Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:07:53.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Alan K. Bowman  and
Dominic Rathbone
Alan K. Bowman
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Dominic Rathbone
Affiliation:
King's CollegeLondon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

These two inscriptions come from the precinct of the temple of Hathor at Denderah (Tentyra), capital of the Tentyrite nome, just north of Thebes in Upper Egypt. The impressive remains of the complex are mostly late Ptolemaic and Roman (re)constructions, but they look Pharaonic and suggest social and cultural continuity across the centuries. The inscriptions, however, illustrate the radical changes in communal organization and administration which the Romans introduced. These changes form the subject of this paper. The first inscription dates to 12 B.C., but is almost entirely in the pre-Roman tradition. It is a trilingual dedication with the primary version in demotic (i.e. Egyptian). Augustus is god, implicitly Pharaoh, and lacks his Roman titles. The strategos (governor of the nome) Ptolemaios gives himself obsolete court titles and a string of local priesthoods. Ptolemaios came from a family which had hereditarily held local priesthoods (and probably continued to hold them after him), and his father Panas had preceded him as strategos of the Tentyrite nome, retaining office through the Roman annexation. On this occasion Ptolemaios' dedication was personal, but other dedications show him acting, like his father, as the head of local cult associations. Ptolemaios is last attested as strategos in 5 B.C. Five years later, our second inscription, which dates to 23 September A.D. I, reveals a very different situation. The dedication was made on Augustus' birthday, and was finely inscribed in Greek only. The strategos Tryphon, whose name suggests an Alexandrian sent up to the Tentyrite nome, figures only as an element of the official dating clause standard throughout Roman Egypt; he is just a cog in the Roman administrative machine. The dedication was made corporately by the local community, structured, as we will see, on the new Roman model.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 82 , November 1992 , pp. 107 - 127
Copyright
Copyright ©Alan K. Bowman 1992. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Spiegelberg, W., Die demotische Denkmäler (1904), III. 50044;Google ScholarBernand, A., Les portes du désert (1984), no. 24Google Scholar. We are grateful to Penny Glare for translation of the demotic text; the hieroglyphic version is not quoted because it is almost identical.

2 Bernand, op. cit. (n. 1), no. 25.

3 H. De Meulenaere, ‘Les stratèges indigènes du nome Tentyrite à la fin de l'époque ptolémaïque et au début de l'occupation romaine’, RSO 34 (1959), 1–25; Shore, A. F., ‘Votive offerings from Denderah of the Graeco-Roman period’, in Ruffle, J. et al. (eds), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman (1979), 138–60Google Scholar.

4 N. Lewis, ‘“Greco-Roman Egypt”: fact or fiction?’, Proc. XII Int.Congr.Pap., Am.Stud.Pap. 7 (1970), 3–14; idem, ‘The Romanity of Roman Egypt: a growing consensus’, Atti XVII Congr.Int.Pap. (1984), III, 1077–84. See further Section II below.

5 Tac., Hist. I.II. The idea that the inhabitants of Egypt were congenitally and culturally unsuited to civic self-administration goes back at least to Polybius XXXIV. 14, a passage quoted by Strabo XVII.1.12. It is echoed in older standard works such as Jouguet, P., La vie municipale dans l'Egypte romaine (1911), 75Google Scholar; Stein, A., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Agyptens unter römischer Herrschaft (1915), 84Google Scholar.

6 cf. Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht (3rd edn, 1887), 11.2, 859 n. 2Google Scholar: Egypt was not a proper province, even if Roman writers called it one; ‘es fehlt hier auch die municipale Organisation, die Grundlage jeder Provinzialordnung’. Our model of full civic self-administration is the unit of town and dependent territory, run by a council drawn from the wealthy local landowners and headed by annual magistrates, responsible for supervising membership of the community and the council, for providing local amenities and law and order, and for collecting the tribute assessed by Rome on their community.

7 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972), 1, chs 2–3; Jähne, A., ‘Die ʼAλεξανδϱέων χώϱαʼ’, Klio 63 (1981), 63–101Google Scholar. Boule: see n. 35 below.

8 Greek cities: see Section III.ii below. Chora: J. Bingen, ‘Le milieu urbain dans la chôra égyptienne à l'époque ptolémaïque’, Proc.XIV lnt.Congr.Pap. (1975), 367–73.

9 For examples and discussion see Thompson, D. J., Memphis under the Ptolemies (1988), ch. 3Google Scholar.

10 J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, ‘Le statut des Hellènes dans l'Egypte lagide. Bilan et perspectives de recherches’, REG 96 (1983), 241–68; cf. Goudriaan, K., Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt (1988), though he overstates his caseGoogle Scholar.

