Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century AD 9780198835318, 0198835310

Table of contents :
Cover
Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century AD
Copyright
Preface
Contents
List of Figures
List of Maps
List of Tables
Note on Abbreviations
1: Introduction
1.1 Why Tebtunis?
1.2 The Egyptian Evidence and the Typicality of the Fayum
1.3 Tebtunis: The Site
1.3.1 Houses: The Archaeological Record
1.4 Aims of the Book
1.5 Chapter Overview
2: The Kronion Archive
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Texts
2.2.1 Contracts
2.2.2 Registers
2.2.3 Accounts
2.3 The Record-Office in Village Life
2.3.1 The People of the grapheion
2.4 Conclusions
3: The People of Tebtunis
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Population
3.2.1 Users of the Tebtunis Record-Office
3.2.2 Women in Tebtunis
3.2.3 Identity and Nomenclature
3.2.4 Status Designations and Other Titles
3.3 Houses and Contractual Arrangements
3.4 Households and the Family
3.5 Conclusions
4: Social Stratification in First-Century Tebtunis
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Social Groups in Tebtunis
4.2.1 The Priests
4.2.2 The Hellenized Families
4.2.3 Local Population and the Associative Model
4.3 Slaves
4.4 Living Standards
4.5 Conclusions
5: Land, Landowners, and Tenants: The Agricultural Economy
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Land at Tebtunis: An Overview
5.2.1 Public Land
5.2.2 Private Land
5.2.3 Imperial Land
5.2.4 Temple Land
5.3 The Data
5.3.1 Land Transactions: A Close-Up
5.3.2 Land Leases and Leasing Strategies
5.3.3 Leases of Public Land
5.3.4 Leases of Private Land
5.3.5 Leasing Strategies: An Overview
5.4 Landowners and Tenants
5.4.1 Public Tenants and Other Farmers
5.4.2 Private Landowners and Land Management
5.4.3 Imperial Farmers
5.5 Viticulture and Wine Production
5.6 Pastoralism
5.7 Conclusions
6: The Non-Agricultural Economy
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Trades and Occupations
6.2.1 Textile Production and Sale
6.2.2 The Salt-Merchants and the Sale of Salt and Gypsum
6.2.3 Beer Production and Distribution
6.2.4 Papyrus Production and Trade
6.2.5 Oil Production and Distribution
6.2.6 Brickmaking, Carpentry, and Construction
6.2.7 Metalwork: Goldsmiths and Coppersmiths
6.3 Foodstuffs and Food Markets
6.4 Cash Circulation in First-Century Tebtunis
6.5 Conclusions
Conclusions
APPENDIX I: The Grammatikon
APPENDIX II: Nomenclature in the Record-Office Registers
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Village Life in Roman Egypt

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Village Life in Roman Egypt Tebtunis in the First Century  MICAELA LANGELLOTTI

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Micaela Langellotti 2020 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2019945065 ISBN 978–0–19–883531–8 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Preface This book emerged from a project on village economy and society in early Roman Tebtunis, funded by the British Academy. I would like to thank the British Academy for their support and the Department of Classics at King’s College London for hosting me as a Postdoctoral Fellow in the years 2011–2014. I laid the foundation of this book during my Fellowship, working mainly in the library of the Institute of Classical Studies. I am grateful to the library staff for their help over the years and for providing scans of many articles and chapters once I left London. In 2012 I spent a month in the library of the Papyrology Collection at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, working on the unpublished papyri of the archive of the notary Kronion from Tebtunis. I would like to thank Arthur Verhoogt, who gave me permission to work on these documents, and the library staff for supplying high-resolution images and restoring several papyri. Although these documents are not included in the book, they enabled me to get a better understanding of the social and economic framework of first-century Tebtunis. Again in 2012, I spent a week in Egypt, between Cairo, Alexandria, and the Fayum, attending the Winter School in Papyrology organized by Cornelia Römer. It was during this trip that I visited the ancient site of Tebtunis (modern Umm el-Baragat), along with the sites of other Egyptian villages in the Fayum. It was a wonderful experience, which gave me a new perspective on the landscapes which until then I had only known through books and papyri. I thank Cornelia Römer and all the participants for providing a most inspiring environment which allowed us to share ideas about life in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. I had the opportunity to continue working on this book during my time at the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri at the University of California, Berkeley (September 2014–January 2016). I am grateful to Todd Hickey, who hosted me as a Postdoctoral Fellow and provided a stimulating and inspiring research environment. Gabriel Bodard helped me design and create the first database of all the contracts included in the archive of Kronion, thus facilitating the statistical analysis of the data. Laurie Pearce and the staff of the Berkeley Prosopography Services in Berkeley helped me transfer these data into a prosopographical

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

vi



database, which enabled a detailed study of the social and economic actors of Tebtunis. I am immensely grateful to all of them. I would also like to thank my Newcastle colleagues, Simon Corcoran and Federico Santangelo, who were very supportive during the last stages and spent many hours discussing social and legal problems. They read several sections of the book and provided helpful feedback. Heartfelt thanks go to Gabriella Messeri for many years of advice and support. She read the chapter on society and went over the transcriptions of the unedited Michigan papyri with me, generously sharing her unparalleled knowledge of Greek papyri and Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. I am grateful to the many friends and colleagues who shared their ideas and work in advance with me, including Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Matthew Gibbs, Mario C.D. Paganini, David Ratzan, the late Jane Rowlandson, Silvia Strassi, and the late Andrea Zerbini. I presented several sections of this book as preliminary work at various conferences and research seminars in Europe, the USA, and Egypt, and I benefited greatly from the feedback and constructive comments of all the participants. I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to Dominic Rathbone for his continuous guidance and support. Throughout the years he has been exceptionally generous with his time, spending countless hours reading my work and providing the most detailed feedback. He shared with me his exceptional knowledge of the economy and society of the Roman world and pointed me in the right direction when a problem seemed insoluble. I wish to thank Charlotte Loveridge and Jenny King at Oxford University Press, who were extremely helpful at all stages of production, and the anonymous readers for their careful reading of the manuscript and helpful comments on how to improve it. I am also grateful to my proof-reader, Kate Timmers, and copy-editor, Elizabeth Stone, for their invaluable advice. Any remaining errors are my own. I am grateful to Roger Bagnall and Dominic Rathbone who granted permission to reproduce the maps included here. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my husband Dan for his unwavering support over the years and my little girl, Sofia. I dedicate this book to them and to the memory of my friend Andrea.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Contents List of Figures List of Maps List of Tables Note on Abbreviations

ix xi xiii xv

1. Introduction 1.1 Why Tebtunis? 1.2 The Egyptian Evidence and the Typicality of the Fayum 1.3 Tebtunis: The Site 1.4 Aims of the Book 1.5 Chapter Overview

1 1 7 10 23 27

2. The Kronion Archive 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Texts 2.3 The Record-Office in Village Life 2.4 Conclusions

31 31 35 43 53

3. The People of Tebtunis 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Population 3.3 Houses and Contractual Arrangements 3.4 Households and the Family 3.5 Conclusions

56 56 57 86 93 98

4. Social Stratification in First-Century Tebtunis 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Social Groups in Tebtunis 4.3 Slaves 4.4 Living Standards 4.5 Conclusions

102 102 104 126 130 136

5. Land, Landowners, and Tenants: The Agricultural Economy 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Land at Tebtunis: An Overview 5.3 The Data 5.4 Landowners and Tenants 5.5 Viticulture and Wine Production 5.6 Pastoralism 5.7 Conclusions

138 138 140 153 179 188 193 195

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

viii



6. The Non-Agricultural Economy 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Trades and Occupations 6.3 Foodstuffs and Food Markets 6.4 Cash Circulation in First-Century Tebtunis 6.5 Conclusions Conclusions Appendix I: The Grammatikon Appendix II: Nomenclature in the Record-Office Registers Bibliography Index

197 197 198 217 220 222 225 235 241 257 277

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

List of Figures 1.1 and 1.2 Processional way (dromos) of Tebtunis

14

1.3 Lion statue at the entrance of Tebtunis

15 15

1.4 Granary at Tebtunis 1.5 Bath-house at Tebtunis 1.6 Water reservoir at Tebtunis

16 16

2.1 P.Mich. II 123 II recto col. VII Example of Kronion’s handwriting

17 23 32

3.1 Age distribution of contracting parties in the  42 register (P.Mich. II 121 recto)

62

1.7 and 1.8 Houses at Tebtunis 1.9 House size in villages in Roman Egypt

3.2 Age distribution of subscribers 3.3 Number of house-related contracts in the registers of titles 3.4 Distribution of contracts dealing with houses in the registers of titles

62 87

4.1 Family tree of Psuphis, also called Harpokration

88 110

4.2 Family tree of Herakleides the Younger

112

4.3 Family tree of Lusimachos son of Didumos

117

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

List of Maps 1 Map of Egypt 2 Map of Arsinoite nome 3 Plan of Tebtunis

xvi xvii xviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

List of Tables 1.1 Houses at Tebtunis

19

2.1 Contracts and contracting parties

37

3.1 Dowries in  42 and 45–7

73 74

3.2 Female creditors in the registers of contracts 3.4 Data on averages for residence contracts

82 88

3.5 Distribution of loans associated with residence contracts

92

3.3 Persians of the epigone in P.Mich. II 121 ( 42)

4.1 Division of property (diairesis) among Herakleides the Younger’s children (P.Mich. V 326, 6 April  48)

114

4.2 The associations of early Roman Tebtunis

122

4.3 Percentage of people attested in credit agreements

133 133

4.4 Sums attested in credit agreements 5.2 Private landowners

141 145

5.3 Land transactions in the grapheion registers

155

5.4 Size of land plots in the mid-first-century Tebtunis registers

157 159

5.1 Amount of land in the mid-first-century Tebtunis registers

5.5 The leases of the record-office archive A.1 Correlation between grammatikon and type of object

190 236

A.2 Correlation between grammatikon and amount of cash in credit agreements

238

A.3 Correlation between grammatikon and amount of cash in dowry contracts

239

5.6 Vineyards around Tebtunis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Note on Abbreviations Editions of papyri, ostraca, and related works are cited according to the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, which is updated online: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist. html. The following abbreviations are used in this book: ar. = aroura, equivalent to 2,756 m² of land art. = artaba, equivalent to 38.78 litres of dry food dr. = drachma, the normal currency in Roman Egypt ob. = obol, a monetary unit of the drachma tal. = talent, monetary unit

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Mediterranean Paraitonion

Sea

Canopus Alexandria Marina el-Alamein

Sais

WADI NATRUN

SIWA OASIS

Athribis WADI TUMILAT

Babylon

Klysma

Nile

Memphis FAYYUM Arsinoe Herakleopolis Magna

ARABIA PETRAEA

HEPTANOMIA Oxyrhynchos f Bahr Yusu

B A H A R I YA OASIS

Rhinokoloura

Pelousion

Thmouis DE LTA

Naukratis

NA

VIA

IA DR HA

Hermopolis Magna Antinoopolis

EASTERN DE SE RT mons Porphyrites

FA R A F R A OASIS

Lykopolis

L I B YA N DESERT

Aphrodito White Monastery

Tentyra Koptos

Nag Hammadi DAKHLA OASIS

THEBAID KHARGA OASIS

mons Claudianus

Panopolis Ptolemais Hermeiou

Red Myos Hormos

Sea

Thebes (Luxor)

Latopolis (Esna) Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu)

mons Smaragdus

Omboi (Kom Ombo) Syene (Aswan) First Cataract Philae

Berenike

DODEKASCHOINOS N [Hierasykaminos]

[Abu Simbel] Principal quarries Principal desert roads 0

50

100

150

ile N

Lake Nasser

Primis

NUBIA / MEROE

200 km

1. Map of Egypt (From R. Bagnall and D. Rathbone, Egypt from Alexander to the Copts, 2004, Figure 1.2.1)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Qasr es-Sagha Soknopaiou Nesos

Euhemeria

Biahmu

Theadelphia

er

Arsinoe (Medinet el-Fayyum) t ca nal

Hawara

BASIN l GHARAQ des ert canal of Po

Naqlun Gurob

Lahun

on

Shidmoh Guran Narmouthis Kom Nicola/ Kom Madi Is-Haq TUTUN

em

ya

i R a Wa d

Fagg elGamus

Itsa

n

es

d

Kom Hamuli

nal desert ca

Kerke

Nil e

Philoteris

Philadelphia

Wad i Nez la

o f n) aru e L a k irket Q (B

Dionysias

Bacchias

Karanis Moir i s

Magdola

Tebtunis

Beni Suef Herakleopolis Magna

0

5

10

15 km

Deir Samuel (Qalamun)

Bahr Yu su f

N

2. Map of Arsinoite nome (From R. Bagnall and D. Rathbone, Egypt from Alexander to the Copts, 2004, Figure 5.1.1)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Mudbrick tower

VII-IX Century AD house

IX Century AD house

Monastery

Dromos of Soknebtunis

Dromos

Fullery Kiosk

Shops

Private

Lions

houses ‘Insula of the Papyri’

Kiosk Peristyle court Tower house

N

Isis-Thermouthis temple Vestibule

Dromos of Min(?)

Bath Complex Headquarters of Desert Guards Second pylon Temple of Soknebtunis

Waste land 0

100 m

3. Plan of Tebtunis (From R. Bagnall and D. Rathbone, Egypt from Alexander to the Copts, 2004, Figure 5.4.4)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

1 Introduction 1.1 Why Tebtunis? This book is a study of the society and economy of the village of Tebtunis, in the ancient Arsinoite district (modern Fayum) in Egypt, in the first half of the first century . It is primarily based on the evidence provided by the archive of the local notarial office, also known as the grapheion archive of Kronion, from the name of the notary who managed the office for at least 30 years, from  26 to 56, that is during the reigns of the emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero.¹ This is a collection of over 200 texts written on papyrus, which were drawn up at the local record-office in the mid-first century . The largest part is made up of contracts, while the most coherent set of data is provided by three long registers which list day by day the basic details of over 1,100 contracts and other documents drafted in four consecutive months in  42 and in 16 months in  45–6.² The whole of the material provides a broad sample of the economic activities registered in the village, and gives us unique insight into various aspects of village life at a specific time in its history, especially during the years of the emperor Claudius ( 41–54). The registers, in particular, which cover well-defined chronological periods, combined with a number of contemporary full contracts, allow us to investigate the social and economic behaviour of the various social groups living in Tebtunis; they also give us better insight into a number of related questions, such as the role of the family, marriage patterns and strategies, the role of women, slaves, and priests in the contractual economy, and the functions of groups and associations within the local community, and crucially facilitate the identification and study of a village administrative and social elite. From a more strictly economic point of view, the Kronion archive is key to the analysis of agricultural and nonagricultural activities, their role and importance in the village, and their overall impact on the well-being of the local population. ¹ See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of the Kronion archive and the record-office. ² P.Mich. II 121 verso and recto, 123 and V 238. Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

2      A large number of documents has come down to us from early Roman Tebtunis, in Greek as well as demotic, which shed light on a wide range of socio-economic and cultural aspects of the village. When necessary and relevant to our discussion, some of these texts are taken into account and analysed in conjunction with the Kronion documents. The focus of this book remains, however, on the grapheion archive of Kronion. The reason for this is that the archive, on its own, provides a coherent set of socio-economic data related to a circumscribed period of time, allowing the historian to reconstruct a microanalysis of village life. Contracts and registers, as formulaic legal documents, fulfil the criteria which Chris Wickham deems necessary to draw the study of a peasant society: they are in large number (over 1,000 titles, plus full contracts); they relate to the economic activities in which the people of Tebtunis were involved; they give us a large pool of named people in a short period of time; and they often allow us to reconstruct social relations and patterns.³ The two problems which Wickham identifies in the study of legal documents, that they mainly deal with land and often involve aristocrats and not common villagers, do not seem to affect the grapheion archive.⁴ Although the majority of contracts involve land, a considerable number also involves financial transactions, which enables the study of a wide range of social relations. Within this framework and on the basis of the amount of land or money owned, it emerges that people who made contracts belonged to all strata of the population. It is the uniqueness of this type of evidence that warrants a village study of first-century Tebtunis. A number of notarial documents produced at the record-office of other Arsinoite villages have survived, but none of them provides a complete set of data which would enable the reconstruction of village life over a well-defined period of time. An exception is the long register of contracts from Karanis, which W. Graham Claytor is now preparing for publication, but this is dated to the second century .⁵ For the early stages of Roman domination in Egypt the evidence from Tebtunis is particularly valuable, not least because it benefits from a good archaeological context. The only comparable candidate for a village study in this period is the Arsinoite village of Philadelphia, from which the archive of the tax-collector Nemesion survives. This is a group of around 60 documents, including tax registers and private letters, which were produced at the local tax-office (praktoria) under the reigns of Claudius and Nero and whose publication by Ann Hanson is still ongoing. Mostly dated between  47/8 ³ Wickham (2005) 384.

⁴ Wickham (2005) 385.

⁵ Claytor (2013) 80 n. 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



3

and 57/8, during which period Nemesion, son of Zoilos, held the office of poll-tax collector several times, these documents have largely been used to investigate the socio-economic situation of the village, in particular in the  40s, the role of the local administrative elite, matters related to multiculturalism, and other issues regarding taxation.⁶ Why write a village study at all and what does it contribute to our understanding of ancient societies? In striking contrast to medieval history, for which abundant evidence is available on village communities, especially notarial documents and saints’ lives, there is in general a dearth of village studies for the Graeco-Roman antiquity and the many studies of cities ignore the 70 per cent or so of the population who lived outside them.⁷ The main reason for the paucity of research is the lack of evidence surviving from the countryside. The one exception is Egypt from the Ptolemaic to the Fatimid period (III – IX), from which tens of thousands of documentary papyri have survived, of which many come from villages. Notoriously the Arsinoite villages, especially those located along the desert’s edge, have produced the largest amount of data suitable for the study of individual villages. The amount, nature, and state of the evidence varies both geographically and chronologically, thus enabling analyses of different aspects of society and economy for each village. By using land registers dated from 120 to 110 , for example, Dorothy Crawford reconstructed the land tenure of the village of Kerkeosiris, near Tebtunis, and examined the ethnicity of the landowners.⁸ The three tax rolls from Karanis, which record the payments made by the inhabitants of the village between  171 and 175, have allowed Hanna Geremek to examine administration, land and agriculture, and social stratification in the late second century , in a period of economic turmoil following the Antonine Plague (c. 165–80).⁹ Other village studies include those of Soknopaiou Nesos in the early Roman period by Deborah Samuel, Theadelphia in the second century  by Michael Sharp, Philadelphia in the second and third century by Paul Schubert, Jeme in the Late Antique period by Terry Wilfong and more recently by Jennifer Cromwell.¹⁰ Each of these village studies focuses on specific aspects

⁶ Hanson (1979), (1988), (1989), and (1994). Cf. TM Arch ID 149. ⁷ Wickham (2005) 383. ⁸ Crawford (1971); also Verhoogt (1998). ⁹ Geremek (1969). These rolls were found in 1924 in the threshold of a house and were published in two volumes as P.Mich. IV. ¹⁰ Samuel (1981); Hobson (1984); Sharp (1999); Schubert (2007); Wilfong (2002); Cromwell (2017). See also Uytterhoeven (2009) and Berkes (2017).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

4      of economy and society at particular times, unveiling a wide range of issues from population (Soknopaiou Nesos, Karanis) and social and agricultural relations (Kerkeosiris, Karanis, Theadelphia, and Philadelphia), to the role of women (Soknopaiou Nesos, Jeme), to taxation and administration (Jeme, Karanis). One of the aims of this book is to complement the discussions offered in existing village studies by offering a snapshot of village life in firstcentury Tebtunis which can be used to test general theories of changes and continuity from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period and from the Roman period to Late Antiquity, but also as a starting point for a broader study of village societies across the centuries. The analysis of land tenure, discussed in Chapter 5, provides an element of comparison to examine the differences in landholding patterns between Ptolemaic Kerkeosiris and early Roman Tebtunis, located in the same area of the Fayum region, shedding light on the changes that were implemented under Roman rule. Chapter 5 also includes a study of agriculture and agricultural relations, which is informed by the contemporary evidence from other Arsinoite villages, such as Theadelphia (viticulture), and from the Delta region, which allows us to sketch out a more comprehensive scenario of land tenure and social relations in Egypt and identify the reasons for the administrative choices implemented by the Romans in the different regions of the province. In Chapter 3 Crawford’s onomastic study of Kerkeosiris’ landowners will be contrasted with the onomastic analysis of the people who made contracts in Tebtunis. Since in Egypt names were mainly associated with a deity, this comparison reveals the popularity of particular cults as well as the introduction or disappearance of other cults in the period from the second century  to the first century , thus highlighting the development of religious and cultural preferences, among the Fayum population, for Egyptian, Greek, or Graeco-Egyptian gods in the transition from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period. This onomastic study also takes into account the results of the onomastic study carried out for Soknopaiou Nesos in the same period, offering a broader view of the diverse cultural framework which was in place in different areas of the Fayum region, and the reasons behind this. Again in Chapter 3, the investigation of the role of women is informed by the contemporary evidence from Soknopaiou Nesos and by the eighthcentury evidence from Jeme in southern Egypt. Women participated in the contractual economy of early Roman Tebtunis in a variety of roles, not only as sole parties, but also together with their male relatives and as consenting wives. By examining their role and activities in the community,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



5

this book offers a basis to compare the position of women in Egyptian villages in the Roman and Late Antique periods. The archive of Aristophanes son of John from eighth-century Jeme is used in Chapter 2 to compare the prominent role which professional scribes, such as Aristophanes in Jeme, and notaries, such as Kronion in Tebtunis, held in their respective communities during periods of administrative changes—from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period in the case of Kronion, and from the Byzantine to the Islamic period in the case of Aristophanes. The study of the population of Tebtunis and its economic activities, with a particular regard to crafts and trades in Chapters 3 and 6 respectively, will be compared with the relevant analyses carried out for second-century Karanis. Karanis and Tebtunis, both Arsinoite villages, shared a number of common features—population size, administrative framework, some economic activities, and religious practices—and the evidence for each inevitably complements the other, illustrating the ways in which village life in the Arsinoite might have changed from the previous century, when Roman rule was still consolidating. The socio-economic and administrative trends of village life in firstcentury Tebtunis can also be compared more broadly with aspects of rural society in the Pharaonic as well as in the post-Roman periods. The evidence for the Pharaonic period is very scanty, and the best-documented village community is Deir el-Medina, a settlement located near modern Luxor, residence of those who worked in the royal tombs during the New Kingdom (1310–1080 ). Despite the common belief that Deir el-Medina was an anomalous settlement, especially in terms of economic activities and relationship with the central government, some scholars have recently suggested that its internal social relations were not unlike those of other settlements, so that it can be used as a model for the sociology of the villages in Pharaonic times, though as a model for agriculture.¹¹ The surviving evidence (mainly ostraca) shed light on a number of aspects of village life, including organization of work, economy, social stratification, and religion, which allow us to identify some elements of continuity and disruption over the centuries.¹² In this book particular attention will be given to the contact between villagers and government officials (Chapter 2), the role of women (Chapter 3), the occupational structure and attitude of the villagers to various economic activities, social mobility, and the role of hereditary ¹¹ For example, McDowell (1994) and Meskell (2002) 38. ¹² Eyre (1999); Lesko (1994); Meskell (2002).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

6      occupations (Chapter 6). Although Pharaonic Deir el-Medina and Roman Tebtunis were very different from historical and geographical perspectives, it is possible to identify some common trends, such as village solidarity and economic resourcefulness, which appear to be typical of village life in Egypt across the centuries. As noted above, the evidence available for village life in the post-Roman periods is much more abundant, including archives, dossiers, and other documentary texts, as shown by the study of Karanis and Theadelphia in the fourth century, Aphrodito in the sixth century, and, as mentioned earlier, Jeme in the seventh and eight centuries. The archive of Aurelius Isidoros son of Ptolemaios from Karanis and that of Aurelius Sakaon from Theadelphia shed light on issues such as landholding, farming, and occupational structure.¹³ For Aphrodito, in the middle of the Nile Valley, the best evidence is provided by the sixth-century archive of the landowner Flavius Dioskoros son of Apollos, which deals with landholding and farming as well as taxation and administrative matters.¹⁴ From Jeme the documentation at our disposal is particularly large, including the above mentioned archive of Aristophanes as well as a considerable number of various administrative texts in Greek, Coptic, and Arabic. The papyrological evidence sheds light on the transition from the Byzantine to the Islamic period, showing that in the first 50 years of Arab rule the Muslim presence was very limited in the villages as little administrative change was implemented. Continuity between the Byzantine and the Arab periods in the socio-economic setup of the Egyptian countryside has been attributed to an intentional policy of the new rulers of not disrupting a well-established system, at least for the first few decades; a more centralized Muslim control is attested in the second 50 years.¹⁵ Similarly, the first-century Kronion archive illuminates aspects of administration and society in a village around 60 years after the Roman conquest, again a period of transition. The Kronion archive suggests that, by this time, many Roman policies and administrative practices were implemented in villages. The evidence from Jeme also contributes to the discussion about the peculiarity of the Fayum and to the question, discussed in Section 1.2, as to whether and how far this district was representative of Egypt more generally.

¹³ Bagnall (1993a) 110–47. See TM Arch ID 34 for the archive of Isidoros and TM Arch ID 206 for the archive of Sakaon. ¹⁴ TM Arch ID 72. See, in particular, MacCoull (1981) and Fournet (2008). ¹⁵ Sijpesteijn (2013) 81–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



7

Other studies that have used the documentary evidence from Egypt to examine broadly aspects of rural life and socio-economic changes are those by Jane Rowlandson on land tenure in the Oxyrhynchite nome during the Roman period; by Livia Capponi and Andrew Monson, who examine elements of changes and continuity in the society, economy, and administration of Egypt in the transitional period from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period; and by Katherine Blouin, who, by combining written evidence and archaeological material and adopting an environmental approach, investigates the socio-economic policies in the Nile Delta region in the second century , with a focus on landholding and agriculture.¹⁶ This material provides an excellent basis for a comparison with the socio-economic situation in first-century Tebtunis, highlighting elements of continuity and discontinuity in the occupational makeup (Chapter 6), landowning structure (Chapter 5) and level of administrative independence (Conclusions) in the Egyptian villages from the early Roman to the early Arab period, and shedding light on differences and analogies between the Fayum and other Egyptian regions, especially in terms of land tenure and agriculture (Chapter 5). The broader historical context for this chronological span is overall well documented, thus giving us better insight into some of the changes that were implemented over eight centuries in the Egyptian countryside and the probable reasons behind them.

1.2 The Egyptian Evidence and the Typicality of the Fayum Even though the Egyptian evidence offers the historian the opportunity to examine numerous aspects of rural life, the question of the validity of the Egyptian papyri to illuminate socio-economic and political phenomena of Roman imperial history remains a matter of debate. Traditionally Egypt has been regarded as an ‘atypical’ Roman province for two main reasons. First, it was governed by an equestrian prefect and not by a senator; in fact, no senator could enter the province without permission of the emperor. Second, the cities of Egypt, with the exception of Naukratis and possibly Ptolemais, were not granted a council (boule) until  200, under the emperor Septimius Severus, meaning that officially they did not have the

¹⁶ Rowlandson (1996); Capponi (2005); Monson (2012); Blouin (2014).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

8      same self-administrative competence which the cities in the western provinces enjoyed.¹⁷ As a consequence of these apparent anomalies, the value of the Egyptian evidence to understand Roman administrative and political policies has been somewhat underestimated. This conservative trend purporting the atypicality of Egypt has now been challenged, and the 1992 article by Alan Bowman and Dominic Rathbone represents a fundamental landmark within this debate.¹⁸ The two scholars argued that ‘a process of municipalization was definitely and deliberately begun in the Augustan period with the creation of urban communities with ‘Hellenic’ landowning elites, who were put in a position of privilege and power over the ‘Egyptian’ population and given forms of communal self-administration, and that these communities, despite their lack of councils and of the duties of providing local justice and of collecting direct taxes on land, were increasingly allowed and encouraged to behave and function like the older Greek cities in other provinces’.¹⁹ The general value of the papyri is not confined to administration, but involves the economy too. Roger Bagnall pointed out how the papyri bear on major issues in the study of the Roman economy.²⁰ Recent studies have convincingly argued that the systematic analysis of the papyrological evidence can, and does, contribute to our understanding of the history of the Mediterranean as a whole.²¹ The bottom line of these studies is the recognised ‘individuality of all provinces’.²² There was not one way to create and maintain a Roman province; instead, the Romans adopted a variety of strategies in order to administer their new territories. The ultimate goal was the socio-economic and political stability of the newly created provinces, which was at the core of an efficient taxation system. Indeed a main concern of the Romans was to guarantee a well-functioning system for the collection of the poll-tax (in Egypt laographia) and other taxes. Thus in Egypt the new rulers introduced a number of socio-economic and administrative changes which contributed to the promotion of a more open and free market and the favouring of local self-administrative bodies. Within this context, the present study represents a further attempt to demonstrate the general value of the Egyptian evidence to

¹⁷ Tac., Histories I. 11. ¹⁸ On this debate see Lewis (1970) and (1984); Geraci (1983), (1989) and (1994); Bowman and Rathbone (1992); Rathbone (1993) and (2013b); Bagnall (2005); Capponi (2005); Jördens (2009) 9–58; Monson (2012). ¹⁹ Bowman and Rathbone (1992) 108. ²⁰ Bagnall (2005), esp. 188. ²¹ See, for example, Bagnall (1995), esp. 90–108, Capponi (2005) and Monson (2012). ²² Rathbone (1989) 161.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



9

improve our understanding of socio-economic, administrative, and political phenomena in the Roman imperial period. Another important question to consider when studying village life in Tebtunis is to what extent the Fayum was representative of Egypt as a whole. A natural depression located around 80 miles south-west of Cairo, the Fayum was connected to the Nile through an artificial canal called Bahr Yusuf, which required the establishment and maintenance of a complex system of irrigation, as opposed to the Nile Valley, which was irrigated naturally during the annual Nile flood.²³ The Fayum was not unique in this respect; the Delta region, due to the presence of extensive marshes, also had to undergo significant drainage.²⁴ The geographical peculiarity of the Fayum is reflected in the administration of its territory, whereby three separate districts (merides) were in place, each governed by a strategos: Herakleides, Themistos, and Polemon, where Tebtunis is located. Microregional diversity is well attested in this area. Villages located on the margins, such as Tebtunis, were drier as they were more difficult to irrigate due to their high terrain, whereas villages located in the central plain were well-watered and therefore more fertile.²⁵ The majority of Fayum villages were Ptolemaic foundations, where Greek settlers were granted land in the third century , which promoted a process of amalgamation between Greek and Egyptian cultures. By the early Roman period the level of Hellenization across the region was uneven, with some villages more Hellenized than others (see Chaps. 3 and 4). Indeed, on the basis of the Karanis evidence, Roger Bagnall suggested that ‘the villages of the Fayum in the Roman period came to resemble typical Egyptian villages more than they had under the Ptolemies’.²⁶ The available evidence shows that in the early Roman period the Fayum was well-integrated into the new Roman administrative system, despite the existence of points of difference with other districts. The first-century Kronion archive, in particular, shows that Tebtunis functioned, at an administrative and socio-economic level, in the same way as any other Egyptian settlement with similar characteristics (e.g. Philadelphia).²⁷ In the Islamic period, too, the Fayum was administratively integrated into the rest of Egypt, thus reflecting the same socio-economic and political situation as elsewhere in the region.²⁸ ²³ On the administration and geography of the Fayum in the Roman period see Derda (2006); also Sijpesteijn (2013) 26–32. ²⁴ Monson (2012) 50. ²⁵ Haug (2015) 61–62. ²⁶ Bagnall (1993a) 111. ²⁷ See Chs. 2–3. ²⁸ Sijpesteijn (2013) 31–32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

10

    

1.3 Tebtunis: The Site The site of Tebtunis (modern Umm el-Baragat) lies in the south-west Arsinoite, some 100 kilometres south of Cairo. This was one of the new Ptolemaic developments in the area, expanding a previous Pharaonic temple settlement dated to the twelfth dynasty (1800 ).²⁹ The site has produced an exceptionally high number of texts written on papyrus, mainly Greek documents of the late Ptolemaic and Roman periods, including several archives which contribute to our knowledge and understanding of village life, and ostraca.³⁰ The bulk of the documents is dated to the second century , largely because of the material found in the ‘cantina dei papiri’ (cellar compartment of papyri) in 1934 by Achille Vogliano.³¹ In the basement of a private house the Italian scholar discovered an enormous amount of papyri, now believed to be around 750, including three family dossiers: the archive of Kronion son of Keos, the archive of the descendants of Patron, and the archive of the descendants of Pakebkis.³² Each of these groups provides valuable information about the social conditions and economic arrangements of different social strata of the Tebtunis population. In particular, the Kronion archive relates to the activities of a family of small farmers, who leased land from landowners of Hellenic descent resident in the metropolis, but also owned land themselves.³³ Some of these Hellenic landowners are known from another contemporary archive as the descendants of Patron, who represented the other side of village society, that is a wealthy family from the metropolis who had several business interests in the countryside.³⁴ Finally the archive of the descendants of Pakebkis attests the pursuits of a family of rich farmers involved in leasing land from several inhabitants of the region’s district capital.³⁵

²⁹ Rathbone (2001) 1111–12; Bagnall and Rathbone (2004) 145. ³⁰ Begg (1998). ³¹ Clarysse (2005) 25 shows in graph 3 that the majority of the papyrological evidence from Tebtunis is dated between  100 and 175. ³² For Bagnani’s report see P.Mil.Vogl. I p. XV–XVII. On the ‘cantina dei papiri’ see Gallazzi (1990) and Begg (1998) 195–210. The ‘cantina’ (cellar compartment) was originally believed to be a storage room for old family papers, but Gallazzi suggested that it was instead a deposit of useless material to be discarded. ³³ For the edition and commentary of the texts belonging to the archive of Kronion son of Cheos (TM Arch ID 125) see Foraboschi (1971); see Kehoe (1992) 149–58 and Rowlandson (1998) 125–33. ³⁴ On the archive of the descendants of Patron (TM Arch ID 66), originally known as the Laches archive, see W. Bagnall (1973) and more recently Kehoe (1992) 74–92. ³⁵ Clarysse and Gallazzi (1993) for a discussion on the name of the archive. The 20 or so documents belonging to the archive of the descendants of Pakebkis (TM Arch ID 64) have not yet received a comprehensive study, but connections between this archival group and the contemporary archive of Kronion have been suggested; cf. P.Kron. p. XIX n. 7 and P.Mich. XV 694 n. 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



11

Another significant finding of the 1930s was the ‘family archive’, a collection of over 50 texts related to the activities of a wealthy family which covers a period of about 200 years, from the late first century to the early third century ; unfortunately the archaeological context of this discovery is not known.³⁶ Tebtunis has also produced a large number of literary texts and other documents written in demotic. In a 1998 article Peter van Minnen estimated that 94 out of the 294 Greek literary texts from the Arsinoite district come from Tebtunis, which means over 30 per cent of the surviving literary papyri.³⁷ The demotic material represents a small percentage of the overall papyrological evidence, but it is to be noted that a large number of texts, of both Ptolemaic and early Roman periods, is still unpublished.³⁸ In this context we must mention the so-called ‘temple library’, recently renamed ‘temple deposit’, a cache of thousands of fragments found in one of the houses located within the precinct (temenos) of the temple of Soknebtunis, the local version of Sobek, the Arsinoite crocodile god, which means ‘Souchos lord of Tunis’.³⁹ Most of these papyri still await publication.⁴⁰ Traditionally believed to have been part of the temple library, these texts, which for the most part are dated to the first and second centuries , provide exceptional evidence for studying the development of the Egyptian culture in light of the influence of Greek and Roman traditions as of the first century .⁴¹ Papyrological evidence from Tebtunis and referring to Tebtunis becomes scarce towards the end of the third century , which seems to suggest that the village was then abandoned.⁴² However, archaeological remains of later periods, especially Christian buildings, now confirm that Tebtunis was not deserted, but moved two miles north and north-east to a site renamed Tutun and was inhabited until the eleventh century.⁴³ ³⁶ P.Fam.Tebt. SB XIV 13555 and PSI XII 1227 are also part of the archive. ³⁷ Van Minnen (1998) 114. ³⁸ According to a provisional count provided by Clarysse (2005) 26–7 the proportion of demotic papyri from Tebtunis would amount to just over 10 per cent. ³⁹ Rondot (2004) 31–2. ⁴⁰ Ryolt (2005) and (2012). TM Arch ID 537. ⁴¹ According to the most recent estimate by Ryholt, 63 per cent of the literary texts are in demotic, 32 per cent in hieratic, and only a very limited percentage in hieroglyphic (4 per cent) and Greek (1 per cent). ⁴² Clarysse (2005) 26. ⁴³ Tebtunis is attested as ‘Teptunis’ in documents of the seventh and eighth centuries (mainly village registers). Later evidence dated to the ninth and tenth centuries refers to its Coptic name, Touton, and to the Arabic name, Tutun. See Keenan (2003) 129–37; also van Minnen (1998) 179 and Clarysse (2005) 20–1 and 26. It has been suggested that in the fifth century Tebtunis, renamed Theodosiopolis, became the capital of the Theodosiopolite nome (old Polemon meris); CPR XIV, pp. 41–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

12

    

The ancient site of Tebtunis has produced not only papyri, but also an impressive amount of archaeological material; indeed the Graeco-Roman area represents one of the best preserved in Egypt. Excavations in Tebtunis started in 1899, when Oxford scholars Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt led a three-month mission from December 1899 to March 1900 on behalf of the University of California at Berkeley, with the declared purpose of finding papyri.⁴⁴ Among the texts recovered is the archive of Menches, the village scribe of the nearby village of Kerkeosiris, dated to the second century .⁴⁵ Between 1929 and 1935 Tebtunis was excavated by two Italian teams, both from Milan, one on behalf of the Università Regia, the other on behalf of the Università Statale.⁴⁶ Since 1988 excavations of the site have been carried out by the joint mission of the University of Milan and the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO). The material unearthed so far has been published in five volumes which examine the temple and its processional way, the houses in the temple area, and the pottery.⁴⁷ The excavations have revealed a plan of the site which was dominated by the temple of Soknebtunis; the whole complex is oriented towards the north, and the village itself developed on the northern and eastern side of the temple, while to the south of the temple was the necropolis.⁴⁸ Of the temple itself, built in the fourth or third century , probably under the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, only a few remains are left, including the base of the enclosure wall.⁴⁹ In the surrounding area a dining room (deipneterion) and priestly lodgings were also found. A processional way, or dromos, 210 metres long connected the village entrance, located to the north, where the bases of a pair of lion statues are still visible, to the temple area to the south (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). This is, together with the dromos of Narmouthis, the best-preserved processional ⁴⁴ P.Tebt. I, pp. v–x; II, pp. v–vi. For an overview of the archaeological excavations at Tebtunis since 1899 see Davoli (1998) 179–96 and Gallazzi and Hadji–Minaglou (2000) 1–34. ⁴⁵ Verhoogt (1998). ⁴⁶ Davoli (1998) 180–87 and Begg (1998). The concession of the Università Regia was held first by Evaristo Breccia, then by Carlo Anti. Between 1933 and 1935 the de facto director of the excavations was Gilberto Bagnani, who worked on behalf of Anti. The team of the Università Statale di Milano, led by Achille Vogliano, excavated the site in 1934 and 1935; however, Bagnani also collaborated with Anti in previous years: Gallazzi (2003). ⁴⁷ Gallazzi and Hadji–Minaglou (2000); Rondot (2004); Litinas (2008); Hadji–Minaglou (2007); and Ballet and Południkiewicz (2012). ⁴⁸ Clarysse (2005) 20; Frankfurter (1998) 99–100, 159. Also Rondot (2004) 9. ⁴⁹ Rondot (2004) 10 noted that the temples of Tebtunis and Soknopaiou Nesos are the only ones for which the enclosure walls are still partly preserved. For a detailed description of the Tebtunis temple complex see Rondot (2004) 9–143, in particular on its date of construction 142–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



13

way of the Arsinoite temples.⁵⁰ The Tebtunis dromos was flanked by five pairs of lions and sphynxes, of which only one is still standing (Figure 1.3), two kiosks (one Ptolemaic, one Roman), four altars, and dining rooms (deipneteria), the place where members of associations would meet regularly for their social gatherings.⁵¹ The Roman kiosk, in particular, is the best preserved monument in Tebtunis, even though it has been suggested that its construction was never completed.⁵² Like the Ptolemaic kiosk, it has eight columns, of which two are at the front; two lion statues are still standing in the south courtyard, oriented, like the temple of Soknebtunis, towards the north. In the proximity of the Roman kiosk another dromos intersected the main dromos. This was a decumanus, that is an east-west oriented road, flanked by at least five deipneteria and a fullery.⁵³ The function of this processional way is still unclear, although it has been suggested that it served to connect the temple of Soknebtunis to the cemetery of the sacred crocodiles, the Soucheion.⁵⁴ Along the main dromos we find a number of buildings, which have been identified as workshops, retail shops and food stalls where the inhabitants of Tebtunis could do their daily shopping. To the east of the temple of Soknebtunis recent excavations have unearthed a number of houses and a police station for the desert guards (eremophulakes).⁵⁵ In the area to the west of the dromos we find public buildings, including a granary (thesauros) (Figure 1.4), a bath-house (Figure 1.5) and water reservoir (Figure 1.6), a covered market dated to the second century , and some large houses (Figures 1.7 and 1.8). In 1935 Gilbert Bagnani believed to have identified one of these houses with the local record-office; however, Claudio Gallazzi has pointed out that there is no solid evidence to make this identification.⁵⁶ This area has been very prolific in papyri and therefore renamed ‘insula dei papiri’ (the block of the papyri). It is in one of these buildings that the ‘cantina dei papiri’ was found. To the south were two tower-houses and other agricultural buildings, including small granaries.

⁵⁰ Rondot (2004) 145. ⁵¹ Davoli (1998) 183, Bagnall and Rathbone (2004) 149, and Rondot (2004) 145–7 and 150–2. Rondot (2004) 145 pointed out that although the altars and dining rooms ‘forment un ensemble architectural cohérent’ (‘constitute a coherent architectural system’), they were built at different stages—the Augustan altars, the dining rooms in the second century . On the role and nature of the Tebtunis associations see discussions in Chapters 4.2.3 and 6.2. ⁵² Rondot (2004) 159–73 and 288 (photographs 144 and 145). ⁵³ Davoli (1998) 187; Rondot (2004) 184–7. ⁵⁴ Bagnani (1935) 379. ⁵⁵ Hadji–Minaglou (2007). An analysis of these houses can be found in Chapter 1.3.1. ⁵⁶ Bagnani (1935) 384–5 and Gallazzi (1989) 190 n. 23 and (1990).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

14

    

Figures 1.1 and 1.2 Processional way (dromos) of Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



Figure 1.3 Lion statue at the entrance of Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

Figure 1.4 Granary at Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

16

    

Figure 1.5 Bath-house at Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

Figure 1.6 Water reservoir at Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



Figures 1.7 and 1.8 Houses at Tebtunis (© M. Langellotti)

17

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

18

    

Near the main temple is a columned courtyard, which it has been suggested was part of the headquarters of an association.⁵⁷ The temple of Soknebtunis was not the only shrine of the village. Adjacent was the temple of Isis-Themouthis, and another dromos eastward from the main temple allegedly led to the temple of Osiris (or Min), which has not been found.⁵⁸ Reference to other shrines can be found in the papyrological evidence, including that of Sokopichonsis, of Herakles Kallinikos, and of Thoth (the Greek Hermes).⁵⁹

1.3.1 Houses: The Archaeological Record In this section the archaeological record for houses at Tebtunis is used to investigate types and architectural forms. The results are compared with the data we have for other two Fayum villages—Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos.⁶⁰ Thirteen houses dated to the Roman period have been excavated so far in Tebtunis, of which three are located in the area of the temple of Isis– Thermouthis, and ten in the area of the temple complex of Soknebtunis, suggesting that these may have been the residences of priestly families (Table 1.1).⁶¹ Due to their limited number, it is not possible to establish how far the excavated houses were representative of the whole village residential pattern. It is to be noted, however, that all the houses were built in mud-bricks, mostly over two storeys, as was common for village houses in the Fayum, and, as noted by Crawford, ‘were oriented to provide protection against the prevailing north-east winds.’⁶² Compared to the houses of the late Ptolemaic period, those of the Roman period displayed a more varied plan; the number of rooms on the ground floor varied from two to three, with the room by the main entrance being the biggest, as it was probably used to receive guests.⁶³ The staircase leading to the first floor was normally located in a corner of the house. With one

⁵⁷ Bagnall and Rathbone (2004) 150. ⁵⁸ Bagnall and Rathbone (2004) 150. ⁵⁹ Rathbone (2003). ⁶⁰ Davoli (1998). Cf. for Karanis Boak and Peterson (1931) and Husselman (1979); for Soknopaiou Nesos see Boak (1935). ⁶¹ Gallazzi and Minaglou (2000) and Hadji–Minaglou (2007). ⁶² Crawford (1971) 46–47. Cf. Huebner (2013) 39–41. For a detailed description of the interior of three houses in Tebtunis see Montevecchi (1941) 114–16. In general on houses in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt see Nowicka (1969) and Husson (1983). On brick making see Chapter 6.2.6. ⁶³ For a comparison with houses in the Pharaonic period see Meskell (2002) 40–44.

Table 1.1 Houses at Tebtunis House No.*

Location

Area

Rooms no.

Date

Plan

Description

1

5000

Isis temple

91 m²

2

 I

Rectangular

2

1100

Isis temple

82.32 m²

2

I –early  III

Rectangular

3

3000-II

Isis temple

40.5 m²

2

I –middle  II

Rectangular

4

5300-II

Temple of Soknebtunis

70 m²

2

I 

Rectangular

2 big rooms (not communicating) 1 entrance hall: 2.25 × 2.85 m Corridor Court Staircase 2-storey 2 entrances: one south into a hall (3.10 × 2.80 m)—one north into a corridor. 1 staircase. A: square, 3.10 m, 3 alcoves B: rect. 2.75 × 3.15 m, 3 alcoves 1-storey? Hall Staircase Cellar 2-storey? 2 rooms Staircase Court Corridor Cellar in basement 4.90 × 2.50 m (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 30/12/2019, SPi

No.

Table 1.1 Continued No.

House No.*

Location

Area

Rooms no.

Date

Plan

6300-II

Temple of Soknebtunis

73 m²

3

I 

Trapezium

6

5200-II

Temple of Soknebtunis

63.9 m²

2

I 

Rectangular

7

2400-III

Temple of Soknebtunis

214,65 m²

6

Augustan period

Rectangular

8

4200-II

Temple of Soknebtunis

54.39 m²

3

II  after  134

Rectangular

Built with care L-plan 2 parts: main house 7.20–7.28 × 7.20–7.78 m court 2.15–2.03 × 6.56–6.60 m 2-storey? 3 rooms 1 staircase Hall 2 cellars First floor for storage Main residence: 8.35–8.10 × 5.80–6.10 m Court: 2.90–3.10 × 5.30–5.15 m 2-storey 2 rooms 1 staircase Cistern: bathtub? 3-storey? 2 entrances 3 cellars Staircase Main residence: 5.20 × 8 m Court: 2.40–3.10 × 5.00–5.30 m 2-storey 3 rooms Staircase Hall

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

5

Description

3100-II

Temple of Soknebtunis

c.67.07 m²

3

II 

Rectangular

10

2100-III

Temple of Soknebtunis

69.6 m²

3

II 

Trapezium

11

1200

Temple of Soknebtunis

Unknown

2

II 

Trapezium

12

3200-III

Temple of Soknebtunis

27.95 m²

4

II 

Trapezium

13

5400-III

37.3 m²

2

II 

Rectangular

* House numbers as found in Hadji–Minaglou (2007).

Main residence: 6.85-6.55 × 8.05–8.10 m (ext) Court: 2.10 × 6.70 m (int) Court divided into 2 2-storey 3 rooms Staircase 2-storey 3 rooms Court: 4.45 × 2m Staircase Extension of 3200-III The two houses can function independently Court Main residence: 8.90-9.04 × 10.67–11.68m Court (with an open space and a room): 2.50 × 11.80 m Staircase Stairs communicating with 1200 1-storey 2 rooms Staircase

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

9

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

22

    

exception (no. 10), courtyards were not included in the main building and were usually located at the back of the house, away from the main entrance.⁶⁴ Courtyards, which could be shared between two or more houses, were the space where communal life took place, serving as kitchen, but also as stable for animals.⁶⁵ A new architectural feature of the Roman period was an increase in the use of corridors, which gave ground floor rooms independent access to the courtyard. Many houses had cellars in the basement, and room for storage on the first floor and under the staircase. With the exception of three houses (nos. 1, 7, 12), which were considerably bigger than the others, the mean area of the houses at ground level was 62.2 m², and the median area 65.8 m². At Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos the average size of the excavated houses falls within the same range—the mean area of the Karanis houses was 75.2 m², while the median area was 70 m²; the Soknopaiou Nesos houses are slightly smaller, with a mean area of 58.7 m² and a median area of 49 m² (Figure 1.9).⁶⁶ The three biggest houses unearthed in the village, nos. 1, 7, and 12, require a closer look. House no. 1, in the quarter of Isis–Thermouthis, exhibits a distinctive architectural plan (91.2 m² without the courtyard).⁶⁷ An entrance hall gave access to two unusually large rooms, independent from one another. It has been noted that access to the ground floor was relatively easy, which seems to point to a frequent use of the cellars. The unusually large size of this house suggests that at least two households dwelled in it, as confirmed by the fact that the two main rooms on the ground floor were not adjoining. As a consequence, the people of this house would have shared the entrance hall and courtyard, and would have had communal access to the cellars, but would have also enjoyed their own private space. House no. 7 (216.24 m²), in the vicinity of the temple of Soknebtunis, was a tower-house (purgos), built during the Augustan period, probably of three storeys.⁶⁸ It had two entrances and six rooms, one being an entrance hall and two serving for storage. The amount of room reserved for storage (three cellars and two rooms on the ground ⁶⁴ For a more detailed description of the common features of Roman houses at Tebtunis see Hadji–Minaglou (2007) 178–98. Hobson (1985) 215 pointed out that the description of the houses at Bakchias, given by Grenfell and Hunt, fits well with a description of the modern Egyptian peasants’ houses offered by Bayad. On the question of continuity in Egyptian rural history see Mitchell (2002) 104–26, who illustrates how ‘the notion of a village life unchanged in sixty centuries is, of course, a complete fiction’ (p. 107). ⁶⁵ Huebner (2013) 41. ⁶⁶ Alston (1997) 28 and Hobson (1985) 215–16. ⁶⁷ Gallazzi–Minaglou (2000) 65–82. ⁶⁸ Hadji–Minaglou (2007) 139–47. For tower-houses see Preisigke (1919); Grimal (1939) 43–6; Nowicka (1972); and Marchi (ed.) (2014), in particular the contribution by Hadji– Minaglou.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 75.2

80 70

62.2

70 65.8 58.7

60 Values in m2

23

49

50 40 30 20 10 0 Mean area Tebtunis

Karanis

Median area Soknopaiou Nesos

Figure 1.9 House size in villages in Roman Egypt.

floor) fits the hypothesis that this type of building was associated with agricultural activities and used for the storage of equipment and produce.⁶⁹ After the purgos, the biggest house so far known at Tebtunis is no. 12 (130.5 m²), also located near the temple of Soknebtunis.⁷⁰ It has four rooms and an oblong open-air courtyard at the back where a stairway leads to a small house (no. 11).⁷¹ It has been suggested that the two houses were occupied by members of the same family, and that the small house was built in consequence of an extension of the principal family.⁷² Another possibility is that the small house was occupied by the slaves of the household living in no. 12. The variety of plans exhibited by the 13 excavated houses of Tebtunis is likely to have reflected the wider residential pattern in the village.⁷³

1.4 Aims of the Book The primary aim of this book is to offer a detailed village study for the first century , that is a ‘microhistory’ for a period of transition during which a

⁶⁹ Alston (1997) 29. ⁷⁰ Hadji–Minaglou (2007) 117–26. ⁷¹ Hadji–Minaglou (2007) 92–3. ⁷² Hadji–Minaglou (2007) 124. ⁷³ Against the abuse of house typologies in archaeology see Boozer (2015), who suggests that ‘ambiguity, heterogeneity, and complexity in archaeological interpretations has real advantages for understanding the past and it also enables us to work more proactively with typologies’ (p. 105).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

24

    

relatively wide range of social, administrative, and economic changes took place in the passage from Ptolemaic to Roman rule. Microhistory focuses on the experience of individuals in a specific place over a circumscribed period of time. Although scholars have applied different approaches to the construction of microhistories over the last three decades, the general consensus holds that microanalyses are able to shed light on the agency of past individuals as well as answer questions about broader historical structures.⁷⁴ In other words, by conducting a microscopic investigation within a limited timeframe, microhistory attempts to provide a realistic account of people’s experiences and to unveil the way in which these individuals saw themselves, helping us answer greater historical questions (determined by contingent social and cultural factors). Although it is debated whether people’s experiences can be regarded as a reflection of large-scale phenomena, it is generally agreed that a microhistory must be provided with a broader historical context in order to allow interpretation of the complex relations between individuals and their society.⁷⁵ A microhistory can be reconstructed by using the direct testimony of the people involved as well as indirect evidence.⁷⁶ To satisfy its primary aim, this book provides a microanalysis of people’s lives in mid-first century Tebtunis by using the grapheion archive of the notary Kronion. Since it is mainly made up of contracts and administrative documents, the archive does not offer the personal insights of the villagers. It allows us, however, to explore Kronion’s complex net of relations, which sheds light not only on his life and work but also on the broader historical context of his society, a product of the early Roman domination in Egypt. The Kronion archive also informs us about the way in which the people of Tebtunis interacted with one another, including the elite, from economic and social perspectives. Contracts may show, for example, how some individuals tried to enhance their prestige and social networks through marriage, by becoming a member of an association, or by taking up a specific administrative role or profession. Even though we are not able to illuminate the meanings which the people of Tebtunis attributed to their lives and society, we are still able to provide a fair reconstruction of village life and acquire insight into the way in which villagers lived during the period ⁷⁴ While Italian microhistory focuses on general phenomena tested on the experience of individuals, Anglo-Saxon microhistory focuses on agency. Magnússon and Szijártó (2013) 29–30, 75; also Levi (1991). ⁷⁵ Magnússon and Szijártó (2013) 65, 148–9. ⁷⁶ Magnússon and Szijártó (2013) 154.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



25

of transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule, thus shedding light on the broader historical context of early Roman Egypt. How far the case of Tebtunis can be considered representative of the whole province is a question that must remain open for the time being, but that will be addressed throughout the book. A model for this study is the microhistory of the Occitan village of Montaillou, in the south of France, by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.⁷⁷ By using the inquisition register of the bishop Jacques Fournier (future Pope Benedict XII), Ladurie reconstructed in great detail the everyday lives of the villagers over a period of 30 years, from 1294 to 1324, while examining the tension between the Cathar heresy, of which Montaillou was the last bastion, and Catholicism. Another study from which this book draws inspiration is the investigation of villages in Brittany, a region in the north of France, in the early Middle Ages by Wendy Davies.⁷⁸ Based on the analysis of a collection of charters from the monastery of Redon, near modern Rennes, dated between the ninth and the early tenth century, Davies’ book explores the internal functioning and structure of the various village communities within the region, and the ways in which these ‘small worlds’ interacted with each other and with larger communities. There are striking similarities between the evidence from early medieval Brittany and the record-office archive of first-century Tebtunis. The charters of the monastery of Redon included not only the usual records of gifts and various donations to the monks, but also more common transactions, which involved lower-status peasants, thus enabling detailed study of the relevant village communities. Also similar to the Tebtunis evidence is the material used by Rebecca L. Winer in her study on women in Perpignan, a town in the south of France, not far from Montaillou, between 1250 and 1300.⁷⁹ Using the local notarial registers, 17 in total, Winer examines the life of urban women in the late thirteenth century in the realm of Aragon, pointing out that these registers, called protocols, are particularly valuable to social historians because they were the only ones to preserve ‘the concerns of the less prosperous’, and some of them allow us to have a closer look at transactions made over one or two years.⁸⁰ Although the notarial records of the Tebtunis archive provide a different source material from the Inquisition register of

⁷⁷ Ladurie (1975). ⁷⁸ Davies (1988). ⁷⁹ Winer (2006). ⁸⁰ Winer (2006) 5–6. It is to be noted that the mediaeval notarial records were different from the registers of the Roman period. In the Middle Ages a number of professional notaries were active in a given area of one or more cities: Hughes (1974).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

26

    

Montaillou, thus preventing us from writing about the villagers’ thoughtworld, they still represent an invaluable source of social history as they shed light on socio-economic trends as well as on the role of the village communities within a wider context. Like the charters from Redon and the protocols from Perpignan, the contracts from Tebtunis give us unique insight into the various economic activities in which the villagers, mostly non-wealthy individuals, were involved, including information about technical practicalities, while the registers provide us with a detailed account of all the transactions which were made over short but well-defined periods of time. Another aim of the book is to provide, through the case of Tebtunis, a better understanding of the life and functioning of ancient villages more generally. Traditionally villages in the ancient world have been defined by their lack of independent and self-administrative institutions, type of architecture, population size, use of particular legal instruments, and presence (or lack) of certain crafts and trades.⁸¹ In Egypt, and in general in the ancient eastern Mediterranean, villages are believed to have been the most common rural settlements, normally referred to as komai. Other types of rural settlement were the epoikia (hamlets), which, in the early Roman period, were estates tied to independent villages.⁸² The situation is different in the West, where the vocabulary for villages is more varied, including vicus, castellum, and pagus.⁸³ The extent to which the different terminology reflects structural, organizational and administrative differences within villages in the western and eastern provinces of the Roman empire is in great need of investigation and exceeds the scope of this study. However, some preliminary remarks can be made about the role of villages in Egypt. First, Arsinoite villages appear to have been larger than those in other districts.⁸⁴ The papyrological and archaeological evidence shows that the larger villages, including Tebtunis and Karanis, had a more complex socio-economic and administrative structure and that the smaller settlements in the surrounding area, also labelled as komai, depended on them on an administrative level (see the case of Tebtunis in Chapter 2). A number of factors contributed to shaping the main features of these large villages: the level of Hellenization,

⁸¹ For a discussion of the various definitions and types of villages in Egypt, and more broadly in the Roman world, see now the Introduction to Langellotti and Rathbone (forthcoming). See also Harris (2005) and Wickham (2005) 383–516. ⁸² Benaissa (2009) 7 with n. 3. ⁸³ See, for example, Giliberti (1993); Banaji (2001); Capogrossi Colognesi (2002a) and (2002b); Tarpin (2002). ⁸⁴ Rathbone (1990) 123; Bowman (2011) 333.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



27

by which I mean Greek culture (broadly understood) and the presence of families of Hellenic descent; monetization; type of architecture, including public baths and dining rooms; interaction with and integration between Greek and Egyptian culture; level of literacy and presence of literature; and variety of non-agricultural activities.⁸⁵ In these villages we also find a considerable number of semi-independent institutions, namely recordoffices, banks (though not attested in Tebtunis), ‘professional’ associations, and crafts and trades, some of which promoted active regional and interregional links and social mobility.⁸⁶ Thus, some of the larger villages, such as Tebtunis, appear to have resembled towns more than villages. The recordoffice archive helps us to investigate, often in great detail, the functioning of Tebtunis as an administrative and socio-economic unit within the wider regional network and to determine how far this community fulfilled the requirements for being a village rather than a town. Further light will be cast on the level of monetization, the actual role of non-agricultural activities, and in general on the level of prosperity of the various social groups in the local community. The ultimate aim of this book is to learn more about the role of the large Egyptian villages in the context of the economy and society of the Roman empire, and about their functioning as independent communities within the wider regional and provincial networks, thus providing a model of rural society which can be used for long-period comparative studies to investigate how typical or unusual the society and economy of the Roman Egyptian countryside were in the pre-industrial world.

1.5 Chapter Overview This book offers an analysis of a number of social and economic aspects of early Roman Tebtunis, including social stratification, the role of land and the non-agricultural economy. Although primarily based on the papyrological evidence, this study makes frequent use of the archaeological record, generally well-preserved, which provides a useful framework for the various discussions that follow. A quantitative approach is adopted throughout. This is due to the very nature of the written evidence, mainly contracts and registers which display a wide range of quantifiable data: type of transaction, ⁸⁵ Bowman (1991), (2000); Hopkins (1991); van Minnen (1998). ⁸⁶ For detailed discussions see Chapters 2.3 and 6.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

28

    

number, gender and occasionally age of contracting parties, and object (type, quantity, size). The quantification of these data enables the development of more informed discussions about level of participation in the contractual economy, often with regard to specific social groups, landholding patterns, and size and nature of the non-agricultural economy. In analysing the role of the thousands of contracting parties attested in the archive, a quantitative approach is combined with a prosopographical method, which aims to identify certain groups of individuals on the basis of their name types, namely Egyptian, Macedonian, common Greek, and Graeco-Egyptian. Several individuals, who often bore very common names, made multiple transactions over a short period of time, but the lack of personal details often hinders their identification. Underlying this method is the examination of links between contracts, which facilitates the identification process and sheds light on the socio-economic background of a number of parties. The prosopographical method is explained in more depth in Chapter 3.2.3. Although the present work represents mainly a case-study limited to a relatively short time in the history of Tebtunis, socio-economic phenomena and administrative procedures are discussed in light of the general framework known for the whole of Roman Egypt, and when possible comparison between Tebtunis and other Egyptian villages is provided. The book is divided into five core chapters followed by conclusions. After the present introductory chapter in which the subject, aims, and scope of the book are put forward, Chapter 2 goes on to examine the role and composition of the record-office archive. A first section offers an overview and discussion of the various types of documents belonging to the archive, which is key to understanding the nature of the evidence and how this is used to reconstruct the socio-economic history of Tebtunis in the subsequent chapters. A second section examines the administrative functioning of the record-office itself, the position of the notary, his employees, and the various individuals associated with this institution, and reconstructs the role of the record-office in the local community and within the wider (regional and provincial) network. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on people and social issues. Chapter 3, in particular, explores questions related to population and is divided into two main sections. The first section estimates the size of the population of Tebtunis, for which no quantifiable data survive, and the percentage of individuals who entered into written contracts and other documents at the recordoffice, including an examination of age and sex distribution, the role of women, legal status, and ethnicity. This section also analyses naming

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



29

patterns and practices which can be identified among the attested individuals (particularly names which reveal devotion to local deities). The second section looks at the general role of the family in the village, including family structure and economic status, household formation, and inheritance strategies in light of the information provided in particular by contracts of marriage and divorce and divisions of property. Chapter 4 examines in more detail the social stratification of the village and argues that the society of Tebtunis was complex, made up of a variety of social groups, including what has been identified as the local elite, which consisted of some priestly families and landowners of Hellenic descent, the members of the numerous professional associations focussed on various agricultural and non-agricultural activities, the ‘common’ population, and slaves. Based on their contractual activity and other contemporary evidence, a close analysis is provided for each social group. Socio-economic trends emerge which shed light on the behaviour of the various groups and give us deeper insight into the complex realities of the village. The role and nature of the economy are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, dedicated respectively to the land and to non-agricultural activities. Chapter 5 investigates the village agricultural economy and the evidence for landowning in the early Roman period is interpreted against the generally accepted framework of land tenure in Roman Egypt. A first introductory section investigates the location, distribution, and management of the different categories of land. In light of the land-related contracts which were registered at the record-office, a second section discusses the identity and social status of the holders of public land and owners of private land and tenants, their social and economic relations, and how these affected the general social structure of the village. The last part of the chapter examines the role of viticulture, oil production, and pastoralism. A discussion of the degree to which agriculture was the primary source of wealth in Tebtunis, and to what extent the activities connected to the land brought prosperity to both owners and tenants, is included in the conclusions to the chapter. Chapter 6 examines the role and importance of the non-agricultural activities that were practised in first-century Tebtunis, including crafts and trades of various kinds and state concessions. In particular, it investigates the internal functioning and administrative practices of the best-documented of these economic activities, which include textile production and the sale of salt, and the social status of the people involved. The Roman period witnessed a proliferation of state concessions, that is activities the exercise of which required making a bid to the state. These seem to have replaced

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

30

    

several monopolies of the Ptolemaic period, and the Tebtunis evidence shows that many of them revolved around relevant associations. This chapter examines the importance of the village state concessions, their relationship with the local associations, and their contribution to the local economy. A discussion follows on the socio-economic implications of the presence of non-agricultural activities in the village, which includes the nature and size of regional and inter-regional links and monetization. The ultimate aim of this chapter is to assess the economic value of the nonagricultural economy in Tebtunis, and its contribution, along with agricultural produce and revenues, to the general level of economic well-being among the villagers. Finally, the Conclusions offer a critical overview of the society and economy of early Roman Tebtunis, as it has emerged from the analysis conducted in the previous chapters and discuss the significance of its formal and informal village institutions within the wider context of Roman Egypt. In the light of the evidence from other parts of the Roman Empire a discussion follows concerning the extent to which this village study can be used as a model of village economy and society in the Roman world more generally, and for wider comparison with villages in the medieval and later periods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

2 The Kronion Archive 2.1 Introduction In 1910 Michael Rostovtzeff, discussing the origins of the colonate, wrote: ‘We do not have, for the Roman period, a set of documentary evidence which could describe the agrarian life of a village as well as the documents from Tebtunis.’¹ Here Rostovtzeff was referring to the fact that, while for the study of village life in the Ptolemaic period scholars could rely on the papers of Menches, village scribe of Kerkeosiris, near Tebtunis, for the Roman period an equivalent type of evidence did not exist. By 1944, with the publication of most of the first-century record-office archive from Tebtunis, Rostovtzeff ’s claim was no longer valid, as this new material was now one of the best available bodies of evidence for the investigation of a rural community under the Romans. The record-office archive is a group of at least 210 documents, which were drafted at the local record-office, called a grapheion, of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous, over a period of at least 49 years, from  7 to 56. The bulk of the documents is dated between  26 and 56, during which period the record-office was managed by a certain Kronion son of Apion, but there are also undated texts, which could be of a later period. The nature and composition of this collection fits well the conventional definition of an archive, that is a group of documents originally assembled by one or more individuals and kept together as a more or less coherent whole.² The material was usually arranged chronologically or by subject; the record-office papers were all written at the same office over a welldefined period of time and kept on file for administrative purposes. It was probably Kronion who collected and ordered the documents, perhaps with the assistance of some of his scribes. Due to the presence of a large

¹ Rostovtzeff (1910) 85. The English translation is mine. ² Martin (1994) and Vandorpe (2009); also Posner (1972) 137–59. An archive is different from a dossier. The latter is a group of documents referring to the same person, family or activity which has been assembled at a later stage by unrelated individuals. Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

32

    

number of drafts, it is difficult to establish the criteria according to which the grapheion documents were filed, but it is likely that groups of contracts, registers, and accounts were each kept separately, presumably in chronological order. It is also possible that some types of contract were kept aside for special purposes. Kronion himself wrote several registers and accounts, as his distinctive handwriting, fast and very cursive, confirms (Figure 2.1). The bulk of the archive was found in 1920/1 during illegal excavations carried out in the Graeco-Roman area of the ancient site of Tebtunis, but the circumstances surrounding its discovery are not clear.³ The largest part is made up of two lots, which were purchased by the Michigan Professor of Latin Francis Kelsey in 1921 and 1923 on behalf of the British Museum and

Figure 2.1 P.Mich. II 123 II recto col. VII Example of Kronion’s handwriting. (Image digitally reproduced with the permission of the Papyrology Collection, University of Michigan Library. Available at http://www.lib.umich. edu/papyrology-collection)

³ TM arch ID 93. Gallazzi (1989) 182.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

33

an association of American universities.⁴ In 1926 the King of Egypt and Sudan, Fouad I, purchased 18 papyri, and later sent photographs of these to the Italian Papyrological Society at Florence (Società Italiana). These texts were published in 1927 as volume VIII of the Papiri della Società Italiana (PSI), edited by Girolamo Vitelli and Medea Norsa.⁵ Among the hundreds of papyri belonging to a third lot purchased by the University of Michigan in 1926 Elinor Husselman identified one Kronion text, still unpublished.⁶ With the exception of the PSI documents, which are housed at Instituto Papirologico Vitelli, in Florence, all the Kronion papyri are kept in the Papyrology Collection of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Five texts from the Leipzig collection—four contracts and one memorandum— are likely to have been part of the archive.⁷ They were purchased by the University in the winter semester 1931/2, but nothing is known about provenance and ways of acquisition.⁸ The papyri are dated between 20  and the mid-first century  and occasionally refer to individuals from Tebtunis who are also attested in the Michigan documents. At least thirty Michigan texts are still unpublished. Shortly after the acquisition of the texts, Arthur Boak and Angelo Segrè provided preliminary investigations.⁹ The former gave the first accurate description of the registers of contracts, whereas the latter investigated the formal and legal aspects of the various documents. The edition of most of the archive appeared in two volumes of the Michigan papyri series, II and V, in 1933 and 1944 respectively.¹⁰ The editors focused on the textual analysis of the archive and on the administrative functioning of the record-office, which can be found mainly in the general introductions to the volumes as well as in the commentary of individual texts. In the light of additional data provided by newly published and other unpublished Michigan texts, in a contribution to the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology in 1970 Husselman offered a complete overview of the administrative procedures of the record-office and clarified points of

⁴ For further details on the acquisitions of the Kronion documents see P.Mich. II Intr. 1. On Francis Kelsey see now Pedley (2012). ⁵ PSI VIII 901 intr. ⁶ P.Mich. inv. 3501. This lot requires further investigation as it might contain more texts belonging to the archive; Husselman (1970) 230. To date, the Kronion archive is formed by the following documents: P.Mich. II 121–8; V 226–356; X 586–7; XI 621; XII 632–4; PSI VIII 901–18; P.Bingen 59; SB VI 9109–10; XVI 12539; XX 14313–15. P.Tebt. II 383, a division of property dated to AD 46, is to be considered part of the archive. ⁷ P.Lips. II 127–31. ⁸ P.Lips. p. 54. ⁹ Boak (1923); Segré (1926). ¹⁰ P.Mich. II pp. 1–6, and P.Mich. V pp. 1–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

34

    

controversial interpretation, such as the destination of the original contracts and the relationships between the registers.¹¹ The Kronion archive, however, carries a greater historical potential, which was noticed soon after its publication. Three annual registers of contracts were first used as evidence of an economic crisis which seemingly occurred under the emperor Claudius ( 41–54), in the mid-40s, attributed to a bad flood of the Nile.¹² The theory of a crisis is maintained in the first historical study of the grapheion documents, the 1973 unpublished PhD dissertation by Lori Toepel.¹³ By taking various types of moneylending transactions as a major indicator of economic trends, Toepel argued that the sharp increase in loans in  46, combined with an increase in leases of land cultivated in fodder crops, reflected a situation of economic distress consequent to an excessively high flood, which she pinpointed to the year 45. The people of Tebtunis would have found themselves in need of quick cash to pay their taxes, and leasing fodder land would have been a way to minimize the risks associated with poor crop yields. Several scholars, including Orsolina Montevecchi, Mariadele Manca Masciadri, and Deborah Hobson, have since supported the theory of an economic crisis during these years at Tebtunis and other areas of the Arsinoite district, including Philadelphia.¹⁴ The grapheion archive texts have also enabled close investigation of individual contract types, thus shedding light on specific areas of village economy and society, including Alan Samuel’s work on contracts, Gunther Häge’s on dowries and alimentation, and Montevecchi and Masciadri’s on wet-nurse contracts.¹⁵ Over the last three decades the grapheion archive has been used to study a number of socio-economic and administrative phenomena, such as literacy, the incidence of the role of women in the contractual economy in the countryside, houses and living arrangements, tenancy and agricultural relations, monetization and markets, and the significance of the scribal fees, so-called grammatika, which are listed next to each contract entry in two registers (P.Mich. II 123 recto and V 238).¹⁶

¹¹ Husselman (1970). ¹² Gapp (1935), Bell (1938), Bonneau (1971). ¹³ Toepel (1973). ¹⁴ Montevecchi and Masciadri (1982); Montevecchi (1982–3); Hobson (1984). ¹⁵ Samuel (1965); Häge (1968); Montevecchi (1982–3); Montevecchi and Masciadri (1982) and (1984). ¹⁶ Hopkins (1980) 342–3 and (1991); Hobson (1984) and (1985); Rowlandson (1999); Rathbone (2013a); Yiftach-Firanko (2015).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

35

2.2 The Texts Within the total body of material we can distinguish three main types of text: contracts, registers, and accounts. The archive also includes a relatively small number of miscellaneous texts, mostly petitions and receipts of payments. All the documents are written in Greek, except for six contracts which are in demotic, but bear Greek subscriptions.¹⁷ This situation reflects the new administrative framework that came into play in the first century . According to the new rules of registration, in order to be valid, notarial agreements (demosioi chrematismoi) had to be recorded in a register called anagraphe, have Greek subscriptions signed by the parties and a registration docket signed by the notary; it was the obligation to add Greek subscriptions that caused the gradual demise of demotic for writing contracts by the end of the first century .¹⁸ The following three sections discuss the main features of contracts, registers, and accounts in order to give a complete overview of the nature of the evidence which forms the core of this book; it soon becomes clear that several links exist between the different documents and also between various types of contract.

2.2.1 Contracts The contracts constitute the bulk of the archive (64 per cent). To date, 136 agreements of varying completeness have been published, of which 33 are duplicates. These were compiled for the contracting parties involved in each transaction.¹⁹ Over one half (74 out of 136) is made up of subscriptions (hupographai). These documents lack the body of the contract, the space of which is left blank, and include only a statement in which the individual contracting parties acknowledge to abide by the terms and conditions. Subscriptions provided a summary of the agreement and could be more or less detailed. In what follows is an example of a subscription of three parties to a division of property dated to 30 April  40 (P.Mich. V 320)

¹⁷ Demotic contracts are P.Mich. V 249, 250, 347, 253, 308; PSI VIII 909. P. Mich. V 342 is a receipt from the priests of Soknebtunis. ¹⁸ Lewis (1993) and Muhs (2005a) 96–7. ¹⁹ P.Mich. V p. 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

36

     (1st hand) ‘I, Kleon, son of Palamedes, have divided and received as my portion two shares, in accordance with the terms to which I have agreed as they were read, and I will do everything as aforesaid. (2nd hand) I, Souchion, son of Palamedes, have joined in the division and have received as my share the third part, and have agreed to the terms as read. (3rd hand) I, Theudas, son of Patynion, have joined in the division and have received as my share the eighth part of the aforesaid properties and courts and all the fixtures, and I have agreed to the terms as read, as aforesaid. Melantas, son of Kronion, wrote for him, since he is illiterate.’

Husselman suggested that these bodiless subscriptions were copies intended for the contracting parties, which had never been collected; indeed the indication of the word ekdosimon, ‘certificate of delivery’, at the top of some texts, would corroborate this interpretation.²⁰ It seems odd, however, that so many parties failed to collect their copies. A more plausible explanation might be provided in the light of the new rules of registration, whereby subscriptions alone, with date and notarial docket, were legally binding, provided that the relevant contracts were included in the anagraphe. Under these circumstances there was no urgent need to fill in the body of the contracts, and the grapheion staff, who already had plenty of work to do, probably never bothered to do so. Subscriptions and full contracts include sales and cessions, divisions of property, loans, and leases and subleases, but more variety can be found in the registers, which include also wet-nurse contracts, marriage and divorce contracts, post-marriage settlements, work contracts, deposits, mortgages, mechanical irrigation contract, and residence agreements (Table 2.1).

