe simplified administration considerably. Α third point remains, i.e. that he does not know what to do with the πενθ~μερoς certificates ίοτ the months οί Mecheir (twice (with the present mateήal three times)), Phamenoth (once (fiνe times)) and Pharmuthi (twice (eight times; moreoνer we now haνe 13 certificates ίοτ Pachon)) and can οηlΥ extricate himself from these difficulties by assuming a special type οί work. Fourthly, Ι cannot at all account ίοτ why work would haνe had to be carήed out οη the irrigation system οηlΥ ίη the six months οί the year when the water is at high leνel and not duήηg the remaining months when the canals are practically, οτ completely dry, thus affording the cleaning and repair work which undoubtedly formed part οί the duties coνered by the πενθ~μερoς. When we look at the table οη page 10 we see that work was carήed out οη the canals and dykes all through the year (cf. the naubion list 2), which is quite logical. At the same 1 Α ρτίοή it is hig!y un!lke!y, judging from the name οί this corvee, that "gewohnheitsgemass" the πενθ~μερoς !asted ίοτ ten days. Oerte! (ορ. cit., ρ. 72, note 1) chooses his words very carefully, because his assumption is based οη more than one weak point: "an ein staatsrechtliches Axiom ist ίη Agypten natίirlich nicht zu denken". 2 This is confirmed once more by the dates οη which improvements to the ίπίgatiοn system are caπied out by private persons. Pachon: B.G.U. 362, the so-called Wirtschaftsbuch οί Hermupolis Thoth: the so-called Wirtschaftsbuch οί Hermupolis, Ρ. Lond. ΠΙ, 962 (ρ. 210), 4 Hathyr: Ρ. Lond. ΠΙ, 1170 (ρ. 193), 298 Choiak: Ρ. Lond. ΠΙ, ΙΙ7 0 (ρ. 193), 453 Work performed οη the irήgation system by private persons ίοτ the benefit οί their own property is a chapter οη its own, which, ίη many respects, a!beit οη a smaller sca!e, does not differ great!y from work caπίed out by the State ίη the public interest. Lessor and !easeho!der agree who is to perform the work (cf. J. Hermann, Studien zur Bodenpαcht im Recht der grαeco-αegyptischen ΡαΡΥγί, ρ. 122 sqq.). A!though it is mainly the !andowners, themselves, who will have profited from a good ίπίgatίοη οί their property, the State, too, was concerned with the maintenance οί the Ι3ιωτικΟι χώμα.τα., (as these cana!s were called ίη contrast with the 3ημόσια. χώμα.τα., as follows from B.G. U. 12, 25/6) because οί its νital concern with the highest possible yield οί the crops.

12

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

time we notice an undeniable increase ίη the number οί certificates for the months οί Payni υρ to and including Mesore and a gradual decrease ίη this number υρ to Choiak. This is νery easy to explain because ίη Payni υρ to and including Mesore the leνel οί the Nile ήses, while ίη Choiak the water has again fallen to reach its lowest leνel 1 ίη PharmuthijPachon, when we again see an increase ίη the number οί certificates. Ιη the months Payni-Mesore the greatest caution has to be exercised and the most work carried out (cf. paragraph e), while ίη the remaining months things can be taken much easier and the imminent danger, especially οί breach οί dykes, has passed. The fact remains, howeνer, that seνen certificates issued for the months Thoth or Hathyr and related to the preνious year do mention a special order. Apart from the instances mentioned aboνe, we also come across this special case ίη connection with an abnormal number οί days, when this special order is, οί course, selfexplanatory. It was usual for eνeryone to perform one πενθ~μεpoς per annum. Thus, as soon as one or more extra days were added to the normal quantum, a person would try and back out by referring to the πενθ~μεpoς already performed and by showing the certificate. That is why it is explicitly stated ίη Ρ. Lond. Π, 316a (ρ. 104) that the worker ίη question may not make use οί the certificate he had receiνed for penthemeros duties already performed οη the irrigation system. If an official could show an order from a higher authority for extra work to be performed nothing could be done about it and the extra work simply had to be carried out. This could, for instance, occur ίη the case οί lack οί sufficient labour, unforeseen emergencies or sudden breakdowns οί the irrigation system. It is not surprising then that when an abnormal number οί days are worked such an order is usually mentioned. The fact that other records οί this special order are to be found ίη the νer)T months οί Thoth-Choiak can be explained because some people had not, for νarious reasons, fulfilled their fiνe-days' obligation the preνious year 2. These persons were put to work as soon as possible ίη the months οί Thoth-Choiak. As they will, ηο doubt, haνe raised objections because the year had already passed, a special order was issued charging them to make υρ their arrears (eνen though the error may haνe been οη the part οί the State). ΜΥ own conclusion is, therefore, that eνeryone was obliged to work for fiνe days οη the irrigation system, the duties being allocated by an official appointed ίοτ that purpose, and that an unlimited number οί days could be exacted by means οί an order issued by a higher authority ίη the case οί emergencies (this will haνe been the case when we find duties lasting less than fiνe days), lack οί labour (then the number will immediately exceed fiνe), οτ other unforeseen circumstances. This order was sometimes clearly stated, but not necessarily so. If this order is found ίη the months οί Thoth-Choiak it relates to arrears to be made υρ oνer the preνious year. Paragraph e) Α. Ε. μερος, 1