11 Modrzejewski, J., ‘Régime foncier et statut social dans l'Egypte ptolémaïque’, in Terre et paysans dépendants dans les sociétes antiques, Colloque Besançon 1974 (1979), 163–88Google Scholar. His argument for the existence of private property in Ptolemaic Egypt is sound, but he does not note the important difference between Ptolemaic ge idioktetos and Roman ge idiotike.

12 Tac., Ann. II.59. On the ousiai, sometimes regarded without justification as evidence for Roman investment, see p. 111 below.

13 These innovations are described more fully by A. K. Bowman, ‘Egypt’, CAH x (2nd edn, 1993, forthcoming), ch. 14b; cf. G. Geraci, Genesi della provincia romana d'Egitto (1983), ch. 4; O. Montevecchi, ‘L'amministrazione dell'Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi’, ANRW 11.10.1 (1988), 412–71. Of the older surveys the best is Stein, op. cit. (n.5).

14 Tac., Ann. XII.60; Ulpian, Dig. 1.17.1. The only ‘royal’ relics of the prefect's position were his residence in the Ptolemaic palace and the taboo on sailing on the Nile when it was in flood (cf. the works cited in n. 13). Cf. Brunt, P. A., ‘The administrators of Roman Egypt’, JRS 65 (1975), 124–47,Google Scholar repr. as Roman Imperial Themes (1990), ch. 10.

15 Swarney, P. R., The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos, Am.Stud.Pap. 8 (1970)Google Scholar, ch. 2; see further p. III below. D. Hagedorn, ‘Zum Amt des διοιχητής im römischen Ägypten’, YCS 28 (1985), 167–210; cf. n. 98 below. H. Kupiszewski, ‘The Iuridicus Alexandreae’. JJP 7–8 (1953–1954), 187–204, stressing his role in civil jurisdiction; cf.Frere, S. S., Britannia (3rd edn, 1987), 183–4Google Scholar; Mackie, N. K., Local Administration in Roman Spain, A.D. 14–212, BAR Int. Ser. 172 (1983), 8–9Google Scholar. Thomas, J. D., The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Part 2. The Roman Epistrategos, Pap.Colon, VI (1982), 9–15, 185Google Scholar. Cf. Pflaum, H.-G., Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (1960/1961), III, 1083–92Google Scholar, Supplément (1982), 133–41. Slaves and freedmen: Strabo XVII.1.12; cf. Philo, Flacc. 112; Leg. 166; P.Oxy. XLIV.3208.

16 Speidel, M., Roman Army Studies I (1984), 317–21;Google Scholaridem, ‘Nubia's Roman garrison’, ANRW 11.10.1 (1988), 767–98; S. Daris, ‘Le truppe ausiliarie in Egitto’, ANRW 11.10.1 (1988), 743–66. Land: Gnomon §111; N. Lewis, ‘Soldiers permitted to own provincial land’, BASP 19 (1982), 143–8; and note his suggestion that the reversal of this prohibition owed something to the Ptolemaic precedent of soldier-cleruchs, ‘A Roman law of Hellenistic origin?’, Symposion 5 (1982), 281–9Google Scholar.

17 J. E. G. Whitehorne, ‘Recent research on the strategi of Roman Egypt (to 1985)’, ANRW 11.10.1 (1988), 598–611; Montevecchi, op. cit. (n. 13), 440–2; Bastianini, G. and Whitehorne, J., Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt, Pap.Flor. xv (1987)Google Scholar.

18 The categorization follows Thomas, J. D., ‘Compulsory public service in Roman Egypt’, in Grimm, G. et al. (eds), Das römisch-byzantinische Agypten, Aegytiaca Treverensia 2 (1983), 35–9Google Scholar. See also Lewis, op. cit. 1970 (n. 4), 7 (from whom the phrase quoted is taken); idem, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt, Pap.Flor. XI (1982).

19 See further Rathbone, D. W., ‘Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation’, Cahiers G.Glotz 4 (1993,Google Scholar forthcoming).

20 Vell.Pat. 11.39.2; D. W. Rathbone, ‘The imperial finances’, CAH x (2nd edn, 1993, forthcoming), ch. 8.

21 Estates: Crawford, D. J., ‘Imperial estates’, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Studies in Roman Property (1976), 57–70Google Scholar; Parássoglou, G. M., Imperial Estates in Roman Egypt, Am.Stud.Pap. 18 (1978)Google Scholar. Note that the Ptolemaic ge basilike (royal land) did not become ‘imperial’ land (see below). Idioslogos: Swarney, op. cit. (n. 15). Cf. Rathbone, op. cit. (n. 19).

22 Walker, D. R., The Metrology of the Roman Coinage 1, BAR Suppl.Ser. 5 (1976), 155–6;Google Scholar cf. Crawford, M. H., Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (1985), 271–2Google Scholar.