2.2.2 Registers Two main types of register are attested in the grapheion archive: registers of titles (anagraphai) and registers of abstracts (eiromena). The registers of titles provided an annual list of all the contracts which were recorded day-to-day over periods of four months: Thoth to Choiak, or late August to late December; Tybi to Pharmouthi, or late December to late April; and Pachon to Mesore, or late April to late August, reflecting the pattern of the

²⁰ P.Mich. V pp. 3–11. Also Segré (1926). See P.Mich. V 249, 250, 254, 264, 273, 339, 341, 352.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

37

Table 2.1 Contracts and contracting parties Activity

First party

Second party

Other party

Alimentary contract or postmarriage settlement (sungraphe trophitis) Apprenticeship (didaskalike)

Issuer

Receiver

Beneficiary

Parent (or guardian) Issuer Issuer (or ceding party) Issuer Issuer Issuer

Employer

Apprentice

Receiver Receiver Giver

Issuer Debtor Assignor Partaker Issuer Issuer

Receiver Creditor Beneficiaries Partaker Receiver Receiver

Issuer Lessor Creditor Issuer

Receiver Lessee Debtor Receiver

Issuer

Receiver

Debtor Debtor Recipient Issuer Issuer Seller Issuer Wet-nurse (or issuer) Debtor

Creditor Creditor Giver Receiver Receiver Buyer Receiver Master

Cancellation of debt (perilusis) Cession (parachoresis/enchoresis) Confirmation (eudokesis) Contract (homologia/sungraphe) Contract of dowry (homologia/ sungraphe phernes) Contract of harvest (therismos) Deposit (paratheke) Division/will (meriteia) Division (diairesis) Farming partnership (metoche) Guarantee of immunity (aperispastos) Inspection (exetasis) Lease (misthosis) Loan (daneion) Marriage contract (sungraphe gamou) Mechanical irrigation agreement (antletos) Mortgage (hupotheke) Residence contract (enoikesis) Receipt (apoche) Release (extasis) Request (axioma) Sale (prasis) Security (egguesis) Wet-nurse contract (homologia trophimou) Work contract (paramone)

Receiver Receiver

Issuer

Creditor

Egyptian calendar of inundation, winter, and harvest. After the regnal year of the emperor, indicated at the beginning, followed a list of oneline entries which included, for each transaction, day and month, type of agreement, name of the contracting parties, and object. Often details about the object are also indicated (e.g. size of land, amount of loan). Some registers of titles also included at the end of each entry the amount of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

38

    

scribal fee, grammatikon, which parties were required to pay for having a document drawn up.²¹ The registers of abstracts included a list of summaries of the contracts which had been recorded over a year, in chronological order.²² Such summaries could be more or less detailed but were generally quite short and included the transactions’ main terms. Twelve grapheion registers have been published so far, and others are still unpublished.²³ They are all draft copies, as suggested by frequent deletions and errors and by the presence of a number of duplicate entries in separate registers, which suggests that they represented different stages of preparation.²⁴ Of the published registers, four are nearly complete and constitute the basis for the quantitative studies which are carried out in the following chapters: three registers of titles dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 verso), 45/6 (P.Mich. II 123 recto II–XXII), and 46/7 (P.Mich. V 238), and one register of abstract dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 recto). The breakdown of the main contract types attested in these registers is to be found in Table 2.1. P.Mich. II 121 verso covers the four-month period from day 3 of the month of Germanicus (Pachon), or 28 April, to day 5 of epagomenai, or 27 August  42, and includes 247 entries of contracts only. The format of the register appears as follows: Col. I, 1–5 Year 2 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus imperator. Register (anagraphe) of the record-office (grapheion) of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous. Month Germanicus (day) 3: Sale by Herodes to Harpaesis of an empty lot. Agreement (homologia) for a sale of a vineyard by Kronion and others with Theanis, 5 Agreement of Patunis with Thenpsuphis for a dowry of 32 dr. silver. The lack of scribal fees in this type of register suggests that it served primarily as an administrative document. Its main purpose was probably to keep an up-to-date record of all the transactions entered into over a year, which could be easy to consult and readily available to the grapheion staff in case a ²¹ See Appendix I for a detailed discussion of the grammatikon. ²² See Claytor (2013) for the eiromenon produced at the grapheion of Poludeukia (month of Tybi) when the village appears to have gone through financial problems. ²³ For a preliminary discussion of the unpublished registers see Husselman (1970) 227–38. ²⁴ Husselman (1970) 232–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

39

check was necessary. Each entry refers to a specific economic transaction, the details of which were to be found in a full contract drawn up separately. However, in the absence of the full corresponding contracts, the interpretation of these entries is not always straightforward, especially when it comes to establishing the role of first and second parties. If we consider the sale of a vacant lot involving Herodes and Harpaesis, listed in line 3, for example, we might wonder who the seller and buyer were. Fortunately the presence of 50 abstracts on the recto of the same papyrus, 48 of which correspond to entries in the register of titles on the verso, enables us to identify the first and second parties’ roles in the one-line entries. Table 2.1 lists these roles for the most common contracts attested in the registers (the ‘other party’ was not actively involved in the making of the contracts). In general it appears that the first party was the issuer of the document, that is the person who requested its drafting and registration, while the second party was the recipient. Below is an example of an abstract. ‘Akousilaos, son of Kastor, a Persian of the epigone, about x years old, with a scar on his right hand, has leased to Tamarron, daughter of Haruotes, about 40 years old, with a scar on her left instep, acting with her guardian, her son Eutuchos, about 29 years old, with a scar on his left shin, the catoecic allotment belonging to him in the aforesaid village in what is called the allotment of (?) of Zenon, that is 5 arouras out of 6 arouras, or however many there may be, in one parcel, for 5 years from the fourth year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator for a first and second sowing with whatever sorts of wheat and barley she may choose. And Akousilaos has received from Tamarron . . . rental and . . . and . . . of the same 5-year period at once from hand to hand out of the house, all the public revenues of the 5-year period, the artabia and naubion and kataphuta (?), being a charge upon Tamarron, but the arithmetikon being a charge on Akousilaos. Signatory: Onnophris, son of Pakebkis, about 30 years old, with a scar on his right knee. The rest in conformity.’ (Col. II ii, corresponding to the entry in P.Mich. II 121 verso, Col. II 4)

The register of titles included in P.Mich. II 123 recto is in many ways different from the  42 register. This included a list of all written transactions, not only contracts, which were recorded at the Tebtunis record-office between day 8 of the month of Sebastos (Thoth), or 5 September  45, and day 30 of the month of Kaisareios (Mesore), or 23 August 46, for a total of 673 entries; a number of duplicate entries are to be found in another

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

40

    

contemporary draft register, P.Mich. II 125. As Toepel noted, the number of actual contracts must have been higher, considering that the register is badly damaged for the months of Epeiph (July) and Mesore (August).²⁵ The entries display the same format as the ones listed in P.Mich. II 121 verso, but also included the scribal fees and regular summaries of them, which were to be used for accounting purposes.²⁶ Among the wide range of document types we find here are written applications for state concessions (anaphoria), affidavits (cheirographiai), petitions and reports (hupomnema and hupomnematia), lists (graphai), rules of associations (nomoi sunodou), and various payments. These texts will be discussed in the following chapters in relation to different phenomena (e.g. bids in the discussion of state concessions in Chapter 6, affidavits in Chapter 5 and 6 in connection with agricultural and non-agricultural activities, lists and rules of associations in Chapter 4.2.3 on the role of village associations). For the sake of clarity, however, it is worth providing an immediate discussion of some particular reports associated with the enkuklion, the sales-tax. The reports of the sales-tax (hupomnemata enkukliou) appear four times in P.Mich. II 123 recto (XIII 25, XXI 1–12, 33, XXII 31), normally as a oneline entry followed by a sum of money. The second instance is particularly difficult to interpret; here next to the indication of ‘records of the sales-tax (hupomnemata enkukliou)’ we find a personal name (the papyrus here breaks); follow 11 lines, each including a personal name, sometimes accompanied by an occupational title, and a payment. This list has been interpreted as the number of people who had paid the sales-tax in connection with relevant transactions, and the sums indicated next to each individual as the scribal fee, not as the sales-tax itself.²⁷ Arthur Boak noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the grapheion was responsible for the collection of the sales-tax; instead, the production of such reports would serve a practical purpose, that is to allow tax-collectors to check updated lists of those who had made sales and paid (or were due to pay) the relevant tax.²⁸ The third main register of contracts preserved in the grapheion archive is P.Mich. V 238, a continuation of P.Mich. II 123 recto, with entries dated between day two of month Sebastos, or 30 August, and 30 Choiak, or 26 December  46, for a total of 239. This register combines features of both 121 verso and 123 recto in that it includes only contracts, like 121 verso, but also includes scribal fees, like 123 recto. ²⁵ Toepel (1973) Ch. II. ²⁶ P.Mich. II p. 92. ²⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 1 note. ²⁸ P.Mich. II, p. 101.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

41

Often adjacent contracts were connected to one another in some way; some of these links are well attested in the contractual economy of Roman Egypt, some others are less straightforward and require a closer investigation. The most common links include residence offers and loans (or deposits), sales and loans, wet-nurse contracts and loans, work contracts and loans, cessions and loans, and mortgages and loans. With the exception of wetnurse contracts and loans, which present some complexities (see Chapter 3.2.2), these are all antichretic arrangements, which means that one in a pair served as a pledge to the credit transaction. Less apparent links involve the same contracting parties and their economic significance needs to be assessed case by case. An example is provided by a will in the form of a division of property (meriteia) and a contract for mechanical irrigation (homologia antetlou) recorded on the same day, 13 September  45, and in consecutive entries, both involving the same parties, Ischurion and Mesouris.²⁹ In the division of property Ischurion acted as the assignor, while Mesouris was the beneficiary. The two were probably father and son, as it is usually the case in this type of agreement. No detail is given as to the composition and nature of the property, but since the second contract provides arrangements for mechanical irrigation, it is very likely that it included some land. In the second transaction the two parties probably agreed on specific conditions as to the irrigation of the land which was to pass from one’s hands to another’s. The two contracts are not economically interdependent in the same way as a pair of sale and loan might have been, but they dealt with related aspects of the same business and shed light on specific economic practices in regard to the division of property and management of land. A number of other unobvious connections between contracts are identifiable in the registers, and they will be discussed in relevant sections to interpret specific socio-economic trends throughout the book.

2.2.3 Accounts Seven accounts, displaying different levels of completeness, have been published so far from the grapheion archive, the best-preserved ones being P.Mich. II 123 recto I-verso II–XII and P.Mich. II 127. The former includes various expenses for the running of the record-office made over 16 months,

²⁹ P.Mich. II 123 recto II 29–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

42

    

from Sebastos (or September) 45 to Choiak (or December) 46, while the latter records Kronion’s private expenses between Sebastos 45 and Tybi (or January) 46.³⁰ Both documents, written by Kronion himself, were provisional drafts, and this is especially noticeable in the longer grapheion account, written on separate sheets. Col. I was written first, on the recto of the papyrus, to which the register of titles for the year  45/6 follows; Cols. II–X were written on the verso and contain the continuation of the account in Col. I.; Cols. XI and XII were written on a separate scrap of paper, which was subsequently glued to the end of Col. X. The account, damaged in places, is incomplete for December 45 and October 46 and includes several errors and omissions. Boak noted that ‘although in general an attempt was made to balance the accounts at or near the end of each month this practice was at times neglected, and there was absolutely no regularity in the dates at which accounts were checked in the course of the months’.³¹ He suggested that the account should be examined in connection with the scribal fees listed in the register of contracts of the same year, whose monthly totals were used to pay for the rent of the concession (diagraphe). By comparing the amount of income (scribal fees) and expenditure for the months of Sebastos 45 (September) to Mecheir (February) 46, Boak observed that the expenses were higher than the income, concluding that the grapheion was operating ‘at loss’, at least for some time; indeed on various occasions Kronion and his partner Eutucheides had to borrow money to make up the monthly rent.³² It is unclear whether the expenses for the operation of grapheion were to be deducted from the rent, or else constituted a separate expenditure altogether. Dominic Rathbone recently suggested that this account was in fact ‘Kronion’s private record of costs he claimed [his partner] Eutuchas should share’.³³ The lack of an obvious bookkeeping practice and the rough draft status of the account seem to corroborate Rathbone’s suggestion, which would also explain why monthly balances were not always recorded. The account of joint business expenses includes a wider range of expenditure items, including the rent for the concession, food and travel expenses for a number of people associated with the grapheion, loans, papyrus rolls ³⁰ Rathbone (2013a) 124 n. 6, who identifies P.Mich. II 124 recto iii ‘as the missing record (November) between 123 recto.i (September–October) and 123 verso.i’. ³¹ P.Mich. II, p. 92. ³² P.Mich. II, pp. 102. See, for example, P.Mich. II 123 verso VIII 14–16 (repayment of a loan of 20 dr. on 30 Choiak to Soterichos son of Herodes); VIII 17–18 (repayment of 60 dr. borrowed from Galates son of Didumos for the diagraphe); VIII 19–21 (repayment of a loan to Herodion son of Lusimachos). ³³ Rathbone (2013a) 125.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

43

and ink, papyrus-tax (chartera), and other minor articles (e.g. salaries). The private account, on the other hand, only includes items which Kronion needed for his own household, that is food staples, wood, and textiles. The common account, in particular, allows us to gain insight into the functioning of the grapheion, the role of those who were associated with this office, and the various links existing between the grapheion and other record-offices, in nearby villages as well as in the district capital, Ptolemais Euergetis. These questions are discussed in the following section (2.3). Both the common and private accounts provide valuable information about the range of products which were sold or produced in Tebtunis and nearby villages, their prices, and occasionally places and names of retailers. These questions are investigated in more detail in Chapter 6.

2.3 The Record-Office in Village Life The grapheion of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous was a government concession arranged through a lease.³⁴ This is confirmed by a contemporary document, dated to  46, from the Arsinoite village of Soknopaiou Nesos, in which a certain Tesenouphis son of Tesenouphis submits a formal application for the renewal of the concession of the local record-office.³⁵ The length of the post of head of the grapheion, as attested in the grapheion archive, also suggests that this was not a liturgy, but a role taken up voluntarily. Both Kronion and his father Apion held this role for many years, about 30 and 19 respectively, from  7 until 56.³⁶ Although individuals had to bid for its concession, the fact that the record-office of Tebtunis was in the hands of two men belonging to the same family for half a century suggests that the bidding itself might have been restricted to a few families. A similar scenario is attested in the second century when Apollonios alias Lourios was head of the Tebtunis record-office for over 30 years and his

³⁴ Wolff (1978) 18–23, Pierce (1968), Cockle (1984) 112, Burkhalter (1990) 197–8, Husselman (1970), Yiftach-Firanko (2009) 549–50, Claytor (2013) 78–81, Lerouxel (2016) 146–8, Langellotti (forthcoming). The denomination ‘grapheion of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous’ is found in SB VI 9109, P.Tebt. II 383, and P.Mich. V 322(a). ³⁵ P.Grenf. II 41. ³⁶ Kronion seems to have taken up the post the same year of his father’s death,  26; P.Mich. V 345 (AD 7) and SB VI 9110 (AD 26). P.Mich. V 335 is the latest dated document which records Kronion as head of the grapheion of Tebtunis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

44

    

grandson, Achilleus, also held this office.³⁷ No formal training is documented for this role during this period, as most likely technical knowledge was transmitted from father to son over a number of years.³⁸ As we shall see in Chapter 6, the management of the grapheion was only one of the many activities that were arranged as state concessions in Tebtunis. An annual rent had to be paid for the concession, and the common account of  45/6 shows that Kronion and Eutucheides paid this in the form of monthly bank transfers of variable amounts, diagraphai, made towards the end of the month or at the beginning of the next month.³⁹ It is soon evident that while for the record-office of Soknopaiou Nesos the annual rent was set at 288 dr., for Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous it was much higher. The surviving monthly payments, ranging from 108 dr. to 260 dr., allowed Boak to calculate a total amount of 2,076 dr. for the year  45/6, with average monthly payments of 173 dr., though it is not at all clear how this fee related to the total rent due for the concession.⁴⁰ Some payments were made to a certain Heronas, some others to one Heron, who, it has been suggested, referred to the same person, probably to be identified with Heronas the notary (nomographos), also attested in the accounts on three occasions.⁴¹ Although there is no clear evidence as to the identity of this man, it is likely that he was a higher official based in the district capital. Some payments were made in Ptolemais Euergetis, while one was made to an armed guard (machairophoros). Scribal fees seem to have been the main source of income for the operation of the record-office, but additional profits, though not officially recorded, cannot be excluded. The managers of the grapheion also collected the papyrus-tax (chartera), as documented by several payments made usually to armed guards, from which some earning might have been made.⁴² According to the commonly accepted view, the notarial office was not attached to a public building, instead its activity was carried out in Kronion’s private house.⁴³ ³⁷ See Claytor (2013) 79–80. The notary of the grapheion of Talei appears to have been in the post for shorter time: Malchion in AD 19 (P.Mich. V 251), Hermias in AD 34 (P.Mich. V 311–12), and Ptollas in AD 45–46 (P.Mich. II 123 recto I(c); verso VI 18 and 37–8). ³⁸ In the Middle Ages notaries learned their work through apprenticeships; Winer (2006) 5. ³⁹ Lerouxel (2016) 149–50. ⁴⁰ For a list of payments for diagraphe made by Kronion see table in P.Mich. II 123 pp. 94–5. ⁴¹ Diagraphai to Heronas: P.Mich. II 123 verso III 18; X 9. To Heron: P.Mich. II 123 verso VIII 33; XI 30. Heronas the nomographos: P.Mich. II 123 verso V 21 (payment of sweetmeats for his children); VIII 35 (payment of a dinner); P.Mich. II 124 recto III 15 (payment of 4 dr.); P.Mich. II 127 I 5 (payment of one keramion of wine). ⁴² P.Mich. II, p. 100. See Chapter 6.2.4 for a discussion of this tax. ⁴³ Husselman (1970) 226. See also P.Mich. II p. 6. Gallazzi (2003) 163.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

45

The grapheion had the double function of record-office, where official documents were recorded and archived, and of writing-office, as suggested by its very name; indeed the long register of  45/6 includes a number of documents which did not require formal registration, such as petitions. Village record-offices appeared in Egypt as early as the mid-second century , but our knowledge of their internal functioning and administrative procedures is mainly based on the first-century grapheion archive.⁴⁴ Although it was known as the grapheion of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha Orous, the actual office was located in one village only, which was no doubt Tebtunis, the largest and administratively more important of the two; some documents also show some connections with the record-office of the two nearby villages of Talei and Theogonis.⁴⁵ The nature of this relationship is not clearly stated, but it is likely that the record-offices of some villages were administratively dependent on the largest grapheion within the area, as shown also by the case of the record-office of Soknopaiou Nesos which served the nearby village of Nilopolis.⁴⁶ In charge of the management of the record-office of Tebtunis for the first half of the first century  was Apion and then his son Kronion, who, between the years  45 and 47, took up a partner named Eutucheides (also referred to as Eutuchas). Kronion is indicated in the grapheion documents as both ‘the person in charge of the record-office’ (ὁ πρός τὸ γραϕεῖον), meaning that he held the concession, and nomographos, a title which referred to his role as notary.⁴⁷ He had a wide range of responsibilities, which seem to have made his tenure very busy, including drawing up four-month period registers (anagraphai and eiromena) and accounts of expenses, as his handwriting reveals; preparing various draft documents; and adding validation dockets to contracts.⁴⁸ According to the contemporary Soknopaiou Nesos ⁴⁴ For the late Ptolemaic period we have another archive of 46 documents written in demotic, occasionally with Greek subscriptions (TM Arch 368). These were supposedly produced at the local grapheion of Tebtunis. So far only two documents have been published, and for the rest we rely on the description provided by Muhs (2005b) and (2010). They exemplify the same types of document found in the grapheion Kronion archive: contracts, registers of contracts in daybook format, and accounts, which means that once all Ptolemaic documents are fully published, it will be possible to draw comparisons between the Ptolemaic and the Roman grapheion. ⁴⁵ Four contracts are registered at the grapheion of Talei and Theogonis: P.Mich. V 251, 287, 311, and 312. Cf. Crotti (1962). ⁴⁶ Hobson (1985). ⁴⁷ There seems to be no doubt about the identity of the two titles: Boak in P.Mich. V Intr. 1–2. Husselman (1970) 224 suggests they were two different offices, most likely performed by the same person. ⁴⁸ P.Mich. II 123 verso IX 8 records the expense for ‘the third four-month period through Kronion’, suggesting that this task involved a specific cost.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

46

    

application, the head of the record-office was also responsible for collecting original copies of the contracts into a composite roll (tomos sunkollesimos), of which however there is no evidence in the Kronion archive. Some have interpreted the lack of any composite roll as a sign of the inefficiency of the grapheion clerks, who simply neglected to paste together individual contracts.⁴⁹ Others believe that the composite rolls were forwarded to the central archive in Ptolemais Euergetis.⁵⁰ The contemporary application for the sub-lease of the grapheion of Soknopaiou Nesos confirms that copies of summary lists and composite rolls of contracts had to be forwarded regularly to a central office, which was no doubt located in the district capital, thus making the second suggestion more plausible. Such documents had also to be sent to Alexandria.⁵¹ In the mid-first century  the relations of the grapheion with the large state archives of the province are unclear. This is due to the fact that the two main state archives of the district capital, the record-office of public deeds (bibliotheke demosion logon) and the archive of property rights (bibliotheke enkteseon), are not attested before  53.⁵² After the establishment of the bibliotheke enkteseon the supervision and checking control over the village record-offices strengthened, as the drafting of some documents at the grapheion now required orders from the keepers of the archive, the bibliophulakes.⁵³ At the local level the record-office maintained frequent contacts with the demotic notary, the monographos, with the notaries of the nearby villages, and with the village scribe, the komogrammateus. Although by the end of the first century  contracts required Greek subscriptions, people had still ⁴⁹ Segré (1926) and Boak in P.Mich. II p. 2. Mitteis (M. Chr. 183) suggested that while original contracts were kept at the grapheion, anagraphai and eiromena were sent to the bibliotheke demosion logon, although there is no evidence for the establishment of this office prior to AD 53. ⁵⁰ Husselman, who rightly points out that only one copy of each contract needed to be included in the composite roll; those found at Tebtunis are drafts or duplicates, and the pasted rolls were forwarded to the archive in Ptolemais Euergetis. See Husselman (1970) 225–6. ⁵¹ Early in the first century AD contracts of sales had to be deposited in the bibliotheke of Alexandria; SB I 5232 (AD 14/15). Deposition of grapheion registers in Alexandria is attested by the second-century edict of the prefect Flavius Titanianus (P.Oxy. I 34 verso). However, there seems to be no doubt that the central archives of Alexandria kept the registers of contracts of the whole province. ⁵² Lerouxel (2012) 160–73. The bibliotheke enkteseon was established in AD 72. Also Jördens (2010). ⁵³ The edict of Mettius Rufus (P.Oxy. II 237 col. VIII 27–43, AD 89) states that it was forbidden to notaries, that is sunallagmatographoi and mnemones, to produce any contract without the order of the bibliophulakes enkteseon. See Gnomon of the Idioslogos §101—a fine of 50 dr. for writing a contract of sale or mortgage without epistalma. Alonso (2010) suggested that the epistalma issued by the bibliotheke enkteseon was compulsory only for immovables.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

47

contracts drawn up in demotic; that a certain Lusas the monographos offered writing services to the Tebtunis grapheion is confirmed by payment of one loaf of bread given to him as a writer (γραϕόντι).⁵⁴ He was probably an occasional collaborator of the grapheion, like two other men, Panesis and Orsenouphis the priests, hired to write contracts in demotic.⁵⁵ As the grapheion of Tebtunis constituted the main record-office for the area, contacts between Kronion and other village notaries were probably quite frequent, even though the evidence does not provide details as to their nature. Unsurprisingly, the head of the grapheion also interacted with the komogrammateus; indeed one of the village scribe’s duties was the recordkeeping of people and property, on the basis of which he would compile tax registers and lists of individuals who were eligible to hold liturgical services.⁵⁶ It is to be expected, therefore, that occasionally the village scribe required access to transactions of property transfers in order to update his lists. Lusas, village scribe for the year  45/6, appears twice in the register of contract titles of that year, once in a lease of land in which the scribal fee is said to have been free of charge ‘through Lusas the komogrammateus’; in another instance he occurs as the father of Didumos in a contract of sale and in an unclear capacity in a lease of land dated to  46/7.⁵⁷ At the regional level the grapheion had working relations with offices and officials based in the district capital, including the notary office for the registration of catoecic land, the logisterion, the office for the registration of demotic contracts, the mnemoneion, and a number of other individuals whose role is not specified. Several entries in the common account reveal payments associated with the registers of the catoecic land, the katalogismoi, suggesting that the grapheion was involved in keeping lists of catoecic landowners up-to-date.⁵⁸ Contacts between the head of the grapheion and officials working at the logisterion, in Ptolemais Euergetis, involved conveyances of catoecic land. This type of contract had to be formally concluded at the logisterion, but the metropolitan officials had the right to issue an order (epistalma) granting the head of the grapheion the right to draft copies.⁵⁹ This would have facilitated the completion of the transaction, since at this stage many landowners resided in the countryside. A higher

⁵⁴ ⁵⁵ ⁵⁶ ⁵⁷ ⁵⁸

P.Mich. II 123 verso IX = 128 I(a) 3. Panesis: P.Mich. II 123 verso II 25; Orsenouphis: P.Mich. II 123 verso IX 28 = 128 I(a) 23. Capponi (2005) 43. Also Toepel (1973) 61. P.Mich. II 123 recto XX 27; XXI 30; P.Mich. V 240. 7. P.Mich. II 123 verso VIII 27–32. ⁵⁹ P.Mich. V 353 (AD 48).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

48

    

official, such as the exegetes, could also issue this type of order, as attested by an  36 petition.⁶⁰ A link between the grapheion and the office for the registration of demotic contracts can be seen in a private agreement (cheirographon) drawn up at the grapheion of Tebtunis in  47.⁶¹ In this document five brothers acknowledged that they had sold to Tamaron a share of a house that they owned jointly in Ptolemais Euergetis, and that they had received the money. They bound themselves to execute a formal sale in the form of a six-witness contract through the mnemoneion of the district capital or through ‘whatever archives (archeia) in the metropolis you wish’.⁶²

2.3.1 The People of the grapheion The grapheion archive sheds some light not only on Kronion the notary, but also on Kronion the man. Because he was the head of the record-office for nearly three decades, playing a key role in the local community by overseeing the making of thousands of contracts, Kronion can be regarded as one of the main characters in the archive, contributing to the overall reconstruction of this village study. The available evidence about his life and work is rather thin and does not allow us to reconstruct his world view in the same way Carlo Ginzburg, using sixteenth-century inquisition records, reconstructed the world view of Domenico Scandella, the protagonist of the microhistory entitled The Cheese and the Worms.⁶³ However, the information at our disposal gives us some hints about Kronion’s attitude to work and life. His long-term position as head of the record-office suggests that he was competitive in bidding, while his employment of scribes and other workers points towards an entrepreneurial disposition to work. Some elements allow us to draw up a fairly clear picture of Kronion’s socio-economic standing within the local community. He had a son named Apis and was literate in Greek, but there is no evidence that he belonged to a family of Hellenic descent.⁶⁴ Yet his name is the Greek rendering of a Geb name, a god

⁶⁰ P.Mich. V 232. Taorses, wife of Galates of the family of Lusimachos (discussed in Chapter 4.2.2) petitioned the exegetes Chairemon asking him to order the head of the grapheion of Tebtunis, Kronion, to prepare for her the agreement of surrender (homologia ekstaseos) and of approval (eudokesis). ⁶¹ P.Mich. V 276. ⁶² P.Mich. V 276. 40. ⁶³ Ginzburg (1980). ⁶⁴ P.Mich. II 123 verso V 28, a payment of 52 dr. made by Apis the son in Ptolemais Euergetis for the account of the papyrus tax.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

49

associated with Sobek and identified with the Greek Kronos; in the same way, his father’s name, Apion, is the Greek rendering of the Egyptian god Apis. Even though names were a matter of personal choice, the fact that both Kronion and his father had Greek names associated with Egyptian deities suggests that they were deeply integrated into the Egyptian culture of the village and influenced by Greek fashion. Kronion was a member of the association of Harpokrates; in September 45 he paid a contribution of 4 dr., probably a membership fee, to Patron, president of the association, and in October 45 he offered 2 jars (keramia) of wine.⁶⁵ There is little doubt that Kronion was a particularly well-off villager. He held the concession of the record-office for a long period of time, which suggests that his business was profitable. He also owned a house, where he used to drink with his colleagues and friends, and probably owned some land and a donkey for his journeys to Ptolemais Euergetis and nearby villages.⁶⁶ The two accounts reveal Kronion’s large availability of cash; according to Rathbone’s calculations, Kronion spent an average of 67 dr. a month for his private expenses; for the operation of the grapheion he spent an average of 40 dr. in the month of September and 20 dr. in October. When comparing the average salary of an unskilled agricultural worker of 3 to 6 ob. a day, or c. 30 dr. per month (as attested for the first and early second century ) with the 60 odd dr. which Kronion spent on his own household, it becomes apparent that his economic standing was far above that of a common villager.⁶⁷ Kronion’s job appears to have been rather demanding; not unlike a modern businessman, he had frequent business meals with a variety of people, in Tebtunis as well as in neighbouring villages and in Ptolemais Euergetis. As already mentioned in the previous section (2.3), his official position as head of the record-office meant that he had frequent contact with higher officials, including the village scribe, the exegetes Chairemon, and some other not otherwise identified personalities.⁶⁸ Kronion’s wide net of contacts shows that the grapheion was well integrated into the wider administrative network and illustrates the village notaries’ active role in the administration at both the local and regional level, maintaining contact with key individuals in the surrounding area. Occasionally Kronion bought ⁶⁵ P.Mich. II 127 I 20, 30. ⁶⁶ Eg. P.Mich. II 123 verso III 6, a purchase of some beer for Kronion and Eutucheides for consumption in the house. Donkey: P.Mich. II 123 verso II 29, VII 18, IX 35. ⁶⁷ Rathbone (2013a) 126: more generally Drexhage (1991). ⁶⁸ In April 46, for example, a certain Dionusodoros son of Herakleides visited the grapheion, accompanied by armed guards; cf. P.Mich. II 123 verso V 15–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

50

    

beer and wine outside Tebtunis, namely in Talei and Tristomos, which no doubt contributed to the establishment of social networks within the region.⁶⁹ The integration of village administrators into the central administrative machine seems to have been a particular feature of the early Roman Arsinoite nome, attested also by the case of Nemesion, son of Zoilos, collector of the poll-tax (praktor laographias) in Philadelphia for several years in the 40s and 50s under the reigns of Claudius and Nero.⁷⁰ Like Kronion, Nemesion had frequent contact with the village scribe, Herakleides, but also with other higher officials, including the strategos of the Herakleides meris.⁷¹ It is difficult to establish whether the economic behaviour of Kronion and Nemesion was influenced by the new Roman administration; in other words, whether the two were representative of a broader culture that was spreading in Egypt after the arrival of the Romans. Although we cannot make any generalization on the basis of such limited evidence, the cases of Kronion and Nemesion seem to show that the newly established Roman government encouraged, or at least allowed, relatively well-off and resourceful individuals to hold state concessions for a long period of time and to establish relations with local and regional officials so that they could improve their socio-economic status. Both Kronion and Nemesion appear to have been well integrated into the new Roman administration in the midfirst century , that is around 70 years after the Roman conquest of Egypt. This was still a period of transition during which various changes were being implemented (e.g. the establishment of a higher number of concessions), while a number of rules and institutions were being kept. In a way, Kronion’s role is comparable to that of Aristophanes, professional scribe at Jeme, in southern Egypt, in the mid-eighth century .⁷² Although the grapheion archive is of a different nature from Aristophanes’ dossier, both shed light on periods of changes—the former attests to the transition period from Ptolemaic to Roman rule, the latter to the transition from the Byzantine to the Islamic period. A transition from one government to another took time and changes were not immediately implemented, as can be seen by the fact that many administrative practices were initially kept (both in the Roman and Arab period). Both Kronion and Aristophanes, with their prominent roles in their local communities, were part of a changing society, ⁶⁹ See section on food production in Chapter 6.3. ⁷⁰ Hanson (1988), (1989), and (1992). ⁷¹ SB XIV 12143; SB IV 7461. ⁷² Cromwell (2017), esp. 190–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

51

conforming their practices and activities to the new rulers in order to keep their well-off financial status. About Kronion’s partner Eutucheides we know very little. He probably took over the management of the grapheion when Kronion retired (or died), as his name very rarely appears in the documents. It has been suggested that during the last years of the  40s he was in training, in the same way that Kronion had learned the profession from his father.⁷³ Kronion employed scribes, night clerks (nuktographoi), writers of demotic contracts, and subscribers (hupographeis), who wrote Greek subscriptions for illiterate parties.⁷⁴ Some of these subscribers were certainly professional scribes who were somehow associated with the record-office, even though they were probably not permanent staff.⁷⁵ Herbert Youtie noted that the use of professional scribes as subscribers was common practice in writing offices throughout Egypt and that their choice ‘by an illiterate person was not haphazard’.⁷⁶ This situation, he suggested, reveals the existence of a relationship of trust between private individuals, the notary office and the scribes themselves, upon which the functioning of the grapheion relied.⁷⁷ The lengthy careers of both scribes and nomographoi seem to have contributed to the strengthening of these trust networks within the village. For Tebtunis we have the example of several scribes who worked at the record-office for a long period of time, including Herodes son of Herodes from  13 to 31 (18 years), Eutuchos the elder from  18 to 42 (24 years), and Dionusios son of Maron from  27 to 46 (19 years).⁷⁸ The socio-economic standing of the grapheion scribes varied, but overall it seems that they were ‘Hellenized Egyptians’, to use Muhs’ definition, often individuals who were somehow associated with well-off priestly families.⁷⁹ Dionusos son of Maron is a good example. A professional scribe between  27 and 46, Dionusos was related to the priestly family of Psuphis son of Harpokration, which is known from a number of contemporary documents (see Chapter 4.2.1 for ⁷³ Eutucheides is attested in P.Mich. II 123 recto and verso, 125, 127, 128; P.Tebt. II 383. In the archive there are no documents prepared by him. ⁷⁴ For an analysis of the grapheion scribes see Toepel (1973) 30–58. Night clerks: P.Mich. II 123 verso II 14–20, 23–4; IX 24. Writers of demotic contracts: P.Mich. II 123 verso II 25; XI 28. For a list of ‘stand-in’ writers see Toepel (1973) 31–35; a list of scribes can be found in Toepel (1973) 36–7. ⁷⁵ Youtie (1975a) 217. ⁷⁶ Youtie (1975a) 217, 219. ⁷⁷ Youtie (1975a) 220. Also Claytor (2014) 202. ⁷⁸ Herodes: P.Mich. V 252, 257, 293, 348, 346(a). Eutuchos the elder: P.Mich. II 121 recto I iv, II vii, IV i, IV ix–x; V 249, 253, 269, 291, 296, 305, 306, 308. Dionusos: P.Mich. V 278–9, 307, 322(a), 336, 352. ⁷⁹ Muhs (2005a) 104.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

52

    

further discussion).⁸⁰ Other scribes related to this family were Psuphis son of Onnophris, grandson of Psuphis, and Marepsemis alias Kalamos, nephew of Psuphis’ wife Tetosiris.⁸¹ These scribes received compensation for their services, but in most cases it is unlikely that this took the form of a fixed wage; the majority of the grapheion scribes appear to have worked as freelancers. The common account includes a number of payments for night clerks, demotic writers, and more generally for writing services, but these are usually very small sums, thus suggesting that scribes were hired only at certain times.⁸² Their credentials and association with the record-office were no doubt well known within the local community, and in the specific case of subscribers contracting parties were given the opportunity to pick the one they preferred. As part-time workers the scribes of Tebtunis must have been involved in other economic activities.⁸³ Eutuchos the elder, for example, is attested as a part-time scribe as well as a landowner. In other cases, however, subscribers were older men, well versed in Greek writing, who occasionally provided their services upon request. This is the case of Ptolemaios son Chairemon, aged 75, who acted as subscriber in nine contracts registered in  42, and Herakleides son of Horion, attested in one contract only.⁸⁴ Most scribes for which ages are given were aged 30 to 50.⁸⁵ A family of scribes, who wrote documents in demotic, is attested in Tebtunis in earlier periods, from the end of the second century  to the early Roman period.⁸⁶ Members of this family were Haruotes son of Harmiusis (128–105 ), Harmiusis son of Haruotes (89–85 ), Harmiusis son of Haruotes (66–37 ) and possibly Harmiusis son of Harmiusis ( 4). In the grapheion archive several men called Harmiusis and Haruotes are attested, but there is no evidence to suggest the existence of any family relation with the family of scribes of the late Ptolemaic period. Scribes were not the only ones to receive compensation for their work. Other people are attested to have received various sums of cash, but the ⁸⁰ In a division of property dated to AD 46 (P.Mich. V 322a) Dionusios, as a relative, acts as guardian to Thaubastis, daughter of Psuphis alias Harpokration. ⁸¹ Psuphis son of Onnophris: P.Tebt. II 383 (11 July AD 46); P.Mich. V 322(b) (AD 51). Marepsemis son of Marepsemis: P.Mich. V 226. ⁸² P.Mich. II 123 verso VI 9 records an expenditure of 28 obols to Maronas for writing services. ⁸³ Toepel (1973) 60. ⁸⁴ Ptolemaios: P.Mich. II 121 recto III xiv, verso II 12 = recto II viii, verso II 15 = recto III i, verso II 16 = recto III ii, verso III 3 = recto III ix, verso III 4 = recto III x, verso III 5 = recto III xi, verso III 7 = recto III xiii, recto III xiv. Herakleides: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 15 = recto III i. ⁸⁵ Toepel (1973) 58. ⁸⁶ Martin (2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

53

nature of their service is not specified. For example, in September 45 two men, Heronas and Heraklas, received a salary (opsonia) of 40 dr. and 6 ob. respectively, and in June 46 a certain Kronion son of Kames received a salary of 4 ob.⁸⁷ In January 46 Kronion paid 5 ob. to the priest Marres as a compensation (misthos) for some service in Ptolemais Euergetis.⁸⁸ It is clear then that a number of individuals collaborated with the grapheion in one way or another and were compensated for their work. Overall, the recordoffice of Tebtunis and Kerkesoucha played a central role in the local community, as an administrative as well as a socio-economic institution towards which a large number of villagers gravitated, not only as contracting parties, but also as hired workers. The grapheion was deeply integrated into the wider notarial system, and at this early stage of Roman domination in Egypt, it appears to have enjoyed some independence. Although for certain documents, such as cessions of catoecic land, the notary needed a formal order from higher officials for their drafting, the majority of contract types could be registered at the village grapheion. This was an extraordinary service for the people of Tebtunis as it facilitated the implementation of a high number of transactions involving the main sectors of village life, from social and family relations (including marriages, divorces, post-marriage settlements, and divisions of property) to economic enterprises, such as land-related agreements and applications for state concessions. The presence of a record-office in the village meant that those living in Tebtunis, who represented the largest proportion of the grapheion-users, and those in nearby villages did not need to travel to the district capital, Ptolemais Euergetis, to get a contract or any other document officially registered. Ultimately, the fact that the record-office services were available not only to well-off individuals, residents of the district capital who had properties and business in the village, but also to people of more modest financial means made the grapheion an essential social institution. The following chapter looks in detail at these grapheion users.

2.4 Conclusions This chapter has investigated the nature of the documents belonging to the grapheion Kronion archive and the ways in which they are used to reconstruct ⁸⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto I(a) 8; I (b) 24. verso VI 29. ⁸⁸ P.Mich. II 123 verso II 21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

54

    

the socio-economic history of early Roman Tebtunis. The introduction provides an overview of the composition and acquisition of the archive and a list of previous studies that have focused on the textual aspect of the papyri (Boak, Segré, Husselman) as well as on their historical value, from the first general economic analysis of the contracts by Toepel to the investigation of individual contract types and accounts, such as the wet-nurse contracts by Montevecchi and Masciadri, land tenancy by Rowlandson, and markets by Rathbone. This is followed by a more detailed examination of the documents, which are divided into three main types: full contracts, annual registers of contracts, and accounts. Each document type is explored in a dedicated section, which describes the role and the nature of the texts and potential problems of interpretation. The analysis of contracts, which represent the most common document type within the archive, has allowed us to shed light on the question of the numerous duplicates and bodiless subscriptions. The production of these texts appears to have been linked with the new notarial practices that were implemented in Egypt in the early Roman period, whereby contracts had to be included in an annual register called anagraphe or register of titles in order to be valid. Contracts also provide valuable information about the ways in which some socio-economic activities were carried out in the village from a legal perspective. It is the annual registers, however, that offer the largest amount of data regarding the socio-economic life of Tebtunis. Divided into registers of titles (anagraphai) and registers of abstracts (eiromena), these texts include details about the written transactions which were drawn up in the village over certain periods of time. Particular attention has been paid to the four registers that constitute the basis of the quantitative analyses in this book—three registers of titles, dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 verso), 45/6 (P.Mich. II 123 recto), and 46/7 (P.Mich. V 238), and one register of abstracts dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 recto). The discussion includes a description of the texts’ format and content and a list of all the written transactions that have been drawn up over the time periods concerned (Table 2.1). It has been noted that a number of links existed between different contract types; the most common link is the one between a contract, such as a sale, and a credit agreement, such as a loan, which acts as a pledge for the original transaction, thus creating an arrangement called antichretic. Other links aim to set up specific socio-economic arrangements between the two main contracting parties. Information about the economy of Tebtunis is also to be found in the accounts, which are discussed in Section 2.2.3. The focus has been on the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

  

55

two best preserved texts: the common account dated to  45/6, which includes the expenses of the record-office (P.Mich. II 123 recto I-verso II– XII), and the private account, which includes Kronion’s private expenses over a five-month period in  45/6 (P.Mich. II 127). While the common account allows us to shed light on the functioning of the record-office, discussed in 2.3 the private account enables the study of prices of local products and markets (Chapter 6.3). The last two sections of the chapter discuss the functioning of the local record-office, its role in village life, and the people who gravitated around this institution. From this point of view the evidence from Tebtunis is unique as not much is known about village record-offices elsewhere in Egypt. The grapheion archive of Tebtunis has shown that in the early Roman period the village record-office was well integrated into the broader net of administrative offices in the Arsinoite region and constituted a key institution for everyone in the community who needed a contract drawn up. Village record-offices allowed people to conclude almost any business that required an official ratification in their own communities, without the need to travel to the district capital. Analysis of the grapheion archive also gave us insight into the network of people who worked in the office and had an association with it, including the notary Kronion, the scribes he employed, and some officials from the district capital. From this discussion it has emerged that the record-office was a profitable business for bidders such as Kronion, who held the concession for nearly three decades, as well as for scribes; it was also a key point of reference for everyone in the village as it served users of all socio-economic standing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

3 The People of Tebtunis 3.1 Introduction Historians and papyrologists have proposed several estimates for the population size of Roman Egypt, ranging from a low count of 3–5 million to a high count of 8–10 million, but a consensus has not yet been reached.¹ This is mainly due to the fragmentary nature of the surviving written evidence, which provides incomplete and often dubious quantitative data. However, the recent adoption of statistical methods and comparative approaches, combined with the analysis of the most reliable figures, have improved our understanding of demographic features, such as gender, mortality, and age distribution, fluctuation in population size over time, and density of population, and how they can be interpreted against the general social and economic background of a Mediterranean population.² Alan Bowman has recently discussed the evidence and debated issues of the demography of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, giving a thorough and updated overview of the state of current studies.³ Although it is clear that precise results cannot be reached, it is now universally accepted that Roman Egypt had a large population, at least by ancient standards, as

¹ Estimates of population size in the early Roman period are provided by two literary sources: Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 1.31.6–9, and Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 2.385. Diodorus’ text presents a difficult reading for the population figure, interpreted as 3 or 7 million—see Rathbone (1990) 104 n. 2. Josephus gives the figure of 7.5 million for the total population of Egypt in the second half of the first century, excluding Alexandria. For a low count of the population between 3–5 million, see Rathbone (1990) and Bagnall and Frier (1994) 54; for a high count of 8–10 million see Lo Cascio (1999) 160; for a median count at around 5–7 million see Scheidel (2001b) 186, 245–8. See Scheidel (2001a) and Bowman (2011) 318, Table 11.1, for a list of some of the most significant estimates of the population in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. For a brief overview of demography in the New Kingdom (1539–1075 ) see Meskell (2002) 26, who estimated the population size in the Nile Valley at about 2.1 million. ² See Bagnall and Frier (1994) for a statistical investigation of the demography of this province on the basis of the data provided by over 300 census declarations. Bagnall and Frier (2006) 2nd edn includes supplements to census declarations; see also Hombert and Préaux (1952). A comparative approach which uses eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Egyptian data has been adopted by Scheidel in his study on mortality in Roman Egypt (2001b). ³ Bowman (2011). Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

57

well as a high number of settlements, both rural and urban.⁴ Egypt also appeared to have had a population density higher than any other Roman province, a phenomenon attributed to a high level of urbanization, which reflected a larger population in the cities and metropoleis, and to the geomorphology of the Delta and Nile Valley, which facilitated transport and communications.⁵ The establishment of these criteria—large population, high density, and high degree of urbanization—has led to the generally accepted conclusion that the overall demographic structure of Roman Egypt is consistent with the pre-industrial Mediterranean pattern.⁶

3.2 The Population From a demographic point of view, the Arsinoite is one of the largest and best-documented regions of Roman Egypt, with the number of villages estimated at around 150 and a surface area of 1,300 km², similar to that of the Mendesian nome (1,484 km²).⁷ Drawing on ancient sources and modern approaches (i.e. the Boserup-Demsetz model for land rights), Andrew Monson has argued convincingly for a direct correlation between property rights and population density, suggesting that land property rights had a more widespread development in more densely populated areas, such as the Nile Valley and the Delta, as opposed to marginal areas such as the Arsinoite nome.⁸ For several villages the papyrological evidence and archaeological record have allowed us to estimate population size, site area, extent of cultivated land, and population density per km². The best examples are Karanis, Philadelphia, and Theadelphia, which in the second century  seem to have had populations of 3,600, 3,300, and 2,300 respectively.⁹ For Tebtunis we lack quantitative data concerning population size, but estimates have been proposed ranging from a low count of 3,000–4,000, by Rathbone, ⁴ Bowman (2011) 320. Cf. Rathbone (1990) 107, with reference to and comment of Diodorus’ figure (1. 31. 7) of ‘3,000 cities and important villages’. ⁵ Bowman (2011) 329–30. Cf. Scheidel (2007) 48 in which Egypt is said to have had a population density between 167–200 per km², as opposed to a density of below 50 km² in the other provinces. For an estimated level of urbanization at 37 per cent see Bagnall and Frier (1994) 53–6. Also Bowman (2000). ⁶ Bowman (2011) 330–31; Clarysse and Thompson (2006) II 256. ⁷ Bowman (2011) 333–34. The other regions for which reliable evidence is available are Herakleopolite, Oxyrhynchite and Hermopolite; for the Mendesian nome see Blouin (2014) 115. ⁸ Monson (2012) 36–49, 86 and Blouin (2014) 124–5. See also Bowman (2011) 320–2 and Rathbone (1990) esp. 109, 130–4 for a discussion of the Arsinoite figures. ⁹ Bowman (2011) Table 11.4 p. 337.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

58

    

who assumes that Tebtunis was as large as Karanis, to a high count of 7,000–8,000 by Montevecchi and Masciadri.¹⁰ Two affidavits registered at the record-office in  45 (P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 33–4, 35–6) give us insight into the size of its population. Both documents are concerned with the payment of the beer tax (zutera), one for the nearby village of Kerkeesis, for a total of 1,204 dr., the other for Tebtunis, at 8,200 dr. The editor suggested that these sums, though it is unclear whether they represented annual reports of the two villages, probably referred to the same period, concluding that ‘Tebtunis had a population between seven and eight times as great as that of Kerkeesis’.¹¹ Although for Tebtunis we have no quantitative data about population size, except for site area, estimated at about 207 ar., we know that in the third century  the village territory included about 3,588 non-irrigated arouras (abrochos), that is, a quantity of arable land which was declared unflooded (i.e. not artificially irrigated).¹² When we compare the amount of land which has been estimated for other Arsinoite villages, it soon becomes clear that this was only part of the total land available around Tebtunis. The nearby village of Kerkeosiris, for example, which had a total population of around 1,200 in the second century , had an estimated total territory of about 6,800 ar. (no estimate for site area is available for this settlement). Other estimates, dated to the second century , include 12,300 ar. for Karanis, with a population of 3,600 and a site area of c.290 ar., and 6,800 ar. for Theadelphia, with a population of about 2,300 and a site area of c.90 ar.¹³ In the light of these data, it is plausible to reckon for Tebtunis an amount of arable land between 7,000 and 10,000 ar. The yield on this land must have varied considerably, but the local data seem compatible with the general average of 10 artabas per aroura, although higher yields are attested in the second century on the land owned by the wealthy family of Patron.¹⁴ Using the concept of wheat-equivalent, that is assuming that all land produced wheat, the average annual yield would have been between 70,000 and 100,000 artabas, reduced at 49,000 to 70,000 artabas after deducting taxes

¹⁰ Rowlandson (1999) 147 n. 31; Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 153. Rowlandson prefers a higher figure of 4,000–5,000 on the assumption that Tebtunis was larger than Theadelphia or Karanis. ¹¹ P.Mich. II p. 124 n. 34–6. ¹² P.Giss. VI 52 ( 222 or 223). See Bowman (2009) 188–9. ¹³ Bowman (2011) Table 11.4 p. 337. ¹⁴ Crawford (1971) 127; Bowman (1996) 17. For the archive of Patron see TM Arch 66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

59

and 1/10 as seed-corn.¹⁵ Assuming a consumption of 2,400 calories a day by units of 6-member families, the total crops would have been sufficient to support a population between 5,400 and 7,700 inhabitants.¹⁶ Even though these are speculative figures, they help us to get a better sense of the probable size of Tebtunis’ population and the way it fluctuated over time, with a lower estimate occurring in the periods of crisis and a higher one during periods of prosperity. In the mid-first century  an estimate of around 6,000 inhabitants may be proposed.

3.2.1 Users of the Tebtunis Record-Office Although the grapheion archive does not provide data about population size, the  40s registers of contracts enable us to estimate the number of grapheion-users in the first half of the first century , including an investigation of gender and age distribution. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the grapheion-users were for the most part inhabitants of Tebtunis, but they also came from other nearby villages, such as Kerkesoucha Orous, Kerkeesis, Ibion Eikosipentarouron, and Kaine.¹⁷ Contracting parties could have also been from another district, as in the case of a certain Herakleides and his parents who are said to have been from the Herakleopolite nome.¹⁸ Due to the nature of the registers, which provide only minimum data about the parties, it is not always possible to identify individuals who often bore the same names and hence to calculate the total number of users. Certain names occur with more regularity than others, and the majority appears in more than one transaction. There are, however, ways to overcome these difficulties, at least partially. The combined analysis of the ¹⁵ Rathbone (1989) 172 calculated the overall tax yield on private and public land in the Roman and Byzantine periods at 1.2–1.6 art./ar. A total of 2 art./ar. seems a safe estimate when allowing for other taxes. ¹⁶ Rathbone (1990) 108, with n. 18, assumes that one artaba was equivalent to 30.3 kg and one kilogram had a calorific value of 3,200 calories. Also Scheidel (2001b) 241. Bowman (1996) 238–9 reckons with a higher daily requirement ranging between 2,852 and 3,822 calories, depending on how active an adult man was. See also Gallant (1991) 62–75 and Reger (1994). ¹⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto V 28 (Talei, 17 October 45); II 123 recto VIII 32 (Kaine, 12 December 45); II 123 recto XI 28 (Talei, 17 January 46); II 123 recto XVI 6 (Talei, 21 May 46); II 123 recto XXI 10 (Aruokomes, 30 July 46); II 123 recto XXII 27 (Ibion Eikosipentarouron, 7 August 46); II 123 recto XXII 10 (Kerkeesis, 17–20 August 46). One of the contracting parties (and her guardian) is from a village in the Herakleopolite, Phanameni; cf. P.Mich. II 121 recto IV i = verso III 8 (21 June 42). ¹⁸ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 8 = recto IV i. They are attested in a receipt of dowry, whereby Herakleides enters into marriage with one Tamarres, who was probably from Tebtunis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

60

    

contract titles and correspondent abstracts in the  42 register, for example, not only provides us with more detailed information about the contracting parties, including patronymics and metronymics, age, and often juridical status, but also allows us to establish the roles of first and second parties in a number of transactions (Table 2.1). A number of links can be identified between contracts; some were formally recognized links, like the one between a sale and a loan, which together form a mortgage; others were more loose connections between contracts which were unrelated to one another from an administrative point of view, but involved the same parties. Formally recognized links are decisive for the identification of their contracting parties. Finally, the examination of internal references, including personal details of the parties (age, relations, title, and profession), the transaction’s object, and the occurrence of parties bearing the same names in unrelated documents registered on the same day (or within a few days) often sheds light on a number of issues and helps with the disambiguation process. Across the three registers 3,030 parties are listed (660 in  42, 1,724 in 45/6, and 646 in 46). Of these, 2,370 are named individuals, of which 2,037 are male, or 86 per cent, 291 female, or 12 per cent, and 41 unknown (1.6 per cent). The 660 unnamed parties (21.7 per cent) include those individuals who are referred to as ‘other’ or ‘others’ (ἄλλος), wives (γυνή), husbands (ἀνήρ), and other relatives, groups (including priests, ἱερεῖς, and various associations), and names which are lost in lacuna. After identifying a number of individuals who acted in multiple transactions, the net total of the grapheion-users has been estimated at 2,158, whereby 1,903 are male (c.88 per cent) and 255 female (c.12 per cent). These approximate figures reflect a high count. In many cases the impossibility of identifying parties bearing the same names meant that each occurrence has been counted as a separate individual. For example, of men named Orsenouphis, who occur 85 times in the registers, only 7 have been identified, giving a net total of 78. Although this was a popular name in the Arsinoite villages, the actual number of parties named Orsenouphis was probably lower. If we allow for a margin of error of, say, 5 per cent, the number of male parties is reduced to about 1,800 and that of female parties to 242, for a net total of 2,042. Assuming that a small part of the male grapheion-users, say 5 to 10 per cent, or 95–190, were not from Tebtunis, we are left with a total of 1,705 to 1,610 parties. If we hypothesize that all adult males used the record-office at least once in the period covered by the registers, by multiplying the number of the male users by the demographic multiplier 3.1, we would have a population size of 5,301 to 5,022, which fits the lowest estimate proposed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

61

in the previous section.¹⁹ If we envisage a population between 5,000 and 8,000, the level of participation in the contractual economy of the village would have ranged between 20 and 34 per cent, with 25–28 per cent being a fair estimate considering a population of about 6,000.²⁰ We have no comparative evidence for this or later periods, but considering that the bulk of the contracting parties were between 20 and 40 years old (see below), this no doubt represents a considerably high percentage. Another variable that needs investigating is the age distribution of the contracting parties. Indication of age is to be found only in the register of abstracts of  42 (P.Mich. II 121 recto), and ages are preserved in 37 of the 50 abstracts, giving us a sample of 94 males and 13 females. Of the 94 males, 27 were subscribers. As we can see from Figure 3.1, the largest age cohorts of male contracting parties are comprised of men between 20 and 40. In the stable model reconstructed by Roger Bagnall and Bruce Frier, 47.5 per cent of males are aged 15 to 44 (46.3 per cent in the census declarations).²¹ A minor is also attested, a certain Malles son of Orseus, who acted as a creditor in a deposit contract under the guardianship of his full brother, Petesouchos.²² The ages of the female parties are evenly spread across three cohorts ranging from 20 to 50. These results are consistent with the stable female population, according to which 46 per cent of women were aged between 15 and 44.²³ With the exception of the minor Malles, no party, male or female, is aged under 20, which suggests that this was normally the minimum age for making contracts. The subscribers seem to have been generally older than the male contracting parties; the bestattested age cohorts are comprised of men between 30 and 50, and two subscribers are in their 70s (Figure 3.2). This is probably due to the fact that men of older ages had more free time and thus were more likely to work as scribes at the local record-office.

¹⁹ Boak (1955), with Rathbone (1990) 132. See also Hobson (1985) 219–20, for a ratio 1:3.5, and Bagnall and Frier (1994) 103 n. 35, for a ratio of 1:2.9. ²⁰ That the level of participation in the contractual economy was higher than 20 per cent is suggested by the study of the socio-economic status of the grapheion-users, carried out in Chapter 4, which reveals that individuals belonging to all strata of the population made contracts. Bowman (2009) 40–1 suggested that around 20 per cent of the adult population participated in the contractual economy of the village, implying a population size of over 8,000. ²¹ Bagnall and Frier (1994) 102. ²² P.Mich. II 121 verso II 14 = recto II x. On guardianship of women in Roman Egypt see Arjava (1997) and Vandorpe and Waebens (2010) 416–22. ²³ Bagnall and Frier (1994) 89.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

62

     The number of the record-office users

25 20 15 10 5 0 20–30

31–40 41–50 51–60 The age ranges of the users Men

61–70

Women

The number of subscribers

Figure 3.1 Age distribution of contracting parties in the  42 register (P.Mich. II 121 recto) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20–30

31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 The age ranges of the subscribers

71–80

Subscribers

Figure 3.2 Age distribution of subscribers

3.2.2 Women in Tebtunis Age distribution No woman older than 50 is attested. Although this result is based on a sample of only 13 female contracting parties, given the relatively small percentage of women attested in the register, I take this age distribution model to be significant. The lack of older women in the contracts needs

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

63

further explanation. Is this only a distorted result of the evidence? In other words, did older women not make written contracts, or is it that their presence simply cannot be detected in the evidence? In reconstructing the age at first marriage for women in Roman Egypt, Bagnall and Frier noted that the proportion of women still married drops from over 80 per cent at around age 30 to less than 40 per cent in the later forties, thus concluding that it was the norm for women not to remarry.²⁴ This would imply a high proportion of older widows, which has been postulated by Jens-Uwe Krause.²⁵ In the light of this scenario, we would expect Tebtunis to have had a large proportion of unmarried older women. Although the evidence does not allow us to determine the age and marriage status of all the women of Tebtunis, it does, however, permit us to reconstruct with good approximation the percentage of married and single women who used the recordoffice. Of the 13 female contracting parties in our sample, 9 appear to have made contracts jointly with their husbands, one occurs in a marriage contract at the age of 27 (given the fact that women generally married in their teens in Roman Egypt, this might be in fact a remarriage), one in a divorce contract at the age of 40, and only two women appear to have been without a husband and acting with a guardian.²⁶ This is consistent with the overall picture emerging from the registers, whereby the majority of women are attested as wives, usually acting jointly with their husbands, in transactions such as residence contracts, wet-nurse contracts and post-marriage settlements: 13.7 per cent in the four-month period of  42, 38 per cent in the year  45/6, and 58 per cent in the four-month period of  46/7.²⁷ Only a small percentage of women seems to have made contracts independently, and, as Hobson noted, they mainly occurred in contracts involving real property—mortgages, sales of houses, and divisions of property.²⁸ This scenario has two sets of social and economic implications. First, it implies that married women held a privileged economic position, as marriage gave them the socio-economic status necessary to make contracts jointly with ²⁴ Bagnall and Frier (1994) 113–15. Cf. Hanson (2000) esp. 150–3. ²⁵ Krause (1994) 47–52. ²⁶ Women acting jointly with their husbands: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 6 = recto II ii; II 8 = recto II iv; II 15 = recto III i; III 1 = recto III vii; III 6 = recto III xii; III 8= recto IV i; III 10 = recto IV iii; III 11 = recto IV iv; III 14 = recto IV vii; III 15= recto IV ix. Marriage contract: P.Mich. II 121 verso III 10 = recto IV iii; contract of divorce: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 8 = recto II iv; women acting with guardians are Tamarron (P.Mich. II 121 verso II 5 = recto II i) and Tasooukis (P.Mich. II 121 verso II 12 = recto II viii). ²⁷ These percentages reflect the number of women who acted jointly with a male relative out of the total number of women attested in each register. See next section, ‘The Role of Women,’ for further discussion. ²⁸ Hobson (1984) 385.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 30/12/2019, SPi

64

    

their husbands. Single women (widows and divorcees), on the other hand, appear rarely in the contracts as they probably had very little economic independence and generally a weaker position in society. The low number of single women in the registers could also be explained by arguing that in Tebtunis there were not many single women, and that the general rule was for widowed women to remarry. This conclusion would fit the theory proposed by Sabine Huebner according to which women from all strata but the elite remarried in large numbers.²⁹ Another alternative could be that most single women did in fact have family or friends who supported them and acted as contracting parties on their behalf.³⁰

The Role of Women Overall, the extent to which women participated in the contractual economy of early Roman Tebtunis was limited. Their presence as contracting parties in the three registers of titles amounts to 11 per cent in the four-month period of  42, 14.6 per cent in  45/6, and 17.1 per cent in the first four months of  46/7.³¹ Though not surprising, these results alone tell us very little about the role of women. In order to get a full picture of their actual functions within the local economy and society of Tebtunis, we must look at the contracts in which they appear (and the ones in which they do not) and at their capacities as contracting parties. As Hobson pointed out, the economic role of a woman in this village ‘relates quite directly to her household’.³² This is clear from the fact that the bulk of women attested in the registers appear as wives (and less frequently as daughters) in contracts associated with domestic roles, such as post-marriage settlement contracts, dowry contracts and receipts of dowry, residence contracts, and wet-nurse contracts.³³ As we have seen in the previous section, a large number of women acted jointly with a male relative, usually a husband. In  45–6

²⁹ Huebner (2013) 95. ³⁰ Rathbone (2006) 104–5. ³¹ These calculations are based on the total number of named male and female contracting parties attested in the registers. They differ from the figures calculated by Hobson (1984) 389—20 per cent in the four-month period of  42, 25 per cent in  45/6 and 33 per cent in the first four-month period of  46/7—as these are based on the number of contracts in which women appear. ³² Hobson (1984) 388–89. ³³ Post-marriage settlement contracts: 17 in  42, 2 in  45/6, and 4 in  46/7. Dowry contracts: 7 in  42, 25 in  45/6, and 1 in  46/7. Receipts of dowry: 4 in  42, 12 in  45/6, and 2 in  46/7. Residence contracts: 2 in  42, 11 in  45/6, and 15 in  46/7. Wet-nurse contracts: 3 in  42, 17 in  45/6, and 8 in  46/7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

65

women also appear often in loans and deposits, as debtors alongside their husbands.³⁴ By analysing the involvement of women in the three registers, Hobson concluded that the women of Tebtunis ‘appear most frequently in contexts relating to their inheritance and their role as the consenting wife, but they are on the whole not really economic agents in their own right.’³⁵ They appear as independent actors only in certain types of transactions involving property, such as mortgages, sales of houses, and divisions of property.³⁶ The reason for this lies in the existence in Egypt of a system of partible inheritance whereby women could inherit from both their parents, and also in the fact that women could acquire property through dowries.³⁷ Since property often included land, women were also landowners. Evidence from other Arsinoite villages has shown that women owned a reasonably large proportion of land in the Roman period.³⁸ At Soknopaiou Nesos, for example, women appear to have owned about one third of real estate in the first two centuries of Roman rule, and a similar situation seems to have been in force in second-century Karanis.³⁹ Katherine Blouin has noted that 13 or 15 of the 37 declarants attested in the third-century declarations of nonflooded and artificially irrigated land located in the Phernouphite village of the Mendesian nome were women.⁴⁰ This figure represents around 35 per cent to 40.5 per cent of all declarants, which is similar to the estimates we have for other areas of Roman Egypt. For early Roman Tebtunis the percentage of women who owned land cannot be calculated, but the extant evidence seems to point to a rather small proportion.⁴¹ They appear ³⁴ Loans: 19 in  45/6, 13 in  46/7; deposits: 15 in  45/6, 9 in  46/7. ³⁵ Hobson (1984) 386. In the Pharaonic period the women of Deir el-Medina could buy and sell property, but were often represented in their domestic roles; Lesko (1994) 33–7. ³⁶ Sales of houses: P.Mich. II 121 verso VIII 7; II 123 recto V 31, VIII 41, XIV 25, XXI 36. Mortgages: P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 27, IX 32, IX 36–7; V 238 I 8, 30. Divisions: P.Mich. II 121 verso I 9, VIII 13, XI 19; II 123 r IV 30. Melaerts (2002) lists the 72 sales which survive from Tebtunis, dated between 27  and  205, indicating the role women played in these documents; see Tableau 1, pp. 225–31. He pointed out that in a total of 87 documents (sales plus 15 cessions), women appear as sellers or buyers in 35 per cent of the cases, and jointly with a male party in another 12 per cent (pp. 212–13). Cf. Montevecchi (1941) 144. ³⁷ Huebner (2013) 50–3. Cf. Melaerts (2002) 222 for a discussion of women receiving a smaller part compared with their brothers. ³⁸ Pomeroy (1988) 710–11. Numerous women smallholders are attested in the New Kingdom in Middle Egypt—Katary (1999) 68. ³⁹ Hobson (1983), esp. 314–16. The ownership of land by women is still attested in the later periods, as it is confirmed by the cases of three villages where a high proportion of land was in women’s hands: Philadelphia in the third century (25 per cent), Theadelphia in the fourth century (20 per cent), and Karanis in the early fourth century (17 per cent). Cf. Bagnall (1993a) 130–31. ⁴⁰ Blouin (2014) 203 with n. 85. ⁴¹ Melaerts (2002) 224 suggests that women at Tebtunis might have owned between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the total property in the village, slightly less than the women at Soknopaiou

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

66

    

in land-related contracts, as lessors as well as lessees, only in a few instances.⁴² In general their socio-economic status is difficult to establish, but the small amount of land transacted, which includes plots ranging between 3 1/2 and 6 ar., suggests that we are dealing with small landowners or not particularly well-off women. An exception might have been a certain Didume, who occurs as independent actor in several transactions.⁴³ She appears as creditor three times, and in two cases she lent large sums of money—420 and 200 dr.⁴⁴ Didume is also attested as lessee of land in four prodomatic leases, that is in leases where the rent was to be paid in advance.⁴⁵ Whether or not these agreements were fictitious loans, it is clear that Didume was in a position of financial strength. We do not know much about her, whether she was married or single, or whether she was a permanent resident of Tebtunis, but there seems to be no doubt that she was economically independent and able to look after her finances. Women like her, however, were rare in Roman Tebtunis. The full contracts confirm the view that the women of this village, although occasionally landowners, were rarely in possession of large amount of land, even when they belonged to wealthy families. Ptolema, wife of Herakleides the Younger, owned a vineyard of 2 ar., while her daughter, Herakleia, inherited a total of around 14 ar.⁴⁶ Another example is Tetosiris, wife of Psuphis also called Harpokration, who owned around 14 ar. of land. Nesos. He attributed this difference to the fact that in Tebtunis agriculture played a more important role, which resulted in women owning not only real estate, but also agricultural land. Cf. Montevecchi (1943) 61, who noted that women appeared quite often in sales and cessions of land in the Ptolemaic and Roman period: 32 per cent in sales, 33 per cent in cessions. ⁴² Women attested as landowners: Theanis (P.Mich. II 121 verso I 4), Thaeisarion alias Thaesis (P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 10), Didume (P.Mich. V 238 III 138–39), wife of Diodoros (jointly with her husband; P.Mich. V 238 III 150), Heraklea (P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 8–9). Women attested as lessors: Thenorseus (P.Mich. II 121 verso IX 2), Taorseus (Mich. II 123 recto III 3; V 238 I 39, 40), Tasigeris (P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 11), Thaubastis (P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 32), Thenatumis (P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 36), Tapnebtunis (P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 40), mother of Amosis (jointly with her son; P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 21), mother of Harmaeis (jointly with her son; P.Mich. V 238 I 11), wife of Herakleides (jointly with her husband; P.Mich. V 238 III 115). Women attested as lessees: Tamarros (P.Mich. II 121 verso II 5 = recto II i), Didume (P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 11, 36, 37, VII 6, XIII 39), Thaubastis (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 24), Taambesis (P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 31), Taorseus (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVIII 33), wife of Tephersos (jointly with her husband; P.Mich. II 123 recto X 30), wife of Tesenouphis (jointly with her husband; P.Mich. V 238 I 10). Woman attested as creditor: Tanesneus (P.Mich. II 123 recto IX 32). ⁴³ Hobson (1984) 386. ⁴⁴ 420 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 I 7. 208 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 157–8; 28 dr. P.Mich. V 238 IV 163 = 124 recto I 8. ⁴⁵ P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 11, 36, 37, XIII 39. ⁴⁶ See Chapters 4.2.2 and 5.4.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

67

From a juridical point of view, the women of Tebtunis, like all the inhabitants of the countryside, were viewed as ‘Egyptian’ by the Roman government, regardless of their ethnic origin. Traditionally Egyptian women enjoyed a wide array of legal privileges, including the right to make contracts without a guardian.⁴⁷ This right was maintained under the Ptolemies, during which period a dual legal system developed: on the one hand demotic contracts, which reflected Egyptian law, and on the other, Greek contracts, which maintained Greek traditions, one of which was the obligation for women to act with a male relative as a guardian in legal transactions. With the arrival of the Romans, however, this situation of legal duality ended with the imposition of a solely Greek administration. Demotic contracts gradually disappeared, and with them some of the Egyptian traditions, one of which was the legal freedom of women to make contracts independently.⁴⁸ Egyptian women mostly used Greek contracts, which meant acting under the protection of a male relative as a guardian. In Tebtunis Egyptian women appear to have used a guardian even in demotic contracts, which were still in use in the first half of the first century .⁴⁹ The newly established legal scenario means that those women who appear as independent actors in the registers were not in fact fully independent. Katelijn Vandorpe and Sofie Waebens pointed out how the use of guardianship, a Greek formality, by Egyptian women in the Roman period ‘eventually led to a stronger Hellenization and not to a stronger Romanization’.⁵⁰ The opposite, however, could also be argued. The Roman policy of encouraging the use of the guardianship seems, on the one hand, to have strengthened the position of married women in economic transactions, as husbands usually acted as guardians; on the other hand, it seems to have weakened the legal position of those women who wished to act independently from their male relatives. A consequence of this policy is evident in the three registers of titles, where the majority of the female contracting parties appear as acting jointly with their husbands. Whether this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Romans to encourage marriage among the non-Romans of the province, thus mirroring the Augustan marital laws to which Roman women were subject, it is difficult to prove, but seems very likely.⁵¹ From this point of view, the widespread use of guardianship by Egyptian women is to be seen ⁴⁷ ⁴⁸ ⁴⁹ ⁵⁰ ⁵¹

Arjava (1997); Vandorpe and Waebens (2010) 416. Depauw (2003). See Chapter 2. See the case of P.Mich. V 253 ( 30); cf. Vandorpe and Waebens (2010) 419. Vandorpe and Waebens (2010) 422. McGinn (2004). Cf. Treggiari (1991) 60–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

68

    

not simply as the adoption of a Greek formality, but as a way to conform local legal practices to Roman laws. It was, in other words, one of the multiple ways the Romans adopted to ‘Romanize’ the Egyptian countryside. In view of the legal changes now described, which applied to the contracts of Tebtunis, and on the basis of the information provided by the registers, a general picture of the socio-economic role of women in the village emerges quite clearly. Although it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, the available evidence suggests that ownership by women in first-century Tebtunis was very limited, that their involvement in agricultural matters was almost non-existent, and that their legal position was stronger when married, which probably encouraged marriage or re-marriage.⁵² There are two contract types in which, however, the position of women is still not entirely clear: the wet-nurse contracts and the dowry returns, both viewed by some scholars as an indication of the economic crisis that was hitting Tebtunis in the  40s. Wet-nurse contracts were agreements between a first party, usually a wealthy individual, and a woman who was hired as wet-nurse, generally for a period of two years.⁵³ These types of contracts are documented throughout the Empire, and from Roman Egypt in particular we have some 40 papyri.⁵⁴ In the majority of the cases the nurslings were slaves, children who had been exposed by their parents (mostly in an urban environment, e.g. Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus).⁵⁵ Two clauses are of particular interest as they shed light on the cultural and social implications of these agreements. First, the wetnurse was not to sleep with a man or become pregnant for the duration of the contract; second, she was not to feed another child, so as to guarantee ⁵² In her study on the role of women in Roman Soknopaiou Nesos, Hobson (1983) 318 concluded that ‘women were capable of independent economic activity regardless of marital status’. This conclusion was based mainly on 11 property sales in which women who appear as sole buyers display a variety of ages and statuses. Hobson takes as ‘the significant index of independence the clear identification of the woman herself as the owner of property’ (n. 29 p. 318). While the position of women as property owners in Roman Egypt is unquestionable, their economic independence in legal transactions is to be seen as a separate fact. The 11 sales from Soknopaiou Nesos do not offer a real quantitative distribution of women who acted independently, but only informs us of the fact that that could happen. ⁵³ Bradley (1980) and (1991) 70; Ratzan (2015) 203–8; Parca (2017). ⁵⁴ A list of wet-nurse contracts and receipts of wages can be found in Masciadri and Montevecchi (1984) 177–94; cf. SB XXII 15614 and P.Duk. inv. 915 (Bergamasco 2006). On the reasons for hiring a wet-nurse see Bradley (1986) and Grubbs (2013) 93–4; for a novel interpretation of wet-nurse contracts in the light of the New Institutional Economics see Ratzan (2015) 203–8, who defines these agreements as ‘the products of the economics of status’ in that ‘they reflect a decision by the employer based on the perceived relative costs of bringing a nurse into the employer’s home versus placing a child in the nurse’s home’ (p. 207). ⁵⁵ Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 149–50. On exposure see now Grubbs (2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

69

that she could satisfactorily fulfil her breastfeeding duties. It is difficult to tell whether and how far the parties in fact complied with these clauses. However, their very existence highlights the unbalanced relationship between the hiring party and the wet-nurse, whose private life was somehow put under strain for the whole duration of the contract.⁵⁶ It has been suggested that if the wet-nurse was not allowed to feed another child, there is the possibility that she might have had to abandon her own child.⁵⁷ Although we have no full contract from Tebtunis, the record-office preserved a remarkable high number of documents attesting the hiring of wet-nurses, namely titles of contracts and receipts of wages.⁵⁸ In most cases (22 out of 33) the nurslings are said to have been slaves. A unique feature of these contracts is the fact that they are always coupled with a loan, made usually the day after. On the one hand, we have a wet-nurse contract made between a wet-nurse, who acted generally together with her husband, and a hiring party. On the other hand, we have a loan made between the hiring party, who acted as creditor, and the husband of the wet-nurse and the wet-nurse herself (who in this occurrence is referred to only as wife).⁵⁹ These loans have been interpreted as the wage that the hiring party paid in advance to the wet-nurse for her service. The sums, ranging from 80 to 140 dr., are on the whole consistent with the wet-nurse wages of this period (6 dr. per month), and seem to have been paid in their entirety.⁶⁰ According to Masciadri and Montevecchi, the relatively high number of slave nurslings in Tebtunis was odd: why were so many masters prepared to pay a wet-nurse for the child of their own slave?⁶¹ Their argument is as follows. An obvious explanation would be that these babies had been exposed. Rejecting the possibility of exposure, which was unfamiliar among the Egyptians, they interpreted the wet-nurse contracts as fiduciary sales of children—the wet-nurse would have been in fact the mother of the nursling, who was to guarantee the loan; if the loan had not been paid back, the baby would have been sold as a slave. Masciadri and Montevecchi interpreted the increase in the number of supposed fiduciary sales of children in the year  45–6 as a sign of financial distress, whereby many couples had no choice but selling their own children as a way to

⁵⁶ Bradley (1980). ⁵⁷ Bradley (1984) 70–3. ⁵⁸ See the complete list in Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 151 n. 8. ⁵⁹ E.g. P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 8: ὁμο(λογία) Τασωύκιο(ς) καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸ(ς) Ἁρμάειο(ς) πρὸς Κόμωνα τροφίμου|καὶ δανεί(ου) ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμῶν) ρι. τῶν δύο/δραχμαὶ δ (‘Agreement for a wet-nurse contract between Tasoukis and her husband, and contract of loan for 110 silver dr. Both (transactions) at 4 dr. for grammatikon.’ ⁶⁰ Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 152. Cf. Bagnall (1997a) 136. ⁶¹ Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 154–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

70

    

acquire quick cash.⁶² This interpretation, however, presents a number of weaknesses, as Bagnall pointed out that ‘a master might have indeed good reason to prefer his slave woman to get pregnant with the next slave child than nursing, with the partial protection against pregnancy that nursing provides.’⁶³ He also suggested the possibility that the nurslings documented in the Tebtunis registers might have been exposed in the district capital, Ptolemais Euergetis, and then brought to the village to be nursed, noting that a clause for the emancipation of the child is nowhere to be found in the extant documents. To this we might add that there is no evidence that the wet-nurse contract guaranteed the loan associated with it; more simply, the loan was the legal instrument that allowed the wet-nurse to receive her wage in advance. A closer investigation of the identity of the employers seems to confirm Bagnall’s hypothesis. As mentioned earlier, the hiring parties (and creditors) were normally well-off individuals, able to lend large sums of cash. In most cases they bore Greek names, although the number of those with Egyptian names is not insignificant (16 out of 49).⁶⁴ Among these, there are also four women—Theneraklea, Tamustha, Tamieus, and Taorsenouphis.⁶⁵ Some individuals occur multiple times, including Komon, Apion, and Zoilos, who appear three times each, and Diodoros, Herakleides, Mustharion, and Orsenouphis, each attested twice.⁶⁶ With the exception of Herakleides and Orsenouphis, names that are well attested throughout the archive, the other names occur rarely in the registers. Diodoros, Apion, and Mustharion, in particular, when attested, occur again as creditors.⁶⁷ The most obvious explanation for their absence in the  40s registers is that they did not live in Tebtunis, at least not permanently. An employer with a Latin name is attested only once (Iocundus).⁶⁸ On the basis of the employers’ names, it appears that the majority of masters were well-off people, seemingly with a ⁶² This view is shared by Hobson (1984) 378–9. ⁶³ Bagnall (1997a) 137. ⁶⁴ That the majority of the hiring parties had Egyptian names, as claimed by Masciadri and Montevecchi (1982) 157, is a misconception. ⁶⁵ P.Mich. II 123 recto XIII 38, XIV 31, XVII 32; 128 III 5. ⁶⁶ Komon: P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 13, 20; VII 7. Apion: P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 22, 23; V 238 III 136. Zoilos: P.Mich. II 123 recto XI 29; XIII 32; V 238 I 22. Diodoros: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 19; V 238 IV 216. Herakleides: P.Mich. V 238 IV 191, IV 195 = 124 recto II 3. Mystharion: P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 18; V 238 IV 164 = 124 recto I 9. Orsenouphis: P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 28; XVII 16. ⁶⁷ Diodoros appears as creditor in a deposit on 20 September  45 (P.Mich. II 123 recto III 1) and in a regular loan on 5 December  36 (P.Mich. V 238 217). Apion is attested as creditor on 22 October 46 (P.Mich. V 238 III 137). Whether this was the same as the Apion sitologos (P.Mich. II 123 recto II 15) is hard to tell. One Mustharion was a creditor in a loan dated to 8 November  46 (P.Mich. V 238 IV 165 = 124 recto I 10). ⁶⁸ P.Mich. V 238 III 113 = 124 V 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

71

Greek origin or background, who either lived in the village permanently or were residents of the district capital, but had land and probably houses in Tebtunis and occasionally visited the village (e.g. Diodoros, Apion and Mustharion). Among the masters we also find a smaller group of Egyptians who lived in the village and owned slaves (e.g. Orsenouphis), thus suggesting that slavery was not uncommon among the native strata of the population.⁶⁹ The Greeks of the district capital would have brought the babies who had been exposed in Ptolemais Euergetis to the village so that they could be entrusted to a wet-nurse at a more affordable price than it could be possible in the metropolis. The slave babies owned by members of the other two groups (Greeks and Egyptians living in the village) would have been either exposed babies or children of their own slaves. The dowry returns, which signified a divorce, have also been subject of a problematic interpretation. According to Hobson, their number for the year  45/6, 12 in total, would have been too high for a village such as Tebtunis, suggesting that they were in fact fictitious loans, whereby men contracted false marriages in order to acquire the women’s dowry, as a sort of ‘working capital’.⁷⁰ They would then return the dowry as they would return a loan, and the fictitious marriage would be ended. In support of her argument would be the consideration that ‘the average amount of dowry was far greater than any other kind of loan’.⁷¹ Following in the footsteps of Masciadri and Montevecchi, Hobson took the supposedly high number of dowry returns, along with the fictitious sales of children and the increased number of women who appeared with their husbands in the role of debtors in  45–6, as evidence of economic distress.⁷² Several facts, however, point against Hobson’s interpretation. First, the highest proportion of large sums of cash in the grapheion registers are attested in deposits and not in dowry contracts. While nine dowries out of 63, or 14.2 per cent, ranged between 300 and 1,600 dr., 17 sums of deposits out of 86, or 19.7 per cent, were between 300 and 2,040 dr. Overall, more people made loans and deposit contracts than dowry agreements, suggesting that there were enough creditors in the village to provide those in need with credit services. Second, there is no evidence that marriages could be contracted fictitiously only to allow the man to acquire a dowry. Even if we concede that this might have happened in Tebtunis, it is not at all clear ⁶⁹ See Chapter 4.3 for discussion of slavery. ⁷⁰ Hobson (1984) 382–3. ⁷¹ Hobson (1984) 383. ⁷² Hobson (1984) 389–90.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

72

    

where and how in the contract a provision for the return of the dowry within a certain time could have been added. Without such a clause, the woman would have had no insurance that the dowry would have been returned to her. It could be argued that a high level of trust existed between the parties, but this seems unlikely in cases where large sums of money were at stake. A third consideration against Hobson’s suggestion is the fact a total of 12 divorces over a year was not necessarily a high figure. If we envisage a total adult population of around 2,000, 12 divorces would represent only 0.6 per cent of marriages. The analysis of wet-nurse contracts and dowry returns shows that their relatively high number in the grapheion registers was not an indication of economic difficulties. From a contractual point of view, wetnurse contracts in particular show that women had initiative and readily contributed to the household’s finances. Another example of the resourcefulness of women is provided by the case of Tasooukis daughter of Theos, who, represented by her 27-year-old son Orseus, apprenticed her younger son to a certain Horos for the weaver’s trade for five years.⁷³ Tasooukis was probably a widow, as suggested by the fact that it was her son and not her husband who acted as guardian for her. Tasooukis’ expenses included the payment of her son’s poll-tax, which amounted to 40 dr. per year, while the master weaver was responsible for the feeding and clothing of the apprentice, as well as payment of the trade tax (gerdiakon).⁷⁴ This apprenticeship contract—the only one, out of the seven attested in the grapheion registers, to be recorded by a woman—seems to have been an economic manoeuvre: by giving her son in apprenticeship Tasooukis was saving money for his maintenance, while allowing him to learn a profession.⁷⁵ The socio-economic status of the women of Tebtunis must have varied, but the fact that in the grapheion registers they appear so often as debtors along with their husbands seems to suggest that their financial resources were generally not very substantial. This is not to say that there were not well-off women in the village, as can be seen in contracts and credit agreements. Toepel argues that ‘there would be more of the small dowries in a farming community like Tebtunis, where there was relatively little

⁷³ P.Mich. II 121 verso II 12 = recto II viii. ⁷⁴ The rates of the weaving tax varied greatly, even within the same region. Cf. Wallace (1938) 193–202. Johnson (1936) 539 noted that ‘at Tebtunis rates of 38 and 38 dr. 2 ob. are found.’ ⁷⁵ P.Mich. II 121 verso XI 13, XII 6, II 12 = recto II viii; P.Mich. II 123 recto II 34, III 9, XII 11, XIV 42.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

73

Table 3.1 Dowries in  42 and 45–7 Sums in drachmas

Number of dowries

10–59 60–99 100–299 300–599 600 (and above)

21 12 21 6 3

Source: Table adapted from Toepel (1973) 228, Table 38.

money and only a few upper class’.⁷⁶ However, this is not quite the picture emerging from the evidence. In general, the women who received medium to large-sized dowries (100 dr. and above) made up the 47.6 per cent of all the dowry contracts attested in the three registers, whereas those who received very small dowries (10–59 dr.) made up 33 per cent (Table 3.1).⁷⁷ Only three women are attested to have received very large dowries: Heraklous, with 1,000 dr., Thermoutharios, with 1,000 dr., and Theneraklea, with 1,600 dr.⁷⁸ Each married a man bearing a typical Greek name, Lusas (diminutive of Lusimachos), Diodoros, and Horion, respectively, which suggests that they might have belonged to families of Hellenic descent. Five other women appear to have been rather well-off, with dowries ranging between 400 and 540 dr.⁷⁹ Women lent money rarely, making up a small percentage of the total of creditors attested in the three registers (0.6 per cent).⁸⁰ The majority of the 16 female creditors had relatively large sums of available cash (Table 3.2). Ten women lent sums of 100 dr. and above, including Apias who lent 700 dr. Only three women lent sums below 50 dr. All of these women must have been well-off to a certain degree; however, information about their socioeconomic status is thin. Didume, who we discussed earlier, was no doubt a member of the village elite, financially capable of making multiple transactions over a short period of time. Among the money-lenders listed below we also find a certain Theneraklea; it is very tempting to identify her with the wealthy Theneraklea who, as we have seen earlier, had received a dowry of ⁷⁶ ⁷⁷ ⁷⁸ ⁷⁹ ⁸⁰

Toepel (1973) 228. On circulation of cash among all strata of the population see Chapter 6.4. P.Mich. II 121 verso II 8 = recto II iv, XI 16; 123 recto II 18, VII 15, XIV 21. P.Mich. II 121 verso II 8 = recto II iv; II 123 VII 5, 15, XXI 18; V 238 V 227 and 228. Lerouxel (2016) 72–9.