8 3

R. Boak 3 has

based

οη

his own

giνen

Ναture ο/

work carried out

the following resume

οί

the duties

coνered

by the

obserνations:

cf. literature cited by Pearl, loc. cit. (cf. page 7, note ι), ρ. 229, note ι. cf. Wilcken, Grundziίge, ρ. 337, note ι. Notes on Canal and Dike Work in Roman EgyPt, Aegyptus νπ (1926), ρ. 215 sqq.

πενθ~­

13

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

a)

cutting down the bushes and other vegetation growing

b)

removing the accumulation

c)

strengthening the embankment by filling up the cuts and building out the faces the slopes so that the dykes will retain their original thickness and strength.

οί

οη

the embankment.

mud, grass and reeds from the bed

οί

the channel. οί

These duties are, however, but part οί the work covered by the πενθ~μερoς, which also included maintenance οί the tools. Κιχtν~ and πιχλιχιιΧ έξάθυρος, sluices οη which work was performed 1, are mentioned several times ίη the certificates. It is apparent from the 10cality where work is carήed out (Column V) that attention was paid not οηlΥ to the main canals but also to secondary waterways. Dyke-watching ίη order that action could be taken ίη the case οί possible breaches, to prevent wilful damage, etc. will also undoubtedly have constituted part οί the πενθ~­ μερος duties. We know οί the existence οί uaροφuλιχχες, identical to the χωμιχτοφuλιχχες known from Ptolemaic times (Ρ. Cairo Zeno 59296). Οη the other hand, the ποτιχμοφuλιχχες are police officers authorised to protect 2 certain parts οί the River Nile and certain canals from robbers, thieves, etc. and are not ίη any way connected with the πενθ~μερoς. This is made especially feasible by the existence οί a μερtσμος ποτιχμοφuλιχχιaος 3. Dyke-watching and the duties mentioned by Boak under point (c) explain the ίη­ crease ίη the number οί receipts for the months Payni-Mesore when the water rises ίη the River Nile and there is the greatest risk οί unexpected occurrences. ΟηΙΥ very general mention is usually made οί ε'Ιργιχστιχι δπερ χωμιχτιχων εργων ίη the certificates themselves. Occasionally we are better informed. Thus, numbers ΙΙ5, 164 and 9l οί the naubion list mention άφuλtσμός = the removal οί vegetation ίη the water and οη the embankments οί the dykes impeding the flow οί the water 4. Numbers 159, 161 and 170 mention σuνλιθYJγΙιχ 5 and numbers 25-28 inclusive and 93 οί the naubion list άνιxβoλ~ χωμάτων = building up the dykes, possibly constructing new ones (repair work οη breached dykes is also indicated by the verb άνιχβάλλεtν and the frequent use οί words like atάχομμιχ, aιάχοπος, atιχχοπ~, prove that this was ηο uncommon occurrence, Ρ. Ryl. 133 Pearl's article, cited οη page 7, note ι, is mainly about this matter. Rostovtzeff, Πλοία Θαλάσσια on the Nile, Etudes dediees a la memoire d' Andre Μ. Andreadis, ρ. 367 sqq. 3 Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 423, note 52. 4 Ι have shown elsewhere (On the Meαning ojthe Word ΑΦΥΛΙΣΜΟΣ, Aegyptus XLII (1962), ρ. 128 sqq.) that άφυλισμός, contrary to W. L. Westermann's view (Dike Corvee in Romαn Egypt. On the Meαning oj άφυλισμός, Aegyptus νι (1925), ρ. 121 sqq.) means: the removal οί vegetation. 5 ΣυλλιθΊ)γία (usually written συνλιθΊ)γΙα) occurs several times ίη Supplementum Epigraphicurn (2,569,23; 4, 447, 50), but it is found ίοτ the first time ίη the papyri ίη the places mentioned ίη the text (cf. Youtie ίη the article cited οη page 2, note 5, ρ. 631 sqq.).We have to assume that workers ofthe πενθ-ήμερος could be taken οίί duties directly connected with the ίπίgatίοη system and could be employed ίη the transport οί materials; as is here the case ίη the transport οί stones ίοτ building and repairing οί dykes, canals, locks, etc. It is a well-known fact that stones were used ίη the construction οί ίπί­ gation-systems (cf. Youtie, loc. cit., ρ. 634, note 42 and the literature cited there). Naturally, other materials were used as well, such as earth, osier-work, etc. (cf. Schnebel, ορ. cit. ρ. 38 sqq.), which as often as not had to be transported from elsewhere, generally by mules (cf. Ρ. ΟΧΥ, 729, 985; S.P.P. ΧΧ, 68, Fr. 3 verso 3 e.a.). 1 2