23 Wallace, S. L., Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938)Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., ‘The revenues of Rome’, JRS 71 (1981), 161–72Google Scholar (esp. 162–3), repr. as Roman Imperial Themes (1990), ch. 15. Our comments on land-categorization rely heavily upon the important work by Rowlandson, J. L., Landholding in the Oxyrhynchite Nome 30 N.C.–C.300 A.D. (D.Phil. Oxford, 1983;Google Scholar Oxford Classical Monographs, forthcoming); cf. Rostowzew, M., Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates (1910), ch. IIGoogle Scholar.

24 Edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander (ed. G. Chalon, 1964), lines 59–61; cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd edn, 1971), 304–5Google Scholar; Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 11, 114 n. 16. Innovation: cf. Modrzejewski, op. cit. (n. n); contrast E. G. Turner, CAH VII.1 (2nd edn, 1984), 154, but our view does not preclude recognition of ‘capitalism’ and investment practised by the Greeks. Calpurnia Heraklia: P.Oxy. XLII.3047 (we take the high anonymous regnal year numbers in 11. 25–6, 30–1 to relate to Augustus; the low ‘year numbers’ have been re-interpreted by J. L. Rowlandson, ‘P.Oxy. XLII 3047, VII 1044, and the land tax in kind’, ZPE 67 (1987), 283–91).

25 P.Ryl. 11.216.

26 Rowlandson, op. cit. (n. 23), 47–53.

27 BGU 11.543; cf. Rowlandson, op. cit. (n. 23), 42–6.

28 See Wallace, op. cit. (n. 23), ch. VIII; J. A. S. Evans, ‘The poll-tax in Egypt’, Aeg. 37 (1957), 259–65; Rathbone, op. cit. (n. 19). Cf. O.Bodl. 11.407 (earliest receipt); Lewis, op. cit. 1970 (n. 4), 6 (novelty); Brunt, op. cit. (n. 23), 161 (symbolism).

29 R. S. Bagnall, ‘The beginnings of the Roman census in Egypt’, GRBS 32 (1991 forthcoming); cf. Brunt, op. cit. (n. 23), 163–6; Hombert, M. and Préaux, C., Recherches sur le recensement dans l'Egypte romaine, Pap.Lugd.Bat. 5 (1952), 47–52Google Scholar.

30 Gnomon praef. Our approach to this subject owes much to the work of Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J., in particular ‘La règie de droit dans l'Egypte romaine’, Proc. XII lnt.Congr.Pap., Am.Stud.Pap. 7 (1970), 317–77Google Scholar, and ‘“La loi des Egyptiens”: le droit grec dans l'Egypte romaine’, Proc. XVIII Int. Congr. Pap. (1988), 11, 383–99Google Scholar, repr. as Droit impérial et traditions locales dans l'Egypte romaine (1990), ch. IX.

31 The almost(?) complete text of the Gnomon published as BGU v.1210 dates to the mid-second century A.D. and therefore represents an accretion of regulations over almost two centuries; P.Oxy. XLII.3014 contains a fragment which has been assigned on palaeographical grounds to the first century; the edict of Ti. Julius Alexander, 1. 44, refers to it as an Augustan indulgence. Augustan legislation is reflected particularly in §§9, 16, 19, 22–3. Also noteworthy in this respect is the Egyptian evidence for the scope and impact of the Lex Papia Poppaea and the Lex Aclia Sentia (FIRA III.2, 4).

32 The latest Ptolemaic-style usage of an ethnic appears to be WChr. III of A.D. 6. On this and what follows see the excellent survey by Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J., ‘Entre la cité et le fisc: le statut grec dans l'Egypte romaine’, in Nieto, F. J. Fernández (ed.), Symposion 1982Google Scholar. Actas de la sociedad de historia del derecho griego y helenístico (1985), 241–80Google Scholar, repr. as op. cit. 1990 (n. 30), ch. 1; cf. Montevecchi, O., ‘Aigyptios-Hellen in età romana’, in Bondi, S. F. et al. (eds), Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani (1985). 339–53Google Scholar.

33 Laographia: cf. n. 28 above. Entopioi: P.Land. II (p. 222). 192.94; cf. SB v.8334.

34 Laws: attested for the Ptolemaic period in P.Hal. I and for the Roman in P.Oxy. IV.706 (we do not follow the view of Modrzejewski, op. cit. 1988 (n. 30), 387, that the astikos nomos is Roman law).

