CC BY
8ЕГИПЕТ И СОПРЕДЕЛЬНЫЕ СТРАНЫ EGYPT AND NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES
Электронный журнал / Online Journal Выпуск 2, 2020 Issue 2, 2020
DOI: 10.24412/2686-9276-2020-2-95101
Who was the official behind the so-called 'Archive of a Memphite official'
E. Yu. Chepel
Research fellow of the Centre for Egyptological Studies of RAS euchepel@gmail.com
A group of papyrus documents found in Saqqara in the mid 19th century was named the 'Archive of a Memphite official' due to the character of texts and to several mentions of Memphis and Memphite nome in them. The fragmentary nature and poor conservation state of the documents resulted in them being barely studied as an archive. In particular, scholars have not so far posed the question of what administrative office in Egypt under the Roman rule could be behind these documents. In the article, first time in scholarship, a hypothesis is made about this archive deriving from the bureau of a representative of the Roman dioiketes in Memphis.
Keywords: Memphis, Roman administration, Roman Egypt, 'Archive of a Memphite official', dioiketes.
A group of documents * from the 3rd century Memphis known as the 'Archive of a Memphite official' has been poorly studied in papyrology and scholarship of Roman Egypt 1. Although the texts are very fragmentary, I believe that several of them, and possibly the archive as a whole, can be interpreted as pertaining to communication between Alexandrian financial procurators and local officials in Memphis. In the 2nd-3rd centuries CE finances of Egypt being a Roman province were administered by several procuratorships of the highest rank: sioik^t^ç (dioiketes) and ïôioç Xoyoç (idios logos), which were partly rooted in the
* This article has been written with the financial support of the Council for grants of the President of the Russian Federation, Project MK 699.2019.6.
1 Trismegistos archive 403. Fragments are presently distributed in three collections in Saint-Petersburg, Berlin
and Leipzig. On this archive see Chepel 2018: 57-58, 61; 2019. The documents are partly published in P. Berl. Bibl., P. Leipz., P. Ross. Georg. and described in P. Pe-tersb.
Ptolemaic tradition; usiacus, the Roman procurator patrimonii; and apxiepeu^ (archiereus) who was put in charge of temples and priesthood. Since Alexandria is a region where pa-pyrological material was hardly preserved, only partial reconstruction of the central level of the Roman financial administration is possible on basis of the surviving evidence about these officials and their departments 2. We know that procurators were assisted by ¿K^oyioxai (eklogistai) who also resided in Alexandria and each of whom was appointed to deal with financial matters of one nome. We also know that communication between the centre and the chora required appointing lower officials who acted as messengers and at the same time represented the central Roman authorities. These were beneficiarii, tabularii, enioxoXa^opoi, unnpexai (hyperetai) and others 3. One of their main functions, apart from delivering official correspondence, was transportation of fiscal reports to Alexandria. In some documents these officials are labelled as employees of a particular procuratorship: the hyperetai of the idios logos in P. Princ. 2. 22 4, lines 4, 11 (246-249, Oxyrhynchus) 5; the beneficiarii of the idios logos in P. Oxy. Hels. 11, line 7 (41/42) and BGU 2. 388, line 10 (2nd century, Alexandria) 6; a tabularius of the archiereus in P. Achm. 8, lines 8-9 (197, Panopolis) 7.
Usually these officials served as a link between procurators in Alexandria and the highest officials of the nome — oxpaxnyoi (strategoi) and PamXixoi ypa^axei^ (basilikoi gram-mateis) 8. However there is also evidence that in some cases communication and exchange of documents took place without mediation of the nome administration. One instance is P. Oxy. 17. 2116 (229): an official of the prefect's correspondence — enixnpnT^? ^ye^ovixrov enioxoXrav Kai allrav — confirms the receipt of six copies of a five-day report from the superintendents of the alum monopoly 9. Two copies were intended for dioikesis, one — for the central archives (tabularium) 10, one — for the procurator ad Mercurium 11, one — for his bureau, and one — for the oIkovo^oi (oikonomoi) who in Roman times were associated with the department of usiacus 12. Another attested case of such direct communication is the commission of rcpoxeipioQevxe^ / napaX^rcxai who received from local tax-collectors registers of receipts for taxes and submitted them to the eklogistai of the nomes and to the department of the idios logos in Alexandria 13.
