Version classiqueVersion mobile

L’identification des personnes dans les mondes grecs

 | 
Romain Guicharrousse
, 
Paulin Ismard
, 
Matthieu Vallet
, 
et al.

Première partie. Administrer l’identité

The rise of the flexible template: patterns of change in identification methods between the Ptolemaic and the Roman Period

Uri Yiftach

Texte intégral

  • 1 The present paper was delivered in connection with the project Synopsis: Data Processing and State (...)

1The following paper1 presents the preliminary results of a survey of different forms of designation for persons in documentary papyri. For the Ptolemaic period, the survey includes legal documents and lists; our discussion of the Roman period will also include personal notifications, a new type of documentation introduced after 30 BCE. Other documentary genres, in particular petitions and letters, have been left for a future investigation. In this paper, I will (1) posit that, in the Ptolemaic period, there existed both an intricate scheme used for the identification of persons in legal documents, as well as a very simple identification method, consisting of personal name and patronymic, used in lists and reports. I will further demonstrate (2) that the intricate method used in Ptolemaic legal documents was replaced in the Roman period by a new system of identification derived from the simple identification method formerly applied in reports and lists; this system was subsequently developed through the inclusion of additional elements, many of which had already been used sporadically in the Ptolemaic period. Finally, (3) I will argue that, while the identification methods applied throughout the various documentary genres were closely regulated and monitored during the Ptolemaic period, such regulation did not exist in the Roman period; rather, after the introduction of an initial, rudimentary identification format, scribes were allowed to add new identifiers as they saw fit, hence the notion of the “flexible template.” This type of flexibility is typical of the Roman administrative style.

*

  • 2 Cf., in general, Gerbert Hübsch, Die Personalangaben als Indentifizierungsvermerke im Recht der grä (...)

2There are six commonly used types of identifiers: (a) the personal name of the individual; (b) the administrative and social unit to which the person belongs within the society in which the document is drawn up; (c) genealogy, specifically the name of the person’s closest family members, a parent or grand-parent; (d) distinguishing physical features, such as stature, color of the skin or the hair, shape of the nose, as well as visible physical defects such as scars and moles.2 Finally, the person may be identified by his or her (e) age, and (f) place of residence.

  • 3 Hans Julius Wolff, “Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt”, Revue internationale des droits de l’Ant (...)
  • 4 The same method is common throughout the Hellenistic period, in Alexandria and elsewhere: cf., P.Ha (...)
  • 5 οἱ δὲ δανείζοντες καὶ οἱ δανειζόµε[νοι ἔστωσαν γρα]|5φόµενοι εἰς τὴν συγγραφήν· οἱ µὲν ἐ̣[ν τῶι στρ (...)

3The most detailed regulation from Ptolemaic Egypt relating to the forms of personal designation in documentary papyri is provided by two documents: BGU XIV 2367, which discusses the identification of borrowers and lenders in double documents, and P. Hamb. II 168 which discusses the identification of persons recorded in written complaints, submitted to the court of the kritêrion in Alexandria. Both documents, whose text dates to ca. 275 BCE,3 exhibit exactly the same designation method, which is, apart from the name of the father, predominantly unit-oriented. The population is divided into four groups: citizens of a polis, soldiers, soldiers who are citizens of a polis, and civilians who are not citizens of a polis. For each group the legislator introduces a distinct set of identifiers: father’s name and deme for citizens;4 patris (i.e. region of origin outside Egypt), unit and rank for soldiers; patronymic, deme, unit and rank for soldiers who are citizens; patronymic, patris and genos (roughly occupation status), for civilians that are not citizens.5

  • 6 The use of the epiphora outside Egypt requires further investigation. For now cf., in particular, M (...)
  • 7 Michele Faraguna, “Citizens, Non-Citizens, and Slaves: Identification Methods in Classical Greece”, (...)

4Some of the identification categories, in particular a person’s designation by his patris and the deme, go back to the classical period.6 The same pertains to the very concept that each member of a group should belong to some unit which can be used as a designation.7 What does appear to be unique is the clustering together of various identifiers, between three and five for all persons, and the choice of a different set of identifiers for each group. Moreover, contrary to the otherwise prevailing rule the father’s name is not used as a designation for soldiers who are not citizens.

Chart 1. Tabular presentation of the rules on identification according to BGU XIV 2367 and P. Hamb. II 168

Chart 1. Tabular presentation of the rules on identification according to BGU XIV 2367 and P. Hamb. II 168
  • 8 P. Gurob. 2 = MChr 21 = CPJ I 19, ll. 12–13 (9.8.226 BCE, Krokodilopolis); P. Heid. VIII 413.2 (6.7 (...)
  • 9 Uri Yiftach-Firanko, “Did BGU XIV 2367 Work?”, in Depauw, Coussement (eds.), Identifiers and Identi (...)
  • 10 Cf. particular, Hans-Albert Rupprecht, “Sechs-Zeugenurkunde und Registrierung”, Aegyptus, 75, 1995, (...)
  • 11 E.g., BGU III 999.4–5 (99 BCE, Pathyris) [agoranomos document]; CRP XVIII 1.15 (abstract of a doubl (...)