35 The date at which the boule and ekklesia disappeared is still uncertain, but we regard the arguments for the second century B.C. (probably the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes Physcon) as very much stronger than those for abolition by Augustus, despite Geraci, op. cit. (n. 13), 176–82 with n. 856. The statement of Dio LI.17.2 that Augustus insisted on civic government aneu bouleuton (without councillors) does not prove that he abolished the boule and could equally refer to a refusal to accede to requests to re-establish it. We would stress the lack of any evidence for an Alexandrian boule in the latter half of the Ptolemaic period, and the failure of Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians to use abolition by Augustus as support for his refusal to accede to their request. See also Bowman, A. K., The Town Councils of Roman Egypt, Am.Stud.Pap. 11 (1971), 12;Google Scholar Fraser, op. cit. (n.7), 1, 94–5; Delia, D., Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Period, Am.Class.Stud. 23 (1991)Google Scholar, ch. v.

36 Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 1, 34–5, 40. E.g. P.Oxy. XXII.2340 (A.D. 192): hypostrategos of Delta district; OGIS 11.70s = SB v.8911 (A.D. 158): food-supply officer of Beta district.

37 Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), chs 1–11; M. A. H. El-Abbadi, ‘The Alexandrian citizenship’, JEA 48 (1962), 106–23; Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 1, 38–54, 76–8. The unsolved technical problems associated with the Alexandrian citizenship cannot be discussed in detail here and are, in any case, strictly irrelevant to our main point which concerns the privileges associated with full Alexandrian status. We follow El-Abbadi and Delia against Fraser in believing that there was only one grade of Alexandrian citizenship, which sometimes is denoted by the term astos in the Gnomon. Possible numerus clausus: Acta Alex. III. 15; cf. Jones, op. cit. (n. 24), 474 n. 8.

38 Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), ch. III.

39 M. A. H. El-Abbadi, ‘The gerousia in Roman Egypt’, JEA 50 (1964), 164–9; Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), 163; Momigliano, A., JRS 34 (1944), 114–15;Google Scholar cf. the notes to Acta Alex. III.

40 e.g. Jos., c.Ap. 11.32.

41 Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 77. Cf. Jos., c.Ap. 11.69.

42 C.Pap.Jud. 11.153.52–7; cf. Acta Alex. 1.2–6 = C.Pap.Jud. 11.150. Gnomon §44 prescribes a financial penalty for any ‘Egyptian’ who claims his son has become an ephebe.

43 Pliny, Ep. x.7.1. Gnomon §40 also shows that at first the idioslogos, then later the prefect, had jurisdiction over cases of illegal acquisition of Alexandrian citizenship.

44 Philo, Flacc. 78.

45 See p. 112 nn. 24–5 above.

46 Gnomon §§13 and 6; cf. 5, 14, 38, 45. The provision in §13 may recall Athenian practice after the citizenship law of 451/0 B.C. (cf. Plut., Pericles 37). Augustan legislation: see n. 31 above.

47 Poll-tax: see pp. 112–14 above. Liturgies: Edict of Ti. Julius Alexander, 1. 34.

48 Pliny, Ep. x.5–7, 10. Legionaries: Gnomon §55. We do not share the doubts of Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), 39–45.

49 Seen. 107 below.

50 Strabo XVII.1.12; cf. Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 96–8; Jones, op. cit. (n. 24), 474 nn. 8–9; Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), ch. IV; A. Calabi, ‘L'ἀρχιδιχαστής nei primi tre secoh del la dominazione romana’, Aeg. 32 (1952), 406–24; Whitehorne, J. E. G., ‘The hypomnematographus in the Roman period’, Aeg. 67 (1987), 101–25Google Scholar. See further pp. 117, 125 below.

51 See Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), ch. IV, App. 5.

52 Philo, Flacc. 131; Acta Alex. VII.ii.30–40. Analogy with metropoleis: see p. 122 n. 83 below.

53 e.g. C.Pap.Jud. 11.153.62–6.

54 Exegetes: Strabo XVII.I. 12. Oil: Philo, De prov. 46. Oikos: P.Fay. 87 (A.D. 155); cf. BGU IV.1182 (1 B.C.). Eutheniarchs: OGIS 11.705 = SB v.8911 (A.D. 158); cf. BGU 11.578 (A.D. 189); P.Tebt. 11.397.18–19 = MChr. 321 (A.D. 198).

55 P. Schubert, ‘Observations sur la prytanie en Egypte romaine’, ZPE 79 (1989), 235–42, shows that before A.D. 200/1 these titles appear only in the Greek poleis (i.e. not in the metropoleis).

56 Archidikastes: BGU IV. 1108 (5 B.C.), 1111 (15B.C.); cf. n. 50above. Exegetes: e.g. P.Ryl. 11.119 (A.D. 54–67). On the courts of the Ptolemaic period, see Fraser, op. cit. (n. 7), 112.