2 On idios logos see Swarney 1970; on dioiketes see Hagedorn 1985; on usiacus see Parassoglou 1978 and Beutler 2007; on archiereus see Parsons 1974 and Jordens 2014.
3 On administrative communication in Roman provinces see Strassi 1994; Jordens 1999; Thomas 1999; Ne-lis-Clément 2006; Haensch 2006.
4 All editions of papyri are abbreviated according to Oates et al.
5 For the SioiK^oi^ (dioikesis) hyperetai are attested only for the 1st century CE in P. Oxy. 2. 259 (23) and P. Flor. 3. 312 (91, Hermoupolis Magna). See also Kupiszewski, Modrzejewski 1957-1958.
6 On beneficiarii as assistants of financial procurators
in Egypt and other provinces see Nelis-Clément 2000:
243-246.
7 On tabularii see Kruse 2002: 733-735; Boulvert 1970: 420-428; Haensch 2006: 165-166.
8 See Kruse 2002: 824-843, 492-503.
9 On this official see Kruse 2002: 820.
10 On tabularia in Roman provinces see Haensch 2006: 162-163.
11 On this official see Beutler-Kränzl 2007.
12 See P. Hamb. 1. 8, line 2 (136, Theadelphia).
13 Kruse 2002: 821, n. 31 and P. Bub. 2, p. 18-22. This group of officials is attested for the second half of the 2nd century CE: P. Flor. 3. 358 (146, Arsinoite), P. Amh. 2. 69 (154, Arsinoite), P. Princ. 3. 127 (159/60, Arsinoite), P. Ryl. 2. 83 (138-161, Memphites); SB 12. 10883 (158, Soknopaiou Nesos), SB 6. 9322 (187, Bakchias), SB 12. 11149 (late 2nd — early 3rd centuries, Bakchias).
Moreover, there is also papyrological evidence that some of the employees of the financial procurators resided in the chora 14. P. Fay. 23(a) (2nd century, Theadelphia) mentions a certain Philadelphos, a former secretary of the idios logos for some nomes: ypa^axeu? vo^rov xivrov iSiou Xoyou Kai ioayroyeu? oxpaxnyou A^roviaKfl? (lines 3-4). He also held several other positions in the Kabasite and Metelite nomes in the Delta, served as a clerk for the strategos of the Siwa oasis, and at the time of writing of this document he was basi-likos grammateus of Libya. This description of Philadelphos' career was probably organised chronologically, with the most recent position being the highest and the first one — probably, the least important. Nothing in his curriculum vitae reveals a connection with the bureau in Alexandria. It is, therefore, more plausible to interpret his first appointment as a secretary of the bureau of the idios logos located in the chora 15.
Such a local bureau of the department of the procurator usiacus is mentioned in P. Amh. 2. 77 (139, Soknopaiou Nesos). The complainant was taken by force to Xoyiox^piov xou enixporcou xrov oumrov (lines 22-23) by one of its lower officials — ^axaipo^opo? ouoiaKrav 16. Apparently, the central financial department had its local branch in Arsinoite, with its own building and employees, separate from the bureau of the strategos. The chief of such a local branch could be PonOo? (adiutor) of the procurator usiacus. This office is attested not only in Egypt, but also in other Roman provinces 17. From the 2nd century Egypt we know five PonOoi: Epithumetos in P. Wisc. 1. 31 (149, Theadelphia), Aelius Heraclitus in P. Wisc. 1. 34 and 35 (144, Theadelphia), Kestos in BGU 4. 1047 (117-138, Arsinoite) 18, Oulpios Thiasos in P. Prag. 2. 132 (122/123, Ptolemais Euergetis) and Aelius Eutuches in IGR I. 1325 (153, prov. unknown). The main function of these adiutores was to represent the procurator locally 19. Another local non-liturgic official of the usiacus mentioned in papyri was erci^eXnt'n? KupiaKrav (sc. oumaKrav) Kxn^axrov (P. Oxf. 3; 142, Arsinoite) / eni^eXnT'? xivrov oumaKrov (BGU 9. 1895, lines 58-59; 157, Theadelphia) 20. In the former document erci^eXnfn? (epi-meletes) Aelius Felix writes to the basilikos grammateus, after he (Felix) had inspected the estates of the usiacus and found some cut trees. Aelius orders the basilikos grammateus to conduct investigation and to report about the results so that he could forward this report to the procurator 21.
