rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page V

To Joanna
rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page VI
rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES ................................... x

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
NOTE ON REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

INTRODUCTION ............................................ 3
1. Objectives and chronological limits of the book – 3. 2. Fayum Oasis
– the natural environment – 8. 3. Map of the Fayum – 14.

Chapter One
THE PLACE OF ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM UNDER ROMAN RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. A
É rsino˝thw nomÒw as part of a larger administrative unit (the Hepta-
nomia) – 25 (A. Heptanomia: a Roman innovation or a continuity? – 25.
B. The account of Claudius Ptolemaeus – 32. C. How many nomes did the
Heptanomia comprise? – 36. D. LimØn M°mfevw – 42. E. The capital of the
Heptanomia – 44). 2. Changes in Egyptian administration in the fourth
century – 44. 3. Conclusion – 56.

Chapter Two
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME. THE MERIDES . . . . 61
1. Introduction – 61. 2. The Ptolemaic background: bi- and tripartite
divisions of the Fayum. The merides – 62 (A. Bipartite division. The Henet
of Moeris – 62. B. Ptolemaic nomarchs of the Arsinoites. ‘Big’ and ‘little’
nomarchs – 63. C. The creation of the merides – 70. D. Officials of the merides
– 83). 3. The Arsinoite Nome in the Roman Period – 84 (A. The Ptolemaic
rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page VIII

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS

and Roman strategia – 84. B. Did the merides constitute separate nomes since the
beginning of the Roman period? – 87. C. Strategoi of the Arsinoites: hypothetical
fasti [30 BC – ca. AD 60] – 98. D. Three merides, three strategoi [ca. AD 60 – 136/7]
– 100. E. Three merides, two strategoi [AD 136/7 – ca. AD 260] – 102. F. After the
reunification ca. AD 260. Strategoi of the fourth century – 104. G. Did merides
have capitals? – 109) 3. Conclusion – 111. A postscriptum: Theodosio-
polite nome – 113. Appendix: The inscriptions mentioning the strategoi
of the Ptolemaic period – 114.

Chapter Three
THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
1. Introduction – 117. 2. Ptolemaic toparchies in the Arsinoite nome and
their continuity in the first century of Roman rule – 119. 3. The Roman
toparchies. The case of doubled toparchies – 122 (A. Toparchies in the
Fayum and their villages – 123. B. Two or one? A single toparchy with two num-
bers or two toparchies paired off? – 129. C. Contradiction within the evidence
– 132. D. Officials connected with the toparchies in the first period of numbered
toparchies [AD 111–161] – 133 E. Officials connected with the toparchies after the
reintroduction of the toparchies in the 240s – 134). 4. Historical analysis of the
date – 137. 5. The dekaprotoi and their toparchies – 141. 6. The disap-
pearance of the toparchies and the introduction of the pagi – 143.
7. Conclusion – 145. Passages corrected – 146.

Chapter Four
KOMOGRAMMATEIAI.
VILLAGE OFFICIALS (KOMOGRAMMATEIS, PRESBYTEROI ACTING
AS KOMOGRAMMATEIS, AMPHODOKOMOGRAMMATEIS, KOMARCHAI) . . 147
1. Introduction – 147. 2. How large were the komogrammateiai in the
Roman period? An attempt to draw an administrative map of the
Arsinoite nome in the first–second cent. AD – 152 (A. Komogrammateia
of Ptolemais Hormou – 153. B. Komogrammateia of Hiera Nesos – 155. C. Komo-
grammateia of Karanis – 157. D. Other komogrammateiai – 159. E. Locating
komogrammateiai on a map – 167). 3. Presbyteroi performing the duties of
komogrammateis (presbÊteroi diadexÒmenoi tå katå tåw kvmogrammate¤aw)
– 168. 4. The successors of the komogrammateis: amphodokomogrammateis
and komarchai – 176 (A. Amphodokomogrammateis – 176. B. Komogrammateis
in the fourth century and beyond – 181. C. Komarchs in Later Roman Fayum
– 182). 5. Komogrammateis, amphodokomogrammateis and komarchai of
the Arsinoite villages in the Roman period – a prosopography – 196
(A. ‘Ptolemaic’ komarchai – 197. B. Komogrammateis [30 BC – ca. AD 217] – 198.
rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS IX

C. Amphodokomogrammateis [ca. AD 217 – 245] – 233. D. Komarchs [after

AD 245] – 235). 6. Conclusion – 260. Corrections – 261

Chapter Five
THE ARSINOITE PAGI.
UNIFICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . 263
1. Introduction – 263. 2. Pagi in the Arsinoite nome and their villages
– 266 (A. Pagi and villages belonging to them – 267. B. SPP X 270 – 269.
C. P. Sakaon 35 [= P. Thead. 16] – 270. D. Taxes and the pagi – 272). 3. How
was the Fayum divided into pagi? A hypothesis – 274. 4. Praepositi
pagorum and other officials connected with the Arsinoite pagi – 276
(A. Praepositi pagorum – 276. B. Other officials – 278). 5. Conclusion – 279.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

INDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
1. Persons – 307. 2. Places – 318. 3. Subjects – 325. 4. Sources – 330
(A. Literary sources – 330. B. Papyri and ostraca – 331. C. Inscriptions – 345.
D. Other sources – 345).
rz05_10 Ded+Cont+ListaMap 12/4/06 3:26 AM Page X

MAPS

Map 1. The Fayum page 21

Map 2. Eleven nomes of the Heptanomia 41
Map 3. The Arsinoite komogrammateiai in Roman period 169
Map 4. The Arsinoite pagi 273

TABLES

Table 1. Administrative units of Egypt

(first–seventh cent. AD) page 57
Table 2. Affiliation of the Arsinoite nome
to superior administrative units 59
rz11_13 Preface 12/4/06 3:30 AM Page XI

PREFACE

HERE ARE NO FINISHED BOOKS, only books that were abandoned. Books
T one had to stop working on in order to show the result of one’s
research to colleagues and submit it to their assessment. The above is
especially applicable to those fields of scientific research where the
amount of available sources is continuously and considerably growing.
Papyrologists are fortunate enough to pursue such a discipline.
These few sentences characterise my situation as the author of this
book. On one hand, I was able to derive from the abundance of sources
– thousands of papyri which enable to write an administrative history of
É rsino˝thw nomÒw, or the Fayum Oasis under Roman rule. Many more
A
sources are available to us nowadays than to papyrologists of past gener-
ations. It is not without meaning that thanks to electronic tools they are
easier and, above all, faster to use. These are the positive aspects of
working Anno Domini 2005. On the other hand – and the first paragraph
should be recalled here – I realise that the future generations of
researchers on Graeco-Roman Egypt will profit from an even greater
abundance of sources and more efficient tools. Being aware of this fact,
one is more reluctant to draw conclusions, and especially to form
hypotheses, some of which – as I do realise – will not stand the test of
time. Historical sciences should, however, be perceived as dynamic fields
of research in which the scholar’s task is to strive to obtain a picture that
rz11_13 Preface 12/4/06 3:30 AM Page XII

XII PREFACE

comes as close as possible to historical truth, with the aid of means avail-
able at the time. Creating subsequent hypotheses, even if they are often
erroneous, is simply a vital prerequisite for pursuing our discipline.

The idea to undertake research on the administration of the Fayum

under Roman rule originated from my many years of contact with the cen-
tre for papyrological studies at the Catholic University of Leuven (Katho-
lieke Universiteit Leuven). In the academic year 2000/1 I sojourned there
as a fellow in the Department Klassieke Studjes, working on the project
‘Fayum villages in the Graeco-Roman Period’ directed by Prof. Willy
Clarysse. I am much indebted to him for his support and valuable com-
ments he made on draft versions of several chapters of this book. I am also
grateful to other colleagues from Leuven – at this point I ought to men-
tion Prof. Hans Hauben, Prof. Katelijn Vandorpe, as well as Dr. Bart van
Beek, and Ruben Smolders. I discussed several points of my book with
each of them and greatly profited from these conversations.
The results of my work have been repeatedly presented to my Warsaw
colleagues at a seminar run by Prof. Ewa Wipszycka. Ewa Wipszycka and
my friend Adam Łajtar read the preliminary version of this book – thanks
to their comments I managed to avoid many errors. I would also like to
thank Prof. Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, Dr. Jakub Urbanik, Dr. Tomasz
Markiewicz and Dr. Aleksander Wolicki, who read sections of my work,
for various comments and suggestions.
The indices the Reader will find at the end of the book are a result of
a cooperation with my colleagues. Adam Łajtar compiled the index of
sources, and Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò prepared a first draft of the geo-
graphical and personal indices – I am deeply indepted to both of them.
I am also thankful to Dorota Dzierzbicka for the effort she put into
the linguistic aspect of this project, partly translating my text from
Polish, and partly correcting my English.

*
rz11_13 Preface 12/4/06 3:30 AM Page XIII

PREFACE XIII

The publication of this book was generously supported through finan-

cial donations by the Rector of Warsaw University, as well as by the Insti-
tute of Archaeology of Warsaw University. For this support the author
and The Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation would like to express their
most sincere thanks to the heads of the abovementioned institutions:
Prof. Dr. Katarzyna Chałasińska-Macukow, Rectrix Magnifica of Warsaw
University and Prof. Dr. Wojciech Tygielski, Vice-Rector for Research
and International Relations, as well as Prof. Dr. Kazimierz Lewartowski,
Director of the Institute of Archaeology.
.

Warsaw Tomasz Derda

October, 2006
rz15_18 skroty 12/4/06 1:32 AM Page XV

NOTE ON REFERENCES
AND ABBREVIATIONS

according to the rules adapted by the Checklist

T
HE PAPYRI ARE QUOTED
of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (Web edi-
tion) and Bibliographie Papyrologique. Whenever a document is edited
twice (or more), the number of the line referred to follows the first edi-
tion: P. Mil. I 3, 1 = SB XX 14440. Census declarations are cited by their
edition as well as by the siglum attributed to them by R. S. Bagnall and
W. Frier in their The Demography of Roman Egypt (= Cambridge Studies in
Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23), Cambridge 1994. The cita-
tions of inscriptions are essentially as in: F. BÉRARD, D. FEISSEL et alii, Guide
de l’épigraphiste: bibliographie choisie des épigraphies antiques et médiévales, 3rd
edition (= Bibliothèque de l’École normale supérieure. Guides et inventaires
bibliographiques 6), Paris 2000. The journals are abbreviated as in Biblio-
graphie Papyrologique. Any exceptions to the abovemetioned rules are, I
hope, self-explanatory.

The following abbreviations are used throughout the book:

ANRW – Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

BAGNALL – FRIER, The Demography of Roman Egypt – R. S. BAGNALL – B. W.

FRIER, The Demography of Roman Egypt (= Cambridge Studies in Population, Econo-
my and Society in Past Time 23), Cambridge 1994
rz15_18 skroty 12/4/06 1:32 AM Page XVI

XVI NOTE ON REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

BAGNALL – WORP, Chronological Systems – R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, Chrono-

logical Systems of Byzantine Egypt. Second Edition, Leiden 2004

BAGNALL – WORP, Regnal Formulas – R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, Regnal For-

mulas in Byzantine Egypt (= BASP Supplement 2), Missoula 1979

The Barrington Atlas – R. J. A. TALBERT (ed.), in collaboration with R. S. BAGNALL

et alii, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (With Map-by-map
Directory on CD-ROM), Map Editors: Mary E. DOWNS, M. Joann MCDANIEL,
Cartographic Managers: Janet E. KELLY, Jeannine M. SCHONTA, D. F. STONG,
Princeton – Oxford 2000

BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi – G. BASTIANINI and J. E. G. WHITEHORNE,

Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt. Chronological List and Index (= Papyro-
logica Florentina 15), Firenze 1987

BL – Berichtigungsliste, vol. I–XI, Berlin – Leipzig – Leiden 1922–2001

CALDERINI – DARIS, Dizionario – A. CALDERINI – S. DARIS, Dizionario dei nomi

geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-romano, Cairo – Milano – Madrid – Bonn
– Pisa 1935–2003

CTh. – Codex Theodosianus

DAVOLI, L’archeologia urbana – Paola DAVOLI, L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di

età ellenistica e romana (= Missione Congiunta delle Università di Bologna e di
Lecce in Egitto, Monografie 1), Naples 1998

DDBDP – The Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri

FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite Nome – Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite

Nome. A Catalogue of the Toponyms, with Introduction and Commentary (= American
Studies in Papyrology 37), Atlanta 1998

GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens – M. GELZER, Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltung

Ägyptens [= Leipziger historische Abhandlungen 13], Leipzig 1909

HGV – Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen Papyrusurkunden

Ägyptens einschließlich der Ostraka usw., der lateinischen Texte, sowie der
entsprechenden Urkunden aus benachbarten Regionen
rz15_18 skroty 12/4/06 1:32 AM Page XVII

NOTE ON REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS XVII

JOHNSON, Roman Egypt – A. Ch. JOHNSON, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome,

vol. II. Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian, Baltimore 1936

KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber – Th. KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber und die Gau-
verwaltung. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von
Augustus bis Philippus Arabs (30 v. Chr. – 245 n. Chr.), voll. I–II (= ArchPF Beiheft
11, 1–2), München – Leipzig 2002

LÄ – Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. W. HELCK and E. Otto, voll. I–VII, Wiesbaden
1975–92

LALLEMAND, L’administration civile – Jacqueline LALLEMAND, L’administration

civile de l’Égypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse (284–382). Con-
tribution à l’étude des rapports entre l’Égypte et l’Empire à la fin du III e et au IV e siècle
(= Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie
Royale de Belgique 57.2), Bruxelles 1964

LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services – N. LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services
of Roman Egypt (Second Edition) (= Papyrologica Florentina 27), Firenze 1997

MONTEVECCHI, La Papirologia – Orsolina MONTEVECCHI, La papirologia. Ristampa

riveduta e corretta con addenda (= Trattati e manuali), Milano 1988

New Documents – G. H. R. HORSLEY et alii, New Documents Illustrating Early Chris-

tianity, North Ryde 1981–

OERTEL, Die Liturgie – F. OERTEL, Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiser-
lichen Verwaltung Ägyptens, Leipzig 1917 (reprint 1965)

PLRE – The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I, AD 260–395, by A.H.M.
JONES, J. R. MARTINDALE and J. MORRIS, Cambridge 1971; vol. II, AD 395–527,
by J. R. MARTINDALE, Cambridge 1980

Pros. Ptol. – Prosopographia Ptolemaica

RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism – D. RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism and Rural

Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt. The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate
(= Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge 1991

RE – Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

rz15_18 skroty 12/4/06 1:32 AM Page XVIII

XVIII NOTE ON REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites – F. REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites.
Ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen Ägypten (= Papyrologica Coloniensia 31),
Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich 2004

THOMAS, Ptolemaic Epistrategos – J. D. THOMAS, The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and

Roman Egypt, Part 1. The Ptolemaic Epistrategos (= Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-
Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sonderreihe: Papyrologica Coloniensia
6.1), Opladen 1975

THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos – J. D. THOMAS, The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic

and Roman Egypt, Part 2. The Roman Epistrategos (= Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-
Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sonderreihe: Papyrologica Coloniensia
6.2), Opladen 1982

TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten – S. TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten

in arabischer Zeit. Eine Sammlung christlicher Stätten in Ägypten in arabischer Zeit,
unter Ausschluss von Alexandria, Kairo, des Apa-Mena-Klosters (Der Abu Mina), der
Sketis (Wadi n-Natrun) und der Sinai-Region, vol. I–VI (= Beihefte zum Tübinger
Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B. 41, 1–6), Wiesbaden 1984–1992

WHITEHORNE, Strategi – J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman

Egypt (Str. R. Scr. 2) (= Papyrologica Florentina 37), Firenze 2006
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 3

INTRODUCTION

1. OBJECTIVES
AND CHRONOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE BOOK

FAYUM, A
É rsino˝thw nomÒw, on the map of Ptolemaic
Tand Roman Egypt is as special as the place it occupies in every papy-
HE PLACE OF THE

rological reference work. This region yielded an enormous number of

papyri, in total nearly a third of the papyrological documentation at hand
for all of Egypt (16,196 documents out of 55,426 registered by the Heidel-
berger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Ägyptens).
Yet it can by no means be said that we have excellent knowledge even of
the Fayum. We know a good deal about major localities – which despite
all their significance were villages, komai – located on the edge of the oasis
(Karanis, Bakchias, Tebtynis, Dionysias, Philadelpheia, Soknopaiou
Nesos), but as for the capital, the city (although not a polis until AD 200)
known as Krokodilon Polis, Arsinoe, Ptolemais Euergetis or pÒliw t«n
É rsino˝tvn, our knowledge is incomparably poorer, if not exiguous. We
A
know that in the Roman period (more precisely: through a part of it) the
Fayum was governed by two or three strategoi, therefore it constituted two
or three separate nomes. However, there are considerable problems with
identifying the capitals of these units. Was Ptolemais Euergetis the capi-
tal of two, or all three of them, or was it only the capital of the meris of
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 4

4 INTRODUCTION

Herakleides, while the administrative centre of the meris of Polemon was

located in Tebtynis?1

As mentioned above, some large, ‘paramunicipal’ centres on the edge

of the Fayum are familiar to us, but the same cannot be said about major
localities in the inner oasis which are known from hundreds of docu-
ments – Alexandrou Nesos is a good example of such a case. Our knowl-
edge of the administrative structures is equally varied – it is no coinci-
dence that on the map where I reconstruct the territorial span of the
Fayumic komogrammateiai the units located on the outer limits of the oasis
are notably better represented.2 The same dependence is evident in the
prosopography of the Arsinoite komogrammateis, amphodokomogrammateis
and komarchs – the sequence of officials in Karanis and Soknopaiou
Nesos is known well, while for many important localities in the inner
Oasis there are only a few names and for aforementioned Alexandrou
Nesos – not even one.