57 Jewish courts: Strabo, ap. Jos., AJ XIV.117; cf. C.Pap.Jud. 11, pp. 4–5. Punishment: Philo, Flacc. 78. Strategoi: BGU III.747 = WChr. 35 (A.D. 139), a complaint of a strategos about Roman, Alexandrian, and veteran praktores.

58 Acta Alex. IX.ii.8–iii.15; Philo, Flacc. 131–4. As the Lex Irnitana §85 (González, J., JRS 76 (1986), 147–243,Google Scholar at 176) now reveals for Spain, the local jurisdictional powers would in any event be subject to the over-riding powers of the Roman law and its officers.

59 P.Oxy. xxv.2435 verso and recto.

60 Any group could, of course, vote a decree (e.g. WChr. 112,6 B.C.) but not on behalf of the polis.

61 Philo, Flacc. 36–9, 135–45; De prov. 44. Similarly, it was in the gymnasium that M. Antonius staged his crowning of Cleopatra VII and her offspring (the so-called ‘Donations of Alexandria’), and that Octavian addressed the demos after entering Alexandria (Plut., M.Ant. 54.3–80.1). Cf. Calderini, A., Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell'Egitto greco-romano I.I (1935), 107Google Scholar.

62 Philo, Flacc. 41; Jos., BJ 11.490–2.

63 Embassies: Acta Alex., III; Philo, Leg. 229, 240; cf. Jos., AJ XVIII.257. Replacement of the ethnarch: Philo, Flacc. 73 (cf. Strabo, ap. Jos., AJ XIV.117). Consultation: Acta Alex. 11.ii.35–6 (taken by El-Abbadi, op. cit. (n. 39), to indicate individuals rather than the gerousia as a body, which he thinks had a purely social function).

64 Acta Alex. 1 = C.Pap.Jud. 11.150 (the argument for the proposed date of 20/19 B.C. is not strong; the text might better be dated around 10/9 B.C., the date of P.Oxy. XLII.3020).

65 C.Pap.Jud. 11.153.60–72.

66 For the existence of factions at Alexandria under Ptolemy XII Auletes, see Dio of Prusa, Or. XXXII. 70.

67 Balbillus: Acta Alex., p. 131; cf. n. 98 below. Alexander: Burr, V., Tiberius lulius Alexander, Antiquitas 1 (1955)Google Scholar; Schürer, E., History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (2nd edn, rev. Vermes, G., Millar, F., Goodman, M.D., 1973–1987), 1,456–7, III, 815Google Scholar. Embassies: Acta Alex. VIII; x; cf. P.Oxy. XLII.3023.

68 Naukratis: Bowman, op. cit. (n. 35), 11; P.Oxy. III.473 = WChr. 33 should be referred to Naukratis rather than Oxyrhynchus, see N. Lewis, ‘Notationes legentis’, BASP 18 (1981), 78–80. Ptolemais: Plaumann, G., Ptolemais in Oberägypten (1910), 70–88Google Scholar; Bowman, op. cit. (n. 35), 11–14; SB VI.9016. Antinoopolis: M. Zahrnt, ‘Antinoopolis in Ägypten: die hadrianische Gründung und ihre Privilegien in der neueren Forschung’, ANRW 11.10.1 (1988), 669–706; citizenship: Kühn, E., Antinoopolis, em Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hellenismus im römischen Agypten (1913), 90–1Google Scholar; P.Diog., pp. 19–33; Bell, H. I., ‘Antinoopolis, a Hadrianic foundation in Egypt’, JRS 30 (1940), 133–47;Google Scholar cf. Modrzejewski, op. cit. (n. 32), 255–6; boule: Bowman, op. cit. (n. 35), 14–15; privileges: Van Minnen, P. and Hoogendijk, F. J. A., ‘Drei Kaiserbriefe Gordians III an die Bürger von Antinoopolis’, Tyche 2 (1987), 41–74,Google Scholar esp. 71–4; siteresion: P.Oxy XL.2941–2; P.Micn. XII.629; municipal constitution: H. Braunert, ‘Gnechische und römische Komponenten im Stadtrecht von Antinoopolis’, JJP 14 (1962), 73–88.

69 See pp. 112–14 above. The earliest firm attestation of a lower rate for metropolites comes from P.Oxy. 11.288 of A.D. 22–5, but we believe this privilege was intrinsic to definition of the group. On the Roman definition of the metropolite and gymnasial groups, see F. Zucker, ‘Verfahrensweise in der Einführung gewisser Einrichtungen des Augustus in Ägypten’, RIDA 8 (1961), 155–64.