5From Ptolemaic Egypt we have 237 surviving double documents, which exhibit an almost complete conformity with the rules set above; this is also the case with the thirteen protocols of court proceedings stemming from Greek dikasteria in the chora.8 The only exception is the gradual introduction of the father’s name for soldiers during the course of the second century BCE.9 As shown by related sources, the same designation system was also applied in other formal types of Ptolemaic legal documents. This is the case with some abstracts of legal documents, probably composed by some state organ,10 as well as with documents composed at the agoranomeion, and wills, particularly the collection of late-third century BCE wills republished as P. Petr.2 I. These documents, however, record further details that are not anticipated by BGU XIV 2367 and P. Hamb. II 168, and are not, as far as I am aware, recorded in any extant double document or protocol of court proceedings: the person’s age, and a detailed account of his physical features, including stature, skin complexion, shape of face and nose, and notes of any scars and moles.11

  • 12 Hans Julius Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Pri (...)

6As early as the third century BCE documents in Demotic became subject to state supervision, registration and recapitulation of their contents in abstracts.12 Here too, we are informed of the procedure not only by the abstracts themselves, but also by a directive – P. Par. 65 = UPZ 1 S. 596 (145 BCE, Memphis) – instructing the officials in charge as to the details that should be recorded in these abstracts: upon admitting documents composed by the Egyptian scribe of the monographos, the recipients should prepare a short record, recording the type of the transaction, the parties’ names and patronymics, the date in which the Egyptian document was drawn up and that in which they themselves drafted the abstract.

  • 13 P. Par. 65 = UPZ 1 p. 596 = Sel. Pap. II 415 (145 BCE, Memphis), ll. 10–18: ἡ µὲν οὖν οἰκονοµία ἐπι (...)
  • 14 E.g., P. Aust. Herr. 4 = SB XX 14473, ll. 15–24 (8.3.159 BCE, Arsinoitês): (ἔτους) κβ Μεχεὶρ η | 16(...)

7In addition, if we follow Mark Depauw’s interpretation of the document, they should also prepare an account of parties’ physical traits (εἰκονίζειν) following the procedure already developed, and established in the case of abstracts of double documents, agoranomic instruments and wills.13 This interpretation is corroborated not so much by the text of the document itself – where the direct object of εἰκονίζειν is more likely to be the contract and not the contracting parties – as by the circumstantial evidence: contemporary Greek abstracts of Demotic documents invariably record, apart from the name of the patronymic, also a detailed account of the physical features of the contracting parties. They regularly also add the mother’s name, and frequently also an account of the contracting party’s occupation, two details whose incorporation into the abstract was not anticipated by the authors of P. Par. 65, but were commonly used as identifiers in the Demotic Vorlage.14

  • 15 SB V 8008.1.17–21 = C. Ord. Ptol. 21–22 (260 BCE, unknown provenance), ll. 17–21: ἀπογρά̣φ̣ε̣σ̣θ̣α̣ (...)
  • 16 P. Rev. col. 7.2–4 = WChr 258 (259/8 BCE, Arsinoitês[?]): τὰ ὀνόµατα τῶν πραγµατευοµένων εἰς τοὺς | (...)
  • 17 Col. 104 passim: [ -ca.?- ] καὶ ὁ ἀντ[ιγραφεὺς ̣ ̣ ̣]τωσαν | 2 [ -ca.?- ] \τὰ συν/[ε(?)]σφραγισµ[έν (...)
  • 18 P. Tebt. IV 1147 = P. Tebt. I 141V descr. = P. Coll. Youtie I 15 (113/12 BCE, Kerkeosiris), a tax l (...)

8Other Ptolemaic identification mechanisms are much more rudimentary: SB V 8008 = C. Ord. Ptol. 21, a decree enjoining the registration of cattle in Syria and Phoenicia in 260 BCE, regulates inter alia the owners’ nomenclature; in this case the father’s name and the patris are sufficient.15 This is also the case in the seventh column of the papyrus of the Revenue Laws (ll. 3–4), which stipulates that only name, patronymic, and patris need to be recorded in the case of πραγµατευόµενοι (in this context, the word refers to the various functionaries connected with the collection of the revenues).16 The simplified system could occasionally be extended with the addition of the place of residence or city of origin of the registered person, as appears to be the case in at least one (possibly two) other regulations of the Revenue Laws.17 A selection of surveys and lists from throughout the Ptolemaic period exhibits an even more basic scheme: the person’s name and that of his father appear regularly, with other elements – occupation, for example – appearing only sporadically. In these cases, patris is optional, but by no means a matter of course.18 The following chart offers a summary of the various identification methods discussed thus far.