The main objective of this study is to examine the administrative divi-

sion of the Fayum throughout the Roman period, approximately until the
end of the fourth century. Of interest to me will be the administrative
units and their transformations within the Fayum (the Arsinoite nome):
merides,3 toparchiai,4 komogrammateiai,5 and finally in the fourth century
– pagi.6 The character of these units, especially that of merides and

1
We know that in the Ptolemaic period the administrative centre of the meris of Pole-
mon was Oxyrhyncha, although naturally the merides did not constitute separate nomes at
that time. For this role of Oxyrhyncha, see P. Heid. VI, pp. 56-57, note on lines 8–9. See
also E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Notes sur les circonscriptions d’origine grecque en Égypte ptolé-
maïque’, [in:] Ptolemaica (= Studia Hellenistica 7), Louvain 1951, pp. 39–59, at p. 47.
2
See the map on p. 169.
3
See Chapter Two, pp. 61–115.
4
See Chapter Three, pp. 117–146.
5
See Chapter Four, pp. 147–261.
6
See Chapter Five, pp. 263–279.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 5

INTRODUCTION 5

toparchies, is a distinctive feature of the Fayum in the Roman period. My

aim is to define the territories of particular units as precisely as possible,
and to delineate the administrative tasks performed within their limits.
In a thus outlined work it seems indispensable to precede the discus-
sion of the Fayum itself with a chapter devoted to the place the Arsinoite
nome occupied in Egypt’s administrative system.7
So much for what this book is intended to be. In such a work it is
equally important to say what it will not be and to what role it does not
aspire. The competencies of particular officials will not be discussed in
this study because – despite Fayum’s distinct character – it is impossible
to limit such an analysis to sources originating only from this nome, in
other words it would be absurd to examine the duties of the strategos or
basilikos grammateus in an exclusively Fayumic context. Besides, such
works already exist and some of them are quite new, for instance the very
broad study by Thomas Kruse, devoted to basilikoi grammateis in the
Roman period.
Excluded from this study are also lists of the officials that already had
such works written about them: strategoi – by Bastianini and Whitehorne,
basilikoi grammateis – by Kruse, although of course when possible I intend
to update the lists and append them with data from newly published
sources.8 Included, however, will be lists of Arsinoite komogrammateis,
amphodokomogrammateis, komarchai and praepositi pagorum. The absence of
such studies in the entire history of papyrology speaks in favour of com-
piling them.
A book focusing on the administrative units and their evolution through
the first four centuries AD must also touch upon other issues, although their
thorough and comprehensive analysis will not be possible. A subject related
to the organisation of territorial administration is the structure of the tax-
ation system, especially the functioning of tax collection.9 In the chapter

7
Chapter One, pp. 25–59.
8
I will especially review the fasti of strategoi of the first century of Roman rule, see
pp. 86–98.
9
A new study of the taxation system in Roman Egypt remains a great desideratum in
our field of research, see J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Administration of Roman Egypt: A Survey of
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 6

6 INTRODUCTION

devoted to toparchies much attention will be given to the problem of the

unification of the taxation system, especially in relation to the sitologia. I
intend to demonstrate how the Roman government strived to rationalize
its actions by applying the same procedures in the Fayum as in other
nomes, despite the considerable difficulty with their introduction caused
by a completely different administrative structure.
On the other hand, also in the tax collection system there were major
differences and features which especially distinguished the Arsinoite
nome from the rest of the country – a very good example of this is the
office of the nomarch and his role in the tax and toll collection, which was
discussed in a monograph by Fabian Reiter.10

The chronological span of this study covers a period from 30 BC to the

end of the fourth century AD. The first date is self-explanatory, although
the character, range and complexity of changes introduced into the
administration of Egypt by the Romans in the time of Augustus remains
debatable.11 The second date, however, requires a brief comment.
An important turning point in Egypt’s past is the third century. It
brought about fundamental reforms that changed the very sense of the

Recent Research and Some Outstanding Problems’, [in:] Isabella ANDORLINI, G. BASTIA-
NINI, M. MANFREDI, Giovanna MENCI (ed.), Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papiro-
logia. Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998, Florence 2001, vol. II, pp. 1245–1254.
10
At this point I would like to specially thank Fabian REITER for providing me with
a large part of his study a few months before publication.
11
See most recently, Livia CAPPONI, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province
(= Studies in Classics), New York – London 2005. The author diligently collected and ana-
lyzed all the available documentation (including numismatic sources) from the 60s BC to
the 40s AD and came to a conclusion that ‘after the fall of Alexandria in 30 BC not every-
thing remained unchanged, but Egypt acquired all the characteristics of a full Roman
province’ (p. 169). This conclusion seems too firm in relation to the material analyzed by
the author in the ten chapters that precede it. The element of continuity was very strong
and ‘all the characteristics of a full Roman province’ were limited to organising the admin-
istration of the province on central level and to introducing (or greatly modifying) the
division into epistrategiai (see, especially, Chapter 4, ‘The Institutions of Egypt: The
Impact of Rome’, pp. 25–50).
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 7

INTRODUCTION 7

functioning of this Roman province. These changes were, however, dis-

persed throughout the entire century, from the reign of Septimius Severus,
through the time of Philip the Arabian, until the rule of Diocletian. On
the other hand, papyrologists have long agreed that the so-called ‘third-
century crisis’ is hardly discernible in Egyptian sources, so it is by no
means a decisive interval. Egypt of the fourth century, to which Roger S.
Bagnall devoted an excellent synthesis, is to some extent a different reality
(‘Later Roman Egypt’).12 This time brought changes which led to the for-
mation of a new quality we call Byzantine Egypt, but it was also a time of
continuity.13 In other words, the fourth century is an interval with which a
historian of the Byzantine period should begin when presenting the
history of Egypt (as well as other provinces of the Roman East), but it is
also a period that cannot be ignored by researchers focusing on the Roman
period, as its very name – ‘Later Roman Egypt’ – suggests.
The above arguments in favour of including the fourth century in the
chronological framework of my study apply not only to Egypt, but to the
entire Roman Empire. A scholar studying the history of the Fayum must
consider yet one more factor, local in character, but of considerable prac-
tical importance. Namely, in the Fayum the fourth century is a time of
drastic change in hydrological conditions, which led to a gradual depopu-
lation of villages and settlements located on the outer edge of the oasis,
on slightly elevated land. We owe our good knowledge of these areas to
this phenomenon, but at the same time it marks the chronological limit
of our data. Fourth-century papyri are plentiful – they often allow for very
detailed studies on village societies on the fringe of the Fayum.14 The

12
In the very first paragraph of his book Bagnall says: ‘My “late antiquity” begins with
the emergence of Egypt from the difficulties of the third century and ends in the middle
of the fifth, after which the term “Byzantine” is arguably more appropriate (though tradi-
tionally used in the study of Roman Egypt for everything after 284 or sometimes 312).’ The
quotation comes from ‘Preface’, p. ix.
13
On different views of the fourth century see Bagnall’s remarks in his introduction
to Egypt in Late Antiquity, pp. 3–4.
14
See several studies on this subject, especially by R. S. BAGNALL (with a model study:
‘The Population of Theadelphia in the Fourth Century’, Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie
copte 24 [1979–1982] pp. 35–57 = R. S. BAGNALL, Later Roman Egypt: Society, Religion, Economy
and Administration [= Collected Studies Series 758], Aldershot 2003, article VI); on various
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 8

8 INTRODUCTION

number of available sources drops considerably for the last decades of

this century and remains dramatically low in the fifth century. Also for
this reason it seemed adequate to end my presentation of the adminis-
tration of the Arsinoite nome with the end of the fourth century.15

2. FAYUM OASIS
16
– THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

É rsino˝thw nomÒw occupies the Fayum Oasis and the land in the direct
A
vicinity of el-Lahun, where the waters of the Bahr Yusuf enter the Fayum.
The ancient A É rsino˝thw nomÒw almost exactly corresponds to today’s Gov-
ernorate of the Fayum – the only major difference is that in antiquity the
Arsinoite nome also encompassed the land along a canal which was an
extension of the Bahr Yusuf northward up to Syron Kome.17
The Fayum Oasis lies west of the Nile River, ca. 100 km to the south-
west of Cairo. It stretches from 29°6’ to 29°35’ N latitude, or almost 50 km
(nearly 50 km is the air distance from Soknopaiou Nesos to Tebtynis) and
from 30°23’ to 31°5’ E longitude, or ca. 70 km (70 km is the air distance
from Medinet Quta on the western side of Birket el-Qarun to Philadel-

occasions the scholar mentioned that he intended to write a monographic study devoted
to the Fayum in the fourth century. It is also noteworthy that the evidence used in a series
of articles on changes in administration of Roman Egypt in the third and fourth centuries
by J. D. Thomas and R. S. Bagnall comes for the most part from the Arsinoite and the
Oxyrhynchite nomes.
15
Similar chronological limits have been set by other scholars in their works, e.g. OER-
TEL, Die Liturgie.
16
These remarks are only to call the reader’s attention to the most important charac-
teristics of the Fayum’s natural environment in the context of the history of the oasis in
the Roman period. They in no way aspire to be an exhaustive presentation of the geogra-
phy, geology, and hydrology of the Fayum. Literature on these subjects is very large and
the Reader will find bibliographic records of several of the most important works in foot-
notes below.
17
We owe this information i.a. to documents from the archive of Petaus son of Petaus,
komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hormou in the 180s, see the territory of the komogrammateia
of Petaus son of Petaus on the map on p. 169. For the location of Syron Kome, see below,
pp. 18–19.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 9

INTRODUCTION 9

pheia). The Fayum occupies a natural depression. In the middle and late
Pleistocene this depression was a bay of the Mediterranean Sea, which
then reached up to el-Wasta. The force of the tide pushed back the rising
waters of the Nile and diverted them to the bay. At the end of the Pleis-
tocene epoch the sea retreated to the north and the Nile deepened its
bed – as a result of these processes the bay lost its connection with the
waters of the sea and the Nile. A vast lake emerged, the water table of
which was at that time as high as 18 m above sea level.18 A relic of this
large water basin is the modern Birket el-Qarun with a water table almost
70 m lower, at 45 m below sea level.
Characteristic features of the horizontal formation of the Fayum are
three terraces. The first, most elevated terrace reaches a level of ca. 25 m.
a.s.l. – after the main villages it can be called the el-Lahun – Hawara ter-
race. The second, at approximately the modern sea level (from ca. 15 m.
b.s.l. up to ca. 15 m. a.s.l.) is the central terrace where the capital of the
province was located – the ancient Ptolemais Euergetis or Krokodilopolis
or Arsinoe, modern Medinet el-Fayum. The lowest terrace, which encom-
passed the north of the oasis up to the shore of the lake, generally lacks
traces of ancient settlement. This division does not apply to the south-
eastern part of the Oasis, the so-called Gharaq Basin, a natural depression
that remained after the disappearance of a large body of water,
independent from Birket el-Qarun and still in existence in the nineteenth
century.19

The Oasis is supplied with water by the Bahr Yusuf, a natural branch
of the Nile which separates from the main river at Dairut, 20 km south

18
See D. A[RNOLD], ‘Fajjum’, LÄ II, coll. 87–93, esp. 87–88 with references to R. H.
BROWN, The Fayum and Lake Moeris, London 1892 (non vidi); Gertrude CATON-THOMPSON
and Elinor W. GARDNER, Desert Fayum, London 1934 (non vidi).
19
For the general characteristics of the horizontal formation of the Fayum, see Paola
DAVOLI, ‘Ricerche sull’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di epoca greco-romana’ [in:] Atti del
II Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia. Siracusa, 1–3 dicembre 1995 = Quaderni dell’Is-
tituto Internazionale del Papiro 7), Siracusa 1996, pp. 35–58.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 10

10 INTRODUCTION

of Mallawi, 280 km from el-Lahun.20 The river flows parallel to the Nile
up to Ihnasiya el-Medina (ancient Herakleopolis Magna), where it bends
sharply towards the north-west. After a few kilometres it turns north-
wards again and flows parallel to Gebel el-Naqlun, a range of low hills sep-
arating the Nile Valley from the Fayum. Gebel el-Naqlun flattens in the
north, so that in the vicinity of el-Lahun nothing blocks the waters of the
Bahr Yusuf, which freely enter the Fayum there. Then the river flows
through the oasis, reaching the capital, Medinet el-Fayum. Near the city
the Bahr Yusuf loses its name, dividing into several minor rivulets which
flow towards Birket el-Qarun and feed water into the system of Fayum
canals.21 The first of these rivulets is Bahr Matar, which separates from
the main current before it reaches Medinet el-Fayum and flows almost
exactly to the north; the other ones, counter clockwise, are as follows:
Bahr Sinnuris (flows towards Sinnuris), Bahr Tirsa, Bahr el-Zawya, Bahr
Naqalifa, Bahr Fidaymin, Bahr Anz, Bahr Ibshaway, Bahr el-Talat el-Ali,
Bahr Khalij Kharshid. All of them flow out radially, distributing water
throughout the oasis.
The whole oasis is a uniform water system regulated by the sluices of
el-Lahun. This town (ancient Ptolemais Hormou) has always been the key
to the Fayum. The sluices at el-Lahun regulate the volume of water enter-
ing the oasis even today. The minimum flow is in winter, while the maxi-
mum occurs in the spring and summer months, during the rice season.
The sluices close and the waterways remain dry for twenty days each Jan-
uary. During this period, as the land ‘rests’ (so the Egyptians say), various
maintenance works are performed: the canals are cleaned, bridges are
built, etc.22
The pool irrigation system was used in the Fayum until the second half
of the nineteenth century. It was essentially based on surrounding the

20
The Bahr Yusuf takes its name from Joseph the patriarch, who was said to have built
this canal intending to irrigate the Fayum.
21
In antiquity the situation must have been somewhat different. The Bahr Yusuf (the
Henet of Moeris) functioned as a border between the north and the south part of the
oasis (see below, pp. 62–63), which seems to suggest that also to the east of the nome cap-
ital there was a branch thought to be a natural continuation of the Bahr Yusuf.
22
R. Neil HEWISON, The Fayoum: History and Guide, Cairo – New York 2001, p. 6.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 11

INTRODUCTION 11

plots of land with a system of walls. This way ‘pools’ were created and
these were filled with water by one of the main canals at the time of the
flood. Water flooded the field, filling the pool to a height of about a metre,
remained there for some time and eventually disappeared, partly absorbed
by the soil, partly evaporated.23 Such an irrigation system was rather
simple, but provided generally only one harvest per year and only excep-
tionally two. Today much more sophisticated methods of ‘spot’ irrigation
are used, supplying the required volume of water at a particular moment.
It triggered the development of a network of canals, especially the smaller
and smallest ones, as well as sluices that close them off. As a result, in a
favourable climate it is now possible to harvest twice or even three times
a year. Due to the significant, up to 70-metre difference of levels from the
el-Lahun – Hawara terrace to the water table of Birket el-Qarun, irrigation
is carried out with the help of gravity, which is exceptional in modern
Egyptian conditions.24 Pumps powered by combustion engines, omni-
present in Egypt nowadays, are only sporadically used in the Fayum, in
places of key importance for spot irrigation.