Table 3.2 Female creditors in the registers of contracts Amount of money lent (dr.)

Contract

Apias d. of Sokrates Tapnebtunis Taarmiusis Didume

700

Receipt

Tapetsoukis Tamustha

156 120

Theneraklea

120

Tatomis Taorsenouphis Thenmaron

107 100 100

Tamaron Tarmouthis Teues Thermouthis Thatres Tamieus

60 60 24 22 16 Not stated

248 224 208 and 28

Debtor

Herodes son of Herakleides Loan Mieus and son Receipt Taorseus Loan and offer of Harmiusis and wife; residence Peteeus Offer of residence Siaiepis Wet-nurse contract Heraklea and others and loan Wet-nurse contract Apunchis and sister and loan Deposit (parathesis) Orseus Wet-nurse contract Haruotes Offer of residence Papontos and others Deposit Orseus Work contract Thaesis Offer of residence Tmarsis Loan Pakebkis and wife Loan Orseus Wet-nurse contract Thenpetsoukis and and loan husband

Date

Ref.

21 May 42

P.Mich. II 121 verso III 14 = recto IV vii

12 October 45 P.Mich. II 123 recto V 8 19 August 42 P.Mich. II 121 verso XI 11 2 and 5 November 46 P.Mich. V 238 III 158; IV 163 = 124 recto I 8 23 September 46 P.Mich. V 238 II 60 27 March 46 P.Mich. 123 recto XIII 38 12 April 46

P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 31–2

12 June 46 46–7 4 October 46

P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 20 P.Mich. II 128 III 5 P.Mich. V 238 III 117 = 126, 3

23 June 42 8 November 46 2 October 46 9 October 46 13 February 46 12 June 46

P.Mich. II 121 verso V 8 P.Mich. V 238 IV 168 = 124 recto I 15 P.Mich. V 238 II 106 P.Mich. V 238 III 133 P.Mich. 123 recto XII 13 P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

75

1,600 dr. For one woman we are able to offer a more exhaustive picture: Apias, daughter of Sokrates. In  42 she was 37 and married to Herodes, who can be identified as one of the children of Herakleides the Younger, member of one of the wealthiest families of Hellenic descent in Tebtunis (see Chapter 4.2.2 for further discussion). They had been married quite a long time; 20 years earlier, in  22, they registered at the local record-office a post-marriage property settlement, according to which Apias had conveyed to her husband 560 dr., parapherna and 14 ar. of catoecic land near Tebtunis.⁸¹ In  42 she then lent her husband, through a deposit contract, 700 dr., confirming that Apias was a wealthy woman. Her family nomenclature suggests a connection with the native Egyptian culture—Apias’ name is associated with the Apis bull, while her brother’s, Petesouchos, means ‘gift of Souchos’. Apias’ father, on the other hand, had a common Greek name, Sokrates.⁸² The marriage between Herodes and Apias through a typical Egyptian contract suggests that they lived in the village on a permanent basis and were perfectly integrated into the local traditions.

3.2.3 Identity and Nomenclature The identity of the grapheion-users, and of the people of Tebtunis in general, is a complex issue.⁸³ Several factors contributed to the formation of one’s identity in Roman Egypt, primarily language, religion, social status, and ethnicity.⁸⁴ With the arrival of the Greek settlers in the late fourth and early third century , a process of cultural, political, socio-economic, and administrative transformation, which gradually shaped the communal identity of Egyptian society, had begun. Over the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule, the two groups had engaged in a wide net of contacts at many levels, ⁸¹ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV vii 3. ⁸² The fact that among the property inherited by Apias was a plot of catoecic land might suggest that Sokrates was a descendant of Greek settlers, but the argument is not conclusive as in this period private land was to be found also among non-Greeks. ⁸³ For an overview of the concept of identity in Roman Egypt, including bibliography, see Vandorpe (2012). On the contacts between Greeks and Egyptians in this transition period see also Montevecchi (1985) and (1997). ⁸⁴ C. Fischer-Bovet (forthcoming 2020) indicated four components in the definition of one’s identity: social status, occupation, citizenship, and ethnicity. Cf. Pomeroy (1984) 121–4. On the definition of ethnicity in general see Hall (1997), esp. 17–33. In the definition of ethnicity in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt Fischer-Bovet (forthcoming) included ‘religion, language, customs, and shared ancestors/origin—real or imagined—connected with occupation and social status’. See also Fischer-Bovet (2014) 172–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

76

    

socio-cultural and personal as well as legal and administrative, which inevitably altered the original ethnic composition of each group.⁸⁵ By the early Roman period, the ethnic designations which were used under the Ptolemies, including Macedonian, Cretan, and Persian, had lost their original meaning and became labels attached to the new civic statuses established by the Romans. The new rulers divided the inhabitants of Egypt into three main civic statuses—Egyptians (Aiguptioi), citizens of the Greek cities (astoi), and Romans (Romaioi)—which did not necessarily reflect the ethnicity of their members.⁸⁶ Individuals of Hellenic descent living in the countryside were referred to as Egyptian, like any other indigenous person, while those identified as Romans were usually Egyptians who had acquired Roman citizenship through military service.⁸⁷ Within this new legal framework, the inhabitants of Tebtunis were all Egyptian before the eyes of the Romans. Their juridical status, however, was only one aspect of a more complex identity, which encompassed multiple factors. What follows is an analysis of the social and cultural identity of the people of Tebtunis based on the name types included in the three  40s registers of contract titles. This method is not without flaws. Names were often a matter of personal choice and did not necessarily reveal a family connection or ethnic origin. In Roman Egypt an individual could use and be addressed by different names; depending on the circumstances, one had the choice to use a Greek or Egyptian name, and often had two names, one of which could have been a nickname (which served to distinguish individuals bearing the same names).⁸⁸ However, nomenclature remains a valuable way to study the cultural composition of the village population, as shown by a number of onomastic studies which have been conducted for different places in the Roman Arsinoite.⁸⁹ Deborah Hobson’s onomastic study has revealed for the village of Soknopaiou Nesos, in the north-eastern edge of the Arsinoite ⁸⁵ For the view according to which the two cultures, though influencing each other, remained separate, see Montevecchi (1982) 154–5. For a different view see Hanson (1992) 134, with references in n. 4; cf. Yiftach-Firanko (2009) and Fischer-Bovet (2014). ⁸⁶ See Chapter 4 for discussion of social stratification. ⁸⁷ Vandorpe and Waebens (2010) 415; cf. Rowlandson (2004) and Vandorpe (2008). ⁸⁸ Hobson (1989) esp. 159–60 and 168. For the Old Kingdom period see Quaegebeur and Vandorpe (1995); for the Hellenistic and Roman periods see Bagnall (1997b), Colin (2001) and more recently Broux (2015). On double names see also Calderini (1941) and (1942). On naming practices and onomastics in other areas of the Mediterranean in different periods see now Parker (2019). ⁸⁹ On the usefulness of using names as indicators of cultural identity see Rowlandson (2004), esp. 154–7; see also Martin (1956), Colin (2001) and Gourdon and Engsheden (2016). For the Ptolemaic period see the study of Kerkeosiris in Crawford (1971) 132–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

77

district, a heavily Egyptian population (over 95 per cent).⁹⁰ Different scenarios are to be found in the villages of Karanis and Ptolemais Hormou, the evidence of which has been investigated by Roger Bagnall.⁹¹ Both villages appear to have been distinctively more Hellenized than Soknopaiou Nesos—individuals bearing Greek and Roman names amount to 55 per cent for Karanis and 41 per cent for Ptolemais Hormou. The onomastics of the members of the metropolitan elite group of ‘the 6,475 Greek settlers (katoikoi)’ has revealed, unsurprisingly, an even higher percentage of what we might call ‘Greekness’, with the large majority bearing names of Greek formation (as opposed to Greek renderings of Egyptian names).⁹² According to Bagnall’s main conclusion, the names of the settlers reflected and were strongly engrained in Egyptian religion. Due to their legal nature, the documents of the grapheion archive provide a formal context which required individuals to use their official names. The naming practices adopted in this period are revealed fully in the abstracts of  42 (P.Mich. II 121 recto) and in the full contracts, wherein the name of the contracting party is usually followed by the patronymic. Metronymics can be found only in four post-marriage property settlements dated to  42 and in a release of inheritance of  44; the grandfather’s name is also very rarely indicated.⁹³ Occasionally we also find additional identifiers, such as occupational titles, formal or administrative titles (e.g. president of an association), and ethnic designation (e.g. Persian of the epigone; see discussion below). The grapheion registers provide us with a sample of 426 name types, the majority of which, 238 (or 56 per cent), are Egyptian, with 105 being theophoric (44 per cent) (Appendix 2). The overwhelming majority of the theophoric names is associated with an Egyptian cult, with a representation ⁹⁰ Samuel (1981), esp. 390–400 and 402 noted that Soknopaiou Nesos was unaffected by ‘Roman occupation and only peripherally affected by hellenization’, a fact that she attributed to the lack of private agricultural land. ⁹¹ Bagnall (1997b) 9–10. ⁹² See Canducci (1990) and (1991) for a discussion and prosopography of this elite group. Bagnall (1997b) 8–9 first clarified what is meant by Greek name, making the distinction between names of Greek formation, within which common Greek and Macedonian names fall, and names of Egyptian formation. In the context of the 6,475 settlers, he pointed out that the majority (47 per cent) are theophoric, ‘clearly or possibly Greek renderings of Egyptian theophoric names or else Greek formations on the names of Egyptian gods’; see the Appendix at pp. 14–19. ⁹³ Post-marriage property settlements: P.Mich. II 121 recto II ii; III vii; III xii; IV iv. Release of inheritance: P.Mich. V 351. On metronymics see Depauw (2010). P.Mich. II 121 recto II x (deposit,  42); III xi (lease of land,  42). P.Mich. V 351 (release of inheritance,  44).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

78

    

of 103 names, or 98 per cent. Only a small percentage (2 per cent) includes Egyptian formations linked with a Greek deity—Petserapis, associated with Sarapis, and the feminine Theneraklea, associated with Herakles. Greek names count for 145 (or 34 per cent) of name types, with seven being Macedonian (5 per cent) and 41 theophoric (28 per cent). Theophoric names associated with Greek deities are by far the most attested, with 27 names, or 65.8 per cent. Name types associated with Egyptian gods, on the other hand, are less represented, with 13 names, or 31.7 per cent. The name Harpokration, which reflects the Greek cult of Harpokrates and the Egyptian cult of Horos, is particularly interesting because it represented the syncretism of two cultural traditions. Latin names make up only 1.6 per cent, with seven names; only one Thracian name is attested, Sadalas, while two are Semitic— Malchion and Satabous. Uncertain names make up 7.7 per cent of the total, with 33 names. The relatively high number of theophoric names of both Greek and Egyptian formation (146, or 34 per cent) confirms for Tebtunis the practice of choosing a name associated with a deity, which was common for Roman Egypt, or at least for the Arsinoite district. From the analysis of the onomastics of the village it emerges that the most popular cult for a choice of name was that of Horos, with 19 names (e.g. Haruotes and Harmiusis), followed by the cult of Sobek, in both Greek (Kronion) and Egyptian formation (Pakebkis), with 13 names. The cults of Isis (11 names) and Osiris (10 names) are the third best-represented among the names of early Roman Tebtunis. The popularity of these cults was longstanding. An onomastic study for the nearby Kerkeosiris in the second century  has indeed revealed the same results.⁹⁴ Cultural and religious developments, however, did occur towards the end of the Ptolemaic period and can be seen in the appearance of names associated with Greek or Graeco-Egyptian deities, such as Herakles (9), Thermouthis (5), Sarapis (4) and Zeus (3), which suggests the existence of an integrated Hellenized and Egyptian culture by the first century . Other popular names were those associated with sacred animals (9), with Marres (7), the cult of the Pharaoh Amenemhat III, and with Bastet (4), the cat-goddess, which is not attested in the evidence from second-century Kerkeosiris. The popularity of certain name types among the grapheion-users sheds further light on the cultural trends of early Roman Tebtunis. Overall, Sobek-names appear to have been the most used ones, with a total of 247

⁹⁴ Crawford (1971) 136–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

79

occurrences, including Egyptian and Greek renderings, in the three registers (238 individuals have been identified). Among these, the Greek formation Kronion was by far the most popular, with 105 occurrences, and the second most used name in Tebtunis after Orseus. The Egyptian renderings, on the other hand, were far less represented: Petesouchos (36), Papnebtunis (28), Psenkebkis (20), Tapnebtunis (16), and Pakebkis (15). Horos-names were also quite fashionable, with 129 occurrences in the three registers (119 individuals have been identified). Egyptian renderings in this case were more popular than the Greek ones. Haruotes, Harmiusis and Horos, with 34, 32, and 16 attestations each, outnumber Horion, theophoric of Greek formation, attested in 12 entries. In absolute terms, Orseus, Kronion, and Orsenouphis were by far the most-used names among the Tebtunis population, with a total of 113, 105, and 85 occurrences respectively. All three names were well ingrained in the Egyptian cultural and religious strata of the village. However, the case of Kronion is significant and reveals the existence of new cultural developments. A Greek rendering of an Egyptian god, Kronion reflects well the ongoing interaction between Greek and Egyptian traditions which was taking place in Tebtunis. The presence of a Greek or Hellenized culture is also attested by the popularity of three particular Greek names, two of which are associated with Greek deities—Herakles (65), Apollonios (50), and Herodes (53). These represent the second best-attested triad of names among the grapheion-users. Following are Onnophris (47), an Egyptian Osiris-name, Didumos (44), a Greek theophoric associated with the twin gods, and the Macedonian Herakleides (43). In the three registers, 2,158 named individuals have been identified so far. The majority (1,214 individuals, or 56 per cent) appears to have had an Egyptian name. Of these, the largest proportion (729 individuals, or 60 per cent) chose a theophoric name associated with an Egyptian deity, while only seven people (0.5 per cent) are attested who had an Egyptian name linked with a Greek cult. The number of people bearing Greek names is not insignificant: 918, making up 42 per cent of the total named individuals. The majority bears common Greek names (541, or 59 per cent), while 377 (41 per cent) bear theophoric names, mostly associated with a Greek cult (214, or 23 per cent). Individuals with Greek theophoric names associated with an Egyptian deity make up 18 per cent. This percentage, however, includes also individuals named Kronion, with 109 men identified (103 Kronion, 6 Kronides). If we exclude these people from the count, the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

80

    

number of individuals with Greek theophoric names linked to an Egyptian cult is reduced to 59 (6 per cent). Finally, a total of 110 individuals with Macedonian names, that is 12 per cent of the total parties with Greek names, is attested to have made transactions at the record-office in the  40s. These were members of families who were probably descended from the Greek settlers (see discussion in Chapter 4.2.2). In conclusion, the study of the onomastics of Tebtunis shows that in the mid-first century  the village was still fundamentally Egyptian. Naming trends reflect a preference for names of Egyptian formation associated with an Egyptian deity. Elements of Hellenization, however, were taking off, as is visible not only in the significant number of people bearing theophoric names associated with Greek deities, but also in the widespread use of common Greek names, including Herodes, Didumos, Galates, and Maron. The ethnicity of these individuals is often impossible to establish, but the presence of additional information occasionally sheds light on this issue. Cultural interaction between Egyptian and Greek traditions is attested in both directions, and the case of Kronion is illustrative of this phenomenon.

3.2.4 Status Designations and Other Titles Among the multiple factors which contributed to the shaping of one’s identity was legal status. It has been said earlier that the people of Tebtunis, like all the inhabitants of the countryside, were classified as Egyptians for Roman taxation purposes. But, within the reality of daily transactions and economic dealings, legal status, like ethnicity and cultural traditions, was more complex than the Roman infrastructure presupposes. The title of ‘Persian of the epigone’, in particular, deserves examination. According to the traditional view, proposed by John Oates and supported by Pieter Pestman, in the Roman period this designation, which literally means ‘Persian by descent’, was a subordinate legal status often assumed ‘by debtors in contracts, borrowers, lessees, etc., to signify their inferior position and that they are in some sense subject to execution without recourse if they default in their obligations’.⁹⁵ This interpretation has recently been challenged by Katelijn Vandorpe who has argued that in the early Ptolemaic period the designation ‘Persian of the epigone’ was originally an ethnic which rapidly ⁹⁵ Oates (1963) 112; Pestman (1963) and (1982) 48–63. Cf. Clarysse and Thompson (2006) II xxx.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

81

became a designation of function and status, between Egyptian and Hellene, and from the later second century  it was in effect a legal status.⁹⁶ The title of Persian of the epigone is often found in contracts from early Roman Tebtunis. In particular, 32 abstracts of  42 give us an insight into the roles of the Persians of the epigone. In the majority of the cases this title is attributed to a male contracting party (27); only in three cases are we dealing with a woman termed ‘Persian’, and in two cases the gender of the party involved is unknown. Since this title is omitted in the registers of titles (mainly for space reasons), it is not possible to calculate the percentage of those who held it. The most common type of contract in which the designation of ‘Persian of the epigone’ occurs is the lease (12), followed by dowry contracts (4), deposits (4), loans (4), and residence contracts (3). As can be seen in Table 3.3, those labelled as Persians of the epigone may hold a variety of roles—recipients (dowry agreements and receipts) as well as lessors and lessees (leases). In the apprenticeship contract the ‘Persian’ woman was the mother who entrusted her son to a weaving master. It is worth noting that the same man, Orsenouphis the elder, son of Horouanchis, public farmer and private landowner, was labelled as Persian of the epigone in two leases of land, holding in each a different role (once lessor, once lessee), and in neither of the contracts does he seem to have acted as a debtor.⁹⁷ François Lerouxel has pointed out that there is no evidence for a separate juridical treatment of debtors in the contractual economy, and the variety of roles which the Persians of the epigone held in the first-century contracts suggests that this title indeed signified a legal status and not the juridical role of debtor.⁹⁸ The evidence from Tebtunis does not offer a clear answer to the question of the identity and legal status of the Persians of the epigone, but it is conceivable that these individuals traditionally held a status which was distinct from that of the Egyptians and that of the Greeks. While in the Ptolemaic period membership in this group carried with it certain privileges, including the potential for upward social mobility, in the Roman period the situation had changed. Legal privileges were clearly set forth by the new rulers and did not include Persians (at least not at Roman level), which

⁹⁶ After 116 , the Persians of the epigone would have ‘constituted a form of reserve troop from which soldiers serving for pay could be recruited for particular campaigns. At Pathyris, she continues, some of these individuals probably were never recruited and worked instead as herdsmen. Cf. Vandorpe (2008) 103. Cf. Fischer-Bovet (2014) 177–95. ⁹⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso II 11 = recto II vii; verso III 12 = recto IV v. About Orsenouphis’ welloff socio-economic status see 3.3 in this chapter and Chapter 5.4.1. ⁹⁸ Lerouxel (2016) 70–2.

Table 3.3 Persians of the epigone in P.Mich. II 121 ( 42) Contract type

Object

Name

Role

Gender

Age

Ref.

April April April May May May May May May May

Loan Loan Loan Lease Lease Lease Deposit Lease Lease Lease

Money Money Money Land Land Land Money Land Land Land

Debtor Debtor Debtor Lessee Lessee Lessor Debtor Lessor Lessor Lessee

Male Male Unknown Unknown Unknown Male Male Male Male Male

Unknown 4(?) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 38 30 30 42

verso I 17 = recto I vii verso I 17 = recto I vii verso I 17 = recto I vii verso I 20 = recto I x verso I 20 = recto I x verso II 5 = recto II i verso II 7 = recto II iii verso II 9 = recto II v verso II 10 = recto II vi verso II 11 = recto II vii

May May May May May May May May May May May May May May

Apprenticeship Deposit Deposit Work contract Loan Lease Deposit Lease Lease Receipt Lease Receipt Receipt Receipt

Weaving training Money Money Work Money Granary Money Land Land Unknown Land Dowry Dowry Dowry

Artemidoros Pesoure Unknown Mareus Unknown Akousilaos Herodes Pakebkis Hatres Orsenouphis s. of Horouanchis Tasooukis Patunis Papnebtunis Phasis s. of Peteno Phasis s. of Peteno Petheus Petheus Psenkebkis Petesouchos Nikomedes Horos the second Harmiusis Heraklea Herakleides

Parent Debtor Debtor Debtor Debtor Lessee Debtor Lessor Lessor Recipient Lessor Recipient Recipient Recipient

Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male

49 47 30 30 30 40 40 48 35 27 40 45 40 22

verso II 12 = recto II viii verso II 14 = recto II x verso II 16 = recto III ii verso II 17 = recto III iii verso II 18 = recto III iv verso II 19 = recto III v verso II 20 = recto III vi verso III 2 = recto III viii verso III 5 = recto III xi verso III 7 = recto III xiii recto III xiv verso III 8 = recto IV i verso III 8 = recto IV i verso III 8 = recto IV i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Month

May May May

Lease Receipt Lease

Land Dowry Land

May

Contract

Money

May May May May

Receipt Residence offer Residence offer Residence offer

Money Lodging Lodging Lodging

Onnophris Orseus Orsenouphis s. of Horouanchis Petheus s. of Petheus Herodes Arsinoe Klesis Leon

Lessee Recipient Lessor

Male Male Male

36 30 55

verso III 9 = recto IV ii verso III 10 = recto IV iii verso III 12 = recto IV v

Issuer

Male

35

verso III 13 = recto IV vi

Recipient Debtor Debtor Debtor

Male Female Male Male

35 50 65 29

verso III 14 = recto IV vii verso III 15 = recto IV ix verso III 15 = recto IV ix verso III 17 = recto IV xi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

84

    

would explain why the title of Persian of the epigone gradually disappeared after the mid-second century .⁹⁹ Another title which appears in the grapheion archive is that of Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry, or of the catoeci (Μακεδὼν τῶν κατοίκων ἱππέων). This title was normally found in documents of the second and first century  in reference to the Greek settlers, and the evidence of the grapheion represents the latest attestation for it. Here ‘Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry’ is found in four cessions of catoecic land, dated between  33 and 46, in which the individuals holding the title were the ceding party.¹⁰⁰ Christelle Fischer-Bovet convincingly argues that from the second century  onwards the descendants of the settlers who held the ethnic of Macedonian became a pseudo-ethnic and many of those who bore it were Egyptian or Graeco-Egyptian.¹⁰¹ In later periods this title is replaced by ‘katoikos of the 6,475’ and found only in the district capital.¹⁰² The occurrence of the Ptolemaic title in the countryside in the mid-first century  suggests that this was still a transition period during which the urban group of the settlers of the 6,475 might have been in the making, but was yet not defined, and the descendants of the settlers, who at the time still resided in villages, had no choice but to use their old title to distinguish themselves from the others. In particular, this title must have come in handy in cessions of catoecic land, whereby individuals had to prove their right to the ownership of this type of land. In the four contracts from Tebtunis, the Macedonians of the catoecic cavalry all bore Greek names—Herakles, Herodes, Musthas, and Kronion—but their aliases and male lineage, which include father and grandfather in two cases, and only father in two other instances, suggest a certain degree of integration into the Egyptian social strata. For example, Herakles’ father had an Egyptian alias, Mieus, and his father had a typical Egyptian name, Onnophris. A fuller picture of the identity of the Macedonians of the catoecic cavalry in early Roman Tebtunis is given for Herodes also called Orseus the younger, son of Herodes also called Isidoros. He can be identified with one Herodes also called Orsenouphis son of Herodes who occurs in an Egyptian post-marriage property settlement, registered at the local record-office in  42, as seems to be confirmed by his age—37 in the cession of land and 38 in the marriage contract.¹⁰³ Herodes ⁹⁹ Lerouxel (2016) 71–2. ¹⁰⁰ P.Mich. V 259 ( 33), 267 ( 41–2?), 273 ( 46), 303 ( I). Modrzejewski (1990) 240–50, with n. 33. ¹⁰¹ Fischer-Bovet (2014) 194–5. ¹⁰² Canducci (1990) and (1991). ¹⁰³ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 6 = recto III xii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

85

married a woman who clearly belonged to the Egyptian or Egyptianized social strata of the village, a certain Thenchorephis, daughter of Orseus and Tapnebtunis. Everyone in Thenchorephis’ family had a distinctive Egyptian name; there seems to be no doubt that Herodes lived in Tebtunis permanently (although it is possible that he also had a house in the district capital) and was strongly integrated into the village traditions, marrying an Egyptian woman and using Egyptian legal instruments. Yet, as a descendant of the Greek settlers, he claimed the title of Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry. In first half of the first century  the title of Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry, like that of the Persian of the epigone, referred to the membership to a definite social group, as created under the Ptolemies. It was used to reinforce the legal claim of the individuals who held it to the ownership of a particular category of land (catoecic). However, it did not carry with it any other special privileges. The individuals, or at least their descendants, at some point would have become members of the class of the settlers of the 6,475, and their title would have changed. But in the mid-first century  this had not yet happened. Other titles which occur in the grapheion archive are occupational and administrative titles, which shed further light on the socio-economic makeup of the people who made contracts. In the  40s registers titles accompany only a small proportion of the total contracting parties: 70 out of 3,030 individuals, or 2.3 per cent, bear an occupational titles; 28 individuals, 0.9 per cent, bear a title associated with membership in an association, namely simple member, secretary, president, and elder; 8 individuals, or 0.2 per cent, bear an administrative title, including strategos, village scribe (komogrammateus), toparch, sale-tax official (enkukliakos), guard of the state-granary (thesaurophulax), and inspector of the fisheries tax (epistates eichthuikon); two men are referred to as priests (hiereis), though the title of priest, without a personal name, occurs in other eight entries (0.3 per cent); and only one man is referred to as freedman (apeleutheros).¹⁰⁴ These titles are included not only in the abstracts of  42, which display more detailed information about the parties, but also in the registers of titles, where normally only personal names are provided. The occasional inclusion of additional titles in such documents, therefore, might seem rather superfluous, but when looking at the types of texts in which they occur it becomes clear that this was not a random scribal choice. Occupational, association,

¹⁰⁴ For a discussion of the occupational structure of the village see Chapter 6.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

86

    

and administrative titles are mainly attested in affidavits, applications for state concession, rules of associations, and lists, that is in documents which marked a strict relation between the official role of the parties and the relevant transaction. The strategos, for instance, occurs twice as recipient of affidavits for the beer-tax of two villages, Tebtunis and Kerkeesis, a role which had to be fulfilled by this particular official.¹⁰⁵ Similarly, it is expected that particular professionals would make a written bid for the acquisition of a state concession, as in the case of the fishermen of Tebtunis.¹⁰⁶ Overall, it emerges that in the grapheion registers titles were mainly included when the official or occupational position of the party was necessary for (or closely linked with) the completion of a particular formal transaction which involved directly the central administration. Only rarely such titles are to be found in regular contracts, and in these cases we must assume that the identity of these people coincided with the work they performed in the community.

3.3 Houses and Contractual Arrangements The people of Tebtunis recorded a considerable number of contracts involving houses, including sales, leases, mortgages, divisions of property, residence contracts, and alimentary contracts or post-marriage settlements. By looking at the number and type of house-related contracts over an extended period of time we can form a fairly good idea of how houses were used in economic transactions, how frequently these kinds of agreements were registered in comparison with other types of contracts, and the identity of the people involved in these transactions (although we are not able to calculate the number of house occupants). In the four-month period from the end of April to the end of August  42, out of a total of 247 transactions, 22 contracts, or 8.9 per cent, concern houses (Figure 3.3). The breakdown is as follows: 12 offers of residence, 8 sales, and 2 divisions. In the year  45/6, out of a total of 692 transactions, 54, or 7.8 per cent, deal with houses (Figure 3.3.): 36 offers of residence, 13 sales, 3 mortgages, 1 division and 1 lease. Finally, in the four-month period from September to December  46, out of 241 transactions, 20, or 8.2 per cent, concern houses (Figure 3.3), as follows: 18 offers of residence, 1 sale, and 1 mortgage. The number of contracts dealing with houses is potentially higher when we add divisions and alimentary contracts, in which the object, mostly omitted, ¹⁰⁵ P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 33–6.

¹⁰⁶ P.Mich. II 123 recto III 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

87

800 692

700 600 500 400 300

247

241

200 100

54

22

20

0 April-Aug. 42

Sept. 45-Aug. 46

Total Number of Contracts

Sept.-Dec. 46

House-related Contracts

Figure 3.3 Number of house-related contracts in the registers of titles

often included houses or house shares. It is interesting to note that the three most common house-related transactions—residence contracts, mortgages, and also some sales—were connected with a loan in cash. The large number of these contract types seems to suggest that a greater proportion of the population were homeowners as opposed to landowners, and also that villagers had surplus space that they could use as a financial means in various transactions. Leases of houses, on the other hand, were very rare, as was common everywhere in Egypt until Late Antiquity.¹⁰⁷ The best-attested contract type which included a house was the residence contract (enoikesis) (Figure 3.4).¹⁰⁸ This was an antichretic loan, whereby the debtor offered the creditor the right to live in his house for a set period of time in place of paying interest on a loan. Residence contracts were entered into all year round, with a concentration, it seems, in the months of January and November. Toepel first noted that a large increase in the making of these agreements occurred in the first four months of the year  46/7 (September to December), when they not only doubled in number from the previous year, but also involved larger sums of money (Table 3.4).¹⁰⁹ She

¹⁰⁷ Only one house lease is attested, in June  46 (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 6). ¹⁰⁸ For a general account of residence contracts see introduction to P.Mich. X 585, pp. 33–4. ¹⁰⁹ Toepel (1973) 280–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

88

     40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 May-Aug 42 Offers of residence

Sept 45-Aug 46 Sales

Sept-Dec 46

Mortgages

Divisions

Leases

Figure 3.4 Distribution of contracts dealing with houses in the registers of titles

Table 3.4 Data on averages for residence contracts¹¹⁰ Register

Number Range in Arithmetic Modal Percentage of drachmas average average of entries residence within contracts mod. av.

P.Mich. II 121 r/v ( 42) 12 P.Mich. II 123 r ( 45/6) 32 P.Mich. V 238 ( 46/7) 18

7–128 12–372 24–456

52.6 98.2 108.2

40 40 100

33.3 4.6 42.1

interpreted this phenomenon as a further sign that  45–6 was a year of bad harvest for the village, thus villagers borrowed money under a variety of antichretic agreements whereby the interest was not required to be paid in cash.¹¹¹ The frequent use of residence contracts in early Roman Tebtunis begs the question of why creditors were prepared to accept this type of agreement instead of receiving an interest in cash. In Roman Egypt ownership of houses (or shares) was widespread among all social groups of the rural population. This was due not only to the system of partible inheritance, but also to the

¹¹⁰ Table adapted from Toepel (1973) Table 51, p. 282. ¹¹¹ Toepel (1973) 311–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

89

relatively cheap value of houses. On a sample of 11 sale contracts from villages in the first-century Arsinoite, Richard Alston calculated a median price of 400 dr. and a mean price of 570 dr. per house.¹¹² Thus, houses constituted an affordable asset even for the non-wealthy population, and therefore nearly everyone owned a house or a share of it.¹¹³ Why, then, would anyone want or need to use someone else’s domestic space? In order to answer this question, first we must look at the information which the residence contracts have to offer. The contracts listed in the three registers provide us with the names of the contracting parties and the amount of money loaned for which use of the property was offered in place of interest in cash (Table 3.5). One full contract of  16 and two abstracts of  42 allow us to shed light on terms and conditions of these agreements and on the socio-economic status of the parties involved. In the full contract the debtors were a married couple—Marsisouchos son of Marepsemis, whose name suggests he might have been a priest, and his wife Tamarres.¹¹⁴ They borrowed 24 dr. from a certain Kolleuthis daughter of Psuphis, and in place of paying interest, they offered her the right to use the half share of their common and undivided house at Tebtunis for a one month period. It is to be noted here that the interest on a sum of 24 dr. at 12 per cent rate for such a short time was the very small sum of 0.24 dr., which makes it hard to believe the debtors could not afford to pay it.¹¹⁵ In the case of the first abstract, of 23 May  42, the debtors were again a married couple, Klesis son of Psosneus and Arsinoe, who offered a certain Papos the right to use their house at Tebtunis for a period of two years instead of paying interest on a loan of 40 dr.; Papos was also allowed to use Klesis’ courtyard as a stable for his donkeys.¹¹⁶ From a receipt of dowry registered at the same record-office two days earlier we learn that Klesis had provided his daughter Tamarres with a dowry of 200 dr., which suggests that he was a man of modest means.¹¹⁷ He owned a house at Tebtunis, with a courtyard large enough to accommodate more than one donkey and enough capital to provide his daughter with a medium-large dowry, but after this transaction he found himself short of ¹¹² Alston (1997) 32. Cf. Drexhage (1991) 74–8, and table of house prices attested in documents from the Arsinoite nome at pp. 79–83. ¹¹³ Montevecchi (1941) 104 points out that in Greek and Roman Egypt owning a house was not proof of large financial assets nor of a high social status. ¹¹⁴ P.Lips. II 130. ¹¹⁵ Lerouxel (2016) 55–6. Cf. Finckh (1962) on interest rates in Egypt from the Ptolemaic to the Byzantine period. ¹¹⁶ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 15 = recto IV ix. ¹¹⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 8 = recto IV i.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

90

    

cash and had to borrow some money from a creditor. In the second abstract, of 26 May  42, the debtor was a certain Leon son of Onnophris, who received a loan of 28 dr. from Pallaus son Horouanchis and, in place of paying interest, offered his creditor and to ‘those whom he [the creditor] may wish’ the right to live for a year in the half share of the house and courtyard he owned at Tebtunis.¹¹⁸ Leon does not recur elsewhere in the archive, but more can be said about Pallaus. From a deposit contract registered at the recordoffice we learn that on 13 May  42 he lent a sum of 40 dr. to a certain Papnebtunis son of Papnebtunis.¹¹⁹ From a lease of land dated to 21 May  42 we also know that he co-owned with his brother Orsenouphis, an elder of the public farmers of Tebtunis, several plots of land in the villages of Tebtunis and Kerkeesis.¹²⁰ Pallaus, a man of some means belonging to the Egyptian strata of the population, is the only creditor for whom it is possible to provide a fairly detailed socio-economic background. But what about the creditors who appear in the other residence contracts? Creditors bearing Greek names are attested as a slightly but not overwhelming majority (33 out 66, where 26 are Egyptian and 7 are unknown). Among these, people named Apollonios, Herakles, and Areios, all Macedonian names, appear more than once, and it is very tempting to conclude that we are dealing with the same individuals.¹²¹ They lent relatively large amounts of money, ranging between 100 and 372 dr.; a man called Heron lent the largest sum attested, 456 dr.¹²² Among the creditors we also find a considerable number of individuals with Egyptian names, some of whom appear to have had large availability of cash—Amasis and Paeus, for example, lent 340 and 300 dr. respectively.¹²³ Only four women are attested as creditors, but two of them, Tapetsoukis and Thenmaron, lent relatively large sums, 156 and 100 dr. respectively (Table 3.2). A different scenario emerges when looking at the debtors, the great majority of whom bore Egyptian names. In particular, individuals named Orseus, Orsenouphis, and Papnebtunis appear numerous times. Given the lack of personal details ¹¹⁸ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 17 = recto IV xi. ¹¹⁹ P.Mich. II 121 verso II 16 = recto III ii. ¹²⁰ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 12 = recto IV v. For Orsenouphis see P.Mich. V 313 ( 37); II 121 verso III 18 = recto IV xii ( 42). For a discussion on Pallaus and Orsenouphis see Chapter 5.4.1. ¹²¹ Apollonios: P.Mich. II 121 verso V 9 (23 June  42), XII 17 (27 August  42); P.Mich. II 123 recto XIX 19–20 (22 July  46); P.Mich. V 238 IV 171 =124 recto I 19 ( 8 November  46). Herakles: P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 20–1 (15 November  45), XI 12 (25 January  46); P.Mich. V 238 IV 172 (10 November  46), IV 206 = 124 recto II 16 (26 November  46). Areios: P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 9 (12 February  46), P.Mich. V 238 II 85 (27 September  46). ¹²² 372 dr.: P.Mich. II 123 recto XIX 19–20. 456 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 IV 210. ¹²³ Amasis: P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 15. Paeus: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 27.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

91

and the fact that these were very common names in Tebtunis, it is difficult to identify specific individuals.¹²⁴ In 18 cases debtors were married couples, and in seven cases it is multiple parties who offered the use of property to a creditor (these might have been married couples too). Residence contracts were not common practice among kin, as relatives often already shared a house. Indeed in the record-office archive only one transaction is made between a son, who acted a creditor, and his parents.¹²⁵ The evidence does not tell us what the implications were of creditors and debtors sharing, seemingly, the same place. We have seen that creditors could use their debtors’ courtyard as a stable for donkeys, which might have been the case for foreigners or temporary residents. No information, however, is given as to how domestic space inside the house would have been arranged. Some houses had rooms which were not adjoining, and in this case lodging to the creditor could have been provided without having to share any private space. In some other cases lodging was offered not only to the creditor, but also to others, according to the creditor’s discretion. Although creditors and debtors did not necessarily share private space, the very fact that so many people were prepared to offer the use of their house to an external member of their household reflects a flexible and mobile residence pattern within the village. Individuals and families did not necessarily live in the house or shares of house they owned, but moved around, depending on their needs and necessities.¹²⁶ From the frequency with which residence contracts were made we might conclude that they were a good deal for both debtors and creditors: for the debtors because they could use their own house as a means to obtain a loan, for the creditors because they could make use of domestic spaces in other people’s property whenever and for whatever purpose they required. In some cases residence contracts concealed a more complex arrangement, which emerges when looking at the economics of the various agreements, that is the loans and amount of interest in place of which the debtors offered the use of their own house for a certain period of time. Terms and conditions of the loans are known only in three cases, in which duration of ¹²⁴ One Orseus appears as debtor of a certain Kollouthos in four separate residence contracts: P.Mich. II 121 verso III 20 (29 May  42), IIII 21 (29 May  42); P.Mich. II 123 recto X 35 (18 January  46), XXI 9 (17–20 August  46). This seems hardly a coincidence, and we are most likely dealing with the same two parties in all the transactions. ¹²⁵ P.Mich. II 123 recto XV 9. ¹²⁶ Montevecchi (1941) 104 had already noted that in Egypt houses had little value. This was due mainly to the hot and dry climate, which caused the population ‘to live in the fields, on the streets, outside the front door’ (the translation is mine).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

92

     Table 3.5 Distribution of loans associated with residence contracts 1–60 dr.

61–120 dr.

121–180 dr.

181–240 dr.

241–480 dr.

33

15

5

4

4

the loan varies between one month and two years. For convenience, the other loans are taken to be of one year, and the amount of interest is calculated accordingly; it goes without saying that these results are to be treated only as general guidelines. The majority of the loans (48 out of 67) comprise small, medium and medium-large sums ranging between 7 and 120 dr. (Table 3.5). The best-attested sums are 28 dr. (x6), 40 dr. (x7), 100 dr. (x6) and 120 dr. (x5). What is striking is that in some cases the amount of interest is quite low. As noted earlier, in the full contract, for example, it is only 0.24 dr. Were the debtors really not able to pay this sum? Another clear case in which the interest is extremely low is a residence contract between Pekusis and Papontos involving a loan of 7 dr., with an annual interest of 0.8 dr.¹²⁷ Even if we envisage a loan of two years the interest would not go up by much (1.6 dr.). In general, for the loans up to 60 dr. the interest ranges between 0.24 and 9.6 dr. (in the latter case the loan duration is two years). The large number of residence contracts involving small loans where the interest would have been very low suggests that in these cases the right of habitation which the debtors offered to the creditors was in fact a form of security and not necessarily exercised. Sales (prasis) are the second best-represented type of transaction involving houses in the record-office registers.¹²⁸ While the sale price is never stated, these contracts give us a chance to look not only at the parts of the house which were for sale (e.g. courtyard), but also at some specific architectural features. From the three grapheion registers it emerges that most sales involved the shares of houses and courtyards (aule), and that some attested shares were very small (1/16 and 1/10).¹²⁹ The sale of fractions of houses was common practice in Roman Egypt and reflected the consequences of partible inheritance. Following the division of property between multiple siblings, the sale of house shares within the family represented a way to avoid fragmentation of the property (see next section, 3.4). Three houses feature an aithrion, an internal court typical of urban habitations,

¹²⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso X 13. ¹²⁸ Langellotti (2015). ¹²⁹ P.Mich. II 121 verso XII 7; 123 recto XIV 25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

93

usually of the wealthy type, and two have a yard called auludrion.¹³⁰ Some sales were connected with a loan so as to form a mortgage, whereby the sale was fictitious and the house served as security. Houses also appear in divisions of property and post-marriage settlements.¹³¹ Both types of contracts contributed to the fragmentation of house ownership, thus showing the effects of partible inheritance. An example of this phenomenon is provided by a division of property registered at the recordoffice at the end of October 46 through which Psuphis and his wife Tetosiris also called Dionusia divided their large property, including five houses, among their children and grandsons.¹³² All of the houses, except one for which there is no description, were of the ‘wealthy’ type: one two-storey house with an oil press, one three-storey house and aithrion, one two-storey house called an exedra with courtyard, and one two-storey house with aithrion near the temple of Isis. Three houses present architectural features which were more common in urban context than in villages—the aithrion and the exedra. In post-marriage settlements houses (or shares of houses) appear as part of the property with which the husband endowed his wife. Information about houses in alimentary contracts can be found in four abstracts dated to  42 and in one full demotic contract with a Greek subscription dated to  21.¹³³ In the full contract a sum was established which the husband was obliged to pay in case of divorce. The properties described here, including a house and courtyard, served as security for the payment of such sum, confirming the view according to which in village society houses had an instrumental value and were often used to secure payments.

3.4 Households and the Family The household composition of Roman Egypt, whereby the household included not only family members, but all occupants, is relatively well

¹³⁰ P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 21, XIV 24–25, XIX 33. Cf. Alston (1997) 29–31. ¹³¹ We cannot determine the frequency with which houses occurred in these transactions in the three extant registers as the object is not always stated. In May-August  42 out of nine divisions of property only two mention houses (P.Mich. II 121 verso VI 13 (epaulis), VIII 13). Among the 21 divisions entered into from September 45 to December 46 two mention houses and three building sites (P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 44, XV 30; P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 30, XII 16, and XVIII 41 attest divisions of building sites). ¹³² P.Mich. V 238 151 and 322(a). On the family of Psuphis see Chapter 4.2.1. ¹³³ Abstracts: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 6 = recto II ii, v II 15 = recto III I, verso III 1 = recto III vii, verso III 6 = recto III xii. Full contract: P.Mich. V 347.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

94

    

known.¹³⁴ The census returns have revealed for the villages an average of 4.8 members per household, as opposed to 5.3 in the district capitals, a difference which has been attributed mainly to a larger presence of slaves in the latter.¹³⁵ The most widespread type of household was the simple family household, also known as nuclear. In the countryside the multiple family household appears to have been very popular with 25.3 per cent of representation in the extant census declarations, as opposed to 15.3 per cent in the metropoleis. According to Huebner, the complex household constituted the ideal household form, but high mortality (and other reasons) prevented it from being more widespread.¹³⁶ Two main factors affected household formation and composition in Roman Egypt: a system of partible inheritance and marriages (and divorces). According to the system of partible inheritance, all children, both male and female, were entitled to a share of their parents’ property.¹³⁷ Huebner has pointed out how this system was compatible with the high number of multiple families in the countryside, in which fragmentation of property could have been avoided by keeping it ‘joint and undivided’ among the siblings; joint ownership by siblings in the villages of Roman Egypt is indeed widely attested.¹³⁸ Marriages naturally contributed to the formation of a new household, composed initially by the married couple only and later supposedly by their children, and to the creation of a new family property. The end of a marriage, on the other hand, would have meant not only dissolution of a family group, but also the breaking up of the property. From first-century Tebtunis we have no census returns, which would allow us insight into the household size and composition of the village. The record-office archive, however, enables us to investigate the socio-economic factors which had an impact on household formation and to look closely at the strategies employed to avoid fragmentation. In this village marriages appear to have been the most common way to form a family property, as revealed by post-marriage property settlements. Normally in these agreements it was the husband who brought into the new marriage the property he had inherited from his parents, usually a house and a plot of

¹³⁴ Huebner (2013) 33–4. ¹³⁵ Bagnall and Frier (1994) 68. Hombert and Préaux (1952) 154 proposed from the then known declarations an average household size of 6 persons. Cf. Hobson (1985) 220, who suggested the higher figure of 7.3, and Alston (1997) 33–4, who proposed an average number of 5.40–5.42 persons per household and of 7.61–7.78 occupants per house. ¹³⁶ Huebner (2013) 43–4. ¹³⁷ See Huebner (2013) 50 n. 86 with bibliography. ¹³⁸ Rowlandson (1996) 144; 173.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

95

land; occasionally it was the wife who brought her own property into the marriage.¹³⁹ A decrease in the use of post-marriage agreements is attested from  42 to 45/6. In the four-month period of  42, 13 marriage contracts were registered, plus 18 post-marriage agreements for a total of 31; three years later, for the entire year 45/6 a total of 32 marriage contracts were registered, plus 2 postmarriage agreements, for a total of 34. These figures, however, do not reflect the actual number of marriages in the village, since non-written marriages were still very common. Depending on a family’s financial needs, one’s property could have been enlarged or diminished by buying and selling house shares and plots of land, transactions which are frequently attested in the  40s registers. The risk of fragmentation was always looming. For families with more than one child, this was often inevitable, as shown by divisions of property. Two types of divisions are attested in the grapheion archive: meriteia and diairesis. The former had the same value of a will and was made usually by the father (sometimes by the mother), who divided his own property among his children.¹⁴⁰ An important clause included in this contract was the maintenance of the parents, which corresponded to something similar to a pension. The latter was an agreement by the parties, usually siblings, who, ‘by mutual consent’, divided the property that they owned in common. Although divisions of property represented only a very small percentage of the total transactions attested in the  40s registers (29, or 2.5 per cent), they were still the most common vehicle of fragmentation of property in the village. Their small number simply indicates that in the periods covered by the registers not many people were drafting wills or divisions of property. After all, that could not have happened very often. The registers provide us with limited information as to the type of families using these contracts, the number of children among which the property was divided, the amount of property, and the extent of fragmentation. An exceptional case is a paternal division through which the wealthy priest Psuphis also called Harpokration and his wife Tetosiris divided their large property made of houses, land, cattle, and slaves among their four children and two grandsons.¹⁴¹ The two sons and one grandson received the largest portions, and took immediate possession of the property in exchange for providing maintenance to Psuphis and Tetosiris.

¹³⁹ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 14 = recto IV vii. ¹⁴⁰ Yiftach-Firanko (2002). ¹⁴¹ P.Mich. V 238 151 = P.Mich. V 322(a).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

96

     And the aforesaid Onnophris and Psuphis and Psenkebkis must also furnish the aforesaid Psuphis, also called Harpochration, and Tetosiris, also called Dionusia, as long as they live, two artabai of wheat and six kotylai of oil each month, and on account of expenses and clothing three hundred drachmai a year. And the three must likewise repay whatever the acknowledging parties are proved to owe either in the way of a written note or from hand to hand or by contract or in the way of public charges. And whenever the acknowledging parties shall die, the same three (sons) shall provide a funeral and laying out for both of them, suitable to their station in life, each of the three paying a third of the expense.¹⁴²

This seems to have been common in this type of contracts.¹⁴³ The daughters received smaller portions, as part of their dowry, as probably they would have received also money and parapherna. Fragmentation of property within this family is evident. The two daughters, with 3 and 2 ar. of catoecic land respectively and shares of one house, would have gone on to form a new property with their husbands. The two sons and one grandson were given shares of properties, which implies joint ownership between the three. Some property was held in common and undivided by Psuphis and his wife, and divided by three, that is a third each. There is little doubt that this property was to be managed jointly. The three also received four houses, one third each, which suggests that their families might have lived together. Fragmentation of property is to be seen clearly in a number of full divisions of property made by siblings (diaireseis). One, in particular, involves the wealthy and well-attested family of Herakleides the Younger, whereby five sons and two sisters divide the inheritance from their parents in  48.¹⁴⁴ The division involved land (107 ar.) and 18 slaves in total. There is no house to be divided, but the document states that ‘all the house property and furniture and utensils being held in common and undivided’.¹⁴⁵ Does this mean that Herakleides’ children lived together under the same roof? It is difficult to believe that such wealthy family did not have multiple houses, and probably these were distributed among the children in a paternal division made in a previous contract; it is also to be noted that they owned a house in the district capital.¹⁴⁶

¹⁴² P.Mich. V 322(a), 31–34. ¹⁴³ Cf. P.Mich. V 321 (meriteia,  42). ¹⁴⁴ P.Mich. V 326. See Chapter 4.2.2 for further discussion of this family. ¹⁴⁵ P.Mich. V 326, 63–64. ¹⁴⁶ P.Mich. V 276 ( 47).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

97

Fragmentation of property also occurred when people divorced, in which case the dowry was returned to the wife. The woman would probably have remarried and gone on to form another household property with her new husband. The rate of divorces attested in the record-office registers is very low (15, or 1.3 per cent). The question is now: How did the people of Tebtunis keep their property together in the face of such threatening, and sometimes unavoidable, fragmentation? In discussing inheritance strategies in the Undertakers’ archive from Memphis, Dorothy Thompson noted that ‘there were only two ways in which this process of subdivision, occurring whenever there was more than one child to a marriage, might be reversed—by cession or exchange of interests, or by marriage within the family’.¹⁴⁷ In early Roman Tebtunis joint ownership, especially among siblings, appears to have been the most common strategy to keep the property together (and, as we have seen, this did not necessarily mean joint living). This can be seen not only in divisions of property in which some of the inheritance is said to be ‘in common and undivided’, but also in a number of other types of contracts. In a division of a plot of land between two brothers and a third party the land in question is said to have been held in common by the father of the two brothers and the third party’s father.¹⁴⁸ In this case joint ownership seems to have been carried out among the heirs. In one post-marriage property settlement dated to  42, one Patunis brought into the marriage a house, located in Talei, which he co-owned with a certain Onnophris, and the contract specifies that the children of both will participate equally in the inheritance.¹⁴⁹ The question of how often joint ownership of houses also meant joint living is a difficult one, as this type of information is not visible in the documents. In the case of the children and grandsons of Psuphis also called Harpokration we might make a guess. There were five houses at stake—four were divided among three heirs, one third each, and another one between two sisters. In the case of the two sisters, either they lived together or one of them would have bought the other out. As for the three male heirs, the easiest solution would have been for them to live each in a separate house, and then use the spare house for storage (or even for residence contracts). Another way to avoid fragmentation was by selling and buying plots of land and shares of houses. Marriage within a family, on the other hand, does ¹⁴⁷ Thompson (1988) 164–6. ¹⁴⁹ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV iv.

¹⁴⁸ P.Mich. V 327 ( I).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

98

    

not appear to have been a widespread strategy to keep property together. Only one brother-sister marriage is attested, the one between Didumos the younger and Hero, members of the well-off family of Lusimachos son of Didumos.¹⁵⁰ A marriage between two cousins, Herakleides the elder and Arsinoe, niece of Herakleides the Younger, is also attested.¹⁵¹ It is to be noted that both marriages occurred within families with a predominantly Macedonian onomastics and most likely descendants of the Greek settlers.¹⁵² The social and economic practices that emerge from the analysis of these contracts make clear that the family, broadly defined as multiple-household, played a central role in the village. Unfortunately contracts do not tell us about feelings and familial values embedded in these social groups. Sparse information can be found in the papyri about the relationship between husband and wife and between parents and children, but only a general picture can be drawn. That there was generally a strong bond between parents and children is implied by the very system of partible inheritance, which reflects the concern of the parents to provide for their children. The same goes for the dowries which daughters received from their fathers. Adult children, on the other hand, were expected to care for their aged parents, when this was possible.

3.5 Conclusions After a review of current scholarly debates about the size and structure of the population of Roman Egypt, this chapter has provided an estimate of about 6,000 for the population of first-century Tebtunis in the light of comparative data from other Arsinoite villages and using the concept of wheatequivalent. The surviving record-office registers dated to  42 and 45–6 have allowed us to calculate approximately the number of users at about 2,000, of which c. 1,600–1,700 were from Tebtunis only. For an average population size of about 6,000 the level of participation in the contractual economy has been estimated about 25–28 per cent. The data included in

¹⁵⁰ P.Mich. V 262 ( 35–6). On brother-sister marriage see in particular Hopkins (1980), Huebner (2007), and Rowlandson and Takahashi (2009). ¹⁵¹ P.Mich. V 350 ( 37). See discussion in Chapter 4.2.2. ¹⁵² In the Tebtunis archive of Kronion son of Cheos, of the second century, brother–sister marriages are attested in the Egyptian strata of the population as a way to avoid fragmentation of property, which might suggest that the economic situation of the village could have worsened. Cf. Foraboschi (1971) xxii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

99

these registers have also enabled an investigation of the users’ age distribution and gender. The  42 register of abstract (P.Mich. II 121 recto), which is the only register to preserve ages, has provided us with a sample of 107 ages, whereby 94 were males and 13 females. It has emerged that men made contracts usually between the age of 20 and 40, and women between the age of 20 and 50. It has been noted that no party under the age of 20 is attested, suggesting that 20 was the minimum age to enter into a written transaction. The 27 subscribers appear to have been on average older than the contracting parties, between 30 and 50, with two subscribers in their 70s. This was probably due to the fact that some men used their expertise and free time to make some extra cash in their old age. An analysis of the role of women in the contractual economy follows the investigation of the Tebtunis record-office users. The  42 register of abstracts has shown that no woman older than 50 is attested and that most women acted with a male relative. These phenomena have been attributed to the fact that married women had a privileged position in the economy, thus encouraging widows to remarry. The fact that the majority of women acted jointly with a male relative could also be attributed to the existence of a network of support from family and friends which single women enjoyed. The data included in the registers have shown that in general women had a small presence in the contractual economy (11 per cent in  42, 14.6 per cent in  45/6, and 17.1 per cent in  46/7). They were mostly attested in a domestic role in contracts such as post-marriage settlements, dowry agreements and receipts, residence contracts, and wetnurse contracts. Women appear to have acted independently only in some types of transaction involving property, including mortgages, house sales, and divisions of property. This was due to the fact that women, like men, could inherit property from both their parents, thus giving them the chance to sell and buy. The few female landowners attested in Tebtunis were not particularly well-off, except for some individuals such as Didume and Ptolema, Herakleides the Younger’s wife, who were quite wealthy. The grapheion documents have revealed that in this period all women used a guardian even in demotic contracts. Normally a guardian was required only in Greek contracts, but the gradual disappearance of demotic in written contracts and the increasing use of Greek seem to have encouraged the use of Greek legal instruments among the Egyptian strata of the population. It has been suggested that the widespread use of guardianship, which was encouraged by the Romans, could be interpreted as a way of the Egyptian population to adapt to the customs promoted by the new rulers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

100

    

The role of women in wet-nurse contracts and dowry returns has received particular attention. Both types of agreements have been generally viewed as fictitious loans, whereby the object—the nursing of a baby and dowries respectively—was taken to function as collateral to the actual transaction. According to this view, the large number of these contracts within the grapheion archive contracts signalled a period of economic distress in the village, during which people resorted to using their babies and dowries to secure a loan. In particular, wet-nurse contracts have been interpreted as fiduciary sales of children, whereby the wet-nurse was in fact the mother of the nursling and the nursling was the pledge which guaranteed the loan. Dowry returns have been viewed as fictitious loans whereby men married only to acquire the woman’s dowry and the dowry was in fact the loan to be returned when the marriage ended. The analysis in this chapter, however, has shown that these contracts were not disguised loans and that their presence in the archive cannot be taken as an indication of financial difficulty. On the contrary, wet-nurse contracts constituted a way by which women were able to contribute to the household economy, while dowry contracts and returns, which included in most cases medium to large-size dowries, showed that a good amount of cash circulated in the village. The onomastic study of the record-office users, which follows the analysis of the role of women, has revealed that the majority of names were theophoric, that is associated with a deity, which was common practice in Roman Egypt. Egyptian cults were the most popular, with Horos, Sobek, Isis, and Osiris being the favourite among people’s choice. The most popular names appear to have been Sobek-names, followed by Horos-names. Greek and Macedonian names were also quite common, as revealed by the frequent use of Herakles, Apollonios, and Herodes. Of the c.2,100 record-office users who have been identified in the  40s registers the majority, or 56 per cent, had an Egyptian name, normally of the theophoric type and associated with an Egyptian god, while individuals bearing a Greek name constituted around 42 per cent of the total, most of whom had a common Greek name (59 per cent) and only a few a Macedonian name (12 per cent). Although the regular attestation of names associated with Greek or Graeco-Egyptian deities is an indication that Hellenic and Egyptian cultures were well integrated, it has been concluded that first-century Tebtunis was still Egyptian at its core, with people preferring theophoric Egyptian names. This chapter has also investigated two status designations which accompanied some names within the archive—Persian of the epigone and Macedonian of the catoeci (or of the cavalry)—and occupational and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

   

101

administrative titles. The relevant analysis has supported Vandorpe’s view according to which the title of Persian of the epigone did not designate the inferior position of the debtor in contracts, but a status which in the Ptolemaic period was a privileged one, somewhere in between the status of Egyptians and Greeks. Macedonian of the catoeci, on the other hand, was a title used mainly in cessions of private land of the catoecic type, a relic of the Ptolemaic period during which it designated the privileged status of descendant of the Greek settlers who owned private land. This title disappeared towards the end of the first century, signalling that the transition from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period was then complete. As for occupational and administrative titles, it has been shown that these were added only in documents in which such titles were required by the transaction itself, for example in affidavits and applications for state concession. The last two sections of the chapter have investigated the most common housing arrangements in Tebtunis and household formation and fragmentation. It has been noted that the three most popular contracts involving houses—residence contracts, mortgages, and some sales—were associated with loans in cash, suggesting that the people of Tebtunis often used houses as security on a loan. In the particular case of residence contracts, in which the right to live in a house for a set period of time was offered in place of paying interest on a loan, houses not only represented a form of security for the creditor, but also suggested the existence of flexible living arrangements in the village. The last section has shown that marriage was the most common way of forming a new household in first-century Tebtunis and that fragmentation of property was mostly due to divisions of property and less frequently to divorces. It has been noted that joint ownership was the preferred and most effective way to keep property together. Another way to avoid fragmentation was that of selling and buying plots of land and shares of houses which belonged to individuals of the same family.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

4 Social Stratification in First-Century Tebtunis 4.1 Introduction With the arrival of the Romans in Egypt in 30 , a series of changes was set in motion that would have a deep impact on the social stratification of Egypt over the next three centuries (or at least on the way in which it was perceived by the new rulers). The main Roman novelty was the introduction of the poll-tax, called laographia (literally ‘registration of people’), which all men aged between 14 and 62 were required to pay; its annual rate varied from nome to nome, with the Arsinoite displaying the highest rate in the province—40. dr.¹ The population of Egypt was classified into two main fiscal categories: Egyptians (Aiguptioi), that is the inhabitants of the countryside (chora), including the nome capitals (metropoleis), who paid the poll-tax, and citizens of the Greek cities (astoi), who were exempt.² Roman citizens, who in Egypt were few in number, were also exempt. Within this broad framework, other privileged fiscal groups can be identified, including Egyptian priests (excluding the ones of low rank), who were exempt from the laographia, and the metropolites, that is residents of the district capitals, who paid it at the reduced rate.³ From the second half of the first century  another privileged group is attested in cities as well as metropoleis, those who belonged to the gymnasium, who in the Arsinoite nome have been identified with ‘the 6,475 Greeks of the Arsinoite’ (οἱ ς υοε ἐν Ἀρσινοείτῃ Ἕλληνες).⁴ Members of this group were individuals of Hellenic descent, whose status was ascertained by the Roman administration through ¹ On the Roman poll-tax see Wallace (1938) 116–34; Rathbone (1993) 86–99, and more recently Monson (2014). A new study on the age of liability to the poll-tax is being prepared by Dominic Rathbone. ² See, for example, Modrzejewski (1990) esp. 257–69; Hanson (1992) 133–4; Bagnall (1997b) 7–8; Capponi (2005) 82–96. Various privileges of the citizens of the Greek cities are set out in a number of sections of the Gnomon of the Idioslogos, a collection of legal regulations first drafted under Augustus and updated in later stages; Swarney (1970). ³ Broux (2013). ⁴ Canducci (1990); (1991). Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

103

a system called epikrisis (‘scrutiny’, ‘selection’ of privileged persons).⁵ The general consensus holds that magistrates and higher urban officials were recruited from the wealthiest strata of the gymnasial group, thus forming what we would call an elite, but whether all the other members were also part of such an elite has been a matter of debate.⁶ Bowman and Rathbone suggested that these officials provided the local community with an early form of self-administration before the formal introduction of city councils (boulai) in Egypt in  201, under the emperor Septimius Severus.⁷ There seems to be no doubt that members of the gymnasial group enjoyed some privileges, as suggested by the fact that their number was limited and that they had to undergo strict scrutiny in order to acquire such status. The evidence, however, is unclear as to the nature of these privileges, which probably involved not only some fiscal exemption (they probably paid the poll-tax at a reduced rate), but also enhanced social prestige.⁸ This simplified overview of the fiscal framework put in place by the Romans concealed a much more complex infrastructure. In a multicultural society such as that of Roman Egypt, where social and cultural interactions, including intermarriages, contributed to the shaping of more varied social identities, legal designations were not necessarily a reflection of ethnicity.⁹ This chapter aims to provide a clearer picture of the social stratification of Tebtunis in the early Roman period by examining the nature, role, and composition of the various social groups attested in the village at a time of transition during which Ptolemaic and Egyptian socio-economic and administrative procedures were being adapted to the new Roman regulations. From the analysis of the record-office documents it emerges that individuals belonging to different socio-economic backgrounds lived in Tebtunis and were involved, at various levels, in the dynamic contractual activity of the village, including members of wealthy families and common villagers of different economic standing, many of whom belonged to professional associations focused on various agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Slaves also formed part of the complex social structure of Tebtunis. However, social mobility and the existence of fluid social relations

⁵ Nelson (1979); Bussi (2003). ⁶ For the view according to which all members of the gymnasial group were part of the elite see Bowman and Rathbone (1992); Bussi (2008) 46; Ruffini (2006); for a different view see van Minnen (2002) 338–9. ⁷ Bowman and Rathbone (1992). ⁸ Whitehorne (1982); Bussi (2003). ⁹ See Chapter 3.2.4. For a broad overview see Bagnall (1997b) and Rowlandson (2004).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

104

    

meant that the parameters by which these social groups were identified are not clearly set. The aim of the following study is threefold: first, to clarify issues of definition; second, to reconstruct the social and economic relations between the various social groups; and third, to examine how these relations shaped the local community and its position in the wider regional network of social, professional, and administrative relations.

4.2 Social Groups in Tebtunis There is a tendency in modern sociological studies to classify individuals in categories or social groups according to their socio-economic standing. The standard social structure, which emerges on the whole for all societies, includes a restricted elite of wealthy and powerful individuals and a larger group made up of people of different statuses, from well-off to subsistence level, which some scholars call ‘masses’.¹⁰ The criteria used to define these social categories varies, and as a consequence the nature of their membership is also subject to variation. General criteria take into account a person’s wealth and political influence (or lack thereof), but a number of other factors also come into play in the definition of social groups, as can be seen in the case of the elite.¹¹ Modern scholars have identified two main types of elite: a governing elite, made up of individuals who have political power or are associated with the government, and a non-governing elite. Wealth, education, and status are the defining features of the latter. Some have applied this twofold model of society to the ancient world, and despite inevitable problems in clarifying correspondences, analogies, and idiosyncrasies between modern and ancient social categories, this method has proved to be very useful in the investigation of the ancient social stratification.¹² For the Roman world in general the term ‘elite’ is used to designate the ruling governmental body of wealthy individuals who in cities and towns administered their communities. Usually these were the members

¹⁰ Cf. Wright Mills (1956) 13–18 and Mosca (1939) 50–3. The term ‘social group’ is used in place of ‘social class’ in order to provide a more inclusive description of the population of Tebtunis. On social classes see Marx and Engels (1848) esp. 473–9 and (1867); Weber (1909–20); and more recently Bourdieu (1979). ¹¹ For an overview of various definition of elite in sociological studies see Bottomore (1964) 7–23. ¹² See Ober (1989) for the application of this model to fifth-century Athens.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

105

of town councils (decuriones or curiales in the West, bouleutai in the East).¹³ As mentioned in the previous section (4.1), in Egypt, where town councils were established only in  200/1, the elite is generally taken to designate a restricted group of wealthy individuals of Hellenic descent, or at least with a Hellenized background, who held high administrative positions and magistracies.¹⁴ How about the villages? According to the traditional view, village elites in Roman Egypt were to be identified with urban elites. Although officially resident in Ptolemais Euergetis, members of this group would have owned landed properties in the countryside and spent part of their lives in their village residences. This was the elite as envisaged by Daniele Foraboschi for second-century Tebtunis: wealthy landowners of Hellenic descent, with Macedonian names, resident of the district capital, who acted as lessors and creditors to a larger group of farmers bearing typical Egyptian names.¹⁵ However, this model of society does not seem to be applicable to first-century Tebtunis, where the papyrological evidence allows us to identify a more complex and differentiated social stratification.¹⁶ In this period a certain number of individuals and families who appear to have descended from the Greek settlers resided in the village on a permanent basis (see below). It is only towards the end of the century, with the disappearance of the Greek gymnasia in the villages and the creation of an official gymnasial order in the district capitals, that members of these families moved to the district capital in order to be enrolled in the newly established privileged group.¹⁷ With a few exceptions, the surviving evidence shows that members of this group did not hold roles of responsibility in the village administration. In the late Ptolemaic and Roman periods the claim to Greek origin was a claim to a privileged tax category and often had nothing to do with ethnicity. The situation was particularly complex in the countryside where Egyptians could claim a Greek status through administrative jobs and intermarriage. Dorothy Thompson noted how ‘over time Greek ethnicity became a very fluid concept as a growing number of individuals moved between the Greek and Egyptian world’.¹⁸ Members of the priestly group, on the other hand, are attested as responsible for the management of public ¹³ Edmondson (2006); Mouritsen (2015) 227–9; Schuler (2015). ¹⁴ Bowman (1971); Bowman and Rathbone (1992). Cf. van Minnen (2002); Ruffini (2006); Tacoma (2006); and Bussi (2008). ¹⁵ Foraboschi (1971) xxxii. ¹⁶ van Minnen (1998) 101 attributes this high degree of social differentiation in part to the size of the village. ¹⁷ Bingen (1975) 371; Monson (2012) 267–8; Broux (2013); Fischer-Bovet (2014) 280–90. ¹⁸ Thompson (2001) 316.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

106

    

land. In order to define the nature of the elite of mid-first-century Tebtunis it is, therefore, necessary to adopt criteria that take into account the political scenario of the time: level of wealth (land, money, and slaves); direct or indirect participation in the local administration; and level of participation in literacy.¹⁹ Such an elite combines the features of the ruling and non-ruling elite. The adoption of these criteria to the study of the grapheion-users shows that the village elite included not only a few persons with a Greek or Graecized background, but also a small number of wealthy priests of Soknebtunis. The rest of the population who made contracts were of different socio-economic statuses and displayed different levels of wealth. What follows is a detailed discussion of the social stratification of early Roman Tebtunis, which defines the role played by the priests and Hellenized families as well as of the wider population in the village economy and society. The main goal is to establish the dynamics of the socio-economic relations of the various groups and to determine the general level of wellbeing within the village.