Chart 2. Tabular presentation of identification methods

Chart 2. Tabular presentation of identification methods
  • 19 Wolff, Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs, op. cit., p. 91–95 and 114–127 and m (...)
  • 20 This claim does not imply, of course, that personal declarations are unattested in the Ptolemaic pe (...)
  • 21 Uri Yiftach, “Who Killed the Double Document in Ptolemaic Egypt?”, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 54, (...)

9After the Roman occupation, the documentary system in Egypt experienced a complete overhaul: new types of legal documents were created, including the grapheion document, private protocol, hypomnêma, and eventually also the bank-diagraphê. Others, in particular the cheirographon, which had existed already in the Ptolemaic period, became established as a common, and in some regional and contractual contexts the dominant forms of documentation.19 In addition, the Roman administration introduced a system of declarations for persons and property that comprised of the census, declarations of birth and death, and applications for admittance into privileged population groups (epikrisis, eiskrisis); also new were the routinely served declarations relating to livestock, camels, asses, uninundated land, as well as newly acquired land and slaves.20 The double document, on the other hand, is no longer routinely employed in Egypt after the Roman occupation.21

  • 22 Yiftach-Firanko, “Did BGU XIV 2367 Work?”, art. cit., p. 109–112.
  • 23 Friz Pringsheim, “Die Rechtsstellung der Persai tes epigones”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifung für (...)
  • 24 Laurens E. Tacoma, Fragile Hierarchies: The Urban Elites of Third-Century Roman Egypt, Leiden/Bosto (...)

10Within these documents, one notes the complete disappearance of unit identifiers introduced and regulated by BGU XIV 2367 and P. Hamb. II 168. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the elements of this system gradually ceased to be used as effective identifiers during the course of the Ptolemaic period, and were completely abandoned after the introduction of Roman rule.22 The only remnant of this older system is the designation of deme, to which one now adds the tribe in the case of citizens of one of the autonomous poleis, and the combination of the patris Persian and the genos tês epigonês as a designation for debtors, which disappears in the second quarter of the second century CE.23 During the Roman period another unit identifier was added: membership of a city council, magistracy or ex-magistracy, metropolitan status and other similar designations.24 But unlike in the system envisaged by the authors of the two Ptolemaic regulations, these designations were individual, and not exhaustive: after 200, a council member could add his status to his name, but most persons did not possess this status designation, and would not add any alternative identifier in its stead.

11After the unit was abandoned as a systematic and exhaustive marker of identity in Roman Egypt, the system became based primarily on genealogical, physical, and residential identifiers. Age and physical features, which were systematically employed in some types of documents from the Ptolemaic period (see above), became an essential element of grapheion documents, in agoranomic sale conveyances from the Herakleopolite nome and to some extent also in census declarations. Other identifiers which had been used irregularly in the Ptolemaic period – such as place of residence, and the names of the mother and the paternal grandfather – became common, and sometimes even routine in some types of documents. Place of residence is applied as a matter of course in declarations relating to persons, in camel declarations, in hypomnêmata, and in documents drawn up at the agoranomeia. The mother’s name is applied in declarations relating to persons, and is also common in documents composed at the Herakleopolite agoranomeia and at the (Arsinoite) grapheia. The grandfather’s name is commonly used in declarations relating to individuals and cheirographa. The following chart offers a summary.

Chart 3. “The flexible template”: overview of patterns

Chart 3. “The flexible template”: overview of patterns
  • 25 P. Oxy. I 34vMChr 188 (127 CE, Oxyrhynchos), ll. 8–12: ἐγλογιζέσ|9θωσαν τὰ συναλλάγµατα περιλαµβ (...)

12The chart illustrates a pattern that is completely different from that found in Ptolemaic documentation. During the Ptolemaic period, the required identifiers for both double documents and abstracts of Demotic monographos were prescribed by law. Surviving documents of these two types invariably exhibit the same elements: their authors will occasionally add other types of identification, but they will never omit what is legally indispensable. It is rare to find similar regulations from the Roman period, and those that exist do not relate to any of the document types discussed above, nor to the personal identifiers per se.25

  • 26 Cf., e.g., P. Lips. II 135 (98/9 CE, Hermopolis), ll. 1–4 [cheirographon]; P. Fam. Tebt. 47 (195 CE (...)
  • 27 Cf. e.g., P. Oxy. XII 1452.3–5 (127/8 CE, Oxyrhynchos) and Carroll A. Nelson, Status Declarations i (...)