Μ.

14

ΠΕΝΘΗΜΕΡΟΣ

such a situation). Number 51 οί the naubion list ίη which θρόον is mentioned ~efers, ίη my ορίηίοη, to the removal οί reeds from the canal and embankments and not, as the editor (loc. cit.) assumes, to the strengthening οί dykes WΊth reeds, which surely would not have been used as they are liable to rot away quickly (cf. Schnebel, ορ. cit., ρρ. 39/40 however). Ιη numbers 41-42 and 45-52 we read έν ό80Π( ) Μέμ,φεως. If my completion οί ό80Π(OΙΙ~) (cf. ad locum) is correct the construction οί roads would also have been included ίη the πενθήμ,ερος duties, which is not at all surΡήsίηg as dykes are commonly used as roads. Different work is mentioned ίη Ρ. Tebt. Description 658. Again the interchange οί the prepositions έν and εΙς ίη stating the locality where work is performed is, to my mind, significant. Ιη the first instance we are dealing WΊth work οη canals (the removal οί mud and vegetation and deepening the waterways) and ίη the second with duties such as building υρ the dykes and planting them, etc. descήbes

CHAPTER TWO ΚΑΤΑΣΠΟΡΕΥΣ

The increased material available has not led to the discovery οί any further facts supporting the theory outlined οη ρρ. 188/9 οί Oertel's frequently cited work. The texts acquired later enable us to make certain modifications and further specifications to the above-mentioned theory. The number οί penthemeros certificates ίη which the function κιχτασπορεός is specifically mentioned ίη addition to the signer's name has doubled, νίΖ. from six to twelveοη οηlΥ ninety papyri has the name been preserved, ΟΓ traces οί the name οί the κιχτιχσπο­ ρεός. Neither have these six new cases furnished us with the solution to the problem whether the κιχτιχσπορεός signs ίη his capacity οί χωμιχτεΠLμελYjτης, which is however, very probable. The κιχτιχσπορεός is concerned with sowing the land, as is apparent from numerous texts (cf. Ρ. Ryl. 90; Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 2121). This is dependent οη the flooding οί the Nile 1, which ίη its turn is again largely dependent οη the condition οί the irrigation system. The χωμιχτεΠLμελYjτης checks the dykes and also arranges the dίstήbutίοη οί the water, as is evident from Ρ. Praag ίην. ηο. 30 verso 2. B.G.U. 12, IO/II (= Wilcken, Chrestomαthie, 389) proves that a combination οί these two functions was possible. Therefore, it is highly probable that the κιχτιχσπορεός signs the certificates ίη his capacity οί χωμιχτεΠLμελYjτης, even ίί this tίtle is not specifically mentioned, as otherwise his concentrated dealίng with the dykes throughout the year would be hard to explain. The first mention οί the title κιχτιχσπορεός ίη the penthemeros certificates is still to be found ίη a certificate dating from the second century A.D.: ηο. 185. Several κιxτιxσπoρε~ς supervising sowing are already mentioned ίη Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 2185 from 92 A.D. Α very late mention οί a κιχτιχσπορεός is found ίη Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 2032 (sixth century A.D.). If we can draw any conclusion from the names themselves, it would seem that many κιxτιxσπoρε~ς were Romans ΟΓ Greeks. From the numbers 64-65, 71-72, 186, 187 it follows that ίη one particular year several κιxτιxσπoρε~ς were concerned with one and the same canal. From the numbers 15-16, 66-67, ίt follows that ίη one particular year several κιxτιxσπoρε~ς were concerned with dίfferent canals ίη one particular locality. Nothing can be said with certainty about the dίstήct over which one κιχτιχσπορεός was appointed, but when we study the table below, Oertel's assumption (ορ. cit., ρ. 189) that his authοήtΥ extended over more than one village would seem to be very probable. Dionysius (nos. 1-3): 49 A.D. ίη Socnopaeu Nesus, (ηο. 56): 49 A.D. ίη Theadelphia. Longinus (15): 148 A.D. ίη Socnopaeu Nesus, (107): 146 A.D. ίη Caranis. Nilus (66): 148 A.D. ίη Theadelphia, (251): 149 A.D. ίη Εuhemeήa. cf. Pearl's article, cited οη page 2, note ι. cf. L. Varcl, Zum Bewasserungswesen im rόmischen A'gypten, Archiv ΧΥΙΙ (1960), ρ. 17 !tqq. Α list οί χωμιχτεπιμελ1jΤΙΧΙ (?) is also found here (Ρ. Praag ίην. ηο. 80). Ιη line 9 οί this papyrus (= S.B. 9546) Χώμιχτος Ψι(νΙΧλειτΙ30ς) has to be supplied. 1