70 We compress and simplify much evidence and modern comment. See e.g. Nelson, C. A., Status Declarations in Roman Egypt, Am.Stud.Pap. 19 (1979)Google Scholar, ch. II; Mertens, P., Les services de l'état civil et le contrôle de la population à Oxyrhynchus au IIIe siècle de notre ère (1958)Google Scholar. On amphoda see e.g. Rink, H., Straβen- und Viertelnamen von Oxyrhynchus (Dissertation, Giessen, 1924)Google Scholar; Daris, S., ‘I quartien di Arsinoe in età romana’, Aeg. 61 (1981), 143–54Google Scholar.

71 The first- and early second-century applications for epikrisis from Oxyrhynchus are addressed jointly to these officials and the local magistrates.

72 P.Oxy. 11.288 seems to attest an epikrisis in A.D. 11/12; cf. Nelson, op. cit. (n.70), 23 n. 70; see also the discussion below of P.Oxy. IV.711. Rink and Daris, op. cit. (n. 70), discuss the origin of amphoda.

73 We do not accept the view of J. E. G. Whitehorne, ‘The ephebate and the gymnasial class in Egypt’, BASP 19 (1982), 171–84, that most attestations of ephebes in documents from the chora in fact relate to citizens of Alexandria.

74 H. Braunert, Die Binnenwanderung. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte Agyptens in der Ptolemäer- und Kaiserzeit (1964), 220.

75 See O. Montevecchi, ‘Nerone e l'Egitto. Postille’, Par. Pass. 30 (1975), 48–58, at 51–2, 58; idem, ‘L'epikrisis dei greco-egizi’, Proc. XIV Int. Congr. Pap. (1975), 227–32; Nelson, op. cit. (n. 70), chs III–IV. Note that an epikrisis at Arsinoe in A.D. 37 is now attested in P.Congr. xv. 13.

76 P.Oxy. IV. 711.

77 SPP IV, pp. 58–83; P.Oxy. XII. 1452.

78 cf. Braunert, op. cit. (n. 74), 131–4. The old idea that ownership of catoecic land conferred ‘catoecic’ status has been demolished: see Braunert, op. cit. (n. 74), 249 n. 224. Although separate registers of this land and its owners were still kept (see P.Köln v.227 (A.D. 12/13) with discussion), and sales still took the traditional form of cessions, the contracts no longer mentioned the status of the purchaser (e.g. P.Mich. v.252, A.D. 25/6). Villagers owning catoecic land are also now known (e.g. P.Gen. 11. 91, A.D. 50/1, Philadelphia).

79 Taxes: P.Ryl. 11.216 (late second century A.D.). Liturgies: not specified by Lewis, op. cit. (n. 18), 72–3, although in n. 42 he cites the reverse rule that villagers were not liable to metropolite liturgies.

80 General: Jones, op. cit. (n. 24), ch. XI; Jouguet, op. cit. (n. 5); Oertel, F., Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens (1917)Google Scholar; Preisigke, F., Städtisches Beamtenwesen im römischen Agypten (1903)Google Scholar. Specific: De Kock, E. L., Die kosmeet in Egipte (1948)Google Scholar; Van Groningen, B. A., Le gymnasiarque des métropoles de l'Egypte romaine (1924)Google Scholar; M. G. Raschke, ‘The office of agoranomos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’, Akt. XIII Int.Congr.Pap. (1974), 349–56. The earliest known reference to (some of) these officials as archontes (magistrates) occurs in P.Mich. XII.656 (mid-first century A.D., Arsinoe).

81 P.Oslo 11.26.

82 Membership of the gymnasial group is implicit for gymnasiarchs, kosmetai and so on; cf. Bowman, op. cit. (n. 35), 30 (post A.D. 201). Age: see p. 124 below. Crowning fees: e.g. P.Ryl. 11.77; cf. P.Amh. II.70 (costs of gymnasiarchy).

83 See in particular P.Ryl. 11.77 (A.D. 192, Hermopolis Magna). We do not agree with the interpretation of this text by A. H. M. Jones, ‘The election of metropolitan magistrates in Egypt’, JEA 24 (1938), 65–72, nor with the argument for popular election which he bases on it; cf. n. 93 below. See also N. Lewis, ‘The metropolitan gymnasiarchy, heritable and salable. (A re-examination of CPR VII 4)’, ZPE 51 (1983), 85–91, on two cases of A.D. 156 which show that the gymnasiarchy could be held for a number of years, that heirs of deceased gymnasiarchs were expected to fulfil the office, although heirs of gymnasiarchs-designate could sell their ‘turn’ to other enthusiastic volunteers(!), and that the regulations for office-holding were subject to rulings by the prefect (cf. the ruling of Marcus Aurelius on the appointment of exegetai cited in P.Ryl. 11.77.43–4).