13While these findings may simply reflect the relative scarcity of our sources, I doubt that this is the case: the preceding chart surveys six types of identifiers, relating to thirteen types of document for a total of seventy-eight individual application patterns. In twenty-one cases a particular term is always applied, and in fifteen it is always absent. In the remaining forty-three cases the use of the term appears to be neither obligatory, nor prohibited. Thus, for example, while most cheirographa, and hypomnemata do not record age and body traits, some do, apparently when the scribe deemed this special form of identification rewarding.26 If we examine the chart vertically – that is by identifier – we see that only one element, the patronymic, is used in almost every type of document; if we consider the chart horizontally – by document type – there is only one type of document for which we may claim a rigidly applied formula: the epikrisis declaration, in which all identifiers, except the age and physiognomy of the declarant (!), are consistently applied.27

  • 28 According to the currently available data the new template was created before November 15 CE, the d (...)

14The best explanation for this wavering pattern is that strict regulations of the type found in the Ptolemaic period were not present in the Roman period. Rather, I would suggest that for each scribal bureau there was an established format: in the case of the grapheion – abundantly documented in the Fayyum – we routinely find the name of the father, the age, and a short account of the scars and moles of the contracting parties.28 But the format was also flexible: one could and did add other elements, but was not compelled to do so by any regulation. The pattern of the introduction of new elements is illustrated in the following charts. We have sampled two identifiers: the name of the mother, and of the paternal grandfather. The data has been plotted by region, and we have investigated the two best-documented regions: the Arsinoitês and the Oxyrhynchitês. For both nomes we have surveyed documents that are functionally identical: we have examined documents prepared at the agoranomeion, the public notary office in the city of Oxyrhynchos, alongside documents from the grapheion, which served the same function in the Arsinoite hinterland. In the same manner, we have compared Oxyrhynchite private protocols and Arsinoite hypomnêmata, both of which recorded primarily leases and related transactions; finally, we have also compared patterns of the use of cheirographa and census declaration in the two nomes.

  • 29 Compare, on the mother’s name, the recent publications of Mark Depauw, “The Use of Mothers’ Names i (...)

Chart 4. Diachronic and regional analysis: the metronymic29

Chart 4. Diachronic and regional analysis: the metronymic29

Chart 5. Diachronic and regional analysis: the papponymic

Chart 5. Diachronic and regional analysis: the papponymic

15In the Arsinoite source material we note that the mother’s name was used frequently in census declarations, but only occasionally in all other document types; we do not possess enough source material to draw any conclusions regarding chronology. The Oxyrhynchite source material, by contrast, offers some diachronic hints: the mother’s name is applied in just one of the fifteen documents dating from the first half of the first century; in the second half of the same century it appears in almost half of the texts (25 against 28). By the beginning of the second century the mother’s name has become routine in all types documents: the ratio for the first half of the century is 40 against 13, growing to 43 against 6 in the second half. A similar pattern is evident in the early third century: 39 against 10. By the second half of the third century usage has dropped slightly (32 against 18), but the pattern is not a complete departure from that found in earlier papyri. Our survey does not yield any marked variation between the four document types.

16By contrast, our survey relating to usage of the paternal grandfather’s name exhibits both a clear diachronic pattern and diversity among the sampled documents. In the case of the Arsinoitês, the grandfather’s name is already attested in some grapheion documents from the Arsinoite nome in early first century, although the numbers are quite modest (10 against 91). Usage of the papponymic rises in the later part of the century (23 against 62), and becomes even more significant in the second century (73 against 73 and 47 against 14 in the first and second half respectively); it begins to decrease in the early third century and, according to the available source material, has disappeared completely by the century’s end. In other types of documents, the papponymic is introduced later, but in the case of the census declarations the name of the paternal grandfather has become the norm by the second century (25 against 8 in the early, 38 against 7 in the late second century). The papponymic, however, never becomes a rule without exception; in all periods there is a significant number of documents which do not include this designation. The same pattern may be observed in the Oxyrhynchite source material: the modest attestations in the agoranomeion documents of the early first century (1 against 5), increases to 14 against 19 in the second half of the first century, and become even more prominent in the second (20 against 3 and 5 against 1 in the first and second halves respectively). Here too, the papponymic also infiltrates other types of documentation, becoming widespread primarily in census declarations and cheirographa in the late first and second century CE.