ι

16

ΚΑΤΑΣΠΟΡΕΥΣ

Acusilaus (69): 157 A.D. ίη Theadelphia, (189): 150 A.D. ίη Tebtynis. Celer (φ): 147 A.D. ίη Bacchias, (99): 144 A.D. ίη Caranis. The κατασπoρε~ς mentioned ίη numbers 172 (ιι8 A.D. ίη Philadelphia), 76 (124 A.D. ίη Bacchias), 9 (128 A.D. ίη Socnopaeu Nesus), 80 (129/130 A.D. ίη Bacchias), 184/5 (131 and 133 A.D. ίη Tebtynis), 90 (144 A.D. ίη Bacchias) and 190 (151 A.D. ίη Tebtynis), as well as ίη numbers 8 (ΙΙ5 A.D. ίη Socnopaeu Nesus) and 71 (ΙΙ9 A.D. ίη Bacchias) are presumably identical. We may assume that the same κατασπορεύς fulfilled his function ίη more than one year οη the grounds οί numbers 4-4a (Corax ίη the eleventh and twelfth years οί the Emperor Claudius), 18-22 up to and including 24 (Sarapion ίη 153 and 155 A.D.), 94-95 (Isidorus ίη 106 and 108 A.D.) and 184-185 (Didymus ίη 131 and 133 A.D.). Numbers 56-57 (Dionysius ίη 49 and 52/53 A.D.) may also constitute a piece οί evidence. The κατασπορεύς for the current year also issues the certificate for work added to the quantum οί the previous year, because it is carried out during his term οί office (cf. Phanias: nos. 25-28; Dioscorus: nos. 29-31). Based οη the fact that ίη ηο. 20 Protas (Socnopaeu Nesus, the previous year) and ίη ηο. 21 Diomedes (Socnopaeu Nesus, current year) issue a certificate for the same canal ίη 154 A.D., we must assume that occasionally the κατασπορεύς for the previous year had to tie up his own affairs. As a large number οί certificates had to be issued each year to a large number οί persons, the certificates to be given out were, as far as possible, (i.e. the formal first part) drawn up 1 at the office οί the κατασπορεύς. The κατασπορεύς gave the partly drawn-up certificates to the surveyor οί the work, who filled ίη the date, locality οί work, administrative unit (the village to which the worker belongs and to which his labour is credited), name οί worker, οη the spot 2. Next, the κατασπορεύς as the official ίη charge, signed this certificate. This explains why most certificates bear three hands, νίΖ. the first for points 1,2 and 3, the second for points 4,5,6 end 7 and the signature οί the κατασπορεύς being the third hand ίη point 8. When the certificate bears οηlΥ two hands (the second hand is usually that οί the κατασπορεύς and begins at point 7) we have to assume that the surveyor wrote out the certificate and passed it οη to the κατασπορεύς to be signed. Receipts beaήηg four (Ρ. Gothemb. ι) or more hands represent special cases and will be dealt with further οη. The certificates ίη which the second hand begins immediately after the name οί the month and ίη which the name οί the month is preceded by the preposition ιΧπό (S.B. 9263) would seem to ίmρΙΥ that certificates were even drawn up monthly ίη advance. These receipts, prepared beforehand, were numbered for checking (Ρ. Hamb. 75 displays at the beginning θ = number nine οί the certificates drawn up). One name οηlΥ is usually found ίη the signature, and can occur ίη four different ways: 1 The second hand ίη which the date is written is the same ίη the Ostraca Mich. 303, 304, 306, 307, 310, 313, 316, 318, 320, 831, 832, 837, 838 and 839. Ιη these cases, too, the certificates haνe evidently been prepared beforehand; the name οί the worker concerned was filled ίη afterwards. Ostr. Mich. 831 would seem not to have been used; the worker's name was never filled ίη. 2 Ρ. Strassb. 249d is an interesting example οί division and sub-diνision οί labour: points ι, 2 and 3 were prepared ίη advance ίη the first hand, then points 4 and 5 were left open to be filled ίη by the surνeyor οη the spot, point 6 was entered ίη the first hand again. Α clerk, (third hand) has filled ίη point 7 ίη the office οί the κατασπορεός and submitted the certificate to the κατασπορεός (fourth hand) for his signature.