84 Some scholars have held that the gymnasiarch was the chief magistrate of Alexandria and of the metropoleis: see the works cited in n. 80; cf. Delia, op. cit. (n. 35), 109–13. We find this implausible; this is not the place for a full discussion, but note that Strabo XVII.1.12 puts the Alexandrian exegetes, on whom the metropolite exegetai were modelled (cf. n. 88 below), at the head of his list of archai and does not mention the gymnasiarch, and that P.Ryl. 11.77 shows that at Hermopolis the magistracy (arche) of exegetes, though less burdensome financially, was thought ‘greater’ than that of kosmetes.

85 Joint public action of archontes: P.Amh. 11.70 (C. A.D. 115) and P.Ryl. 11.77 (A.D. 192), from Hermopolis Magna; P.Oxf. 2.ii (A.D. 141), from Arsinoe (with note to 1. 27); cf. the less ‘official’ references in (e.g.) P.Mich. XII.656 (mid-first century A.D., Arsinoe); P.Giss. 19 = C.Pap.Jud. 11.436 and P.Amh. 11.135 (early second century A.D., Hermopolis); P.Oxy. VIII.1117 (C. A.D. 187, Oxyrhynchus). Although a ‘group’ of men sharing the burden of a single office could be called a koinon, such as the koinon of kosmetai in P.Ryl. 11.86 (A.D. 195, Hermopolis), this is a quite separate matter. No koinon in the sense of a ‘board’ of the holders of the different metropolite magistracies is known until April 201, when P.Oxy. 1.54 = WChr. 34 reveals a koinon of archontes at Oxyrhynchus; this, however, we interpret as a temporary arrangement connected with the introduction of a boule. No metropolite prytaneis are attested before 201; cf. Schubert, op. cit. (n. 55).

86 See J. F. Oates, ‘Ptolemais Euergetis and the city of the Arsinoites’, BASP 12 (1975), 113–20 (for the firstcentury designation of ‘Arsinoe’ as the ‘polis of the Ptolemaeans’ see p. 124 n. 95 below); D. Hagedorn, ‘Όξνρύγχων πόλις und ἡ ʾΟξυϱυγχιτῶν πόλις“, ZPE 12 (1973), 277–92, with E.-M. Grocholl, ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung von Bezeichnungen und Epitheta der Stadt Oxyrhynchos’, ZPE 85 (1991), 268–70.

87 See W. E. H. Cockle, ‘State archives in Graeco-Roman Egypt from 30 B.C. to the reign of Septimius Severus’, JEA 70 (1984), 106–22; Wallace, op. cit. (n.23), passim; Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.c-640 A.D. (2nd edn, 1955), 167–71Google Scholar. For wills see P.Mert. 11.75 (A.D. 185) with commentary.

88 Hermopolis: B. Kraut, ‘Seven Heidelberg papyri concerning the office of exegetes’, ZPE 55 (1984), 167–90 (now P.Heid. IV.336–342, plus 305); cf. Strabo's statement that the exegetes of Alexandria had charge of the chresima (services) of the city. Arsinoe: P.Tebt. 11.397.14–15, 27–8 = MChr. 321. Oxyrhynchus: P.Oxy. VI.908 = WChr. 426. The siteresion at Antinoopolis (n. 68 above) may have provided a model to emulate.

89 P.Oxy. x.1262 and XLIX.3474 (A.D. 197); cf. P.Oxy. LVII, pp. 99–104. P.Amh. 11.79 (C. A.D. 186, Hermopolis Magna) also implies some administration of grain and land.

90 See Lukaszewicz, A., Les édifices publiques dans les villes de l'Egypte romaine: problèmes administratifs et financiers (1986)Google Scholar; Bowman, A. K., ‘Public buildings in Roman Egypt’, JRA 5 (1992), 495–503Google Scholar; Bailey, D. M., ‘Classical architecture in Roman Egypt’, in Henig, M. (ed.), Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire (1990), 121–37Google Scholar; idem, Excavations at El-Ashmunein IV. Hermopolis Magna, Buildings of the Roman Period (1991).

91 P.Oxy. XLIII.3088.

92 P.Coll.Youtie 1.28; cf. P.Oxy. XVII.2127 (late second century A.D.); P.Amh. II.64.1–9 (A.D. 107, Hermopolis).

93 P.Oxy. III.473 = WChr. 33, which mentions a demos, does not relate to Oxyrhynchus (cf. n. 68 above). As its editors saw, P.Ryl. 11.77.32–47 (cf. n. 83 above) is a copy of a record of proceedings before a strategos, not of a municipal meeting, and ‘the men from the city’ who are present and shout out are just interested or curious parties who have attended this public hearing. Note, however, that communal votes (psephismata) of honours to former magistrates are attested: e.g. CPR VII.4.13–14 (cf. n. 83 above).