  • 30 Cf. Uri Yiftach, “The Gnomon in Context: Status Designations and Bureaucratic Compartmentalization (...)
  • 31 Ibid., p. 1.
  • 32 E.g., SB XX 15024 = SB XII 11157 (II CE, Tebtynis) l. 19: Ἁρµιῦσις Ὀννώ(φρεως) τοῦ Ἁρο̣β̣[ρωοῦτ(ος) (...)

17The corpus of reports and surveys is vast and the documents occasionally exhibit an entirely different set of identifiers from those discussed in this paper; for this reason, they cannot be studied in detail in the context of our present investigation. 30There are, however, some patterns that can be drawn from reports which match the results discussed above. In the Ptolemaic period, we noted a substantial gap between the designation patterns found in legal documents and in reports, the latter of which often including only a minimal set of designators: personal name and patronymic.31 With the demise of the formal Ptolemaic identification system in the Roman period, the difference becomes minor: both legal documents, applications and lists consist of roughly the same basic information: personal name and patronymic. The set of identifiers is extended gradually over time: in lists, just as in legal documents, we witness the addition of the metronymic and papponymic during the late first and second century CE.32 In both cases we also witness much variation in contents, which may be attributed to the individual habits of the authoring scribe.

  • 33 Cf., in general, Uri Yiftach, “Law in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt”, in Mirko Canavaro, Edward Harris (...)

18The pattern exhibited here suggests a change in administrative practices after the Roman occupation of Egypt. Instead of introducing a rigid system of rules, we may propose that for each type of document there was an initial format, which was modified over time by the addition of new elements, perhaps reflecting local customs and fashions. In the case of both the metronymic and papponymic we note a gradual change; for the latter, we may note the introduction of a particular identifier into one type of document, followed by its infiltration into others, where it could establish itself as routine. This model fits well with what we know about Roman practices in other areas of state activity: P.Gur. 2, a protocol of court proceedings from 226 BCE Krokodikopolis, records a royal decree (diagramma) setting out the various legal sources that judges are allowed to use at the court of the dikastêrion. The order is clear, and very hierarchical: first royal decrees, then politikoi nomoi, and finally “the most righteous view.” Such a law would be unthinkable in the Roman period, as judges (now Roman officials) were given complete discretion regarding the sources of the law and ethics they wished to apply.33 In the case of identifiers, as with that of the legal sources, the Romans created a flexible system which gave considerable leeway to the initiative of the official in charge, and relied on his discretion. The change in both areas reflects a shift in the interest of the rulers of Egypt: the rigid control mechanisms introduced by the Ptolemies were abandoned as the Romans redefined the focus and object of their rule.

Notes

1 The present paper was delivered in connection with the project Synopsis: Data Processing and State Management in Roman Egypt (30 BCE–300 CE), conducted by the author in collaboration with Professor Andrea Jördens of the University of Heidelberg, and financed by the German Israeli Foundation.

2 Cf., in general, Gerbert Hübsch, Die Personalangaben als Indentifizierungsvermerke im Recht der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri (Berliner Juristische Abhandlungen, 20), Berlin, Duncker u. Humbolt, 1968.

3 Hans Julius Wolff, “Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt”, Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité, 3e ser., 7, 1960, p. 191–223 at 198–203.

4 The same method is common throughout the Hellenistic period, in Alexandria and elsewhere: cf., P.Hal. 1.242 = 259 (iii BCE, Alexandria), ll. 247–249: ἐγγράφοντες πρῶτοµ µ[ὲν τοῦ ἀποδοµέ]|248νου τὸ ὄνοµα πατριαστὶ καὶ δήµου, ἔπειτα [δὲ τὸ τοῦ πριαµένου] | 249 κατὰ τἀυτά; IC III iv 7 (early iii BCE, Itanos, Crete), ll. 13–15: ἀνγραψάντω ἐλ λεύκωµα τοὺς̣14 ὠµόσαντας πατρι[α]στὶ καὶ καταθέντω ἐς | 15 Πύθιον.

5 οἱ δὲ δανείζοντες καὶ οἱ δανειζόµε[νοι ἔστωσαν γρα]|5φόµενοι εἰς τὴν συγγραφήν· οἱ µὲν ἐ̣[ν τῶι στρατι]|6ωτικῶι τεταγµένο̣ι ἀπογραφέσθω[σαν τάς τε] |7 πατρίδας ἑαυτῶν κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἐξ ὧν ἄν ταγ[µάτων ὦσι] |8 καὶ ἃς ἂν ἔχωσιν ἐπιφοράς· [ο]ἱ δὲ πολῖτα̣[ι τούς τε] |9 πατέρας καὶ τοὺς δήµους· ἐ̣ὰ̣ν δὲ καὶ ἐν τ[ῶι στρα]|10τιωτικῶι ὦσι καὶ τὰ τάγµατα καὶ τὰς [ἐπιφοράς·] | 11 οἱ δὲ ἄλλ[οι] τούς τε πατέρας καὶ τὰς πατ̣[ρίδας καὶ] |12 ἐν ὧι ἂν γένει ὦσιν.