The Fayum Lake (modern Birket el-Qarun) is a water basin fed by the
Bahr Yusuf and the way in which it flows into the lake heavily depends
upon the condition of the irrigation system. Today its area is ca. 240–250
km2 depending on the season and on the volume of water in the system.
As already said, the shape of Lake Qarun changed significantly through
the geological epochs. Also in historical times the changes were momen-
tous. Simplifying somewhat – without taking into account the changing
level of groundwater, as well as the total volume of water carried by the

23
One such wall, at least 8 km in length and 6 m in height, was located near Itsa in the
centre of the oasis. Possibly first erected in antiquity and later subjected to constant
repairs and supplements, it attracted the attention of Europeans as early as the beginning
of the nineteenth century – See HEWISON, The Fayoum (cit. supra, n. 22), pp. 83–84.
24
See N. S. HOPKINS, ‘Contemporary Irrigation’, [in:] A. K. BOWMAN and E. ROGAN
(eds.), Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times (= Proceedings of the British Academy
96), Oxford 1999, pp. 367–385, esp. pp. 375–376.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 12

12 INTRODUCTION

Nile – it can be said that with a constant flow of water into the Fayum the
better the irrigation network functioned, and the more water man was
able to divert to the irrigated field, the more the lake shrank.
In the past a generally accepted hypothesis was that Lake Qarun was
much larger than today even in historic times.25 There are, however, seri-
ous arguments indicating that the shape of the lake in the Ptolemaic and
Roman periods was not very different from that of today. This is further
confirmed by traces of settlement from this period – on the north-eastern
shore of Birket el-Qarun there is a site of Qaret el-Rusas with abundant
evidence for settlement in the Graeco-Roman time. It lies on a level of
39 m b.s.l., only 6 metres above the lake’s modern water table.26

25
Herodotus even claimed that Andriantes lay under water: ‘Such is this labyrinth; and
yet more marvellous is the lake Moeris, by which it stands. This lake has a circuit of three
thousand six hundred furlongs, or sixty schoeni, which is as much as the whole seaboard
of Egypt. Its length is from north to south; the deepest part has a depth of fifty fathoms.
That it has been dug out and made by men’s hands the lake shows for itself; for almost in
the middle of it stand two pyramids, so built that fifty fathoms of each are below and fifty
above the water; atop of each is a colossal stone figure seated on a throne. Thus these pyr-
amids are a hundred fathoms equal a furlong of six hundred feet, the fathom measuring
six feet or four cubits, the foot four spans and the cubit six spans. The water of the lake
is not natural (for the country here is exceeding waterless) but brought by a channel from
the Nile; six months it flows into the lake, and six back into the river. For the six months
that it flows from the lake, the daily take of fish brings a silver talent into the royal treas-
ury and twenty minae for each day of the flow into the lake’ (Hdt. II 149, transl. A. D.
GODLEY, Loeb). The place in the middle of the lake referred to by Herodotus must be that
of Biahmu (ancient Andriantes or Andrianton), ca. 5 km N of Krokodilopolis (Ptolemais
Euergetis). The remnants of two colossi of seated Amanemhat III are still visible there
(see A. B. LLOYD, Herodotus Book II. Commentary 99–182, Leiden 1986, p. 126). For Hero-
dotus’ account of the Fayum, see recently P. W. HAIDER, ‘“Das Buch vom Fayum” und seine
Historisierung bei Herodot’, [in:] P. W. HAIDER and R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Althistorische
Studien im Spannungsfeld zwischen Universal- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Franz
Hampl gedacht zum 90. Geburtstag am 8. Dezember 2000, Stuttgart 2001, pp. 127-156.
26
This as well as other, less obvious arguments in favour of the similarity of the shape
of the lake in the Ptolemaic and Roman period to that of today – DAVOLI, ‘Ricerche sul-
l’archeologia urbana’ (cit. supra, n. 19), pp. 38–40. For the site of Qaret el-Rusas, see Paola
DAVOLI, L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana (= Missione Congiunta delle
Università di Bologna e di Lecce in Egitto, Monografie 1), Naples 1998, pp. 161–162; for the sug-
gested identity of the site with ancient Nilopolis, see below, pp. 16–17.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 13

INTRODUCTION 13

The broad strip of land, over a dozen kilometres wide, which lies to
the south of the lake and forms the third, lowest terrace of the horizon-
tal formation of the Fayum, lacks vestiges of ancient settlements. This is
not – as it had been thought before – due to it being under the waters of
Birket el-Qarun in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. This land has
always been very difficult to irrigate. Even a slight rise of the water table
in Birket el-Qarun causes excessive inflow of water, which happens even
today, although the water level in the Nile is controlled by the High Dam
in Aswan.27 The strip of land to the south of the lake was therefore not
submerged in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, but constituted a boggy,
partly flooded area, especially in years of high inundation.

The name by which the lake was called in antiquity used to cause con-
siderable confusion, which Katelijn Vandorpe summarized and convinc-
ingly clarified in 2004.28
Egyptian sources and Greek documents simply call Birket el-Qarun
‘the lake’. In Egyptian it was Šy (Lake), Šy-wr (the Great Lake), and from
the New Kingdom onwards also P3-ym (the Lake) – a term which evolved,
through Coptic, into the modern name Fayum. The Greeks simply trans-
lated the term, hence L¤mnh mentioned in the documents. Ancient trav-
ellers and historians from outside of Egypt called the Fayum lake ≤ L¤mnh
≤ Mo¤riow or ≤ Mo¤riow kaleom°nh l¤mnh (Hdt. II 148 and 149 respectively),
Mo¤ridiow l¤mnh (Strabo XVII 1, 37 and Diod. Sic. I 52), lacus Moeridis
(Pliny V 9 and XXXVI 16). Thus, with only one exception (Pomponius
Mela, De chronographia I 9, 55: ‘Moeris lacus’), all of them use the genitive
form, actually calling it the Lake of Moeris, and not Lake Moeris, as mod-
ern scholars usually do (e.g., Moeris Lacus in The Barrington Atlas), even

27
Due to the need to drain excess water from this area, in the 1970s and 1980s the
authorities built artificial water basins in the Wadi Rayan Depression, south-west of the
Fayum.
28
Katelijn VANDORPE, ‘The Henet of Moeris and the Ancient Administrative Division
of the Fayum in Two Parts’, ArchPF 50 (2004), pp. 61–78, esp. pp. 72–73. The following is
strictly based on her argumentation.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 14

14 INTRODUCTION

despite objections put forward as many as 60 years ago by Alan H. Gar-

diner and H. I. Bell.29 The ancient historians did not know the etymology
of the name Moiris, derived from Mr-wr, the Great Canal (see below) and
considered it to be the name of a pharaoh, most probably Amenemhat
III who carried out irrigation works in the Fayum.30
An important problem is also the shape and exact location of the
water basin (or even three basins) that occupied the southern part of the
oasis. The author of the map in The Barrington Atlas drew three lakes, the
largest of which had a rather curious shape, with a long causeway leading
to Kerkeosiris.31 This basin – like the other two – must have been imper-
manent in character, and its shoreline must have changed depending on
the season, the water level in the Nile, and the resulting water level of the
Fayum canals.

3. MAP OF THE FAYUM

A number of ancient sites in the Fayum are recognised, discussed and

eventually marked on a map prepared in 1995 by Renate Müller-Woller-
man for The Barrington Atlas.32 In 1998 Paola Davoli published an archaeo-
logical synthesis of the Graeco-Roman Fayum in which she presented not
only the big and important sites (Karanis, Soknopaiou Nesos, Dionysias,

29
A. H. GARDINER, H. I. BELL, ‘The Name of Lake Moeris’, JEA 29 (1943) pp. 37-50.
30
A completely separate issue is whether the Lake of Moiris of the accounts of Greek
and Latin authors should really be identified with Birket el-Qarun, or perhaps – as it has
been recently suggested by researchers studying the history of water and drainage systems
– with the artificial lake in the el-Mala’a-Basin in the south-east of the Fayum – see
G. GARBRECHT – H. JARITZ, Untersuchungen antiker Anlagen zur Wasserspeicherung im Fayum,
Ägypten (Leichtweiss-Institut für Wasserbau der Technischen Universität Braunschweig. Mitteilun-
gen, Heft 107), Braunschweig – Kairo 1990; with a review by U. BUSKE in ArchPF 38 (1992)
pp. 72–74; G. GARBRECHT – H. JARITZ, ‘Neue Ergebnisse zu altägyptischen Wasserbauten
im Fayum’, Antike Welt 23 (1992) pp. 238–254; G. GARBRECHT, ‘Historical Water Storage for
Irrigation in the Fayum Depression (Egypt)’, Irrigation and Drainage Systems 10 (1996),
pp. 47–76.
31
The Barrington Atlas, Map 75.
32
The Barrington Atlas, Map 75 (1:500,000): Memphis – Oxyrhynchus; for a list of both
identified and unlocated toponyms, see Map-By-Map Directory, vol. II, pp. 1125–1137.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 15

INTRODUCTION 15

Tebtynis etc.) but also the small ones. From the topographical point of
view her account of the smaller and less important sites and especially her
suggestions on the identification of ancient villages with archaeological
sites recorded in the Fayum are essential.33 A surface survey of the
remains of ancient sites in the south-western Fayum (ancient meris of
Polemon) – undertaken in the 1990s by Dominic Rathbone and contin-
ued by Cornelia Römer in the meris of Themistos – has also significantly
contributed to our knowledge of topography of the ancient Fayum.34
A number of new identifications for the Fayumic villages, especially of
those mentioned in the Byzantine documents, have been recently pro-
posed by Jairus Banaji.35
In the years 2003 and 2004 Katja Mueller published three articles,
based upon data from the Leuven Database of the Fayum Villages, each
devoted to one of the three merides of the Arsinoite nome. In these arti-
cles she attempted to determine the locations of settlements known from
many documents, but hitherto not identified with any particular place on

33
For the small sites, see DAVOLI, Archeologia urbana (cit. supra, n. 26), ‘Altre testimoni-
anze archeologiche nella meris di Herakleides’, pp. 161–175; ‘Altre testimonianze archeo-
logiche nella meris di Polemon’, pp. 265–276 and ‘Altre testimonianze archeologiche nella
meris di Themistos’, pp. 329–333. Davoli presented the results of her research in the form
of a map (p. 33).
34
D. RATHBONE, ‘Towards a Historical Topography of the Fayum’, [in:] D. M. BAILEY,
Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. The Proceedings of The Seventeenth Classical Colloquium
of The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, held on 1–4 December, 1993
(= JRA Supplementary Series 19), Ann Arbor 1996, pp. 50–56; IDEM, ‘Surface Survey and
the Settlement History of the Ancient Fayum’, [in:] Archeologia e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia
della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del Convegno internazionale (= Quaderni del Museo
del Papiro 8), Siracusa 1997, pp. 7–20; IDEM, ‘Mapping the South-west Fayyum: Sites and
Texts’, [in:] Isabella ANDORLINI, G. BASTIANINI, M. MANFREDI, Giovanna MENCI (ed.), Atti
del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998, Florence 2001, vol.
II, pp. 1109–1117; Cornelia Eva RÖMER, ‘Philoteris in the Themistou Meris. Report on the
Archaeological Survey Carried Out as Part of the Fayum Survey Project’, ZPE 147 (2004),
pp. 281–305. At the Fayum conference in Lecce in 2005, Römer presented the results of
her survey at Medinet Quta, the westernmost site of the Fayum.
35
J. BANAJI, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance,
Oxford 2002, Appendix 3: ‘The Relative Cohesion of Large Estates: Notes on the Topo-
graphy of the Fayum in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries’, pp. 241–250.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 16

16 INTRODUCTION

the map.36 In her research, the scholar applied highly elaborate and
sophisticated mathematical methods. What may seem alarming is the
variety of methods used for different merides (Monte-Carlo-Simulation
for the meris of Herakleides and Multi-Dimensional Scaling and Geo-
graphical Information Systems for the meris of Polemon), whereas the
sources are essentially the same; the very structure of the model – in my
opinion – needs to be assessed and verified by a specialist in mathemati-
cal statistics. The conclusions of each of these articles are presented in
the form of a map, showing the given meris with marked locations of set-
tlements. Most of these are nowhere to be found on previously published
maps, including the one in The Barrington Atlas.
I applied the results of Mueller’s studies – with some exceptions
(Nilopolis and Kerkeesis to be discussed in the following paragraphs) and
despite doubts as to her methods37 – when drawing the maps on which I
demonstrate my own conclusions, primarily regarding the borders of
komogrammateiai in the Roman period, but also of pagi.
The location of Nilopolis is not evident. Danielle Bonneau, having
analysed documents that originate from or mention this village, as well as
the hydrological conditions to the north of Birket el-Qarun, suggested to
identify Nilopolis with Tell el-Rusas (or Qaret el-Rusas) located on the
eastern end of Birket el-Qarun.38 This identification, generally accepted

36
Katja MUELLER, ‘Mastering Matrices and Clusters. Locating Graeco-Roman Settle-
ments in the meris of Herakleides (Fayum/Egypt) by Monte-Carlo-Simulation’, ArchPF 49
(2003), pp. 218–254; ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris (Fayum/Graeco-Roman
Egypt). Locating Settlements by Multidimensional Scaling of Papyri’, Ancient Society 33
(2003), pp. 103–125 and ‘What’s Your Position? Using Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)
and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for Locating Ancient Settlements in the
Meris of Polemon/Graeco-Roman Egypt’, ArchPF 50 (2004), pp. 199–214.
37
At this point I allow myself to express an opinion that a papyrologist and historian
of Graeco-Roman Egypt is, to a degree, defenseless when faced with mathematical
methods used by Katja Mueller. A review of her articles by a competent mathematician
would prove very helpful. Deprived of a critical assessment of her research, papyrologists
resort to referring to the results of her studies, which in practice amounts to using the
three maps published in the articles cited above.
38
Danielle BONNEAU, ‘Niloupolis du Fayoum‘, [in:] Actes du XV e Congrès International de
Papyrologie, vol. IV, Bruxelles 1979, pp. 258–273, esp. pp. 271–273.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 17