94 SB XII.11012, with BL VII.224.

95 I.Fay. III. 147 (note that ‘the 6,475’ of the papyri appear in inscriptions as ‘the 6,470’); cf. I.Fay. 1.25; IGRR 1.1125 = SB 1.4277. A separate study of these texts by Rathbone is in preparation and will explain more fully the interpretation adopted here, including the emendation of ‘year <I> 2’.

98 Pliny, Ep. x.79.1–2, reduced from the minimum age of thirty laid down by the Lex Pompeia.

97 A rough calculation based on Hombert and Préaux, op. cit. (n. 29), 157–9.

98 Epistrategos: Ptolemaios son of Herakleides, probably an Alexandrian, in 20 B.C., the period when Strabo (XVII.1.13) says the official was concerned with ‘unimportant matters’; from some date before 4 B.C. the post regained importance and was held thereafter by a Roman eques; cf. Thomas, op. cit. (n. 15). High Priest: established as an equestrian post under Hadrian according to M. Stead, ‘The High Priest of Alexandria and all Egypt’, Proc.XVI Int.Congr.Pap. (1981), 411–18; held by the Alexandrian Ti. Claudius Balbillus probably before he held equestrian posts under Claudius (we are not convinced by the arguments of K. J. Rigsby, ‘On the High Priest of Egypt’, BASP 22 (1985), 279–89). Dioiketes: most of the dioiketai attested before Hadrian's creation of a procuratorial post of this title are minor nome officials, but Claudius Herakleides in P.Fouad 21 (A.D. 63) looks like an Alexandrian with a more important role; cf. Hagedorn, op. cit. (n. 15). Individuals: Ti. Claudius Balbillus, prefect A.D. 55–9; Ti. Julius Alexander, epistrategos A.D. 42, prefect A.D. 66–9; Norbanus Ptolemaios, iuridicus and idioslogos A.D. 63; Julius Lysimachos, idioslogos A.D. 69 (possibly his son too in A.D. 88); cf. the works cited in nn. 14, 15, and 67 above. Other Alexandrians as yet unrecognized may lurk in the fasti.

99 Arabarches: Lesquier, J., L'armée romaine d'Egypte d'Auguste à Dioclétien (1918), 421–7Google Scholar; cf. Pflaum, op. cit. (n. 15), 1, 526. In charge of katalochismoi: cf. L. C. Youtie, ZPE 38 (1980), 273–4. Hypomnematographos and archidikastes: see nn. 50, 56 above. The list of known archidikastai in P.Theon., App.B (with additions in ZPE 46 (1982), 224), reveals four holders under Hadrian with previous equestrian commands, but none such are known later, and Alexandrians, some apparently without Roman citizenship and therefore not equites, reappear.

100 See the works cited in n. 17 above.

101 Thomas, op. cit. (n. 18); Wallace, op. cit. (n. 23), passim; for villagers see also the case of Nemesion discussed below.

102 Hanson, A. E., ‘Village officials at Philadelphia: a model of Romanization in the Julio-Claudian period’, in Criscuolo, L. and Geraci, G. (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall'ellenismo all'età araba (1989), 429–40Google Scholar.

103 cf. Braunert, op. cit. (n. 74), 176–9.

104 cf. E. G. Turner, ‘Oxyrhynchus and Rome’, HSCP 79 (1975), 1–24.

105 Braunert, op. cit. (n. 74), 127 n. 96. Archive of Apollonios: C.Pap.Jud. 11, pp. 225–54.

106 Previously Alexandrian posts: nn. 98–9 above. New posts: Pflaum, loc. cit. (n. 15).

107 IGRR 1.1096 = SB 1.176, an inscribed dedication to Marcus Aurelius, reveals an extensive office-holding family who were probably metropolites of Pachnemounis, though possibly Alexandrians (cf. the similar but apparently Alexandrian family in IGRR 1.1060 = SB v.8780, another dedication to Marcus Aurelius). It is often very difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether families with Alexandrian citizenship and offices and with large estates in a nome were in origin Alexandrians who were drawn to the metropolis by their estates or metropolites who had acquired Alexandrian citizenship. At Oxyrhynchus the former are probably represented in the second century by the Ti. Julii Theones (see P.Theon.), the latter, it seems, in the second to third centuries by the Calpurnii (e.g. P.Oxy. IV.705 = C.Pap.Jud. 11.450; P.Oxy. XLII.3047, cf. p. 112 n. 24 above). Compare the Tullius Ptolemaios from Tentyra who achieved Alexandrian magistracies (Bernand, op. cit. (n. i), no. 32).

108 Braunert, op. cit. (n. 74), 238; D. W. Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt (1991), 50–1.