6 The use of the epiphora outside Egypt requires further investigation. For now cf., in particular, Mustafa Büyükkolanci, Helmut Engelmann, “Inschriften aus Ephesos”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 86, 1991, p. 137–144 at 140–142 (#7 = SE 593.2). The context is possibly Ptolemaic.

7 Michele Faraguna, “Citizens, Non-Citizens, and Slaves: Identification Methods in Classical Greece”, in Mark Depauw, Sandra Coussement (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World: Legal Documents in Ancient Societies, Leuven/Paris/Walpole, Peeters (OLA, 229), 2014, t. 3, p. 165–183, at 166–167.

8 P. Gurob. 2 = MChr 21 = CPJ I 19, ll. 12–13 (9.8.226 BCE, Krokodilopolis); P. Heid. VIII 413.2 (6.7.179 BCE, Herakleopolis); 414.2, 25–27, 45–46 (2.10.184 BCE, Herakleopolis); 416.46-50 (first half II BCE, Herakleopolis); P. Petr. III 21.A.1–4, ll. 3–4; A 5–11 l. 10 (both from 26.9.226 BCE, Krokodilopolis); 21B.1–5, ll. 3–5; 21B 6–11, ll. 10–11 (both from 17.7.226 BCE, Krokodilopolis); 21D.1–6, ll. 3–4; 21D.7–12, ll. 11–12; 21D.13–14 passim (all from 26.9.227 BCE, Krokodilopolis); 21F.1–4 l. 4; 21F.5–10 l. 10 (both from 10.11.225 BCE, Krokodilopolis).

9 Uri Yiftach-Firanko, “Did BGU XIV 2367 Work?”, in Depauw, Coussement (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World, op. cit., p. 103–118 at 106–108.

10 Cf. particular, Hans-Albert Rupprecht, “Sechs-Zeugenurkunde und Registrierung”, Aegyptus, 75, 1995, p. 37–53 at 51.

11 E.g., BGU III 999.4–5 (99 BCE, Pathyris) [agoranomos document]; CRP XVIII 1.15 (abstract of a double document); P. Petr.2 I 24 = MChr 301, ll. 21–24 (226/5 BCE, Krokodilopolis, Arsinoites) [will].

12 Hans Julius Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats, t. 2, Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs, Munich, C. H. Beck (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums, 10.5.2), 1978 and, more recently, Mark Depauw, “Physical Descriptions, Registration and εἰκονίζειν: With New Interpretations for P. Par. 65 and P. Oxy. I 34”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 176, 2011, p. 189–199 at 193–196.

13 P. Par. 65 = UPZ 1 p. 596 = Sel. Pap. II 415 (145 BCE, Memphis), ll. 10–18: ἡ µὲν οὖν οἰκονοµία ἐπιτελεῖται καθότι ὑποδέδειχεν | 11 ὁ Ἀρίστων τὸ ἐπενεχθησόµενον ἡµῖν γεγραµµένον | 12 συνά‹λ›λαγµα ὑπὸ τοῦ µονογράφου εἰκονίζειν τούς τε | 13 συνηλλαχότας καὶ ἣν πεπονηται (l. πεποίηνται) οἰκονοµίαν | 14 καὶ τὰ ὀνόµατʼ αὐτῶν πατρόθεν ἐντάσσειν | 15 καὶ ὑπογράφειν ἡµᾶς ἐντεταχέναι εἰς χρηµατισµὸν | 16 δηλώσαντες (read δηλώσαντας) τόν τε χρόνον, ἐν ὧι ὑπογεγρ[ά]φαµεν | 17 ἐπενεχθείσης τῆς συγγραφῆς, καὶ τὸν διʼ αὐτῆς | 18 τῆς συγγραφῆς χρόνον and Mark Depauw (supra, n. 12), p. 190–193.

14 E.g., P. Aust. Herr. 4 = SB XX 14473, ll. 15–24 (8.3.159 BCE, Arsinoitês): (ἔτους) κβ Μεχεὶρ η | 16 διʼ Αὐφµῶτος τρο(φῖτις) ἀργυ(ρίου) χρυ(σῶν) κα | 17 ⟦κ̣α⟧ ἣ[ν] π̣οιεῖται \γεωρ(γὸς)/ Ἁρµιῦσις | 18 [ -ca.?- ] ̣ν̣υ̣ριος µη(τρὸς) Τεσεύριος | 19 ὡς (ἐτῶν) κε | 20 µέ(σος) µελίχρ(ως) µακροπρόσ(ωπος) φα(κὸς) τρα(χήλῳ) | 21 ⟦ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣⟧ Σ̣ε̣ν̣̣ ̣ ̣ ̣σ ] 22 µη(τρὸς) Θαµ̣ο̣ύ̣ν̣ιος | 23 ὡς (ἐτῶν) ιη µέσ(ῃ) µελίχρ(ωτι) | 24 µ̣α̣κ̣ροπροσ(ώπῳ).