INTRODUCTION 17

for two decades (Sergio Daris, Paola Davoli, The Barrington Atlas)39 has
recently been questioned by Katja Mueller, who, based on her research
employing mathematical methods to locate Fayum villages, concludes
that Nilopolis was rather located south of the lake.40 I decided, however,
to keep the old identification of Nilopolis with Tell el-Rusas.41
For the meris of Polemon Mueller’s conclusions should be compared
with those drawn by Dominic Rathbone.42 In the case of Kerkeesis, the
two scholars offer different locations and I decided to follow Rathbone’s
idea, which is based, also on the evidence of P. Fam. Tebt. 51 attesting a
common komogrammateus with Tebtynis in AD 206.43
For two further disputable cases, namely Tanis and Boubastos, I decided
to follow Mueller’s suggestions. According to her, Tanis is to be located
close to Philadelpheia and possibly identified with Kom el-Kharaba el-
Saghir. In The Barrington Atlas this site is mentioned as the place of
ancient Boubastos, and for Tanis the traditional location at Shin Shana is
kept.44 This is halfway between Hawara and Philadelpheia while the doc-
uments suggest a location much closer to Philadelpheia. On the other

39
CALDERINI, DARIS, Dizionario III, pp. 327–328; Suppl. I, p. 204 and Suppl. II, p. 131;
DAVOLI, Archeologia urbana (cit. supra, n. 26), p. 339; The Barrington Atlas, Map 75 (Renate
MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN); see also J. SCHWARTZ, ‘De quelques villages du nome Arsinoïte à
l’époque romaine’, CRIPEL 10 (1988) pp. 141–148, esp. p. 142.
40
MUELLER, ‘Locating Graeco-Roman Settlements in the meris of Herakleides’ (cit.
supra, n. 36), pp. 238–239 and the map on p. 237.
41
The arguments put forward by Katja MUELLER seem unconvincing to me, especially
compared to a well documented study by Danielle BONNEAU. The documents clearly point
to the existence of a joint komogrammateia of Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis at least in
the second cent. AD, see below, pp. 159–160.
42
D. RATHBONE, ‘Towards a Historical Topography of the Fayum’, [in:] Archaeological
Research in Roman Egypt. The Proceedings of The Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of The Depart-
ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, held on 1–4 December, 1993 (= JRA. Sup-
plementary Series 19), Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1996, pp. 50–56 with one map.
43
RATHBONE, ‘Towards a Historical Topography’ (cit. supra, n. 42), p. 55 and the map on
p. 50. For the joint komogrammateia of Tebtynis and Kerkeesis, see below, pp. 159–160.
44
This goes back to GRENFELL and HUNT’S suggestion in ‘Excavations in the Fayum and
at el-Hibeh’, [in:] Egypt Exploration Fund. Archaeological Reports 1900–1901, pp. 4–7, at p. 6;
accepted by DAVOLI, Archeologia urbana (cit. supra, n. 26), p. 165.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 18

18 INTRODUCTION

hand, Boubastos cannot be located so far to the east, since the evidence
points to the area much closer to the Lake of Moeris.45
In two other cases, I decided to follow Mueller’s suggested locations
whenever the identification offered by Calderini or The Barrington Atlas is
not certain or should be rejected in view of papyrological evidence:

(1.) Kerkethoeris is suggested to be identified with Kom el-Khamsin,

close to Talei, but Mueller put it some 10 km north-west, next to
Narmouthis.
(2.) Psenharyo is identified with Sanhur, a village close to the southern
shore of Birket el-Qarun.46 This is impossible, since the village
belonged to the komogrammateia of Petaus and must therefore be
then located not far from Ptolemais Hormou as it was actually
done by Katja Mueller. On the other hand, it has been recently
suggested to identify Sanhur with Psineuris,47 which I accepted for
my map. If so, Psenhyris would be a different village, to be iden-
tified with modern Sinnouris.
Syron Kome needs a separate discussion. The village belonged to the
komogrammateia of Petaus, and, therefore, to the meris of Herakleides.
A crucial passage for locating the village is P. Lille I 1 (= P. Zen. Pest.,
Appendix A), the famous document with a map of the Apollonios’ estate.
The last five lines report a journey of Diodoros, Apollonios’ director of
construction of the estate:48
45
MUELLER, ‘Locating Graeco-Roman Settlements in the meris of Herakleides’ (cit.
supra, n. 36), p. 248. Note that when she says of ‘a very western location’ (near
Philadelpheia), ‘eastern’ is meant.
46
TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten, vol. V, pp. 2291–2292, CALDERINI – DARIS,
Dizionario, vol. V, p. 147, The Barrington Atlas, Map 75.
47
BANAJI, Agrarian Change (cit. supra, n. 35), p. 247.
48
P. Lille I 1 (= P. Zen. Pest., Appendix A) belongs to the most famous documents in the
history of our discipline. Although it is not part of the Zenon archive, being found in a
cartonnage at Ghoran, it is believed to concern the Apollonios’ estate near Philadelpheia.
See, most recently, Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, ‘Sull’origine del P. L. Bat. XX Suppl. A (Pro-
getto di dighe e canali per la dvreã di Apollonios)’, [in:] Simona RUSSO (ed.), Atti del V
Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia. Firenze, 10-12 dicembre 1999, Florence 2000,
pp. 115–121.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 19

INTRODUCTION 19

Apollonios left the 7th of Hathyr, and I (Diodoros, Apollonios’ director of

construction of the estate) sailed back with him as far as Phylake (or phy-
lake, ‘guard-post’ at Aphroditopolis? – TD), and on the 8th I came to Tou-
phis, on the 9th to Syron Kome, on the 10th to Ptolemais, on the 11th to
the Labyrinth, and there I found the secretaries, and they took the letter
and I departed for the city.49

From this document the editors of P. Petaus concluded that Syron

Kome was on the Bahr Yusuf, south of el-Lahun.50 But the document,
read together with P. Oxy. XLII 3052 (first cent. AD) containing an itiner-
ary of a journey from Nikopolis to perhaps Oxyrhynchos, allows us to
assume that Apollonios after having inspected his estate in the Arsinoite
nome went north (to Alexandria?). Diodoros sailed back via Touphis, a
village in the Aphroditopolite nome on the eastern bank of the Nile (but
we do not know in which part of the nome), and then on the ship-canal
branching off from the Nile opposite to Aphroditopolis51 and leading via
Syron Kome to Ptolemais Hormou.52
Once we proved the existence of the canal being a prolongation of the
Bahr Yusuf and going to the north parallel to the Nile, there is no obsta-
cle to locate Syron Kome there.53

49
The English translation is by R. S. BAGNALL – P. DEROW, The Hellenistic Period: Histor-
ical Sources in Translation, Oxford 2003, no. 105, pp. 169–172.
50
P. Petaus, pp. 27–28, accepted by BANAJI, Agrarian Change (cit. supra, n. 35), p. 245 and
developed in somewhat arbitrary way on pp. 247–248: ‘Syron was roughly a day’s journey
south of Ptolemais Hormou, on the Bahr Yusuf, which would mean a location in the
neighbourhood of Sidamant el-Gebel. Fayum maps do in fact show a village by the name
of el-Zeriba at this point on the canal (just north of Sidamant el-Gebel), and it seems plau-
sible to identify this as the approximate site of Syron kome.’ See also p. 178.
51
For more on this canal, see P. PARSONS, P. Oxy. XLII 3052, 9 note and E. WIKÉN, ‘Zur
Topographie des Faijûm’, Corolla Archaeologica Principi hereditario Regni Sueciae Gustavo
Adolpho dedicata (= Acta Instituti Romani Regni Suecae 2), Lund 1932, pp. 270–276, esp. pp.
272–273. According to Wikén, Strabo also travelled by this canal, since he described first
the Aphroditopolites and then the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites.
52
For more on the journey of Apollonios‘ and Diodoros, see my article ‘A Note on
P. Lille I 1 (= P. Zen. Pest., Appendix A)’ in JJurP 36 (2006).
53
Let us add that the proposed location of Syron Kome removes another difficulty one
should face after accepting Banaji’s hypothesis: the area at Sidamant el-Gebel could hardly
have belonged to the Herakleides meris of the Arsinoites.
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 20

20 INTRODUCTION

For Philagris I accepted the identification with Kom Hamuli offered

some years ago by Willy Clarysse and Bart Van Beek.54 For Psentymis to
be identified with modern Fedimin, I followed Banaji’s conclusions.55 For
Eleusis I followed the suggestion by Katja Mueller, rejecting the sugges-
tion by Banaji to identify the village with Itsa.56 Mouchis being a local
centre of the northern part of the Polemon meris, survived as an impor-
tant village up to the medieval period (Dumushiya in Nablusi’s account)
but, unfortunately, disappeared after that and cannot be identified
today;57 in this case I also followed Mueller’s mathematically deduced
location.

For over five hundred years the Fayum was divided into three merides.58
There is no doubt that the southern border of the meris of Herakleides
that separated it from the other two merides ran along the Bahr Yusuf,
called the Henet of Moeris in Egyptian sources.59 What remains is the
problem of the border between the Themistos and Polemon merides. The
meris of Polemon roughly encompasses a separate geological formation
called the Gharaq Basin. Its border from the north-west must have been
a canal which unfortunately cannot be located on a map. Despite a sig-
nificant development that has taken place in research on the hydrology of

54
W. CLARYSSE – B. VAN BEEK, ‘Philagris, Perkethaut and Hermoupolis: Three Villages
or One’, ZPE 140 (2002) pp. 195–200.
55
BANAJI, Agrarian Change (cit. supra, n. 35), p. 246.
56
BANAJI, Agrarian Change (cit. supra, n. 35), p. 244. His reasoning seems to be based on
phonological similarity Eleusis – Itsa which is, after all, not evident.
57
For Mouchis – Tmoushi (Coptic) – Dumushiya, see TIMM, Das christlich-koptische
Ägypten, pp. 889–890. For the topography of this part of the Polemon meris, see also
H. MELAERTS, ‘Une liste de villages de la méris de Polémôn’, [in:] R. DE SMET, H. MELAERTS,
Cecilia SAERENS (ed.) Studia varia Bruxellensia ad orbem Graeco-Latinum pertinentia 4. In hono-
rem Aloysi Gerlo, Leuven 1997, pp. 171–182. The document is now SB XXIV 16175.
58
I will discuss the division into merides in Chapter II, at this point I will only limit
myself to the issue of their boundaries. The borders ran along the canals, which clearly has
its roots in the history of water and drainage systems.
59
See below, the section on the bipartite division of the Fayum, pp. 62–63.
 003-023 Introd
11/30/06
2:14 AM
Page 21

THE FAYUM
Localities identified
•
x Location uncertain

Map 1. The Fayum

003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 22

22 INTRODUCTION

the Fayum over the last few decades, the network of Ptolemaic and
Roman canals is still not reconstructed to a satisfactory extent.60
Hundreds of villages are located by our sources unanimously in a given
meris. This shows how the system of three merides, once organised in the
240s and 230s BC did not undergo any significant changes for more than
five centuries. The merides borders did not shift at all – in the entire plen-
tiful documentation from the Fayum. I have found only one village that
our sources situate in either one or the other meris – Lysimachis.61 But this
cannot be taken as any proof of shifting the borders of the merides, since
a closer examination of the case brings a clear explanation. The village, in
some documents referred to as ‘Lysimachides duo’,62 is a locality most

60
Unfortunately, as far as the border between the merides of Polemon and Themistos
is concerned, Katja Mueller did not contribute many new conclusions, which to some
extent results from the methodology she applied. In each of her articles she treats the
subsequent merides as independent entities and does not examine the spatial interrelations
between the localities lying close to each other, but belonging to different merides.
61
I am omitting the case of Kerkeosiris which is listed both under Polemon and under
Themistos merides in SB III 7200, a list of payments in kind by villages (second cent. AD).
According to W. HABERMANN, ‘Kerkeosiris/Kerkeusiris im Arsinoites’, ChrEg 67 (1992) ,
pp. 101–111, there were two homonymous villages, one in the meris of Polemon and the
other in the meris of Themistos. For Kerkeosiris in the Polemon meris, see Dorothy
J. CRAWFORD (THOMPSON), Kerkeosiris, an Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period, Cambridge
1971; see also A. M. F. W. VERHOOGT, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris. The Doings and
Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 BC), Leiden 1998 (= Papyrologica
Lugduno-Batava 29), Leiden 1998.
62
CPR XVIII 21a (231 BC) and P. Strasb. V 305 recto (beginning of the third cent. AD) sit-
uate the village of Lysimachis in the meris of Polemon. In other texts dating from the
Roman period this locality appears together with several Polemon villages such as
Oxyrhyncha, Talei, Magdola or Theogonis, and especially with Kynonpolis. In P. Ryl. II 90
village liturgists of Lysimachis and Kynonpolis are nominated by their predecessors. In
turn, Lysimachis is found in the meris of Themistos according to P. Petrie III 78 and P. Petrie
III 79 a+c (both 247–231 BC). This location finds confirmation in third-century census lists
(P. Count. 23 = CPR XIII 2 + 5), in which Lysimachis appears next to Athenas Kome,
Anoubias and Trikomia. The connection with Trikomia is further attested in P. Mich.
XVIII 770 and P. Lille I 11.
Grenfell and Hunt were of the opinion that there was a single village named Lysi-
machis, originally assigned to the meris of Themistos, and later transferred to Polemon
(P. Tebt. II, pp. 387–388). However, CPR XVIII 21a situates Lysimachis in the meris of Pole-
mon as early as 231 BC, which makes this explanation implausible and clearly indicates that
003-023 Introd 11/30/06 2:14 AM Page 23

INTRODUCTION 23

probably situated on opposite banks of the canal that formed a border-

line between the Polemon and Themistos merides.63

in the Ptolemaic period there were two villages, one in Themistos and the other in Pole-
mon. According to P. Lond. II 256a (p. 98) and P. Lond. II 256e (p. 96), both dated to AD 11,
the two Lysimachides shared a sitologos, so they must have been located near each other.
According to the suggestion offered by Barbel KRAMER in CPR XVIII, p. 111, the two
localities were probably situated on opposite banks of the canal that formed a borderline
between the two merides. All sources after AD 11 situate the village in the meris of Polemon.
Perhaps the Lysimachis in the meris of Themistos was engulfed by the neighbouring
administrative unit, or it had already been abandoned by that time.
For the village(s) of Lysimachis, see B. VAN BEEK – W. CLARYSSE <http://fayum.arts.
kuleuven.be/1275.html>.
63
The issue of administrative affiliation of Lysimachis has yet another aspect. Previ-
ously it was believed (or rather silently assumed) that from the beginning of the Roman
period the Arsinoite merides were governed by strategoi as three separate nomes. This
change, however – as it will be demonstrated in subsequent chapters – did not take place
before ca. AD 60. Hence, the sitologos shared by two villages belonging to two different
merides in AD 11 does not suggest that the sitologia was not organised within the frames of
the administration of a single nome, see also below, pp. 96–97.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 25

CHAPTER ONE

THE PLACE OF A R S I N O I T H S N O M O S
IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
UNDER ROMAN RULE

1. ARSINOITHS NOMOS AS PART

OF A LARGER ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
(THE HEPTANOMIA)

A. Heptanomia: a Roman innovation or a continuity?

into Lower and Upper Egypt, the
I
N VIEW OF THE CONVENTIONAL DIVISION
Fayum belongs in the latter (the border between the two parts ran along
the southern boundary of the Memphites, which was the first nome of
Lower Egypt). Without going into detail about the country’s administra-
tive division under the Ptolemies, we should only note that this issue is
closely related to the number of epistrategoi and their administrative range.1
The middle part of the country (‘the nomes above Memphis’) is clearly
distinguished in BGU VIII 1730 (= Sel. Pap. II 209),2 an official decree,
most probably of 50/49 BC,3 the beginning of which (lines 1–8) reads:

1
THOMAS, Ptolemaic Epistrategos, passim. For the division of Egypt into two parts, A
Ö nv
X≈ra and Kãtv X≈ra, see ibidem, esp. appendix ‘The Northward Extension of the The-
baid’, pp. 125–131.
2
The papyrus has been republished and reprinted several times: SB IV 7419, C. Pap.
Hengstl 12, C. Ptol. Sklav. I 10, C. Pap. Jud. I 137, C. Ord. Ptol. 73.
3
The date of this document has been a subject of heated debate since its publication.
The text is dated ‘year 3, Phaophi 23’ (line 16), which gives two possibilities: 3 November
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 26

26 CHAPTER ONE

basil°vw ka‹ basil¤sshw prostajãntvn.

mhd°na t«n Íp¢r M°mfin nom«n
égorãzonta purÚn µ ˆ`s`prion katã-
4 gein efiw tØn kãtv x≈ran, éllå mh-
d' efiw tØn Yhba¤da énãgei`n pareu-
r°sei mhdemiçi, pãntaw d' énuforãtouw`
ˆntaw efiw A
É lejãndreian parak`o`[m]¤zein,
8 µ ı fvraye‹w yanãtvi ¶noxow` ¶`stai

By decree of the king and queen [= Kleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV, if we
accept 50 BC as the dating]. No one purchasing wheat or pulse from the
nomes above Memphis shall carry it down to the low country or yet carry
it up to the Thebaid on any pretext – though all may transport it to
Alexandria free of question – on pain of being liable to death if detected
(transl. by A. S. Hunt and C.C. Edgar).