4.2.1 The Priests The generally accepted view holds that the social and economic power characteristic of the Egyptian clergy during the Ptolemaic period underwent a gradual curtailment under the Romans; indeed, a series of imperial reforms, which were imposed over the course of the first two centuries , changed their role and function within the local community.²⁰ Two reforms, in particular, allegedly affected the status quo of the priests in first-century Tebtunis: one, dated to 24–21 , involving the confiscation of temple land, and the other, dated to 4 , regulating access to the priestly group. As we learn from a petition dated to  71/72, under the Augustan prefect Petronius (24–21 ), 500 1/4 ar. of temple land around Tebtunis were turned into royal land.²¹ The priests of Soknebtunis were given two options: to keep the management of the land upon payment of an annual rent, or to surrender their rights and receive in return an annual subvention (suntaxis). They went for the first option. However, not all the temple land was ¹⁹ For a high level of participation in literary culture in Tebtunis see van Minnen (1998) 101. See also Langellotti (2018). ²⁰ Monson (2012) 212–18. ²¹ P.Tebt. II 302.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

107

confiscated, and part of it remained in the private possession of the priests, as the evidence shows.²² A few years later, in 4 , the Augustan prefect Turranius issued an edict according to which temples were required ‘to register their hereditary priests and acolytes, and all the others belonging to the temples and their children, and to make clear what function they perform’.²³ A system of declarations (eiskrisis) was imposed, which closely monitored access to priestly offices, whereby in order to apply for an office a candidate had to prove his membership to a priestly family, and at the age of 14 had to apply for permission to be circumcised.²⁴ Imperial control over the priests and the temples increased under Nero, when the prefect Tuscus ordered a detailed examination of the status of the priests and of the temples’ property. The priests were now required to pay a fee called eiskriton (or huper epikriseos), due when admitted into the privileged category, which guaranteed partial fiscal exemption. A more bureaucratic control over the Egyptian priests was then established with the creation around  120 of the high priest of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a special official in charge of the administration of religion. His main role was to supervise the imperial decrees that were emanated over the course of the first century and early second century , which regulated the behaviour and power of the clergy. To what extent these Roman reforms had an impact on the role of the Egyptian priests over time, and how long these effects could be fully appreciated, it is difficult to say. In fact, an analysis of the evidence concerning temple and priest activity has revealed that Egyptian temples retained much of their economic power in the first two centuries .²⁵ During this time the priests remained a closed and privileged group and enjoyed fiscal privileges (e.g. exemption from the poll-tax and from some compulsory services) ‘comparable or better than those of the urban elites’.²⁶ The evidence of the record-office archive from Tebtunis confirms this view, revealing for the mid-first century  a socioeconomic scenario in which the priests of the temple of Soknebtunis retained a position of power and were responsible for the management of public land and other administrative offices. They constituted a privileged

²² Monson (2005). For temple land around Tebtunis see Chapter 5.2.4. ²³ BGU IV 1199 (4 , Herakleopolite nome); trans. Lewis (1983) 92. ²⁴ Nelson (1979) 60–2; Kruse (2002) 728–33; Capponi (2011) 510; Monson (2012) 219–20; see also P.Tebt. II 291–3. ²⁵ See Capponi (2011). Hickey (2009) 506 points out that ‘commentators have traditionally viewed these regulations as oppressive and ignored the obvious preference being shown’. ²⁶ Hickey (2009) 506.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

108

    

group of 50 members who were exempt (apolusimoi) from the poll-tax and compulsory services on dykes.²⁷ Some priests also formed an association known as sunodos hiereon (association of priests), as attested in an account of beer dated to  51 given to its president (prostates), Psuphis son of Onnophris.²⁸ No additional information is provided about the nature and membership of this association, though it probably displayed similar features to what we find in other contemporary associations, including regular social gatherings, as also suggested by the purchase of beer (see 4.2.3). The role of the priests of Tebtunis in the economy and society of the village emerges clearly when looking at the three registers of contracts dated to the  40s. The number of instances in which contracting parties bearing priestly names occur is 234, making up 7.8 per cent of the total of named individuals in the registers.²⁹ Though an imprecise figure, this gives us an idea of their level of participation in the written contractual economy. The name Kronion is not taken into account in this calculation because of its extreme popularity, even though priests called Kronion are often attested. If we do take this name into account, the percentage of men with priestly names listed in the registers rises to 14.3 per cent. Only two men are specifically titled as priests—Hatres, lessor in a lease of land recorded on 12 November  45, and Panechotes, who on 17 August  46, together with other priests, submitted an application for state concession, about which no information is provided.³⁰ Overall, the large majority of the men bearing priestly names is attested in land leases (87, or 37 per cent), and most of these individuals (51, or 58.6 per cent) were sub-lessors of pasture or public land, while a smaller proportion (32, or 36.7 per cent) were lessees, usually of land for which the status is not specified. The involvement of

²⁷ Bussi (2008) 32–4; Monson (2012) 212–36 on the role of priests in the Ptolemaic and early Roman period. The earliest attestation is a notice of birth dated to  50 in which the priest Psuphis son of Harpokras requests that his son be enrolled in the list of the ‘fifty exempted persons’ (P.Tebt. II 299). See also P.Tebt. II 298 ( 107/8) and P.Bad. VI 169 ( 132/3). As part of the temple personnel there were also 40 pastophoroi (shrine-bearers), an inferior priestly group; cf. BGU XIII 2215. Other shrines are also attested in the village, but each of them was served by one priestly family only. As of the second century, we have evidence of another temple, of Sokopichonsis; see BGU IV 1023. ²⁸ P.Mich. V 322(b). ²⁹ Priestly names are established taking into account the lists of priests included in P.Mich. V 233 ( 25), 226 ( 37), 342 ( 41 or 42), P.Tebt. II 299 (c. 50), 296 ( 123), 294 ( 46), 298 ( 107/8), 296–97 ( 123), 300 ( 151), 293 (c. 187), 292 ( 189/90), 301 ( 190), 295 ( 126–38), 303 ( 176–80), 304 ( 176–80). ³⁰ Hatres: P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 5; Panechotes: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

109

priests in the administration of public land and related agricultural activities is attested in a number of contemporary documents. In  25 some priests submitted a written oath concerning the guarding of artificial canals to the inspector of sowings (katasporeus) in the Arsinoite district, Gaius Iulius Philetos.³¹ In  37, nine priests are attested as lessors of a granary and in a petition addressed to the strategos of the division of Polemon they reported that the granary had been returned by the lessees in unfavourable conditions.³² As a result, they were unable to pay the public taxes (in wheat and barley), which were due on the land that they owned or managed. In the register of titles of  45/6 some priests are attested to have submitted three affidavits, two of which in conjunction with other groups, the shrine-bearers (pastophoroi) and the farmers (georgoi) respectively.³³ Although the objects are not stated, on the basis of the oath now mentioned and given the fact that one declaration is filed in association with the farmers, one may guess that they included activities concerning the management of land. The priests of Soknebtunis seem to have made some profit from the collection of a tax called didrachmia Souchou, which was paid in connection with house sales.³⁴ It is unclear, however, how this tax related to the other tax on sales, the enkuklion. In general, the evidence from early Roman Tebtunis shows that the priests played a central role in the management of pasture land, while they were less prominent as money-lenders. The financial situation of individual priests and their families is difficult to establish due to the lack of additional information, but it is likely that those in a position of administrative control were reasonably well-off. An example of a wealthy priestly family is that of Psuphis also called Harpokration son of Sarapion, attested in seven documents spanning the time from  26 to 51.³⁵ According to Monson, and as a generally accepted view, this family was exceptional, as in this period priests were gradually losing their economic privileges. However, as argued in this section, the contemporary documentary evidence points in a different direction.³⁶ At least three members of this family were priests of ³¹ P.Mich. V 233. ³² P.Mich. 226. ³³ P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 4 (31 March 46); XV 26 (7 May 46), submitted by priests and pastophoroi; XIX 22 (22 July 46), submitted by priests and farmers. ³⁴ In  41 or 42 the priests of Soknebtunis issued a receipt to a certain Harm for a tax paid to the local temple, which has been identified with the didrachmia Souchou; see P.Mich. V 342 and re-edition by Winkler (2014). ³⁵ P.Mich. V 337 ( 26), 263 ( 35–6), 226 ( 37), 322(a) ( 46), 322(b) ( 51), 307 (undated), P.Tebt. II 383 ( 37). See also P.Mich. V, pp. 18–21. ³⁶ Monson (2012) 221 n. 71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

110

     Maron also called Marepsemis

Marepsemis

Termouthis

Serapion also called Marepkemis

Tetosiris also called Dionusia (b. 14 bc-† after 46)

Psuphis also called Harpokration (b. 23 bc-† after 46)

Marepsemis also called Kalamos (b. ad 6) Onnophris Psuphis Psenkebkis Tamarres (b. ad 1) (b. ad 13) (b. ad 4 c.-† before 46) (b. ad 8) Psuphis (b. ad 19)

Thaesis (b. ad 24)

Tamarres Marepsemis alias Kephalas Thaubastis (b. ad 4 c.) (b. ad 1) (b. ad 7)

Psenkebkis

Figure 4.1 Family tree of Psuphis, also called Harpokration

Soknebtunis: Onnophris son of Psuphis, Psuphis grandson of Psuphis, and Marepsemis, son-in-law of Psuphis (Figure 4.1). The first, Onnophris, was one of the nine petitioners who complained to the strategos about the condition of a granary, as mentioned earlier on; the second, Psuphis, was president (prostates) of the association of the priests of Kronos; and the third, Marepsemis, was an exempt priest and also a public farmer.³⁷ In  46, at the ages of 69 and 60 respectively, Psuphis alias Harpokration and his wife Tetosiris registered a division of property through which they divided their property among their heirs—four children and two grandsons (see also Chapter 3.4).³⁸ First, Psuphis divided his own property, which was all located near Tebtunis, made of 4 10/32 ar. of temple land, 5 ar. of catoecic land, five houses (all of the wealthy type, as noted in Chapter 3), priestly lodgings, cattle, and three slaves; then his wife divided her property, made up only of 9 ar. of catoecic land and a vineyard located in the nearby village of Kerkeesis, and 1 13/32 ar. of temple land which she owned jointly with her husband. Ownership of catoecic land by a priestly family raises the question of acquisition: how did this family come in possession of a type of land whose ownership was traditionally claimed by the descendants of the Greek settlers? The simplest explanation is intermarriage, thus assuming that Tetosiris belonged to a family of Hellenic descent. The use of double names by both Tetosiris alias Dionusia and her father Maron alias Marepsemis, however, suggests that her family was strongly embedded in the Egyptian cultural and social strata of the population.³⁹ Catoecic land had probably been brought into Psuphis’ family as part of Tetosiris’ dowry and personal possession. It is not to be excluded that Tetosiris’ father was a native Egyptian and purchased the plot of catoecic land through a regular

³⁷ P.Mich. V 226; 322(b); SB XX 14313 ( 47). ³⁸ P. Mich. V 322(a) = P.Mich. V 238 151. ³⁹ See in general van Minnen (1998). See also Hickey (2009) 54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

111

sale, thus suggesting a scenario whereby private land could be exchanged on an open market.⁴⁰ This possibility reveals the complexity of Greek identity in the Egyptian countryside, which, in the Roman period, could not be linked exclusively to the possession of catoeic land. Among the activities of the male members in Psuphis’ family are farming and land leasing. In  26 Onnophris, son of Psuphis, paid a wage to a certain Marepsemis for the cultivation of 3 ar. of temple land near Tebtunis; in  35–6 Psenkebis, another son of Psuphis, sold a plot of 4 ar. of temple of land to one Pnebtunis; and in some other year Psuphis, grandson of Psuphis, bought some property near the Iseium from a certain Onnophris.⁴¹ We are not informed as to whether they engaged in other economic activities, but it is interesting to note that the three men mentioned above were all literate in Greek. In particular, the grandson Psuphis seems to have acted as a professional scribe.⁴² This shows that in the early Roman period the priestly group was actively trying to integrate themselves into administration in the Greek language, as promoted by the Romans.

4.2.2 The Hellenized Families The grapheion archive reveals for early Roman Tebtunis the presence of several families with a predominant Macedonian nomenclature, two of whom are particularly well represented: the family of Herakleides the Younger and that of Lusimachos son of Didumos. In the absence of ethnic designations, it is difficult to establish whether they were of Greek origin and in general what the make-up of their ancestry was. In the Roman period being Greek meant being a member of the gymnasium, a status which was attained by demonstrating Greek origin; education, language, religion, and naming practices also defined a Greek identity.⁴³ We have very little information about the culture and religious preferences of these two Tebtunis families and there is no evidence that any of their members was part of the gymnasium, as at this stage village gymnasia had disappeared and urban gymnasia were not fully established yet. Within the grapheion archive identification of individuals with a Hellenic or Hellenized background is based primarily on onomastics, that is on the use of Macedonian names (Alexandros, Arsinoe, Demetria, Demetrios, ⁴⁰ Monson (2012) 211. ⁴² P.Tebt. II 383 ( 46).

⁴¹ P.Mich. V 337; V 263; V 307. ⁴³ Thompson (2001) 312.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

112

    

Herakleides, Lusimachos, including the diminutive Lusas, and Ptolemaios), and wealth, mainly possession of large amounts of catoecic land.⁴⁴ The group of people who belonged to families of Hellenic descent is bound to have included also individuals with common Greek and Egyptian names, but their identification in the three registers is problematic and therefore their number cannot be calculated exactly. In the three grapheion registers the number of parties bearing Macedonian names make up 5 per cent of the total named individuals. With the exception of 11 contracts featuring them as subscribers or neighbours, they are mostly attested in cash loans and deposits, 25 and 8 respectively (32 per cent), with 82 per cent in the role of creditors and 17 per cent in that of debtors.⁴⁵ They also occur in land leases (29, or 26 per cent), with 55 per cent acting as lessors and 44.8 per cent as lessees. It is evident that this scenario is different from what has emerged for the contractual activity of those bearing Egyptian priestly names, who are best represented in land leases in the role of lessors. The large amount of catoecic land and the possession of several slaves confirm that the family of Herakleides the Younger belonged to the village social and economic elite (Figure 4.2).⁴⁶ Members bore Macedonian and other Greek names, and Herakleides’ children were all literate in Greek, which suggests that they had received a basic Greek education at the very

Herakleides alias Calemus

Lusimachos

Herodes

Herakleides the Elder

Heraklea

Maron

Herakleides

Arsinoe

Herakleides the Younger Ptolema (b. 3 bc - † ?) (b. 9 bc c. - † before ad 47)

Didumos

Rhodous (Tamarron)

Maron

Herakleides

Didumos

Herodes - - - Apias (b. ad 7-† ?)

Apion (b. 80–90 c.) Diogenis

Herakleides Lourios

Lusimachos Loupos

Maron

Lusimachos Heraklea Arsinoe Lusimachos s. Lusimachos (b.?-† ad 48) (b. ad 17-† ?)

Didumos (b. 80–90 c.) katoikos of the 6475

Didumos Lourios Heron (b. ad 108 c.) (gymnasiarch and ex-kosmetes)

Figure 4.2 Family tree of Herakleides the Younger

⁴⁴ Titles indicating Hellenic status are rarely found in the grapheion registers—as seen in Chapter 3, Macedonian of the catoeci, for example, is attested only in four cessions of catoecic land. ⁴⁵ The subscribers are Ptolemaios son of Chairemon and Herakleides son of Horion, about whom see Chapter 2.3.1. The neighbour is Herakleides son of Papos (P.Mich. II 121 verso II 6 = recto II ii). ⁴⁶ See P.Mich. V, pp. 17–18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

113

least. Eight documents, including sale, cession, and division of some property, give us an insight into the transactions in which members of this family were involved over ten years, between  37 and 48. Two documents (P.Mich. V 350, 266) concern the affairs of Herakleides’ daughter Arsinoe, who in  37 gave up any claim to the property she might have inherited from her parents as she is said to be satisfied with the dowry she has received upon her marriage with Lusimachos son of Lusimachos; one or two years later she appears as consenting wife in a cession of land issued by her husband in favour of his sister Hero. Two other documents (P.Mich. XI 621,  37; V 353,  48) concern the cession of some catoecic land from one Herodes also called Herakleides to Herakleides the Younger. Finally, Herakleides the Younger is attested while buying a vineyard near Theogonis in  38–39 and a vacant plot near Tebtunis (PSI VIII 918; P.Mich. V 297). The sale of a vineyard, in particular, sheds further light on the composition of this family, revealing that Herakleides the Younger’s older brother, Herakleides the elder, had a son called Maron, like his grandfather, and that their grandfather was named Lusimachos (Figure 4.2). That the family of Herakleides the Younger also owned some property in the district capital is shown by a sale in which the five sons of Herakleides the Younger sold a share of a house they jointly owned to a certain Tamaron (P.Mich. V 276). Herakleides the Younger owned a total of 107 ar. of catoecic land scattered among several villages, a vineyard, and five slaves; his wife Ptolema daughter of Herodes owned a vineyard in the village of Theogonis and 13 slaves. Herakleides and his wife were born under Augustus, around 9 and 3  respectively, and their descendants still appear in some second century documents from Tebtunis and the district capital, Ptolemais Euergetis, as big landowners and creditors. In April  48 their children, five sons (one, Lusimachos, had died) and two daughters, divided among themselves the property that they inherited from their parents and which they held in common (Table 4.1).⁴⁷ The lack of reference to houses in this contract might be due to the existence of a previous arrangement for their division. That Herakleides the Younger did own a house at Tebtunis is attested in a sale of a vacant lot, in which the house of Herakleides himself is listed among the neighbours.⁴⁸ The large amount of catoecic land in possession of Herakleides’ family suggests that part of their revenue came from leasing out their plots

⁴⁷ P.Mich. V 326.

⁴⁸ P.Mich.V 297 (first century).

Table 4.1 Division of property (diairesis) among Herakleides the Younger’s children (P.Mich. V 326, 6 April  48) Maron

Herodes

Didumos

Herakleides Lourios

Lusimachos (Lusas) †

Herakleia

Arsinoe

6 ar. (Kerkesephis)

12 3/4 ar. (Tebtunis)

5 ¼ ar. (Tebtunis)

9 ½ ar. (Theogonis)

7 ½ ar. (Kerkeesis)

5 ¼ ar. (Tebtunis)

5 ¼ ar. (Tebtunis)

She had given up any claim to property in  37 (P.Mich. V 350)

8 ar. (Theogonis)

8 1/3 ar. (Kerkesoucha Orous) Four-fifths allotted to Maron, Herodes, Didumos and Herakleides Lourios.

8 1/3 ar. (Kerkesoucha Orous)

15 ¼ ar. (Kerkeesis)

Tot. 21 ¼ ar.

3 slaves

8 1/3 ar. (Kerkesoucha Orous)

Tot. 12 3/4 ar. 1/3 of a vineyard of 2 ar. (Theogonis) 4 slaves

Tot. 13 ¼ 1/3 ar. 1/3 of a vineyard of 2 ar. (Theogonis) 3 slaves

Tot. 9 ½ ar. 1/3 of a vineyard of 2 ar. (Theogonis) 2 slaves

Tot. 15 ½ ar. 1/3 of a vineyard of 3 7/8 ar. (Theogonis) 3 slaves

The rest to Herakleides the eldest.

Tot. 13 ¼ 1/3 ar. 1/3 of a vineyard of 3 7/8 ar. (Theogonis) 3 slaves

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

Herakleides (the eldest)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

115

(see Chapter 5.3.5 on leasing strategies). Among their activities were also wine production, as suggested by the description of Herakleides’ vineyard, ‘planted for wine-growing’ and provided with a wine press, and probably money-lending.⁴⁹ Even though none of Herakleides’ family members can be identified in the three registers of contracts (possibly with the exception of Herodes, who will be discussed shortly), when looking at the onomastics we notice that of all the individuals bearing the names of Herakleides’ family members (Herakleides, Maron, Didumos, Lusimachos, Herakleia, Arsinoe), for a total of 226 occurrences, the large majority appears in the role of creditor (24.7 per cent) and only a small percentage (4.8 per cent) features as debtor. Of course there is no way of telling how many of Herakleides’ family members engaged in the contractual activity of the  40s. However, the fact that individuals bearing their family names appear more often as creditors than as debtors suggests that in general a large amount of cash was available within this circle of people. One issue to be taken into account is that of the permanent residence of this family. In the second century  Hellenic families are attested to have resided, officially, in Ptolemais Euergetis, even though they had houses and other property in the countryside.⁵⁰ In some cases they had doubleresidence, meaning that they lived half the time in the district capital, half the time in Tebtunis. Herakleides’ family owned houses both in the village and in the district capital, but frequent economic affairs in which various family members were involved in the village and the marriages that Herakleides contracted with members of families who were permanent resident of Tebtunis suggest that their permanent residence was probably Tebtunis. The marriages attested within this family are that of Herakleides’ daughter, Arsinoe, with Lusimachos son of Lusimachos, and that of Herakleia, Herakleides’ niece, with Haruotes son of Lusimachos (Figure 4.2). Both Lusimachos and Haruotes were members of a prominent Tebtunis family, which will be discussed shortly.⁵¹ It is interesting to note that the marriage between Herakleia and Haruotes was registered through both Egyptian and Greek law.⁵² The identification of Herodes, one of Herakleides’ sons, with one Herodes attested in two transactions in  42 would inform us about yet another marriage, that

⁴⁹ ⁵⁰ ⁵¹ ⁵²

PSI VIII 918. See discussion on wine production in Chapter 5.5. Foraboschi (1971) xxxi; Bagnall (2000). See also W.S. Bagnall (1973). P.Mich. V 350 and 266. P.Mich. V 340, cols. I–II. The two contracts are also attested in P.Mich. II 121 v XII 3–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

116

    

of Herodes with Apias daughter of Sokrates in the  42 register of abstracts (see Chapter 3.2.2).⁵³ The problem with this identification is the age of Herodes in the register; here he appears as a lessor of catoecic land in one case, as a debtor in another. In both instances he is said to have been 35. If this is correct, it means that he was born around  7, that is when his mother Ptolema was only 10 (Figure. 4.2). Even allowing for some years of imprecision, some problems still remain: according to the division of property of  48 (P.Mich. V 326), the eldest son was one Herakleides and probably after him came Maron and then Herodes, which means that a few years should be allowed between the birth of Herodes and that of Herakleides. It is more likely that the first child of Herakleides the Younger was born not earlier than  9, which means that Herodes must have been born not earlier than  11 (assuming that Ptolema was having one child a year). A likely possibility is that Herodes, son of Herakleides the Younger, was the same Herodes attested in the Herodes dossier and whose family members belonged to the gymnasial group of the Arsinoite nome between the end of the first century and the mid-second century .⁵⁴ The Herodes of this dossier had a granddaughter called Apia, who might have been named after her grandmother, Apias, assuming that the identification of Herodes son of Herakleides the Younger with the Herodes of the  42 register of abstracts is correct. Other grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Herakleides the Younger also seem to appear in the second-century documentation. In a census declaration from Tebtunis dated to  103, one Didumos son of Herakleides alias Lourios is attested as one of the 6,475 Greek men of the Arsinoite nome, resident of Ptolemais Euergetis.⁵⁵ From some documents belonging to the archive of the farmer Kronion son of Cheos, dated to the second century , we learn that Herakleides Lourios had three sons, one of whom, Lusimachos Loupos, had three children—Diogenis, Didumos Lourios, and Heron, and all three appear as creditors of the family of Kronion the farmer.⁵⁶ In particular Heron held important civic magistracies, that of

⁵³ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 9 = recto IV ii; verso III 14 = recto IV vii. ⁵⁴ Keenan (1971); Claytor (2017), esp. the family stemma at p. 252. ⁵⁵ P.Mich. XV 693. ⁵⁶ Foraboschi (1971) xxx. Didumos Lourios is also attested in P.Mil.Vogl. II 78 (when he is 30 in  138/9), II 79, and in P.Tebt. II 394 ( 149). Bagnall (2000) suggested that this Didumos ‘is one of those Didymoi not quite placeable but certainly part of the family [of the Lysimachids]’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

117

gymnasiarch and that of kosmetes, thus showing that they were members of the gymnasium.⁵⁷ If these men were the descendants of Herakleides the Younger, as has been assumed (Figure 4.2), it would mean that by the early second century the family had moved to Ptolemais Euergetis and was living there on a more or less permanent basis, though still engaging in business in Tebtunis (land leasing and money lending).⁵⁸ They were members of the privileged group of the gymnasium, meaning that they were able to prove their Greek descent, and held some high offices in the district capital. It is difficult to establish whether the family of Herakleides the Younger perceived itself as Greek; naming practices, use of Greek legal instruments, ownership of catoecic land, and ownership of vineyards seem to confirm a Greek origin for this family. The family of Herakleides the Younger had private as well as business relationships with a number of other more or less well-attested individuals. The most interesting connections are the ones with the family of Lusimachos son of Didumos (Figure 4.3). Information about this family is provided in eight documents dated between  27 and 47.⁵⁹ Ownership of catoecic land and Greek nomenclature suggest that we might be dealing with a family of Hellenic descent, although a combination of Greek and Egyptian ancestry is more likely, as suggested by the fact that two members of this family were involved in the village administration. Lusimachos had five sons and one daughter, and within the family one brother-sister marriage is attested, Didumos

Lusimachos

Taorses

Galates (b. ? - † before ad 36)

Lusas

Lusimachos

Eutuchas

Didumos the elder (b. 7 bc c. - † ?)

Didumos the Younger (b. 6 bc c. - † ?)

Hero (b. 1 ad c. - † ?)

Lusimachos (b. 9 ad)

Haruotes

Galates

Figure 4.3 Family tree of Lusimachos son of Didumos

⁵⁷ P.Kron. 35. ⁵⁸ According to Sijpestijn (P.Mich. XV 693, p. 17), the family of Herakleides the Younger ‘was connected with Tebtunis for a period of over hundred years (37–149  are the known limits)’. He also noted that it is doubtful whether other papyri from Tebtunis in which a Lurius is mentioned also pertain to the same family (P.Tebt. II 319,  248; 322,  189; 453, late second century; 527,  101; 609, second century). ⁵⁹ P.Mich. V 336 ( 27); 278–9 (first century); 232 ( 36); 262 ( 35–6); 266 ( 38); 267–68 ( 41–2); 340 ( 45–6); 341 ( 47).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

118

    

between Didumos the Younger and Hero.⁶⁰ During this period the family appears to have been in economic distress. Sometime under the reign of Tiberius ( 14–37) three sons of Lusimachos—Galates, Didumos the elder and Didumos the younger—mortgaged the property they owned jointly, which included 82 ar. of catoeic land in the division of Polemon, for a sum of 2 tal. 1,200 dr. (plus interest).⁶¹ In  35 the creditors, two brothers named Kastor and Lusimachos, sons of Lusimachos, are attested as the legal owners of this property.⁶² The family owned some other land, apart from the 82 mortgaged arouras, but nothing significant.⁶³ As mentioned earlier, two marriages linked the families of Herakleides the Younger and Lusimachos son of Lusimachos (Arsinoe and Lusimachos, and Herakleia and Haruotes), and one wonders why a member of a wealthy family, like that of Herakleides, would wish to marry into a family who was having financial troubles. Arthur Verhoogt interpreted these marriages as an attempt on the part of the Herakleides the Younger’s family to acquire social prestige by making connections with a family who was actively involved in the local administration.⁶⁴ Indeed in  40s two members of the Lusimachos family are attested in the role of village scribe: Didumos the elder, in  41–2, and Lusas, in  46.⁶⁵ According to this view, in the Roman period the holding of administrative positions was a necessary condition for social promotion as it provided visibility and allowed one to establish socio-economic relations with higher officials. Within this new framework, contacts between the family of Herakleides and that of Lusimachos were to be expected as they would benefit both parties—the former would have been linked with the local and probably regional administration, while the latter would have gained access to more frequent financial favours, such as cash loans and other credit agreements.

⁶⁰ P.Mich. V 266 ( 38). ⁶¹ P.Mich. V 232. Galates was married to one Taorses, and the two had three children. Another document which shed light on his family is SB XX 14315, a land lease dated to  33/34, whereby Taorses leased to a certain Lusas son of Orsenouphis a total of 20 ar. (10 catoecic, 10 police land) which belonged to her four sons—Lusas, Lusimachos, Eutuchas, and Galates. This is the first document attesting that Taorses had four and not three sons. ⁶² Kastor might be identified with a Kastor son of Lusimachos who occurs as the owner of a house in Ptolemais Euergetis, in the quarter of Treasuries, which would indicate that he lived in the district capital; P.Mich. V 276. ⁶³ In  35–6 Didumos ceded 10 ar. of catoecic land near Theogonis to his wife-sister Hero, and this land was not part of the allotment which had been mortgaged (P.Mich. V 262). This was formerly property of Herakleides son of Didumos (not otherwise identifiable). In  38 Hero received another plot of land, a vineyard, from his brother Lusimachos (P.Mich. V 266). ⁶⁴ Verhoogt (2004). ⁶⁵ Didumos the elder: P.Mich. V 267–8. Lusas: P.Mich. II 123 recto XX 26–7; XXI 30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

119

4.2.3 Local Population and the Associative Model Once we have excluded parties bearing either priestly or Macedonian names from the three grapheion registers of titles, we are left with a total of 2,441 parties, including named and unnamed individuals, such as relatives and collectivities. The majority of the named parties, or 55 per cent, bear Egyptian names (non-priestly), as opposed to 36.6 per cent of parties with common and theophoric Greek names. A small percentage includes parties whose names are lost in lacuna (2.2 per cent) and parties with Latin, Thracian and Semitic names (0.8 per cent). The most popular role was that of the debtor (16.7 per cent), mostly in regular loans and deposits, but also in residence offers and work contracts. Following is the role of the issuer (15.6 per cent), which indicates the person who requested the drafting and registration of the contract. People acted in this role in a number of contract types, especially in not otherwise identified transactions which have as an object a sum of money and wheat or barley (43 per cent), in marriage contracts, including postmarriage agreements (16 per cent), and in petitions and records of various types (13.8 per cent). The number of people who were involved in these contracts make up 10 per cent of the parties considered here, for a total of issuers and receivers of 26 per cent. A considerable number of people are attested in the roles of creditor (10.7 per cent), lessor (9.5 per cent) and lessee (9.5 per cent) of land, recipient (5.2 per cent) and giver (4.03 per cent) in receipts of various items, and seller (3.7 per cent) and buyer (3.4 per cent). The receipts refer to a variety of items, from land and barley or wheat to wages and land rents, but the most common item was the dowry (20.3 per cent). It is worth noting that over half of the receipts attested in the registers, 134 out of 255, or 52.5 per cent, deal with a sum in cash. As far as sales are concerned, we notice that the largest number of parties involved in this type of transaction sold and bought animals (35 per cent), mainly donkeys (31 per cent). The second best-represented item for sale was the house, with 26.7 per cent of people involved in this market, followed quite closely by land and vacant lots (19.2 per cent). Only a small percentage of people sold and bought slaves (4.7 per cent). This breakdown of roles reveals that the people of Tebtunis were involved in three main areas of written contractual activity: leasing, money-lending, and agreements of a social type (marriage, divisions, petitions). The fact that only a small percentage of individuals are attested to have been involved in written bids (1.9 per cent) and affidavits (1.7 per cent) simply reflects the nature of the evidence and not necessarily the actual states of affairs as these documents are listed only in one register (P.Mich. II 123 recto).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

120

    

The grapheion archive not only provides us with a broad overview of the most common roles which the people of Tebtunis played in the written contractual economy, but also gives us insight into the variety of occupations which were practised in the village and the level of participation in formalized associations. The registers of contracts show that a number of occupations were organized as associations, although no further evidence is provided about their structure and functioning. As seen in Chapter 3.2.4, the three registers rarely include occupational and other titles, which means that the calculation of the number of people of Tebtunis who belonged to associations cannot be accurate. It gives us, however, a fairly good idea of the popularity of certain jobs, of the possible collaborations between different groups, and of the ways in which associations interacted with the local and central administration.⁶⁶ A fundamental social, economic and administrative institution, in the Greek documentation the Tebtunis associations are normally referred to as sunodoi, but also as koina and plethos.⁶⁷ At this early stage of the Roman domination in Egypt, they were private enterprises and not governmental bodies, as was the case in the Late Antiquity, which means that they formed independently and membership was voluntary.⁶⁸ Following a long-standing tradition, which combined Egyptian and Greek customs, associations displayed a well-defined internal structure, which envisaged the presence of a president (mainly hegoumenos, but also prostates, kephalaiotes and epimeletes), a secretary (grammateus), and occasionally a board of elders.⁶⁹ The president’s duties are clearly outlined in three full sets of regulations (nomoi) which have survived for first-century Tebtunis: that of an unnamed association, of the apolusimoi of the estate of Claudius, and of ⁶⁶ Langellotti (2017). ⁶⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 18 (sunodos of the oil-producers); P.Mich. V 243, 3 (koinon of an unnamed association); P.Mich. 244 7 (plethos of the apolusimoi of the estate of Claudius). For the Ptolemaic period see Paganini (2018). ⁶⁸ Wilson (1996) 9–10. There is a vast bibliography on associations in the Greek and Roman world; though over a century old, the works by Poland (1909), Waltzing (1895–1900) and San Nicolò (1913–1915) are still a fundamental starting point for the study of these groups. Ancient associations have been the object of a recently renowned scholarly interest, which resulted in the production of a number of several novel studies, including De Salvo (1992) for Italy, van Nijf (1997) for the east, and for Egypt in particular Gibbs (2008), (2011) and (2015), Venticinque (2010), (2015), and (2016), and Paganini (forthcoming). See also Boak (1937), Muhs (2001), and Monson (2006), (2007), and (2013). For a discussion of professional associations in the later periods see Carrié (2002). ⁶⁹ Boak (1937); see also Muhs (2001) and Paganini (2018). Hegoumenos: P.Mich. II 121 recto IV vi, 1; II 123 recto XVII 30, XVIII 20, XXI 31; P.Mich. V 244, 21. Epimeletes: P.Mich. V 244, 4; 245, 5. Kephalaiotes: P.Mich. V 244, 16. Prostates: P.Mich. V 243, 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

121

the salt-merchants.⁷⁰ Elected by the majority of the members and granted with an annual tenure, the president ensured that members abide by the association rules and was responsible for the collection of fees and fines.⁷¹ Occasionally he was aided in his administrative work by a secretary, as in the case of the public farmers and the fishermen.⁷² The evidence is not clear as to the precise responsibilities of the secretary, but his title suggests that he was mainly involved in the association’s daily administration (i.e. writing reports and other documents). It is interesting to note that the two associations for which a secretary is attested—public farmers and fishermen—did not have a president, but a board of elders. This is hardly a coincidence and might be attributed to the large size of these two groups. Although exact figures are not available, contemporary evidence suggests that in the Arsinoite nome, where the proportion of public land was higher than in other regions of Egypt and where the presence of marshes (drumoi) encouraged fishing activities, public farmers and fishermen were indeed very numerous.⁷³ For the management of such large associations one man was probably not enough, hence the choice of having an executive board of multiple individuals, supported by a secretary, which would have ensured a more efficient internal functioning. Associations were formed for different purposes and therefore displayed a variety of cultic and religious features as well as social and economic ones. Due to their multiple facets, there has been a tendency to categorize such groups as either religious or professional (or trade) associations, although it must be borne in mind that this is an arbitrary separation mainly used for practical purposes when discussing particular types of association.⁷⁴ The grapheion archive attests for early Roman Tebtunis the existence of at least 22 associations, three of which are unnamed (Table 4.2). In most cases the formal title of a group is not indicated, but other factors often unveil the nature of the membership, such as the identity of those who recorded documents concerning associations’ activities.⁷⁵ Generally, the fact ⁷⁰ P.Mich. V 243 ( 14–37); 244 ( 43); 245 ( 47). ⁷¹ P.Mich. V 243, 1–3; 244, 2–7; 245, 2–9. Contrary to the traditional view, for which see Boak (1937) 213, while presidents were elected annually, sets of associations rules might have had a longer validity and were updated only when necessary; see Langellotti (2016b) 117–18. ⁷² P.Mich. V 313 ( 37); P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 37 = PSI VIII 901. ⁷³ See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of land. ⁷⁴ See, for example, the relevant discussion in Verboven (2011). Also Gabrielsen (2016) 131–2. ⁷⁵ See, for example, the registration of a set of rules by a certain Psosneus the oil-producer, which suggests that the relevant association was made up of other oil workers; P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

122

    

Table 4.2 The associations of early Roman Tebtunis No. Association

Type

State Ref. concession

1

Builders (oikodomoi) Professional No

2

Brewers (zutopoioi)

Professional No

3

Coppersmiths (chalkeis) Dyers (bapheis)

Professional No

5

Cloth-beaters (rabdistai)

Professional No

6

Cloak-makers Professional No (kasopoioi) Apolusimoi of the Professional No imperial estate of Claudius Farmers of the public Professional No land (demosioi georgoi)

4

7

8

9

Fishermen (halieis)

Professional Yes

Professional Yes

10 Fullers (gnapheis)

Professional Yes

11 Goldsmiths (chrusochooi) 12 Oil-producers (elaiourgoi)

Professional No Professional Yes

Rules (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 39) List of persons (P.Tebt. II 589 v) Account (P.Mich. II 123 recto I (d) 8, and verso XI 26–7) Register of contracts (P.Mich. II 123 recto XV 14) Receipt of charcoal (P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 18) Written bids (P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 16) List of persons (P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 19) Petition (P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 17) Unknown contract (P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 2) Rules (P.Mich. V 244) Contract (XXII 44) Land leases (P.Mich. V 313; P.Mich. II 121 r IV xii) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto IX 34) Receipt for rent (P.Mich. V 344) Written bids (P.Mich. II 123 recto III 7, 35) Lease (P.Mich. II 123 recto III 34) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto XIV 37 = PSI VIII 901) Written bids (P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 17; 126, 6) Contract (P.Mich. II 123 recto IX 35) Regulations (P.Mich. II 123 rectoVI 18)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   -  13 Salt-merchants (halopolai)

Professional Yes

14 Cattle graziers Professional Yes (probatoktenotrophoi)

15 Shepherds (poimenes) Professional No 16 Weavers (gerdioi)

Professional Yes

17 Wool-sellers (eriopolai) 18 Harpokrates (or of the god) 19 Unnamed (1) 20 Unnamed (2)

Professional Yes

21 Unnamed (3) 22 Priests of Kronos

Unknown No NonNo professional

NonNo professional Unknown No Unknown No

123

Rules (P.Mich. V 245) Written bids (P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 27, XXI 40, XXII 27; 128 III 10) Land lease (P.Mich. II 121 verso III 18 = recto IV xii) Affidavit and list of persons (P.Mich. II 123 recto III 40) Written bids (P.Mich. II 123 recto V 13) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 26) Rules (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 12) Charge for beer (P.Mich. II 121 verso III 13 = recto IV vi) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto III 41) Unregistered document (P.Mich. II 123 recto X 38) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 31) Payment (P.Mich. II 124 recto II 19) Affidavit (P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 25; 124 recto II 15) Contributions, list of members (P.Mich. II 127, I 30; V 24) Rules (P.Mich. V 243) List of members (P.Mich. V 247) List of members (P.Mich. V 248) P.Mich. V 322(b)

that several groups acted as a collective in written contracts, especially bids and affidavits, suggests that they constituted formalized associations.⁷⁶ As Table 4.2 shows, the majority of the Tebtunis associations appear to have had a more prominent professional connotation, as was common in the Roman period, since they were composed of individuals who, judging by their title, shared the same occupation (e.g. weavers, dyers, and shepherds), ⁷⁶ P.Mich. II 123 recto III 7, 34, 40, 41; VI 16, 17, 25; VIII 26; IX 34, 35; X 38; XX 18; XXI 40; XXII 2, 18, 27, 44. See Langellotti (2016b) 126–7. On collective action see Gibbs (forthcoming).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

124

    

as opposed to the association of the god Harpokrates and that of the priests of Kronos, whose titles imply a more religious and convivial character. In fact, we have very little evidence as to how these groups differed from one another, especially as regards the way in which they arranged their daily collective activities.⁷⁷ The reasons why associations formally registered their rules at the record-office are unknown, but an imposition by the state is probably to be excluded.⁷⁸ Formal registration meant that members were legally committed to the observance of the rules, thus protecting themselves in the event of a violation, although it appears that internal resolution was the most common practice.⁷⁹ Registration also gave associations greater weight and visibility in the eyes of the Romans in their collective actions, such as submission of affidavits and written bids. The content of the affidavits is normally omitted, but the two instances in which it is included give us insight into the type of activities for which some formal regulation was required or expected. One affidavit, submitted jointly by the farmers of the imperial estate of Claudius and by the cattle graziers, involved the guarding of water; another, submitted by the fishermen of Berenikis Thesmophoriou and those of Narmouthis, involved the prohibition of fishing sacred fish.⁸⁰ Of the 31 written bids listed in the  45/6 grapheion register, at least seven were submitted by associations or their representatives, namely fishermen, dyers, fullers, salt-merchants, and cattle graziers.⁸¹ It is possible that more applicants were acting on behalf of an association, but their number is simply impossible to calculate due to the lack of any title. The specific state concession for which these associations bade is known only for the salt-merchants, namely the right to sell salt and gypsum in Tebtunis and other villages, but the nature of the other associations helps us identify the relevant bidding areas—fishing, dying, fulling, and grazing rights. The socio-economic significance of these activities and other state concessions and the economic advantages of being part of an association are discussed in more detail in Chapters 5.4.1, 5.4.3 and 6.2, but in regard to the social stratification of the village it is worth mentioning here that membership in an association was a fundamental feature of the identity of a large number of individuals, for several reasons. Members of associations were part of a ⁷⁷ Associations of individuals who were involved in agricultural and non-agricultural economic activities are discussed in Chapter 5 and 6 respectively. ⁷⁸ See Johnson (1936) 392–4 for a different view. ⁷⁹ Venticinque (2016) 58–60. ⁸⁰ P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 26; XIV 37 (= PSI VIII 901). ⁸¹ Langellotti (2016b) 132–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

125

relatively wide social network, of which conviviality, mutual support, and economic protection were essential components.⁸² They could enjoy practical and economic support in the application process for state concessions, for example; in general, applying as a collective, instead as an individual, would have made the whole application stronger and share its cost and associated work, giving individual members more confidence. Membership could also provide economic protection against debt, and of course plenty of opportunities for networking, and carried with it a certain legal recognition, as suggested by the fact that occasionally association titles were included in written contracts and other legal documents (usually the title of president). The proportion of the village population that belonged to associations can be calculated only with some approximation. The main problem is that we lack the relevant quantitative data about the size of the village population and the majority of associations. Based on the surviving evidence, the average size of the Tebtunis associations was 16 members, but this seems to be a very low figure. Some associations had in fact a much larger membership, including public farmers, cattle graziers, and weavers, as their activities, which constituted the backbone of the village economy, were bound to have had a much larger representation. The so-called religious associations of the Ptolemaic period had an average size of 20 to 30 members, which seems to be a reasonable figure for the Roman period too.⁸³ Granted a village population between 5,000 and 8,000 and a total of 22 associations, the number of male individuals who belonged to associations would have been between 440 and 660, that is between a minimum of 5.5 per cent and a maximum of 8.8 per cent of the total population, which admittedly are not very high figures. These percentages would have fluctuated between 7.3 per cent and 11 per cent in a population of 6,000. Assuming that each member had a family, and using the demographic multiplier of 3.1, the portion of the population in which at least one family member was also a member of an association would range between 1,364 and 2,046, that is between a minimum of c.17 per cent and a maximum of c.41 per cent of the total population, with a range of 22.7 to 34 per cent for a population of 6,000. This time the resulting figures are very far apart, pointing towards two different levels of involvement in associations—one rather limited, the other particularly noticeable. Although it is impossible to ascertain where the precise figures lie, the fact that the bulk (if not all) of the

⁸² Gibbs (2011); Venticinque (2010).

⁸³ Monson (2007) 181.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

126

    

associations’ members were native Egyptians suggests that involvement in associations among this group was particularly high. A widespread participation in the associative model has important economic implications in that members, though not necessarily prosperous (as was the case of the notary Kronion, member of the association of Harpokrates), had enough resources not only for essential expenses (e.g. food and taxes), but also for membership fees and other association-related costs. To be part of the unnamed association, for example, one was required to pay 12 dr. per month, or 144 dr. per year, plus other contributions for different occasions and sometimes fines. In the early Roman period this sum of money was not inconsiderable; as Philip Venticinque noted, it was enough to support a family of four, which suggests that members had sufficient financial resources for basic sustenance plus membership costs.⁸⁴

4.3 Slaves The general consensus holds that slavery in Roman Egypt played a relatively small role, especially in the countryside.⁸⁵ It displayed an essentially domestic character, with slaves mainly employed in the personal service of their masters, assisting them in their daily activities. Among the occupations attested in the papyri we find wet-nurses, cooks, barbers, donkey-drivers, but also craftsmen (especially weavers). Slaves constituted 11 per cent of the total census population with 13.4 per cent in the district capitals and about 8.5 per cent in the villages, where slave-owning appears to have been more widespread among complex households.⁸⁶ As slavery was essentially a Greek institution, the people who owned slaves usually belonged to the Hellenic or Hellenized strata of the population. In the Roman period, however, the actual number of slaves in the Egyptian countryside and the identity of the slave owners are points of controversy. Iza Biezunska-Malowist noted that one of the Roman period introductions was the increase of slave-owning among the more

⁸⁴ Venticinque (2016) 14–15. ⁸⁵ For a comprehensive analysis see Biezunska-Malowist (1977), with Straus (1988) for a synthesis of the main points. See also Bagnall (1993a) 123–7 and (1993b) for slavery in the fourth century. ⁸⁶ Bagnall and Frier (1994) 70–2. These figures have been applied to the whole Roman empire. For Roman Italy, with 35 per cent of slaves, see Morley (2011) 265.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

127

modest strata of the population.⁸⁷ However, this phenomenon is regarded as marginal, with the general agreement that the overall social background of the slave owners did not change much in the passage from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period. In fact, the extent of this phenomenon is not entirely clear, and there are signs pointing towards a more prominent presence of slaves not only among less well-off groups, but also among non-Hellenized individuals, namely Egyptian priests. Except for a few families and individuals, of the socio-economic status of the slave-owners who are attested in the contractual economy of early Roman Tebtunis we have little information. The majority of owners bore Greek names (53 per cent), but the number of those with Egyptian names is not negligible (25 per cent, not including the name Kronion which makes up another 7 per cent).⁸⁸ The owners include one man with a Roman name, Iocundus, and another with a Thracian name, Sadalas.⁸⁹ Of the slave owners who appear in the registers we have personal details only for Apias, daughter of Sokrates and wife of Herodes, who has been identified with the daughter-in-law of Herakleides the Younger.⁹⁰ As argued in Chapter 3, Apias probably belonged to a Graeco-Egyptian family. Full contracts, however, provide us with more precise information. Among the slave owners we can identify a group of individuals with Greek and Macedonian names, including the children of Herakleides the Younger, who inherited a total of 18 slaves, Herodes also called Herakleides son of Lusimachos, and Eudamonis daughter of Herodes.⁹¹ Next to the masters with Greek names, we also find slave owners with Egyptian names, including the priest Psuphis also called Harpokration from Tebtunis. As seen earlier on, Psuphis left three slaves to his children; Thenpetermouthis, daughter of Hatres, sold her female slave to her two sons; and Orseus son of Haruotes, sold two slaves to Galates son of Lusimachos.⁹²

⁸⁷ Biezunska-Malowist (1977) 138. On the absence of slaves within the Egyptian community in the Ptolemaic period, especially in the third century , see Thompson (2011) 209. ⁸⁸ These include individuals with very distinctive Egyptian names, such as Patunis (P.Mich. II 121 verso I 18 = recto I viii) and Orsenouphis (P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 28). ⁸⁹ P.Mich. V 238 III 113; III 110. ⁹⁰ Patunis: P.Mich. II 121 verso I 18 = recto I viii; Apias: P.Mich. II 121 recto IV vii. ⁹¹ P.Mich. V 281. Based on onomastics, we might assume that a certain Herakleon son of Eirenaios was of Greek descent, but no details are given about his family affiliation (P.Mich. V 346(a)). Similarly, it is likely that Horion and his three brothers—Haruotes the elder, Kronion, and Haruotes the Younger, all sons of Herodion—belonged to Graeco-Egyptian families (P.Mich. V 343; V 323–35). ⁹² P.Mich. V 264–5; 278–9; 322(a).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

128

    

The fact that slaves are attested relatively rarely in the record-office archive seems to suggest that slavery was not a widespread phenomenon in this village. In the three registers of contract titles the percentage of transactions in which slaves appear is 1.8 per cent, and the best-represented type of contract is the wet-nurse contract (29.8 per cent), whereby a slave child is entrusted by his master to a wet-nurse upon payment of a salary.⁹³ In Chapter 3 it has been argued that these babies had been exposed in the district capital and then brought to Tebtunis where they could be brought up at a more affordable price. The actual number of slaves in the village, however, was probably higher, as they could have been listed as objects in post-marriage settlements, divisions, and receipts of dowry, transactions for which the registers do not provide details.⁹⁴ Sales of slaves, on the other hand, were rare.⁹⁵ The ratio between females and males cannot be determined precisely as in 74 per cent of the occurrences gender is not indicated. For the ones we know, the ratio is in favour of females (19.3 per cent versus 6.4 per cent of males). To get a better sense of the character of slavery in Tebtunis we must look at the evidence outside the registers, mostly made up of divisions of property. Of the 33 slaves attested, 18 occur in one single contract, the division of property among Herakleides’ children. The majority, 19, are female, all seemingly household servants. In an apprenticeship contract a female slave named Helene is made apprentice to a certain Orsenouphis to learn the craft of weaving.⁹⁶ It is difficult to tell whether slaves in Tebtunis were also employed in agricultural activities. Overall, the role that slaves might have played in agriculture has been underestimated, although it has been suggested that they helped in all activities in which their masters were involved, including farming. In fact, the role of slaves in agriculture is not entirely clear, as we mostly rely on nomenclature. The estate of Epimachos, a landowner of modest means in first century Hermopolite, constitutes a classic example. In the documents related to the management of his estate no term for slave (that is, doulos or paidarion) is attested, yet it might well be that the workers not receiving daily wages were slaves.⁹⁷ Similarly, those who appear as domestic slaves could have easily been employed in farming and other ⁹³ See Chapter 3.2.2 for discussion on this type of contract. ⁹⁴ See, for example, P.Mich. II 121 recto III 7. ⁹⁵ P.Mich. II 121 verso VI 18, VII 6 ( 42); P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 48, VIII 18 ( 45); XIII 24 ( 46). ⁹⁶ P.Mich. V 346(a). ⁹⁷ Cf. Kehoe (1992) 62 n. 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

129

agricultural works.⁹⁸ As discussed later on in this section, one of the slaves of Herakleides the Younger, a certain Narkissos, for example, is labelled as donkey-driver (onelates).⁹⁹ The employment of imperial slaves in roles of responsibility and management, a practice introduced by the Romans, offered a model for the use of common slaves also in various administrative roles;¹⁰⁰ in the first century  we usually see them as managers of the newly-established imperial estates (ousiai). One of them was Venustus from Tebtunis, a slave of Primigenes, another imperial slave. On 9 September  45 he appears as the recipient of three affidavits, two of which refer to the delivery of grain to the sitologos, suggesting that he held a management position within some imperial estate.¹⁰¹ In the shared account of expenses drafted by Kronion in  45/6, at least three slaves are listed who visited the record-office and were reimbursed for travel expenses and food.¹⁰² Only in one case is the reason for the visit specified: to collect the papyrus tax on behalf of some official in the district capital; one of these slaves, named Kronion, was owned by the village scribe. These slaves performed administrative duties on behalf of their masters, travelling back and forth to the district capital and collecting fees. One aspect that is more difficult to establish is the nature of the relationship between masters and slaves. In general, this relationship appears to have had a character of familiarity. This can be seen in a number of instances in the papyrological evidence. First, it is shown in the fact that multiple generations of slaves remained at the service of the same family.¹⁰³ In two divisions of property that have been discussed earlier, for example, the slave women have children who are employed at the service of the same family.¹⁰⁴ Although this was the result of a widespread strategy (among masters) which aimed at increasing one’s slave household, it seems unlikely that such a prolonged contact between masters and slaves living under the ⁹⁸ Bagnall (1993b) 228–9 challenges the traditional statement that in the second and third centuries it is impossible to evaluate the significance of slavery in Egyptian agriculture. ⁹⁹ P.Mich. V 326 23. ¹⁰⁰ Straus (1988) on slaves in administration (machairophoros). ¹⁰¹ P.Mich. II 123 recto II 12 = 125, 22; II 15–16 = 125, 24–5; II 17 = 125, 26. Another example of a manager slave is Cerinthus, a slave probably imported from Italy, employed in the imperial estate of Antonia in the Oxyrhynchite nome; P.Oxy II 44 ( 23). ¹⁰² Kronion, slave of the village scribe: P.Mich. II 123 verso VII 5; unknown: P.Mich. II 123 verso V 7; V 26. ¹⁰³ Biezunska-Malowist (1977) 113–14 pointed out that cohabitation of multiple generations of slaves did not constitute evidence of ideal relations between masters and slaves, but confirms that masters tolerated and even encouraged procreation of slaves. ¹⁰⁴ P.Mich. V 322(a); 326.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

130

    

same roof would have not encouraged the development of feelings of mutual acceptance. An example may be provided by the case of the female slave Thermoutharion, attested in a division of property dated to  47.¹⁰⁵ According to the terms of the contract, three brothers, who inherited four slaves from their father, ‘agree that the service of the slave Thermoutharion to the mother of the contracting parties, Taorseus, daughter of Haruotes, which was assigned to her by their father, shall continue’.¹⁰⁶ Although freedmen are rarely attested in the grapheion archive, it does not mean that their number was insignificant, as the title of freedman (apeleutheros) could have simply been omitted in the registers and contracts.¹⁰⁷ The case of Narkissos is particularly interesting because he appears first as a slave, then as a freedman of the family of Herakleides the Younger. As mentioned earlier on, in  48 he is listed as a slave, in the role of donkey-driver, in the division of property in which Herakleides and his wife Ptolema divided their possessions among their children.¹⁰⁸ In two documents dated to the mid-first century—a list of contributions to the god Harpokrates and the sale of a house—the same Narkissos appears as ‘the freedman of the sons of Maron’, suggesting that he had been freed some time after  48.¹⁰⁹ A certain Narkissos is also listed in a number of transactions listed in the  40s registers of contracts, but it is unclear as to whether we are dealing with the same person as no title is provided.¹¹⁰ Although the information about number and socio-economic status of freedmen in mid-first-century Tebtunis is too limited to draw any conclusions, the surviving evidence seems to suggest that there was a correlation between the financial status of the masters and that of the freedmen. As freedman of a wealthy family, Narkissos had enough income to join an association (hence to pay a membership fee) and participate in the contractual written economy—in the house sale he was indeed the purchaser.

4.4 Living Standards Although the transactions listed in the three grapheion registers give us a good overview of the range of activities that were most popular in the village, they do not necessarily inform us about the socio-economic status of the

¹⁰⁵ ¹⁰⁷ ¹⁰⁹ ¹¹⁰

P.Mich. V 323–5 (= PSI VIII 903). ¹⁰⁶ P.Mich. V 323–5, 15–17. P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI. 4; P.Mich. V 246. 15. ¹⁰⁸ P.Mich. V 326 23. P.Mich. V 246 15; PSI VIII 915. 14. P.Mich. V 237 24 ( 43); P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 11, XV 21, XVI 27 ( 45/6).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

131

single individuals. For some it is possible to gather enough information so as to draw a fairly detailed picture of their status and business activities, but for most the information available is very basic. We have very little information about wages in this period; the account of common expenses includes the payment of three salaries (opsonia), one of 40 dr. paid to a certain Herodas, the other two of 4 and 6 ob. to one Kronion son of Kames and Heraklas respectively, but the nature of their jobs is not specified.¹¹¹ Evidence from the later first century shows that agricultural workers earned between 3 and 6 ob. a day, that is 15 to 30 dr. per month, or 180 to 320 dr. per year, though we cannot always assume continuous employment, while in the mid-firstcentury Arsinoite the cost of grain was about 8 dr. per artaba (although variations are attested for September–October 45; see Chapter 6.4).¹¹² Assuming that a family of four would have needed about 32 artabas of wheat per year for sustenance, a minimum of 256 dr. was required; clothing constituted probably little expense as most families made their own clothes, but taxes at about 60 dr. (mainly a poll-tax of 40 dr.) were to be added to the annual budget, giving an annual total for expenses of 316 dr.¹¹³ It is likely that the majority of the population was involved in agricultural activities, thus suggesting that most families would have made just enough money to support themselves. However, the evidence from the grapheion archive shows that the people of Tebtunis were very resourceful and found ways of making extra cash, such as renting out their houses or entering into a variety of credit transactions. There are several ways in which the data at our disposal can be used to establish roughly the general level of wealth and well-being in the village: one is to look at the number of the various credit agreements and related cash sums; another is to consider the possession of slaves and large plots of private land. The majority of the parties, or 58.2 per cent, were involved in non-money transactions, while about 42 per cent were involved in agreements which required a cash exchange. In fact, this breakdown is not especially meaningful because a considerable number of contracts dealt with money, even though no sum is indicated, as was the case for sales (in which a payment was understood but the relevant price was never specified) and divisions of property. The best-attested role was that of debtor, with a representation of

¹¹¹ P.Mich. II 123 recto I(a) 8; 123 verso VI. 29; 123 recto I(b) 24. ¹¹² Drexhage (1991) 413–14; also Duncan-Jones (1990) 144–5 and Johnson (1936) 306–7. ¹¹³ Johnson (1936) 304.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

132

    

483 parties, or 16.2 per cent of the total number of contracting parties. The role of the issuer follows, that is the party who requested the drafting and registration of the contract, with a representation of 468 parties, or 15 per cent (the exact role of the issuer is unclear and might have varied from case to case). The other four best-attested roles are those of the creditor, with 330 parties, or 11 per cent; of the lessor, with 321 parties, or 10.8 per cent; of the receiving party, with 324 parties, or 10.9 per cent; and of the lessee, with 299 parties, or 10.8 per cent. Before discussing the significance and implications of such a breakdown, especially in relation to the roles of debtor and creditor, we must look closely at the credit agreements so as to assess just how much the people of Tebtunis were able to lend or needed to borrow. Credit agreements include regular loans and deposits, antichretic contracts such as work contracts, residence offers, and mortgages, as well as unspecified agreements involving sums in cash (called simply homologiai) and receipts. The number of parties attested in these contract types constitutes about 34 per cent of the overall total number of parties listed in the three registers of titles. The majority appear in regular loans (30.9 per cent), but a good number, or 20 per cent, are also attested in deposits; following are those who appear in residence offers (14.5 per cent), receipts (13.2 per cent), unspecified contracts (12.3 per cent), work contracts (7 per cent), and mortgages (1.7 per cent) (Table 4.3). Of all the people involved in the credit economy, 44.3 per cent appeared in the role of debtor, while 29.8 per cent in that of creditor.¹¹⁴ The sums of money lent varied from a minimum of 7 dr., attested in a residence contract and two deposits, to a maximum of 4,400 dr., attested in an unspecified contract (Table 4.4).¹¹⁵ The largest number of credit agreements (192, or 56.4 per cent) deal with small and medium-sized sums of cash, between 7 and 100 dr., with a representation of 586 parties, or 58.2 per cent, whereby 43.5 per cent are debtors and 29.9 per cent are creditors. A significant number of contracts (96, or 28.2 per cent) deal with higher sums ranging between 101 and 300 dr., with a representation of 291 parties, or 29.5 per cent, of which 43.3 per cent are debtors and 29.2 per cent creditors. Credit agreements displaying higher sums of money, between 301 and 600 dr., constitute a smaller proportion (32, or 9.4 per cent), with 98 parties (or 9.9 per cent) involved, of which 43.8 per cent are debtors and 26.5 per cent creditors. The number

¹¹⁴ Other roles are those of issuer (7.3 per cent) and receiving party (12.3 per cent); guardians and subscribers constituted 1.9 per cent of those involved in credit agreements. ¹¹⁵ 7 dr.: P.Mich. II 121 verso X 13; V 238 II 68, 105. 4,400 dr.: P.Mich. II 121 verso IV 11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

133

Table 4.3 Percentage of people attested in credit agreements Loans Deposits Residence Receipts Work Mortgages Unspecified offers contracts contracts 30.9% 20%

14.5%

13.2%

7%

1.7%

12.3%

Table 4.4 Sums attested in credit agreements 7–100 dr.

101–300 dr.

301–600 dr.

>600 dr.

56.4%

28.2%

9.4%

3.2%

of contracts and people involved in the credit economy continues to decrease as the sums of money increase. Agreements listing sums above 600 dr. constitute only 3.2 per cent of all credit agreements, with a representation of 31 parties, or about 3 per cent. The most common single sums of money lent are 100 dr. (12.6 per cent), 60 dr. (7.3 per cent), and 40 dr. (6.1 per cent). Overall, the highest sums of money occur in deposits and regular loans. Three of the highest sums occur in deposits: 1,250 and 1,800 dr., lent by two people both named Herakles (it is unclear whether it was the same person); 1,680 and 2,040 dr., lent by a Horion and a Didumos.¹¹⁶ These figures present us with two main questions: the identity of creditors and debtors; and the reason behind loans and the significance of a higher number of debtors. Although it has been noted several times that the identity of single individuals can rarely be established, an onomastic approach of those named in the three registers of titles allows us to get a sense of the cultural inclinations of the parties. The majority of the named creditors, or 56.3 per cent, have Greek names; of these 15.2 per cent bear Macedonian names. Creditors with Egyptian names make up 35.6 per cent, while those with Graeco-Egyptian names make up a small 6.1 per cent. Among creditors, unnamed individuals make up 7.4 per cent. Some parties must have acted as creditors on multiple occasions, but their identities are impossible to establish.¹¹⁷ ¹¹⁶ 1,250 dr.: P.Mich. II 121 verso VIII 20; 1,800 dr.: P.Mich. II 123 recto X 13; 1,680 dr.: P.Mich. II 123 recto III 16; 2,040 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 II 94 = 124 V 14. ¹¹⁷ Some names, for example, occur in various entries: Herakles (5), Orsenouphis (4), Apollonios (2), Herodes (2), and Horion (2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

134

    

The onomastic makeup of debtors gives a different result. First, the number of unnamed parties, mainly individuals who acted as joint debtors together with the principal named party (e.g. wife), is quite high—167 out of 482, or 34.6 per cent—suggesting that debtors often acted with another person, as opposed to creditors, who usually acted alone. Second, the largest majority of named debtors, or 69.7 per cent, bear Egyptian names, while parties with Greek names make up 18.7 per cent and those with GraecoEgyptian names only a small 5.7 per cent. The presence in Tebtunis of a large number of creditors who were able to lend small and medium sums of cash, up to 100 dr., as well as higher sums, up to 600 dr., suggests that a not insignificant proportion of the village population, who mostly bore Greek names, was financially well-off. It is not always possible to tell whether a creditor was a permanent resident of the village or simply a wealthy individual who had business in Tebtunis, but the rarity of the name and occasionally the indication of the place of origin help us with this. Proxenos, for example, the man with the largest availability of cash (he lent 4,400 dr. to a certain Hermaiskos) is nowhere else attested in the record-office archive, which suggests that he was probably not from Tebtunis.¹¹⁸ The second question, that is why so many people borrowed money, does not have a simple answer. As already noted in Chapter 2.1, Toepel took the high number of loans in the grapheion registers as a sign of economic difficulties in the village. However, economic distress was not necessarily the only reason why the people of Tebtunis borrowed money. The high incidence of credit agreements shows that money-lending was one of the most widespread activities in the village, which no doubt created a broad net of relations based on credit and trust.¹¹⁹ The fact that so many people lent and borrowed cash shows that there was confidence in the credit economy; in other words, both creditors and debtors were willing to engage in credit transactions as they were confident that the loan could be paid back. There were several reasons as to why people needed cash; normally it was to pay their taxes, but also to provide their daughters with a dowry, or as a way of investment for some agricultural or non-agricultural undertaking. That the people of Tebtunis were not generally badly off, as has been suggested by some scholars, can also be seen in the amount of money found in dowry contracts.¹²⁰ Nearly one half of the dowry contracts ¹¹⁸ P.Mich. II 121 verso IV 11. ¹¹⁹ Monson (2006); Tilly (2005). ¹²⁰ See discussion and relevant references in Chapter 3.2.2 and 3.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

135

(47.6 per cent) included medium and large sums of money, starting from 100 dr., while a lower percentage (33 per cent) included smaller sums, ranging between 10 and 59 dr. Some particularly large sums are to be found also in post-marriage settlements, as in the case of Diodoros, who in  45 issued an alimentary contract of the value of 1,000 dr.¹²¹ Possession of slaves and, to an extent, of private land (mainly catoecic) might also shed light on the living standards of the Tebtunis population, although this approach is rather problematic. The grapheion registers reveal that the percentage of slave owners was very low (below 1 per cent), but, as seen earlier on, this result does not necessarily reflect the actual state of affairs in the village. Slaves could be listed in post-marriage settlements, in divisions of property, and also in some other documents which do not include the object of the transaction.¹²² Catoecic land also appears in a very small percentage of transactions (0.5 per cent), but, as for slaves, this does not mean that the actual number of private landowners was so limited. Catoecic land was to be found in the possession of seemingly Egyptian families, like that of Petsiris son of Phamounis, who together with his wife Thaesis bequeathed to his son Dionusios a property including 8 ar. of catoecic land in the village of Theogonis.¹²³ A good indication that the people of Tebtunis had access to enough agricultural land in order to live above subsistence level is provided by the size of the plots which were leased over the 20 months represented by three registers of contract titles. The total number of plots, whose size is indicated, which exchanged hands is 253. Of these, the majority, 115, or 45.4 per cent, were plots ranging between ½ ar. and 4 ar.; 83, or 32.8 per cent, were plots between 5 and 9 ar., while plots of 10 ar. and larger constituted 14.2 per cent (5 plots, or c.2 per cent, are of unknown size). Although a larger proportion of the population was able to lease less than 5 ar. (which on average would have yielded about 40 artabas per year, enough to feed a family of four), it is interesting to note that a considerable proportion were able to lease larger plots, which would have allowed higher living standards. ¹²¹ 1,000: P.Mich. II 123 recto II 18. ¹²² For post-marriage settlements see for examples the case of Patunis, son of Kronion, who married one Thatres daughter of Nikomedes (P.Mich. II 121 verso II 15 = recto III i). The property settled here also included slaves, suggesting that Kronion, if not well-off, was at least quite comfortable. ¹²³ P.Mich. II 121 verso II 6 = recto II ii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

136

    

4.5 Conclusions The study carried out in this chapter has revealed for mid-first-century Tebtunis the existence of a varied social stratification made up of a prosperous elite, a local population involved in various economic activities, and a relatively small group of slaves. Within the elite two main social groups have been distinguished: well-off priests who were responsible for the management of public land and other administrative duties, and a limited number of wealthy individuals of Hellenic descent, who were mainly involved in money-lending activities. It has been argued, with Todd Hickey and Livia Capponi, that the priests of Soknebtunis did not lose their economic power with the arrival of the Romans, as suggested by a previous view. Families of Hellenic descent or at least with an Hellenized background have been identified on the basis of a Macedonian nomenclature and wealth (especially catoecic land), and it has been noted that the individuals with Macedonian names who appear in the  40s registers of contract titles, about 5 per cent, are normally attested in the role of creditors in cash loans. Focus has been put on the well-attested families of Herakleides the Younger and Lusimachos son of Didumos, who both display a Macedonian onomastics and are linked with one another through at least two marriages. The evidence has shown that the family of Herakleides the Younger, in particular, had descendants in the privileged group of the gymnasium in the second-century documentation, confirming for their members a Greek origin, while the family of Lusimachos held administrative positions in the village and appears to have been in economic distress. It has been suggested that marriages between members of these two families were strategic for both parties: for the family of Herakleides the Younger they constituted a way to be involved in the local administration, for the family of Lusimachos son of Didumos they provided access to financial support. As far as the local population was concerned, an analysis of the breakdown of roles in the  40s registers of contracts has shown that the most common activities in the written economy of first-century Tebtunis were land leasing, money-lending, and social transactions, such as marriages and divisions of property. The evidence has revealed that a good proportion of the local population (5.5 per cent to 8.8 per cent) was part of an association and that the percentage of people who in some ways were involved in associative life ranged between 22.7 and 34 per cent (assuming a population of about 6,000). In first-century Tebtunis at least 22 associations have been identified; these were formalized groups with rules that had to be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

   - 

137

registered at the record-office and an internal hierarchical structure, most of which had a strong professional character. It has been noted that membership in an association was an important aspect of an individual’s identity and carried with it a number of benefits, such as social and economic support for the members as well as occasions for networking. The surviving evidence suggests that members of associations had an enough disposable income to afford the basic costs of living (including taxes) as well as the costs associated with the membership of an association (e.g. fees and fines). Overall, the  40s grapheion registers have shown that the number of slaves in the village seems to have been rather low (1.8 per cent). It has been noted, however, that a low count was not necessarily a reflection of reality as slaves could have been listed in contracts which omit the object, as with divisions of property and post-marriage settlements. As was common in the whole of Roman Egypt, slaves appear to have held mainly domestic roles, with female slaves being more numerous than males. Slaves were also involved in agricultural activities and in administrative roles. An onomastic study has shown that most of the slave owners bore Greek names (53 per cent), suggesting that ownership of slaves was still a prerogative of Hellenic or Hellenized individuals. It has been also noted, though, that the possession of slaves was becoming more widespread among the Egyptian strata of the population. The analysis of the credit agreements within the grapheion archive has shown that the majority of the Tebtunis population did not live at subsistence level. Against the interpretation that the large number of credit transactions listed in the  40s registers was a sign of economic distress, it has been suggested that the people of Tebtunis engaged in money-lending activities because they had confidence in a widespread credit economy based on trust. The amount of cash listed in dowry contracts, whereby a high percentage listed medium to large sums of money, and access to agricultural land, whereby leases of relatively large plots were quite common, confirm that a large proportion of villagers had not too uncomfortable living standards.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

5 Land, Landowners, and Tenants The Agricultural Economy

5.1 Introduction The reorganization of the land tenure system was one of the main reforms introduced in Egypt by the Romans. According to Diodorus Siculus, under the Ptolemies the Egyptian land was divided into three main categories: royal land (basilike ge), temple land (hiera ge), and land granted to the Greek settlers (klerouchike ge).¹ This tripartite structure, however, was not as straightforward as it may appear; the actual land regime was in fact more complex. The papyrological evidence attests the existence of a wider spectrum of land types, the status of which varied both geographically and chronologically. These included gift estates (en dorea), which were donated as a gift to Alexandrian officials in the mid-third century , and private land (idioktetos ge). The gift estates seem to have disappeared in the second century ; the idioktetos ge, on the other hand, had a more durable impact on the land tenure of Egypt, which lasted into the Roman period, when its designation changed into idiotike ge. Under the Romans the land tenure was reorganized in order to fit the taxation purposes of the new rulers. Egyptian land was now divided into two large categories, public and private, which reflected the traditional distinction between public (ager publicus) and private land (ager privatus) in Roman Italy.² The largest category of public land (demosia ge) comprised the old Ptolemaic royal land and was cultivated by large groups of public tenants (demosioi georgoi) who paid rent to the Roman government. Private land (idiotike ge) included the Ptolemaic klerouchike ge, now designated as catoecic land (katoikike ge), and the land sold off by the state to private individuals.³ ¹ Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica I. 73–4. ² Rathbone (1993) 82–6; see also Monson (2012) 95, with further bibliography in n. 103, and Blouin (2014) 139–40, with Table 5.1, for land classification in the Mendesian nome. ³ Plots of klerouchike ge came to acquire some alienable rights already during the Ptolemaic period. Monson (2012) 75–9; see also Rowlandson (1996) 27–9. Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

139

The primary difference between public and private was essentially in the way and methods in which they were taxed: while variable rents (ekphoria) were applied on public land, a fixed tax of generally one artaba per aroura was assessed on private property.⁴ Although a larger number of land categories is attested for the Roman period, ultimately they could all be categorized as either public or private.⁵ During the Julio-Claudian period we witness the creation of imperial estates, so-called ousiai, large portfolios of agricultural land that the emperor granted to his family members or friends.⁶ At this stage they were effectively private property, but, as temporary gifts, they were reverted into imperial land when the owner died or as a consequence of confiscation.⁷ The Roman reforms also affected the Ptolemaic hiera ge, temple land (now hieratike ge), a part of which was turned into public land under Augustus.⁸ Overall, as a result of the process of privatization of land promoted by the Romans, a larger amount of privately owned land is attested for this period, as the following discussion will attempt to demonstrate. Although for Tebtunis we have no quantifiable evidence for land classification, the three grapheion registers of contract titles dated to  42 and 45–6 provide us with detailed information as to the types of transaction through which the land was transacted over defined periods of time. This chapter includes an analysis of location, distribution, and management of the different juridical categories of land attested in the grapheion archive of Tebtunis, followed by a discussion of the identity and social status of the village tenants and landholders, and the ways in which they interacted. The aim of this investigation is twofold: first, to draw a fairly detailed picture of the landholding pattern in Tebtunis in the first few decades of the Roman domination in Egypt; second, to assess the actual role of the land in the economy and society of the village. In other words, to what extent was agriculture the primary source of livelihood in Tebtunis, and to what extent did the activities connected to land bring prosperity to the villagers?