17

ΚΑΤΑΣΠΟΡΕΥΣ

ι)

2)

3) 4)

Name (ό 8ε'i:vlχ), capacity (κιχτιχσπορεός) and Name (ό 8ε'i:vlχ) and σεσΊjμεΙωμlΧL. ΟηΙΥ a name (ό 8ε'i:vlχ) without σεσΊjμε(ωμIΧL.

σεσΊjμε(ωμlΧL

(sometimes

έσΊjμεLωσά,μ1jV) 1.

ΟηΙΥ σεσΊjμε(ωμIΧL.

The method illustrated ίη point 4) is surprising, as one wonders how checking was possible. F. Zucker 2 has discussed the omission οί the name at σεσΊjμε(ωμlΧL and other instances. Ε. Rabel assumes ίη the introduction to Ρ. Basel 9, that when the certificate οηlΥ had σεσΊjμε(ωμlΧL the handwriting was relied on-rather difficult ίί the certificate had to be shown somewhere else οτ to someone who did not know the authority who had issued it, or, at least, his handwriting. Youtie 3 advanced the theory that receipts did not constitute decisive ρτοοί οί payment but that they were issued ίοτ the convenience οί the two parties, whereas official eηtήes were relied οη ίοτ checking purposes. This would explain the lack οί care taken ίη drawing υρ the certificates. Personally, Ι consider the possibility that they were οηlΥ provisional receipts (because οί the fact that ίη those Ι have examined this anomaly οηlΥ occurs ίη the ostraca, cf. ηο. 135), replaced later οη by proper ones, as an Egyptian could not have done much with an incomplete certificate. 1 2 3

Compare Ρ. Strassb. ΙΙ, note 8 concerning the meaning οί this verb. Urkunde eines romischen Stαtthαlters von Agypten, Sitzungsb. Akad. Berlin (Ι9ΙΟ), ρ. 7Ι4. cf. Youtie's article, ρ. 626, note 2Ι cited οη page 2, note 5.

Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava,

ΧΙΙ

2

CHAPTER THREE ΝΑΥΒΙΟΝ

contrast with the πενθ~μερoς, the lίturgical system according to quantum is found Upper and Lower Egypt and ίη the Fayum. As ίη the case οί the πενθ~μερoς substitution occurs (column VI) and we see that a slave performs his master's duties. Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 1469 offers full information concerning the way ίη which the νocόβιoc were dίstήbuted. The δ1jμόσιος γεωμέΤρ1jς assesses the required number οί νocόβιoc and distήbutes them over several villages according to their size; the dίstήbutίοn is then confirmed by the χωμocτεπεΙκτης. These two officials come under a higher authοήtΥ, a βΟ1jθος του στρocτηγου (it is not clear whether the βocσιλικος γρocμμocτευς is meant, who played such an important part ίη the imposition οί the πενθ~μερoς). It is clear that after the villages had been selected the κωμογρocμμocτευς organised the individual dίstήbutίοn οί labour. Additions to the naubion lίst have offered the solution to the problem Oertel was left with (ορ. cit. ρ. 75), vίΖ. how to account for the unequal number οί naubia performed (1/3' 112' 2/3 (two people), 2/3 1/12' 3/4' Ι, 11f3' 11/2' 2, 23/8' 3, 31/10' 31/2' 4, 5, 10). Ο. Mich. 273 (= no. 34) and Ο. Mich. 810 (= no. 33) refer to νocόβιoc, performed ύπερ άροuρων 1. From Ρ. Par. 66 (cf. Oertel, ορ. cit. ρ. 16, note 2) it can be concluded that νocuβΙoc duties were connected with landed property ίη Ptolemaic times, while a definite connection between landed property and ίrήgatίοn system duties has also been established ίη the Byzantine and Arabic eras (cf. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraca Ι, ρ. 33 sqq.). Such a relationship, however, was not assumed ίη the Roman era, although the Roman naubion system was considered to be a continuation from Ptolemaic times and Ρ. ΟΧΥ. 290, 7-10 (κocτ' έπιβολ(-ην) ων εκocστ(ος) εχει (άροuρων) ύπο των ύπογεγρocμμέ(νων) άνδ(ρων)) definitely established that the amount οί work was proportional to the landed property (cf. Ρ. Lond. Ι, 131, ρ. 166) ίη the ΙδιωτικιΧ χώμocτoc. Both texts mentioned above put this matter beyond all doubt and the varying number οί naubia are, therefore, related to the different amounts οί landed property. Α glance at the prosopography shows that the workers usually bear Egyptian names, from which we can conclude that they generally belonged to the lowest class οί Egyptians and we can therefore imagine their social conditions 2. The fact that they usually owned very little property explains the rather futile-seeming amounts οί work declared. Ιη

both

ίη

1 cf. Wallace, ορ. cit., ρ. 59 sqq. Ρ. Strassb. 43,16-19 (331 A.D.) andOstr. TaitI, Ι, 120 (1460r 135 B.C.), are also οί consequence here, although the first text is a late one, and the second dates from the Ptolemaic era. Wilcken's wording, Ostraka 1410/1: το έπιβάλ(λον) σοι ναύβ(ιον) and Ostr. Tait 1695: το καθηκον ναύβιον also points ίη this direction. The contents ofWilcken, Ostrakon 1222 gave rise to the assumption that a certain number οί νΙΧύβια had to be worked; it remains doubtful how this number was determined. 2 Only very seldom do we find the worker's trade mentioned ίη the certificates. Nos. 31 and 36 mention a γέρ8ιος, ίη no. 37 we find a μ7jχctvάριος, Aplυodisis ίη no. 39 is a Ιερεύς and Aphrodisius ίη no. 69 is a Ιατρός. Little can be concluded from this. The first two trades indicate simple folk.

ΝΑΥΒΙΟΝ

19

reject Milne's theory (Archiv νι (1920), Ostraca 1rom Denderah, ρ. 125 sqq.) 1 which relates the five naubia obligation, mentioned οη severa1 occasions, to the πενθ~μερoς and identifies one naubion with one day's work, οη the grounds οί the above-mentioned relationship between landed property and the number οί naubia and because οί the fact that for the most part the certificates do not refer to five naubia (58 - 9). Neither do Ι believe that the work carried payment. This assumption has been based οη Ο. Theb. 130, which, ίη my ορίηίοη, has nothing to do with the liturgical obligation to irrigation system duties. The layout οί this document is quite different from that οί the other documents concerning this type οί work (e.g. the place οί work is not mentioned). Again, the function οί those who had this document wήtteη out (their title is concealed ίη the as yet unsolved abbreviation ίη line 2) does not fit ίη with the irήgation system duties. Ιη my ορίηίοη it is probable that Memnonion carήed out work for, or by order οί, these persons ίη his capacity οί private contractor and is now paid for his work 2. Payment is not mentioned at all ίη the other certificates. The work, consisting οί all sorts οί duties, is carήed out οη beha1f οί διώρυγες, χώμocτoc and περιχώμocτoc, although the last two categories are the most extensive. It is logical to assume then that the number οί naubia, based οη landed property, were performed by the workers οη the canals bordering their land or those running through it. These canals, however, formed part οί the governmental irrigation system inspected by state officials. Such duties, therefore, must not be confused with improvement schemes, carήed out by landowners for their own benefit. The remaining canals and dykes, especially those ίη state-owned land, were maintained by liturgically conscripted labour. If it is stated at all by whom the certificates were issued, then it appears to be the χωμocτεπιμελψocΙ, generally acting through a βο't)θος or γρocμμocτεός. The κocτocσπορεός, who signed the penthemeros certificates, is not found ίη the naubion certificates. The explanation for this is, undoubtedly, that these duties came under a different administrative department where οηlΥ the χωμocτεπιμελ't)της was authorised. Ι