15 SB V 8008.1.17–21 = C. Ord. Ptol. 21–22 (260 BCE, unknown provenance), ll. 17–21: ἀπογρά̣φ̣ε̣σ̣θ̣α̣ι̣ δὲ καὶ τ̣[οὺς] µε|18µισθωµένους τὰς κ[ώµ]ας κα[ὶ] τοὺς κωµάρχας ἐν τ[ῶι] α̣ὐ̣τῶι | 19 χρόνωι τ[ὴν] ὑπάρχ[ουσαν ἐν] ταῖς κώµαις λείαν ὑποτελῆ | 20 καὶ ἀτελῆ καὶ ὧν [ἐστ]ι πατρόθεν καὶ πατρίδος καὶ διʼ ὧν νέ|21µεται.

16 P. Rev. col. 7.2–4 = WChr 258 (259/8 BCE, Arsinoitês[?]): τὰ ὀνόµατα τῶν πραγµατευοµένων εἰς τοὺς | λόγους γραφέτωσ[α]ν̣ πατρόθ[εν] καὶ πατρίδος | καὶ περὶ τί ἕκαστος [πραγ]µ̣[ατεύ]εται. The same formula is restored in col. 11.8–9.

17 Col. 104 passim: [ -ca.?- ] καὶ ὁ ἀντ[ιγραφεὺς ̣ ̣ ̣]τωσαν | 2 [ -ca.?- ] \τὰ συν/[ε(?)]σφραγισµ[ένα(?) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣], γεγράφθω δὲ | 3 [ -ca.?- ] καὶ̣ µ̣ει̣σ̣κα[- ca.9 -] \καὶ/ τὸ τουνοµα (read ὄνοµα) τοῦ | 4 [ -ca.?- πατρόθεν κ]αὶ πατρίδος [καὶ ἐ]κ ποίας πόλεως | 5 [ -ca.?- καὶ] πόσου ε[- ca.12 -]σ̣ι τὰ τέλη | 6 [ -ca.?- ]αν[- ca.16 -] σφραγῖδα; frg. 6h.6–10: [- ca.?- κατὰ τ]ρίµηνον συ[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ] | 7 [ -ca.?- ]ηι τό τε ἔτος καὶ [τὸ ὄνοµα -ca.?- ] | 8 [ -ca.?- πατρόθ(?)]εν καὶ τὴν κώµην ἐ[ν ἧι οἰκοῦσιν (?) -ca.?- ] | 9 [ -ca.?- ὄ]νοµα καὶ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] παρα[ -ca.?- ] | 10 [ -ca.?- ]ω̣σ̣ιν ἢ ̣ ̣ ̣π ̣[ ̣]ς τὴν̣.

18 P. Tebt. IV 1147 = P. Tebt. I 141V descr. = P. Coll. Youtie I 15 (113/12 BCE, Kerkeosiris), a tax list where the tax subjects are identified by their name, and that of their father only. The patris is used in the case of military settlers, but even there not consistently: cf., e.g., BGU X 1939; BGU XIV 2423 and 1939 (both mid. II BCE, unknown provenance); P. Tebt. III.2 1075 = C. Pap. Jud. I 30 (mid. II BCE, Tebtynis); PSI VI 626r (III BCE, Philadelphia); SB XVI 12858 (15.5.243 BCE, unknown provenance). Cf. also Uri Yiftach, “Ἀπάτωρ µητρός: The Rise of a Formula in Bureaucratic Perspective: Comments on M. Nowak, ‘The Fatherless and Family Structure in Roman Egypt’”, in Delfim Leão, Gerhard Thür (eds.), Symposion 2015: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Coimbra University, 1–4 September 2015), Vienna, Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016, p. 115–120.

19 Wolff, Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs, op. cit., p. 91–95 and 114–127 and more recently, Uri Yiftach-Firanko, “Evolution of Forms of Greek Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Periods”, in James G. Keenan et al. (eds.), Law and Legal Practice in Egypt, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 31–53 at 50–53 (partial overview).

20 This claim does not imply, of course, that personal declarations are unattested in the Ptolemaic period, only that their irregularity, and hence relative scarcity defies quantitative evaluation of the identification method applied in them. Cf., in particular, Willy Clarysse, Dorothy J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, t. 2, Historical Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 28. Still useful for both periods is Sandra Avogardo, “Le ἀπογραφαί di proprietà nell’Egitto greco-romano”, Aegyptus, 15, 1935, p. 131–206.