⁴ Monson (2012) 95–6. ⁵ For a discussion of the designations of the various type of land in the Roman period and their connection with the Ptolemaic period see most recently Monson (2012) 96. ⁶ Rowlandson (1996) 55–61; Jördens (2009) 440, 506–11; Blouin (2014) 150–3. ⁷ For the view that the ousiai were temporary grants from the emperor, modelled on the Ptolemaic gift estates (doreai) see Rathbone (1993) 102–3, 109–10. Parassoglou (1978) 4–6 argued that the ousiai were different from the doreai in that they were purchased by their owners. ⁸ Rowlandson (2005) 175; Monson (2005) esp. 86 and (2012) 94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

140

    

5.2 Land at Tebtunis: An Overview In Chapter 3 the arable land around Tebtunis has been estimated at about 7,000 to 10,000 ar., or 19,3 to 27,5 km², which would constitute about 1.5–2 per cent of the entire agricultural land in the Arsinoite nome (1,300 km²). This land included public, private, temple, and imperial land, categories which are all attested in the transactions registered at the local record-office. To the north of the village were the drumoi, marshy areas which were used partly for fishing, partly for animal grazing.⁹ The quality of the agricultural land varied from one area to another, depending on location and proximity to the Polemon canal, as the variable rents attested in the surviving leases also suggest. The distribution of crops sown is also unknown, although there is little doubt that a larger proportion was cultivated in wheat and other cereals, as was also the case in the Mendesian nome.¹⁰ As can be seen in Table 5.1, for the large majority of land legal status is not specified, which makes it difficult to calculate the exact proportion of public and private land. However, one way to identify public land, and hence those individuals who dealt with it, is to look at the names and titles of the contracting parties. Public land was assigned to and managed by the elders of the public farmers (presbuteroi demosion georgon), mainly native Egyptians often connected with the priestly strata of the population, who bore distinctively Egyptian names such as Marsisouchos, Marepsemis, and Orsenouphis.¹¹ By applying this onomastic approach to the land contracts, we are, therefore, able to identify those agreements which were likely to have been associated with public land in  42 and 45–6. The results of this analysis reveal that the majority of land contracts involved people bearing Egyptian and Graeco-Egyptian names (53.4 per cent), often of the priestly type, as opposed to a smaller proportion (35 per cent) of individuals with

⁹ Rathbone (1996) 55–6; Rowlandson (1999) 149, with n. 42. As noted also by Rowlandson (1999) 148, with n. 39, the Tebtunis territory also included an estate previously belonging to Cleopatra II which later became part of the Roman administration. On the nature of the drumoi and the administration of the income from them see P.Tebt. II 359 ( 127). Fishing is also attested in some toparchies of the Mendesian nome, for which see Blouin (2014) 188. In general, on marginal land see Blouin (2014) 208–39. ¹⁰ Blouin (2014) 175–82 and 192–3. For a brief overview of crops in New Kingdom Egypt (1539–75 ) see Meskell (2002) 24–5, with further bibliography. ¹¹ See discussion in Chapter 4.2 and 4.2.1. The fundamental study on the elders in Roman Egypt remains Tomsin (1952). Two new studies by Kruse and Strassi on the role of the elders in the first and second centuries  are forthcoming in Langellotti and Rathbone (eds.).

Table 5.1 Amount of land in the mid-first-century Tebtunis registers Four-month period

Total of land in leases (ar.)

Total of land in sales & cessions (ar.)

Total of land in other transactions (ar.)

Total of land in all transactions (ar.)

P.Mich. II 121 verso/recto

Pachon–Mesore 42

32.5+ Private: 32.5+

28.5 Private: 17.5 Not stated: 11

324.9+ Public: 33+ Private: 75.6+ Temple: 23.5 Not stated: 181.3 Fodder: 4

P.Mich. II 123 recto

Thoth–Choiak 45

263.9+ Public: 33 Private: 25.6 Temple: 23.5 Imperial: 23.5 Fodder: 4 Not stated: 170.3 294+ Public: 3.5+ Private: 4 Temple: 4 Not stated: 131.25 Fodder: 151.25

7.25 Private: 7.25

57 Imperial: 3.5 Not stated: 53.5

13.5 Fodder: 13.5

81.5 Not stated: 81.5

35.5 Private: 35.5

38.25+ Not stated: 38.25+

24.9+ Private: 24.9+

11 Not stated: 11

358.25+ Public: 3.5+ Private: 11.25 Temple: 4 Imperial: 3.5 Not stated: 184.75 Fodder: 151.25 254.5+ Not stated: 180.5 Fodder: 74 244.25+ Not stated: 163+ Fodder: 38+ Imperial: 7.25 Private: 36 210.4+ Public: not stated Private: 24.9+ Fodder: 31 Not stated: 154.5+

Tybi– Pharmouthi 46 Pachon–Mesore 46

P.Mich. V 238

Thoth–Choiak 46

159.5 Not stated: 99 Fodder: 60.5 170.5+ Not stated: 124.75+ Fodder: 38+ Imperial: 7.25 Private: 0.5 174.5+ Public: not stated Private: not stated Fodder: 31 Not stated: 143.5+

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Register

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

142

    

Greek names.¹² Assuming that people with Egyptian and Graeco-Egyptian names mostly dealt with public land, the result of this onomastic study seems to confirm the view of the existence of a larger proportion of public land in the village. These figures, however, are not to be taken at face value. As we shall see shortly, private land was not owned only by people of Greek descent, who bore distinctive Greek names, but also by some native villagers. What follows is an overview of the legal categories of land attested in the village, including management practices, ways of cultivation, and people. It is to be noted that this analysis does not include classification criteria, such as level of moisture, because the relevant data are not provided in the grapheion archive.¹³

5.2.1 Public Land In mid-first-century Tebtunis the main categories of public land were estates called demosia edaphe, fields of pasture land called nomai (or ktamia), and part of temple land (hiera ge).¹⁴ In general, the evidence has shown for the Arsinoite nome the presence of a higher proportion of public land compared to a distinctively higher percentage of private land in the Nile Valley.¹⁵ In the Roman period estates of public land were subleased to and cultivated by associations of public tenants, the demosioi georgoi, who had replaced the royal farmers (basilikoi georgoi) of the Ptolemaic period.¹⁶ Public land was assigned through a system of bidding, but we have very little information about the actual terms and conditions through which it was entrusted to and cultivated by the public farmers. No written agreement between a public official and the public tenants has survived, a phenomenon which has led some scholars to believe that these tenancies were not recorded in written contracts.¹⁷ On the other hand, we have a considerable number of sub-leases between public farmers and other private individuals, including several that were recorded at the Tebtunis record-office. ¹² The remaining proportion is made up of individuals whose names are either lost or of unknown origin. ¹³ A more varied land classification is provided by the evidence from the Mendesian nome, for which see Blouin (2014) 141–54. ¹⁴ Monson (2012) 93–6; Rowlandson (1996) 27–69. On ktamia see Youtie (1974). On public land in the Mendesian nome, where the evidence refer to 11 categories of public land, see Blouin (2014) 148–54, esp. 153 on nomai. ¹⁵ Monson (2012) 97 (fig. 3.4); Rowlandson (2005) 177–8. ¹⁶ See discussion in 5.4.1. ¹⁷ Rowlandson (1996) 71 and (2006) 181.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

143

The territory around Tebtunis also included large parcels of permanent pasture land, called nomai or ktamia.¹⁸ Widely attested in the Arsinoite nome, nomai and chersonomai (dry pasture land) were mainly used for animal grazing, mostly sheep and goats, and were cultivated with various fodder crops, the most common ones being chortos and chlora.¹⁹ Like the demosia edaphe, the regular procedure required that nomai be assigned through a system of bidding. Competitors regularly submitted written applications (anaphoria) for the lease of public pasture land to the appropriate state officials. The final rent, which was agreed upon at an auction between the nomarch and the contractors, would have varied between the minimum required by the state and the various offers of the competitors.²⁰ In the annual grapheion register dated to  45/6 only one application for the lease of nomai is attested (26 Thoth = 23 September  45).²¹ The bidder is a certain Papontos, but no information is provided about the rent or the number of arouras. Around three weeks later (16 Phaophi = 13 October), another application is recorded by a professional cattle grazier (probatoktenotrophos), a certain Petsiris.²² The object of this bid is labelled as nome, which probably indicates the rent for a number of arouras of pasture land, for which he offered 48 dr. This seems to suggest that pasture land could also have been entrusted by the state directly to professional cattle breeders. Another possibility is that nomai were assigned by the state to the elders, who were then in charge of sub-leasing plots of pasture land through a system of bidding. In this case the relevant applications for state concessions could be submitted directly to the elders acting as public officials. From the second and third century receipts for the lease of public pasture land (phoros nomon) we see that payments were usually made by the elders (once by an epiteretes and once by an ex-exegetes).²³

5.2.2 Private Land Private land included catoecic plots, plots originally allotted to policemen (kleroi phulakitikoi), plots of seven arouras originally granted to cavalrymen (kleroi heptarourikoi), vineyards, and vacant lots (psuloi topoi). In the

¹⁸ ¹⁹ ²⁰ ²²

Natural pastures were available between December and June. See Schnebel (1925) 342–9. Langellotti (2012) 59–79; Schnebel (1925) 211–18. Reiter (2004) 181–2. ²¹ P.Mich. II 123 recto III 26. P.Mich. II 123 recto V 13. ²³ Langellotti (2012) 41–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

144

    

Roman period catoecic land, such as land originally granted to the catoeci, or Greek settlers, in the Ptolemaic period, represented the main category of private land.²⁴ It was administered by a different record-office (katalogismos) and, due to its Ptolemaic origin, the majority of landowners were of Hellenic descent. Catoecic land is explicitly mentioned only in the  42 register of abstracts (P.Mich. II 121 recto), specifically in leases and post-marriage settlements.²⁵ It can also be identified in a particular type of cession, the parachoresis, which dealt with the transfer of catoecic land, even though in these instances the type of land is never indicated.²⁶ Other types of private land, namely kleroi phulakitikoi and kleroi heptarourikoi, changed hands in the 12 enchoresis-cession contracts.²⁷ Most of the catoecic land attested in the grapheion documents was located around Tebtunis and the villages of Theogonis, Kerkeesis and Kerkesoucha Orous (Table 5.2).

5.2.3 Imperial Land In the early Roman period, estates called ousiai were understood as being private property of the emperor, which he granted as gifts to his friends and family members.²⁸ It is worth noting that, as in the case of public land, we have no written contract for large plots of ousiai to managers.²⁹ Ousiai, which are to be understood as plots of land of various size scattered around the region, were exempt from normal taxation, and therefore very desirable to farm, as can be seen in the case of the apolusimoi (or exempt farmers) of the imperial estate of Claudius in Tebtunis (see discussion in 5.4.3).³⁰ After Nero ( 54–68), the various Egyptian ousiai acquired the official status of public land and were then administered by the newly created department ²⁴ Blouin (2014) 141–8 on private land in the Mendesian nome where ‘35 out of 46 categories of land designate private land’. ²⁵ P.Mich. II 121 recto I xiv (= verso II 4), II i (= verso II 5), II ii (= verso II 6), II ix (= verso II 13), III x (= verso III 4), III xii (= verso III 6), IV ii (= verso III 9), IV v (= verso III 12), IV vii (= verso III 14). ²⁶ See Langellotti (2015) 121–2. Also Fischer-Bovet (2014) 235–6 for the Ptolemaic period. P.Mich. II 121 verso II 13 (= recto II ix); v VII 16; VII 17; X 14; P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 11; XVI 17; XVII 7; XVIII 32; P.Mich. V 238 III 141; III 150; V 242; IV 179. ²⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso IV 18; P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 34, XII 14, XV 12, XVI 14, XIX 27, XIX 31–2, XIX 39–40; P.Mich. V 238 II 66, 87, III 145, IV 186. ²⁸ Crawford (1976) with notes 173–80, Parassoglou (1978); Kehoe (1992) 16–57; Rathbone (1993) 102–4; Rowlandson (1996) 55–61. ²⁹ Kehoe (1992) 24. ³⁰ Kehoe (1992) 16–57, esp. 50–3.

Table 5.2 Private landowners No. Name of landholder

1

No of Total area parcels (arouras)

Herakleides the Younger 9 son of Maron

106.75 + 3 7/8 ar. vineyard

Location: village

Ref.

Date

Notes

7 1/2

Tebtunis

P.Mich. V 326

 48

Probably ceded by Herodes also called Herakleides to Herakleides in  30’s; see P.Mich. XI 621

21 25

Tebtunis Kerkesoucha Orous Kerkeesis and the farmstead of Herakleides Kerkeesis and the farmstead of Herakleides Kerkeesis and the farmstead of Herakleides

7 16 3/4 6

6

Kerkesephis

9 1/2 8 3 7/8 vineyard

Theogonis Theogonis Theogonis

Ceded by Herodes also called Herakleides to Herakleides in  30s; see P.Mich. XI 621 Previously belonging to Sambas son of Akousilaos 2 ar. might be the ones that Herakleides bought from Maron son of Herakleides in  38; see PSI VIII 918 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Area of each parcel

Table 5.2 Continued No of Total area parcels (arouras)

Area of each parcel

Location: village

Ref.

Date

Notes

2

1

4

Theogonis

PSI VIII 918

 38

2 ar. sold to Herakleides the Younger

?

Theogonis

 38

?

Theogonis

PSI VIII 918 PSI VIII 918

Vineyard. Neighbour of Maron’s property Vineyard. Neighbours of Maron’s property

P.Mich. V 232

 35

3 4 5

6

Maron son of Herakleides and his mother Heraklea daughter of Herakleos also called Calemus Didumos son of Maron Sons of Demetrios son of Apollonides Ptolema daugther of Herodes and wife of Herakleides the Younger Galates (now his children Lusas, Lusimachos and Eutuchas, under age), Didumos the elder, Didumos the Younger sons of Lusimachos (Lusimachos family)

4 (vineyard called Pekkyo)

1

2 (vineyard)

2

4

82

2 parcels x Tebtunis 37 ar.

 38

Theogonis

25

Theogonis

20

Kerkeesis

Land was mortgaged and passed to Kastor and Lusimachos sons of Lusimachos

Formerly property of Lucius Terentius

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No. Name of landholder

7

Didumos the younger son of Lusimachos (Lusimachos family)

8

Lusimachos son of Lusimachos (Lusimachos family) Didumos the elder son of Lusimachos (Lusimachos family)

9

10

1

10

10

Theogonis

1 1/2

1 1/2

Ibion P.Mich. Eikosipentarouron V 266

3

3

Tebtunis

5

2 3/4

11

Herodes also called Orsenouphis son of Herodes

3

8 3/4

2

3 3/4 3

 35- Formerly belonging to 6 Herekaleides son of Didumos. Plot ceded to his sister-wife Hero  38 Vineyard.Conveyed to his sister Hero

 41- Sold to him by Herodes 2 also called Orseus the younger, son of Herodes, a Macedonian of the catoeci Ibion P.Mich.  45- Catoecic. Settlement of Eikosipentarouron V 340 6 property (marriage). Gift by his father-in-law Didumos son of Maron Ibion P.Mich.  47 Catoecic. Gift by his Eikosipentarouron V 341 father-in-law Didumos son of Maron Tebtunis P.Mich. II  42 Catoecic. Alimentary 121 recto contract with wife III xii Thencorephis daughter of Orseus Kerkesoucha Heptarourikos kleros Orous Kerkesoucha Phulakitikos kleros Orous P.Mich. V 267-8

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Haruotes son of Lusimachos (Lusimachos family)

P.Mich. V 262

Table 5.2 Continued No of Total area parcels (arouras)

Area of each parcel

Location: village

Ref.

Date

12

Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis

?

?

?

Tebtunis

13

Akousilaos son of Kastor

1

6

6

Tebtunis

14

Herodes son of Heraklides

2

10 1/2 1/11

7 1/2

Tebtunis

P.Mich. II  42 121 recto IV v P.Mich. II  42 121 recto I xiv P.Mich. II  42 121 recto IV ii

15

Patron son of Truphon

1

10

2 1/2 10

Tebtunis Kerkeosiris

16

Nikomedes son of Phanias

1

2

2

Kerkesoucha Orous

17

Herodes son Heraklides 1

14

14

Tebtunis

P.Mich. II  42 121 recto II ix P.Mich. II  42 121 recto III x P.Mich. II 121 verso III 14; recto IV vii

Notes

Catoecic

Catoecic. Leased to Tamarron and son Eutuchos Catoecic. Leased to Onnophris son of Kollouthos Non catoecic Catoecic. Sold to him by Charonion son of Nilos Catoecic. Leased to Apollonios son of Herakles Catoecic. Bestowed to Herodes by his wife Apias through an alimentary contract in  22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No. Name of landholder

Panesneus

4

Tebtunis?

18

Paches

4

Tebtunis (?)

19

Herakleides

?

Tebtunis (?)

20

Petsiris and Thaesis

8 3/4

3

Theogonis

11 10/32

2 3/4 1 2 3

Theogonis Theogonis Theogonis Tebtunis

1 10/32 5

Tebtunis Tebtunis

9

Kerkeesis

3 1 13/32

Kerkeesis Tebtunis

21

22

Psuphis also called Harpokration

Tetosiris also called Dionusia daughter of Maron also called Marepsemis (wife of Psuphis above)

4

3

P.Mich. II 121 verso VII 16 P.Mich. II 121 verso VII 17 P.Mich. II 121 verso X 14 P.Mich. II  42 121 recto II ii

P.Mich. V 322(a)

P.Mich. V 322(a)

 46

Ceded to him by Akousilaos Ceded to him by Pasus

Ceded to him by Kronion

Catoecic. Inherited from Petsiris’s father. Alimentary contract

Temple land Temple land Catoecic. From the plot called of Noumenios Catoecic

Vineland (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

17

Table 5.2 Continued No of Total area parcels (arouras)

Area of each parcel

Location: village

Ref.

Date

PSI VIII 905 (dupl. P.Mich. V 252) P.Mich. XII 634 SB VI 9110

 25/ 2 ar. of catoecic land 6 ceded to Zenon son of Ptolemaios

23

Apollonios and Didumos sons of Apollonios

4

Talei

24

Patunis, son of Harpaesis Haruotes, son of Haruotes

7

Tebtunis (district of Tkanabis) Tebtunis

25

26 27 28

29

Sokrates, son of Ptolemaios Chairemon son of Penkios Herakles son of Chairemon also called Mieus(Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry) Kronion, son of Zoilos

26

40 2

1

Tebtunis

5 (from land 32 Tebtunis that has been (Tkanabis) neglected and is not productive) 2 2 Lower Phnebie

SB XVI 12539 P.Mich. V 348 P.Mich. V 259

SB VI 9109

Notes

 25/ Catoecic land leased to 6 Orseus, son of Phasos  26 Catoecic land leased to Paopis, son of Orseus, to Orseus, son of Paopis, and to Semenis, son of Haruotes  26 Catoecic land leased to Horos, son of Horos  27 Contract of partnership  33

 31

Catoecic land ceded to Chairemon also called Onnophris son of Horion Dry vine land (chersos ampelitis) ceded to full brother Sokrates

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No. Name of landholder

1

Musthas son of 1 Akousilaos (Macedonian of the catoeci)

31

Two brothers, Orsenouphis and Peteeus, and a third man, Paches Kronion son of Maron (Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry)

32

1

6

2 1/2

P.Mich. V 315

Valley of Phremei

12

3 1/8

P.Mich. V 273 (PSI VIII 906)

P.Mich. V 327

Talei

P.Mich. V 303

 44/ Catoecic land leased to 5 Tenouphis, son of Orseus, and Kronion, son of Labesis  46 Catoecic land ceded to Maximos son of Diodoros also called Papontos—plus one quarter of an aroura as compulsory assignment (epibole) Division of catoecic land Early 1st (Ors and Peteeus 7 ar.— century Ors. 2 and Pet 5; Paches 5) 1st Catoecic land ceded to century Maron the younger son of Patron

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

30

2 1/2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

152

    

called ousiakos logos ( 69).³¹ At least three ousiai were scattered in the territory around Tebtunis in the early Roman period: the ousia of the emperor Claudius, that of the children of Germanicus, and the ousia of Livia Drusilla.³² The size of these estates in the Julio-Claudian period is unknown, but it is thought to have been hundreds of arouras.³³ As private estates with absentee landowners, ousiai were entrusted to managers, often imperial freedmen (normally called misthotai, but also eklemptores) who were in charge of keeping the land productive and providing the landowners with a secure return.³⁴ To do so, they leased out plots of land to individual farmers or groups, while supervising all the activities which were carried out on the land.

5.2.4 Temple Land As mentioned in Chapter 4.2.1, the view that the Roman government confiscated temple land in Egypt under Augustus is no longer tenable. By using new demotic evidence and other Greek documents from the record-office archive of Tebtunis, Monson convincingly argued for the existence in the Roman period of plots of privately owned temple land, which can be identified in transactions exemplifying property rights, namely sales and cessions, and inheritance contracts. At times compulsory assignments of the village (epibole komes), which were typical of catoecic land, were attached to temple land.³⁵ While we know that under the third prefect of Egypt, Petronius, in 24–21 , a total of 500 1/4 ar. of temple land near Tebtunis was confiscated, we have no clear evidence as to the amount of land which remained in private hands.³⁶ The surviving contracts of sales and cessions give us insight into the state of affairs of the time, revealing a market of private temple land, but they do not provide any information as to the extent of this phenomenon. In the  40s registers temple land is explicitly mentioned only in three contracts, all leases of plots ranging between 4 and 6 ar., but it is not possible to establish with certainty whether or not the land was privately owned by the local priests.³⁷

³¹ Rowlandson (1996) 96–7, with note 94. Kruse (2002) 598; Jördens (2009) 506–11; Kehoe (2007) 56–64. ³² Ousia of Claudius: P.Mich. II 121 recto III x; ousia of the children of Germanicus: SB 10536 ( 25/6), SB XX 14314 ( 25/6); ousia of Livia Drusilla: SB 10536, PSI 1028 ( 15). ³³ Kehoe (1992) 19. ³⁴ Kehoe (1992) 23. ³⁵ Monson (2005), esp. 86–7. ³⁶ P.Tebt. II 302. ³⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso VII 8, IX 15; II 123 recto VI 32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

153

5.3 The Data Land is transacted through a variety of contract types, namely leases, sales and cessions, mortgages, applications for state concessions, divisions of property, rent payments, and other not otherwise specified arrangements. What follows is an analysis of the data related to land contracts as they appear in the  40s registers, which shed light on the overall percentage of land transactions over specific periods of time, the percentage of individual contract types in which land occurs, the amount of land transacted through particular contract types, and the total amount of land transacted over extended periods of time. As illustrated in Chapter 2, the three registers of contract titles include five four-month periods overall—Pachon-Mesore 42 (May–August), Thoth-Choiak 45 (September–December), Tybi–Pharmouthi 46 (January–April), Pachon-Mesore 46 (May–August), and Thoth–Choiak 46 (September–December), for a total of 20 months. The only four-month period for which we have no comparison is Tybi–Pharmouthi. This analysis therefore allows us to establish, within some limits, the extent to which land changed hands, and hence to establish how active the land market was in Tebtunis. It also gives us the opportunity to investigate whether there was any increase or decrease in the number of land contracts which were recorded, as well as in the amount of land which was transacted in specific contract types over extended periods of time. As the three registers also enable us to calculate a rough breakdown of several categories of land, it would be tempting to draw definite conclusions about the higher or lower amounts of certain land types. There are, however, some caveats to be borne in mind. First, as can be seen in Table 5.1, the legal status of the majority of land is not stated, as contract titles simply refer to the number of arouras. In the case of public pasture land (nomai or ktamia) no information is given as to its size. Another factor to take into consideration when looking at the results of this analysis is the inaccuracy or incompleteness of some of the data. This emerges clearly for the period Pachon–Mesore 42 for which we have the supplementary information of the abstracts (50 out 247 contract titles).³⁸ A combined study of titles and corresponding abstracts reveals that often the information given in the one-line entries does not match the content of the corresponding abstracts. An example is given by a land lease recorded on 26 Pachon 42 (21 May). The information provided by the entry in the register of titles includes the lessors, Orsenouphis

³⁸ See Chapter 2. 2.2 for a discussion of the internal structure of P.Mich. II 121 verso/recto.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

154

    

and another unnamed person; the lessee, a certain Orseus; and the object, namely public pasture land (nomai), without reference to its size.³⁹ The corresponding abstract offers further data, thus shedding light on the identities of all the parties, as well as on exact status and size of the plots of land, that is 12 ar. of private land and 11 ar. of temple land.⁴⁰ There are also cases in which the one-line entry only lists the number of arouras, while the corresponding abstract includes details as to the exact legal status of the land, namely catoecic land, or a combination of catoecic and imperial land.⁴¹ In some entries the reference to land as an object was omitted altogether. This is the case of divisions of property (meriteiai and diaireseis) and post-marriage settlements (sungraphai trophitis).⁴² As we learn from full contracts and abstracts, catoecic and other private land were often included in these types of agreements, but the relevant information is not visible in the registers of titles.⁴³ In the two registers dated to  45–6 (P.Mich. II 123 recto and V 238) a large number of leases have no object, but there is no doubt that we are dealing here with leases of land. Thanks to the additional information provided by the abstracts, the period between Pachon and Mesore  42 offers a more detailed picture of the amount and type of land which changed hands in each contract type.

5.3.1 Land Transactions: A Close-Up Despite these limitations and methodological problems, the analysis of the land contracts in the three grapheion registers of titles reveals some important economic features. First of all, as can be seen in Table 5.3, transactions involving land represented a very large proportion of the total written agreements registered at the grapheion annually, between 19 per cent in the period from Tybi to Pharmouthi 46 and 31 per cent in the period from

³⁹ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 12. ⁴⁰ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV v. ⁴¹ Catoecic land: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 4 = recto I xiv, verso II 5 = recto II i, verso II 13 = II ix, verso III 9 = recto IV ii. Combination of land categories: see the lease of 5 ar. in P.Mich. II 121 verso III 4 = recto III 10. In the abstract the 5 ar. are said to be made up of 3 ar. of imperial land and 2 ar. of catoecic land. ⁴² See, for example, the division (diairesis) registered on 28 Choiak 46 (24 December) between one Papnebtunis, and Maron and another person in P.Mich. V 238 col. V 245. ⁴³ Another example in which the reference to land is omitted is a sale recorded on 13 May  42. In the one-line entry no object is stated, whereas the corresponding abstract informs us that the object of sale is a plot of catoecic land; see P.Mich. II 121 verso II 13 = recto II ix.

Table 5.3 Land transactions in the grapheion registers Register

Four-month period

Total contracts Total no. Leases Sales Cessions Cessions Receipts Mortgages Bids Unspecified Other of land (parachoresis) (enchoresis) agreements contracts

P.Mich. II 121 verso P.Mich. II 123 recto

Pachon–Mesore 42 Thoth–Choiak 45 Tybi– Pharmouthi 46 Pachon–Mesore 46 Thoth–Choiak 46

253

60

50

3

4

232 (+56 non contracts) 187 (+ 43 non contracts) 251 (+ 50 non contracts) 241

90

72

1

2

44

27

6

63

44

1

4

52

43

1

4

1

1

2

2

9

1

1

3

6

3

2

1

6

3

0

0

2

1

1

0

2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

P.Mich. V 238

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

156

    

Thoth to Choiak 45. Overall about 22 per cent of the total contracting parties listed in the three registers are attested to have been involved in contracts associated with land or farming; marginally greater, 24 per cent, is the percentage of those parties who were involved in money-lending activities (see discussion in Chapter 4.4). It is also to be noted that the lease (misthosis) was the most common single type of contract. In general, however, the number of contracts which had land as an object must have been higher, if we take into account divisions of property.⁴⁴ The highest number of land agreements is attested for the four-month period from Thoth to Choiak 45, or late August to late December, with 90 agreements (or 31 per cent). While the concentration of such transactions in this period is not surprising, as contracts were usually made some time before and after the inundation, it is interesting to note that in the same period of the following year the number of land contracts appears to have dropped to 21.6 per cent. The lowest number of land contracts is recorded for the period from Tybi to Pharmouthi 46, or late December to late April, namely the winter period, with 44 contracts out 187 (or 19 per cent), when the inhabitants of Tebtunis were busy with activities such as sowing, plowing, and other work in vineyards and orchards.⁴⁵ The number of land contracts registered in the period from Pachon to Mesore, or late April to late August, that is the harvest season, seems to have remained rather stable in the years  42 and 46 (23.7 per cent and 21 per cent respectively). The decrease in the number of land contracts for the period from Thoth to Choiak, 31 per cent in 45 versus 21.6 per cent in 46, which is mainly due to a decrease in the number of leases, 31 per cent in 45 versus 17.8 per cent in 46, is also reflected in the amount of land transacted, with c. 358 ar. in 45 and c. 210 in 46 (Table 5.1). This reduction has been interpreted as one of the indicators of the economic crisis which allegedly hit several Arsinoite villages during the reign of Claudius as a consequence of an excessively high flood.⁴⁶ According to this view, given the difficulty in working the land productively, leases became a risky enterprise as lessees were probably unable to pay the rent in kind.⁴⁷ The legitimacy of this interpretation is discussed in the conclusions to this chapter. A decrease in the number of arouras transacted is also to be noted for the period from Pachon to Mesore, with c. 324 ar. in 42 and c. 244 ar. in 46. ⁴⁴ A notable example are the divisions of property associated with the families of Psuphis alias Harpokration and Herakleides the Younger; P.Mich. V 322(a) and 326. For a discussion of these families see Chapter 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. ⁴⁵ Bonneau (1964) 40–2; Rathbone (1991) 260–3; Bagnall (1993) 20–3. ⁴⁶ See discussion in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. ⁴⁷ Toepel (1973) 308–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

157

In this case, however, there might not have been an actual decrease. The number of land contracts appears to have remained more or less stable, with 60 contracts in 42 and 63 in 46, but in the  46 register several contracts include land simply labelled as nomai or edaphe, without further specification as to size, which affects the final calculation of the number of arouras transacted. Unsurprisingly most of the land appears to have been transacted through leases. An analysis of the plots (Table 5.4) for which size is available (248) reveals that the majority of the plots transacted were of small size, ranging between 0.5 and 4 1/2 ar. (115, or 46.3 per cent); plots ranging from 5 to 9 1/2 ar. also constitute a considerable proportion (83, or 33.5 per cent); finally, larger plots of 10 ar. and over make up a rather low percentage (36, 14.5 per cent). It is worth noting that the majority of plots were not larger than 6 ar. and that plots larger than 15 ar. were rare. Only one instance is attested in which a plot is larger than 50 ar.⁴⁸ A similar scenario is attested for the Mendesian nome where the size of plots in the third-century declarations of land (P.Mendes. Genev.) ranged between 0.6 and 36 ar.⁴⁹ As Roger Bagnall noted, the surviving evidence from fourth-century Karanis shows that ‘the small to middle sized family farm was the basic and most common unit in Egyptian agriculture’, suggesting some degree of continuity from the first to fourth century .⁵⁰ Bagnall also noted that the landholdings of Egyptian villagers ‘tended to have only a moderate degree of inequality, an inequality least in holdings of public land and greater in holdings of private land’, Table 5.4 Size of land plots in the mid-first-century Tebtunis registers Register

Four-month period

0–4 ar. 5–9 ar. >10 ar. Unknown Total plots

P.Mich. II 121 verso P.Mich. II 123 recto P.Mich. II 123 recto P.Mich. II 123 recto P.Mich. V 238

Pachon–Mesore 42

20

20

9

1

52

Thoth–Choiak 45

38

18

10

0

66

Tybi–Pharmouthi 46 11

12

8

2

33

Pachon–Mesore 46

20

18

5

2

57

Thoth–Choiak 46

26

15

4

0

45

⁴⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XIII 26 (23 March 46). ⁵⁰ Bagnall (1993) 118. Also Bagnall (1992).

⁴⁹ Blouin (2014) 204.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

158

    

as seems to have been the case in Tebtunis.⁵¹ In contrast, landholding patterns in fourth-century Hermopolis, nome capital of the Hermopolite nome, show high inequality of wealth distribution, as argued by Bowman.⁵² Assuming that the total amount of arable land around the village was between 7,000 and 10,000 ar., the amount of land which exchanged hands in the five four-month periods attested in the registers would oscillate between a minimum of at least 2.1 per cent to a maximum of about 5 per cent. However, since in 18 per cent of the cases (56 out of 309) the size of the plots is omitted, these figures are to be regarded as too low; an estimate of about 10 per cent seems safe, which suggests a relatively active market.

5.3.2 Land Leases and Leasing Strategies The predominance of lease contracts as the most common way to transact land in Tebtunis is not without significance and requires closer investigation (Table 5.5).⁵³ In her study on agricultural tenancy in Roman Egypt, Jane Rowlandson noted that in Tebtunis leases involved all categories of land and crops, and all social strata of the population, and more generally that ‘the misthosis contracts was a remarkably flexible legal arrangement, adaptable to the varied requirements of all groups in the agrarian society’.⁵⁴ Differently from what is documented for Oxyrhynchus, the people of Tebtunis appear in leases not only as lessees, but also as lessors themselves, and tended to avoid being entirely dependent on one landowner only for leasing purposes.⁵⁵ In Egypt land leases were normally made during the inundation period, that is in those months in which the land was flooded, which in the Arsinoite nome happened between the end of July and November, and little work could be carried out.⁵⁶ This was also the normal practice in Tebtunis. The three grapheion registers of titles show that the number of land leases varied according to the time of the year, with representation ranging between a

⁵¹ Bagnall (1992) 136. ⁵² Bowman (1985) 151. ⁵³ On the value of leases as a means to determine the size of the agricultural economy in Roman Egypt see van Minnen (2000) 211. On land management in the Pharaonic period see Eyre (1999) 47–53. ⁵⁴ Rowlandson (1999) 155. ⁵⁵ This phenomenon emerges clearly in the early second century, thanks to the evidence provided by the archive of Kronion son of Cheos. See also Foraboschi (1971) and Kehoe (1992) 149–54. Dependence on more than one landowner is also attested in sixth-century Aphrodito, for which see Whickham (2006) 416. ⁵⁶ Herrmann (1958) 95.

Table 5.5 The leases of the record-office archive No.

Date

Place

1

11 Pachon Kerkeesis (6 May)  8

Juridical status

Land type

Public

Total No of Area Crop area (ar.) parcels of each parcel 9

2

Unknown

Unknown

3

 25/6

Tebtunis

Private

Catoecic

Fodder

Unknown

Choice of the lessee

Year one: 58 art./wheat (plus 6 art. of seed allowance); 40 dr. for pasturage. Year two: 12 art./ vegetable seed Year three: 48 dr. + 12 art./ vegetable seed

7

Wheat

40 art./wheat

5.7

Terms

Duration Ref. (years)

Prodomatic; sub-lessor to pay all public dues. Last year land to be devoted to cattle grazing.

5

P.Lips. II 129

3

P.Mich. V 346(c)

Rent to be paid 1 in Pauni

P.Mich. XII 634

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 16

Art./ar.

7

2

2

Rent

Table 5.5 Continued Date

Place

Juridical status

Land type

Total No of Area Crop area (ar.) parcels of each parcel

Rent

4

10 August  26

Tebtunis

Unknown

18

In cash

5

15 Sept  Tebtunis 26

Private

Catoecic

26

6

22 Theogonis September  27

Private

Catoecic

4

2

2

Terms

Duration Ref. (years)

Prodomatic sub-lease; lessee to provide seeds; lessors to maintain irrigation system

1 (?)

P.Mich. XII 632

Wheat and barley 125 art. of 4.8 wheat + (?) art. (wheat) of barley

Lessor to provide seed and service of oxen

1

SB VI 9110

Wheat (year two and four) and crop other than wheat (year 3)

Lessor to 4 provide seed. Rent to be paid in Pauni

Grass and aracus

Year one: no rent Year two and four: 56 art. of wheat Year three: 28 art. + 1 keramion of wine

Art./ar.

Year two and four: 14 (wheat) Year three: 7

SB XVI 12539

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No.

7

24 October Theogonis  27

Private

Catoecic

8

 26-27

Ibion Eikosipentarouron

Private

9

 27

Tebtunis

Private

10

c.  30

Theogonis

Private

 32/3

Tebtunis

Private

Wheat (year one and three) and fodder (year two)

Year one and Year one three: 60 art. of and wheat three: 12

Reed bed on Unknown waste land (chersokalamia)

Unknown

Year one: 16 art./wheat

Catoecic

Wheat & barley

197 1/2 art./ wheat 50 art./barley 2 art./bread 5 dr.

8

Year one: grass and aracus Year two: wheat

5

Wheat

Year one: 12.5 no rent. Year two: 100 art. + 1 art. of bread 40 art. of wheat 8 + 1/2 art. of bread

40

13

Catoecic & police land

1

20

2

Year one and three: wheat Year two: grass (chortos)

4.9 (wheat) 1.2 (barley)

3

P.IFAO I1

Lessee to restore the land to cultivation

4 (?)

P.Mich. V 310

Partnership btw 4 men. Lessor to provide seed

4

P.Mich. V 348

Lessors to 2 provide 8 art. of seed. Rent to be paid in Pauni Lessors to 2 provide 2 1/2 art. of seed. Rent to be paid in Pauni

P.Mich. XII 633

Year one and Year one Lessor to 3 three: and provide seed. 260 ar. three: 13 Cash payment Year two: due in Mecheir 160 dr. @8 dr./ and ar. Phamenoth. rent in kind due in Pauni

SB XX 14315

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

11

5

Table 5.5 Continued Date

12

Place

Juridical status

Land type

Total No of Area Crop area (ar.) parcels of each parcel

Rent

Art./ar.

Terms

Duration Ref. (years)

22 (?) Talei September  33

Public

Demosia edaphe

12

2

Any crop

Unknown

Sub-lease. 93 Lessor to provide lessee with 20 art. of wheat for taxes. Lessee will receive seed from treasury.

P.Bingen 59

13

 34

Theogonis

Public

Demosia edaphe

5

1

Hay (chlora)

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic sub-lease. Lessee to provide seed; lessor to maintain irrigation

1

P.Mich. V 311

14

 37

Tebtunis

Public

Dry pasture land (chersonomai)

Unknown

Fodder

60 dr. per year

Fodder available for pigs

2

P.Mich. V 313

15

30 April  42

Tebtunis

Public

Pasture land (nomai)

Unknown 1

Unknown

Cash— unknown

Rent in cash to 3 be paid to the public bank in Phamenoth

P.Mich. II 121 verso I 11 = recto I i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No.

30 April  42

Tebtunis

Public

17

6 May  42

Talei

18

7 May  42

Tebtunis

19¹⁷⁴ 11 May  Tebtunis 42

4

Wheat

Cash— unknown

Unknown Unknown

6

Unknown

300 dr. 6 fleeces

Unknown

4 1/2

Private

Demosia edaphe

Catoecic

5

Prodomatic Unknown P.Mich. sub-lease. II 121 Rent in cash to verso be paid by the I 15 = lessee; recto I v rent in kind and other public dues to be paid by the sub-lessor. 50

6 months or 1 year &6 months Probably imperial land

1

Year one and two: Cash— wheat & barley unknown

Prodomatic. Lessee to pay naubion, artabeia and kataphuteia. Lessor to pay arithmetikon

P.Mich. II 121 verso I 20 = recto I x P.Mich. II 121 verso II 2 = recto I xii

5

P.Mich. II 121 verso II 4 = recto I xiv

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

16

Table 5.5 Continued Date

19

Place

Juridical status

Land type

Total No of Area Crop area (ar.) parcels of each parcel

11 May  Tebtunis 42

Private

Catoecic

5

20

11 May  Tebtunis 42

Public

Demosia edaphe

14

21

11 May  Tebtunis 42

Public

Demosia edaphe

5

22

11 May  Tebtunis 42

Unknown

3

1

1

Rent

Art./ar.

Terms

Duration Ref. (years)

Year one and two: Cash— wheat & barley unknown

Prodomatic. Lessee to pay naubion, artabeia and kataphuteia. Lessor to pay arithmetikon

P.Mich. II 121 verso II 5 = recto II i

Fodder (lotus)

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic 1 sub-lease. For sheep grazing.

P.Mich. II 121 verso II 9 = recto II v

Barley

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic 1 sub-lease. Public dues to be paid by the sub-lessors.

P.Mich. II 121 verso II 10 = recto II vi

Unknown

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic sub-lease

P.Mich. II 121 verso II 11 = recto II vii

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No.

23

19 May  Tebtunis 42

Public

24

20 May  Tebtunis 42

Imperial

25

20 May  Tebtunis 42 (Kanabis)

Unknown

Catoecic

4

Lotus (clover)

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic 1 lease made five years in advance. Lessee to supply seed; lessor to pay public dues. For sheep grazing.

P.Mich. II 121 verso III 2 = recto III viii

3

Lotus (clover)

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic. 1 For sheep grazing. Lessee to supply seed and perform all operations.

P.Mich. II 121 verso III 4 = recto III x

2

Chortos

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic. 1 Lessee to supply seed and perform all operations.

Lotus (clover)

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic. For sheep grazing

4

1

1

P.Mich. II 121 verso III 5 = recto III xi

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Kerkesoucha Private Orous

Demosia edaphe

Table 5.5 Continued Date

26

27

28

Place

Juridical status

Land type

Total No of Area Crop area (ar.) parcels of each parcel

Rent

21 May  Tebtunis 42

Private

Catoecic

10 1/2 1/ 11

Year one and 10.3 three (total): 110 art./wheat Year two and four (total): 72 dr. @ 7.2 dr./ar.

Lessor to 4 provide seed. Lessee to pay in the month of Drousilleios

21 May  Kerkesiris 42

Private

12

Aracus

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic. For sheep grazing

Tebtunis

Temple

11

Hay

Cash— unknown

Prodomatic. For sheep grazing

Tebtunis

Private

Catoecic

Unknown

28 May  Tebtunis 42

Public

Dry pasture land (chersonomai)

Unknown

2

7 1/2 1/11 2 1/2

Cash— unknown Unknown

Cash— unknown

Art./ar.

Terms

Duration Ref. (years)

P.Mich. II 121 verso III 9 = recto IV ii

Unknown P.Mich. II 121 verso III 12 = recto IV v Unknown

Unknown Rent in cash to Unknown P.Mich. be paid to the II 121 public bank verso III 18 = recto IV xii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

No.

29

21 May  Theogonis 42

Unknown

30

 44/5

Tebtunis

Private

31

First century

Unknown

Unknown

Catoecic

4

1

Aracus

Cash— unknown

2 1/2

1

Any crop

Year one and three: 24 dr. 1/2 art./lentils Year two and four: 15 art./ wheat

12

1

Prodomatic. For sheep grazing Year one All rent to be and paid in Pauni three: 9.6 Year two and four: 6

Unknown P.Mich. II 121 recto III xiv 4

P.Mich. V 315

4

P.Mich. V 314 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

168

    

low 14 per cent in the months from Tybi to Pharmouthi 46, during which villagers were mainly busy sowing and ploughing the land, and a high 31 per cent in the months from Thoth to Choiak 45, which coincides for the most part with the period of the flood (Table 5.3).⁵⁷ It has already been mentioned in the previous section that this pattern is disrupted in the year 46/7, which records for the months from Thoth to Choiak a sharp decrease in the number of leases. The following section looks more closely at the type, number, and chronological distribution of land leases in the months represented by the  40s registers in order to gain a better understanding of leasing strategies and the socio-economic status of the parties involved. Before presenting the data, it is essential to clarify the question of their validity, especially when it comes to comparing the figures emerging for each four-month period. As pointed out on various occasions in this book, any discrepancy between the period from Pachon to Mesore  42 and the corresponding period in  46 is not necessarily a reflection of reality, but simply the result of an imbalance in the amount of data available, which is particularly prominent for the  42 period owing to the 48 abstracts filed on the recto of the register of titles (P.Mich. II 121 recto). It is because of this imbalance that we need to be careful not to draw premature conclusions when looking at the changes in the amount of specific types of land that was leased. There is also the question of the extent to which these were typical years, so that particular leasing strategies can be regarded as reflective of specific socio-economic conditions. Even though it is not always possible to make sense of the different figures regarding typology and distribution of land leases or to establish whether in other years, not represented by our evidence, the people of Tebtunis were adopting the same leasing strategies, the grapheion registers provide us nonetheless with a good understanding of the role that these agreements played within the local economy. Three main types of land leases can be identified in the grapheion archive: common leases, sub-leases, and prodomatic leases. In a common lease, which is the most widespread type among the population of Roman Egypt, a landowner rented out one or more plots of land to one or more tenants, and the lease was to take place in the same year in which the ⁵⁷ In a table representing the monthly distribution of land leases in the three registers, Lori Toepel showed that the great majority of leases were entered into in the months that immediately preceded and followed the end of the Egyptian year (28 or 29 August), namely Epeiph and Mesore, or July and August, and Thoth and Phaophi, or September and October. Toepel (1973) 131–6, with table 22, p. 134.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

169

contract was made. Customarily terms and conditions included the type of crop to be sown, duration, type, and amount of the rent to be paid by the tenant (phoros), and duties in regard to tax-payment. Sub-leases were by definition made between one or more sub-lessors and one or more tenants. Landowners were not directly involved in these transactions. In Tebtunis, and in Roman Egypt more broadly, sub-leases usually involved public land, which was sub-leased in plots to public tenants. Finally, in prodomatic leases the rent had to be paid in advance (from prodomatikos, which literally means ‘by way of payment in advance’), and occasionally behind this arrangement was a loan.⁵⁸ The majority of the leases recorded in the three grapheion registers of titles appear to have been common leases and sub-leases, as follows: 98 per cent in Pachon to Mesore 42, c. 87 per cent in the year 45/6 (84.7 per cent in Thoth to Choiak 45, 88.9 per cent in Tybi to Pharmouthi 46, 88.6 per cent in Pachon to Mesore 46), and 67.4 per cent in Thoth to Choiak 46. The exact number of sub-leases cannot be calculated, as the legal status of the land is only rarely indicated. Overall it appears that the percentage of prodomatic leases remained stable at about 12–15 per cent in each of the three administrative periods represented in the year  45/6.⁵⁹ A particularly high percentage of prodomatic leases (32.6 per cent) is recorded for the period from Thoth to Choiak 46, the same period which sees a drop in land contracts and a concurrent increase of credit transactions. Prodomatic sub-leases could have also been fictitious loans. The economic implications of this were that the lessee was the creditor, and the rent that he paid in advance was in fact a loan. Due to financial difficulties, the lessor would have used the loan to pay his taxes and worked the land himself. The lessee, on the other hand, would have received the produce of the land in place of paying interest. It is difficult to tell whether some of the prodomatic leases in the grapheion archive were fictitious loans. In most cases, the land was to be sown with fodder crops for the grazing of sheep, which means that there would have been no produce to give to the lessee-creditor at the end of the

⁵⁸ Hennig (1967) 36–41. ⁵⁹ The period from Pachon to Mesore 42 displays a much lower number of prodomatic leases (2 per cent) compared to the number attested in the same period in 46 (11.4 per cent). This, however, might be only a false discrepancy. From the abstracts in P.Mich. II 121 recto we learn that some sub-leases were prodomatic, but they are not called so in the corresponding entries; P.Mich. II 121 verso I 11 = recto I v; verso II 9 = recto II v; verso II 10 = recto II vi; verso II 11 = recto II vii; verso III 2 = III viii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

170

    

agreement. One contract, however, seems to have all the features of a fictitious loan. This is a prodomatic sub-lease of 4 ar. of demosia edaphe, dated to 30 April  42, in which the sub-lessor is explicitly required to pay the rent in kind and all the public taxes, whereas the sub-lessee’s only requirement was to pay a cash rent.⁶⁰ In this case it is conceivable to assume that it was the sub-lessor who carried out the actual work on the land, whereas the sub-lessee simply made an advancement payment either as a loan or for future use of the land as pasture. As noted earlier, the large majority of leases do not specify the juridical status of the land. The data collected in Table 5.1 show that the amount of non-specified arouras varied between 44.6 per cent in the period from Thoth to Choiak 45 and 82.2 per cent in the same period a year later. Leases also display a relatively high percentage of land which is said to have been cultivated in fodder crops. This is especially noticeable in the year 45/6, in which the amount of fodder land leased ranged between 51.3 per cent in Thoth to Choiak 45 and 22.3 per cent in Pachon to Mesore 46.⁶¹ Toepel interpreted the large proportion of land cultivated in fodder crops in  45/6, which involved less risky transactions, combined with an increase in prodomatic leases, as a sign of the economic crisis attested for this period.⁶² This, however, might be a skewed interpretation. First, as Jane Rowlandson noted, half of the leases recorded in the registers do not include information about the relevant crop, and ‘if wheat was to be cultivated in all these cases (perhaps because it was taken for granted as the arable crop par excellence), the balance between fodder, cereal, and other crops would be exactly what might be expected’.⁶³ Should this have been the case, one of the arguments for the existence of the economic crisis in this period would drop. Second, the urgent need for quick cash to pay taxes was not necessarily the only motive behind the making of prodomatic leases. As Rowlandson pointed out, ‘the prodomatic leases were immensely flexible in meeting the individual requirements of each lessor and lessee’.⁶⁴ Public, private, temple, and imperial land all appear in the leases recorded in the three registers, but the significance of their breakdown, as noted in

⁶⁰ P.Mich. II 121 verso I 15 = recto I v. ⁶¹ A considerable amount of fodder land is also attested to have been leased in Thoth to Choiak 46 (17.8 per cent), while four years earlier, in Pachon to Mesore 42, only 1.5 per cent of the land leased is specifically described as fodder land. Again, the significance of this discrepancy is dubious. ⁶² Toepel (1973) 159–62, 305–12. ⁶³ Rowlandson (1999) 149–50. ⁶⁴ Rowlandson (1999) 150–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

171

Table 5.1, is hard to ascertain. First, since higher percentages of the various land categories recorded for the period  42 only reflect the higher amount of data available for the relevant months, they are not suggestive of any particular socio-economic phenomenon. Second, exact figures about the size of a plot are often omitted, especially in the case of public estates and public pasture land. Third, we cannot tell how much of the unspecified arouras and fodder land was public or private. It is the abstracts dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 recto), combined with the contemporary full contracts, which allow us to get a better glimpse of the terms and conditions of land leases in Tebtunis. In the majority of cases, the leases recorded in the abstracts involved public land (6 out of 15, or 40 per cent); a fair proportion also included private land (5 out 15, or 33.3 per cent). Imperial land is mentioned in two land leases (13.3 per cent), while temple land occurs only once. In two cases no information is provided about the land’s juridical status. There is very little in the grapheion archive about the leasing of imperial and temple land, which may be a reflection of two scenarios: one, these types of land were less commonly subject to one-year agreements, as was the case for public land; and two, since in three grapheion registers of titles a large number of entries do not mention the juridical status of the land, the extent to which they involved imperial and temple land cannot be ascertained. Imperial land is clearly attested only in one  42 abstract which mentions the sub-lease of 3 ar. from the estate of Germanicus near Tebtunis by a certain Nikomedes.⁶⁵ This was a one-year prodomatic agreement, with advance cash payment, whereby the land was to be cultivated in fodder crop (clover) for animal grazing; the lessee was to supply the seed and perform all the necessary agricultural operations. Temple land also appears in one abstract only, a prodomatic lease of 11 ar. near Tebtunis to be cultivated in fodder (hay) for sheep grazing; no information is provided about the length of the contract.⁶⁶ Even though we are not able to offer a more detailed analysis of the terms and conditions associated with the leasing of imperial and temple land, other contemporary (and later) evidence allows us to draw a fairly clear picture of their management strategies, which are discussed in Section 5.3.5 below. Following first is an overview of the main contractual features of the leases of public and private land. ⁶⁵ P.Mich. II 121 recto III x = verso III 4. Another abstract has been interpreted as dealing with imperial land (P.Mich. II 121 recto I xii = verso II 2), but the evidence is unclear. ⁶⁶ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV v = verso III 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

172

    

5.3.3 Leases of Public Land Of the six leases of public land, five are sub-leases of demosia edaphe, while one involves the sub-lease of a certain number of arouras of public pasture land (nomai) near Tebtunis.⁶⁷ In the latter case the lessors were three men named Marepsemis, Marepkemis, and Psuphis, who were probably elders of the public farmers, as suggested by two other contemporary leases of dry pasture land (chersonomai) in which the lessors were indeed the elders.⁶⁸ The duration of the lease is three years, and the rent, assessed in cash, as was common for pasture land, was to be paid to the public bank (demosia trapeza) located in Ptolemais Euergetis, in the month of Phamenoth. The four sub-leases of public land for which enough details survive were to last for one year.⁶⁹ These were all prodomatic contracts in which the rent was paid in advance and the lease itself was to start the subsequent year. In one particular case the sub-lease was made five years in advance.⁷⁰ In the three leases in which the crop is mentioned the land was to be cultivated twice with fodder crop (lotus) for sheep pasture, with barley in another case.⁷¹ It is interesting to note that all the parties involved in these transactions, with the exception of one (Apollonios, son of Herakles), bore typical Egyptian names, such as Marsisouchos, Pakebkis, and Psenkebkis.⁷² Duties and responsibilities of the contracting parties varied, but in general sublessors were in charge of the payment of public dues and maintenance of the canal system, while sub-lessees had to provide the seeds, pay the rent (usually in advance), and sow the land.⁷³ Overall the plots attested in subleases of public land were of a relatively small size, averaging 4 ar., although larger plots of 9 and 14 ar. are also attested. Occasionally leases of this type

⁶⁷ Demosia edaphe: P.Mich. II 121 verso I 15 = recto I v; verso II 9 = recto II v; verso II 10 = recto II vi; verso II 11 = recto II vii; verso III 2 = recto III viii. ⁶⁸ P.Mich. II 121 verso I 11 = recto I i; also P.Mich. II 121 verso III 18 = recto IV xii (28 May  42) and P.Mich. V 313 ( 37). ⁶⁹ On the predominance of annual land leases in the Pharaonic period see Eyre (1999) 50–1, who noted that annual leases were a flexible strategy within the ecology of the Nile Valley, regulated by annual inundations. ⁷⁰ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 2 = recto III viii. ⁷¹ Fodder: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 9 = recto II 5; verso III 2 = recto III viii. Barley: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 10 = recto II vi. ⁷² Apollonios son of Herakles: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 11 = recto II vii. ⁷³ The same features are to be found in a contemporary full contract dated to  34, a prodomatic sub-lease of five arouras of demosia edaphe, near Theogonis, to be sown in hay for one year (P.Mich. V 311).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

173

were to last longer than one year, as in a lease of plot of 9 ar. near Kerkeesis of the duration of five years.⁷⁴ Since in most sub-leases the land was to be cultivated in fodder crops, information is available only for rental in cash.⁷⁵ In general rents in kind (ekphoria) varied depending on a number of factors, including productivity of the land, duration of the lease, and choice of crop, but were probably around three to three and one half artabas per aroura for land cultivated in cereals.⁷⁶ Information about rents in kind is included only in a hereditary lease of 93 years dated to  33, in which the annual rent for land cultivated in wheat was assessed at a low rate of about 1.6 art. per aroura.⁷⁷ The rent for public pasture land (nomai) is indicated in one contract only, dated to 22 March  46, whereby Horos and others leased to unknown parties some public pasture land for a phoros of 764 dr.⁷⁸ We do not have information for the average rent in cash due per aroura for the leasing of nomai in the firstcentury Arsinoite, but for second-century Theadelphia we can rely on two tax-registers which shed light on this—BGU IX 1894, dated to  158/9 and P.Col. V 1 verso 1a, dated to  159/60. These documents reveal that the phoros for nomai varied from c. 17 dr. 4 ob. to 24 dr. 2 ob. per aroura.⁷⁹ Assuming an average phoros of 18 dr. per aroura, the rent of 764 dr. would be paid on about 42 ar. A lease of 6 ar. of unstated land recorded in  42 includes a phoros of 300 dr. and six fleeces.⁸⁰ The cash rental and the fleeces seem to suggest that this land was destined for sheep grazing, although it is unclear whether it was private or public. Whatever the case, the phoros appears to have been unusually high, that is 50 dr. per aroura. Other dues associated with public land included the eikosidrachmia and the monodesmia chortou, which occur together in a land lease dated to  8, the geometria, and the eparourion.⁸¹ The eikosidrachmia was a payment of 20 dr., probably to be identified with the chalkou eikosidrachmos, a due of 20 copper drachmas mentioned in sub-leases of imperial land.⁸² The monodesmia chortou is another dubious tax, probably

⁷⁴ P.Lips. II 129 ( 8). The lease of 12 ar. of demosia edaphe near the village of Talei of the duration of 93 years is to be regarded as a hereditary contract (P.Bingen 59,  33). ⁷⁵ In a lease of public land dated to  8 no rent is mentioned (P.Lips II 129). In another lease of public land dated to  16 information is provided about rent in kind, but the number of arouras is lost (P.Mich. V 346c). ⁷⁶ Rowlandson (1996) 38–40; Rathbone (2007) 704. Attestations of ekphorion are to be found in P.Mich. II 121 recto I v, 2; II I, 2; IV ii 2, 3; 123 recto II 8; IV 20; XVII 41; XVIII 37; 125, 18. ⁷⁷ P.Bingen 59. ⁷⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XIII 23. ⁷⁹ Langellotti (2012) 39–46. ⁸⁰ P.Mich. II 121 verso I 20 = recto I x. ⁸¹ P.Lips. II 129, 31. ⁸² Wallace (1938) 73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

174

    

associated with the cultivation of fodder land by public tenants, as suggested by Wallace; it is unclear whether it was in kind or cash, and its rate is unknown.⁸³ Both the geometria and the eparourion were associated with vine and garden land. The geometria, or ‘land measurement’, was tax paid every five years, of variable rates and normally assessed at 20 dr. per aroura.⁸⁴ The eparourion, on the other hand, was assessed at a fixed rate per aroura, 6 dr. 4 ob.⁸⁵ Sub-leases of public land shed light on some of the complex arrangements which were established between landowners and tenants. There were several reasons for the making of these contracts, mainly financial, for both the sublessors and the sub-lessees. Sub-lessors normally rented out only part of their public plot of land, leaving some arouras for themselves for personal sustenance or possibly for selling surplus produce. By sub-leasing their plots, sub-lessors would receive rent in advance, with which to pay the public dues, and would free themselves from extra work. Given that a considerable number of individuals either owned livestock or worked as shepherds in Tebtunis (see discussion in Section 5.6), pasture land was in great demand. Sub-leasing one or more plots of public land, for which in the Arsinoite nome there was larger availability than private land, was a flexible way to find pasture in locations which were most convenient to the sub-lessees. Sometimes sub-lessors of public land were relatively well-off demosioi georgoi, and sub-leasing some of their holdings was a way to make a profit (or at least to make quick cash). This might have been the reason behind the decision of Pakebkis son of Horos a man of around 30 years of age, to sub-lease 14 ar. of public land to a certain Orseus son of Orseus, ‘from the public land which he [Pakebkis] farms in the neighborhood of Tebtunis’.⁸⁶ This land was to be devoted to sheep pasture for the coming year, for which Pakebkis received a rent in cash. It appears that Pakebkis cultivated a larger portion of land, and he had the freedom of renting out some of it to a third party upon receipt of a cash rental. It is unclear whether he was in need of cash or rather wished his workload to be alleviated. More details are provided for the case of Apollonios son of Herakles, attested in two land leases, both dated to May  42. In the first lease, dated to 11 May, Apollonios acted as sub-lessor of 3 ar., while

⁸³ Wallace (1938) 72–5. ⁸⁴ P.Mich. V 272, 7; PSI VIII 918. Wallace (1938) 49–53. ⁸⁵ Wallace (1938) 56–5. ⁸⁶ P.Mich. II 121 recto II v = verso II 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

175

the sub-lessee was a certain Orsenouphis the elder.⁸⁷ The contract specifies that in turn Apollonios had leased this plot from one Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis, father of Orsenouphis the elder. We do not know whether this was public or private land since Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis managed public land but also owned private land. Like the original lease, the sub-lease in question was to last for one year, starting the following year, and rent was paid in advance. That Apollonios needed quick cash emerges in the second land lease, dated to 20 May, just a few days later. Here Apollonios acted as lessee, while lessor was a certain Nikomedes son of Phanias.⁸⁸ The land in question was a total of 5 ar. divided into two plots, 3 ar. of imperial land near Tebtunis and 2 ar. of catoecic land near Kerkesoucha Orous. The imperial land was to be sown in clover as pasture for sheep, while the catoecic land was for sowing, cutting, and drying grass. As in the previous case, the lease was to last for one year, starting in the following year, and the rent was paid in advance. Among the duties of Apollonios as sub-lessee was the supplying of seed and carrying out of all the work on the land. We have no information about the amount of cash rent that was required in each contract, but we might infer that Apollonios used at least part of the rental he had received from Orsenouphis the elder in the first sub-lease to pay the rent to Nikomedes in the second transaction. Several reasons might have been behind the Apollonios’ decision to trade off a plot of land of 3 ar. for two plots of 5 ar. in total. What first comes to mind is size; in other words, Apollonios might have needed a larger amount of land. Location might also have played a role. One of the two plots in the second contract was located in the nearby village of Kerkesoucha Orous, and Apollonios might have had some interest in working there. Whatever the reasons, it is interesting to point out the high level of flexibility of the arrangement between Apollonios and the other parties.

5.3.4 Leases of Private Land In early Roman Tebtunis private land, mainly of the catoecic type, is attested to have been leased for one to five years. Of the 13 leases which survive from mid-first-century Tebtunis, three were one-year agreements, while seven

⁸⁷ P.Mich. II 121 recto II vii = verso II 11.

⁸⁸ P.Mich. II 121 recto III x = verso III 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

176

    

were of longer duration, between three and five years. In the one-year leases the land was cultivated in two cases with wheat, in one case with grass.⁸⁹ The latter was a prodomatic lease, in which the lessor sub-leased 3 ar. of imperial land near Tebtunis and 2 ar. of catoecic land near Kerkesoucha Orous, both plots to be used for grazing purposes. No details are provided about the terms of the contract, but we notice that, like the prodomatic leases of public land, the lessee was required to provide seed, while the lessor received the rent in cash in advance. The two leases involving cultivation of wheat, on the other hand, were not prodomatic agreements. In both cases the rent, in kind, was to be paid in Pauni (June), while the lessor was to provide seed and pay all the public dues. In leases of longer duration a biennial crop rotation of wheat and hay (or crop other than wheat) was applied, as was the norm in Roman Egypt.⁹⁰ Again, terms and conditions varied from contract to contract, but overall lessors were required to provide seed and deliver the land free from debts, while the lessees’ duties included timely payment of rent and return of the land in good condition. Several reasons might have been behind the leasing of private land. Sometimes landowners needed to make their land productive again, as seems to have been the case of the lease of a reed bed, chersokalamia, near Ibion Eikosipentarouron, a type of land which the editors interpreted as ‘uncultivated land overgrown with reeds’.⁹¹ The lessee, a certain Kronion, was to receive the seed from the lessor, Herakleides the younger son of Herakleides, to break up the unirrigated land and finally to restore it to cultivation (l. 12: εἰς τὴ]ν̣ χερσωκωπίαν καὶ ἀνάκτησιν). The lessee was also committed to return the land at the end of the lease period ‘free from rushes and weed’ (l. 13: καθαρὸν ἀπὸ θρύου ἀγρ[ώστεως). Occasionally landowners leased out their land to small groups of farmers, who in turn were granted a certain level of freedom as to management and cultivation. In a contract of partnership of  27, three men who held in lease 40 ar. of private land from a certain Chairemon son of Penkios were able to take a fourth member into their partnership.⁹² ⁸⁹ Wheat: P.Mich. XII 634 ( 25/6); SB VI 9110 ( 26). Grass: P.Mich. II 121 verso III 4 = recto III x. ⁹⁰ Rowlandson (1996) 75 noted that ‘The practice of crop rotation and intensive farming methods may well have made the private land on which high rentals were charged considerably more productive than most public land’. See also Rathbone (2007) 704. ⁹¹ P.Mich. V 310 ( 26–7). ⁹² P.Mich. V 348. See also SB VI 9110 ( 26), in which Haruotes son of Haruotes leased 26 ar. of catoecic land to three men, and P.Mich. XII 633 ( 32/3), in which Kronion leased 13 ar., split into two parcels near Theogonis, to a man and his two sons for two years.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

177

A range of rents in both kind and cash are attested for private land leases in the period under consideration. Normally a rent in kind was required on wheat and other cereal crops and a rent in cash on fodder crops. However, some agreements reveal a more complex arrangement, whereby the lessee had to provide the lessor with a premium on top of the regular rent, for example a jar of wine, or one or two artabas of bread, which reflected the practice of gift exchange common in agricultural societies.⁹³ In general, the evidence for Roman Egypt shows that rentals in kind on private land were generally higher than those on public land; in the Oxyrhynchite nome, for example, an average of about 7 art. per aroura on wheat-sown land is attested.⁹⁴ The leases of mid-first-century Tebtunis display a relatively wide variety of rentals in kind, from a minimum of 4.8 to a maximum of 14 art. per aroura on land cultivated in wheat, at an average of about 9 and a median of 9.5 art. per aroura. Assuming that rents normally corresponded to 50 per cent of the yield, we would have for this period an average return of about 18 art. per aroura.⁹⁵ Higher rents in kind of up to 15 art. per aroura are attested in the second century for the estate of the wealthy metropolitan family of Patron, thus suggesting higher returns.⁹⁶ Land cultivated in barley normally produced lower returns, as reflected in their rents; one lease for this period records a rent of 1.2 art. per aroura, while another mentions a rent of 7 art. per aroura on a crop other than wheat. Rents on fodder crops were normally in cash, but occasionally no rent at all was required; the average cash rent attested in mid-first-century Tebtunis was about 8 dr. per aroura. The size of plots rented varied from a minimum of 2 ar. to a maximum of 40 ar., depending on the reasons and technicalities behind the agreement; normally smaller plots were leased out to individual farmers, and larger plots to groups of three or four men. Several taxes are attested in association with private land, including three which occur together in a lease of catoecic land: artabeia, the naubion, the kataphuteia.⁹⁷ Both the artabeia and the kataphuteia are obscure taxes, while the naubion is much better-attested for the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

⁹³ Rowlandson (1999) 144. ⁹⁴ Rowlandson (1996) 75. ⁹⁵ van Minnen (2000) 211. ⁹⁶ Rowlandson (1999) 152 noted that ‘such high rents suggest even higher yields [ . . . ], of about twentyfold if the tenant were to achieve any worthwhile return’. ⁹⁷ P.Mich. II 121 recto xiv. Artabeia: P.Mich. II 121 recto II i 3; ix 4; P.Mich. V 252. 6; 256. 6; 260. 16, 37; 262. 22, 267. 10, 273. 7. Naubion: P.Mich. II 121 recto II i 3; ix, 4; P.Mich. V 252, 256, 260, 262, 267, 272, 273.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

178

    

The latter was associated with the maintenance of canals on catoecic land, and two rates are assessed for the Arsinoite nome in the Roman period—100 copper dr. per aroura on catoecic land, and 150 copper dr. per aroura on released land (plus surcharges in both cases).⁹⁸ Associated with catoecic land was also the arithmetikon, which has been interpreted as a capitation tax due by the owners of catoecic land.⁹⁹

5.3.5 Leasing Strategies: An Overview Differences between leases of private and public land include duration, duties of lessors and lessees, and rent. First, leases of private land were made as long-term arrangements. Normally they lasted for four (or even five) years, as opposed to the one-year duration which was so common for sub-leases of public land. Second, lessees of private land normally had duties which were not required for the leasing of public land, that is payment of all public taxes.¹⁰⁰ However, they were not expected to supply the seed, as was the case for sub-lessees of public land.¹⁰¹ A third crucial aspect of diversity is the amount of rent, which is mainly a reflection of the practice of crop rotation on private land. While sub-leases of public land normally required a payment in cash, as the land was cultivated in fodder crops, leases of private land displayed a combination of rents in kind and cash. Only one contract of public land provides information about rents, but this is a long-term contract of 93 years which might have had particularly advantageous terms for the lessee. The required annual rent in kind is indeed only about 1.6 art. per aroura, lower than the common rate attested for early Roman Egypt of about 3 art. per aroura. Rents in kind on private land were very variable, but overall they appear to have been higher, at an average of about 9 art. per aroura, with higher peaks of 13 and 14 art. per aroura. Rents in cash for the leasing of pasture land, on the other hand, might have been generally lower than rents on public pasture, with rates of about 8 dr. per aroura. Rates for rents in cash on public pasture land could only be surmised from later evidence, which attests rates between 17 dr. 4 ob. and 24 dr. 2 ob. per aroura.

⁹⁸ ⁹⁹ ¹⁰⁰ ¹⁰¹

Wallace (1938) 59–61. P.Mich. II 121 recto I xiv 2; II i 3, ix, 4; PSI VIII 906. Wallace (1938) 176–80. See, for example, P.Mich. III 121 verso II 4 = recto I xiv and verso II 5 = recto II i. P.Mich. II 121 verso III 9 = recto IV ii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

179

Short-term sub-leases of public land were a flexible and popular arrangement among the people of Tebtunis because they gave anyone the freedom to rent a plot of land, at a convenient time and place, which was used for cultivation of fodder crops for the sub-lessee’s personal interest, usually livestock grazing, but also sale or personal consumption of green and dry fodder. These were very low-risk transactions because the sub-lessee usually paid the rent in cash in advance and no rent in kind was required, which could have been affected by a bad flood. Sub-leasing a plot of fodder land also meant a lower workload for the sub-lessees, who were free from the harvest work in the months of April and May and could dedicate themselves to other activities, including harvest work on other plots of land. Conversely, leases of private land defined a type of contractual relationship between the landowners and the tenants, which was based on a stronger foundation of stability and trust. It was a long-term arrangement which sealed a commitment on the part of the lessees to work the land, to keep it productive for a prolonged period of time, and to pay sometimes very high rent regularly, in both cash and kind, as well as public dues. On the other hand, lessees were guaranteed of disposing of what was probably a highly productive plot of land, which would have been profitable for personal consumption and perhaps also for the sale of surplus produce. It is very likely that leases of private land contributed to the establishment of longterm relationships between landlords and tenants, even though there is no evidence of exclusive economic relations. As can be seen in the early secondcentury, too, it was common practice among the people of Tebtunis to make leasing arrangements with several landowners at the same time, thus avoiding being tied to one single individual.¹⁰²

5.4 Landowners and Tenants The contractual activities of mid-first-century Tebtunis reveal a wide engagement in leases and other types of transactions associated with land among all strata of the population. The following three sections explore identity, overall socio-economic status, and management strategies of tenants of public land, private landowners, and tenants of imperial land respectively. It soon becomes clear that such separation between tenants

¹⁰² Rowlandson (1999) 155.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

180

    

and landowners is used simply for purposes of clarity, but does not reflect the actual reality of the social and agricultural relations in the village, as tenants were often landowners themselves. It also emerges that the socioeconomic status of both tenants and landowners varied considerably, depending on the amount of land they owned or managed, on their involvement in other economic activities, and on their overall financial assets (i.e. availability of cash).¹⁰³

5.4.1 Public Tenants and Other Farmers In Tebtunis, as in the whole Arsinoite nome, public land was cultivated mainly by public tenants, or demosioi georgoi, although a number of farmers attested in the papyri do not bear any title. Public pasture land (nomai), on the other hand, is attested to have been leased by almost all strata of the population, including wealthy landowners, common villagers, and professional cattle graziers, or probatoktenotrophoi. Public tenants were grouped in associations headed by a number of elders (presbuteroi) who were responsible for the management of the land and payment of the annual rent (phoros) to the state.¹⁰⁴ The elders were usually assisted by a secretary (grammateus), who was in charge of the keeping and writing of various documents.¹⁰⁵ Jane Rowlandson points out that while the documentation for demosioi georgoi is very abundant in the Arsinoite nome, where there was a large amount of public land, it is basically non-existent in those regions of the Nile Valley where the proportion of public land was lower, as in the Oxyrhynchite nome.¹⁰⁶ Overall, the presence of a large number of public farmers in the Arsinoite attests to the importance of these groups as communal institutions in the economy and society of the region, as it appears to have been the case at Tebtunis. The evidence for this period shows that it was common practice for associations to register their sets of rules at the grapheion, as was the case, ¹⁰³ Blouin (2014) 194 and 206 on the relations between landowners and tenants in the Mendesian nome, where the situation seems to have been similar to that in the Arsinoite nome. ¹⁰⁴ See, for example, P.Mich. V 344 (1st century ), in which Horos, president of the elders of the public tenants of Kerkesephis and other elders are attested as receiving a phoros on public land. ¹⁰⁵ The presence of a board of elders instead of a president at the head of this association might be justified by the large size of the group, which could have been better managed by a collective rather than a single individual; Langellotti (2016b) 117. ¹⁰⁶ Rowlandson (1996) 94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

181

for example, for the apolusimoi of the imperial estate of Claudius.¹⁰⁷ No regulations have survived for the public tenants, nor can we be sure that a body of rules concerning the social behaviour of this group existed at all. Since the responsibilities of both public tenants (to farm plots of public land) and elders (to manage the land) were already implied in their official titles, there would have been no need to include them in a set of rules; the regulations of the apolusimoi, for instance, do not mention any specific economic activity which was carried out by these farmers, as their official title already implied that they enjoyed some privileges. If the public tenants had their own association’s rules, they probably would have covered the following areas: power and duties of the elders, acting as an executive board; obligations and responsibilities of the members, which would have included at the very least payment of membership fees and attendance at monthly social gatherings; a more or less comprehensive set of provisions regulating social and ethical behaviour, including mutual financial support for a member in economic difficulties, and related fines; and formal validation of the rules by the majority of the members. It is also possible that the public tenants, like the apolusimoi, made some payment collectively, but there is no evidence for this. It is difficult to make general statements about the prevailing social and economic conditions of the public farmers. From the previous section on leases it has emerged that sub-lessors and sub-lessees of public land, often of the prodomatic type, were sometimes prosperous individuals who took advantage of the range of flexible arrangements offered by sub-leases. Overall, although their level of prosperity would have varied from case to case, they appear to have been resourceful enough to use the land they farmed as a way to pay taxes and also to make some extra cash. In the Arsinoite nome the elders of the public tenants are attested to have been quite well-to-do. Their convenient financial condition was enhanced by their privileged social position as village administrators. Although they cannot always be regarded as wealthy, the evidence shows that occasionally they owned houses and building land and often disposed of enough money to make loans.¹⁰⁸ A good example in early Roman Tebtunis is provided by a certain Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis. He is attested in two leases of public pasture land, dated to  37 and 42 respectively, as a member of a

¹⁰⁷ See general discussion on associations in Chapter 4.2.3. ¹⁰⁸ Rowlandson (2006) 188–9. See also Bowman (1991) 124.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

182

    

board of nine elders.¹⁰⁹ But Orsenouphis was also a private landowner.¹¹⁰ He owned a catoecic allotment near Tebtunis and, jointly with his brother Palleus (variant of Pallaus), a plot of 11 ar. of temple land and another plot of 12 ar. (of unstated juridical status) near the village of Kerkeosiris.¹¹¹ Although we do not have additional information about the life and activities of Orsenouphis, the very fact that he was in possession of a fairly good amount of private land, including a plot of the catoecic type, suggests that he was a relatively prosperous farmer. Although not everyone in the village would have enjoyed the same level of prosperity as Orsenouphis, virtually everyone was able to make flexible arrangements in order to look after one’s own finances, as has emerged from the analysis of the leases of public land. The same individual could be a small landowner as well as a lessee of public land and could engage in a number of contracts in different capacities. An example is given by one Orseus son of Phasos, who, between  25/6 and 45, appears in three land leases in two different roles. In  25/6 Orseus leased a plot of 5 ar. of catoecic land for one year, to be cultivated in wheat, at a rent of 5.7 art. per aroura.¹¹² From a contract of confirmation dated to  42 we learn that Orseus was a cattle grazier (probatoktenotrophos) and on this occasion had paid a rent in cash to the elders for the lease of some pasture land (chersonomai).¹¹³ Finally, in November 45 the same man is attested as lessor of a small plot of 1 ½ ar. of fodder land.¹¹⁴ The case of Orseus is illustrative of the resourcefulness of the people of Tebtunis, or at least of the freedom they were given to enter into a number of different transactions with different parties. As a professional cattle grazier, he took public pasture land on lease, as seen in the second contract, and engaged in all the activities associated with his role, including supervision of flocks and sub-leasing small plots to other tenants, as attested in the third contract. His income must have varied from year to year, and at times a supplement might have been needed; the lease of a plot of land for cultivation of wheat, which would have been sufficient to support a family a four for a year, seems to have done just that. Orseus leased private land, probably

¹⁰⁹ P.Mich. V 313 ( 37); II 123 verso III 18 = recto IV xii ( 42). In  37 he is said to be 58, while in  42 he is attested as being 55. Inaccuracy in stating ages was common in documents from Roman Egypt. ¹¹⁰ The possession of public as well as private land is also attested in the Oxyhrynchite nome; see Rowlandson (2006) 97. ¹¹¹ P.Mich. II 121 verso III 12 = recto IV v. ¹¹² P.Mich. XII 634. ¹¹³ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV xii = verso III 18. ¹¹⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 29–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

183

for its higher yield, and only for one year, so as to avoid committing to a longer agreement for which he did not have time. At times, a relationship of leasing and credit was likely to be established between the sub-lessors and sub-lessees of public land. An example is provided by three contracts which were drawn up between a certain Psuphis and one Galates in  42.¹¹⁵ On 30 April Psuphis, together with Marepsemis and Marepkemis leased out a certain number of arouras of public pasture land to Galates.¹¹⁶ Less than two months later, on 20 June, Psuphis leased another 11 ar. again to Galates; on the same day, Galates lent a sum of 240 dr. to Psuphis and some other unnamed individuals.¹¹⁷ The names (of priestly type) and the role of sub-lessees of public pasture land suggest that Psuphis, Marepsemis, and Marepkemis were priests who managed the nomai (or at least part of it) around the village. Galates, on the other hand, was a well-off individual, who disposed of large sums of ready cash and owned animals (sheep and goats, but perhaps also pigs and cows) that needed pasture land for grazing. Clearly between Psuphis and the other elders on the one hand and Galates on the other there was a solid business relationship, whereby the first acted as lessors and debtors, the second as lessee and creditor. Whether the second lease of land, in June, should be regarded as a pledge for the loan cannot be proved, but it is possible.