14 This evidence challenges (or at least refine) what P. R. Swarney wrote about the idios logos: 'The department's own bureaucratic organization does not appear to have extended beyond the office in Alexandria in the second century any more than it did in the first. Many of the officials in the chora acted for the idios logos, but none of them exclusively. Several of npaKTope? (prak-tores) handed in reports to couriers who transported information to the secretaries in the idios logos, but some of these were performing the same activity for other departments' (Swarney 1970: 116).
15 Kruse 2002: 802-804. P. R. Swarney interprets Phil-
adelphos' post as one of the ypa^axeii; Tofi vo^ofi/
ypa^ovxe? tov vo^ov in Alexandria (Swarney 1970:
116-117).
16 See discussion in Mitthof 2007: 259-260, n. 21. On Xoyiaxripiov as building see Kruse 2002: 799-800. P. Oxy. 1. 57 (195/6) mentions also a bureau of the department of the dioikesis — to Tfç SioiK|aeœç Xoyiax|piov, but it seems that the central bureau in Alexandria is meant; see Kruse 2002: 322.
17 Haensch 2006: 164-165. On papyrological evidence see Parassoglou 1978: 90; Beutler 2007; Vidman 990.
18 On this papyrus see Kruse 2002: 1049-1050.
19 Mitthof 2007: 260.
20 Parassoglou 1978: 90.
21 The editor E. Wegener suggests that this is the idios logos, not procurator usiacus, since the report concerned the trees, not the estates themselves, p. 18. See also Swarney 1970: 127-128.
As for the procuratorships of the dioikesis, there are three documents that might refer to local representatives or employees of this financial department. In P. Yale. 3. 137 (216/7, Philadelphia) a local resident and landowner Maximos is described as ypa^axeu? SioiK^oera? (135). This office appears also in P. Oxy. 14. 1663 (2nd-3rd centuries, Tourbon; PonOo? Oilo^evou KaOoXiKou ypa^axera? SxoiKnoera? 22) and P. Oxy. 3. 642 (2nd century, Anoubion; son of Ioulios, yevo^evo? ypa^axeu? SioiK^oera?). The context does not allow for a conclusion about whether these employees were based in the chora, although this seems plausible. The ostraca receipts from the Upper Egypt attest the granaries of the dioikesis of the nome capital — SioiK^oera? ^nTPonoXera? (O. Heid. 255, 5. 12 (191, Thebes) and O. Bodl. 2. 1000 (175-225, Thebes)) 23.
Even though the evidence is insufficient to argue decisively for the existence of local offices and minor officials in the nomes, it seems reasonable that the large amount of fiscal transactions in money and kind as well as operations with public property in the chora required the assistance of local staff who would process taxes and documents for each department specifically. These local financial officials would cooperate with the nome administration, but at the same time be not fully dependent on them in the hierarchy which would contribute to strengthening the control of the central administration over the chora 24.
Two procuratorships are mentioned in texts of the 'Archive of a Memphite official'. The archiereus is mentioned once (in a receipt (?) P. Berl. Bibl. 23, line 8), and dioikesis appears four times (P. Berl. Bibl. 23, line 7 (based on the photo, papyrus has SioiK^oera?, not SioiK^oerav as in editio princeps), semi-official letter P. Leipz. 2, line 6, land register P. Leipz. 18r, line 3 25 and in the fragment of proceedings P. Petersb. 11v, line 8) 26.
In P. Leipz. 2 the sender informs the addressee about some names that were not yet registered in the dioikesis: ounra xa ovo^axa KaxaKex[ra-]|pioxai ei? SioiK^oera? (lines 5-6). The expression is probably a shortened version of ei? xo xfl? SioiK^oera? Xoyiox^piov, as it occurs in P. Oxy. 1. 57, lines 17-18 (195/6). There is no further context, and the rest of the letter contains private requests. However, usage of the special term Kaxaxrapi^ra — 'to register' — in combination with the name of the financial department does not leave any doubt that the two correspondents are officials. In papyri the term Kaxaxrapio^c? has meaning 'submitting the registers of documents to the archive of the nome or to the central officials' 27. The latter implies sending documents to Alexandria, which was executed with the mediation of special messengers.