This document leads J. David Thomas to his first conclusion that ‘the
tripartite division of Egypt, as it is known for the Roman period, was

79 BC (Auletes and Kleopatra Tryphaina), or 27 October 50 BC (Ptolemy XIV and Kleo-

patra VII). The editors of this document, W. SCHUBART and D. SCHÄFER, chose the later dat-
ing. The earlier one was supported by W. KUNKEL, ‘Verwaltungsakten aus spätptolemäi-
scher Zeit’, ArchPF 8 (1927), pp. 169–215 (the document is reedited as no. 15, pp. 212–215),
and confirmed by U. WILCKEN (in note 1 on p. 213 of Kunkel’s paper) – according to the
latter, if the document were indeed drafted during the reign of Ptolemy XIV and Kleopa-
tra VII, the order of nouns basil¤ssa ans basileÊw in line one would have been reversed.
However, this is not a decisive obstacle, as it has been demonstrated by Th. C. SKEAT,
‘Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology. III. “The First Year Which Is Also the Third.” A Date
in the Reign of Cleopatra VII.’, JEA 47 (1962), pp. 100–105 (at pp. 104–105); P. M. FRASER,
Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. II, p. 230 n. 298 and H. HEINEN, Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis
47 v.Chr. Untersuchungen zur Regierungszeit der 7. Kleopatra und des 13. Ptolemäers, diss. Tübin-
gen 1966, pp. 27–32 – their conclusion was accepted by THOMAS, Ptolemaic Epistrategos, p. 17.
The earlier dating was recently (in 2000) brought back by Panagiota SARISCHOULI, see BGU
XVIII.1, pp. 30–31 n. 65. From the point of view of my discourse this issue is of secondary
importance – if we follow Kunkel, Wilcken and Sarischouli and accept the earlier dating,
it will only mean that the administrative unit distinguished as ‘nomes above Memphis’
was already an independent structure thirty years earlier.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 27

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 27

already in existence under the Ptolemies.’4 He assumes that the three

administrative areas were governed by three different epistrategoi and
looks for further arguments in:
(1.) Strabo’s account, in which the author speaks of epistrategoi in the
plural;5
(2.) the fact that the Roman administration kept the old Greek term
epistrategos.
This is – according to Thomas – due to the fact that under Roman rule
the epistrategoi were merely continuing an existing office.6 In the following
paragraphs, however, Thomas refutes that first conclusion and ultimately
claims:

Finally, the decree of 50/49 need be designating only geographical areas

without administrative significance. It certainly is not proof that the tri-
partite division of Egypt as it is known in the Roman period goes back to
Ptolemaic time: ofl Íp¢r M°mfin nomo¤ is not (italics – Thomas) the equiva-
lent of the Roman Heptanomia, which was not applied solely to the nomes
beyond Memphis (italics – Thomas), but included the Memphite and, I
believe, the Letopolite.7

This somewhat intricate reasoning conducted by an outstanding expert

on the administration of Graeco-Roman Egypt shows what great diffi-
culty in interpretation BGU VIII 1730 presents. In addition to the argu-
ments for and against pointed out by Thomas, I would add one more, yet
in favour of the existence of some administrative reality behind the words
4
THOMAS, Ptolemaic Epistrategos, p. 17.
5
See below, p. 29.
6
J. David Thomas argues for the continuity of the office pointing at the first known
epistrategos of the Roman period. It was Ptolemaios son of Herakleides, epistrategos of the
Thebaid in 20 BC (I. Phil. II 135) – for the date of the inscription, see THOMAS, Roman Epi-
strategos, p. 193, the only non-Roman in office throughout the Roman period. This sug-
gests that the change introduced by the Romans in the epistrategia had not yet taken place.
7
THOMAS, Ptolemaic Epistrategos, pp. 17–18. Note that this expert on the administration
of Graeco-Roman Egypt did not stop at discussing and rejecting what BGU VIII 1730
might have implied in administrative terms, but went back to this evidence in THOMAS,
Roman Epistrategos, pp. 19–20. The wording is different, but the conclusion is equally
tentative.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 28

28 CHAPTER ONE

themselves: This document contains a legal regulation, perhaps aimed at

Alexandrian traders commissioned to purchase supplies for the city;8
therefore, in order for it to function a minimum of terminological preci-
sion was necessary. Mutatis mutandis, the document makes sense only if we
assume the existence of a border between ofl Íp¢r M°mfin nomo¤ and the
Thebaid; otherwise it would be hard to prove the violation of the decree
to anyone going south – all things considered, the Thebaid is also ofl Íp¢r
M°mfin nomo¤ !

The Heptanomia (ÑEptå Nomo¤, Z Nomo¤, ÑEptanom¤a, ÑEptanom¤w,9

‘the Seven Nomes’) appears as an administrative unit unquestionably for
the first time in P. Tebt. II 302 (AD 71/2), where an ex-epistrategos (name lost)
appears in lines 25–26: genÒmen[o]n §pistrãthgon10 t«n ÑEpta nom«n ka‹
[ÉArsino˝tou. Perhaps the Heptanomia is already mentioned in a Milan
papyrus (SB XIV 11640) dated to AD 69 (contemporary to the edict of
Tiberius Iulius Alexander11), but the reading is highly uncertain:
É 2r[4 sin(o˝tou) (ÑEptå) N]o1m2o2›1[w].12 However, the date of emergence of the
A
Heptanomia may well be moved back by up to half a century, if we accept
the interpretation of the key lines 22–27 of P. Tebt. II 302, proposed by J.
David Thomas, who, in turn, followed Victor Martin.13 As this scholar

8
See KUNKEL, ‘Verwaltungsakten’ (cit. supra, n. 3), p. 213.
9
This form appears in some manuscripts of Claudius Ptolemaeus‘ Geographia.
10
For the accusative instead of the genitive, see THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 22 n. 41.
This correction has not been listed in BL VIII and, in effect, it is not respected by the
DDBDP.
11
For the edict, see below, p. 31.
12
P. Med. inv. 69.66 verso published by Orsolina MONTEVECCHI and G. GERACI, ‘Docu-
menta papyracea inedita ad Neronis atque Othonis principatus pertinentia in papyris
Mediolanensibus reperta’. [in:] Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses
Marburg/Lahn 1971, München 1974, pp. 293–307 (‘Iussum idiologo relictum a praefecto Ti.
Iulio Alexandro’ on pp. 300–307); G. GERACI, ‘Un biglietto del prefetto d’Egitto Tiberio
Giulio Alessandro relativo al conventus del Menfite. Ancora su P. Med. inv. 69.66 verso’,
Aegyptus 57 (1977), pp. 145–150, THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 22.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 29

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 29

had already noticed in 1911,14 the events described in the document

occurred earlier yet, and the year 41 in line 25 must be that of the reign of
Augustus, i.e. AD 11/12.
The decree issued by Kleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV, preserved in
BGU VIII 1730 (= Sel. Pap. II 209) dated to 50/49 BC, and P. Tebt. II 302,
quoted above, are only 60 years apart.15 Strabo’s account falls in the mid-
dle of this interval and seems to reflect the situation in Egypt in or slight-
ly before 25 BC.16 Unfortunately, when it comes to determining the date
when the new administrative unit was established, its value is limited.

ÑRvma›oi d' efiw dÊnamin, …w efipe›n, §phn≈ryvsan tå pollã, (...), katå d¢

tØn x≈ran §pistratÆgouw tinåw ka‹ nomãrxaw ka‹ §ynãrxaw kaloum°nouw
épode¤jantew, pragmãtvn oÈ megãlvn §pistate›n ±jivm°nouw (XVII 1, 13).

But the Romans have, to the best of their ability, I might say, set most
things right, (…) having appointed throughout the country officials called
epistrategi and nomarchs and ethnarchs, who were thought worthy to
superintend affairs of no great importance (transl. H. L. Jones, Loeb).

It is noteworthy that the epistrategoi in Strabo’s account are mentioned

in the plural form, thus the reality described is not the one encountered
by Augustus in 30 BC, when, most probably – though our knowledge in
this matter is quite limited – there was only one epistrategos.17 Therefore,

13
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 22–23 changed the interpretation and, in addition,
differently filled the numerous lacunas in lines 22–27 (= BL VIII, p. 491 except corr. in l. 25,
see above, n. 10).
14
V. MARTIN, Les Épistrategès, Contributions à l’etude des institutions de l’Egypte greco-romaine,
Geneva 1911, p. 93.
15
This period would be thirty years longer if we accepted that BGU VIII 1730 is a
decree by Auletes and Kleopatra Tryphaina (see above, n. 3).
16
Jean Yoyotte, the author of the introduction to the commented translation of Stra-
bo’s account about Egypt, dates Strabo’s journey into the Egyptian chora to the period
between December of 27 BC and April of 26 BC (J. YOYOTTE, P. CHARVET, S. GOMPERTZ, Stra-
bon. Le voyage en Égypte. Un regard romain, Paris 1997, p. 18).
17
In the past it has been suggested that there was more than one epistrategos in Ptole-
maic Egypt, analogously to the situation in the Roman period, even though a century ago
V. Martin stated that there is no evidence for any other epistrategos than that of the The-
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 30

30 CHAPTER ONE

Strabo’s account suggests that, when taking over Egypt, the Romans
re-organised the administrative division and created epistrategiai. They
adopted the office of epistrategos, or rather its name, from the Ptolemaic
administration and made significant changes in his range of competence,
depriving him of military authority. Perhaps it was this deprivation of mil-
itary power that Strabo had in mind when he wrote that ‘epistrategi and
nomarchs and ethnarchs, who were thought worthy to superintend affairs
of no great importance’. No doubt this is also the reason why the first
known epistrategos of the Roman period is – as we have mentioned before
– a Greek named Ptolemaios, son of Herakleides, epistrategos of the The-
baid (I. Phil. 135, 5, 20 BC). Naturally Strabo’s account does not make it
clear how many epistrategiai there were, two or three, although this sec-
ond option is somewhat more probable, considering BGU VIII 1730
(= Sel. Pap. II 209) (ofl Íp¢r M°mfin nomo¤ ) and the evidence for the exis-
tence of the Heptanomia as early as AD 11/12 in P.Tebt. II 302.18
Only one more first-century document mentions the Heptanomia.
P. Oxy. IV 709 (= WChr. 32 = Meyer, Jur. Pap. 82a) reports the prefect being
about to hold a conventus at Pelousion for four nomes of East Delta, at
Memphis for the Thebaid, Heptanomia and the Arsinoite nome (ll. 5–6:
§n M°nfei4 genÒmenow ımo¤vw | Yhba¤dan [sic!] ÑEptå NomoÁw A É rsino˝thn),
and at Alexandria for the rest of the nomes of Lower Egypt (t∞w kãtvi

baid. Van’t Dack argued that in Ptolemaic Egypt there were two types of epistrategos, but
this view was not accepted by J. David THOMAS, who went back to Martin’s hypothesis
(Ptolemaic Epistrategos, pp. 9–18: history and bibliography of the debate in footnotes).
18
For the changes in functioning of the epistrategiai and the main duties of the epis-
trategos under Augustus, see THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 14–15. J. David Thomas rather
correctly assumes that the epistrategiai were reorganised twice under Augustus – after the
second reform the epistrategos would have gained more power (though he would still be far
less powerful than the Ptolemaic epistrategos of the Thebaid), in effect, from then on this
office was always held by a Roman citizen, becoming one of the middle steps of the cur-
sus honorum for the equites. It, nevertheless, need not be associated with the creation of the
Heptanomia, as Thomas assumes, dating this reorganisation to sometime between 20 BC
(the date assigned by Thomas to the reality described by Strabo; however, much implies
that Strabo made his Egyptian journey a few years earlier – see above, p. 29 n. 16) and
AD 11/12 (creation of the Heptanomia). We have no sources that would clearly state that at
first there were two epistrategiai (the Delta and the Thebaid) and the third one was created
later on.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 31

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 31

[sic!] x≈raw).19 This fragmentary document is, unfortunately, undated.

On palaeographical grounds its editors pointed to the reign of Claudius
or Nero, a dating affirmed by J. David Thomas;20 Wilcken, who denied
the existence of the Heptanomia before AD 68, wanted to move the date
of its creation up to the reign of Vespasian, or the period after AD 68, i.e.
the date of the edict of Tiberius Iulius Alexander.21
Once the Heptanomia has been proven to exist as far back as AD 11/12,
it is indispensable to re-interpret the aforementioned edict of Tiberius
Iulius Alexander of AD 68, where – according to some scholars – the Hep-
tanomia should have been mentioned, but it was not. The edict refers to
an abuse which has spread o]Èk §p‹ tØn Yhba¤da mÒnh[n ca. 16 letters
oÈ]d¢ §p‹ toÁw pÒrrvi nomoÁw t∞w Kãtv X≈raw éllå ka‹ tå proãstia t∞w
pÒlevw (i.e., Alexandria) ¶fyasen. Thomas offered two solutions in this
matter, either to fill a lacuna in the inscription from the temple of Hibis
(the only place where the edict was preserved) with the name of the Hep-
tanomia, or to assume that there was no need for any reference to the
Heptanomia in such a rhetorical passage.22 One must agree with Thomas
that the second option is more probable: the abuse occurred in the
remote parts of the country (Thebaid), not even comparatively near at
hand (§p‹ toÁw pÒrrvi nomoÁw t∞w Kãtv X≈raw), but was claimed to be
right on their doorstep (in the proasteia of Alexandria) – for the rhetorical
effect, there was no need either to mention the nomes between Thebaid
and Lower Egypt or to keep accuracy in using the administrative terms of
the areas.