5.4.2 Private Landowners and Land Management The majority of the individuals who appear in the three  40s registers of titles as either owners, former owners, or buyers of catoecic land bear common Greek or Macedonian names (i.e. Apollonios, Diodoros, Herodes), confirming that the ownership of this type of land was still a prerogative of those of Hellenic descent. However, in mid-first-century Tebtunis catoecic land could also be found in the possession of members of the native population, as can be seen in particular in post-marriage settlements, typical Egyptian contracts displaying individuals with Egyptian names (e.g. Petsiris, Thaesis, and Thenamounis).¹¹⁸ Two examples are the well-off priest Psuphis ¹¹⁵ The nature of the contracts, two leases and one loan, which often form a coherent economic agreement, and the recurrence of the same names in the three documents suggest that we are dealing with the same individuals. ¹¹⁶ P.Mich. II 121 verso I 11= recto I i. ¹¹⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso V 3. ¹¹⁸ Alimentary contracts which include catoecic or other private land are P.Mich. II 121 verso II 6 = recto II ii, verso III 1 = recto III vii, verso III 6 = recto III xii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

184

    

also called Harprokration who owned 5 ar. of catoecic land (from the plot called of Noumenios) with his wife Tetosiris who owned 9 ar. of catoecic land near the village of Kerkeesis (21 in Table 5.2); and the elder Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis who held a plot of catoecic land near Tebtunis (12 in Table 5.2). Although little can be said about the owners of private land which are listed in the grapheion registers, a number of contemporary full contracts and abstracts allow us to learn more about a handful of them (listed in Table 5.2). Two families of landowners, in particular, are known to us from other contemporary documents: the family of Herakleides the Younger and that of Lusimachos son of Didumos, discussed in Chapter 4.2.2. In the mid40s the family of Herakleides the Younger had a property of 107 ar. of catoecic land scattered among several villages of the Polemon meris. As can be seen in Table 5.2, the bulk of this land appears to have been located in Kerkeesis (30 ar.), Kerkesoucha Orous (25 ar.), and Tebtunis (28 ar.). The family of Lusimachos son of Didumos originally owned a large amount of catoecic land in the division of Polemon, but sometime under the reign of the emperor Tiberius ( 14–37), three sons of Lusimachos (Galates, Didumos the elder, and Didumos the younger) mortgaged their joint property in order to borrow some money from two creditors, Kastor and Lusimachos—82 ar. of catoecic land in total, 37 ar. at Tebtunis, 25 ar. at Theogonis (previously belonging to Lucius Terentius), and 20 ar. at Kerkeesis. As they were not able to pay back their debt, their property passed on to their creditors in  35.¹¹⁹ The family of Lusimachos owned other land, but its size is unknown (Table 5.2). Although the properties of both families were undoubtedly of considerable size, they were not very large when compared to the estate of the wealthy family of Patron (also known as the Laches), estimated to have been around 500 ar. in the second century.¹²⁰ The evidence is too limited to draw general conclusions about the ways in which Herakleides’ and Lusimachos’ properties were managed, whether through tenancy or direct management. Most of the surviving documents are cessions of catoecic land and divisions of property, which tell us about the size and location of their landed properties, but almost nothing about management practices. Leases, on the other hand, are very few, while accounts have not survived.

¹¹⁹ P.Mich. V 232. ¹²⁰ P.Mil. Vogl. VII, pp. 19–27; see also Kehoe (1992) 74–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

185

Only three leases shed light on the leasing practices adopted by some of the members of Herakleides’ and Lusimachos’ families. In the first contract, dated on 10 August  26, one of the sons of Lusimachos, Didumos the younger, appears as lessee of a plot of 18 ar. of land to be cultivated in fodder for sheep grazing.¹²¹ This was in fact a sub-lease, probably of one year, whereby the sub-lessors were three men, Harmeis and Patunis, sons of Marepsemis, and Haruotes son of Sokeus, who had originally leased the land from another man, Herakles son of Herakles. The second contract, dated to  33/4, is made by Taorses, wife of one of Lusimachos’ sons, Galates, having as a guardian one of her brothers-in-law (Didumos the younger), as her husband had died.¹²² She leased to a certain Lusas son of Orsenouphis a total of 20 ar.—10 ar. of catoecic land, 10 ar. of police land—which belonged to her four sons. The land was leased for a term of three years and subject to a crop rotation of wheat and fodder; the lessor provided a seed allowance of one art. per aroura, as was common in this period, and the lessee committed to pay a total of 260 art. for the first and third year, at a rate of 13 art. per aroura, and an annual rent of 160 dr. for the second year, at a rate of 8 dr. per aroura. Finally, the third contract, dated on 21 May  42, features one of Herakleides’ sons, Herodes, as lessor of a total of about 10 ar. near Tebtunis—7 1/2 1/11 ar. of the catoecic type, 2 1/2 ar. of private unspecified land.¹²³ The lessee was a certain Onnophris son of Kollouthos, who leased the land for a term of four years, subject to a crop rotation of wheat and fodder. Herodes provided Onnophris with a seed allowance of one art. of wheat per aroura and Onnophris was required to pay a total of 110 art. of wheat for the first and third years, at a rate of 10 art. per aroura, and an annual rent of 72 dr. for the second and fourth years, at a rate of 7.2 dr. per aroura (without seed). These three contracts reveal two ways in which tenancy worked for private landowners: they took additional land in lease for short periods of time for particular purposes, such as animal grazing, when necessary (although it is unlikely that they looked after practical matters themselves); but normally they leased their plots of land to different tenants on a more long-term basis, through contracts of three to four years, during which time the lessees were committed to keeping the land fertile and the lessors enjoyed a high rent in kind. The fact that plots were scattered in several ¹²¹ P.Mich. XII 632. ¹²² SB XX 14315. ¹²³ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV ii = verso III 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

186

    

villages suggest that tenancy was a most convenient option for big landlords, who could in this way make sure that each plot was cultivated properly and kept in good order. Because the grapheion registers do not inform us about the number of leases of catoecic and other private land in the area around Tebtunis, and due to the lack of leases concerning specific estates, it is not possible to determine how far leasing was the landowners’ preferred method of land management, or when and how often they farmed their plots themselves, perhaps employing additional help. However, both contemporary and later evidence suggests that big private landowners used tenancy as a way to manage their plots and alleviate their financial responsibility, while trying to achieve the highest possible return. Second-century evidence, including the archives of Kronion son of Cheos and of the descendants of Patron, confirms that tenancy played a central role in the management of private land around Tebtunis, as was the case for Roman Egypt more generally.¹²⁴ The most common scenario involves small farmers, like the family of Kronion, taking on several plots of private land on lease from big metropolitan landowners, like the family of Patron. Although in the mid-first century many wealthy individuals in possession of large plots of land were permanent residents of the village, tenancy still constituted for them the best-attested managing practice for the landlords, while it was a flexible arrangement for the small farmers. As argued by Dennis Kehoe in his analysis of estates in early Roman Egypt, tenancy enabled private landowners to keep productivity high (thus achieving a good harvest) and to share the financial burden of cultivating the land with their tenants.¹²⁵ Farmers, on the other hand, were able to take on several plots of private land from different landlords, as well as plots of public land from the elders, so as to suit their needs each year, and in the case of partnerships, they were free to co-opt an additional tenant who would contribute labour and financial resources.

5.4.3 Imperial Farmers Next to the farmers of public and private land, in mid-first-century Tebtunis we also find imperial farmers, namely tenants of the estates of the emperor ¹²⁴ Foraboschi (1971); W.S. Bagnall (1973); Kehoe (1992) 74–92. ¹²⁵ Kehoe (1992) 58–167.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

187

Claudius and those of the estate of Germanicus, identified by Boak with the son of Drusus and brother of Claudius.¹²⁶ Both groups were organized in associations, each headed by a president (called epimeletes for the farmers of Claudius, hegoumenos for the farmers of Germanicus).¹²⁷ About the farmers of Germanicus only a contract title dated to  46 survives, a payment of 2 dr. made through the president of the association, a certain Herodion.¹²⁸ We are particularly well-informed, on the other hand, about the farmers of Claudius, for which a complete set of rules, dated to  43, has survived.¹²⁹ Their official name was apolusimoi (exempt) of the ousia of Claudius, in reference to their special status of exemption from certain liturgies, as was common among farmers of imperial estates in this period.¹³⁰ They formed a group of at least 24 members, including the president; from their names it appears that they all belonged to the Egyptian strata of the population, and many were likely to have been connected with the priestly rank (i.e. Kronion, Psenkebkis, Pakebkis).¹³¹ Their set of rules includes a number of provisions concerning the payment of fees, mutual assistance (in the event a member is held for debt up to 100 dr.), attendance at funerals in the event of death of a member (or of a member’s relative), and attendance at a monthly banquet on the eighth of each month in honour of the emperor’s birthday. The main feature of this association is the fact that members paid the poll-tax collectively to their president, who was in charge of the collection and hence of the handing over of the overall amount to the designated officials. Collective payment of the poll-tax appears to have been a common practice among tenants of ousiai, as attested by the case of the apolusimoi of Philadelphia.¹³² Paying the poll-tax to the president meant that individual members did not have to deal personally with tax-collectors, which might have been a source of relief for some; this, combined with exemption from some liturgies, must have made the status of imperial tenants particularly attractive. It is worth noting that apolusimoi associated with ousiai are attested only in the Arsinoite nome, where there was the highest number of imperial estates, and disappear from our evidence after the Julio-Claudian period, when imperial land became public.¹³³ The set of regulations of the apolusimoi of the estate

¹²⁶ P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 30 n. ¹²⁷ P.Mich. V 244, 4; II 123 recto XVII 30. ¹²⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 30. ¹²⁹ P.Mich. V 244; see, in particular, Langellotti (2016b) and Venticinque (2016) 39–43. See also Chapter 4.2.3. ¹³⁰ See, for example, for the same period the apolusimoi of Philadelphia; P.Gen. II 91,  50–51 and Hanson (1984). ¹³¹ P.Mich. V 244, 21–46. ¹³² See n. 113. ¹³³ Parassoglou (1978) 61–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

188

    

of Claudius does not include any provision concerning particular economic activities, but their very title suggests that they were involved in all the typical activities of a large estate, such as farming and pastoralism. Some apolusimoi are attested in the register of titles dated to  45/6, acting together with the professional cattle graziers; it is unclear whether they are to be identified with the tenants of the estate of Claudius, but there is little doubt that they were imperial farmers.¹³⁴ In the first instance the two groups recorded affidavits, whose object is unknown, and a list of persons; in the second instance they submitted an affidavit concerning the maintenance of some canals. Occasional co-operation between two associations like that of the imperial tenants and that of the cattle graziers is to be expected since both had interests in the cultivation and irrigation of the land and the finding of pasture land, interests which often must have intersected. We know very little about individual imperial farmers or about the middlemen, or lessees of imperial land (misthotai). One member of the apolusimoi of the estate of Claudius, Sisois son of Eutuchos, is said to have been a builder (oikodomos), but no information is provided about his socioeconomic status.¹³⁵ Like the public tenants and in general most of the people of Tebtunis, the financial situation of the apolusimoi must have varied, with men belonging to the low and middle strata of the population. Middlemen, on the other hand, were normally well-off individuals, whose income derived from their high management position over a wide range of activities.¹³⁶ In the grapheion archive one middleman might be identified, one Nikomedes son of Phanias, who is attested leasing out a small plot from the estate of Claudius to another man; no further information, however, is provided.¹³⁷

5.5 Viticulture and Wine Production In the Arsinoite nome the type of soil, sandy and dry, favoured the cultivation of vines, as well as olive trees.¹³⁸ Some of the land around Tebtunis was cultivated in vines, but the importance of viticulture in this village and ¹³⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto III 40; VIII 26. ¹³⁵ P.Mich. V 244, 35. ¹³⁶ Rowlandson (1996) 81 notes that ‘the misthotai of ousiac land were wealthy head lessees, not peasants’. ¹³⁷ P.Mich. II 121 recto III 10; on Nikomedes see also 5.3.3. ¹³⁸ Ricci (1924) 13; Blouin (2014) 184–5 and 192.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

189

surrounding areas seems to have been limited. In the Ptolemaic period viticulture and wine production became a prerogative of the wealthy Greek landowners, who contributed to the growth of these economic activities in terms of production as well as export.¹³⁹ On the basis of the evidence provided by an account dated to the second century , Willy Clarysse and Katelijn Vandorpe worked out that in the Arsinoite nome more than half of the vines were grown by the Greek settlers.¹⁴⁰ In the Roman period the situation does not seem to have changed and ownership of vineyards is still found predominantly in association with wealthy landowners of Greek descent, as attested in Tebtunis in the first two centuries . From the grapheion archive (Table 5.6) it emerges that the majority of the owners bore common Greek and Macedonian names, and their Hellenic origin is at times very clear.¹⁴¹ Examples include Herakleides the Younger and one Truphon, son of Ptolemaios, gymnasiarch, a role commonly held by members of the wealthy Hellenic elite in the metropolis, owner of a vineyard in the village of Lower Phnebie.¹⁴² In the second century viticulture was associated with the property of the wealthy metropolitan family of Patron. The actual number of contracts mentioning vineyards in the  40s registers of titles is very meagre (0.4 per cent in  42, 0.7 per cent in 45/6, and 1.6 per cent in  46/7), for a total of eight leases and two sales.¹⁴³ Although it is possible that in some entries the reference to vineyards was simply omitted, the general impression is that participation in the contractual economy associated with viticulture was limited. The surviving evidence for the mid-first century reveals the existence of over 20 vineyards in this area, primarily in Theogonis and Ibion Eikosipentarouron, all ranging between 1/2 to 3 7/8 ar., which is consistent with the average size of the vineyards documented for the Arsinoite district

¹³⁹ Clarysse and Vandorpe (1997) 72; Manning (2007) 440. ¹⁴⁰ Clarysse and Vandorpe (1997) 72–3; Rowlandson (1999) 149. ¹⁴¹ For an analysis of the owners of vineyards in Roman Egypt see Ruffing (1999) 263–335, esp. 333–5, where Tables 22–5 show that while in the first two centuries of Roman rule the majority of owners were villagers, in the third century  the situation starts to be reversed, with an increase in the number of Alexandrians and metropolites and a decrease in the number of villagers among the owners. ¹⁴² On Herakleides the Younger see also Chapter 4.2.2. ¹⁴³ Leases: P.Mich. II 123 recto II 49 (20 September 45), V 3 (10 October 45), VI 11 (28 October 45), XII 31 (24 February 46), XVIII 33 (7 July 46); P.Mich. V 238 III 125 (6 October 46), III 131 (7 October 46), III 140 (23 October 46). Sales: P.Mich. II 121 verso I 4 (28 April 42); V 238 III 138–9 (22 October 46). Ruffing (2008) 170–26.

Table 5.6 Vineyards around Tebtunis Location

Owner

Date

Reference

Unknown 2 2 Unknown Unknown 1/2 Unknown Unknown 2 7/24 Unknown 2 (dry vine land) Unknown

Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Tebtunis Lower Phnebie Lower Phnebie

 42  45  45  45  46  46  46  46  46  46  31  31

P.Mich. II 121 verso I 4 P.Mich. II 123 recto II 49 P.Mich. II 123 recto V 3 P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 11 P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 31 P.Mich. II 123 recto XVIII 33 P.Mich. V 238 III 125 P.Mich. V 238 III 131 P.Mich. V 238 III 138–9 P.Mich. V 238 III 140 SB VI 9109 SB VI 9109

1 1/2

Theogonis

 32–4

P.Mich. V 258

1 1/2

Ibion Eikosipentarouron

Kronion (sold to Theanis) Unknown Kronion Galates Leontas Heron Sadalas Herodion Galates (sold to Didume) Lusimachos Kronion (ceded to his brother Sokrates) Truphon, s. of Ptolemaios, the gymnasiarch Apollonios s. of Maron (ceded to Papnebtunis s. of Ameneus) Lusimachos s. of Lusimachos (conveyed to his sister Hero)

 38

P.Mich. V 266

2

Theogonis (Pekkyo)

 38–9

PSI VIII 918

Unknown Unknown 1/2

Theogonis Theogonis Ibion Eikosipentarouron

 38–9  38–9  46–8

PSI VIII 918 PSI VIII 918 P.Mich. V 274–5

Unknown

Ibion Eikosipentarouron Ibion Eikosipentarouron Theogonis Theogonis

Maron s. of Herakleides and mother Heraklea Didumos s. of Maron Sons of Demetrios s. of Apollonides Heron s. of Akousilaos, his wife, his sister and his mother (sold to Horion s. of Didumos) Didumion

 46–8

P.Mich. V 274–5

Kronion

 46–8

P.Mich. V 274–5

Herakleides the Younger Ptolema

 48  48

P.Mich. V 326 P.Mich. V 326

Unknown 3 7/8 2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Size (ar.)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

191

(Table 5.6).¹⁴⁴ Viticulture, on the other hand, appears to have been more widely practiced in the northern part of the Arsinoite, especially around Theadelphia, Karanis, and Philadelphia.¹⁴⁵ We have no information about the terms and conditions of the contracts included in the three grapheion registers of titles, but the fact that most of the transactions were leases seems to confirm the view, held for the Roman period in general, that leasing was the owners’ preferred method of managing their land.¹⁴⁶ As in the case of leases of private agricultural land, the owners were mainly concerned with maximizing the annual yield, which they could achieve by demanding the planting of new vines every year.¹⁴⁷ As owners of vineyards were normally wealthy individuals, they were often in possession of a considerable amount of land, scattered in several plots around Tebtunis. Under these circumstances tenancy was the best way to make sure that all their plots were properly managed. Several contemporary full contracts shed light on the physical features of some vineyards. For one in Theogonis, called Pekkyo, which Herakleides the Younger purchased in  38, we have a good description: ‘planted with vine for wine-growing’, it included a wine press, a well walled with stone, and a drying place.¹⁴⁸ Another vineyard in Ibion Eikosipentarouron is said to have included a storeroom, a walled well, and a windlass.¹⁴⁹ In general, the vineyards at Theogonis, Lower Phnebie, and Ibion appear to have been irrigated through the Polemon canal.¹⁵⁰ The vineyards in Ibion Eikosipentarouron had ‘vines trained on trees’ (anadendratikos).¹⁵¹ Reeds (kalamoi) were used to bind vines in trellises, as was common in Egypt.¹⁵² They came

¹⁴⁴ Ruffing (1999) 253 (Tab.11) and 255 (Tab. 14); Kehoe (1992) 70. A vineyard is also attested in Kerkeosiris, where no evidence for viticulture is available for the Ptolemaic period, suggesting that cultivation of vines might have been introduced by the Romans. In December  45 a certain Menias submitted a bid for the lease of a vineyard in Kerkeosiris, for a rental, probably annual, of 40 dr. (P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 35). Also Crawford (1971) 116. ¹⁴⁵ Rowlandson (1999) 149, with n. 44. For a geographical distribution of vineyards in Roman Egypt see Ruffing (1999) 20–48 (Liste 1). On the importance of viticulture in Theadelphia see Sharp (1999), mainly for the second century; Rathbone (1991) 188–95, 244–60, for the third century; van Minnen (2000) for the Roman period in general. ¹⁴⁶ Kehoe (1992) 42; van Minnen (2000) 215. ¹⁴⁷ Kehoe (1992) 42. ¹⁴⁸ PSI VIII 918. The name of the vineyard is probably a misreading; see now Rowlandson (2016). ¹⁴⁹ P.Mich. V 274–5. ¹⁵⁰ See, for example, P.Mich. V 258, 274–5, SB VI 9109 and PSI VIII 918. Irrigation of vineyards was carried out twice a month in the winter and three times a month in the summer; see Ricci (1924) 45. ¹⁵¹ P.Mich. V 266 and 274–75. Also Ruffing (2004) 72–4. ¹⁵² Ruffing (1999) 54–70; see Rathbone (1991) 248 and Ricci (1924) 32–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

192

    

from reed-beds, which were normally leased out to either vineyards’ owners or to those who worked the land.¹⁵³ From a taxation point of view, some vine land is said to have belonged to the class paying the tax of one sixth.¹⁵⁴ The reference is to the apomoira, which was originally a tax on the produce of vineyards and garden land, assessed normally at 1/6 of the total yield.¹⁵⁵ The general consensus holds that in the Roman period this tax was assessed at a fixed rate per aroura, despite the occasional reference to a share of the produce.¹⁵⁶ The apomoira is explicitly mentioned only once in the grapheion archive, in a sale of a date-palm garden (phoinikoparadeisos).¹⁵⁷ We have no information about the extent and organization of wine production in the territory around Tebtunis. Given the scattered location of the vineyards, we must envision a production on small units; there is no sign of a large and centralized wine production and distribution network, similar to what we find on the third-century Appianus estate, but if the same landlord owned vineyards in different locations, it is likely that their activities were coordinated in some way.¹⁵⁸ Although it is not possible to calculate the volume of wine produced on the Tebtunis units, we know that consumption of wine was very common in this village, as is clear from the two accounts of the notary Kronion.¹⁵⁹ He purchased wine for personal consumption, for a total of 42 dr. over a period of three months from September to December 45, as well as for work purposes, namely for dinners with individuals who visited the record-office on business, for a total of 125 dr. from September 45 to December 46.¹⁶⁰ Wine was sold in local workshops, probably located along the processional way. In general the areas around the ¹⁵³ In the year  45/6 three leases of reed-beds were recorded, between September and January: P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 3 (29 September 45); V 14–15 (13 October 45); X 29 (15 January 46). An agreement for 120 dr. and 175 bundles of reeds was registered on 26 February 46 (P.Mich. II 123 recto XII 39), but no details are provided. A full contract for the lease of a reedbed on waste land at Ibion Eikosipentarouron is also preserved, dated to  26/7 (P.Mich. V 310). In the year  45/6 three leases of reed-beds were recorded, between September and January. ¹⁵⁴ P.Mich. V 272 ( 45–6); P.Mich. V 274–75, 4 ( 46–7); P.Mich. V 326, 6, 7, 21 ( 48). ¹⁵⁵ At rate of 1/10 is also attested, which seems to have been reserved to the Greek settlers; Clarysse and Vandorpe (1997) 76. See Wallace (1938) 53–6. For taxes on vineyards in Roman Egypt see Ruffing (1999) 336–50, apomoira 340–4. ¹⁵⁶ Wallace (1938) 54. ¹⁵⁷ P.Mich. V 272 ( 45–6). In this document the seller, a certain Herakles son of Panouris, assured that the plot of land was guaranteed from all public debts, assessments (epigraphai), apomoira, the eparourion, the geometria, and the naubion tax. ¹⁵⁸ For the third century see Rathbone (1991) 247–60; 278–06; for the sixth century see Hickey (2012). ¹⁵⁹ P.Mich. II 127; 123 recto I and verso. ¹⁶⁰ See discussion in Chapter 6.3; also Rathbone (2013) 127–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

193

temple appear to have been central to the sale of wine.¹⁶¹ Prices were variable, fluctuating between 8 ob. to 7 dr. per jar, reflecting the operation of a free local and regional market.¹⁶²

5.6 Pastoralism Pastoralism, mainly of sheep and goats, was widely practised in the territory around Tebtunis, as attested by a number of documents, including land leases, written bids, and sales.¹⁶³ The evidence provided by the grapheion archive suggests that a large amount of pasture land was virtually available around the village—permanent public pasture land (nomai) as well as private land which was subject to crop rotation and hence every other year was reserved for grazing of sheep and goats (or simply cultivation of fodder crops). In numerous leases recorded in the three  40s registers of titles the land is explicitly said to have been reserved for sheep grazing, or cultivated in fodder. On the other hand, no lease of sheep and goats is attested, while sales are only attested twice—in one case only are we informed about the size of the flock, namely 45 sheep, 4 lambs, 1 goat.¹⁶⁴ From the evidence from Roman Egypt as a whole it emerges that the majority of owners of sheep and goats preferred to manage their flocks personally or leased them out to a second party and only rarely sold them.¹⁶⁵ The complete absence of animal leases in the grapheion registers thus seems to suggest that in most cases the people of Tebtunis looked after their flocks themselves instead of leasing them to other people. Private owners could also hire a shepherd, if needed, and this probably occurred relatively often, but since this type of agreement

¹⁶¹ Rathbone (2013) 139. ¹⁶² P.Mich. II 123 recto I(a) 5, 9, 14, 19–20; I(b), 20, 21; I(c) 4–5; I(d) 4, 12–13, 20; II 7; III 16, 23; VI 13; VII 28, 29, 32, 34, 36; VIII 10–13, 28, 36, 37. P.Mich. II 127 I 5, 19, 21, 26, 27, 30, 42; II 8, 14, 42, 50–1; III 4. ¹⁶³ One of the contracts registered in  45 includes a phoros on cattle (phoros boon); P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 17. On 15 November 45 a certain Modestos leased out a phoros boon of 240 dr. to one Petesouchos. Although no other detail is provided, it seems safe to assume that Modestos, who bears a Roman name, was a state official responsible for the contracting of tax farming. Petesouchos, on the other hand, was the current collector of the phoros on cattle in the village. The nature of this tax is uncertain and it has been suggested that it was paid by the priests for the use of public cattle; see Wallace (1938) 80. On animal husbandry in the Mendesian nome see Blouin (2014) 185–88. ¹⁶⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto II 9 = 125, 19; IX 42–3. ¹⁶⁵ Langellotti (2012) 102 grafico 7 and 123.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

194

    

did not require a formal contract we have no evidence of such practice in the grapheion documents. The extant evidence does not allows us to determine the average size of the flocks or how far ownership of sheep and goats was widespread among the people of Tebtunis; indeed from this village we have no first-century annual declarations of livestock (apographai probaton) which would provide data on the following: identity of the owners (name and origin), size and composition of the flock, location of pasture (normally the village and the whole nome), and potentially the name of the shepherd.¹⁶⁶ However, contemporary evidence from other Arsinoite villages reveals that the majority of flocks (73 per cent) were of small and medium size (1–60) and in the private ownership of villagers.¹⁶⁷ That pastoralism played a prominent role in the society of Roman Tebtunis is also suggested by the presence of two associations connected with this activity: the shepherds (poimenes), who registered a set of rules at the grapheion, and the professional cattle graziers (probatoktenotrophoi).¹⁶⁸ We have no information about the size of these groups or their activities, but, on their basis of their titles, we may assume that while the cattle graziers were responsible for the management and supervision of public flocks, the shepherds looked after flocks in private possession.¹⁶⁹ Since part of the duty of the cattle graziers was to find pasture land for grazing purposes, this often resulted in collaboration with the farmers. As mentioned in Section 5.4.3, cattle graziers are attested to have acted jointly with the apolusimoi in two affidavits registered in  45, and in one instance the object of the agreement is explicitly mentioned as upkeep of the canals. Cattle graziers, who are attested only in the Arsinoite nome, seem to disappear from the evidence towards the end of the second century , probably in conjunction with the disappearance of public estates and the formation of large private estates in the third century.¹⁷⁰ Pastoralism was mainly associated with production of wool; however, sheep and goats were also a good source of milk, cheese, and meat.¹⁷¹ The owner of a small flock of sheep and goats (where the number of goats was ¹⁶⁶ Avogadro (1935); Keenan (1989); Balconi (1990); Langellotti (2012). ¹⁶⁷ Langellotti (2012) 123. ¹⁶⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XVI 12 (shepherds); III 40, VIII 26 (cattle graziers). ¹⁶⁹ The only data available about the size of a group of cattle graziers comes from a second-century declaration from Euhemeria, in which mentions a minimum of 51 members and six elders; SB XXIV 16313. ¹⁷⁰ On private estates Rathbone (1991); on cattle graziers Langellotti (2012) 92–4. ¹⁷¹ Thompson (2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

  

195

normally very low), between 10 and 20 animals, was probably able to use wool from his sheep to make clothes for the whole family and sell the rest to wool-sellers, unless he was a wool-seller himself, in which case he had to acquire a licence and pay the relevant fee in order to sell the product in the region, since the sale of wool was regulated as a state concession.¹⁷²

5.7 Conclusions The registers of contract titles of  40s attest for early Roman Tebtunis a relatively active agricultural economy. Farming played a central role in the life and economy of the villagers, who were generally lessees of plots of public land, but who were also at times small landowners themselves. The socio-economic status of the farmers has proved difficult to assess in the absence of more revealing data; however, a few elements suggest that their general level of well-being was not at subsistence level. This is shown primarily by their frequent involvement in the contractual economy of the village, which was deeply monetized. The contract type in which they appear more often is the land lease, in particular of the prodomatic type. The use of this particular legal instrument, whereby the rent was to be paid in advance, constituted a convenient arrangement which could be adapted to suit the needs of both lessors and lessees. The registers also attest the existence of a wide net of credit-lease relations between lessors and creditors which helped to create and foster networks of trust. Overall, the people who were involved in land transactions belonged to a wide social spectrum, which suggests the presence of an active economy and resourcefulness of farmers.¹⁷³ Some of them enjoyed particular privileges, like the apolusimoi of the estate of Claudius, imperial tenants who were exempt from liturgies; some others owned small plots of private land and were involved in other economic activities, such as weaving and pastoralism. A relatively small proportion of the native male population was part of formalized associations (5.5–13.2 per cent) including farmers and shepherds. Due to the central role played by agriculture in Tebtunis, it is not surprising that contracts between villagers, as they emerge from the ¹⁷² For a discussion of textile production and wool sale see Chapter 6.2.1. ¹⁷³ Rowlandson (1999) 141 also notes that the use of written documents for such short term agricultural arrangements is ‘striking illustration of the widespread use of writing in Roman Egypt, in private business affairs as well as public administration, even by people who were not comfortably literate.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

196

    

record-office archive, were mainly of the agricultural type. These are to be identified on the one hand between the elders of the public farmers and the villagers, and on the other, between the elders and people of Greek descent who leased public pasture land. In general, farmers appear to have been rather resourceful; in the event of a crisis, for example, they were ready to resort to pastoralism as a way of making some profit, as seems to have happened in  45–6. No decrease in the number of people making contracts can be detected then, that is in the year in which the excessively high Nile flood has been pinpointed, showing that immediately after the event the people of Tebtunis did not flee the village as a result.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

6 The Non-Agricultural Economy 6.1 Introduction Chapter 5 has shown that agricultural activities, including pastoralism, played a central role in the economy and society of early Roman Tebtunis. Tebtunis, however, was not simply a rural centre. As mentioned in several discussions throughout this book, a number of non-agricultural activities are attested to have been practised in the village in the mid-first century , reflecting the broader scenario known for the Egyptian countryside. Recent studies have confirmed for Roman Egypt the presence of a wide and active network of trades and various crafts which functioned at local and central levels.¹ The local dimension of the non-agricultural economy was represented mainly by village markets, workshops, and small retail enterprises, while the central dimension included a wider and more varied network of regional markets and long-distance trade. Inevitably the two dimensions maintained a certain level of integration and connectedness, especially in regard to particular sectors, such as food and textile production. In particular, the so-called professional, or occupational, associations were instrumental in establishing and enhancing social and economic relationships between their local communities and the larger centres in the region, as attested by the case of Tebtunis.² Three factors, in particular, appear to have facilitated the development of a more widespread and flourishing non-agricultural economy in this province: first, improved transport links; second, promotion of trade activity by the Romans; and third, increased monetization.³ While the contribution of integrated communication systems (river and land) to the market economy is relatively easy to gauge, the extent to which the Roman state encouraged the expansion of trades and crafts is more difficult to assess, especially as it might have varied from one sector to another. In general, Rome’s main concern was that of ensuring a regular

¹ Alston (1998); Gibbs (2008); Gibbs (2011); Hawkins (2016); Venticinque (2016). ² Hawkins (2016) 112 on the role of associations in coordinating production. ³ Gibbs (2011). On land transport in Roman Egypt see Adams (2007). Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

198

    

taxable income from all the economic activities which were practised in the province. This resulted in the establishment of a system of trade taxes, tax duties, and licence fees, which supposedly replaced many of the royal monopolies in place under the Ptolemies.⁴ On the one hand, the new Roman system would have increased competition among those individuals who applied for a specific state concession; on the other hand, it would have encouraged the involvement of a higher number of people in various trades and crafts. Finally, an intense circulation of cash is well attested in the Egyptian countryside in the early Roman period, as can be seen in the transactions registered at the record-office of Tebtunis in the mid-first century  as well as in the administrative running of the office itself.⁵ This chapter investigates the role and importance of the non-agricultural activities as attested in the Tebtunis mid-first-century grapheion archive, from crafts and trades to administrative and service roles, in order to assess the economic value of the non-agricultural economy in the village and its contribution to the general level of economic well-being among the villagers; to establish how far and in which areas the village’s nonagricultural economy was developed and integrated into a wider regional network; and to shed light on the ways in which the Roman government regulated the functioning of trades and crafts through state concessions.

6.2 Trades and Occupations The nature of the evidence of the record-office archive, which often lacks quantifiable data, does not allow us to calculate the exact scale of the nonagricultural economy in early Roman Tebtunis or to estimate the number of people involved in related activities.⁶ However, that the non-agricultural economy played a fundamental role in the local community is demonstrated by the presence of a wide variety of crafts and, to a lesser extent, trades in the village, many of which (at least 13) were organized as professional associations.⁷ ⁴ Rathbone (2007) 717; Wallace (1938) 181–83 noted that ‘some Ptolemaic monopolies are retained in the Roman period due to expediency.’ It is worth noting that the term ‛monopoly’ is inaccurate, and the nature and organization of state control over particular economic activities in the Ptolemaic period are still unclear. Also Johnson (1936) 325–35; Préaux (1939) 429–32; Reiter (2004) 172–80. ⁵ Bowman (1996) 116; Christiansen (2004) 138; Rowlandson (2001). ⁶ For problems in assessing percentages of traders see Alston (2002) 334–6. ⁷ See discussion in Chapter 4.2.3. On the definition of professional as opposed to religious associations see Gibbs (2011), Verboven (2011) and Paganini (forthcoming, b). Also Langellotti (2016b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

199

The majority dealt with a particular aspect of textile production—that is, dyers, cloth-beaters, cloth makers, fullers, weavers; other non-agricultural occupations include builders, brewers, coppersmiths, goldsmiths, oil-producers, saltmerchants, and wool-sellers (Table 4.2). As already mentioned in Chapter 4, we have very limited information about the size and actual nature of individual groups, but assuming that each association was made up of 20 to 30 members, the total number of members of the 13 associations would amount to 260 to 390, that is between 3.2–5.2 per cent to 4.8–7.8 per cent of a total village population of 5,000–8,000.⁸ This is only a rough estimate; as membership was not mutually exclusive, it was possible for the people of Tebtunis to be part of multiple associations at once. Besides, membership was not compulsory, which means that not all craftsmen and tradesmen belonged necessarily to a relevant association. Since the occupational pattern in Roman Egypt was not as fixed as we conceive of it today, we must envisage a scenario whereby the same individuals were involved in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities.⁹ Even specialized workers, such as the salt-merchants or the coppersmiths, who worked primarily in their sectors, are likely to have owned (or to have in lease) a plot of land or a small flock of sheep and goats for personal sustenance. The bulk of the activities in which these groups were engaged, including weaving, fulling, sale of salt and gypsum, brick making, fishing, oil production, and dyeing, appear to have been organized as state concessions, meaning that members had to obtain from the state and pay for a licence (phoros) for a particular enterprise. Written bids (anaphoria) could be submitted to the relevant authorities either by the entire group (e.g. fishermen) or by a single individual, who was normally the president (or secretary) of the association.¹⁰ The relatively high number of economic activities operated as state concessions in Tebtunis is significant, for at least two reasons. First of all, it means that such activities produced enough revenue so as to be deemed liable to taxation. These were not simply (or exclusively) private or domestic enterprises, but activities which were carried out professionally (and possibly full-time, at least during certain periods of the year) at a level that guaranteed the generation of sufficient income for both the workers and

⁸ In Langellotti (2016b) 119 I calculated the percentage of villagers belonging to associations based on a total population of 3,500. Also Monson (2007) 181. ⁹ On the occupational structure in New Kingdom Deir el Medina see Lesko (1994) 11–12. ¹⁰ For an analysis of the meaning of anaphoria as ‘bids’ see Langellotti (2016b) 129–34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

200

    

the state. Those involved in these sectors made a commitment to their work; by holding a state concession (which, as seen earlier, often coincided with being a member of an association), they gained social visibility within their own community as well as within the Roman administration. Second, governmental control, or at least supervision, extended to a relatively wide range of economic sectors, from fishing and the sale of salt to the textile industry and brickmaking, creating a closer link between local authorities and village representatives on the one hand, and the central government on the other. The fact that a significant number of occupations and activities required a licence in order to be undertaken no doubt encouraged competition among the various applicants, impacting the social and economic conditions of many who now strove to improve their financial status. As the sections below aim to show, the organization of production varied from sector to sector depending on domestic need and public demand, the number of people involved, and the resources available. Such activities mainly took place in local workshops as well as in private houses; it is possible that a system of centralized production was arranged on imperial estates and on the properties of the big landowners, whereby workshops were leased out to various private individuals, but there is no clear evidence for early Roman Tebtunis.¹¹ This was probably due to the absence of large private estates, which in Egypt only developed towards the third century.¹² Another feature to be noted in the non-agricultural economy of Tebtunis is the specialization of labour in textile production and, to a lesser extent, in metalworking, which is commonly attested in Roman Egypt. Kai Ruffing interpreted the high level of specialization of crafts and trades in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire as a sign of a dynamic and flourishing economy based on markets.¹³ In fact, the actual economic significance of job specialization is not straightforward and, as Rathbone noted, the existence of a wide variety of job titles does not necessarily reflect a developed net of integrated markets.¹⁴ Some occupations were certainly not full-time, and many probably did not involve high profits and economic mobility. An example is provided by the weaver Petheus, from the village of Kerkesoucha Orous, near Tebtunis, who was the president of the association of weavers in the same year ( 42) in which he leased a granary together with his wife,

¹¹ Kehoe (2007) 561, 565. ¹² An example is the estate of Valerius Titanianus; Rathbone (1991) esp. 13–15, 26–7. ¹³ Ruffing (2008) 363–84. ¹⁴ Rathbone (2010).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

201

confirming that he was engaged in more than one economic activity.¹⁵ During this time not only would he have been involved in textile production, but also in the administrative duties required of his role of president, namely calling and chairing meetings, arranging purchases of drinks for banquets, and in general making sure that fellow-members abided by the rules of the association. At the same time, he would have had the responsibility of managing a granary and probably also farmed a plot of land, either as a tenant or as a private landowner. How did Petheus juggle all these tasks at once? Depending on the amount of daily work, this would have varied; none of his occupations would have required him to work every day of the year full-time. As a mainly domestic enterprise, weaving offered by definition a high degree of flexibility, whether he worked at home or in a workshop. Besides, Petheus could probably count on his wife’s help (and perhaps of other members of the family too). This flexibility would have allowed him enough time to deal with his administrative duties as president of an association, his work as a weaver, and as a lessor of a granary.

6.2.1 Textile Production and Sale The wide array of occupations associated with the manufacture and distribution of textiles attests to the importance and high level of diffusion of this industry in the ancient world.¹⁶ For the eastern provinces of the Roman empire Ruffing noted that textile-related jobs were by far the most attested; textiles, on the other hand, did not constitute a favourite object of trade, confirming the view that, at least in the first two centuries of Roman rule, textile manufacturing was a domestic enterprise.¹⁷ In this respect Egypt was not an exception. In the early Roman period, in villages as well as in the large district capitals, textile manufacturing had a fundamentally domestic character, which revolved around the family, with production taking place in local workshops and private houses, and trade being mainly local.¹⁸ Extra paid workers were usually hired only when necessary, while ¹⁵ P.Mich. II 121 recto IV iv = verso III 13. ¹⁶ The most comprehensive study of textile production and sale in Roman Egypt remains Wipszycka (1965). See also Dixon (2000–2001); Quenouille (2005); Dunand (1979) for the Ptolemaic period; Jrgensen and Mannering (2001) for textile production in Mons Claudianus. ¹⁷ Ruffing (2008) 122–3. ¹⁸ Wipszycka (1965). Also Bergamasco (1995) 150 and van Minnen (1998) 108. For an example of textile manufacturing revolving around a domestic setting in Oxyrhynchus see the first-century archive of the weaver Truphon; Biscottini (1966) and Broux (2015) 188–95.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

202

    

normally help took the form of apprentices. In Tebtunis the family of the notary Kronion, for example, made their own clothes. From his personal account we see that his purchases included wool, a thread for making a mantle and tunics, and some purple dye.¹⁹ Overall, the documents of the record-office archive do not provide a large amount of information about the practical arrangements of production and sale of textiles; in the grapheion registers the number of contracts related to textiles make up 1.4 per cent of the total number of transactions registered over 20 months in 42 and 45–6. The majority included sales of looms, which all took places between September 45 and May 46.²⁰ In November 45 a certain Papnebtunis sold his loom to his son Apunchis, suggesting that in this case the occupation of weaver had been passed down from father to son.²¹ However, it is not possible to say how often relevant transactions among relatives occurred. Apprenticeships do not seem to have played an essential role in the formation and training of textile workers, and of professional workers more generally.²² A total of only eight apprenticeships are recorded in the grapheion registers, three in  42, four in the year 45–6 and one in 46–7, that is no more than 1 per cent of the overall number of transactions in each period, four of which were related to textile work.²³ An abstract and a full contract also survive from midfirst-century Tebtunis.²⁴ In the full contract, dated to  13, a weaver, a certain Orsenouphis Psosneus son of Kalales, agreed ‛to teach Helene, the slave of Herakleon, son of Eirenaios, the weaver’s trade’ (gerdiake techne) as he himself knew it, for a period of 30 months.²⁵ His formal commitment to provide a proper and satisfactory training is reinforced by the inclusion of the following clause: ‛And if I shall not teach her, or she shall be considered not to know what she has been taught, you will perforce have

¹⁹ Wool: P.Mich. II 127 I 4, 18; II 2, 3, 11, 46; III 15. Thread: P.Mich. II 127 II 4, 21–22, 23. Purple dye: P.Mich. II 127 II 24. ²⁰ Sales of looms: P.Mich. II 123 recto II 20 = 125, 10; III 19; VII 18; VIII 29; XI 5; XIV 12, 15, 26; XV 13, 24; XVI 10. In July 42 a contract also recorded the sale of a weaving rode—P.Mich. II 121 verso VII 3. ²¹ P.Mich. II 123 r VII 18. ²² On apprenticeships in Roman Egypt see Bergamasco (1995), (2004) and (2006), Freu (2011). Also Westermann (1914), Bradley (1991) 107–12, and Straus (2017). ²³  42: P.Mich. II 121 verso II 12 (= recto II viii); XI 13; XII 6.  45–46: P.Mich. II 123 recto II 34 (second party: Papontos the weaver); III 9 (second party: Orsenouphis the woolshearer); XII 11 (second party: Orsenouphis the mender); XIV 42 (details are lots).  46–7: P.Mich. II 128 III 20. ²⁴ P.Mich. II 121 recto II viii; P.Mich. V 346a. ²⁵ P.Mich. V 346a 2–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

203

her taught at my own expense.’²⁶ Other responsibilities of the master weaver included the clothing and feeding of the slave. The abstract, dated to  42, contains a very short description of an agreement between a woman, Tasooukis, acting with a guardian, and a weaver, Horos, for the apprenticeship of her son for a period of five years. The weaver was responsible for clothing and feeding the apprentice, as in the previous case, and also for the payment of the trade tax, while Tasooukis was expected to pay the poll-tax on her son. Since both the full contract and the abstract provide only a summary of the terms and conditions regulating the respective agreements, it is difficult to tell which clauses were included in each document. In particular, the clause mentioned in the full contract and omitted in the abstract, about the weaver’s duty to teach the apprentice at his own expense should the results not have been satisfactory, seems to have been a way to protect the apprentice and his master’s interests. The same clause is to be found in another contemporary apprenticeship, dated to  48, from the metropolis of Oxyrhynchus, whereby a certain Menodoros son of Apollonios agreed to teach his craft as a weaver to Fuscus son of Lucius as he himself knew it.²⁷ According to Cameron Hawkins, who regards the apprenticeship as ‛a high-stakes transaction that exposes a particularly valuable “long-term enterprise” to the “malfeasance, mistakes, and failures” of others’, it was essential for craftsmen in Roman Egypt who apprenticed their children to seek security by making contracts ‛but also by embedding their apprenticeship agreements in personal networks of trust’.²⁸ An example of ‛relational contracting’ is given by the case of some weavers in mid-first-century Oxyrhynchus who made apprenticeship contracts within a well-defined network of craftsmen who were acquainted with each other.²⁹ It is unclear whether the same scenario is applicable to Tebtunis; here in general the lack of a high number of apprenticeships seems to suggest that in the early Roman period professions associated with textile work were mainly hereditary and, therefore, were taught within the family.³⁰ The majority of the people involved in this activity bore typical Egyptian names (i.e. Apunchis,

²⁶ P.Mich. V 346a, 9–12. ²⁷ P.Fouad. 37, 2. ²⁸ Hawkins (2016) 109. ²⁹ Hawkins (2016) 108–10. ³⁰ van Minnen (1998) on the infrequency with which women learned a trade outside the home. Hereditary occupations were a typical feature of New Kingdom Deir el Medina too, for which see Lesko (1994) 23.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

204

    

Orseus, Papontos), and women are rarely attested, even though there is no doubt that they played a fundamental role in this industry. The domestic dimension of the textile industry did not prevent the development of a wide number of specialized professions—weavers (gerdioi), dyers (bapheis), fullers (gnapheis), cloak-makers (kasopoioi), cloakbeaters (rhabdistai), and wool-merchants (eriopolai); each of these groups appears to have formed an association.³¹ This is explicitly indicated for the weavers, the wool-merchants, and the cloak-beaters, but it was most likely true also for the other groups, who are attested to have acted collectively on several occasions (Table 4.2). Another group of specialized textile workers attested in the village was that of the so-called bussorgoi, who worked the byssus, a particularly fine fabric used to dress the statues of the gods.³² These workers, however, are not mentioned in the record-office archive. Although we have no information as to the size of the associations of textile workers, the sheer number of these groups and the comparative evidence available for the size of other associations suggest that we are dealing with a significant proportion of the population. In the grapheion archive textile workers are attested acting as a collective as well as private individuals. As a collective the weavers submitted an affidavit to the weaving inspectors (epistatai); the president of the weavers (hegoumenos) also submitted two affidavits, probably on behalf of the whole group.³³ The object of these documents is not specified, but it probably had to do with the exercise of this activity as a state concession; indeed the weaving inspectors might have been responsible for collecting the annual phoros. The activities of the dyers and fullers were also carried out as state concessions, and, although attested as two separate groups, they appear to have been in strict collaboration, as suggested by the fact that they submitted two applications for government concession on the same day at the local record-office in two consecutive entries.³⁴ Collaboration between dyers and fullers is also documented in the second century when the two groups submitted a petition against increased taxation.³⁵ About the cloak-makers ³¹ Attestations of these professions in Roman Egypt have been collected by Ruffing (2008): 453–9 (bapheis), 469–87 (gerdioi), 492–501, (gnapheis), 525–6 (eriopolai), 578 (kasopoioi), 731 (rhabdistai). On the evidence on weavers from the Arsinoite district see Ippolito (2001). ³² Quenoville (2007). ³³ P.Mich. II 123 recto III 41 (to the weaving inspectors); P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 31 and 124 recto II 19 (submitted by the president). ³⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 16–17. ³⁵ P.Tebt. II 287, Johnson transl. p. 396 nr. 249; see also P.Carsberg 53, Tebtunis  II.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

205

and the cloak-beaters not much information is provided, except that they too, like the other textile workers, were members of two relevant associations. While for production we have evidence of a large variety of professions, for distribution we know only of one group, that of the wool-sellers (eriopolai), for which we have two written bids and two affidavits.³⁶ In the two bids, submitted in October 45 and in March 46 respectively, the official title of wool-seller is not included, but the nature of the transactions leaves no doubt as to the identity of the applicants. The first bid was submitted by a certain Heron, son of Dioskourides, and by another not otherwise identified person, who declared ‘a price of 2,240 dr. for the purchase (agorasmos) of 140 fleeces of wool’, that is 16 dr. per fleece.³⁷ The recipient was one Euenos. The second bid was submitted by someone, whose name is lost, ‘for 140 fleeces of wool’.³⁸ The recipient this time was one Phabas. The two recipients, Euenos and Phabas, were probably the officials in charge of the supervision of the sale of wool. The occurrence of the same number of fleeces, 140, in the two bids is hardly a coincidence, but it is unclear how the documents are related. It is to be noted that they were submitted just after the sheep-shearing time, that is September and March, when wool would have been available. One explanation is that 140 was the standard number for the wholesale purchase and retail sale of this item. The two affidavits must have regarded one of the aspects of the sale of wool, although we have no information about the content of these documents.³⁹ One possibility is that the wool-merchants were swearing that they had obtained the licence to sell.⁴⁰ In general wool appears to have been the main textile produced and sold in Tebtunis, although flax is attested in a contract of sale for the price of 148 dr.⁴¹ We have no comparative evidence for the price of wool fleeces in this period, but we know that in the early second century a fleece in Tebtunis cost 24 dr.⁴² In Kronion’s private account the cost of wool was variable. Kronion made a total of seven purchases between December 45 and January 46, and

³⁶ A document dated to  72 from the village of Karanis (PSI V 459) records the offer to pay a fee (phoros) of 60 dr. for the privilege of selling wool ‘by the fleece or by measure’. See also Wallace (1938) 189. Johnson (1936) 333 suggested that such a fee ‘may be regarded as an earlier variant of tax on trades or sales. In the latter part of the second century the wool sellers at Karanis paid a tax on trades’. ³⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto V 26–27. ³⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XIII 34. ³⁹ P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 25; 124 recto II 15. ⁴⁰ Johnson (1936) 383 suggests that the wool-sellers made affidavits of their transactions. ⁴¹ P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 31. ⁴² Drexhage (1991) 352: in  109 a fleece in Tebtunis cost 24 dr. (P.Mil.Vogl. 4/212 recto col. 9).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

206

    

with one exception the price ranged between 1.6 and 2 dr. per measure (stathmion). The exception is a damaged entry including four measures of wool for 7 ob., that is about 0.25 dr. per measure, which seems too low and might be a scribal error for drachmas.⁴³ If correct, this would indicate a stronger price fluctuation, ranging between 0.25 and 2 dr. The difference in price was probably associated with the quality of the product, thus implying a lack of governmental imposition on prices.⁴⁴ The evidence of the record-office archive of Tebtunis suggests that the activities associated with the production and sale of textiles in the first half of the first century  were loosely regulated by the state. The weavers were somehow supervised by the weaving inspectors; the dyers, fullers, and woolsellers were required to pay a licence fee on their activities. In general, however, there is no definite sign that members of these groups took on any government work in this period, and the fact that wool prices varied within short periods of time suggests the existence of a competitive market. This situation seems different from the later period. In the second century the weavers, for example, had to undertake government work, including requisition of clothing for the army.⁴⁵

6.2.2 The Salt-Merchants and the Sale of Salt and Gypsum The best-organized group of traders documented in Tebtunis was the association of so-called salt-merchants (halopolai). Three formalized groups of salt-merchants are documented in this period in the Arsinoite nome, one based in Tebtunis itself, the other two in two neighbouring villages, Ibion Eikosipentarouron and Talei and Theogonis. For the Tebtunis group we have two written bids dated to  45/6 and a complete set of rules dated  47; for the other two groups we have two bids.⁴⁶ The formal registration of bids at the record-office reveals that the distribution of salt was regulated as a state concession for which the saltmerchants had to pay an annual fee (phoros). The generally accepted view holds that mines and quarries were managed by imperial agents or contracted to private individuals, but it is still unclear to what extent the ⁴³ P.Mich. II 127 II 3. ⁴⁴ See also Rathbone (2013) 137. ⁴⁵ See, for example, P.Ryl. 189 ( 128) from Soknopaiou Nesos, and BGU 1564 ( 138) from Philadelphia. Cf. Johnson (1936) 332–4. ⁴⁶ Tebtunis: P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 27; 128 III 10; V 245. Ibion Eikosipentarouron: P.Mich. 123 recto XXII 27. Talei and Theogonis: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

207

production of salt was under state control, as was the case in the Ptolemaic period, and in general whether contracting was the most common method of exploitation, as for the lease of marshes and fishing rights.⁴⁷ It is worth noting that salt-merchants are not attested outside Tebtunis and the Arsinoite nome in the first and second century ; they re-appear in our documentation in the third and fourth century in Karanis, Oxyrhynchus, and in the Hermopolite nome, but at this stage these groups might have become governmental guilds, thus playing a different role from the one attested in the early Roman period.⁴⁸ The evidence is too scanty to conclude that the salt-merchants of Tebtunis and nearby villages were the only contractors for the whole nome (and possibly nearby regions); a concentration of such dealers in the Arsinoite might be explained by the fact that some proportion of salt was probably produced in the Western Oases and from there imported into the Arsinoite, as confirmed by a number of receipts from Soknopaiou Nesos.⁴⁹ The set of rules of the salt-merchants of Tebtunis, registered on 18 August  47, informs us about their internal organization, namely the number and identity of members (five in total) and duties of the president (epimeletes ‛superintendent’ and eisaktes ‛collector’), but most importantly the arrangement of trading areas for the sale of salt and gypsum.⁵⁰ As in the case of the set of rules submitted by the apolusimoi of the imperial estate of Claudius (Chapter 5.4.1), the first clause refers to the election of a president, Apunchis son of Orseus, whose main duty was to collect the individual shares of public taxes (ta demosia) from the fellow-members; regulations about the sale of salt and gypsum follow. It appears that while all members were granted the right to sell salt in Tebtunis, individual members were allowed to extend their business outside the village upon payment of additional fees: Orseus was allowed to sell gypsum at Tebtunis and in other nearby villages upon payment of an additional fee of 66 dr. (probably annual), and to sell salt in the village of Kerkeesis upon payment of additional 8 dr.; Harmiusis also called Belles was allowed to sell salt and gypsum in the village of Tristomos also called Boukolos for an additional fee of 5 dr.⁵¹ We do not know why the same dealers were in charge of both salt and gypsum, but it is possible that a common geographic origin might have been

⁴⁷ Carusi (2008) 207–14; Johnson (1936) 241–2, 325–6; Wallace (1938) 183–4. ⁴⁸ Karanis: P.Cair.Goodspeed 30 col. XXXII 8 ( 192). Prektis, Hermopolite nome: BGU I 21 col. II 12 and col. III 7 ( 340). Oxyrhynchus: P.Oxy. LIV 3734 ( 312) and 3750 ( 319). ⁴⁹ Adams (2013) 273. ⁵⁰ Venticinque (2016) 45–8. ⁵¹ P.Mich. V 245, 9–21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

208

    

the reason; indeed, gypsum quarries were to be found along the Red Sea coast, but also in the northern Arsinoite and in the Western Oases, where salt extraction took place.⁵² In Egypt gypsum was used primarily as plaster for houses, temples, and tombs, as it provided a suitable surface for painting in a hot climate.⁵³ It is interesting to note that among the salt-merchants only two members were granted the right to sell gypsum and that the two pay very different fees for this right—66 dr. in Tebtunis and nearby villages and 5 dr. in Tristomos. The discrepancy between the two fees most likely reflected the different incomes which originated from the two trading areas. We have no data as to the exact location, land area, and population size of Tristomos, but the extant evidence suggests that it was a small settlement near Tebtunis.⁵⁴ The concession for the sale of gypsum in a much larger area including not only Tebtunis, but also the surrounding villages, must have produced an income high enough to warrant the payment of such a high fee. We can also surmise that the demand for gypsum was high in these areas where a large number of buildings, from houses to temples and dining rooms, required plaster or mortar. Regulations also set the price for three types of salt (good at 2 1/2 ob., light at 2 ob., and lighter at 1 1/2 ob.), and the maximum quantity which they were allowed to sell, that is 4 dr. Fines were set out for those who failed to abide these rules: those who sold the product at a lower rate were to pay 8 dr. to the common fund (koinon) and another 8 dr. to the public treasury (demosion); similarly, those who sold more than one stater (4 dr.) worth of product were to pay 8 dr. to the common fund and another 8 dr. to the public treasury. By setting these penalties the association discouraged any violation and protected the interests of individual members, allowing everyone to enjoy the same level of income from this activity; indeed if a merchant wished to buy more than 4 dr. worth of salt, ‛all members must sell to him jointly’.⁵⁵ Philip Venticinque has interpreted the high fees prescribed for the rule breakers, that is a total of 16 dr., and the fact that a payment had to be made not only to the common fund, but also to the public treasury, as ‛the group’s intention to impose a penalty that inflicted damage to a member’s reputation in a public way and exposed an individual offender as a rule breaker to those outside the group.’⁵⁶

⁵² Johnson (1936) 241; Heldal et al. (2009). ⁵³ Lucas (1989) 76–9. ⁵⁴ P.Tebt. II 489 ( II). ⁵⁵ P.Mich. V 245 29–31. ⁵⁶ Venticinque (2016) 60, also for discussion of other provisions which damaged one’s reputation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

209

Next to a distinctive economic character, the association of the saltmerchants also displayed an aspect of conviviality and sociability: members were explicitly required to feast on the 25th of each month and to drink a chous of beer each (about 3 liters), and penalty fees were prescribed for those failing to attend these meetings: 1 dr. if the meeting took place in the village, 4 dr. outside the village, and 8 dr. if the meeting was in the metropolis. The difference in fines according to the meeting place suggests that meetings in the metropolis were of greater importance, perhaps because some metropolitan officials could be present. It is worth noting that, differently from the rules of the other two contemporary associations, no provision is included which regulated mutual assistance and behaviour in the event of the death of one of the members, suggesting that economic interests were more pressing to this group than any other value. It is still a matter of debate whether the salt-merchants can be regarded as a typical association or rather as an economic partnership.⁵⁷ The fact that they had a set of rules by which individual members had to abide and that such rules displayed the main features of other regular associations, namely election of a president, payment of fees and other fines in the event of violation, and obligation to attend monthly meetings, seem to purport the general value of the salt-merchants for the study of the Roman period associations, at least in Egypt. By forming an association, those who wished to be part of the salt and gypsum trade were in the position of applying before a state concession as a collective, which made the whole process easier and more likely to be successful.

6.2.3 Beer Production and Distribution Beer was the traditional Egyptian drink, used as an everyday beverage as well as for banquets and social gatherings (e.g. monthly meetings of the salt-merchants). It was relatively cheap and thus accessible to virtually everyone in the village. In the common account, Kronion made a total of 23 purchases of beer between October 45 and November 46, for a total of 52.5 ob. and 28.5 dr., or about 37 dr. 2 ob. when converted on the silver

⁵⁷ Gibbs (2011) esp. 295–9 regarded the salt as a private business; Gabrielsen (2016) 134–7 argued against the view according to which the salt-merchants were a professional association, suggesting that it was instead a partnership.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

210

    

standard at the ratio of 24:1.⁵⁸ At the rate of 1 dr. per 3 choes (1 chous = 3.24 l) of beer, as attested by contemporary evidence, this sum would have bought about 111 choes of beer, or 359.64 litres.⁵⁹ It is to be noted that while quantities are never stated, payments were made in the majority of cases in copper obols, primarily of 1 and 1 1/2 ob., sufficient to buy at least 0.5 chous of beer, or about 1.5 l. On a few occasions Kronion also purchased beer in combination with other food items, especially bread and vegetables, which normally constituted a meal for himself and his partner Eutucheides, spending on average between 1 and 3 1/2 ob. On 5 and 6 January 46 (10 and 11 Tybi) a separate account of 9 1/2 choes of beer (30.7 l) is recorded; the order was made by Kronion and Eutucheides on the account of a man called Hermanon, not identifiable anywhere else, who was probably in charge of a beer-shop.⁶⁰ Oddly enough, no price is indicated, but at a rate of 1 dr. per 3 choes Kronion and his partner would have spent a total of about 3 dr. Despite the affordability of beer, Kronion preferred to drink wine; indeed, in his private account he is attested buying beer only once, while making 12 purchases of wine. In mid-first-century Tebtunis the production of beer is attested by a small number of documents which reveal the presence in the village of professional brewers (zutopoioi) and at least one beer-shop (zutopoleion).⁶¹ It is unclear whether the brewers were grouped in a formal association, nor are we sure whether production and sale were regulated as state concessions; another issue at stake is the nature of the beer tax, the zutera. According to the generally accepted view, in the Ptolemaic period the production and sale of beer were strictly controlled by the state as a monopoly, while in the Roman period they developed into a system of government concessions, though home-brewing remained a very common phenomenon.⁶² In both periods beer production was subject to direct taxation, but while in the Ptolemaic period the zutera appears to have referred to both the monopoly and the beer tax, in the Roman period this term was attached only to the tax, which in the Arsinoite was pro capite (kat’andra). Another difference between the Ptolemaic and Roman periods is the geographical spread of

⁵⁸ The sum in drachmas includes an odd payment to a brewer of 1 5/6 art. equivalent of 16 dr. ⁵⁹ P.Tebt. II 401 col. VII 25, account of beer dated to the early first century. ⁶⁰ P.Mich. II 123 verso III 31–9. ⁶¹ Professional brewers: P.Mich. II 123 recto I(d) 8, XV 14; verso XI 26–7. Beer-shop: P.Mich. V 322(b). An updated list of zutopoioi and a list of zutopolai (beer sellers) can be found in Drexhage (1997) 33–4. ⁶² Wallace (1938) 187; Gallazzi (1979) 47–57; Reiter (2004) 145.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

211

the zutera: all over Egypt in the Ptolemaic period, more prominently attested in the Arsinoite district under the Romans.⁶³ The evidence provided by the record-office archive is not conclusive as to the issues related to the brewers and the beer tax, but some general remarks may be made. First, the brewers of Tebtunis do not seem to have formed a formal association; instead, they acted as private individuals. In the common account a certain Eutuchas the brewer occurs twice, once as the recipient of a payment of 4 dr. towards the papyrus tax, the chartera (this connection is unclear); another time as the supplier of beer for Kronion. Another provider of beer was a certain Herakles ‘the brewer’, who is attested as a contracting party in an agreement ‘about a list of persons’ between two not otherwise identified individuals (Nepheros and another person) and a certain Herakles.⁶⁴ Allan Chester Johnson suggested that such an agreement referred to monthly deliveries of beer to the subscribers.⁶⁵ A similar account, which recorded monthly deliveries of beer made on several days each month from February to May  51, was issued by a beer-shop to Psuphis son of Onnophris, president of the association of the priests.⁶⁶ Although the mechanisms behind the production and sale of beer are still not entirely clear, the evidence from first-century Tebtunis suggests that only distribution was regulated by the state, though it is possible that producers were occasionally also sellers themselves, which would have affected the work practices and related procedures.

6.2.4 Papyrus Production and Trade No papyrus factory or retail enterprise seems to have existed in early Roman Tebtunis; indeed Kronion purchased papyrus rolls in the district capital, often using intermediaries.⁶⁷ No information is provided as to the length or quality of these rolls, but once a reference is made to a ‘newer roll’ (charte neotere), which has been interpreted as a roll of poor quality.⁶⁸ Prices vary between 3 dr. 2 ob. and 4 dr. 2 ob., though the sum of 4 dr. is by far the most frequent, which seems to confirm that the sale of papyrus was a state concession.⁶⁹ In general, ⁶³ Johnson (1936) 327 suggested that in the Fayum and Oxyrhynchus, where the beer tax is attested, brewing ‘was a matter of government monopoly’ and that the beer tax was most probably paid by everyone, so as to ensure a regular income to the central government. ⁶⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto XV 14. ⁶⁵ Johnson (1936) 357. ⁶⁶ P.Mich. V 322(b). ⁶⁷ See list in P.Mich. II, p. 98. ⁶⁸ P. Mich. II 123 verso VII 10. Lewis (1974) 133 n. 26. ⁶⁹ A list of prices in antiquity can be found in Lewis (1974) 132. Cf. Rathbone (2013) 137.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

212

    

details about the operation and sale of papyrus rolls in Roman Egypt remain unclear. Naphtali Lewis pointed out that, as a result of a less controlled economy, the manufacture of papyrus, like other economic enterprises, might have been operated more freely under the Romans.⁷⁰ In the second century the right to farm the marshes in the Arsinote nome, where papyrus grew, was granted as a government concession, which means that the manufacture and sale of papyrus were most likely operated as state concessions too.⁷¹ Associated with the production of papyrus is a tax named chartera, commonly referred to as papyrus tax, whose nature is still unclear. The references to chartera in Kronion’s common account constitute the main evidence for this tax in the Roman period. Here several items refer to the payment of travel expenses for guards who visited the record-office in order to collect the chartera.⁷² There is also a bank transfer (diagraphe) of 52 dr. made ‘in the city’, that is Ptolemais Euergetis, for the chartera account. The editor, Boak, suggested that the chartera was a tax on the use of the papyrus, that is paid by those who had documents drawn up at the record-office; another interpretation holds that it was a licence fee for the production and sale of papyrus.⁷³ The latter is not a likely explanation, as it would imply that Kronion, who paid the chartera, held the concession for the sale of papyrus in Tebtunis; however, since he purchased papyrus rolls in the district capital, this cannot have been the case.

6.2.5 Oil Production and Distribution In Tebtunis the oil-producers (elaiourgoi) constituted a formal association, for which however we have very little information.⁷⁴ We know, for example,

⁷⁰ Lewis (1974) 118 and 121. Papyrus industries never seem to have been owned by the state; even under the Ptolemies private individuals could have bought papyrus rolls directly from the suppliers, as is attested by the case of Menches, the village scribe of Keorkeosiris, who in one second-century account records purchases of papyrus from the supplier through armed guards (P.Tebt. 112 (112 ); cf. Lewis (1974) 118). ⁷¹ According to Johnson (1936) 329–30, there is no evidence that the government exercised any control over manufacture either in the Delta or at Alexandria, as papyrus was delivered to manufacturers on private contracts. In the Fayum the empress Julia Augusta may have had some monopoly of production, since the marshes were under her control. It is likely that she also had some monopolistic control over the sale of certain products, which was farmed out to a contractor (see P.Mil. I 6, Theadelphia, 18 June  26, trans. Johnson (1936) 360 n. 198). ⁷² P.Mich. II, p. 100. ⁷³ A summary of the interpretations for chartera can be found in Lewis (1974) 137. ⁷⁴ P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

213

that in October 45 a certain Psosneus, the oil-producer, probably the president of the association, registered the group’s regulations (nomos sunodou) at the record-office, but we have no detail as to the nature of these rules or the size of the association. In Egypt, and in the Arsinoite nome in particular, there were different types of oils, including vegetable oils such as castor oil, sesame oil, and olive oil, which were used for several purposes, including food preparation and lighting.⁷⁵ In both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods the production and distribution of oils were under government control; public oil presses were leased to private individuals and associations upon payment of taxes and rents.⁷⁶ In the grapheion registers we find two leases of an oil press, but without any further detail as to the legal status of the press.⁷⁷ Kronion made several purchases of oil in the year  45/6, both for the running of the grapheion and for his own household. In the common account we find 16 entries for oil only—in three cases the oil was for the lamp of a night scribe (nuktographos)—for a total of 30 ob. (or 5 dr.). Several entries display oil together with other foods, especially vegetables and fish, for a total of 17 ob. (c. 3 dr.)—these were normally meals for people who visited the record-office on business. Oil constituted a favourite food staple within Kronion’s household. In his private account it was purchased mainly in combination with cooked meat (opson), and in three months, from October 45 to January 46, he spent about 30 dr. on these items. Quantities are never mentioned, but on one occasion, in December, Kronion spent 4 dr., a much larger sum compared to the more common sums of 1 or 2 ob., which suggests that he bought a big supply for the family.⁷⁸ Here we also find a named supplier, a certain Tabas the cloth-beater (rabdistes).

6.2.6 Brickmaking, Carpentry, and Construction In the evidence from Roman Tebtunis there is mention of brickmaking as well as of carpenters and builders, occupations which were associated ⁷⁵ Sandy (1989). Cf. P.Rev. As for olive oil, Blouin (2014) 184–5 has noted that ‘olive trees grow on well-drained soil and, consequently, are not suited to the floodable land of the Nile Valley and Delta’. ⁷⁶ Capponi (2005) 24. According to Johnson (1936) 328, ‛the government controlled the industry in the Arsinoite only in so far as the operator who wished to sell his product must secure a license from the nomarch’. ⁷⁷ P.Mich. II 121 verso XI 2; 123 recto XI 11. A work contract concerning an oil press is also recorded, in which a certain Taaruos binds herself to work for one Psenkebkis; P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 7. ⁷⁸ P.Mich. II 127 II 41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

214

    

with the construction of houses and other buildings. In the Roman Arsinoite both brickmaking and carpentry were state concessions. Clear attestations that the production and sale of bricks were under governmental rule date to the second century , but some earlier evidence, including a tax on brickmaking from Soknopaiou Nesos and an entry for bids regarding ‘brickworks’ (plinthourgion) recorded in the  45/6 register, suggests that this arrangement was already in place in the first century.⁷⁹ As to carpentry we have little detailed information. In  45 some carpenters (tektones) from Tebtunis submitted a written bid to some unknown officials, but it is not clear whether they formed an association or simply constituted a loose group of workers who decided to act together on this occasion.⁸⁰ The builders (oikodomoi), on the other hand, were members of a formalized association, as confirmed by the registration of a set of regulations dated to 17 June  46.⁸¹ Also connected with construction work was a stonemason (laxos), attested twice in the grapheion archive, once in a post-marriage settlement as former owner of some vacant lots, another time in a list of records for the sales-tax.⁸² Brickmaking did not require highly specialized skills; mudbricks, which were the principal building material in Egypt, were made up of Nile mud, a combination of clay and sand, which was found in abundance in this country.⁸³ From this we gather not only that houses built with mudbricks were very cheap (see discussion in Chapter 3.3), but also that access to this activity was easy and virtually anyone could be involved in it. The large availability of mud, the lack of specific technical skills, and the widespread need for houses across Egypt made brickmaking a sought-after occupation,

⁷⁹ P. Fay. 36 ( 111/12, Kerkethoeris): application for the concession of brickmaking to relevant officials (epiteretai). Stud.Pal. XXII 35 ( 50); P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 3. The entry in the grapheion register is damaged and the first part is lost, but the structure resembles that of other entries for ‘bids’ (anaphoria), thus suggesting that the first party, a certain Sotas, is the one who submitted an application for the concession of brickmaking to the second party, Papos. See also P.Tebt. II 402, a bricklayer’s account dated to  172 and issued by a builder for the transport and laying of bricks. This document includes a long record of the daily work during a period of five weeks, at a rate of 16 dr. per 10,000 bricks for transport, and 40 dr. per 10,000 for building. Cf. BGU 699 and P.Petrie III 46 (i) 22–4, where 10 dr. are paid for the transport of 10,000 bricks. ⁸⁰ P.Mich. II 123 recto IV 5. ⁸¹ P.Mich. II 123 recto XVII 39; the apprenticeship of a builder also survives from Tebtunis, dated to  16 (P.Mich. V 346b). Hawkins (2016) 112–13. See Ruffing (2008) 682–95 for attestation of builders between the third century  and the eighth century . ⁸² Mich. II 121 recto II ii; 123 recto XXI 11. See Ruffing (2008) 619–22 for a list of attestations. ⁸³ Lucas (1989) 48–50.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

215

for both the people of Egypt, as there was no requirement to be a professional or full-time brickmaker, and for the government, who could make a profit out of such a common activity by imposing concession fees. Carpenters normally displayed a higher level of professionalism.⁸⁴ They worked wood both for building purposes, namely for making doors, and for production of a wide range of objects, including coffins, mummy labels, boats, and also furniture. Depending on the object, a different level of training and specialization was required, although the evidence from Tebtunis does not provide information about this aspect of the carpenters’ work.