1 Η. C. Youtie (New Reαdings in Michigαn Ostrαcα, Τ.Α.Ρ.Α. LXXII (1941), ρ. 44, note 25) formulates once more the objections to these assumptions οί Milne's, but ίη Pαrergα Ostrαcologiα, Τ.Α.Ρ.Α. LXXIII (1942), ρ. 80, note 64, he suggests-in my ορίηίοη eποηeοuslΥ-that for administration purposes the πενθήμερος was identified with five naubia and was imposed οη the fellahins who did not possess any land. First οί all there is ηο reason at all to assume that the πενθήμερος was imposed οη these peasants exclusively, whereas we know for a fact that the ναόβιιχ were determined ίη proportion to the landed property. lt is also hard to explain ίη such a supposition why the πενθήμερος lasted for five days ίη the majority οί cases, while we know οί οηlΥ a few instances when five naubia were worked. Moreover, the πενθήμερος οηlΥ occurs ίη the Fayfιm, whereas naubion-certificates are also found outside this area (cf. ρ. 18). When we come across both the penthemeros and the naubion system ίη Caranis we have to conclude that apart from the πενθήμερος to be pedormed by all the inhabitants, landowners had to work a certain number οί naubia over and above this, depending οη the size οί their estates. a As stated οη page 3, note 4, the ναόβιον κατοΙκων and έναφεσΙων seem to have been an αdαerαtio for the άναβολ-η χωμάτων ίη Roman times. Ιη Ostr. Tait Ι, ΠΙ, 84, Wilcken Ostrakon 1396 and Ostr. Tait 589 we find taxes {ιπερ ναυβ(Ιου) or νιχυβ(Ιων). Tait assumed that this was a special form οί tax, abolished by Tiberius Alexander, and that it could hardly be identified with the νιχόβιον ίη the papyri, representing the ptolemaic χωματικόν. Ιη these cases we are probably dealing quite simply with the αdαerαtio for άνΙΧβολ-η χωμάτων.

20

ΝΑΥΒΙΟΝ

Concerning term οί office and dίstήct οί the χωματεΠLμελ'ητης, there are, unfortunately, too few data to throw any new light οη Oertel's theory (ορ. cit. ρ. 185 ίΙ). From a survey οί the months over which the certificates were issued, it followsas has already been pointed out (ρ. 10)-that work was carried out all the year round, with an understandable culmination ίη the months Payni-Mesore. The following survey, it is hoped, will clarify this point: Total number

οί vαόβLΟV Ι

ι)

2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

8) 9) 10) 11)

12) 13)

Thoth Phaophi Hathyr Choiak Tybi Mecheir Phamenoth Pharmuthi Pachon Payni Epeiph Mesore (incl. , , ) επαγομεVΟΙL Unknown

certificates: Π

100

ΠΙ

4 3

4 3

ι

ι ι

ι

ιν

ι

2

ι

7

7

10 5

9 5 11 5

6

11

14 8

5 18

19 26

ι

11

Omitting numbers 29 up to and including 88, 98 and 99-these certificates are either very brief ones, presumably issued provisionally, or comprehensive lists, as is also the case ίη ηο. 92-the following basic plan with respect to the form οί the certificates emerges for fifteen οί the thirty-eight remaining numbers: ι)

ό 8εi:vοι χωματεΠLμελYjτης κοιΙ μέΤΟΧΟL τ