19
I shall return to the wording used in this document in the conclusion of this part of
the discussion, see below, p. 42 with n. 42.
20
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 21. His reaffirmation of Grenfell’s and Hunt’s sugges-
tion is reported by BL VIII, p. 237.
21
U. WILCKEN, ArchPF 3 (1906), p. 312; see also THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 21.
22
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 21–22 with bibliography of the controversy and the text
of the edict quoted; and J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Administrative Divisions of Egypt’, [in:] Proceed-
ings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, Toronto 1970, pp. 465–469, esp. p. 466.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 32

32 CHAPTER ONE

B. The account of Claudius Ptolemaeus

In the Roman period, distinguishing what in geographical terms is called
Middle Egypt presents no problem. In mid-second cent. AD Claudius
Ptolemaeus – the only reliable ancient author mentioning the Hepta-
nomia23 – described Middle Egypt as follows (IV 5):24

Tå d¢ meshmbrin≈tera toË Megãlou D°lta ka‹ t∞w kãtv x≈raw kale›tai

ÑEptå Nomo‹, ka¤ §sti pr«tow nomÚw Memf¤thw ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw épÚ dÊ-
sevw toË potamoË
M°mfiw ja L'g'25 ky L'g'
23
The Heptanomia is also mentioned by Eustathius, Commentarium in Dionysii periege-
tae orbis descriptionem, 251, 3, but the passage only informs that Byzantine Arcadia was the
same as the Roman Heptanomia: ÜOti ≤ kat' A‡gupton ÑEptãpoliw ka‹ A É rkad¤a, …w épÚ toË
basil°vw A
É rkad¤ou, Ïsteron §klÆyh, prÚ d¢ toÊtou ka‹ ÑEptãnomow µ ÑEptanom¤a »nomãsyh.
The sole interesting point is the name ÑEptãnomow, a form encountered nowhere else.
24
The Greek text is after Nobbe’s edition: Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, ed. Carolus
Fridericus Augustus NOBBE, vol. I–II, Leipzig 1843–1845 (reprint Hildesheim 1966). The
translation is essentially mine. For the part on the Herakleopolite nome and its neigh-
bours I adopted and adapted the translation by FALIVENE (The Herakleopolite Nome, p. 5).
The only existing complete modern translation (Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography; transl.
by E. L. STEVENSON; with an introd. by J. FISCHER, New York 1932 [reprint New York 1991])
is unreliable not only because its author uses Latin and Latinised terminology (Herculis
city, Canum city, etc.) but also because of numerous major errors. Just two examples:
(1.) Stevenson adds the Oases to the Antinoite nome (and not to the Seven Nomes);
(2.) locates Herakleopolis Magna ‘to the west of the river’, while the text says ‘near the
western branch of the river’.
J. BALL, Egypt in the Classical Geographers, Cairo 1942, pp. 110–111, gives no translation, but
only lists the localities in a tabular form. The translation available in the Web edition: http://
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/home.html
is also inaccurate and should not be recommended.
25
Ptolemaeus’ co-ordinates are in degrees (360 degrees to a circle) and their fractions
(precision to 1/12 of a degree, or 5 minutes). The fractions are noted in the Egyptian way, e.g.
24°50’ is written 24Q R, or kd L’ g’, 61°40’ is written 61 S, or ja go’, as we conventionally
print the sign for S (see BALL, Egypt in the Classical Geographers [cit. supra, n. 24], p. 98).
Ptolemaeus’ North-South co-ordinates (latitudes) are measured like today from the Equa-
tor. His East-West co-ordinates (longitudes) are measured eastward from a point some-
where west of the westernmost point he catalogues in the Geography, traditionally read as
‘east of the Blessed Isles’. According to our Greenwich Meridian reference system, the
point has the longitude 30°35’ W. To convert the longitude given by Ptolemy we, therefore,
have to deduct the value of 30°35’ from his number.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 33

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 33

ka‹ ımo¤vw épÚ dÊsevw toË potamoË mesÒgeiow

pÒliw A
É kany«n ja go' ky go'
e‰ta kay' ˘ m°row sx¤zetai ı potamÚw, poi«n n∞son
tÚn ÑHrakleopol¤thn nomÚn jb ky L'd'
ka‹ §n tª nÆsƒ
Ne¤lou pÒliw mesÒgeiow jb ky L'
ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw prÚw t“ dutikvt°rƒ tmÆmati toË potamoË
ÑHrakl°ouw pÒliw megãlh ja L'g' ky w'
épÚ d¢ dusm«n t∞w nÆsou <ÉArsino˝thw> nomÚw ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw mesÒgeiow
A
É rsinÒh ja go' ky L'
ka‹ ˜rmow Ptolema˝w ja go' ky g'
épÚ d¢ énatol«n t∞w nÆsou A É froditopol¤thw nomÚw, ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw ım≈-
numow
A
É frod¤thw pÒliw jb d' ky go'
e‰ta ımo¤vw ép' énatol«n t∞w nÆsou,
ÉAggur«n µ ÉAgkur«n pÒliw jb g' ky g'
ka‹ sun¤asi m¢n ofl tØn n∞son poioËntew potamo‹
katå y°sin jb kh L'd'
Sunãptei d¢ épÚ m¢n dusm«n toË potamoË nomÚw Ojurugx¤thw, ka‹ mesÒ-
geiow mhtrÒpoliw
ÉOjÊrugxow ja go' kh L'g'
e‰ta ımo¤vw nomÚw Kunopol¤thw, ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw épÚ dusm«n toË potamoË
K« ja L'g' kh go'
√ ént¤keitai §n tª nÆsƒ
Kun«n pÒliw jb w' kh go'
ka‹ §fej∞w ép' énatol«n toË potamoË
A
É kor‹w µ A
Ö kvriw jb kh L'
ka‹ mesÒgeiow
ÉAlabastrå µ ÉAlabãstrvn pÒliw jb L' kh g':
e‰ta ÑErmopol¤thw nomÚw,
ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw épÚ dusm«n toË potamoË mesÒgeiow
ÑErmoË pÒliw megãlh ja go' kh g'ib'
ka‹ épÚ dusm«n toË potamoË parake¤menai
Fulaka¤ ja L'g' kh d'
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 34

34 CHAPTER ONE

épÚ d¢ énatol«n toË potamoË nomÚw A É ntino˝thw ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw aÈtoË

A
É ntinÒou pÒliw jb ib' kh w'
oÂw nomo›w prosgrãfontai ofl dÊo ÉOas›tai.

The country south of the Great Delta and of the Northern Land is called Seven
Nomes (ÑEptå Nomo¤, or in some mss. ÑEptanom¤w): and the first nome to the west
of the river is the Memphites with its metropolis
Memphis 61°50’ (31°15’) 29°50’.26
Also to the west of the river, inland, is
Akanthonpolis 61°40’ (31°5’) 29°40’.
Then the river divides into two separate branches, forming an island,
the Herakleopolite nome 62° (31°25’) 29°45’,
and on the island, inland, is
Nilopolis 62° (31°25’) 29°30’.
The metropolis is near the western branch of the river:
Herakleopolis, a large town 61°50’ (31°15’) 29°10’.
West of the island is the Arsinoite nome, with its metropolis
Arsinoë (inland) 61°40’ (31°5’) 29°30’
and Ptolemais harbour 61°40’ (31°5’) 29°20’
East of the island is the Aphroditopolite nome with its metropolis bearing the
same name,
Aphroditopolis 62°15’ (31°40’) 29°40’
There follows, again east of the island
Ankyronpolis 62°20’ (31°45’) 29°20’.
The river-branches forming the island
flow together again at 62° (31°25’) 28°45’.
West of the river lies the Oxyrhynchite nome with its metropolis
Oxyrhynchos 61°40’ (31°5’) 28°50’.
There follows, on the west side of the river, the Kynopolite nome
Ko 61°50’ (31°15’) 28°40’.
And facing it, on the island, there is
Kynopolis 62°10’ (31°35’) 28°40’.
Then, on the east bank of the river is
Akoris 62° (31°25’) 28°30’,

26
The co-ordinates I quote in the translation are those by Ptolemaus. First goes the
longitude (followed by its value counted according to modern standard, i.e. by deducting
30°35’ [see above, note 25], and then the latitude.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 35

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 35

and inland
Alabastra or Alabastronpolis 62°30’ (31°55’) 28°20’.
There follows the Hermopolite nome
and its metropolis, to the west of the river is
Hermopolis Magna 61°40’ (31°5’) 28°25’.
And next to the west of the river is
Phylakai 61°50’ (31°15’) 28°15’.
To the east of the river the Anitoopolite nome and its metropolis
Antinoopolis 62°5’ (31°30’) 28°10’.
To these nomes are to be added the two oases.27

Despite the esteem that Ptolemaeus deservedly enjoys, his account is

not error-free. In the fragment cited above, including the two oases
(Small Oasis, i.e. Bahariya, and Great Oasis, i.e. Dachla and Charga) in
the Heptanomia is an obvious mistake, as it is known from elsewhere that
the Great Oasis was within the administrative territory of the Thebaid.
Another error, though not as obvious, is listing the Antinoopolite nome
in the text, while such a nome probably did not come into existence until

27
It is interesting to compare Ptolemaeus’ co-oridates with the actual position of the
sites:
Memphis 29°50’ N 31°15’ E – Mit Rahina 29°52’ N 31°15’E
Nilopolis 29°30’ N 31°25’ E – Dalas 29°11’ N 31°8’ E
Herakleopolis 29°10’N 31°15’ E – Ihnasiya el-Medina 29°5’ N 30°56’ E
Arsinoë 29°30’ N 31°5’ E – Medinet el-Fayum 29°18’ N 30°50’ E
Ptolemais Hormou 29°20’ N 31°5’ E – el-Lahun 29°13’ N 30°59’ E
Aphroditopolis 29°40’ N 31°40’ E – Aftih 29°24’ N 31°15’ E
Ankyronpolis 29°20’ N 31°45’ E – el-Hiba 28°47’ N 30°55’
Oxyrhynchos 28°50’ N 31°5’ E – el-Bahnasa 28°32’ N 30°40’ E
Ko 28°40’ N 31°15’ E – el-Qeis 28°29’ N 30°47’ E
Kynopolis 28°40’ N 31°35’ E – el-Sheikh Fadl 28°30’ N 30°51’ E
Akoris 28°30’ N 31°25’ E – Tinha el-Gebel 28°11’ N 30°47’ E
Alabastronpolis 28°20’ N 31°55’ E – Kom el-Ahmar 28°3’ N 30°50’ E
Hermopolis Magna 28°25’ N 31°5’ E – el-Ashmunein 27°47’N 30°48’ E
Antinoopolis 28°10’ N 31°30’ E – el-Sheikh Ibada 27°48’ N 30°53’ E.
Ptolemaeus’ errors in determining the longitude are both greater and more numerous
than his errors in latitude. This is, however, by no means surprising, given the astronom-
ical methods available at the age of Ptolemaeus – see BALL, Egypt in the Classical Geographers
(cit. supra, n. 24), pp. 117–119 The actual co-ordinates are listed by Ball in a table parallel
to his translation, or rather his adaptation of the Ptolemaeus’ account.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 36

36 CHAPTER ONE

the reign of Diocletian.28 Furthermore, Ptolemaeus mentions the Leto-

polite nome as part of Lower Egypt, when, as we know from papyri, it was
one of the seven eponymous nomes of the Heptanomia.29

C. How many nomes did the Heptanomia comprise?

The very term Heptanomia suggests seven nomes constituting one
administrative unit. Six of them leave no doubt: going from the north,
they were the following: the Memphites, the Aphroditopolites, the Her-
akleopolites, the Oxyrhynchites, the Kynopolites, and the Hermopolites,
the southern border of which was the northern border of Thebaid. The
seventh nome was surely not the Arsinoites, as its name was added on to
the term ÑEptå Nomo¤ (•pistrãthgow ÑEptå Nom«n ka‹ A É rsino˝tou vel.
sim., procurator Augusti epistrategiae Septem Nomorum et Arsinoitae).30 Clau-
dius Ptolemaeus, the only non-documentary source confirming the exis-
tence of the Heptanomia, included the Antinoites in it, although in mid-
second century it was not yet a nome (it was a nomarchy, see below), and,
what is more, it could not have been perceived as the seventh nome in the
beginnings of the Roman rule, when the very term Heptanomia was still
forming. What remains to be dealt with is the Small Oasis, mentioned by
Ptolemaeus (even though its status as a separate nome is doubtful, see
above/below) or – as J. David Thomas argues convincingly – the Leto-
polites, a nome north of the Memphites. The latter is mentioned in some
documents containing lists of the nomes of the Heptanomia (such as
P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 cited below). The argument that presumably the Hep-
tanomia was created from a part of Upper Egypt, must therefore be
refuted, since in the Pharaonic period the Memphites, as well as the Leto-
polites, belonged to Lower Egypt. Naturally the Heptanomia in this
shape could not have been identical with ofl Íp¢r M°mfin nomo¤ from the
decree of Kleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV. However, the addition of one

28
See below, pp. 38–39.
29
See below, at the beginning of the following section.
30
For the titles, see THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 187–191.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 37

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 37

or even two nomes during the administrative changes made in Egypt after
the Romans arrived is not out of the question.

The discussion over the number of nomes comprising the Heptanomia

and the search for the original, ‘eponymous’ seven from which Middle
Egypt under Roman rule derived its official name is closely linked to the
following question: how was the Arsinoites perceived from the adminis-
trative point of view, considering its two or three strategoi? I should begin
the presentation of this problem by quoting the most important source,
P. Oxy. XLVII 3362, 14–25:31

[nomar]x¤2 aw A
É ntinÒou
[ÑErmopol]e¤tou: Kunopole¤t(ou)
16 [ÉOjurug]xe2 ¤tou: ÉOãsevw ÑE-
[ pt]å` Nom«n
[ÑHrakleopole¤]t`ou: Neilo-
[ pole¤to]u
20 [ÉArsinoe¤tou Y]e`m¤stou k`[a‹]
[Pol°mvnow mer¤d(vn)] A É rsinoe`[¤]-
[tou ÑHrakl]e¤dou m`er¤d[ow]
[ A É frodei]topole¤tou: [
24 [ Memfe¤]t`ou: Lhtopo[l(e¤tou)]
] nomo‹ ia

Although badly damaged, the text is essentially complete. Based on

the information found in the text, J. David Thomas suggests a dating
around AD 200.32 Lines 2–12 give a register of the nomes of the Thebaid,
31
Editio princeps: J. David THOMAS, ‘A New List of Nomes from Oxyrhynchus’, [in:]
Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses Marburg/Lahn 1971, München 1974,
pp. 397–403 = SB XXII 11045. P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 has a new tiny fragment discovered in
the meantime, which improved the reading of lines 13–17. A new commentary by David
Thomas has been announced but, to my best knowledge, it has not been published yet.
32
THOMAS, ‘List of Nomes’ (cit. supra, n. 31), pp. 402–403. Terminus post quem: AD 137/8
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 38

38 CHAPTER ONE

followed by a closing line (line 13) parallel to what is given for Middle
Egypt in line 25. The entire register refers to line 1:

strat]hgo›w ˜lhw A2figÊptou

Ultimately the document offers no solution to the matter. Listed in

the text are – besides the Arsinoites – nine nomes: Hermopolite, Kyno-
polite, Oxyrhynchite, ‘Oasis of the Heptanomia’ (i.e., Small Oasis, parallel
to ‘Great Oasis of the Thebaid’ mentioned in line 8), Herakleopolite,
Nilopolite, Aphroditopolite, Memphite, and Letopolite. The register
itself is interesting for a number of reasons: (1.) the Small Oasis is an
independent nome; (2.) so is the Nilopolite.33
Hence there are two unoccupied places, for which there are three can-
didates: two Arsinoite ‘nomes’ and the nomarchy of Antinoopolis.
Whether the Arsinoite should be counted as one or as two nomes
depends on how we interpret what the nomarchy of Antinoopolis was in
the second century AD. Claudius Ptolemaeus, after listing Hermopolis in
Geography (IV 5 61), stated: épÚ d¢ énatol«n toË potamoË nomÚw Anti-
no˝thw ka‹ mhtrÒpoliw aÈtoË A
É ntinÒou pÒliw.
The documents, however, say otherwise. It was already Wilcken who,
when publishing a petition addressed to Dionus¤vi nomãrx˙ t∞w

– introduction of the bipartite division of the Arsinoites, terminus ante quem: AD 300, i.e.
the date of P. Beatty Panop. 2, in which the Kussite and Antinoite nomes (and not nomarchia
of Antinoopolis, see below) are attested, as well as the Thebaid extended to the north to
include the Hermopolite. Terminus ante quem – we might add – may be moved, since AD 254
marks the end of the bipartite division of the Arsinoite and the Fayum is once again gov-
erned by one strategos. Anyhow, we are left with over a hundred years. The palaeography
– returning to J. David Thomas’s reasoning – rather suggests an earlier date. There is also
trouble with getting the content of the document to agree with the list of nomoi and local-
ities passed on by Claudius Ptolemaeus – some elements indicate a dating earlier than his
Geographia, some point to a later one. Finally, Thomas concludes with a great deal of hes-
itation (‘In general I feel reasonably confident that …’) that the document generally por-
trays a reality somewhat later than what Ptolemaeus had seen, hence it must have been
written around 200 AD.
33
For Nilopolis and its metropolitan status, see FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite Nome,
pp. 137–138.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 39