6.2.7 Metalwork: Goldsmiths and Coppersmiths Metalworking is scarcely attested in Tebtunis. In the grapheion archive there is evidence for goldsmiths and coppersmiths, but we have no information about numbers and the actual economic importance of their activities within the local community.⁸⁵ A group of goldsmiths (chrusochooi) is attested in an unclear document called epicheiresis recorded in the  45/6 register of contracts, which Johnson interpreted as preparation of a petition.⁸⁶ In the same register a group of coppersmiths (chalkeis) is also attested.⁸⁷ The relevant document is a receipt of charcoal, in which the second party was a certain Patunis. That the goldsmiths formed an association is first attested in a document dated to 23/22 ; as for the coppersmiths, the only hint that they might have formed an association is the fact that they acted collectively from a contractual point of view.⁸⁸ In general, however, the evidence for the Roman period shows that it was common for metalworkers to band together as associations.⁸⁹ Copper and gold were two of the oldest and most commonly used metals in ancient Egypt. Two main locations are known for copper ore: Sinai and the eastern desert.⁹⁰ Gold mines lay in an extensive area between the Nile

⁸⁴ For an apprenticeship contract for carpentry see Eckerman (2011). ⁸⁵ Bagnall (1993) 84 notes that ‘occupational division was by material worked, not by product generated.’ ⁸⁶ P.Mich. II 123 recto IX 35; cf. Johnson (1936) 331. ⁸⁷ P.Mich. II 123 recto XXII 18. A coppersmith named Petermouthis son of Orseus also appears as owner of a house in a sale dated to  30; cf. P.Mich. V 257 4. ⁸⁸ P.Fouad I 46 on the association of goldsmiths. ⁸⁹ Hawkins (2016) 114–15. ⁹⁰ Lucas (1989) 201–6. Johnson (1936) 239 pointed out that mention is made of copper mines in the Fayum, but it is unknown when these were exploited.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

216

    

Valley and the Red Sea, including the section of the eastern desert close to the Sudan border and Nubia.⁹¹ Copper working did not involve particularly hard procedures, as moulds were used, which suggests that access to this occupation was not too restrictive.⁹² This metal was used for making a variety of objects, including bowls, plates, and ornaments. Goldsmiths, on the other hand, are believed to have been highly skilled craftsmen, as gold was used for making jewellery and other luxury objects, and for engraving and gilding. Their activity was arranged as a state concession, for which they had to pay a fee; in the second century they also had to pay a trade tax of 264 dr. per year (or 22 dr. per month).⁹³ They also had to provide some governmental service, including the one introduced by Augustus of assessing and weighing pieces of jewellery listed in wills and marriage contracts.⁹⁴ The surviving evidence shows that while the coppersmiths’ work was carried out on or attached to estates, the bulk of the goldsmiths’ work was associated with public buildings and temples.⁹⁵ No information is provided about the organization of the coppersmiths’ activity, but it is possible to assume that it was operated as a state concession. It is difficult to assess the role and importance of metalwork in firstcentury Tebtunis. There is no doubt that several individuals were involved in the working of copper and gold in this village, but no evidence is available about the number and identity of their clients and the amount of work commissioned to them. The most likely scenario is that metalworkers were at the service of the various temples, and their payment would have fallen on the wealthiest priests. The study of the social stratification of Tebtunis carried out in Chapter 4 has shown that a considerable part of the population might have been in the position of using the metalworkers’ services. Associations, for example, might have asked for the production of bowls and plates (and also ornamental objects) to be used in the dining rooms along the processional way, where they usually gathered; and wealthy

⁹¹ Lucas (1989) 224–5; Brun et al. (2018), esp. the contribution by Faucher. ⁹² Lucas (1989) 212–17. ⁹³ On the activity of the goldsmiths as a state concession see Johnson (1936) 331. For a different view see Wallace (1938) 189, according to whom the activity of the goldsmiths was a monopoly in both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, although under the Romans concessions were leased to entire villages. See P.Lond. III 906, p. 107 for the trade tax paid by the goldsmiths in  128. ⁹⁴ Burkhalter (1998) 131–2. ⁹⁵ Burkhalter (1998) 130–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

217

individuals of Hellenic descent were likely to have commissioned pieces of jewellery.⁹⁶

6.3 Foodstuffs and Food Markets According to Ruffing’s study, foodstuffs constituted the favourite object of trade in the eastern Roman provinces (50 per cent), especially cereal, bread, fish, and salt.⁹⁷ In Tebtunis a large variety of foodstuffs was available, as attested by the two accounts of Kronion. In the private account, in particular, which covered the period from September 45 and January 46, food staples represented the main items of expenditure (c.73.5 per cent of total expenses), with 261 dr. (or 184 dr. and 463 ob.) out of a total of 355 dr. Wheat was by far Kronion’s favourite item—he made eight purchases in September and October 45 for a total of about 16 art. (112 dr.), which would have been sufficient to support two adults for a year; Kronion bought bread only once, which suggests that his family made their own bread.⁹⁸ In November and December he bought about 3 art. of barley (12 dr.), with which presumably he made his own beer (and possibly fed his animals); this would explain why he purchased beer only once.⁹⁹ Other staples included wine, bought 12 times for a total of about 42 dr., dates, bought twice for a total of 28 dr. 8 ob., oil, bought 15 times for a total of about 13 dr., and lentils, bought three times for 12 dr.¹⁰⁰ A combination of oil and cooked meat appears to have been a favourite dish in Kronion’s family (17 purchases for 15.5 dr.). His shopping list also included an expensive type of fish, salachia (4 dr.), turnips (6 ob.), vegetables (13 ob.), eggs (11 ob.), and panmade breads (4 ob.). Overall this was a balanced diet, typical of the Egyptian tradition, which provided Kronion’s family with a healthy variety of nutrients, including proteins, potassium, vitamins, fibres, and fats.¹⁰¹ As noted in Chapter 2, the fact that Kronion could spend a considerable amount of

⁹⁶ Burkhalter (1998) 132–3 has pointed out that the Egyptian population acquired metal objects not only from local craftsmen but also in dedicated trade centres, such as Memphis and Coptos. It is unlikely, however, that the people of Tebtunis would have travelled that far to purchase metal. ⁹⁷ Ruffing (2008) 122–7. On food production in Roman Egypt see Blouin (2012) 29–33; on the Mediterrranean diet see Garnsey (1999) 12–21. ⁹⁸ P.Mich. II 127 I 51. ⁹⁹ P.Mich. II 127 II 9. ¹⁰⁰ On lentils, as well as peas and legumes, in the Mendesian nome see Blouin (2014) 178–80. ¹⁰¹ Crawford (1979).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

218

    

money on food staples and other items over a short period of time clearly suggests that he was a prosperous man. The shared account of expenses, which primarily included items purchased for the grapheion official visitors and for business meals, displayed an even wider range of foodstuffs. These included figs, cabbage, beet, endive, cucumber, nuts, gourd, raw meat, garlic, yeast, and sweetmeats, which were all bought quite cheaply; for example, Kronion and Eutucheides only paid 1 1/2 ob. for 100 figs. The rest of the food items were the same as those that Kronion bought for his own household, but in larger quantities. It is not surprising that beer and wine were the most popular items on Kronion and Eutucheides’ shopping lists, with 23 and 21 purchases respectively, as they made the perfect beverages for entertainment. As noted above, wine constituted a much higher expenditure, with a total of 125 dr. versus c.37 dr. spent on beer. Also high on the list was bread; the grapheion was a business, not a family, and bread had to be bought in large quantities to satisfy the demand of the numerous visitors. Between January and September 46 Kronion and Eutucheides bought a total of 123 loaves, which, at 1 ob. per loaf, was about 20 dr. in total. Other staples bought on several occasions were oil, vegetables, and cooked meat (often in various combinations), as well as eggs, turnips, and fish. Fish was a favourite food in Egypt since Pharaonic times, and people normally ate fish of the Nile and of the marshes.¹⁰² Kronion and Eutucheides bought four types of fish for their visitors, sometimes in various combination with vegetables, oil and bread: korakinos and korakidinion, a common Nile tilapia; thrissa, a species of shad; latis, a Nile perch; and phagros, a sea-bream. They were all common and rather cheap Nile fish. The korakinos, for which quantities are indicated, were sold at 1 ob. per piece, and the smaller version of it (korakidinion) was even cheaper (19 per 20 ob.). The other fish also appear to have been rather inexpensive, though the price per piece is unknown. Information about who produced certain goods, who sold them, and where is limited in the grapheion archive, as in most purchases either the occupational title is not indicated or the vendor is not at all named. The

¹⁰² Besta (1921) 67, 72–4. Cf. Herodotus, Histories II 37. Drexhage (1993) has pointed out that despite the abundance of fish in Egypt a large-scale production is to be excluded; several descriptions of taste and quality, however, suggest a varied supply and demand which was mainly covered by local or domestic production. That is the reason why only a few references to a specialized trade (garopolai) have survived.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

219

presence of several food specialists for first-century Tebtunis, including grain-dealers (sitokapeloi), brewers (zutopoioi), oil producers (elaiourgoi), vegetable sellers (lachanopolai), salt-merchants (halopolai), and bakers (artokopoi) suggests that the village was dotted with a number of production and retail facilities, as was usually the case for large villages. Although only one attestation for a wine-seller (oinoprates) survives for Tebtunis, we know that here wine was sold in large quantities.¹⁰³ Beer, oil, and bread were certainly produced in the village, as confirmed by the presence of professional beer- and oil-producers and bakeries. The people of Tebtunis could do their food shopping at the various food stalls and retail shops (including a beer-shop) located along the processional way or in the komasterion, where they could find, among other things, oil, wine, beer, and cooked meat. Kronion and Eutucheides bought wheat from several people and on one occasion in the granary directly from the grain-dealers. But food was not always sold by food specialists. Kronion is indeed attested on one occasion to have bought fish and oil from two separate cloth-beaters.¹⁰⁴ This is not surprising and reflects a flexible occupational pattern for the village, as the case of the weaver Petheus has shown (Section 6.2). Occupations, like membership in associations, were not mutually exclusive, and it was possible for one person to engage in multiple economic activities at once. Occasionally the two grapheion notaries made some food purchases outside Tebtunis too, when they or some employees were away on business, normally in Ptolemais Euergetis, but also in the nearby village of Talei.¹⁰⁵ On these occasions they made small purchases, such as cooked meat and pan-breads. But they also made a large purchase of beer (c.155 l, or 48 choes) from a professional brewer, Eutuchas, in the village of Tristomos, ‛along the dromos’.¹⁰⁶ It is rather puzzling that the two men would buy such a large quantity of beer in Tristomos when beer could be sold in a beer-shop in Tebtunis itself. A possibility is that the wholesale production and distribution of beer for the area was situated in Tristomos, while in Tebtunis only retail sale was available. The other purchases of beer were made in small quantities, as it is likely that many of the people of Tebtunis, such as Kronion, made their own beer.

¹⁰³ P.Tebt. II 612 ( I–II). ¹⁰⁴ P.Mich. II 127 II 32, 41. ¹⁰⁵ In the city: P.Mich. II 123 verso II 26, 31, V 29, IX 32, 33, 36, 37, 38; in Talei: P.Mich. II 123 recto I(c) 7. ¹⁰⁶ P.Mich. II 123 verso XI 26.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

220

    

6.4 Cash Circulation in First-Century Tebtunis The grapheion archive confirms for first-century Tebtunis the general consensus held for the Egyptian countryside in the Graeco-Roman period of a high level of monetization.¹⁰⁷ The evidence has shown that money circulated among all strata of the population and was used in a large variety of transactions; indeed, a large proportion of the people who made written contracts in  42 and 45/6 was involved in cash dealings (40.8 per cent), while cash transactions made up 43.9 per cent of the total agreements, mainly various types of loans, sales, marriage contracts, dowry contracts, and post-marriage settlements. In fact, the grapheion registers reveal only one area in which cash money was used, that of formal written contracts; the people of Tebtunis also used money for tax payments and everyday purchases, mainly of foodstuffs, which were not necessarily recorded in any official document. A sample of the daily purchases made by a Tebtunis man is provided by the private account of Kronion. Although it is to be noted that Kronion’s purchases were probably not representative of the general spending habits of the common villager, his account, along with the account for the running of the grapheion, sheds light on a number of issues related to monetization in Tebtunis. First, even though credit played a fundamental role in the local economy, it appears that payments were made on the day in which they were recorded; this was also the case for the payment of scribal fees noted in two grapheion registers of contracts (see Appendix I.) Second, payments were made in both copper and silver coins, which Kronion converted to the silver standard at a ratio of 28 or 29 to the tetradrachm.¹⁰⁸ In a recent article on village markets, Dominic Rathbone studied the monetary transactions of Kronion’s accounts in order to gain a better understanding of the monetary system and common practices in place in mid-first-century Tebtunis, noting that ‘current views could not explain practice in Kronion’s accounts because they conflate evidence from different periods in between which there had been significant changes.’¹⁰⁹ The results of his analysis have shown that the people of Tebtunis used copper coins for small transactions and purchases, which made up the bulk of the transactions in number (70–80 per cent) but only a small proportion from a value point of view (20–30 per cent); conversely, they used silver coins for larger expenses (including the annual rent of the grapheion), which made up a small fraction of the overall

¹⁰⁷ Rowlandson (2001).

¹⁰⁸ Rathbone (2013) 130–1.

¹⁰⁹ Rathbone (2013) 129.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

221

transactions in number (20–30 per cent), but, unsurprisingly, the highest percentage by value (70–80 per cent).¹¹⁰ Rathbone’s conclusions in regard to scribal fees and monetary transactions in the two accounts confirm the picture we have gathered from the three grapheion registers of a widespread use of cash among all strata of the population, revealing that even the less prosperous could be an active part of the local monetary economy thanks to the existence of a system of copper coins which gave them access to a wide range of small transactions. Kronion’s purchases also give us a sample of the current prices of numerous products available at Tebtunis, thus shedding further light on affordability, price fluctuations, and the implications thereof. The large majority of purchases were made in copper obols, with the exception of a glass of beer for which Kronion paid half an obol; the lowest price attested is one obol, which was enough to buy a variety of items, including a loaf of bread, some oil, certain types of fish (thrissa and korakinidion), cooked meat, and some eggs.¹¹¹ Items for which both quantity and price are provided include barley, lentils, turnips, wheat, wool, and papyrus rolls. For barley and turnips only one price is available for each product (4 dr. per one artaba of barley, and 2 dr. per one artaba of turnips), while papyrus rolls were sold at 4 dr. per roll, suggesting a state-controlled market; the other products, on the other hand, show fluctuations in price over a very short span of time. This is particularly noticeable in sales of wine and wheat. One keramion of wine was sold at 6, 10, 16, 17, and 18 obols in SeptemberOctober 45; its price went up to 5 dr. in May 46 and to 6 dr. in July until September 46, which seems to reflect quality as well as availability. The price of wheat varied considerably between September and October 45, from 4.37 dr. per artaba in early September to 5.7 dr., 7.2 dr., and 7.7 dr. later in the month, then to 8 dr. per artaba from the end of September.¹¹² Lentils and wool also varied in price; the former were sold at 3 or 4 dr. per artaba, while the latter was sold at 1.6, 1.7, and 2 dr. per measure. Dominic Rathbone has interpreted such fluctuations as a reflection of a free local market, which operated within a system of integrated markets, as opposed to Peter Bang’s analysis which argued for ‘a fragile market integration’ in early Roman Egypt.¹¹³ In the absence of more abundant comparable evidence for the mid-first century it is difficult to

¹¹⁰ Rathbone (2013) 136. ¹¹¹ P.Mich. II 123 verso II 4. ¹¹² 4.37 dr.: P.Mich. II 127 I 8; 5.7 dr.: P.Mich. II 127 I 12; 7.2 dr.: P.Mich. II 127 I 17; 7.6 dr.: P.Mich. II 127 I 37; 8 dr.: P.Mich. II 127 I 13, 14, 15–16. ¹¹³ Rathbone (2013); Bang (2008) 171–2. Also Rathbone (1997).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

222

    

draw definite conclusions as to the validity of one or the other interpretation; however, the attestation of several prices in the contemporary Nemesion archive from Philadelphia not too far off those listed in the grapheion archive seems to suggest a regional pattern, at least for the Arsinoite nome.

6.5 Conclusions Richard Alston proposed for Middle Egypt a model of ‘regional trade network focused on the urban centre’, whereby villages played a role of secondary importance.¹¹⁴ The type of trade envisaged for Roman Egypt was mainly domestic, which means that most of the economic links were constructed at local level (between villages) and regional level (between metropoleis and villages). According to this model, despite the existence of a high level of monetization, trade specialization would have been limited, as opposed to the situation in cities where a distinctively larger proportion of the population was attested as being involved in trades and crafts; in particular, the Arsinoite villages are said to have lacked economic selfsufficiency.¹¹⁵ When applying this model to early Roman Tebtunis, however, some discrepancies emerge. Although organized trade appears to have been limited to two activities, the sale of wool and trade of salt and gypsum, we have clear evidence of an active local trade in foodstuffs, as attested by Kronion’s accounts; a wide variety of items was available to buy in Tebtunis and nearby villages, from meat, fish, vegetables, bread, and oil to beer and wine. The presence of the associations of goldsmiths and coppersmiths suggests that a local market in metal objects and jewellery was also active in the village, although it is impossible to establish the scale of it or whether products were also exported. A temporary market for the sale of donkeys probably took place in the month of October, as suggested by a concentration of a relatively high number of sales of donkeys registered at the local record-office.¹¹⁶ In general, it is evident that primary goods, namely foodstuff and textiles, as well as some luxury items were produced and sold locally, in Tebtunis and nearby villages. Although the evidence does not provide information about the scale of production and distribution, the relatively high level of participation in

¹¹⁴ Alston (1998) 192. ¹¹⁵ Alston (2002) 335; also Alston (1998) 183. ¹¹⁶ Langellotti (2015). For a list of donkey sales see Litinas (2014), which updates Litinas (1999).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 - 

223

the contractual economy of the village among the prosperous and less well-off individuals, combined with the existence of a monetary system accessible to all, suggests that a large proportion of the population was able to engage in a number of daily transactions and small purchases, thus contributing to the maintenance of local trade, at least of primary goods. The non-agricultural economy of Tebtunis was well integrated into a wider network which included the nearby villages, such as Talei and Theogonis, Ibion Eikosipentarouron, and Tristomos. As mentioned in Chapter 2, such links were also of an administrative nature; the grapheion of Tebtunis also functioned as record-office for Kerkesoucha Orous. The salt-merchants, who sold both salt and gypsum, for example, operated in several villages, while Kronion purchased papyrus rolls in the district capital and occasionally bought wine and beer in Tristomos and Talei. The two Kronion accounts, in particular, reveal the existence of a solid economic connection between Tebtunis, the neighbouring villages, and also the district capital in the form of frequent visits and business meals. Kronion and his partner Eutucheides often travelled for business and on those occasions spent money on food and travel, both for themselves and also for their employees and other officials. Although the evidence does not allow us to draw definite conclusions, it seems very likely that this wide administrative net which existed between Tebtunis, its surrounding area, and the district capital also had an impact on the local economy taking the form of ‘trust networks.’ The various associations no doubt contributed to the fostering of such networks, especially in the forms of regular meetings and banquets. Meetings took place not only in Tebtunis, but also in some other villages and in the district capital, and provisions included in the three extant sets of rules reveal that higher fees were applied for failing to attend a meeting outside Tebtunis and even higher ones when the meeting was in the district capital. The reasons behind such differentiation in fees are unclear; nor do we know what these meetings entailed, but it is conceivable that those in the district capital were of particular importance, perhaps because they gave individual members the chance to liaise with some metropolitan officials or craftsmen and traders. The local economy of Tebtunis seems to have benefited from the village’s administrative links with nearby localities as well as from the high level of mobility of part of the population, including individuals such as Kronion, who held an official position in the village, and members of associations, many of whom were engaged in crafts and trades. Most of the transactions document a local and regional trade, while no evidence is available for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

224

    

long-distance trade.¹¹⁷ It is quite possible that a number of economic links existed between Tebtunis and localities outside the Arsinoite district, but this is hard to detect. The contribution of women and slaves to the non-agricultural activities of Tebtunis is not easy to assess. As we have seen in Chapter 3, women appear in a limited number of transactions, and their economic role seems to have been associated mainly with property of land and work as wet-nurses. However, the nature of the textile industry as a domestic enterprise automatically overturns this impression as women no doubt were heavily involved in the production of textiles. Given the prominent role played by the textile industry in Tebtunis, it is, therefore, safe to assume that women’s work had a relatively strong impact on the local economy. It is not clear, however, whether women were also involved in the distribution channels of the finished products. Slaves are also scarcely attested in the contractual economy of Tebtunis, but their involvement in some non-agricultural activities is suggested by a number of documents in which slaves were apprenticed (e.g. as textile workers) and acted in administrative roles (e.g. slaves who visited the grapheion on behalf of their masters for business reasons). Overall, however, their contribution to crafts and trades appears to have been very limited.

¹¹⁷ The available evidence shows the same for Karanis; cf. Alston (1998) 177.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

Conclusions The analysis of the grapheion archive conducted in this book has revealed for mid-first-century Tebtunis a considerably high level of participation in the contractual economy (c25–28 per cent of the total population), which involved all social strata, with the exception of slaves. With a population of about 6,000, which, by ancient standards, was comparable more to a small town than to a village, the society of Tebtunis was diversified, including a limited number of individuals belonging to the financial and social elite and a small percentage of slaves, with 1.8 per cent representation in the three  40s registers of titles, who were mainly attested in domestic roles, but occasionally also in administrative duties. The elite was made up of some wealthy Egyptian priests (c.7.8 per cent), who were primarily responsible for the management of public land, and of some prosperous individuals of Greek descent or at least a strongly Hellenized background (c.5 per cent), who owned private land of the catoecic type and normally had at their disposal a large availability of cash, as attested by the fact that their primary role in the contractual economy was that of creditors. The bulk of the population was composed of individuals and families of low to middling socio-economic status. In the absence of reliable quantifiable data for this period, the use of an onomastic approach has allowed us to reconstruct a rough picture of the cultural composition of the local population whereby the majority, or 55 per cent, bore Egyptian names, with a preference for names associated with the local crocodile god, Soknebtunis (e.g. Kronion and Petesouchos), while a smaller but not insignificant proportion (36 per cent) bore common Greek names. This onomastic study has documented the presence in the village of a prominent Egyptian culture, reflected in the intense use of names rooted in Egyptian religion, whereby the cults of Horos, Sobek, Isis, and Osiris were the favourites. At the same time a process of Hellenization has been observed, not only in the large number of names which, though often associated with Egyptian deities, preferred the Greek rendering to the Egyptian form, but also in those names associated with Greek gods, such as Herakles.

Village Life in Roman Egypt: Tebtunis in the First Century . Micaela Langellotti, Oxford University Press (2020). © Micaela Langellotti. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198835318.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

226

    

A relatively small part of the male adult population, between approximately 7.3 per cent and 11 per cent, belonged to one or more of the 22 associations attested in mid-first-century Tebtunis; these were formalized groups, headed by a president (normally called hegoumenos) or executive board (presbuteroi), and regulated by a set of rules concerning social and ethical behaviour as well as, occasionally, protection of the members’ economic interests. Judging from their titles, the majority of these groups displayed a professional connotation, as was the norm in the Roman period, meaning that their members often shared the same occupation. Though these figures do not indicate a very large proportion of the population, the percentage of those who, in one way or another, had something to do with associative life increases to about 22.7 per cent to 34 per cent if we assume that each member had a family of three. This suggests that the role of associations was not insignificant within village society, especially if we consider that some of their rules also involved family members (e.g. obligation to attend funerals). Along with the social stratification of the part of the population who made written contracts, examination of the grapheion archive has also shed light on the varied socio-economic relations which were established among the people, mainly in the form of land leases, credit transactions, sales, divisions of property, and marriages. As farming was the most widespread activity in the village, it is not surprising that the best-attested relation was of the agricultural type, as the one between the village elders, well-off individuals often of priestly status, and the local population; the former would lease out public land not only to common Egyptian villagers, who farmed plots of land mainly for personal maintenance, but also to wealthy individuals, often Hellenized or of Greek origin, who needed pasture land for their flocks. Common villagers also established leasing relations with other fellow villagers as well as with Greek landowners by renting out or leasing plots of public and private land. Normally small landowners and farmers leased private land from several landowners, avoiding building exclusive longterm relations with one landowner only, which could have created economic dependence. The same scenario is also attested in the second century. As was typical in the Arsinoite nome, the existence of a larger proportion of available public land, as opposed to private land, in the territory around Tebtunis meant that men regularly leased small plots in order to support their families, or else to complement the profits they made from other activities. Since a flexible occupational pattern is documented for the village, whereby people could perform many different roles at once (i.e. farmer,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi



227

weaver, and shepherd), it is not possible to provide an exact breakdown of the number of individuals who were involved in the various jobs. According to a most likely scenario, the average villager would lease a small plot of land (generally of around 4 arouras), which he would cultivate in wheat for personal sustenance; he would make his own clothes, presumably with the help of his wife or other family members, and occasionally would lease out some extra land, either public or private if available, to a third party, so as to make some extra profit. The nature of social relations in the form of marriage is more difficult to assess as the evidence is often lacking in personal details. Marriages are attested to have occurred mainly between individuals bearing typically Egyptian names. However, mixed marriages, that is between native Egyptians and people of likely Greek descent, also occurred, although it is impossible to establish how common this phenomenon was. The picture emerging from the registers of contracts dated to the  40s is not that of a bleak village life. The people of Tebtunis appear to have been rather resourceful and capable of making quick extra cash by using a variety of credit agreements which involved an advance payment, including residence offers, whereby debtors offered their creditors accommodation in lieu of paying interests on a loan; some antichretic leases (in which the rent was paid in advance); work contracts; and wet-nurse contracts. Residence contracts, in particular, were very popular among the people of Tebtunis since houses in Egypt were affordable assets and virtually everyone owned one or a part of one. Although only a small percentage of the total population could be classified as financially well-off, two main facts suggest that the overall living standards were above subsistence level. First, the relatively high participation in the contractual economy, in particular in transactions which involved money, which implies a far-reaching circulation of cash among all social strata (contracting parties also needed some cash to pay the relevant scribal fee). Second, the resourcefulness of the people of Tebtunis, who engaged in a number of credit agreements and economic activities in order to make extra cash. Members of associations, who normally belonged to the native strata of the population, also appear to have had at their disposal enough cash to support their families as well as covering their membership fees, which alone could be up to 144 dr. per year (enough to feed a family of four), and other costs associated with their membership (i.e. payment of drinks for monthly banquets, occasional help to fellowmembers, potential fines). The existence of an active system of monetization,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

228

    

of both copper and silver coins, through which the local economy was operated gave everyone in the village, even those belonging to the lower strata of the population, access to monetized transactions. A set of prices for various items preserved in two accounts drawn up by the local nota Kronion, has revealed the existence of an essentially free market (only papyrus rolls had a fixed price) in which virtually anyone could participate. It is interesting to note that a considerably high number of the men attested in the dowry contracts (c.47.6 per cent) were able to provide their daughters with medium- to large-sized dowries (100 dr. and above), more than the number of those (33 per cent) who gave their daughters small-sized dowries (10–59 dr.). The majority of the population was primarily involved in farming and other agricultural activities, as suggested by the fact that land leases constituted the most common contract type in this period. Next to farming, fishing and pastoralism played an important role within village society, to a large extent due to the presence of the so-called drumoi to the north, public marshy land which was leased out to individuals and groups. Both activities were organized through associations; pastoralism, in particular, was represented by two associations, one of the shepherds, another of the professional cattle graziers. A number of crafts and trades also contributed to the development of a thriving local economy. Unsurprisingly, textile production represented the best-organized industry in the village, displaying a high level of professionalization. Metalworkers, salt- and gypsum-sellers, brewers, oil producers, and various food producers and retailers are also attested in the village. Many of these economic activities were organized as state concessions, meaning that, in order to perform certain jobs, individuals or groups had to submit a written bid to the state and pay an annual fee. The presence of a high number of state concessions suggests that several activities generated enough income in order to justify the trouble of a bidding procedure and payment of an annual rent, thus encouraging competition among bidders. The grapheion itself, which represented a fundamental socioadministrative institution facilitating the implementation of a wide range of transactions, functioned as a state concession. The economy of Tebtunis was operated mainly at the village and intervillage level. Most basic items, including food, wine, beer, textiles, and even metal objects, were produced and sold in Tebtunis and surrounding villages, and several transactions attest to the existence of economic and administrative links between these rural centres. Tebtunis had also contacts with the district capital, Ptolemais Euergetis, especially in the form of business visits;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi



229

the grapheion clerks made frequent trips to the district capital to buy papyrus rolls, or to meet with some administrative officials, while several metropolitan officials (or their representatives) regularly travelled to Tebtunis for any business associated with the record-office (e.g. collecting the papyrus tax). Members of associations also visited the district capital on a regular basis; indeed, some of their meetings took place there. Although the nature and content of these gatherings are unknown, there is no doubt that they encouraged the establishment of social networks, which probably also facilitated economic relations between the people of Tebtunis and those of the district capital. The active local economy and resourcefulness of the people of Tebtunis, as reconstructed in this book, clash with the traditional view of an economic crisis during the years of the emperor Claudius ( 41–54) supported by several scholars (e.g. Montevecchi, Hobson). According to this view, the crisis, caused by an excessively high flood (over 16 cubits) of the Nile in  45, was visible in the following data: an increase in the number of leases of fodder land, that is land to be devoted to animal grazing, which was likely to constitute a low risk transaction, as opposed to leases of grain land, whose return depended on the height of the inundation; an increase in the number of cash loans, which would have signified a widespread condition of financial distress; and a high number of wet-nurse contracts, which have been interpreted as fictitious sales of children, occurring only in desperate times. In the previous chapters it has been argued that the interpretation of these data might have been in fact misleading. First, the disproportionately high number of leases of fodder land is simply a distortion of the evidence. In the majority of leases, the crop is not specified, suggesting that in these instances wheat, which was the standard crop, and not fodder, was to be sown. This would leave us with a proportion between fodder and cereal land which was typical of a regular harvest year. Second, the high number of cash loans was not necessarily a reflection of chronic indebtedness in the village, but an indication of a willingness to invest and confidence in the credit economy, as revealed by the ability of many people to make some cash by entering into a wide range of written transactions. Third, the convoluted interpretation of wet-nurse contracts as fictitious sales of children is abandoned in favour of the more likely explanation, supported by the evidence, according to which these agreements simply showed that the women of Tebtunis were resourceful enough to work as nannies at the service of wealthy individuals in order to make some quick cash, as they received their wage in advance. Furthermore, there is no

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

230

    

evidence to suggest that women engaged in this activity only in times of financial distress. A sharp increase in the price of grain, recorded in September 45, appears to have been the only indication of a potential poor harvest in that year. However, since the rest of the evidence points towards an overall healthy economy, it is most likely that, if a crisis occurred at all, it was not large in proportion and did not have a strong impact on the village society and economy. Alongside an active contractual economy, early Roman Tebtunis also appears to have enjoyed a thriving social culture, which is reflected in the writing activities of the priests of Soknebtunis, in the festivals, in a wellattested literary tradition, and in the communal life attached to the numerous associations that regularly met and feasted in the dining rooms along the processional way. It has to be noted, however, that the positive (and sometimes happy) image of the village, as has often emerged in this book, does not mean that poverty and economic distress did not exist in Tebtunis. Financial difficulties, associated for example with a bad harvest, and insufficient financial means were no doubt constant sources of trouble for many families. What the grapheion archive has revealed is the opportunity for a large proportion of the population to enter into a variety of written transactions which would have helped individuals and families to make quick cash in times of need, perhaps to pay taxes or to provide a daughter with a suitable dowry, but occasionally also to improve their economic position (e.g. by taking more land on lease). In antiquity the notion of the ‘village’ did not denote one single type of rural settlement, but could refer to small hamlets of a hundred inhabitants (epoikia) as well as to large centres of several thousand people, like Tebtunis, usually called komai, with a wide range of medium-sized settlements in between. As a quasi-town village, Tebtunis was not unique in Egypt; the evidence from the first and second century  suggests that both Philadelphia and Karanis, in the Arsinoite nome, enjoyed a similar type of contractual and monetized economy, while the evidence from the Mendesian and Oxyrhynchite nomes and from fourth-century Karanis and Theadelphia, again in the Arsinoite, reveals the existence of similarities in land tenure and relations between landowners and tenants. Early Roman Tebtunis exhibits a number of features which were typical of village society throughout Egyptian history, including initiative, village solidarity, and some elements of administrative independence. These features depended mainly on the geological peculiarity of Egypt; although the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi



231

Nile Valley was very fertile, productivity depended on the annual flood of the Nile and irrigation required high maintenance, with work falling upon local peasant communities. In this economically risky society, villagers had to be resourceful and find ways to protect or enhance their finances. Economic initiatives varied from one period to another. Villagers could lend or borrow money in order to invest in land leasing or in other nonagricultural activities, as we have seen in first-century Tebtunis; they could also take up local administrative offices so as to improve their socioeconomic status, as the notary Kronion and tax-collector Nemesion did in Tebtunis and Philadelphia respectively. Resourceful villagers are also attested in the Pharaonic and post-Roman periods. Aside from working in royal tombs, the people of Deir el Medina in the New Kingdom, for example, often had various other sources of income, including production of items for sale on the market, which allowed them to buy luxury items and also to save for more substantial investments.¹ In sixth-century Aphrodito and eighthcentury Jeme patronage was another popular way to attain economic protection and, occasionally, financial prosperity.² Village solidarity, intended as community spirit and identity, seems to have been another typical feature of village society in Egypt, from the Pharaonic period through to the eighth century. At Deir el Medina, for example, the state left fiscal responsibility and settlement of legal business to local leading men, thus increasing village solidarity.³ In the Ptolemaic, Roman, and post-Roman periods the state continued to delegate the administrative running of rural settlements to local officials, even though its involvement in village life became increasingly stronger. In early Roman Tebtunis the community spirit emerged in the associative phenomenon and related social activities (especially those of large associations such as the public tenants, the fishermen, and the cattle graziers) and in the religious sphere. Overall, it appears that Egyptian villages kept a flexible social structure and some self-administrative autonomy throughout history, thus making them coherent units, as was first-century Tebtunis. This is not to say that changes did not occur, especially in the extent and nature of the state’s involvement in the administrative running of these communities and in the development of new practices, such as patronage. In the Byzantine period, for example, monasteries played a pivotal role in the socio-economic and

¹ Lesko (1994) 15–39.

² Wickham (2006) 426–7.

³ Eyre (1999) 44–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

232

    

cultural shaping of villages. The hydrological nature of Egypt, however, played an even more important role, dictating the formation of concentrated settlements and promoting a strong village identity. The picture of first-century Tebtunis also allows us to get some sense of how the data from this village fit the evidence from other areas outside Egypt. In general, from an institutional point of view, the villages of the eastern Mediterranean appear to have had a much more formal internal organization than the villages in the West.⁴ Despite the existence of a wide range of rural communities and microenvironments, in eastern villages we have evidence of strong communal structures, such as local officials, festivals, religious institutions, and associations, and a relatively high level of self-administration. Communal strength varied from case to case depending on a number of factors, including economic status, degree of administrative independence, organization of political power, and cooperation among villagers. As in Egypt, some degree of institutional organization contributed to the promotion of village solidarity and identity in regions of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.⁵ The villages of these areas resembled first-century Tebtunis in terms of self-administration, as revealed by the activities of the village elders, village scribe, and tax-collectors; integration into the regional market economy; community spirit and collective identity, as can be seen by a strong epigraphic habit in which self-representation played a major role; and community action, such as the defence of grazing rights on public land and maintenance of the irrigation system.⁶ Although not all Egyptian villages had the same features, a general trend of coherence and institutional strength emerges and first-century Tebtunis fits well the general picture provided for eastern villages. Like communities around Ankara in Roman Asia Minor, sixth-century Aphrodito, and eighthcentury Jeme in Egypt, Tebtunis was a solid community, with relatively strong communal institutions. A reasonably high degree of collective life is attested in the form of associations, which played a central role in the local economy, as many economic activities were organized in associative form. Early Roman Tebtunis also resembled eastern Mediterranean settlements and later Egyptian villages in its ‘unplanned and tightly packed’ housing

⁴ Wickham (2006) 436. ⁵ Wickham (2006) 428. Bagnall (1993) 114, 137 regards the fourth-century villages as weak units lacking administrative autonomy and a strong internal organization. ⁶ Mitchell (1993) 182; Schuler (2012) 80–1, 90–1; Wickham (2006) 443.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi



233

pattern, which was a major factor in strengthening the local identity of those communities.⁷ Although it is unlikely that the economy and society of large settlements in other eastern provinces functioned exactly as those in Tebtunis, the picture of this village, as has emerged from the analysis of the grapheion archive, provides a useful comparison for any study aiming to assess how prosperous ancient communities were and which factors contributed to their well-being.

⁷ Wickham (2006) 465.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

APPENDIX I

The Grammatikon The general consensus holds that in the Roman period the grammatikon was the scribal fee which was charged for the writing of private and public documents at the local record-office, the amount of which varied depending on the length of the text and the number of copies required.¹ The factors affecting the variable amount of the grammatikon, however, remain problematic, as the correlation between the amount of writing and the corresponding fee is not always obvious. In a recent study which examined the entries of grammatikon in two grapheion registers, P.Mich. II 123 recto ( 45/6) and V 238 ( 46/7), Uri Yiftach-Firanko suggested that the amount of the scribal fee might have depended on the format on the papyrus, noting that a rather expensive format was used for land sales (‛extensive, oblong shape, consisting of three columns’), while a cheaper, narrower format was used for other types of documents.² After examination of the sums of grammatikon in documents which displayed a monetary value, he concluded that there was no correlation between the amount of the fee and ‛the value of the transaction recorded’.³ Instead, the higher or lower cost of the grammatikon would have depended on whether the state wished to discourage or promote specific transactions. Yiftach-Firanko, therefore, associated the higher fees attested in four types of contracts, all involving land—land sales, cessions of catoecic land, divisions of property (diaireseis), and wills in the form of division (meriteiai)—with the state’s ‛tendency to restrict alienability of landed property’.⁴ According to this interpretation, the state would have introduced additional costs in connection with the conveyance of land, including the scribal fee, in order to discourage such transactions. Following is a re-examination of the grammatikon entries which aims to test Yiftach-Firanko’s hypothesis and shed light on points of controversial interpretation. The amount of grammatikon is preserved in a total of 777 entries (581 in P.Mich. II 123 recto, 196 in P.Mich. V 238), ranging from a minimum of 1 ob. to a maximum of 50 dr. In the introduction to P.Mich. II 123, Arthur Boak explains ‘that the sums of money regularly entered after the record of each document are γραμματικά follows from the insertion of the phrase ὀφείλει (written ὀφίλι or ὀφίλει) τὸ γραμματικόν in places where such sums are omitted’.⁵ In the large majority of cases, that is over 73 per cent (or 571), this fee ranges between 1 and 4 dr. (the sum of 4 dr. is the best represented, with 26 per cent of instances within this range). A grammatikon between 1 and 5 ob. is attested in about 9.6 per cent of the entries (or 75); fees between 5 and 12 dr. are attested

¹ P.Mich. II, pp. 89–92. Also Wallace (1938) 236–7. ² Yiftach-Firanko (2015) 153–4. ³ Yiftach-Firanko (2015) 155. ⁴ Yiftach-Firanko (2015) 158–9. ⁵ P.Mich. II p. 89.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

236

 

in about 13.6 per cent; higher fees of 12 to 28 dr. are attested in about 2 per cent (or 17), while fees of 40 and 50 dr. are to be found only in c. 0.3 per cent and 0.1 per cent of the entries respectively (or 3 and 1). This shows that the drafting of most transactions was affordable (or at least not excessively expensive) for the majority of the grapheion-users. When looking at the various amounts of grammatikon, one notes that a specific range of fees was associated with a specific document type; the highest fees include the sale of a house (40 dr.), a will in the form a division of property (40 dr.), and a dowry contract for the value of 420 dr. (50 dr.).⁶ A first look seems to confirm the general view according to which no correlation existed between the amount of the grammatikon and the monetary value of the transaction—for example, while the grammatikon for a loan of 208 dr. was 10 dr., that for a loan of 620 dr. was 6 dr.⁷ On the other hand, there was certainly a correlation between the scribal fee and the type of object included in a transaction (Table A.1). In sales, for example, we find different ranges of grammatikon in relation to different objects: 2 to 20 ob. (or 3 dr. 2 ob.) for looms, donkeys, oxen, anvil, and a pottery stone; 4 to 8 dr. for sheep, bikoi, vacant lots, and houses; 12 dr. for slaves; and 16 to 40 dr. for houses. Land leases also display a wide range of fees, from 1 ob. to 16 dr. However, in 88.8 per cent of the cases the range was much narrower, from 1 to 4 1/2 dr. A first quick look seems to show little correlation between the amount of the grammatikon and the size of the plots—for example, for 3 ar. a contracting party could pay 1 dr. as well as 16 dr. But high figures such as this were rare in land leases and might have included some additional service. A fee of 12 dr. for a lease of 4 ar., for example, seems too high, but this contract was ‛subject to cancellation’ (akurosime) and might have required a more complex writing procedure or the production of an additional document.⁸ When we exclude a few odd cases, a pattern emerges whereby the amount of grammatikon appears to have been directly proportional to the size of the plot. So, for plots between 1 and 2 1/2 ar. the most common fees went from 1 dr. to 1 1/4 dr.; for plots between 3 and 9 ar. the fees normally went from 1 dr. 1 ob. to 4 dr.; finally, for plots larger than 10 ar. Table A.1 Correlation between grammatikon and type of object Sales

Land leases

Object

Grammatikon

Object

Grammatikon

Looms, donkeys, oxen, anvil, pottery stone

2–20 ob.

1–2 1/2 ar.

1–1 1/4 dr.

Sheep, bikoi, vacant lots, houses

4–8 dr.

3–9 ar.

1 dr. 1 ob.—4 dr.

Slaves

12 dr.

>10 ar.

4 dr.

⁶ House: P.Mich. II 123 recto VIII 21; division (meriteia): P.Mich. V 238 III 151; dowry contract: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 18. ⁷ Loan of 208 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 III 158; loan of 620 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 I 50. ⁸ P.Mich. II 123 recto XVIII 14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 

237

the most commonly charged fee was 4 dr. Other document types also allow us to gain insight into the correlation between the amount of grammatikon and the object of the transaction. An example is given by wills in the form of divisions (meriteiai), in which we find one of the highest scribal fees charged in the record-office documents, 40 dr. Here fees normally range between 2 and 8 dr., with 8 dr. being the best-attested one, while 40 dr. is only found once, charged for the division of Psuphis’ property among his children.⁹ For this division the corresponding full contract has survived, informing us about the extent of property to be bequeathed and also about the socioeconomic status of this well-off priestly family.¹⁰ This was a large and varied property, including land (catoecic and temple), houses, slaves, pastophoria (priestly lodgings), household furniture, and cattle. The full contract is a long and complex one detailing the terms of the division between five children and one grandson; the editor, Elinor Husselman, noted that ‛the document is well written in a small upright cursive’, thus suggesting that it was an expert scribe who wrote it (by dictation).¹¹ The particularly high fee of grammatikon seems to be associated with the size of the property, the use of a skilled scribe, and probably the need to produce many copies for all the parties involved. Unfortunately, for other divisions we do not have full contracts which could confirm this interpretation and shed light on further links, but the case of affidavits (cheirographiai) also seems to suggest the existence of a correlation between grammatikon and object. These documents, which display a scribal fee of 3 ob. to 11 dr., deal with a variety of matters, and it is often difficult to establish the nature of the transaction. It is significant, however, that the highest fees were charged in connection with affidavits made by associations. A fee of 8 dr. is found in three affidavits made by weavers, public tenants, and wool-merchants respectively, while the highest fee of 11 dr. is charged in connection with an affidavit and list of persons (graphe) made by the apolusimoi (farmers who were exempt from some liturgies) and probatoktenotrophoi (professional cattle graziers) together.¹² Although we lack the specifics, the fact that multiple people were involved in all the cases in which a high fee was charged cannot be coincidental. As in the division of property previously discussed, the need for producing numerous copies might have justified a higher scribal fee. Before discussing further the significance of a possible correlation between grammatikon and objects, an analysis of the documents including sums of money is in order. Some correlation between the amount of grammatikon and relevant amount of cash is attested in several credit agreements (Table A.2), including loans, deposits, residence offers, work contracts, and in dowry contracts (Table A.3).¹³ In loan contracts scribal fees go from a minimum of 5 ob. to a maximum of 12 dr., but,

⁹ P.Mich. V 238 III 151. ¹⁰ P.Mich. V 322(a). For a discussion of this family see Chapter 4.2.1. ¹¹ P.Mich. V, p. 266. ¹² Weavers: P.Mich. II 123 recto III 41; public tenants: P.Mich. II 123 recto IX 34; woolmerchants: P.Mich. II 123 recto VI 25; exempt farmers and cattle graziers: P.Mich. II 123 recto III 40. ¹³ A similar interpretation is offered by Lerouxel (2016) 20–1, who discusses in particular contracts of loans.

Loans

Deposits

Residence contracts

Work contracts

Amount of cash

Grammatikon

Amount of cash

Grammatikon

Amount of cash

Grammatikon

Amount of cash

Grammatikon

200 dr. 300–600 dr.

1–3 dr. 2–4 dr. 4–8 dr. 8 dr.

7–100 dr. >100 dr. 1,000–2,040 dr. _

2 dr. 4 dr. 8–10 dr. _

2 dr, 2–4 dr. 8 dr. _

100 dr. _ _

1 – 1/2 dr. 2–4 dr. _ _

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

Table A.2 Correlation between grammatikon and amount of cash in credit agreements

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

 

239

Table A.3 Correlation between grammatikon and amount of cash in dowry contracts Dowry contracts Amount of cash

Grammatikon

20–160 dr. 200 dr. 400 dr. 420 dr.

5 ob.– 4 dr. 6–8 dr. 12 dr. 50 dr.

like in the case of land leases, higher fees are very rarely attested. The lowest rate of 5 ob. is associated with a loan of 22 dr., and the highest rate of 12 dr. with a loan of 832 dr. (which is also the highest sum lent). Some correlations are difficult to explain—e.g., a grammatikon of 2 dr. for a loan of 200 dr., while one of 10 dr. for a loan of 208 dr.¹⁴ Except for very few peculiar cases, in general the amount of the grammatikon increases along with the amount of the loan. So, for loans under 100 dr. the grammatikon normally ranges between 1 and 3 dr.; for loans above 100 dr. and below 200 dr. the commonly charged grammatikon ranges between 2 and 4 dr.; for loans above 200 dr. the grammatikon is normally 4 or 8 dr., where fees of 4 dr. are charged for sums up to 320 dr. and fees of 8 dr. for higher sums (between 380 and 560 dr.). In deposits, the sums of money lent, for which the amount of grammatikon survives, range between 7 dr. and 2,040 dr. Correspondent scribal fees varied between 5 ob. and 20 dr., and although here too, as in loans, we find some inexplicable oddities, the following pattern seems to emerge: a common fee of 2 dr. for sums between 7 and 100 dr.; a fee of 4 dr. for sums above 100 dr.; and finally, a fee of 8 and 10 dr. for sums between 1,000 and 2,040 dr. Residence offers and work contracts offer a similar scenario. The former exhibit fees of 6 ob. (= 1 dr.) to 8 dr. for sums between 12 and 372 dr., while the latter exhibit fees of 5 ob. to 4 dr. for sums between 20 and 100 dr. In residence offers a fee between 1 and just below 2 dr. is normally applied when the loan is up to 100 dr.; a fee of 2 to 4 dr. is applied when the loan is between 100 and 200 dr.; a fee of 8 dr. is applied only when the loan is higher—300 and 372 dr. Similarly, in work contracts the amount of grammatikon is usually between 1 and 1 1/2 dr., with fees of 2 and 4 dr. to be found only in connection with higher sums of 100 dr. The same trend occurs in dowry contracts, which display fees of 5 ob. to 50 dr. for sums between 20 and 420 dr. The amount of grammatikon remains at about 5 ob. to 4 dr. for sums between 20 and 160 dr., with 4 dr. being the most common fee. Fees go up to 6–8 dr. for sums of 200 dr.; a 12 dr. scribal fee is applied to a dowry contract of 400 dr.; and finally the highest fee of 50 dr. is found in a contract with the most valuable dowry, 420 dr.¹⁵ In other agreements which include a monetary value, that is mortgages, postmarriage settlements, wet-nurse contracts, and some receipts, a correlation between ¹⁴ Loan of 200 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 I 13 = V 240 69; loan of 208 dr.: P.Mich. V 238 III 158. ¹⁵ 400 dr.: P.Mich. II 123 recto VII 15; 420 dr.: P.Mich. II 123 recto XXI 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/12/2019, SPi

240

 

amount of grammatikon and sums of money is not so obvious, simply because the range of fees is much narrower—4 to 9 dr., 4 to 8 dr., 2 to 8 dr., and 1 to 8 dr. respectively. In some cases the grammatikon was indicated as ‛due’ (ὀφείλει), in other cases it was marked as ‛free’ (χάρις), occasionally through Kronion or his partner Eutucheides, or both. Possibly some parties, on certain occasions, were exempt from the scribal free as they were creditors of the managers of the grapheion and hence a certain amount of cash was owed to them. The analysis of the grammatikon entries in the two grapheion registers has revealed two main trends: the existence of set ranges of fees for specific transactions and objects, and a correlation between higher fees and the high monetary value of a transaction. So, a low fee was charged for sales of animals and looms as opposed to higher fees for sales of houses. The existence of different fees might have been due to the different level of complexity associated with the composition of a particular document type, so that the higher the level of complexity the more skillful the scribe was required to be, and thus more expensive. In the case of land leases, fees went up proportionally to the size of the plots. Within each range of fees per document type, the amount of grammatikon might have varied slightly, suggesting that a certain degree of flexibility was involved in the setting of these costs; most likely the grapheion-users were aware of these set prices. Most fees were assessed at 1 to 4 dr., a more or less affordable sum which was probably sufficient to cover the costs of hiring a scribe and related costs of papyrus and ink. A possibility also suggested by Yiftach-Firanko, but then rejected, is that the variability of the amount of grammatikon depended on the level of security which the parties were willing to attain.¹⁶ In the case of high value transactions, involving, for example, the conveyance of large sums of money, people might have been more willing to get a more thorough contract drawn up, with the inclusion of more detailed and longer clauses. This service would have cost more, not only as the amount of writing was greater, but possibly also because of the need to hire a more specialized scribe who would be familiar with the specific terms and conditions of the contract in question. An additional reason for the occasional charging of higher fees was the need to produce numerous copies, as seems to have been the case for the division of the property of Psuphis. It is not to be excluded that sometimes the grammatikon included the cost for the production of additional documents which were required in connection with the one recorded at the record-office—for example, cessions of catoecic land, which had to be registered also in the relevant registry (katalogismos). In conclusion, the available evidence does not confirm Yiftach-Firanko’s view that the variable amount of the grammatikon depended on a state policy aimed at discouraging the conveyance of landed property, but on a combination of factors: amount of writing, number of copies to be produced, additional writing costs involved in the transaction, and level of expertise of the scribe.

¹⁶ Yiftach-Firanko (2015) 157.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

APPENDIX II

Nomenclature in the Record-Office Registers The following Appendix includes a list of all name types attested in the grapheion registers of contracts dated to  42 (P.Mich. II 121 verso/recto) and 45–6 (P.Mich. II 123 recto and V 238). The list is in alphabetical order and includes the following information: gender (female, male, unknown); name type (e.g. Egyptian, Greek, Egyptian, Latin and so on, and dynastic or theophoric); meaning; association with a god; and number of occurrences in the registers. The data collected here are mainly drawn on the Trismegistos databases. A discussion on the Tebtunis onomastics is to be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.

Gender

Name type

Agelas Akes Akousilaos Akoutos Alexandros Alkimos Amasis Amuetarios Ammonarios Ammonios Anchias Anchious Anempeous Anoubion Antelois Aphrodisios Apias Apion Apollonides Apollonios Apsemis Apunchis Areios Arsinoe Artemidoros Assuthmis Athenion Aunes

Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male

Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Unknown Greek/Dynastic Greek Egyptian Unknown Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Unknown Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Greek/Dynastic Greek/Theophoric Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Unknown

Meaning

God association Heka

Ỉah ỉs born Ammon Ammon

Anubis has come

Anubis Anubis Aphrodite Apis Apis Apollo Apollo

He will live Ares Gift of Artemis

Artemis Assuthmis Athena

Occurrences 1 1 11 3 2 1 3 1 1 5 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 50 3 18 9 1 1 2 3 3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Female Male Female Male Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male

Unknown Greek Greek Greek Greek Unknown Egyptian Unknown Greek Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Greek Greek Greek/Theophoric Greek/Dynastic Greek Greek Greek Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek Greek Greek Greek Unknown Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek

The lame The enduring bull The child

Animal (bull)

Demeter

Twin Twin Gift of Zeus

Repairer

Zeus Dionysios Zeus

1 1 4 2 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 5 2 1 2 1 2 12 44 7 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Aures Bremon Chairemon Chairis Charonion Cheos Chesis Cheus Chiairiaios Chiales Chomenis Chrates Demarion Demas Demetria Demetrios Didis Didume Didumos Diodoros Dionusios Dios Dioskourides Eirenaios Eirene Eirenion Ekoneus Elis Epetes Epainetos Epimachos Epitunchanon

Continued Gender

Name type

Esenempis Esertais Euangelos Eudaimonis Eudemon Euenos Eus Eutuchas Eutucheides Eutuchides Eutuchos Gaios Galates Galatiaine Harentotos Haretes Harmeis Harmais Harmaissemis Harmausis Harmius Harmiusios Harmiusis Harpaesis Harphaesis Harpokration Harsiesis Haruos

Female Unknown Male Female Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Greek Greek Greek Egyptian Greek Greek Greek Greek Latin Greek Greek Unknown Unknown Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric

Meaning

God association Isis

With a good message

The man of Galatia

Horos is feast Horos is feast Horos the lion with fierce look Horos the lion with fierce look Horos the lion with fierce look Horos the one of Isis Horos the one of Isis Horos son of Isis The healthy Horos

Horos Horos Horos Horos Horos Horos Horos Horos Horos/Isis Horos/Isis Harpokrates/Horos Horos/Isis Horos

Occurrences 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 1 34 1 37 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 4 32 10 1 4 3 1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Male Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Male Male

Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Dynastic Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Dynastic Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek Greek Greek Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Greek Greek/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Latin Greek Greek/Theophoric Unknown Greek Egyptian

The healthy Horos The twin

Horos Herakles Herakles Herakles Herakles Herakles Herakles

Gift of Hermes

Herakles Herakles Hermes Hermes Hermes/Eros Hermes Hermes

Heron Heron

Horos son of Souchos

Horos Horos Horos/Sobek

Gift of Isis

Isis

The kem bull

34 11 14 5 1 43 23 1 65 2 4 8 2 4 1 1 1 53 28 2 31 5 5 12 16 1 4 10 2 1 1 3

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Haruotes Hatres Heraklas Heraklea Herakleia Herakleides Herakleios Herakleitos Herakles Heraklides Heraklous Heras Harmaiskos Hermas Hermeros Hermias Hermodorus Herodes Herodion Herois Heron Heronas Heros Horion Horos Horsisouchos Iocundus Ischurion Isidoros Issuamis Kados Kames

Continued Gender

Name type

Kanopis Karpos Kasia Kastor Keidon Kephalas Klesis Kolkouilis Kollauthis Kollouthos Komon Konuphis Kronides Kronion Labesis Lablas Laboesis Leon Leonides Leontas Lusas Lusimachos Malchion Malles Marepkaimis Marepkemis Marepsemis Maretes

Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Unknown Greek Latin Greek Greek Greek Greek Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Greek Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Unknown Unknown Egyptian Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek/Dynastic Semitic Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Unknown

Meaning

God association

Kronos Kronos

Lion Lion

Animal (lion) Animal (lion)

Marres the kem bull Marres the kem bull Marres the younger

Ra Ra Ra

Occurrences 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 15 6 1 6 105 4 1 1 6 2 1 19 29 1 1 1 9 25 1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Greek/Theophoric Latin Greek Unknown Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Unknown Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Latin Egyptian Greek Greek Greek Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Greek Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric

Ra

Marres son of Souchos

Ra Ra/Sobek

Great of births The child of Horos

Meswer Horos

The fierce looking lion

Animal (lion) Maahes

Animal (lion)

The eye of Horos is against them

Horos

Good of face Isis is strong

Nepheros Isis

Onnophris Born from Horos

Horos

The good guardian

Orsenouphis

2 1 36 1 2 30 2 1 4 2 1 39 2 1 3 6 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 11 2 1 4 47 1 2 1 85

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Mareus Markos Maron Marous Marres Marsisouchos Menemachos Menias Mesoueris Mesouris Mestoous Mieus Miusis Modestos Moueis Mustharion Musthas Musthes Musthos Naaraus Narkissa Narkissos Nekpheraus Nepheros Nestesis Nestnephis Nikomedes Onnophris Opis Origenes Orseas Orsenouphis

Continued Gender

Name type

Meaning

God association

Occurrences

Orseus Ouaros Paas Paaus Paches Pachis Paeus Pakebkis Ousionsios Palleus Pallaus Pamethis Panas Panechotes Panesis Panesneus Panomies Panorses Panoubion Pansosneus Panther Paopis Papnebtunis Papontos Papos Paris Pasepsemis Pasiouanis

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Egyptian/Theophoric Latin Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Unknown Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian

The guardian

Orseus

The one of Geb

Geb

113 1 3 1 6 1 2 15 1 2 5 1 2 2 9 3 1 1 1 1 1 11 28 38 2 1 2 2

The one of the Chet demons The one of Isis The one of the brothers The one of the lions

Isis

Anubis The one of the two brothers The one of Hapi The one of Pnebtunis

The one of the cell

Animal (panther) Hapi Sobek

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Male Male

Unknown Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Unknown Egyptian Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Greek Unknown Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric

Peteesis Peteeus Petemennophris Petemmounis Petermouthis Petesis Petesouchos Petesus Peteuris Petheus Petosiris Petserapis

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric

He who was given by Osiris

Osiris

The one of Thermouthis

Thermouthis

The one of Tebtunis The one of Osiris

Osiris

The Kushite / (the god) Pekusis

Pekysis

The Syrian / (the god) Pesouris He who was given by Horosthe-son-of-Isis He who was given by Isis He who was given by them

Isis

He who was given by Amoun He who was given by Thermouthis He who was given by Isis He who was given by Souchos

Amun Thermouthis Isis Sobek

He who was given by Horos He who was given by them He who was given by Osiris He who was given by Oserapis

Horos Osiris Serapis

1 2 7 4 6 1 1 1 10 42 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 27 1 2 3 5 36 5 2 8 2 1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Pasipos Pasis Pastoous Pastous Pasus Patagas Patermouthis Patetemis Patron Patunis Pausiris Pausis Pekusis Peneus Penithes Peritas Peskas Pesoure Petearpsenesis

Continued Gender

Name type

Meaning

God association

Petsiris Phabas Phaeionios Phaerios Phaesis Phanias Phasis Phasos Phemnasis Phemsais Phenias Phibion Pholemis Phomsais Pites Plosis Pnasis Pnebtunis Pnesis Polemon Pollous Polukrates Pomsochis Ponnis Posidonios Potamon Pouoris Prakis

Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Unknown

Egyptian/Theophoric Unknown Unknown Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Greek Egyptian Egyptian Unknown Unknown Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Greek Greek Greek Egyptian Egyptian Greek Greek Egyptian Unknown

He who was given by Osiris

Osiris

The one of the Comrade (demon?) The one of Isis (m.)

Isis

He who was given by Osiris The one of Shou The prophet priest of Isis

Osiris Shu Isis

The high priest of Heliopolis The crocodile

Animal (crocodile)

The man of Aethiopia The lord of Tynis

Sobek

The dog

animal (dog)

Occurrences 8 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 6 9 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Male Male Male

Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Greek/Dynastic Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek Egyptian Greek Greek Thracian Greek Greek Greek Greek/Theophoric Greek/Theophoric Semitic Greek

The son of Amoun The son of Geb The son of Bastet The son of Osiris

Amun Geb Bastet Osiris

Osiris The two brothers

Sarapis Sarapis

1 1 20 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 25 1 26 21 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 6 3 1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Proxenos Psenamounis Psenkebkis Psenobastis Psenosiris Psenotupis Psentamieus Psenteus Psexemis Psonosiris Psosneus Psoumeris Psuphis Ptolemaios Ptolemas Ptolemes Ptolemon Ptollas Ptollion Ptollis Ptollous Punchis Purichos Purrhos Sadalas Sambas Sambathion Sambous Sarapias Sarapion Satabous Saturos

Continued Gender

Name type

Sekomis Sekonapis Senapettis Serapas Seras Siaiepis Sigeris Siphon Sisenxis Sisois Sokonopis Sosas Sotas Soterichos Souchion Soueris Stotoetis Sellouris Taambesis Taapis Taarmiusis

Male Unknown Female Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Unknown Male Male Male Male Male Unknown Unisex Unknown Female Female Female

Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Greek/Theophoric Greek Unknown Egyptian Unknown Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Greek Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Unknown Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric

Taaruos Taaruotes Tamarron Tamarres Tamieus Tamustha

Female Female Female Female Female Female

Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian

Meaning

God association

Sarapis

Son of the great one

Souchos-Hapi

The great Isis May they avert the calamity The one of Heneb The one of Apis The one of Horos the fierce looking lion The one of Haruotes The one of Maron The one of Marres The one of fierce looking lion The one of Musthas

Sobek/Hapi

Sobek Isis

Heneb Apis Horos/Maahes Horos Horos

Maahes

Occurrences 1 1 1 7 2 1 2 4 4 1 5 1 10 8 1 5 5 1 1 1 2 5 2 3 8 4 2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Unknown Unknown

Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Unknown Unknown

The one of the brothers The one of Onnophris The one of Hapi

Onnophris Hapi

The one of the good guardian The one of the guardians The one of the face The one of Pekusis

Orsenouphis Orseus

The one of Petosiris The one of Petesouchos

Osiris Sobek

The one of the high priest of Heliopolis The one of Pnebtunis

Sobek

The one of the two brothers The one of Thermouthis

Thermouthis

The one of Souchos The one of Shu

Osiris Sobek Shu

1 1 3 2 1 7 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 16 5 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 2 1 1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Tanaarous Tanesneus Taonnophris Taopis Taorpuonsis Taorsenouphis Taorseus Taos Tapekusis Tapellichis Tapeseus Tapesoukis Tapetheus Tapetsiris Tapetsoukis Taphatres Tapholemis Tapieus Tapnebtunis Tapontos Tapsosneus Tarmouthis Tasigeris Tasis Tasooukis Tasos Tatepheros Tatephersos Tatomis Tausis Tbithis Tebeneus

Continued Gender

Name type

Tenouphis Tepheros Tephersos Terepsaeis Tereus Tesenouphis Tetekas Tetenouphis Teteon Tetosiris Teues Thaeis Thaeisas Thasos Thatres Thaubarion Thaubas Thaubastis Theanis Thechnous Themarres Thenamounis Thenanchious Thenapunchis Thenarkeis Thenaruotes Thenateris Thenatumis

Male Female Male Female Female Male Female Female Unknown Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female

Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Unknown Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric

Meaning

God association

The one with the beautiful face

Nepheros Shai Tesenouphis

She who was given by Anoubis

Anubis

She who was given by Osiris

Osiris

The one of Isis

Isis Isis Shu

The one of Shou The female twin

The one of Bastet

Bastet Bastet Bastet

The daughter of Amoun

Ra Amun

The daughter of Haruotes

Horos

The daughter of Atumis

Atum

Occurrences 2 3 20 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 6 1 2 12 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Female Female Female Male Male Male Female

Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Egyptian Greek Greek Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian Egyptian/Theophoric Egyptian/Theophoric Greek Egyptian

The daughter of Herakleia The daughter of Geb

Herakles Geb

The daughter of Marsisouchos

Ra Sobek/Ra

The daughter of the guardian

Meswer Orseus shu

Sobek Isis

The daughter of the two brothers

Thermouthis Thermouthis Thoth hears

Thoth Thonis

1 1 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 6 5 1 1 2 1 1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Thencheos Thenchorephis Theneraklea Thenkebkis Thenmaron Thenmarres Thenmarsisouchos Thenmenches Thenmesoueris Thenorseus Thenpasos Thenpatunis Thenpesutis Thenpetsoukis Thenphanes Thenphemnasis Thenphusis Thenprakis Thenpsosneus Thenpsuphis Thenthonis Thentitois Theon Theonas Theos Thermouthis Thermoutharion Thommous Thotsuthmis Thouonis Timon Tithenxis

Continued Gender

Name type

Titoous Tkaumis Tkuphis Tmarsis Trophaneous Venustus Zenon Zoilos

Male Unknown Female Female Unknown Male Male Male

Egyptian Unknown Egyptian Egyptian Greek Latin Greek/Theophoric Greek

Meaning

God association

Zeus

Occurrences 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Personal names

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Bibliography C. E. P. Adams (2007) Land Transport in Roman Egypt: A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2013) ‘Natural resources in Roman Egypt. Extraction, transport, and administration’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 50: 265–81. J. L. Alonso (2010) ‘The bibliotheke enkteseon and the alienation of real securities in Roman Egypt,’ Journal of Juristic Papyrology 40: 11–54. R. Alston (1997) ‘Houses and households in Roman Egypt’, in A. Wallace-Hadrill and R. Laurence (eds), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Portsmouth, RI (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement; Vol. 22): 25–39. (1998) ‘Trade and the city in Roman Egypt’, in H. Parkins and C. Smith (eds), Trade, Traders and the Ancient City. London and New York: Routledge: 168–202. (2002) The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London and New York: Routledge. M. Amelotti (1948) ‘La ΕΝΧΩΡΗΣΙΣ ed un papiro milanese inedito’, Athenaeum 26: 76–82. C. Anti (1931) ‘Gli scavi della missione archeologica italiana a Umm-el-Breighat (Tebtunis)’, Bollettino dell’Associazione Internazionale degli Studi Mediterranei: 23–4. A. Arjava (1997) ‘The guardianship of women in Roman Egypt’, in B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Mähler and G. Pöthke (eds), Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 13.-19.8.1995. Archiv für Papyrusforshung Beiheft 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B.G. Teubner: 25–30. S. Avogadro (1935) ‘Le ἀπογραφαί di proprietà nell’Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus 15: 131–6. R. S. Bagnall (1992) ‘Landholding in late Roman Egypt: the distribution of wealth’, Journal of Roman Studies 82: 128–49. (1993a) Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (1993b) ‘Slavery and Society in Late Roman Egypt’, in B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson (eds), Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press: 220–38. (1995) Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. London and New York: Routledge. (1997a) ‘Missing females in Roman Egypt’, Scripta Classica Israelica 16: 121–38. (1997b) ‘The people of the Roman Fayum’, in M. L. Bierbrier (ed.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press: 7–15. (2000) ‘Village and urban elites in Roman Tebtunis’, paper delivered at a symposium in Berkeley, online http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/Exhibits/ctp/ancient-livesthe-tebtunis-collection-in-context/pdfs/VillageandUrbanElitesinRomanTebtunis_ Bagnall.pdf (2005) ‘Egypt and the concept of the Mediterranean’, in W. V. Harris (ed.) Rethinking the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 339–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

258



R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier (1994: 2nd ed. 2006) The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R. S. Bagnall and D. W. Rathbone (2004) Egypt: from Alexander to the Copts. An Archaeological and Historical Guide. London: British Museum Press. W. S. Bagnall (1973) The archive of Laches: Prosperous farmers of the Fayum in the second century. Durham, NC: Duke University Unpublished Dissertation. G. Bagnani (1935) ‘Gli Scavi di Tebtunis’, Bollettino d’arte 28: 376–87. C. Balconi (1990) ‘Le dichiarazioni di bestiame e il controllo del patrimonio zootecnico nell’Egitto romano’, Aegyptus 70: 113–22. P. Ballet and A. Południkiewicz (2012) Tebtynis V: la céramique des époques hellénistique et impériale: campagnes 1988–1993: production, consommation et réception dans le Fayoum meridional. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. J. Banaji (2001) Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. Bang (2008) The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D. J. I. Begg (1998) ‘‘It was wonderful, our return in the darkness with . . . the baskets of papyri!’ Papyrus finds at Tebtunis from the Bagnani archives, 1931–1936’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 35: 185–10. A. H. I. Bell (1938) ‘The economic crisis in Egypt under Nero’, Journal of Roman Studies 28: 1–8. A. Benaissa (2009) Rural Settlements of the Oxyrynchite Nome. A Papyrological Survey. Trismegistos Online Publications (TOP), volume 4. R. Bensier and R. Hopital (1983) ‘Les communautes rurales dans l’Empire romain’, Les Communautes rurales, 2e partie: Antiquite, Dessain et Tolra, Recueils de la societe Jean Bodin, 41: 431–68. L. Berkes (2017) Dorfverwaltung und Dorfgemeinschaft in Ägypten von Diokletian zu den Abbasiden (Philippika 104). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. M. C. Besta (1921) ‘Pesca e pescatori nell’Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus 2: 67–74. J. Bingen (1975) ‘Le milieu urbain dans la chôra égyptienne à l’époque ptolémaïque’, in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists. Oxford, 24–31, July, 1974. London: Published for the British Academy by the Egypt Exploration Society: 367–73. (1991) ‘Notables hermopolitans et onomastique féminine’, Chronique d’Égypte 66: 324–29. L. Bender Jørgensen and U. Mannering (2001) ‘Mons Claudianus: Investigating Roman Textiles in the Desert’, in P. Walton Rogers, L. Bender Jørgensen and A. Rast-Eicher (eds), The Roman Textile Industry and Its Influence. A birthday tribute to John Peter Wild. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1–11. M. Bergamasco (1995) ‘Le didascali nella ricerca attuale’ Aegyptus 75: 95–167. (2004) ‘Tre note a tre διδασκαλικαί’, Studi di Egittologia e Papirologia: Rivista Internazionale 1: 31–43. (2006) ‘Il contratto di baliatico in PDuk inv. 915’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 158: 203–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



259

I. Bieżuńska-Małowist (1977) L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine (vol. 2). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. M. V. Biscottini (1966) ‘L’archivio di Tryphon, tessitore di Oxyrhynchos’, Aegyptus 46: 60–90. K. Blouin (2012) ‘Between Water and Sand. Agriculture and Husbandry’, in C. Riggs (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 22–37. (2014) Triangular Landscapes: Environment, Society, and The State in The Nile Delta Under Roman Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A. E. R. Boak (1923) ‘The anagraphai of the grapheion of Tebtunis and Kerkesouchon Orous’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9: 164–7. (1926) ‘Alimentary contracts from Tebtunis’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12: 100–9. (ed.) (1935) Soknopaiou Nesos: The University of Michigan excavations at Dimê in 1931–32. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (1937) ‘The organization of gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt,’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 68: 212–20. (1955) ‘The population of Roman and Byzantine Karanis’, Historia 4: 157–62. A. E. R. Boak and E. E. Peterson (1931) Karanis: Topographical and architectural report of excavations during the seasons 1924–28. University of Michigan Humanistic Series. vol. 25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. D. Bonneau (1964) La crue du Nil, divinité égyptienne: à travers mille ans d histoire ̓ (332 av.-641 ap. J.-C.) d après ̓ les auteurs grecs et latins, et latins, et les documents des époques ptolémaïque, romaine et byzantine. Paris: C. Klincksieck. (1971) Le fisc et le Nil: Incidences des irrégularités de la crue du Nil sur la fiscalité foncière dans l’Égypte grecque at romaine. Paris: Editions Cujas. A. L. Boozer (2015) ‘The tyranny of typologies. Evidential reasoning in RomanoEgyptian domestic archaeology’, in R. Chapman and A. Wylie (eds), Material evidence: Learning from archaeological practice. London and New York: Routledge: 92–109. T. B. Bottomore (1964; 2nd ed. 1993) Elites and Society. London and New York: Routledge. P. Bourdieu (1979) Distinction: A Social Critique of The Judgement of Taste. Translated by R. Nice. London: Routledge: 2010. A. K. Bowman (1971) The Town Councils of Roman Egypt. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert. (1985) ‘Landholding in the Hermopolite Nome in the Fourth Century A.D.’, Journal of Roman Studies 75: 137–63. (1991) ‘Literacy in the Roman empire: mass and mode’, in M. Beard and al. (eds), Literacy in the Roman World. JRA Supplement 3. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology: 119–31. (1996) Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 - 642, from Alexander to the Arab conquest. London: British Museum Press. (2000) ‘Urbanization in Roman Egypt’, in E. Fentress (ed.), Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformation, and Failure. JRA Supplement 38. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology: 173–87. (2009) ‘Quantifying Egyptian agriculture’, in A. K. Bowman and A. Wilson (eds), Quantifying the Roman Economy. Methods and Problems. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 177–84.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

260



(2011) ‘Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: Population and Settlement’, in A. K. Bowman and A. Wilson (eds), Settlement, Urbanization and Population. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 317–58. (2013) ‘Agricultural production in Egypt’, in A. K. Bowman and A. I. Wilson (eds), The Roman Agricultural Economy: Organization, Investment and Production. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 219–53. A. K. Bowman and D. W. Rathbone (1992) ‘Cities and administration in Roman Egypt’, Journal of Roman Studies 82: 107–27. A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan (eds) (1999) Agriculture in Egypt: from Pharaonic to modern times. Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy 96. K. R. Bradley (1980) ‘Sexual regulations in wet-nursing contracts from Roman Egypt’, Klio 62: 321–5. (1984) Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1986) ‘Wet-nursing at Rome: A study in social relations’, in B. Rawson (ed.) The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. London: Croom Helm: 201–29. (1991) Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. E. Breccia ‘Fouilles à Oxyrhynchus et à Tebtunis’, Le Musée gréco’romain. 1925–1931: 60–3. Y. Broux (2013) ‘Creating a new local elite: The establishment of the metropolitan orders of Roman Egypt’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 59/1: 142–52. (2015) Double Names and Elite Strategy in Roman Egypt (Studia Hellenistica 54). Leuven: Peeters. Y. Broux and M. Depauw (2015) ‘The maternal line in Greek identification: signalling social status in Roman Egypt (30 .– 400), Historia 64 (4): 467–78. J.-P. Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon and S. Sidebotham (2018) The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Graeco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. Paris: Collège de France. C. Bruun and J. Edmondson (eds) (2015) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. F. Burkhalter (1990) ‘Archives locales et archives centrales en Égypte romaine’, Chiron 20: 191–15. (1998) ‘La production des objets en métal (or, argent, bronze) en Égypte hellénistique et romaine à travers les sources papyrologiques. Avec résumés en français, en grec et en anglais’, in J.-Y. Empereur (ed.) Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie hellénistique et romaine. Actes du Colloque d’Athènes organisé par le CNRS, le Laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon et l’École française d’Athènes, 11–12 décembre 1988 = BCH. Supplément 33: 125–33. S. Bussi (2003) ‘Selezione di élites nell’Egitto romano. Ἐπίκρισις ed εἴσκρισις tra I e III secolo d.C.’, Laverna 14: 146–66. (2008) Le élites locali nella provincia d’Egitto di prima età imperiale. Milano: Cisalpino. R. Calderini (1941) ‘Ricerche sul doppio nome personale nell’Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus 21: 221–60. (1942) ‘Ricerche sul doppio nome personale nell’Egitto greco-romano II’, Aegyptus 22: 3–45.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



261

D. Canducci (1990) ‘I 6475 cateci greci dell’Arsinoite’, Aegyptus 70: 211–55. (1991) ‘I 6475 cateci greci dell’Arsinoite: prosopografia’, Aegyptus 71: 121–6. L. Capogrossi Colognesi (2002a) Persistenza e innovazione nelle strutture territoriali dell’Italia romana. L’ambiguità di un’intepretazione storiografica e dei suoi modelli. Napoli: Jovene. L. Capogrossi Colognesi (2002b) ‘Pagi, vici e fundi nell’Italia romana’, Athenaeum 90: 5–48. L. Capponi (2005) Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province. London and New York: Routledge. (2011) ‘Priests in Augustan Egypt’, in J. H. Richardson and F. Santangelo (eds), Priests and State in the Roman World. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag: 507–28. J.-M. Carrié (2002) ‘Les associations professionnelles à l’époque tardive: Entre munus et convivialité’, in J.-M. Carrié and R. Lizzi Testa (eds), Humana sapit: Mélanges en l’honneur de Lellia Cracco Ruggini. Turnhout: Brepols: 309–32. Carusi (2008) Il sale nel mondo greco, VI a.C.-III d.C.: luoghi di produzione, circolazione commerciale, regimi di sfruttamento nel contesto del Mediterraneo antico. Bari: Edipuglia. P. Chantraine (1964) ‘Grec ΑΙΘΡΙΟΝ ’, Recherches de Papyrologie 3: 7–15. E. Christiansen (2004) Coinage in Roman Egypt: the Hoard Evidence. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. W. Clarysse (1993) ‘Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek’, Chronique d’Égypte 68: 186–91. (2005) ‘Tebtynis and Soknopaiou Nesos: The papyrological documentation through centuries’, in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos: Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 11. bis 13. Dezember 2003, Würzburg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 19–27. W. Clarysse and C. Gallazzi (1993) ‘Archivio dei discendenti di Laches o dei discendenti di Patron?’, Ancient Society 24: 63–8. W. Clarysse and K. Vandorpe (1997) ‘Viticulture and wine consumption in the Arsinoite nome (P.Köln. V 221)’, Ancient Society 28: 67–73. W. Clarysse and D. Thompson (2006) Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (2 Vol.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. W. G. Claytor (2013) ‘A schedule of contracts and a private letter: P.Fay. 344’, Bulletin of American Society of Papyrology 50: 77–121. (2014) ‘Heron, son of Satyros: a scribe in the grapheion of Karanis’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190: 199–202. (2017) ‘P.Mich. inv. 4174B: unwinding the strands of an elite family in the Arsinoite nome’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 202: 248–52. W. E. H. Cockle (1984) ‘State archives in Graeco-Roman Egypt from 30 BC to the reign of Septimius Severus’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70: 106–22. F. Colin (2001) ‘Onomastique et société: Problèmes et méthodes à la lumière des documents de l’Égypte hellénistique et romaine’, in M. Dondin-Payre and M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier (eds), Noms, identités culturelles et romanisation sous le Haut-Empire. Brussels: Timperman, 3–15. D. J. Crawford (1971) Kerkeosiris. An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