21 Uri Yiftach, “Who Killed the Double Document in Ptolemaic Egypt?”, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 54, 2008, p. 203–218 at 217–218.

22 Yiftach-Firanko, “Did BGU XIV 2367 Work?”, art. cit., p. 109–112.

23 Friz Pringsheim, “Die Rechtsstellung der Persai tes epigones”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung, 44, 1924, p. 396–526 at 397–398.

24 Laurens E. Tacoma, Fragile Hierarchies: The Urban Elites of Third-Century Roman Egypt, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Mnemosyne, suppl. 271.), 2006, p. 116–117.

25 P. Oxy. I 34vMChr 188 (127 CE, Oxyrhynchos), ll. 8–12: ἐγλογιζέσ|9θωσαν τὰ συναλλάγµατα περιλαµβάνοντ[ες] τά τε τῶν νοµογράφων | 10 καὶ τὰ τῶν σ[υνα]λλασσόντων ὀνόµατα καὶ τὸν ἀριθµὸν τῶν οἰκονο|11µιῶν καὶ [τὰ εἴ]δη τῶν συνβ̣[ο]λ̣α̣ίων καὶ καταχωρ[ι]ζέτωσαν ἐν ἀµφο|12[τέρα]ις ταῖς β[ι]βλ[ιο]θήκαις; P. Tebt. II 288 = WChr 266 (226 CE, Arsinoites), ll. 4–8: ἀναγράψασθαι |5 πᾶσαν τὴν ἐσπαρµένην γῆν ἔν τε πυρῷ καὶ ἄλλοις |6 γ[ένεσ]ι καὶ τὰ [ὀνό]µατα τῶν κατὰ φύσιν γεωργη|7κ[ότ]ων δηµοσίων γεωργῶν καὶ κληρ[ο]ύ|8χων.

26 Cf., e.g., P. Lips. II 135 (98/9 CE, Hermopolis), ll. 1–4 [cheirographon]; P. Fam. Tebt. 47 (195 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis), l. 31 [hypomnêma].

27 Cf. e.g., P. Oxy. XII 1452.3–5 (127/8 CE, Oxyrhynchos) and Carroll A. Nelson, Status Declarations in Roman Egypt, Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert (American Studies in Papyrology, 19), 1979, p. 13, 17, 19, 20, 30, 33, 36 and 54.

28 According to the currently available data the new template was created before November 15 CE, the date of PSI IX 1028 from Tebtynis, the earliest document exhibiting these features.

29 Compare, on the mother’s name, the recent publications of Mark Depauw, “The Use of Mothers’ Names in Ptolemaic Documents: A Case of Greek-Egyptian Influence?”, Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 37, 2007, p. 21–29 and id., “Do Mothers Matter? The Emergence of Metronymics in Early Roman Egypt”, in Trevor V. Evans, Dirk D. Obbink (eds.), The Language of the Papyri, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 121–139.

30 Cf. Uri Yiftach, “The Gnomon in Context: Status Designations and Bureaucratic Compartmentalization in Roman Egypt”, in Kaja Harter-Uibopuu et al. (eds.), Dienst nach Vorschrift? Vergleichende Studien zum Gnomon des Idios Logos, t. 3, Wiener Kolloquium zur antiken Rechtsgeschichte (19–20.6.2014, Vienna, Austria), Vienna, forthcoming.

31 Ibid., p. 1.

32 E.g., SB XX 15024 = SB XII 11157 (II CE, Tebtynis) l. 19: Ἁρµιῦσις Ὀννώ(φρεως) τοῦ Ἁρο̣β̣[ρωοῦτ(ος)] µη(τρὸς) Τααρµιύσιος (ἐτῶν) µθ, and Yiftach (supra n. 30), text to footnotes 28.

33 Cf., in general, Uri Yiftach, “Law in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt”, in Mirko Canavaro, Edward Harris (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, Oxford, forthcoming, section 3: “The laws.”

Table des illustrations

Titre Chart 1. Tabular presentation of the rules on identification according to BGU XIV 2367 and P. Hamb. II 168
URL http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/54838/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 221k
Titre Chart 2. Tabular presentation of identification methods
URL http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/54838/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 437k
Titre Chart 3. “The flexible template”: overview of patterns
URL http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/54838/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 524k
Titre Chart 4. Diachronic and regional analysis: the metronymic29
URL http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/54838/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 672k
Titre Chart 5. Diachronic and regional analysis: the papponymic
URL http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/54838/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 671k

Auteur

Université de Tel-Aviv

© Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2019

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search