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 39

É nt[i]nÒou, had no choice but to correct the great author (‘trotz der
A
Autorität des Ptolemäus!’).34 Now the oppinio communis is that Anti-
noopolis became nome capital as late as the reign of Diocletian and until
that time it remained within the boundaries of the Hermopolite, but as a
polis it was out of the jurisdiction of the strategos. Yet does this document
not demand more caution before rejecting Ptolemaeus’ account? Who
was it that the author had in mind writing strathgÚw ... [nomar]x2¤aw A É n-
tinÒou, as that is the sense of the lines 1 and 14 when read together? Could
it be a term synonymous to nomãrxhw t∞w A É ntinÒou?35
Another solution to the arithmetical problems in P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 is
offered by a great specialist in the Roman administration of Egypt, Naph-
tali Lewis.36 According to Lewis, there is no reason to count the Arsinoite
as one. If so, then we have to look for another solution. A clue is to be
found in a Cornell papyrus, now SB VIII 9905 (13 March AD 171),37 a peti-
tion addressed to Pra¤ulow, the strategos of the Small Oasis, who is known
to have been the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite in AD 170 (P. Oxy. XVII 2134,
46, dated before 13 December AD 170). This text led Lewis to a conclusion
that ‘by about AD 160 or 170, while retaining the designation and attributes
of a nome, the Small Oasis ceased to have a separate strategos: thereafter
the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite was also strategos of the Small Oasis, much
as in the Arsinoite nome Themistes (sic!) and Polemon remained separate
merides but were after 137 AD administered by the same strategos.’38 Lewis

34
Wilcken, in the introduction to P. Würzb. 8 (citation from p. 53); see also P. Fam. Tebt.
42, 1 note; THOMAS, ‘List of Nomes’ (cit. supra, n. 31), pp. 400–401.
35
My reasoning is in line with that of J. David Thomas, who, not yet knowing that line
14 reads [nomar]x2¤aw A É ntinÒou (the editio princeps only gives the reading: A
É nt]inÒou), con-
cludes (p. 401 with n. 15): ‘We have a further example, perhaps the clearest yet, of the
nomarch of Antinoopolis being regarded as on a par with the nome strategi, and the
nomarchy itself is regarded as a quasi-nome, so much like one in fact that our scribe can
count it as the eleventh nome in this area’, and partially redeems Ptolemaeus in the note:
‘Thus in speaking of an Antinoite nome Ptolemy (IV 5, 61), while technically incorrect,
may be indicating the de facto position.’ Perhaps Ptolemaeus should be redeemed alto-
gether, considering the reading strathgÚw ... [nomar]x`¤aw A É ntinÒou from our document.
36
N. LEWIS, ‘Notationes legentis’, BASP 12 (1975), pp. 107–108.
37
Editio princeps: N. LEWIS, ‘Four Cornell Papyri’, RecPap 3 (1964) pp. 25–35 (pp. 27–30).
38
Ibidem, p. 28, repeated in extenso in BASP 12 (1975), p. 108.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 40

40 CHAPTER ONE

therefore suggests to count the Arsinoites as two and to combine the

Oxyrhynchite nome with the Small Oasis, which indeed produces a total
of 11. What remains is the problem that P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 is addressed to
strategoi and lists the nomes (in lines 13, 25 and 31), but not the officials
– nonetheless, the reasoning presented by Lewis seems justified.39
Listing eleven nomes on the basis of P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 is not just ‘art
for art’s sake’, of significance only for the understanding of this docu-
ment. The matter is much more important: in two documents dated to
the 170s the ‘Eleven Nomes’ seem to be a synonym of the Heptanomia.
P. Oxy. L 3562 (AD 178/9) contains a fragment of a report of proceedings
before ]ou (gen.) §pistratÆgou ia Nom2«n2. P. Tebt. II 569 descr. (AD 175/640)
is a copy of proceedings before Scutius Asklepiodotos, the epistrategos of
the Eleven Nomes. The same Scutius Asklepiodotos appears in BGU I
194 (ca. AD 176) in a clearly Arsinoite context. It seems, therefore, that for
a short period of time, surely no longer than a few years in the 170s, the
– Nomo¤.41
Heptanomia was called ia

This part of the discussion may be concluded as follows: the Hep-

tanomia was created in the first century AD. Its seven ‘eponymous’ nomes
39
My remarks are parallel to those by Lewis: ‘… the editor [of P. Oxy. XLVII 3362, i.e.
J. David Thomas] counts the Arsinoite as one. This seems to me improbable, a fortiori if
in line 1 the document is addressed, as is most likely, strat]hgo›w.’
40
For the date see BL VIII, p. 493.
41
Such a conclusion is justified despite doubts and reservations expressed on various
occasions by J. David Thomas. Their source was the coinciding number of nomes (11 each)
in the Heptanomia and in the presumed epistrategia encompassing the East Delta, men-
tioned in P. Oxy. XLVII 3362. Literally speaking, each of these two epistrategiai may have
been called an epistrategia of Eleven Nomes (Henkaidekanomia) – see J. David THOMAS, ‘Scu-
tius Asclepiodotus and the Epistrategia of Eleven Nomes’, [in:] Actes du XV e Congrès Inter-
national de Papyrologie, IV, Bruxelles 1979, pp. 132–140; J. David Thomas approaches the
matter with much more caution in Roman Epistrategos, pp. 26–28. Scutius Asklepiodotos
– according to Thomas – may have been epistrategos of the Heptanomia ca. AD 176 and at
the same time an acting epistrategos of the eastern part of Lower Egypt (the Epistrategia of
the Eleven Nomes). He is, therefore, not present in the main body of Thomas’ list of epi-
strategoi (pp. 184–192), but only discussed among other ‘possible epistrategoi’ (p. 210). In his
commentary to P. Oxy. L 3562, J. David Thomas still lists the two possibilities but con-
cludes that the identification of the epistrategia of the Eleven Nomes with the Hepta-
nomia is more probable than the version that an epistrategia in Lower Egypt is meant.
025-059 Ch1 12/4/06 3:18 AM Page 41

Map 2. Eleven nomes of the Heptanomia

025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 42

42 CHAPTER ONE

bordered the Nile and they were the following, starting from the north:
Letopolite, Memphite, Aphroditopolite, Herakleopolite, Oxyrhynchite,
Kynopolite and Hermopolite. From these nomes the epistrategia took its
name, but we do not know whether this unit ever functioned in such a
shape. As it is indicated by the titulature of epistrategoi appearing in sec-
ond-century documents (t«n ÑEptå nom«n ka‹ A É rsino˝tou), the Fayum
was added to the epistrategia. The aforementioned P. Oxy. IV 709 (ca. AD
50) combines the Heptanomia with the Arsinoite nome, its wording,
however, is by no means conclusive.42
As it shall be demonstrated in the following chapter, until ca. AD 60 the
Fayum was administrated as one nome, and later, in the period ca. 60–136/7
as three nomes, and finally in the years 136/7 – ca. 260 as two nomes. It is
this last period that yielded documents mentioning 11 nomes comprising
the Heptanomia. Apart from the seven eponymous and the two Arsinoite
ones, they were the Nilopolite and the Small Oasis. In the 170s, according
–
to reality, the Heptanomia was sometimes called ofl ia nomo¤.

D. LimØn M°mfevw
A matter related to the creation of the Heptanomia as an administrative
unit is perhaps a tax known as limØn M°mfevw. The meaning of the words
is obvious (‘the harbour of Memphis’), but their sense as a name of a tax
is less evident. If we suppose that – as many factors indicate – this was a
tax on goods crossing an internal border, then the tax should have been
paid by every carrier crossing the border of the Heptanomia. The name
of the duty might suggest that in theory it was to be collected (and – as I
shall argue – in practice it could have been so indeed for the most part)
in the harbour of Memphis. On the other hand, the city was probably the
capital of the Heptanomia and the seat of the epistrategos before the

42
Omission of ka¤ between ÑEptå NomoÁw and A É rsino˝thn is insignificant in this con-
text. In any case, however, the titulature, e.g., epistrategos t«n ÑEptå nom«n ka‹ A É rsino˝tou
seems to imply that at some point the Fayum was added to the already existing Hep-
tanomia. If this administrative unit had existed in this form from the very beginning, then
why was it not called the Oktonomia?
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 43

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 43

administration moved to Antinoopolis, therefore one should be cautious

when drawing conclusions about the border of the Heptanomia from the
location of the customs house in Memphis. (For instance a supposition
that the Memphite was the northernmost nome of the Heptanomia
would be contradictory to our knowledge of the affiliation of the Leto-
polite to the Heptanomia.) Under Egyptian conditions, with practically
the entire goods traffic flowing up and down the Nile, customs duties
could only be collected at one point, located – conveniently, as far as
everyday office activity is concerned – in the capital of the administrative
area.43 Nevertheless, it is possible that the customs house in Memphis was
parallel to the one in the Thebaid, located at the southern border of the
Hermopolite.44
Pieter J. Sijpesteijn collected 112 receipts for limØn M°mfevw, the ear-
liest dated to AD 42, and the latest to AD 212. The known receipts were for
the most part issued at customs houses in different villages of the Arsi-
noite nome, regardless of whether the goods were imported or exported.
The inescapable conclusion is, therefore, that transporters travelling by
land paid this customs duty when they started on their journey or when
they reached their destination in one of the villages of the Fayum.45 There
is no reason to believe that this was done so to avoid congestion at the
harbour of Memphis.46 Paradoxically, extant until today are only the
receipts issued at customs houses on the far edges of the Arsinoite nome
(Soknopaiou Nesos, Philadelpheia), and not the ones issued to travellers
on the Nile at the harbour of Memphis.
43
LimØn M°mfevw is associated with the existence of the Heptanomia only by THOMAS,
Roman Epistrategos p. 23. P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, P. Customs, pp. 22–23 concludes his discourse over
the nature of limØn M°mfevw with the following statement: ‘the limØn M°mfevw was a cus-
toms duty normally paid for crossing from one epistrategia into another regardless of
whether one actually passed through Memphis.’ He puts aside Dorothy THOMPSON’S dis-
cussion of the very character of the tax and focuses on the conclusions that are drawn
from the tax receipts about the functioning of the harbour of Memphis (Memphis under the
Ptolemies, pp. 267–268 with Appendix E).
44
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 16 (with n. 5), P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, P. Customs, p. 16.
45
See REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites, pp. 236–238.
46
As suggested by Sh. L. WALLACE, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Prin-
ceton 1938, p. 258.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 44

44 CHAPTER ONE

E. The capital of the Heptanomia

J. David Thomas, having presented the whole evidence for the activity of
the epistrategos of the Heptanomia, ‘very tentatively’ reconstructed the
course of a typical year of the official. This is an important issue, related
to the question where the capital of the Heptanomia was located.
At the beginning of the Egyptian year, but already after the inundation
the epistrategos travelled through his epistrategia, supervising the agri-
cultural activity. Then, in late autumn or early winter he went to Alexan-
dria to confer with the prefect in preparation for the conventus. He spent
January and February at the conventus. The remaining part of the year he
divided between touring his area and residing at his seat (‘capital’ of the
epistrategia), Antinoopolis after AD 130, and possibly Memphis before that
date.47

2. CHANGES IN EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATION

IN THE FOURTH CENTURY

For many years it was commonly accepted, following the authority of

Ulrich Wilcken and Matthias Gelzer, that the reforms introduced by
Diocletian in AD 297 in the old province of Egypt resulted in the trans-
formation of what used to be epistrategiai of the Thebaid, Heptanomia
and Lower Egypt into three new provinces, respectively Thebaid, Aegyp-
tus Herculia and Aegyptus Iovia.48 The matter, however, seems to be by
far more complex.
Firstly – and we shall come back to this later on – for over 50 years now
it has been known that the provinces Iovia and Herculia were not created
during the reign of Diocletian, but in AD 314/15.49

47
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 63–64.
48
WILCKEN, Grundzüge, pp. 72–73, GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, pp. 2–5.
49
See the fundamental study by Jacqueline LALLEMAND, ‘La création des provinces
d’Égypte Jovia et d’Égypte Herculia’, Académie royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des let-
tres et des sciences morales et politiques, 5th ser., 36 (1950), pp. 387–395.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 45

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 45

The epistrategia of Heptanomia existed at least until AD 297.50 Beyond

all doubt in the following year the old Roman province that encompassed
all of Egypt no longer existed – in P. Beatty Panop. 1 (AD 298) we read of a
praeses of the Thebaid, Iulius Athenodorus.51 However, the editor of
P. Beatty Panop. 1 carried back the separation of the Thebaid to February
295 at the latest by an emendation of P. Oxy. I 43 recto, vi 16.52 Therefore,
the division of Egypt into two provinces should perhaps be moved back
in time to as early as 293, when dioceses and new provinces were intro-
duced all over the Empire.53

50
This date arises from the interpretation of P. Oxy. XII 1416 presented by THOMAS,
Roman Epistrategos, pp. 66–67. The document itself is not dated, but in line 29 it mentions
the praefectus Aegypti Aelius Publius, known to have been in office in AD 299, together with
a single Augustus (at a time when there were two). This partly preserved fragment con-
cerns – according to the convincing reasoning of C. VANDERSLEYEN, Chronologie des préfets
d’Égypte de 284 à 395 (= Collection Latomus 55), Bruxelles 1962, pp. 67–70 – Diocletian’s visit
to Oxyrhynchos, in the company of a praefectus, which perfectly explains the singularis: tÚn
SebastÚn ka‹ PoÊplion ≤ge1m2Ò2(na). We know from elsewhere that Diocletian visited
Upper Egypt in 298, having regained control of the country after suppression of the rebel-
lion of L. Domitius Domitianus – see below, pp. 46–47.
51
See LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, p. 44 with n. 3.
52
Th. C. SKEAT in P. Beatty Panop., pp. xvii–xviii. According to Skeat’s conjecture the
first praeses Thebaidis was a certain Herodianus.
53
It has generally been accepted that subdivision of the provinces and creation of the
dioceses was probably implemented by Diocletian all at once, with only small changes
made afterwards. W. SESTON, Dioclétien et la tétrarchie, I. Guerres et réformes (284–300), Paris
1946, pp. 334–336 argued that Diocletian created all the dioceses at once in 297/8 but
– according to T. D. BARNES (The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge
[Mass.] – London 1982, pp. 224–225) – he assumed a false chronology for the Persian War
and related events, including the revolt of Egypt. Barnes, having accepted the view of the
collective creation of the dioceses, argued for the year 293 (loc. cit.), and this was accepted
by S. WILLIAMS, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, New York 1997, pp. 102–114 (chapter
VIII: ‘The recasting of government’).
On the other hand, it used to be a common belief that Diocletian introduced the
administrative reforms gradually in response to particular needs brought about by certain
circumstances (see, e.g., J. G. C. ANDERSON, ‘The Genesis of Diocletian’s provincial re-
organisation’, JRS 22 [1932], pp. 24–32, referred to by BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletian
and Constantine, p. 225). The echo of such reasoning is associating the division of Egypt
into Aegyptus and Thebaid with Diocletian’s visit to Upper Egypt after the revolt of
L. Domitius Domitianus: the country had to be reorganised to prevent revolt in the future
– see below, the following note.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 46