Another semi-private letter from the same archive — P. Ross. Georg. 5. 5 — seems to deal with the matter of sending documents too. In the text a messenger ercioxoXa^opo? is mentioned (line 4) along with a new beneficiarius (o Kaivo? Peve^iKiapio?, line 7), an office that was also frequently involved in the communication between Roman administrators of Egypt. It is known from other papyri that Roman financial procurators, the idios logos and,
22 The editio princeps reads the abbreviation as 5ioik( ) as 5ioikt|toü.
23 On the granary of the department of dioikesis as separate building see J. Shelton in P. Brookl., p. 90.
24 See Haensch 2006: 166 on the control over the local
institutions which was probably stronger in Egypt than
in other provinces since the cities were not administrative entities before Septimius Severus.
25 For new readings see Chepel 2019.
26 See ^ene^b 2020.
27 See Kruse 2002: 82-83, 776-777, 801.
probably, usiacus, appointed beneficiarii 28. One can assume that each procurator could have a number of beneficiarii acting on behalf of his department in each nome and, therefore, P. Ross. Georg. 5. 5 could refer to one of them. Unfortunately, the text is too fragmentary and allows only for speculations.
Another document of the archive — P. Ross. Georg. 5. 56 — is a list of expenses of a bureau Xoyioxnpiov that includes writing materials, wages of assistants (PonOoi, lines 7 and 9) and travel costs of some officials (lines 1 and 3). One of them, a was going
to Alexandria. We do not know much about this official 29, but he appears also in P. Bub. 3 fr. 4, lines 10-11 that comes from a roll of correspondence of the dioiketes addressed to the strategos of the nome. Moreover, a private letter P. Princ. 3. 164 (2nd century, prov. unknown) mentions a acting as a mediator in submitting official monthly reports: тф
vo^o9uXaKi t^v | 5шураф^ eiSra^ t^v av|vdvK^v той ^nviaiou (lines 4-6) 30. Such reports are known to be submitted by ovcoXoyoi (sitologoi) to the strategos as well as to the central financial administration — eklogistai and financial departments — through npoxeipioQevTe^ 31.
The bureau mentioned in P. Ross. Georg. 5. 56 is likely to be the office from which all the documents of the 'Archive of a Memphite official' derive. Unfortunately, from the fragments it is unclear whether it was the bureau of the strategos of the Memphite nome, or of the basilikos grammateus, or, perhaps, even of the secretary of a financial department (dioikesis would be the most likely one). In any case this Memphite bureau seems to have had a great deal of communication with the central financial administration, submitting reports and sending its employees to Alexandria as well as interacting with messengers and representatives of the Roman magistrates.
Bibliography
Beutler 2007
Beutler-Kränzl 2007 Boulvert 1970 Chepel 2018
Chepel 2019 Haensch 2006
Beutler F., Wer war ein procurator usiacus? Die Verwaltung des patrimoniums in Ägypten in der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts // Demougin S., Loriot X. (ed.), Servir le prince en Égypte. Actes de la table ronde, Paris, 25 novembre 2006 (Paris, 2007): 67-82.
Beutler-Kränzl F., Procurator ad Mercurium // Palme B. (ed.), Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (Vienna, 2007): 53-56.
Boulvert G., Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire romain. Rôle politique et administrative (Napoli, 1970).
Chepel E., Russian collections of Greek papyri and history of their publication: an overview (with the catalogue of Greek papyri held at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow) // Egypt and Neighbouring countries 3 (2018): 57-80. Chepel E., Corrections to P. Leipz. - Korr. Tyche 886-894 // Tyche 34 (2019): 239-243. Haensch R., La gestion financière d'une province romaine: les procurateurs entre résidences fixes et voyages d'inspection // Capdetrey L., Nelis-Clément J. (ed.), La circulation de l'information dans l'états antiques (Bordeaux, 2006): 161-176.
28 In P. Amh. 2. 77 the beneficiarius was informed about the violence against the complainant that took place in the local office of the usiacus.
29 This official appears to be a village policeman in sev-
eral papyri, see Oertel 1917: 276.