262



(1976) ‘Imperial estates’, in M. I. Finley (ed.) Studies in Roman Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 35–70. (1979) ‘Food: tradition and change in Hellenistic Egypt’, World Archaeology 11: 136–46. J. A. Cromwell (2017) Recording Village Life. A Coptic Scribe in Early Islamic Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. G. S. Crotti (1962) ‘Rapporti tra Θεογονίς e Τεβτῦνις’, Aegyptus, 42: 103–13. W. Davies (1988) Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. P. Davoli (1998) L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana. Napoli: G. Procaccini. M. Depauw (2003) ‘Autograph Confirmation in Demotic Private Contracts, Chronique d’Égypte 78: 66–111. (2009) ‘Bilingual Greek-Demotic Documentary Papyri and Hellenization in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Van Nuffelen P. (ed.), Faces of Hellenism. Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th century –5th century ) (Studia Hellenistica 48). Leuven: Peeters: 120–39. (2010) ‘Do mothers matter? The emergence of metronymics in early Roman Egypt’, in T. V. Evans and D. D. Obbink (eds), The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 120–39. T. Derda (2006) Arsinoitēs Nomos: Administration of the Fayum under Roman Rule. Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Supplement 7. L. De Salvo (1992) Economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’impero romano: i corpora naviculariorum. Messina: Samperi. S. Dixon (2000–2001) ‘How do you Count them if they ’re not there? New Perspectives on Roman Cloth Production’, Opuscula Romana: 25–26: 7–17. H. J. Drexhage (1991) Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae. (1993) ‘Garum und Garumhandelim römischen und spätantiken Ägypten’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 12: 27–54. (1997) ‘Bierproduzenten und Bierhändler in der papyrologischen Überlieferung’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 16. 2: 32–9. F. Dunand (1979) ‘L’artisanat du textile dans l’Égypte lagide’, Ktèma 4: 47–69. R. Duncan-Jones (1990) Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C. Eckerman (2011) ‘Apprenticeship contract for carpentry’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 48: 47–9. J. Edmondson (2006) ‘Cities and urban life in the Western provinces of the Roman empire, 30 BCE-250 CE’, in D.S. Potter (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 250–80. C. J. Eyre (1999) ‘The village economy in Pharaonic Egypt’, in A.K. Bowman and E. Rogan (eds), Agriculture in Egypt: 33–60. T. Faucher (2018) ‘Ptolemaic Gold: the Exploitation of Gold in the Eastern Desert’, in Brun et al. (eds), The Eastern Desert of Egypt (in open on-line edition). H. E. Finckh (1962) Das Zinsrecht der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri. Diss. Nuremberg.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



263

C. Fischer-Bovet (2014) Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C. Fischer-Bovet (forthcoming, 2020) ‘From the Ptolemies to the Romans: the categories of person used in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos and census related documents’, in T. Kruse (ed.) Studien zum Gnomon des Idios Logos und seinem Umfeld. Vienna: Holzhausen Verlag. D. Foraboschi (1971) L’archivio di Kronion. Milan: Cisalpino-La Goliardica. J.-L. Fournet (ed.) in collaboration with C. Magdelaine (2008) Les archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte: histoire et culture dans l’Egypte byzantine. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 8–10 décembre 2005, Paris: De Boccard. D. Frankfurter (1998) Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. C. Freu (2011) ‘Apprendre et exercer un métier dans l’Égypte romaine (Ier-VIe siècles ap. J.-C.)’, in N. Monteix and N. Tran (eds), Les savoirs professionnels des gens de métier: études sur le monde du travail dans les sociétés urbaines de l’Empire romain. Naples, Centre Jean Bérard: 27–40. V. Gabrielsen (2016) ‘Be faithful and prosper: associations, trust and the economy of security’, in K. Droß-Krüpe, S. Föllinger and K. Ruffing (eds), Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Prägung, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 87–111. T. W. Gallant (1991) Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. C. Gallazzi (ed.) (1979) Ostraka da Tebtynis della Università di Padova. Milan: Cisalpino-La goliardica. (1989) ‘Fouilles Anciennes et Nouvelles Sur Le Site de Tebtynis’, Bulletin de Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 89: 179–91. (1990) ‘La “cantina dei papiri” di Tebtynis e ciò che essa conteneva’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 80: 283–88. (2003) ‘La prima campagna di Vogliano in Egitto. Gli scavi a Tebtynis e gli acquisti di papiri’, in A. Gallazzi and L. Lehnus (eds), Achille Vogliano cinquant’anni dopo I. Milan: Cisalpino: 131–77. C. Gallazzi and G. Hadji-Minaglou (2000) Tebtynis I: La reprise des fouilles et le quartier de la chapelle d’Isis-Thermouthis. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. K. S. Gapp (1935) ‘The universal famine under Claudius’, HThR 28: 258–65. P. Garnsey (1999) Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. G. Geraci (1983) Genesi della provincia romana d’Egitto. Bologna: Clueb. (1989) ‘L’Egitto romano nella storiografia moderna’, in L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba Bologna: Clueb: 55–88. (1994) ‘L’Egitto provincia frumentaria’, Le ravitaillement en ble de Rome et des centres urbains, Actes du Colloque international de Naples 1991 Naples: Centre Jean Bérard: 279–94. H. Geremek (1969) Karanis: communauté rurale de l’Egypte romaine au IIe et IIIe siècle de notre ère. Wroclaw. M. Gibbs (2008) Professional and Trade Associations in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Oxford University Unpublished PhD dissertation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

264



(2011) ‘Trade associations in Roman Egypt: Their raison d’être’, Ancient Society 41: 291–15. (2015) ‘The trade associations of Ptolemaic Egypt: definition, organization and their relationship with the state’, in V. Gabrielsen and C.A. Thomsen (eds), Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: 241–68. (forthcoming) ‘Collective action, trade associations and the state in Roman Egypt’, in D. Rathbone (ed.), Documents and the Mechanics of Roman Rule. G. Giliberti (1993) Le comunità agricole nell’Egitto romano. Naples: Loffredo editore. C. Ginzburg (1976) The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller. Abingdon: Routledge. Y. Gourdon and A. Engsheden (eds) (2016) Études d’onomastique égyptienne. Méthodologie et nouvelles approches. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, RAPH 38. P. Grimal (1939) ‘Les maisons à tours hellénistiques et romaines’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 56: 28–59. J. E. Grubbs (2013) ‘Infant exposure and infanticide’, in J. E. Grubbs and T. Parkin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 83–107. G. Hadji-Minaglou (2007) Tebtynis IV: les habitations à l’est du temple de Soknebtynis. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. (2014) ‘Les maisons-tours de Tebtynis’, in Marchi (ed.). 33–56. G. Häge (1968) Ehegüterrechtliche Verhältnisse in den griechischen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian. Köln-Graz: Böhlau. J. M. Hall (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. E. Hanson (1979) ‘Documents from Philadelphia drawn from the census register’, in J. Bingen and G. Nachtergael (eds), Actes du XVe Congrès international de papyrologie, (Bruxelles-Louvain, 29 août-3 septembre 1977). Bruxelles: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth: 60–74. (1988) ‘The Keeping of Records at Philadelphia in the Julio-Claudian Period and the ‘Economic Crisis under Nero’, in B. Mandilaras (ed.), Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology vol. II (Athens 25–31 May 1986). Athens: Greek Papyrological Society: 261–77. (1989) ‘Village officials at Philadelphia: a model of romanization in the JulioClaudian period’, in L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba: 429–40. (1990) ‘P.Princeton I 13: Text and context revised’, in M. Capasso, G. Messeri Savorelli and R. Pintaudi (eds), Miscellanea papyrologica in occasione del bicentenario dell’edizione della Charta Borgiana (Papyrologia Florentina 19). Florence: Gonnelli: 259–83. (1992) ‘Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabes, and Ioudaioi in the first century A.D. tax archive from Philadelphia: P.Mich. inv. 880 recto and P.Princ. III 152 revised’, in J. H. Johnson (ed.) Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 133–45. (1994) ‘Topographical arrangement of tax documents in the Philadelphia tax archive’, in A. A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



265

Papyrologists (Copenhagen 23–29 August 1992). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press: 210–18. (2000) ‘Widows too young in their widowhood’, in D. E. E. Kleiner and S. B Matheson (eds), I, Claudia II: Women in Roman Art and Society. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press: 149–65. (2007) ‘Estimate for capitation tax of Philadelphia’, A. J. B. Sirks and K. A. Worp (eds), Papyri in Memory of P. J. Sijpesteijn (P.Sijp.). American Studies in Papyrology 40. Oakville, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists: 172–84. W. V. Harris (ed.) (2005) Rethinking the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. W. V. Harris (2005) ‘The Mediterranean and ancient history’, in W. V. Harris (ed.): 1–42. B. B. Haug (2015) ‘Environment, adaptation, and administration in the Roman Fayyum’, in N. Quenouille (ed.) Von der Pharaonenzeit dis zur Spatantike. Kulturelle Vielfalt in Fayum. Akten der 5. Internationalen Fayum-Konferenz, 29. Mai bis 1. Juni 2013, Leipzig. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag: 55–71. C. Hawkins (2016) Roman Artisans and the Urban Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. T. Heldal, E. Bloxam, P. Degryse, P. Storemyr and A. Kelany (2009) ‘Gypsum quarries in the northern Faiyum quarry landscape, Egypt: a geo-archaeological case study’, Geological survey of Norway, special publication: 51–66. D. Hennig (1967) Untersuchungen zur Bodenpacht im ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten. Munich. J. Herrmann (1958) Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht der Graeco-Aegyptischen Papyri. Munich: Beck. T. M. Hickey (2009) ‘Writing histories from the papyri’, in R. S. Bagnall (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 495–20. (2012) Wine, Wealth, and the State in Late Antique Egypt: the house of Apion at Oxyrhynchus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. D. W. Hobson (1983) ‘Women as property owners in Roman Egypt’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 113: 111–21. (1984) ‘The role of women in the economic life of ancient Egypt: a case study from first century Tebtynis’, Echos du monde classique/Classical Views 28: 373–90. (1985) ‘House and household in Roman Egypt’, Yale Classical Studies 28: 211–19. (1989) ‘Naming practices in Roman Egypt’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 26: 157–74. (1993) ‘The impact of law on village life in Roman Egypt’, in B. Halpern & D. W. Hobson (eds), Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press: 193–19. M. Hombert and C. Preaux (1952) Recherches sure le recensement dans l’Egypte romaine (P.Bruxelles Inv. E. 7616). Leiden: Brill. K. Hopkins (1980) ‘Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 303–54. (1991) ‘Conquest by book’, in M. Beards et al. (eds), Literacy in the Roman world. JRA Supplement 3. Ann Arbor: Dept. of Classical Studies, University of Michigan: 133–58. S. Huebner (2007) ‘‘Brother-sister’ marriage in Roman Egypt: a curiosity of humankind or a widespread family strategy?’, Journal of Roman Studies 97: 21–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

266



(2013) The Family in Roman Egypt. A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D. O. Hughes (1974) ‘Toward historical ethnography: notarial records and family history in the Middle Ages’, Historical Methods Newsletter 7.2: 61–71. E. Husselman (1950) ‘Two new documents from the Tebtunis archive’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 81: 77. (1970) ‘Procedures of the record office of Tebtynis in the First Century ’, in D. H. Samuel (ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress Papyrology. (Ann Arbor 13–17 August 1968) Toronto: A. M. Hakkert: 223–38. (1979) Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt 1928–1935: Topography and Architecture. A Summary of the Reports of the Director, Enoch E. Peterson. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Studies (vol. 5). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. G. Husson (1983) OIKIA: Le vocabulaire de la maison privee en Egypte d’après les papyrus grecs. Paris: Université de Paris IV—Paris-Sorbonne, Papyrologie, 2. F. Ippolito (2001) ‘I tessitori del Fayyum in epoca greco-romana’, in I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M. Manfredi e G. Menci (a cura di) Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998. Volume II Firenze: Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’: 701–15. A. C. Johnson (1936) Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (= T. Frank (ed.) Economic survey of ancient Rome II). Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press. A. Jördens (2009) Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit: Studien zum praefectus Aegypti. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (2010) ‘Nochmals zur Bibliotheke Enkteseon’, in G. Thür (ed.), Symposion 2009. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Seggau, 25.–30. August 2009. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 277–90. S. Katary (1999) ‘Land Tenure in the New Kingdom: the Role of Women Smallholders and the Military’, in A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan (eds), Agriculture in Egypt: 61–82. J. Keenan (1971) ‘Census return of Herakleides, son of Didymos the Younger’, Chronique d’Égypte 46: 120–8. (1989) ‘Pastoralism in Roman Egypt’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists: 175–98. (2003) ‘Deserted villages: From the ancient to the Medieval Fayyum’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 40: 119–39. D. P. Kehoe (1992) Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire. Bonn: Habelt. (2007) Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. D. P. Kehoe, D. Ratzan, U. Yiftach-Firanko (eds) (2015), Legal Documents in Ancient Societies ii: Transaction Costs in the Ancient World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. J.-U. Krause (1994–5) Witwen und Weisen im Römischen Reich. I. Verwitwung und Wiederverheiratung; II. Wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Stellung von Witwen im frühen Christentum; III. Rechtliche und soziale Stellung von Waisen; IV. Witwen und Waisen im frühen Christentum. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



267

T. Kruse (2002) Der königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung: Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philippus Arabs (30.v.Chr.-245 n.Chr.) (2 vols.). Munich: K.G. Saur. (forthcoming) ‘The organisation of the state farmers in village administration in Roman Egypt’, in M. Langellotti and D. Rathbone (eds), Village Institutions in Egypt. M. Langellotti (2012) L’allevamento di pecore e capre nell’Egitto romano: aspetti economici e sociali. Bari: Edipuglia. (2015) ‘Sales in early Roman Tebtunis: The case of the grapheion archive of Kronion’, in E. Jakab (ed.) Sale and Community: Documents from the Ancient World. Individuals’ Autonomy and State Interference in the Ancient World. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste: 117–32. (2016a) ‘Contracts ad people in early Roman Tebtunis: A complex affair’, in T. Derda, A. Lajtar and J. Urbanik (eds), Proceedings of the 27th Congress of Papyrology. Warsaw 29 July-3 August. The Journal of Juristic Papyrology. Suppl. 27: 1725–36. (2016b) ‘Professional associations and the State: The case of first-century Tebtunis’, Chronique d’Égypte 91 fasc. 181: 111–34. (2017) ‘Occupations and naming trends in first-century Tebtunis and Philadelphia’, in M. Nowak, A. Łajtar and J. Urbanik (eds), Tell me who you are: labelling status in the Graeco-Roman world XVI: 147–82. (2018) ‘Village elites in the early Roman Arsinoite’, in Quaderni del Museo del Papiro XV: 293–12. (forthcoming) ‘Record-offices in villages in Roman Egypt’, in M. Langellotti and D. W. Rathbone (eds), Village Institutions in Egypt. Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy. M. Langellotti and D. W. Rathbone (eds) (forthcoming) Village Institutions in Egypt from Roman to Early Arab Rule. Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy. F. Lerouxel (2012) ‘The Private credit market, the bibliotheke enkteseon, and public services in Roman Egypt’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 67/4: 629–59. (2016) Le marché du crédit dans le monde romain (Égypte et Campanie). Rome: École Française de Rome. E. Le Roy Ladurie (1975) Montaillou, village occitan, de 1294 à 1324. Paris: Gallimard. L. H. Lesko (ed.) Pharaoh’s Workers. The Villagers of Deir El Medina. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. C. Levi (1991) ‘On microhistory’, in P. Burke (ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Writing. Cambridge: Polity Press: 93–113. N. Lewis (1970) ‘Greco-Roman Egypt: fact or fiction?, in D.H. Samuel (ed) Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology: 3–14. (1974) Papyrus in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1982) The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt. 2nd ed. Pap. Flor. 28. Firenze: Gonnelli. (1983) Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1984) ‘The Romanity of Roman Egypt: a growing consensus’, Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. 3 vols. Naples 19–26 May. Naples: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi, III: 1077–84. (1993) ‘The demise of the Demotic document: when and why,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 276–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

268



N. Litinas (1999) ‘P.Lond. III 128: sale of a donkey’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124: 195–204. (2008) Tebtynis III: vessels’ notations from Tebtynis. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. (2014) References to Sales of Donkeys, http://www.philology.uoc.gr/ref/sales_of_ donkeys/Nikos_Litinas_Sales_of_Donkeys.pdf. E. Lo Cascio (1999) ‘La popolazione dell’Egitto romano’, in M. Bellancourt-Valdher and J.-N. Corvisier (eds), La démographie historique antique. Arras: Artois Press Université: 153–69. A. Lucas (1978, 4th ed.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. London: Edward Arnold. L. B. MacCoull (1981) ‘The Coptic archive of Dioscorus of Aphrodito’, Chronique d’Égypte 56: 185–93. S. G. Magnússon and I. M. Szijártó (2013) What is Microhistory? Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. J. Manning (2007) ‘Hellenistic Egypt’, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris, R. Saller (eds), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 434–59. S. Marchi (ed.) (2014) Les maisons-tours en Égypte durant la Basse-époque, les périodes ptolémaïque et romaine. Actes de la table-ronde de Paris, 29–30 Novembre 2012. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne. A. Martin (1994) ‘Archives privees et cachettes documentaires’, in A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists: 569–77. C. J. Martin (2009) ‘A Family of Scribes in Ptolemaic Tebtynis’, in Hawass, Z. (ed.), The Realm of the Pharaohs: Essays in Honour of Tohfa Handoussa Le Caire: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte: 323–32. V. Martin (1956) ‘L’onomastique comme indice des rapports entre indigènes et occupants dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine’, in H. Gerstinger (ed.), Akten des VIII. internationalen Kongresses für Papyrologie. Wien, 1955 (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek). Vienna: Rohrer: 85–90. K. Marx (1867) Capital. A critique of political economy. Volume I (English ed. 1887), in C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edn. New York, W.W. Norton (1978). K. Marx and F. Engels (1848) Manifesto of the Communist Party, in R. C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edn. New York: W.W. Norton (1978). A. G. McDowell (1994) ‘Contact with the outside world’, in L. H. Lesko (ed.), Pharaoh’s workers. The villagers of Deir El Medina. 41–59. T. A. J. McGinn (2004) ‘Missing females? Augustus’ encouragement of marriage between freeborn males and freedwomen’, Historia 53: 200–8. H. Melaerts (2000) ‘Remarques sur les liens administratifs entre Tebtynis et les villages voisins à l’époque romaine’, in L. Mooren (ed.) Politis, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the international colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997. Leuven: Peeters: 239–50. (2002) ‘Aspects du rôle économique des femmes à Tebtynis à l’époque romaine’, in H. Melaerts et L. Mooren (eds), Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine. Actes du colloque international: Bruxelles-Leuven, 27–29 novembre 1997. (Studia Hellenistica 37) Leuven: Peeters: 209–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



269

J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski (1990) ‘Entre la cité et le fisc: le statut grec dans l’Égypte romaine’, Droit impérial et traditions locales dans l’Égypte romaine. Aldershot: Variorum: 241–80. L. Meskell (2002) Private Life in New Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. T. Mitchell (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. A. Monson (2005) ‘Sacred land in Ptolemaic and Roman Tebtunis’, S.L. Lippert-M. Schentuleit (edd.), Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos—Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 11.-13. Dezember 2003 in Sommerhausen, Wiesbaden: Harassowitz: 79–91. (2006) ‘The ethics and economics of Ptolemaic religious associations’, Ancient Society 36: 221–38. (2007) ‘Religious associations and temples in Ptolemaic Tebtunis’, in J. Frösén, T. Purola and E. Salmenkivi (eds), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1st-7th August 2004. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica: 769–79. (2013) ‘Rules of an Egyptian religious association from early second century BCE’, in R. Ast, H. Cuvigny, T.M. Hickey and J. Lougovaya (eds), Papyrological Texts in Honor of Roger S. Bagnall, Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press: 209–13. (2012) From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Economic Change in Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2014) ‘Late Ptolemaic Capitation Taxes and the Poll Tax in Roman Egypt’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 51: 127–60. O. Montevecchi (1939) ‘Ricerche di sociologia nei documenti dell’Egitto grecoromano. III. I contratti di compravendita. a) Compra-vendite di schiavi e di animali’, Aegyptus 19: 11–53. (1941) ‘Richerche di sociologia nell’Egitto greco-romano. III. I contratti di compravendita. b) Compra-vendite di edifici,’ Aegyptus 21: 93–151. (1943) ‘Richerche di sociologia nell’Egitto greco-romano. III. I contratti di compravendita. c) Compra-vendite di terreni’, Aegyptus 23: 11–89. (1982–3) ‘La crisi economica sotto Claudio e Nerone: nuove testimonianze’, Neronia III: 139–48; repr. Scripta selecta: 305–15. (1988) ‘L’amministrazione dell’Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.10.1: 412–72. (1984) I contratti di baliatico (CPGr I). Milan. (1985) ‘Egiziani e Greci: la coesistenza delle due culture nell’Egitto romano’, in Egitto e società antica. Atti del Convegno: Torino, 8/9 VI-23/24 XI 1984 (Centro di cultura e studi «G. Toniolo»—Amici Università Cattolica), Milano: Vita e Pensiero: 233–45. (1997) ‘Problemi di un’epoca di transizione. La grecità d’Egitto tra il Ia e il Ip’, in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses: Berlin, 13.–19. 8. 1995 (Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Beiheft 3), Stuttgart—Leipzig: 719–26 (= Scripta selecta, Milan 1998: 391–400). O. Montevecchi and M. M. Masciadri (1982) ‘Contratti di baliatico e vendite fiduciarie a Tebtynis’, Aegyptus 62: 148–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

270



N. Morley (2011) ‘Slavery under Principate’, in K. Bradley and P. Cartledge (eds), The Cambridge World History of Slavery. Vol.1: The Ancient Mediterranean World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 265–86. G. Mosca (1939) The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill. H. Mouritsen (2015) ‘Local elites in Italy and the Western provinces’, in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy: 225–49. B. Muhs (2001) ‘Membership in private associations in Ptolemaic Tebtynis’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 44: 1–21. (2005a) ‘The grapheion and the disappearance of demotic contracts in early Roman Tebtynis and Soknopaiou Nesos’, in S. L. Lippert-M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos—Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 11.-13. Dezember 2003 in Sommerhausen. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz: 93–104. (2005b) ‘The Berkley Tebtunis grapheion archive’, in G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds), Actes du IXe Congrès International des Études Démotiques, Paris, 31 août—3 septembre 2005. Paris: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 243–51. (2010) ‘A late Ptolemaic grapheion archive in Berkeley’, in T. Gagos and A. Hyatt (eds), Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library: 581–88. C. A. Nelson (1979) Status declarations in Roman Egypt. Amsterdam: Hakkert for the American Society of Papyrologists. M. Nowicka (1969) La maison privee dans l’Egypte ptolemaique, Wroclaw-WarsawKrakow: Academia Scientiarum Polona, Bibliotheca Antiqua 9. J. F. Oates (1963) ‘The status designation: Perses tes epigones’, Yale Classical Studies 18: 1–129. J. Ober (1989) Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. M. C. D. Paganini (2018) ‘A terminological analysis of private associations in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Quaderni del Museo del Papiro XV: 459–78. (forthcoming) ‘Private associations and village life in early Roman Egypt’, in M. Langellotti and D. Rathbone (eds), Village institutions in Egypt. G. M. Parassoglou (1978) Imperial estates in Roman Egypt. Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert. M. Parca (2017) ‘The wet-nurses of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’, Illinois Classical Studies 42: 203–26. R. Parker (ed.) (2019) Changing Names: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Greek Onomastics. Proceedings of the British Academy 222. Oxford: Oxford University Press. J. G. Pedley (2012) The Life and Work of Francis Willey Kelsey: Archaeology, Antiquity, and the Arts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. P. W. Pestman (1963) ‘A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris II: Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς’, Aegyptus 43: 15–53. (1982) Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas (Pap. Lugd. Bat. 22) Leiden: Brill. R. H. Pierce (1968) ‘Grapheion, Catalogue, and Library in Roman Egypt’, Symbolae Osloenses 43: 68–83. F. Poland (1909) Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig: Teubner.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



271

S. B. Pomeroy (1988) ‘Women in Roman Egypt. A preliminary study based on papyri’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.10.1: 708–23. E. Posner (1972) Archives in ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C. Préaux (1939) L’économie royale des Lagides. Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth. F. Preisigke (1919) ‘Die Begriffe ΠΥΡΓΟΣ und ΣΤΕΓΗ bei der Hausanlage’, Hermes 54: 424–32. J. Quaegebeur and K. Vandorpe (1995) ‘Ancient Egyptian onomastics’, in E. Eichler, G. Hilty, H. Löffler, H. Steger, L. Zgusta (eds), Namenforschung. Proper Name Studies. Les Noms Propres. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter: 841–51. N. Quenoville (2007) ‘Some aspects of the textile industry in Roman Egypt’, in M. Capasso and P. Davoli (eds), New Archaeological and Papyrological Researches on the Fayyum. Proceedings of the International Meeting of Egyptology and Papyrology, Lecce, June 8th–10th 2005. Lecce: Congedo: 227–50. D. W. Rathbone (1989) ‘The ancient economy and Graeco-Roman Egypt’, in L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall’Ellenismo all’eta’ araba: bilancio di un confronto. Bologna: CLUEB: 159–76. (1990) ‘Villages, land and population in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, n.s. 36: 103–42. (1991) Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century AD Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1993) ‘Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz 4: 81–112. (1996) ‘Towards a historical topography of the Fayum’, in D.M. Bailey (ed.) Archaeological research in Roman Egypt. JRA Suppl. 19, Ann Arbor: 50–56. (1997) ‘Prices and price-formation in Roman Egypt’, J. Andreau—P.Briant— R. Descat (Hg.), Economie antique. Prix et formation des prix dans les economies antiques. St-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental: 183–94. (2000) ‘Ptolemaic to Roman Egypt: the death of the dirigiste state?’, in E. Lo Cascio and D. W. Rathbone (eds), Production and Public Powers in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 26. Cambridge Philological Society: 44–54. (2001) ‘Mapping the south-west Fayum: sites and texts’, in I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M. Manfredi and G. Menci (eds), Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998. Florence: Istituto Papirologico ’G. Vitelli’: 1109–1117. (2003) ‘A town full of gods: Imagining religious experience in Roman Tebtunis’, Berkeley lecture http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/files/ATownFullofGods_Im aginingReligiousExperienceinRomanTebtunis.pdf. (2006) ‘Poverty and population in Roman Egypt’, in L. de Ligt and S. Northwood (eds), People, Land and Politics: Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy, 200 — 14. Brill: Leiden: 100–14. (2007) ‘Roman Egypt’, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Saller (eds), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 698–719.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

272



(2010) ‘The professional specialization in trade and crafts. Investigations on their development and on their terms in the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean, based on Greek inscriptions and papyri’, Review of Ruffing (2008), Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47: 365–7. (2013a) ‘Village markets in Roman Egypt: the case of first-century  Tebtunis’, in M. Frass (ed.) Kauf—Konsum und Märkte. Wirtschaftswelten im Fokus—Von der römischen Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz: 123–42. (2013b) ‘The Romanity of Roman Egypt: a faltering consensus?’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 43: 73–91. D. M. Ratzan (2015) ‘Transaction costs and contract in Roman Egypt. A case study in negotiating the right of repossession’, in D. M. Kehoe, D. Ratzan, U. YiftachFiranko (eds), Legal Documents in Ancient Societies II: 185–30. G. Reger (1994) Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314–167 . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. F. Reiter (2004) Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites: ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen Ägypten. Paderborn: Schöningh. C. Ricci (1924) La coltura della vite e la fabbricazione del vino nell’Egitto grecoromano. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica. V. Rondot (2004) Tebtynis II: Le temple de Soknebtynis et son dromos. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. M. I. Rostovtzeff (1910) Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates. Archiv Beih. I. Leipzig: Teubner. J. Rowlandson (1996) Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1998) Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1999) ‘Agricultural tenancy and village society in Roman Egypt’, in A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan (eds), Agriculture in Egypt: 139–58. (2001) ‘Money use among the peasantry of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’, A. Meadows and K. Shipton (eds), Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 145–55. (2004) ‘Gender and Cultural Identity in Roman Egypt’, in F. McHardy and E. Marshall (eds), Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization. London-New York: Routledge: 151–66. (2005) ‘The organization of public land in Roman Egypt’, in J. C. Moreno Garcia (ed.), L’agriculture institutionelle en Egypte ancienne: etat de la question et perspectives interdisciplinaires. CRIPEL 25. Universite Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3: Villeneuve d’Ascq: 173–96. J. Rowlandson and R. Takahashi (2009) ‘Brother-sister marriage and inheritance strategies in Roman Egypt’, Journal of Roman Studies 99: 104–39. K. Ruffing (1999) Weinbau im römischen Ägypten. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag. (2008) Die berufliche Spezialisierung in Handel und Handwerk: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entwicklung und zu ihren Bedingungen in der römischen Kaiserzeit im

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



273

östlichen Mittelmeerraum auf der Grundlage griechischer Inschriften und Papyri. Rahden/Westf.: VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf. G. Ruffini (2006) ‘Genealogy and the Gymnasium’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 43: 71–99. K. Ryolt (2005) ‘On the contents and nature of the Tebtunis temple library: a status report’, in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und Soknopaiu Nesos: Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 11. bis 13. Dezember 2003 in Sommerhausen bei Würzburg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 141–70. (2012) ‘Late period literature’, in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 709–31. A. E. Samuel (1965) ‘The role of paramone clauses in ancient documents’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15: 221–11. D. H. Samuel (1981) ‘Greeks and Romans at Soknopaiou Nesos’, in R. S. Bagnall, G. M. Browne, A. E. Hanson and L. Koenen (eds), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology. Chico: California. Scholars Press: 389–403. M. San Nicolò (1913–15) Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. I: Die Vereinsarten; II: Vereinswesen und Vereinsrecht. Munich: Municher Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte. B. Sandy (1989) The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. W. Scheidel (ed.) (2001a) Debating the Roman Demography. Mnemosyne Supplement 211. Leiden: Brill. (2001b) Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. Mnemosyne Supplement 228. Leiden: Brill. (2007) ‘Demography’, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (eds), Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 38–86. (2010) ‘Real wages in early economies: evidence for living standards from 1800  to 1300 ’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53: 425–62. M. Schnebel (1925) Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Ägypten. Bd.1, Der Betrieb der Landwirtschaft. Munich: C. H. Beck. P. Schubert (2007) Philadelphie. Un village en mutation entre le IIe et le IIIe s. ap. J.-C. Basel: Schwabe. C. Schuler (2015) ‘Local elites in the Greek East’, in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy: 250–73. A. Segré (1926) ‘Note sul documento greco-egizio del grapheion’, Aegyptus 7: 97–107. M. Sharp (1999) ‘The village of Theadelphia in the Fayyum: land and population in the second century’, in A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan (eds), Agriculture in Egypt: 159–92. P. J. Sijpesteijn (1978) ‘The proper name Μαρεπκᾶμις/Μαρεπκαῖμις’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 31: 123–5. P. M. Sijpesteijn (2013) Shaping a Muslim State. The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

274



S. Strassi (forthcoming) ‘Elders of the public farmers and village elders in Roman Egypt: the cases of Bacchias and Karanis’, in M. Langellotti and D. Rathbone (eds), Village Institutions in Egypt. J. A. Straus (1988) ‘L’esclavage dans l’Egypte romaine’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.10. 1: 841–11. (2017) ‘Les contrats d’apprentissage et d’enseignement relatifs à des esclaves dans la documentation papyrologique grecque d’Égypte’, in M.-H. Marganne et A. Ricciardetto (eds), En marge du Serment hippocratique. Contrats et serments dans le monde gréco-romain. Actes de la Journée d’étude internationale (Liège, 29 octobre 2014). Papyrologica Leodiensia: Presses Universitaires de Liège: 119–34. P. R. Swarney (1970) The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert. L. E. Tacoma (2006) Fragile Hierarchies: The Urban Elites of Third Century Roman Egypt. Leiden: Brill. M. Tarpin (2002) Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain. Rome: École française de Rome. D. J. Thompson (1988; 2nd ed. 2012) Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (2001) ‘Hellenistic Hellenes: The case of Ptolemaic Egypt’, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity. Washington, DC: Harvard University Press: 301–22. (2011) ‘Slavery in the Hellenistic world’, in K. Bradley and P. Cartledge (eds), The Cambridge World History of Slavery. Vol. 1, The Ancient Mediterranean World: 194–13. C. Tilly (2005) Trust and Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. L. R. Toepel (1973) Studies in the Administration and Economic History of Tebtunis in the First Century AD. Duke University Unpublished Dissertation. A. Tomsin (1952)‘Etude sur les πρεσβύτεροι des villages de la χώρα égyptienne’, Bulletin de l’Académie royale de Belgique 38: 95–130, 467–32. S. Treggiari (1991) Roman marriage. Iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. I. Uytterhoeven (2009) Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum village. Leuven: Peeters. P. van Minnen (1986) ‘The volume of the Oxyrhynchite textile trade’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 5: 88–95. (1987) ‘Urban craftsmen in Roman Egypt’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 6: 31–88. (1998) ‘Boorish or bookish? Literature in the Egyptian villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman period’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 28: 99–184. (2000) ‘Agriculture and the taxes-and-trade model in Roman Egypt’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133: 205–20. (2002) ‘Αἱ ἀπὸ γυμνασίου: “Greek” women and the Greek ‘elite’ in the metropoleis of Roman Egypt’, in H. Melaerts and L. Mooren (eds), Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine: Bruxelles—Leuven, 27–29 novembre 1997 (Studia Hellenistica 37), Leuven: Peeters: 337–353. O. van Nijf (1997) The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi



275

K. Vandorpe (2008) ‘Persian soldiers and Persians of the epigone. Social mobility of soldiers-herdsmen in Upper Egypt’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 54: 87–108. (2009) ‘Archives and dossiers’, in R. S. Bagnall (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 216–55. (2012) ‘Identity’, in C. Riggs (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 260–76. K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens (2010) ‘Women and gender in Roman Egypt. The impact of Roman rule’, in K. Lembke, M. Minas-Nerpel and S. Pfeiffer (eds), Tradition and Transformation: Egypt Under Roman Rule. Proceedings of the International Conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum, 3–6 July 2008. Leiden-Boston: Brill: 415–35. P. Venticinque (2010) ‘Family affairs: Guild regulations and family relations in Roman Egypt’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50: 273–94. (2015) ‘Courting the associations: cooperation, conflict and interaction in Roman Egypt,’ in V. Gabrielsen and C. A. Thomsen (eds), Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: 314–40. (2016) Honor among Thieves. Craftsmen, Merchants, and Associations in Roman and Late Roman Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. K. Verboven (2011) ‘Professional collegia: Guilds or social clubs?’, Ancient Society 41: 187–95. A. Verhoogt (1998) Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 ). Leiden and New York: Brill. (2004) ‘Family relations in early Roman Tebtunis’, PalArch 3: 22–4. S. L. Wallace (1938) Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. J. P. Waltzing (1895–1900) Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’empire d’occident, 4 vol., Brussels and Louvain: Peeters. M. Weber (1909–1920) Class, Status, Party, in G. Roth and C. Wittich eds. Economy and Society vol. II, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, Press. W. L. Westermann (1914) ‘The apprentice system in Roman Egypt’, Classical Philology 9: 295–315. J. E. G. Whitehorne (1982) ‘The Ephebate and the Gymnasial Class in Roman Egypt’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 19: 171–84. (1986) ‘The valuation of gold dowry objects in papyri of the Roman period’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 32: 49–53. C. Wickham (2005) Framing the early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. T. Wilfong (2002) Women of Jeme: Lives in a Coptic town in Late Antique Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

276



S. G. Wilson (1996) ‘Voluntary Associations: an overview’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (eds), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New York: Routledge: 1–15. L. R. Winer (2006) Women, Wealth, and Community in Perpignan: c. 1250–1300: Christians, Jews, and Enslaved Muslims in a Medieval Mediterranean Town. Aldershot: Ashgate. A. Winkler (2014) ‘New Names, Divine Dues, and Archaising Terminology. Three notes on P.Zauzich 59 and the διδραχμία τοῦ Σούχου in Roman Tebtunis’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 60: 154–68. E. Wipszycka (1965) L’industrie textile dans l’Egypte romaine. Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. H. J. Wolff (1978) Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats. Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs. 2 voll. Munich: Beck. C. Wright Mills (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. U. Yiftach-Firanko (2002) ‘Deeds of last will in Graeco-Roman Egypt: a case study in regionalism’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 39: 149–64. (2003) Marriage and Marital Arrangements: A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt, 4th century —4th century . Munich: Municher Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechsgeschichte 93. (2009) ‘Law in Greco-Roman Egypt: Hellenization, fusion, Romanization’, in R. Bagnall (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 541–60. (2015) ‘Grammatikon: Transaction-costs in first-century CE Tebtynis’, in D. M. Kehoe, D. Ratzan, and U. Yiftach-Firanko (eds), Legal Documents in Ancient Societies II: 145–61. H. C. Youtie (1974) ‘Ktamion’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 15: 147–48. (1975a) ‘ὑπογραφέυς: The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17: 201–25. (1975b) ‘Hypographeis and Witnesses of 2nd Century Tebtunis’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19: 191–201. (1976) ‘P.Mich. V 226’, Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 21: 196–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

Index accounts 32, 35, 41–3, 44, 45, 49, 54, 184, 192, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 228 administration 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 49, 109, 111, 121, 129n, 140n, 195n central 86, 120 Greek 67 local 106, 118, 120, 136 of religion 107 Roman 50, 102, 140n, 200 village 105, 117 administrative: changes 5, 6, 8, 24 control 109 documents 24, 38 duties 129, 136, 201, 225 elite 1, 3 framework 5, 35 independence 7, 230, 232 institutions 53, 120 jobs 105 level 9, 26 links 223, 228 machine 50 matters 6 network 49 offices 55, 107, 231 officials 229 phenomena 9, 34 policies 8 positions 105, 118, 136 practices 6, 29, 50 procedures 28, 33, 45, 103 relations 104 roles 24, 129, 137, 198, 224 structure 26 system 9 texts 6 titles 77, 85–6, 101 transformation 75 trends 5 unit 27 work 121

affidavits 23, 40, 58, 86, 101, 109, 119, 122, 123, 124, 129, 188, 194, 204, 205 age 28, 60, 61, 82, 84, 99, 102n, 107, 116, 146, 174 distribution 56, 59, 61, 62–4, 99 ager privatus see private land ager publicus see demosia edaphe; public land agorasmos 205 agrarian: life 31 society 158 agricultural: activities 1, 23, 29, 40, 103, 109, 124n, 128, 131, 137, 197, 199, 228 buildings 13 economy 29, 158n, 195 land 66n, 77n, 129, 135, 137, 140, 191 operations 171 produce 30 relations 4, 34, 180 societies 177 tenancy 158 workers 49, 131 works 129 agriculture 3, 4, 5, 7, 29, 66n, 128, 129n, 139, 157, 195 Aiguptioi see Egyptians aithrion 92, 93; see also court akurosime 236 alimentary contracts 37, 86, 93, 135, 147, 148, 149, 183n; see also post-marriage settlements; sungraphe trophitis Alston, Richard 89, 222 anadendratikos 191 anagraphai 35, 36–41, 45, 46n, 54; see also register(s) of titles anaphoria 40, 143, 199, 214n; see also state concessions applications; bids animal: grazing 124, 140, 143, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 173, 176, 179, 183, 185, 193–5, 229, 232

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

278



animal: (cont.) husbandry 193n leases 193 antichretic: agreements 88 arrangements 41, 54 contracts 132 leases 227 loan 87 Antonine plague 3 apeleutheros see freedmen aperispastos 37 Aphrodito 6, 158n, 231, 232 Apias daughter of Sokrates 73, 74, 75n, 112, 116, 127, 148 Apis (god) 49, 75 apoche 37 apographai probaton see declarations of livestock apolusimoi: farmers of Claudius’ estate 120, 122, 144, 181, 187, 188, 194, 195, 207, 237 farmers of Philadelphia 187 priests 108; see also Soknebtunis priests; priests apomoira 192n Appianus 192 apprentice 37, 72, 128, 202, 203 apprenticeships 37, 44n, 72, 81, 82, 128, 202n, 203, 214n, 215n Arab: period 6, 7, 50 rule 6 Arabic: name 11n texts 6 archaeological: context 2, 11 evidence 26 excavations 12n material 7, 12 record 18, 27, 57 archive of property rights 46 Aristophanes son of John 5, 6, 50 arithmetikon 39, 163, 164, 178 armed guard 44, 49n, 212n; see also machairophoros Arsinoite 5, 10, 76, 89, 102, 131, 173, 180, 191, 207, 208, 210, 213n, 214, 230; see also Fayum

district 1, 11, 34, 78, 109, 189, 204n, 211, 224 figures 57n nome 50, 57, 89n, 102, 116, 121, 140, 142, 143, 158, 174, 178, 180, 181, 187, 188, 189, 194, 206, 207, 213, 222, 226, 230 region 55 temples 13 village(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 26, 43, 58, 60, 65, 98, 156, 194, 222 artabeia 163, 164, 177n artokopoi 219 Asia Minor 232 association(s) 1, 13n, 18, 24, 30, 40, 49, 60, 77, 85, 108, 110, 119–26, 130, 136, 137, 142, 180n, 181n, 187, 188, 194, 195, 198n, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237 professional 27, 29, 103, 121, 197, 198 regulations 181, 187, 207, 208, 213, 214; see also association(s) rules; nomoi sunodou religious 121, 125 rules 40, 86, 121n, 122, 123, 124, 136, 180, 181, 187, 194, 201, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 223, 226; see also association(s) regulations; nomoi sunodou trade 121 associative: form 232 life 136, 226 model 126 phenomenon 231 astoi 76, 102 Augustus 102n, 113, 139, 152, 216 aule see courtyard(s) auludrion 93 Aurelius Isidoros (son of Ptolemaios) 6 Aurelius Sakaon 6 axioma 37 Bagnall, Roger 8, 9, 61, 63 Bahr Yusuf 9 bakers see artokopoi Bang, Peter 221 bapheis see dyers barley 39, 109, 119, 160, 161, 163, 164, 172n, 177, 217, 221 basilike ge see royal land

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 basilikoi georgoi 142 Bastet 78 bath-house 13 beer 49n, 50, 108, 123, 209–11, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 228 shop 210, 211, 219 tax 58, 86, 210, 211 beet 218 bibliophulakes 46 bibliotheke demosion logon 46 bibliotheke enkteseon see archive of property rights bids 29, 40, 43, 86, 119, 122, 123, 124, 143, 155, 191n, 193, 199n, 205, 206, 214n, 228; see also anaphoria; state concessions applications Biezunska-Malowist, Iza 126 bikoi 236 Blouin, Katherine 7, 65 Boak, Arthur 33, 40, 42, 44, 54, 187, 212, 235 boule see council bouleutai 105 Bowman, Alan 8, 56, 103, 158 bread 47, 161, 177, 210, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222 breastfeeding 69 brewers 122, 199, 210, 211, 219, 228 brickmaking 200, 213–15 Brittany 25 brother-sister marriage 98, 117 builder(s) 122, 188, 213–15 bussorgoi 204 Byzantine period 5, 6, 50, 59n, 89n, 231 cabbage 218 Caligula 1 cancellation of debt see perilusis cantina dei papiri 10, 13 Capponi, Livia 7, 136 carpenters 213–15 castellum 26 cat-goddess see Bastet catoecic: allotment 39, 182 cavalry 84, 85 conveyances 47 land 47, 75n, 85, 96, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118n, 135, 136, 138, 143–4, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154n, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 175–8, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 225, 235, 237, 240

279

notary office for registration 47 registers of land see register(s) of catoecic land cattle graziers 123, 124, 180, 188, 194n, 228, 231, 237n census: declaration(s) 56n, 61, 94, 116 population 126 returns 94 certificate of delivery 36 cession(s) 36, 37, 41, 53, 65n, 66n, 84, 101, 112n, 113, 141, 144, 152, 153, 155, 184, 235, 240; see also enchoresis; parachoresis of catoecic land 53, 84, 101, 112n, 113, 184 chalkeis see coppersmiths chalkou eikosidrachmos 173 charte neotere 211 chartera see papyrus tax cheirographiai see affidavits cheirographon 48 chersokalamia see reed-bed(s) chersonomai 143, 162, 166, 172, 182; see also nomai; pasture land chlora 143, 162; see also hay chora see countryside chortos 143, 161, 165; see also fodder chrusochooi see goldsmiths cities 3, 7, 8, 25n, 57, 76, 102, 104, 222 citizens of the Greek cities see astoi Clarysse, Willy 198 Claudius 1, 2, 34, 38, 39, 50, 120, 122, 124, 144, 152, 156, 181, 187, 188, 195, 207, 229 Claytor, W. Graham 2 cloak-makers 122, 204 cloth-beaters 122, 199, 219 clover 165, 171, 175 colonate 31 common fund 208 communal: identity 75 institutions 180, 232 life 22, 230 self-administration 8 strength 232 structures 232 community 1, 4, 5, 27, 28, 31, 48, 52, 53, 55, 72, 86, 103, 104, 106, 127n, 198, 200, 215, 231, 232

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

280



compensation 52, 53 composite roll(s) 46 compulsory: assignment of land 151, 152 services 107, 108; see also liturgies concession(s) 29, 30, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 53, 55, 86, 101, 108, 122, 124, 125, 143, 153, 195, 198, 199, 200, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 228 confirmation (contract) 37, 182 continuity 4, 5, 6, 7, 22n, 157 contractual economy 1, 4, 28, 34, 41, 61, 64, 81, 98, 99, 108, 120, 127, 189, 195, 223, 224, 225, 227, 230 conviviality 125, 209 cooked meat 213, 217, 218, 219, 221 copper 215–17 coppersmiths 122, 199, 215–17, 222 council 7, 8, 103, 105 countryside 3, 6, 7, 10, 27, 34, 47, 67, 68, 76, 80, 84, 94, 102, 105, 111, 115, 126, 197, 198, 220 court 19, 20, 21, 36, 92; see also aithrion courtyard(s) 13, 18, 22, 23, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 craft(s) 5, 26, 27, 29, 126, 128, 197, 198, 200, 203, 222, 223, 224, 228 craftsmen 126, 199, 203, 216, 217n, 223 Crawford, Dorothy 3, 4, 18; see also Thompson, Dorothy credit 134, 183, 195, 220 agreements 54, 72, 118, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 227, 237, 238 economy 132, 133, 137, 229 services 71 transactions 41, 131, 134, 137, 169, 226 creditor(s) 37, 61, 66, 69, 70n, 71, 73, 74, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 101, 105, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 132, 133, 134, 136, 169, 183, 184, 195, 225, 227, 240 crisis 34, 59, 68, 156, 170, 196, 229, 230 crocodile god see Sobek Cromwell, Jennifer 3 crop rotation 176n, 178, 185, 193 cucumber 218 cult(s) 4, 77, 78, 79, 80, 100, 225 curiales 105 daneion see loan(s) dates (food) 217

Davies, Wendy 25 debt 37, 125, 184, 187 debtor(s) 37, 65, 71, 72, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 89–92, 101, 112, 115, 116, 119, 131–4, 183, 227 declarations: of land 65, 157 of livestock 194 of priests 107 decuriones 105 deipneteria see dining rooms Deir el-Medina 5, 6, 65n, 199n, 203n, 231 deities 4, 29, 49, 78, 79, 80, 100, 225; see also gods Delta 4, 7, 9, 57, 212n, 213n; see also Mendesian nome demosia: edaphe 142, 143, 162, 163, 164, 165, 170, 172, 173n; see also public land ge see public land ta (taxes) 207 trapeza see public bank demosioi: chrematismoi 35 georgoi 122, 138, 142, 174, 180–3; see also public farmers; public tenants demosion see public treasury demotic 2, 11, 35, 45n, 47, 51, 52, 67, 93, 99, 152 notary see monographos office for registration of contracts see mnemoneion deposit(s) 36, 37, 41, 61, 65, 70n, 71, 74, 75, 77n, 81, 82, 90, 112, 119, 132, 133, 237, 238, 239 desert 215, 216 guards 13 diagraphe 42, 44n, 212 diairesis 37, 95, 96, 114, 154n, 235; see also division(s) of property didaskalike see apprenticeships didrachmia Souchou 109 Didume 66, 73, 74, 99, 190 dining rooms 12, 13, 27, 208, 216, 230 discontinuity 7 division(s) of property 29, 33n, 35, 37, 41, 52n, 53, 63, 65, 86, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 110, 113, 114, 116, 119, 128, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136, 137, 151, 153, 154, 156, 184, 226, 235, 236, 237, 240; see also diairesis; meriteia; will(s)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 divorce 29, 36, 63, 71, 93 donkey-driver(s) 126, 129, 130 donkey(s) 49, 89, 91, 119, 222, 236 doulos see slave(s) dowry 34, 38, 59n, 64, 65, 71, 72–3, 82, 83, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 110, 113, 119, 128, 134, 228, 230, 239 contract(s) 37, 64, 71, 73, 81, 100, 134, 137, 220, 228, 236, 237, 239; see also sungraphe phernes returns 68, 71–2, 100 dromos 12, 13, 18, 219; see also processional way drumoi 121, 140, 228; see also marshes duplicate(s) 35, 38, 39, 46n, 54 dyers 122, 123, 124, 199, 204, 206 economic behaviour 1, 50 eggs 217, 218, 221 Egyptian: calendar 37 god(s) 4, 77n, 78, 79, 100 papyri 7 villages 5, 7, 9, 27, 28, 231, 232 Egyptians 51, 69, 71, 75n, 76, 80, 81, 101, 102, 105, 126, 140, 227 eikosidrachmia 173 eiromena 36, 38n, 46n, 54; see also register(s) of abstracts eisaktes 207 eiskrisis 107 eiskriton 107 ekdosimon see certificate of delivery eklemptores see misthotai ekphoria 139, 173 elaiourgoi see oil-producers elders of public farmers 140, 172, 180n, 181, 196 elite(s) 1, 3, 8, 24, 29, 64, 73, 77, 103, 104–6, 107, 112, 136, 189, 225 enchoresis 37, 144, 155; see also cession(s) endive 218 enkukliakos 85 enkuklion 40, 109; see also sales-tax enoikesis see residence contracts eparourion 173, 174, 192n epibole (komes) see compulsory assignments of land epicheiresis 215 epikrisis 103

281

Epimachos (Hermopolitan landowner) 128 epimeletes see president of association epistalma 46n, 47 epistatai see weaving inspectors epistates eichthuikon 85 epiteretai 214n epiteretes 143 epoikia 26, 230 equestrian prefect 7 eremophulakes see desert guards eriopolai see wool-merchants; wool-seller(s) ethnic designations 76, 77, 80, 84, 111 ethnicity 3, 28, 75–6, 80, 103, 105 eudokesis see confirmation (contract) Eutuchas (Kronion’s partner) 42, 44, 45, 49n, 51, 210, 218, 219, 223, 240 Eutucheides (Kronion’s partner) see Eutuchas exedra 93 exegetes 48, 49 ex-exegetes 143 exempt (farmers) see apolusimoi exetasis 37 exposure 68–71, 128 extasis see release (contract) family 93–8 archive 11 Fatimid period 3 Fayum 1, 4, 6, 7–9, 18, 211n, 212n, 215n; see also Arsinoite figs 218 Fischer-Bovet, Christelle 84 fishermen 86, 121, 122, 124, 199, 231 fishing 121, 124, 140, 199, 200, 207, 228 Flavius Dioskoros (son of Apollos) 6 flax 205 fleece(s) 163, 173, 205 flood 9, 34, 156, 168, 179, 196, 229, 231 fodder 34, 141, 143, 159, 161, 162, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 182, 185, 193, 229; see also chortos foodstuff 217–9 Fouad I 33 fragmentation of property 92, 93, 94–7, 101 Frier, Bruce 61, 63 freedmen 85, 130, 152 fullers 122, 124, 199, 204, 206 Gaius Iulius Philetos 109 Gallazzi, Claudio 13

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

282



garlic 218 Geb 48 gender 28, 56, 59, 81, 82, 89, 128, 241, 242 geometria 173, 174, 192n gerdiake techne 202 gerdiakon see trade tax (textiles) gerdioi see weavers Geremek, Hanna 3 Germanicus 171, 187 children 152 month 38 Ginzburg, Carlo 48 gnapheis see fullers goats 143, 183, 193–4, 199 gods 4, 11, 48, 49, 77n, 78, 79, 100, 123, 124, 130, 204, 225, 241; see also deities gold 215–6 goldsmiths 122, 199, 215–7, 222 gourd 218 government 104, 206, 212n, 213, 215 central 5, 200, 211n officials 5 Roman 50, 67, 138, 152, 198 grain 129, 131, 229, 230; see also wheat grain-dealers 219 grammateus see secretary grammatikon 38, 69n, 235–40; see also scribal fees granary 13, 82, 109, 110, 200, 201, 219 graphai 40 grazing (animal) see animal grazing Greek: settlers 9, 75, 77, 80, 84, 85, 98, 101, 105, 110, 138, 144, 189, 192n; see also katoikos subscriptions 35–6, 45n, 46, 51, 54, 93 Grenfell, Bernard 12, 22n guarantee of immunity see aperispastos guard of state granary 85 guardian(s) 37, 39, 52n, 59n, 63, 67, 72, 99, 132n, 185, 203 guardianship 61, 67, 99 guilds 207 gymnasial group 102–3, 105, 116; see also gymnasium gymnasiarch 112, 117, 189, 190 gymnasium 102, 105, 111, 117, 136; see also gymnasial group gypsum 124, 199, 206–9, 222, 223, 228

Häge, Gunter 34 halieis see fishermen halopolai see salt-merchants Hanson, Ann 2 Harpokrates (god) 49, 78, 123, 124, 126, 130 harvest 37, 88, 156, 179, 186, 229, 230 contract 37 Hawkins, Cameron 203 hay 162, 166, 171, 172n, 176; see also chlora hegoumenos see president of association hellene 81 Hellenization 9, 26, 67, 77n, 80, 225 Herakleides: farmstead of 145 meris 9, 50 the Younger 66, 75, 96, 98, 99, 111–18, 127, 128, 129, 130, 136, 145, 156n, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191 Herakleopolite nome 57n, 59, 107n Herakles (god) 18, 78, 79, 225 Hermopolis 158 Hermopolite nome 57n, 128, 158, 207 Hickey, Todd 136 hiera ge see temple land hieratike ge see temple land Hobson, Deborah 34, 63, 64–5, 71, 229; see also Samuel, Deborah homologia(i) 37, 38, 132 antetlou see mechanical irrigation agreement ekstaseos (surrender) 48n phernes see dowry contract(s) trophimou see wet-nurse contract(s) Horos (god) 78, 79, 100, 225 household(s) 22, 23, 29, 43, 49, 64, 91, 93–8, 100, 101, 126, 128, 129, 213, 218, 237 Hunt, Arthur 12, 22n hupographai see Greek subscriptions hupographeis see subscriber(s) hupomnema see petitions hupomnemata enkukliou 40 hupomnematia 40 hupotheke see also mortgages Husselman, Elinor 33, 36, 54, 237 Ibion Eikosipentarouron 59, 147, 161, 176, 189, 190, 191, 192n, 206, 223 identity 75–80 idioktetos ge see private land idiotike ge see private land

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 imperial estates 122, 124, 129n, 139, 144, 181, 187, 200, 207; see also ousia(i) indebtedness 229 inheritance 65, 77, 96, 97 contracts 152 partible 65, 88, 92, 93, 94, 98 strategies 29, 97 ink 43, 240 inspection (contract) see exetasis inspector of fisheries tax see epistates eichthuikon inspector of sowings 109 insula dei papiri 13 intermarriage 103, 105, 110 investment(s) 134, 231 irrigation 9, 36, 160, 162, 188, 191n, 231, 232 Isis 18, 19, 22, 78, 93, 100, 225 Islamic period 5, 6, 9, 50 Jeme 3, 4, 5, 6, 50, 231, 232 Johnson, Allan Chester 211, 215 joint ownership 48, 94, 96, 97, 101, 110, 113, 118, 182 Julio-Claudian period 139, 152, 187 Kaine 59 kalamoi see reeds Karanis 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 18, 22, 23, 26, 57, 58, 65, 77, 157, 191, 205n, 207, 224n, 230 kasopoioi see cloak-makers katalogismoi see register(s) of catoecic land katalogismos 144, 240 kataphuteia 163, 164, 177 katasporeus see inspector of sowings katoikike ge see catoecic land katoikos 84, 112; see also Greek settlers keepers of the archive see bibliophulakes Kehoe, Dennis 186 Kelsey, Francis 32 kephalaiotes see president of association keramion 44n, 49, 160, 221 Kerkeesis 58, 59, 86, 90, 110, 114, 144, 145, 146, 149, 159, 173, 184, 207 Kerkeosiris 3, 4, 12, 31, 58, 76n, 78, 148, 182, 191n Kerkesephis 114, 145, 180n Kerkesoucha Orous 31, 38, 43, 44, 45, 53, 59, 114, 144, 145, 147, 148, 165, 175, 176, 184, 200, 223 kleroi heptarourikoi 143, 144, 147

283

kleroi phulakitikoi 143, 144, 147 klerouchike ge see also catoecic land koina see association(s) koinon see common fund komasterion 219 komogrammateus see village scribe korakidinion see tilapia korakinos see tilapia kosmetes 117 ex-kosmetes 112 Krause, Jens-Uwe 63 Kronion (son of Apion) 48–51, 217–19 Kronion (son of Cheos) 10, 98n, 116, 158n ktamia 142, 143, 153; see also nomai; pasture land lachanopolai 219 Laches (family) see Patron (family) land lease(s) 34, 36, 47, 66, 77n, 81, 82, 83, 90, 108, 112, 118n, 122, 123, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158–80, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192n, 195, 199, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 236, 239, 240 landowners 3, 4, 10, 29, 47, 65, 66, 87, 99, 105, 113, 135, 144, 145–51, 152, 169, 174, 176, 179, 180, 183–6, 189, 195, 200, 226, 230 laographia see poll-tax Late antique period (Late antiquity) 3, 4, 5, 87, 120 latis 218 laxos 214 Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel 25 lentils 167, 217, 221 Lerouxel, François 81 licence 195, 198, 199, 200, 205, 206, 212, 213n; see also phoros literacy 27, 34, 106 liturgies 43, 187, 195, 237; see also compulsory services loan(s) 34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 54, 60, 65, 66, 69–71, 74, 81, 82, 87, 89–92, 93, 100, 101, 112, 118, 119, 132, 133, 134, 136, 169, 170, 181, 183, 220, 227, 229, 236, 237, 238, 239 logisterion see catoecic notary office for registration looms 202, 236, 240 lotus (fodder crop) 164, 165, 172

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

284



Lower Phnebie 150, 189, 190, 191 Lusimachos son of Didumos (family) 48n, 98, 111, 117–18, 136, 146, 147, 184–5 Luxor 5 luxury items 216, 222, 231 Macedonian of the catoecic cavalry (or of the catoecic) 84, 85, 150, 151 machairophoros 44, 129n; see also armed guard magistrates 103 Manca Masciadri, Maria Adele 34 market(s) 8, 13, 34, 54, 55, 111, 119, 152, 153, 158, 193, 197, 200, 206, 217–19, 220, 221, 222, 228, 231, 232 marriage 1, 24, 59n, 63–4, 67, 68, 71, 72, 75, 94–5, 97–8, 100, 101, 113, 115, 118, 136, 227 contracts 29, 36, 37, 53, 63, 72, 84, 95, 119, 136, 147, 216, 220, 226; see also sungraphe gamou marshes 9, 121, 201, 212, 218; see also drumoi master(s) 37, 69–71, 72, 81, 126, 127, 128–30, 203, 224 mechanical irrigation agreement 37, 41 Mediterranean 8, 26, 56, 57, 76n, 232 Menches (village scribe of Kerkeosiris) 31, 121, 212n Mendesian nome 57, 65, 138n, 140, 142n, 144n, 157, 180n, 193n, 217n, 230; see also Delta meriteia 37, 41, 95, 96n, 154, 235, 236n, 237; see also division(s) of property; will(s) metal work 200, 215–17, 222, 228 metoche see partnership (contract) metronymics 60, 77 metropoleis 10, 48, 57, 71, 94, 102, 189, 203, 209, 222 microhistory 23–6, 48 microregional diversity 9 Middle Egypt 65n, 222 mines 206–7, 215 misthos see compensation misthosis see land lease(s) misthotai 152, 188 mnemoneion 47, 48 monetization 27, 30, 34, 197, 220, 222, 227 money-lending 34, 115, 119, 134, 136, 137, 156

monodesmia chortou 173 monographos 46, 47 monopolies 30, 198, 210, 211n, 212n Monson, Andrew 7, 57, 109, 152 Montaillou 25–6 Montevecchi, Orsolina 34, 54, 58, 69, 71, 229 mortar 208 mortgages 36, 37, 41, 46n, 60, 63, 86, 87, 88, 93, 99, 101, 118, 132, 133, 146, 153, 155, 184, 239 multiculturalism 3 municipalization 8 Muslim presence 6 Narmouthis 12, 124 naubion 39, 163, 164, 177, 192n Naukratis 7 Nemesion (son of Zoilos) 2–3, 50, 222, 231 Nero 2, 50, 107, 144 New Kingdom 5, 56n, 65n, 140n, 199n, 203n, 231 newer roll see charte neotere night-clerks 51, 52, 213 Nile 7, 9, 34, 196, 214, 218, 229, 231 Valley 6, 9, 56n, 57, 142, 172n, 180, 213n, 215–6, 231 Nilopolis 45 nomai 142, 143, 153, 154, 157, 162, 172, 173, 180, 183, 193; see also ktamia; pasture land nome 143 nomenclature 75–80, 111, 117, 128, 136, 241–56 nomographos (notary) 44, 45 nomoi sunodou see association(s) regulations and rules Norsa, Medea 33 notarial agreements see demosioi chrematismoi Nubia 216 nuktographoi see night-clerks nurslings 68–70, 100 nuts 218 oases (western) 207, 208 Oates, John 80 occupational: associations 197 division 215n makeup 7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 pattern 199, 219, 226 position 86 structure 5, 6, 85n, 199n title(s) 40, 77, 85, 100–1, 120, 218 oikodomoi see builders oil 29, 93, 96, 199, 212–13, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 228 producers 120n, 121n, 122, 199, 212, 219 oinoprates see wine seller olive trees 188, 213n onelates see donkey-driver(s) onomastic approach/study 4, 76–80, 100, 133–4, 137, 140, 142, 225 onomastics 7, 76–80, 98, 111, 115, 127n, 136, 241 opson see cooked meat opsonia see salaries Orsenouphis (son of Horouanchis) 81, 82, 83, 90, 148, 175, 181–2, 184 Osiris 18, 78, 79, 100, 225 ostraca 5, 10 ousia(i) 129, 139, 144, 152, 187; see also imperial estates children of Germanicus 152 Claudius 120, 122, 124, 144, 152, 181, 186–8, 195, 207 Germanicus 171, 187 Livia Drusilla 152 ousiakos logos 152 Oxyrhynchite nome 7, 57n, 129n, 177, 180, 230 Oxyrhynchus 68, 158, 201n, 203, 207, 211n pagus 26 paidarion see slave(s) Pakebkis (descendants of ) 10 Palestine 232 Pallaus (brother of Orsenouphis son of Horouanchis) 90, 182 panmade bread 217 papyrus 1, 10, 39, 40, 42, 212, 235, 240 production and trade 211–12 rolls 42, 212, 221, 223, 228, 229 tax 43, 44, 48n, 129, 211, 212, 229 parachoresis 47, 144, 155; see also cession(s); cession(s) of catoecic land paramone see work contracts parapherna 75, 96 paratheke see deposit(s) parathesis 74

285

partnership (contract) 37, 150, 161, 176 pastophoria see priestly lodgings pastophoroi 108n,109 pastoralism 29, 188, 193–5, 196, 197, 228 pasture land 109, 142, 143, 153, 154, 162, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 193, 194, 196, 226; see also chersonomai; ktamia; nomai Patron (family) 10, 58, 177, 184, 186 patronymics 60, 77 perch see latis perilusis 37 Perpignan 25, 26 Persian(s) of the epigone 39, 77, 80–4, 85, 100, 101 Pestman, Pieter 80 Petheus (weaver) 82, 200–1, 219 petition(s) 35, 40, 45, 48, 106, 109, 119, 122, 204, 215 Petronius (prefect) 106, 152 phagros 218 Pharaonic period 5, 18n, 65n, 158n, 172n, 218, 231 Phernouphite village 65 Philadelphia 2, 3, 4, 9, 34, 50, 57, 65n, 187, 191, 206n, 222, 230, 231 phoinikoparadeisos 192 phoros 169, 173, 180, 193n, 199, 204, 205n, 206; see also licence phoros nomon 143 plaster 208 plethos see association(s) plinthourgion 214 poimenes see shepherds Polemon: canal 140, 191 district/meris 9, 11n, 109, 118, 184 poll-tax 8, 72, 102, 103, 107, 108, 131, 187 collector 3, 50 population size 5, 26, 56–61, 98, 208 post-marriage settlements 36, 53, 63, 64, 77, 84, 93, 94–5, 97, 99, 119, 128, 135, 137, 144, 154, 183, 214, 220; see also alimentary contracts; sungraphe trophitis post-Roman period 5, 6, 231 praktor laographias 50; see also poll-tax collector praktoria see tax-office prasis see sale(s) presbuteroi demosion georgon see elders of public farmers

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

286



president of association 49, 77, 85, 108, 110, 120, 121, 125, 180n, 187, 199, 200, 201, 204, 207, 209, 211, 213, 226 priestly lodgings 12, 110, 237 priests 1, 35n, 47, 53, 60, 85, 89, 95, 102, 106–11, 123, 124, 127, 136, 152, 183, 193n, 211, 216, 225, 230; see also apolusimoi priests; Soknebtunis priests Primigenes (slave) 129 private: agreement see cheirographon land 29, 75n, 101, 111, 131, 135, 138, 140, 142, 143–4, 154, 157, 171, 174, 175–8, 179, 182, 183–6, 193, 195, 225, 226 privatization 139 probatoktenotrophoi see cattle graziers processional way 12, 13, 192, 216, 219, 230; see also dromos prodomatic lease 66, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169–70, 171, 172–5, 176, 181, 195 prostates see president of association psuloi topoi see vacant lot(s) Psuphis also called Harpokration 51, 52n, 66, 93, 95–7, 109–111, 127, 149, 156n, 183–4, 237, 240 Ptolema (wife of Herakleides the Younger) 66, 99, 112, 113, 116, 130, 146, 190 Ptolemaic period 18, 30, 31, 45n, 52, 76n, 78, 80, 81, 101, 106, 120n, 125, 127n, 138n, 139n, 142, 144, 189, 191n, 198n, 201n, 207, 210, 211 Ptolemais 7 Ptolemais Euergetis 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 70, 71, 105, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118n, 172, 212, 219, 228 Ptolemais Hormou 77 public: bank 162, 166, 172 farmer(s) 81, 90, 110, 121, 125, 140, 142, 172, 180–3; see also demosioi georgoi; public tenants land 29, 59n, 107, 108, 109, 121, 122, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142–4, 157, 169, 171, 172–8, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 195, 196, 225, 226, 232; see also demosia edaphe

tenants 38, 142, 169, 174, 180–3, 188, 231, 237; see also demosioi georgoi; public farmers treasury 208 purgos 22, 23; see also tower-house(s) quarries 206, 208 rabdistai see cloth-beaters Rathbone, Dominic 8, 42, 49, 54, 57, 103, 200, 220, 221 raw meat 218 receipt see apoche record-office of public deeds see bibliotheke demosion logon Red Sea 208, 216 Redon (monastery) 25, 26 reed-bed(s) 161, 176, 192 reed(s) 176, 191, 192n register(s): of abstracts 36–41, 54, 61, 99, 116, 144; see also eiromena of catoecic land 47 of contracts 2, 33, 34, 35, 36–41, 42, 45, 46n, 54, 59, 60, 62. 63n, 74, 88, 108, 115, 119, 120, 122, 124, 130, 136, 141, 143, 155, 157, 214, 215, 220, 227, 241 of titles 36–41, 42, 47, 54, 87, 88, 109, 128, 135, 136, 153, 168, 188, 225; see also anagraphai registration (of contracts) 39, 45, 47, 119, 124, 132, 206 rules 35, 36, 121, 214 release (contract) 37, 77 remarriage 63, 68 reports of sales tax see hupomnemata enkukliou request (contract) see axioma residence contracts 36, 37, 41, 63, 64, 74, 81, 83, 86–92, 97, 99, 101, 119, 132, 133, 227, 237, 238, 239 Romaioi see Romans Romanization 67 Romans 4, 8, 31, 50, 67, 68, 76, 99, 102, 103, 106, 111, 124, 129, 136, 138, 139, 191n, 197, 211, 212, 216n Rostovtzeff, Michael 31 Rowlandson, Jane 7, 54, 158, 170, 180 royal: farmers see basilikoi georgoi land 106, 138 Ruffing, Kai 200, 201

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

 salachia 217 salaries 43, 49, 53, 128, 131 sale-tax official see enkukliakos sale(s) 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46n, 47, 48, 54, 60, 63, 65, 66n, 68n, 69, 71, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92–3 (houses) 99, 100, 101, 109, 111, 113, 119, 128, 130, 131, 141, 152, 153, 154n, 155, 179, 189, 192, 193, 195, 199, 200, 201–6 (textiles) 206–9 (salt and gypsum) 210, 211, 212, 214, 215n, 219, 220, 221, 222, 226, 229, 231, 235, 236, 240 sales-tax 40, 214; see also enkuklion salt 29, 124, 199, 200, 206–9, 217, 222, 223 salt-merchants 121, 123, 124, 199, 206–9, 219, 223, 228 Samuel, Alan 34 Samuel, Deborah 3; see also Hobson, Deborah Sarapis 78 Schubert, Paul 3 scribal fees 34, 38, 40, 42 44, 47, 220, 221, 227, 235–40; see also grammatikon scribes 5, 31, 48, 51–3, 55, 61 sea-bream see phagros secretary 85, 120, 121, 180, 199 Segrè, Angelo 33 self-administration 8, 103, 232 self-administrative: autonomy 231 bodies 8 competence 8 institutions 26 self-representation 232 Septimius Severus 7, 103 shad see thrissa Sharp, Michael 3 sheep 143, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 183, 185, 193–5, 199, 205, 236 shepherds 123, 174, 193–4, 195, 227, 228 shrine-bearers see pastophoroi sitokapeloi see grain–dealers sitologos 70n, 129 six-witness contract 48 slave(s) 68, 70, 71, 94, 95, 96, 103, 106, 110, 112, 113, 114, 119, 126–30, 131, 135, 136, 137, 202, 203, 224, 225, 236, 237 Sobek 11, 49, 78, 100, 225

287

sociability 209 social mobility 5, 27, 81, 103 Soknebtunis 225 priests 35n, 106, 109–10, 136, 230; see also apolusimoi priests; priests temple 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 107 Soknopaiou Nesos 3, 4, 12n, 18, 22, 23, 43, 44, 45, 46, 65, 68n, 76, 77, 206, 207, 214 Southern Egypt 4, 50 specialization 200, 215, 222 state concessions 29, 30, 40, 44, 50, 122, 124, 153, 195, 198, 199, 200, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216n, 228 applications 40, 53, 86, 101, 108, 125, 143; see also anaphoria; bids stathmion 206 status designations 80–6 stonemason see laxos strategos 9, 50, 85, 86, 109, 110 subscribers 51–2, 61, 62, 99, 112, 132n, 211 Sudan 33, 216 sungraphe: gamou see marriage contracts phernes see dowry contract(s) trophitis see alimentary contracts; postmarriage settlements sunodoi see association(s) sunodos hiereon 108 suntaxis 106 sweetmeats 44n, 218 Syria 232 Talei 44n, 45, 50, 59n, 97, 150, 151, 152, 163, 173n, 206, 219, 223 tax: office 2 registers 2, 47, 173 rolls 3 taxation 3, 4, 6, 8, 80, 138, 144, 192, 199, 204, 210 tektones see carpenters temple: deposit 11 land 106–7, 110, 111, 138, 139, 142, 149, 152, 154, 171, 182 library see temple deposit Tetosiris (wife of Psuphis also called Harpokration) 52, 66, 93, 95, 96, 110, 149, 184 textile production 201–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/12/2019, SPi

288



Theadelphia 57, 58, 65n, 173, 191, 212n, 230 Themistos meris 9 Theogonis 45, 113, 114, 118, 135, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 160, 161, 162, 167, 172n, 176n, 184, 189, 190, 191, 206, 223 therismos see harvest contract Thermouthis (goddess) 18, 22, 78 thesaurophulax see guard of state granary thesauros see granary Thompson, Dorothy 97, 105; see also Crawford, Dorothy thrissa 218, 221 Tiberius 1, 118, 184 tilapia 218 Toepel, Lori 34, 39, 54, 72, 73, 87, 134, 170 tomos sunkollesimos see composite roll(s) toparch 85 tower-house(s) 13, 22; see also purgos trade tax (metals) 216 trade tax (textiles) 72, 203 trades 5, 26, 27, 29, 72, 121, 175, 197, 198–217, 218n, 222–4, 228 transport 57, 197, 214n travel expenses 42, 129, 212, 223 Tristomos 50, 207, 208, 219, 223 Truphon archive 201n trust 51, 72, 134, 137, 179, 195, 203, 223 turnips 217, 218, 221 Tuscus (prefect) 107 Tutun 11 typicality (of Egyptian evidence) 7–8 Undertakers archive 97 urbanization 57 vacant lot(s) 39, 113, 119, 143, 214, 236 Valley of Phremei 151 van Minnen, Peter 11 Vandorpe, Katelijn 67, 80, 101, 189 vegetable sellers see lachanopolai vegetables 210, 213, 217, 218, 222 Venticinque, Philip 126, 208 Verhoogt, Arthur 118 vicus 26 village scribe 12, 31, 46, 47, 49, 50, 85, 118, 129, 212n, 232

vineyard(s) 38, 66, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118n, 143, 145, 146, 156, 189–92 Vitelli, Girolamo 33 viticulture 4, 29, 188–93 Vogliano, Achille 10 Waebens, Sofie 67 water reservoir 13 weaver(s) 72, 123, 125, 126, 199, 200, 201–4, 227, 237 weaving inspectors 204, 206 wet-nurse 128, 224 contract(s) 34, 36, 37, 41, 54, 63, 64, 68–71, 74, 100, 126, 128, 227, 229, 239 wheat 39, 58, 96, 109, 119, 131, 140, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 173, 176, 177, 182, 185, 217, 219, 221, 227, 229; see also grain Wickham, Chris 2 Wilfong, Terry 3 will(s) 37, 41, 95, 216, 235, 236; see also division(s) of property; meriteia wine 44n, 49, 50, 115, 160, 177, 188–93, 210, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 228 wine-seller 219 Winer, Rebecca 25 women: age distribution 62–4 consenting wives 4, 65, 113 divorcees 63 role 64–75 widows 63–4, 72, 99 wool 194, 195, 202, 204–6, 221, 222 merchants 123, 195, 199, 205 seller(s) 204, 205, 237 work contracts 36, 37, 41, 74, 82, 119, 132, 133, 213n, 227, 237, 238, 239 yard see auludrion yeast 218 Yiftach-Firanko, Uri 235, 240 Youtie, Herbert 51 Zeus 78 zutera see beer tax zutopoioi see brewers zutopoleion see beer shop