30 On monthly reports see Kruse 2002: 330-331.
31 See P. Amh. 2. 69 and A. Papathomas, introduction to P. Heid. 7. 398.
Hagedorn 1985 Jördens 1999
Jördens 2014 Kruse 2002
Kupiszewski, Modrzejewski
Mitthof 2007 Nelis-Clément 2000 Nelis-Clément 2006
Oates et al.
Oertel 1917
Parassoglou 1978 Parsons 1974 Strassi 1994
Swarney 1970 Thomas 1999
Vidman 1990 Чепель 2020
Hagedorn D., Zum Amt des 5ioiKt|Tr|ç im römischen Ägypten // Yale Classical studies 28 (1985): 167-210.
Jördens A., Das Verhältnis der römischen Amtsträger in Ägypten zu den 'Städten' in der Provinz // Eck W. (ed.), Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert (München, 1999): 141-180. Jördens A., Priester, Prokuratoren und Präfekten. Die Tempelverwaltung im römischen Ägypten // Chiron 44 (2014): 119-164.
Kruse T., Der königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philippus Arabs (30 v. Chr. -245 n. Chr.) (Leipzig, 2002).
1957-1958 Kupiszewski H., Modrzejewski J., YnHPETAI: Etude sur les fonctions et le role des hyperètes dans l'administration civile et judiciaire de l'Egypte gréco-romaine // Journal of juristic papyrology 11-12 (1957-1958): 141-166. Mitthof F., Betrügerische Zollbeamte und der procurator usiacus. Bemerkungen zu P. Amh. II 77 // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159 (2007): 256-260. Nelis-Clément J., Les beneficiarii: militaires et administrateurs au service de l'Empire (1er s. a. C. — Vie s. p. C.) (Bordeaux, 2000).
Nelis-Clément J., Le gouverneur et la circulation de l'information dans les provinces romaines sous le Haut-Empire // Capdetrey L., Nelis-Clément J. (ed.), La circulation de l'information dans l'états antiques (Bordeaux 2006): 141-160.
Oates J. F., Bagnall R. S., Clackson S. J., O'Brien A. A., Sosin J. D., Wilfong T. G., Worp K. A., Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic papyri, ostraca and tablets. Digital resource, mode access: http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html. Oertel F., Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens (Leipzig, 1917).
Parassoglou G. M., Imperial estates in Roman Egypt (Amstrerdam, 1978). Parsons P., Ulpius Serenianus // Chronique d'Égypte 49 (1974): 135-157. Strassi S., Problemi relativi alla diffusione delle disposizioni amministrative nell'Egitto romano: il ruolo degli hyperetai e le formule di trasmissione dei documenti // Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists (Copenhagen, 1994): 504-507. Swarney P. R., The Ptolemaic and Roman idios logos (Toronto, 1970). Thomas J. D., Communication between the prefect of Egypt, the procurators and the nome officials // Eck W. (ed.), Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert (München, 1999): 181-195. Vidman L., Ein neuer adiutor procuratoris usiaci // Speculum antiquitatis Graeco-Romanae. Studia Ioanni Burian sexagenario oblata (Praha, 1990): 342-347.
Чепель Е. Ю., Два фрагмента судебного протокола из Мемфиса III в. н. э. P. Berl. Bibl. 29r и P. Petersb. 11r // Вестник древней истории 80 (4) (2020), в печати.
Кому мог принадлежать «архив мемфисского чиновника»
E. Ю. Чепель
Группа папирусных документов была найдена в Саккаре в середине XIX в. и получила в папирологии название «архив мемфисского чиновника». Обрывочность и разрозненность этих текстов, а также их труднодоступность для научного сообщества привели к недостаточной их изученности как единого архива. В частности, исследователи до сих пор не задавались вопросом о том, с какой административной должностью в римской системе управления Египтом они могли быть связаны. В статье впервые высказывается предположение о происхождении этой группы документов из бюро представителя диойкета Египта в Мемфисе.
Ключевые слова: Мемфис, римская власть в Египте, архив мемфисского чиновника, диойкет.
Reffering / ссылка для цитирования:
Chepel Е. Yu. Who was the official behind the so-called 'Archive of a Memphite official' // Egypt and neighbouring countries 2 (2020): 95-101. DOI: 10.24412/2686-92762020-2-95101.