46 CHAPTER ONE

However, the contradiction between the existence of an independent

province of the Thebaid as early as 295 (tentatively even 293) on the one
hand and the above evidence for the existence of the Heptanomia and its
epistrategos in 297 on the other hand proves ostensible, if we assume that
epistrategiai survived for the first few years as subordinate administrative
units within the new province after the secession of the Thebaid. There
would be nothing unusual about it, the situation remained virtually
unchanged except the fact that the new province – without the Thebaid
– would comprise three, not four, epistrategiai.54
The alternative date for introducing the new administrative division of
Egypt is the year 297/8. If so, we may assume that the reform simultane-
ously55 set the Thebaid apart as a separate province and liquidated the
epistrategiai. The supporters of this dating56 may also point at Diocletian’s
visit to Upper Egypt – in this case the new administrative division would
have been introduced as part of the plan to reorganise Egypt after Dio-
cletian had regained control over it following the revolt of Lucius Domi-
tius Domitianus in 297.57

54
Skeat’s amendment and the conclusions drawn from it are seriously taken into con-
sideration by A. K. BOWMAN, ‘The Military Occupation of Upper Egypt in the Reign of
Diocletian’, BASP 15 (1978), pp. 25–38, esp. p. 28. Bowman, however, has two objections:
(1.) the change in 293 cannot be connected with any known Diocletian’s visit to Egypt; and
(2.) the arrangements for the transmission of food supplies attested in P. Oxy. I 43 recto
certainly transcended the new provincial border. Objection (1.) does not seem grave, since
– as we said before – Egypt would have been divided into two provinces in 293 simultane-
ously with the administrative re-organisation of the whole Empire. Objection (2.) is more
serious – for the analysis of P. Oxy. I 43 see W. ENSSLIN, ‘Zu Pap. Oxyrhynchus I 43 Recto’,
Aegyptus 22 (1952), pp. 163–178.
55
Lallemand did not accept the concurrence of these changes because she did not take
into account the interpretation of P. Oxy. XII 1416 quoted above in note 50 and accepted
299 as a dating for the epistrategos attested thereby, which stands in opposition to P. Beatty
Panop. 1, attesting a praeses of the Thebaid in 298.
56
GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, p. 3; also, after some hesitation, LALLEMAND, L’adminis-
tration civile, p. 44.
57
For the revolt of Domitius Domitianus, see in general: J. SCHWARTZ, L. Domitius
Domitianus. Étude numismatique et papyrologique (= Papyrologica Bruxellensia 12), Bruxelles
1975; IDEM, ‘L. Domitius Domitianus et l’épigraphé’, ChrEg 38 (1963), pp. 149–155; Jacque-
line LALLEMAND, ‘Le monnayage de Domitius Domitianus’, RBN 97 (1951) pp. 89–103;
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 47

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 47

In conclusion, not three – as thought before – but only two provinces

came into being, perhaps already in 293, and no later than 297/8. One of
them was the Thebaid, territorially not very different from the epistrate-
gia of the same name, though its northern border was probably moved in
order to contain the nomes Hermopolite and the newly created Anti-
noopolite. The second one was Aegyptus, covering two ex-epistrategiai:
Heptanomia (or at least most of it) and Lower Egypt, or three if we
accept the existence of two epistrategiai in Lower Egypt.58
In 302 the office of §p¤tropow ÑEptanom¤aw (procurator Heptanomiae) is
attested.59 Like the epitropoi managing the Upper and Lower Thebaid in
P. Beatty Panop., this was probably an official in charge of an administra-
tive unit lower in rank than the province.60 The latest document attesting

EADEM, ‘Lucius Domitius Domitianus’ = Aegyptus 33 (1953) (= Raccolta di scritti in onore di

Girolamo Vitelli, IV), pp. 97–104; A. GEISSEN, ‘Numismatische Bemerkung zu dem Auf-
stand des L. Domitius Domitianus’, ZPE 22 (1976) pp. 280–286.
The revolt of Domitius Domitianus is usually dated either 296 or 297. J. David
THOMAS, ‘The Date of the Revolt of L. Domitius Domitianus’, ZPE 22 (1976), pp. 253–279,
with a corrigendum in ZPE 24 (1977), p. 24, sets the date at 297. BARNES, The New Empire of
Diocletian and Constantine (cit. supra, n. 53), pp. 11–12 strongly supports 297 as well. F. KOLB,
‘Die Datierung des ägyptischen Aufstands unter L. Domitius Domitianus und Aurelius
Achilleus’, Eos 76 (1988), pp. 325–343 is in favour of 296/7. See also J. Schwartz’s response
to the aforementioned paper by J. David THOMAS: ‘L. Domitius Domitianus’, ZPE 25
(1977), pp. 217–220.
Diocletian’s journey to Upper Egypt took place in 298 (P. Beatty Panop. 1), soon after
suppressing the revolt of Domitianus, as the re-conquered land remaining under military
occupation; cf. A. K. BOWMAN, ‘Papyri and Roman Imperial History’, JRS 66 (1976),
pp. 153–173 (pp. 159–160), and idem, ‘The Military Occupation of Upper Egypt in the
Reign of Diocletian’, BASP 15 (1978), pp. 25–38.
58
LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 44–53, esp. the table on p. 51; see also THOMAS,
Roman Epistrategos, pp. 64–65; GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, p. 2–5.
59
P. Oxy. XLII 3031. The same man, Annius Diogenes, is attested in some other papyri,
see P. J. Parson’s introduction.
60
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, pp. 67–68, assumes correctly that the office of the procu-
rator Heptanomiae could not have coexisted with that of the epistrategos. In consequence he
accepts the year 302 as terminus ante quem for the disappearance of epistrategoi from the
administration system. Terminus post quem is naturally AD 297, a dating deduced from P. Oxy.
XII 1416 (see above, n. 50). However, the supposition that the office ceased to exist
around 300 or 301, presented in the last sentence on p. 68, is hard to justify. It seems that
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 48

48 CHAPTER ONE

the existence of the Heptanomia, P. Oxy. XVII 2114 (10 August 316), men-
tions another procurator Heptanomiae, Aurelius Gregorius.
At that time, at least until the end of 315, there were two provinces cre-
ated from the short-lived province of Aegyptus: Aegyptus Herculia and
Aegyptus Iovia.61 The Thebaid remained a separate unit. An official called
praeses (≤gem≈n or ≤goÊmenow)62 was appointed to govern each of the three
provinces.
This way the tripartite division of Egypt was brought back, if indeed
it had been three (not four) units from the first to the third century, the
main difference being that the province of Aegyptus Herculia encom-
passed both the Heptanomia and the East Delta. This fact points to the
existence of not three, but four epistrategiai in the third century. This
clears up the picture considerably: Herculia emerged after combining two
epistrategiai, which were soon to be separated anyway (see below). The
fusion happened after no more than 15 years of experimenting with hav-
ing only one – except the Thebaid – large administrative unit called
Aegyptus, and this period of time turned out to be too short for the
memory of the Heptanomia, a unit deeply rooted in tradition after nearly
300 years of existence, to fade away. Such a picture seems more probable
than the supposition that Aegyptus Herculia was created by adding the

the epistrategos disappeared together with the old Roman province of Egypt, which hap-
pened – as we have just mentioned – in 297/8.
61
Terminus post quem: P. Cairo Isid. 73 (after January 314), terminus ante quem: P. Cairo Isid.
74 (before 27 December 315), see BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (cit.
supra, n. 53), p. 211. See also the article by Jacqueline LALLEMAND quoted above in n. 49 and
VANDERSLEYEN, Chronologie des préfets (cit. supra, n. 50), pp. 98–99.
62
Until recently it was a common belief that the chief official of Aegyptus Iovia con-
tinued to bear the title praefectus (¶parxow), even though – at least from 314 to 331 – he was
not superior to both praesides, see LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 49–53. As for
whether or not a praeses was also in charge of the Iovia, a clear answer is provided by P. Oxy.
LI 3619, a fragment of a record of proceedings before the praeses. The crucial phrase is
repeated fourteen times: ‘Isidorus, v(ir) p(erfectissimus), praes(es) Aeg(ypti) Ioviae …’. See also
P. Oxy. LIV 3756, 7: katå prÒstagma toË ku`r¤ou mou ÉIsid≈rou toË diakosmÆsantow tÚn
yrÒnon t∞w ≤gemon¤aw t∞w aÈt∞w A É 2l1e1jandr¤aw with the editor’s note.
Lists of praesides of all provinces: LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, Appendice 1
(pp. 236–263), amended by P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, K. A. WORP, ‘Bittschrift an einen praepositus
pagi’, Tyche 1 (1986), pp. 189–194 (Anhang, pp. 192–194).
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 49

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 49

entire East Delta region, identical with the former epistrategia (one of the
two epistragiai into which Lower Egypt was divided from the first to the
third century), to the Heptanomia.63
If it were indeed so, then the subdivision of the Aegyptus Herculia
province into two smaller units corresponding to the former epistrategiai
– the Heptanomia and the presumed East Delta unit – would be absolutely
natural. Soon after 316 the official name of the former was formally
changed from Heptanomia to Aegyptus Mercuriana.64 This implies that
Mercuriana was no greater than the Heptanomia, and was at first a sub-
division of the province of Aegyptus Herculia, just as the Heptanomia
had been from 314/5 till 316.65 The situation that Mercuriana is a part of
the province of Aegyptus Herculia is reflected in CPR V 7. This is an offi-
cial letter, unfortunately undated, to the praeses of Herculia, Ziper

63
It was believed (GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, p. 4), that Aegyptus Herculia was co-
extensive with the Heptanomia, but in those days the traditional theory that three Roman
epistrategiai turned directly into three provinces was still generally accepted (cf. LALLE-
MAND, L’administration civile, p. 52 with n. 3).
64
The section devoted to the Mercuriana is based on J. David THOMAS (‘Sabinianus,
praeses of Aegyptus Mercuriana?’, BASP 21 (1984), pp. 225–234), whose hypothesis I con-
sider to be built on solid grounds, even though – to tell the truth – the sources mention-
ing Mercuriana are scarce (namely three).
The name Mercuriana is not mentioned by LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, although
she knew and quoted in her fasti two documents attesting a praeses of Mercuriana, Sabini-
anus (see below): P. Ryl. IV 659 (now P. Sakaon 41) from 14 July of the year after Ziper ceas-
es to be in office of the praeses of Herculia (322 or later; for the date see
J. D. THOMAS, ‘Sabinianus, praeses of Aegyptus Mercuriana?’, BASP 21 (1984), p. 226) and
P. Thead. 20 = P. Sakaon 42 (ca. 323). The third document is CPR V 7 (for its date, see below),
an official letter to the praeses of Herculia, in which Mercuriana is mentioned – in a
detailed commentary to lines 7–8 the editor, J. R. REA, identified Mercuriana with Her-
culia, even though – as Thomas rightly noticed (p. 229) – ‘a more natural interpretation of
the evidence of CPR V 7 suggests not that Mercuriana was co-extensive with Herculia,
but that Mercuriana formed only a part of Herculia’ (italics – Thomas).
65
The just mentioned document from Oxyrhynchos (P. Oxy. XVII 2114, 10 August 316)
mentions a procurator Heptanomiae; the same dossier of Aurelius Heras, praepositus pagi
VIII in the Oxyrhynchites, contains another document, P. Oxy. XVII 2113, earlier by a few
months (January 316), that refers to a praeses Aegypti Herculiae (≤goÊmenow t∞w ÑHrkoul¤aw),
which gives an impression that the Heptanomia was perhaps a part of, or rather a unit of
lower rank within Aegyptus Herculia.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 50

50 CHAPTER ONE

(Valerius Ziper/Quintus Iper)66 first attested on 13 April 318 (P. Col. VII
16967) and last on 12 December 321 (P. Thead. 13 = P. Sakaon 34). At some
point between this date and 17 August 323 (first attestation of praeses
Sabinianus in P. Oxy. I 60 = WChr. 43) Mercuriana was carved away from
Herculia and turned into a separate province with its own praeses.68 This
way, for a short while, the situation from before Diocletian’s reforms
returned, the difference being that provinces and praesides replaced epi-
strategiai and epistrategoi. Soon after the abdication of Licinius in Septem-
ber 324, and surely before February 326, the three provinces, Iovia, Her-
culia and Mercuriana were once again reunited into one province of
Aegyptus,69 under the management of an official addressed as praefectus
Aegypti (the first one after the interval was in 325 Flavius Magnus followed
by Tiberius Flavius Laetus).70
The short, ten-year period when in Alexandria there was no official
looking after the entire country came to an end.71 The experiment seems
66
For his name, see CPR V 7, 2 n.; SIJPESTEIJN – WORP, ‘Bittschrift’ (cit. supra, n. 62),
p. 194. A new document mentioning him is CPR XXIII 25; see the editor’s note to line 5.
Note that Quintus Iper and Valerius Ziper are registered as two different persons in PLRE
I (pp. 464 and 993 respectively).
67
P. Col. Lewis 1 = N. LEWIS, ‘Two Petitions for Recovery (P. Col. Inv. Nos 61 and 62; 318
A.D.)’, JJurPap 2 (1948), pp. 58–63 = SB VI 9187.
68
The only praeses Mercurianae known so far (and probably the only one that ever existed)
was Sabinianus.
69
Sabinianus, praeses Mercurianae, was still in office some time within the year 324
(P. Oxy. XLV 3261) but was out of office by the date of a hearing before the logistes, record-
ed in P. Oxy. LIV 3758 – late February or early March 325 (see the editor’s note to line 8).
70
Flavius Magnus first attested by P. Oxy. LIV 3756 dated to January/February 325, is still
in office on 2 October 325 (P. Oxy. LIV 3759); Tiberius Flavius Laetus – P. Oxy. LI 3620 dated
to 2 February 326; see P. Oxy. LIV 3756, 9 n. For the sequence of praefecti Aegypti in the 320s,
see R. A. COLES, ‘Caecilius [Cons]ultius, praefectus Aegypti’, BASP 22 (1985), pp. 25–27.
71
It was already Jacqueline LALLEMAND who rightly pointed out that for more than ten
years the praefectus is absent from documentary papyri, those from Middle Egypt in par-
ticular. Around 330 (we know now that it was already 326) he reappears in the documents
from Oxyrhynchites and Arsinoites. This led Lallemand to an intricate discourse about
the relations between the praefect, who would be the first of the equal, and the praesides
of the province (LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 59–60).We know now that a praeses
was also head of Aegyptus Iovia (Western Delta); everything seems clear: the three prae-
sides were equal in rank and neither of them controlled the others.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 51

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 51

to have resulted in failure; a country like Egypt needed some central gov-
erning, necessary at least for smooth coordination of economic exploita-
tion (such as organising the annual transport of grain to Rome and later
to Constantinople). Around 325 the old system was brought back and,
except for some minor alterations, it was to remain so until the end of
Byzantine rule in Egypt.
The situation in Egypt after the provinces Iovia and Herculia had been
established and before Mercuriana was set apart (between 314/5 and
ca. 322/3) is reflected in the so-called Verona List (preserved in a seventh-
century manuscript at the Verona Cathedral library) of provinces of the
Roman Empire.72 Our source for the situation after the reunification of
Egypt (without the Thebaid) in ca. 325, but still before the establishment
of Augustamnica is Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII 16.1):

Tres provincias Aegyptus fertur habuisse temporibus priscis, Aegyptum

ipsam et Thebaida et Libyam, quibus duas adiecit posteritas, ab Aegypto
Augustamnicam et Pentapolim a Libya sicciore disparatam.

In early times Egypt is said to have had three provinces: Egypt proper,
Thebaïs, and Libya. To these later times have added two: Augustamnica
being taken from Egypt, and Pentapolis from the dryer part of Libya
(transl. John C. Rolfe, Loeb).

The bipartite division of Egypt (provinces of Aegyptus and Thebaid) is

also reflected by the Nicene subscriptions (325).73

72
For the text and commentary, see BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constan-
tine (cit. supra, n. 53), pp. 201–208. This used to be considered a homogenous document,
created around 297, immediately after Diocletian’s reforms had been introduced (so
Mommsen, others postponed it to ca. 320), however, the presence of Aegyptus Iovia and
Herculea (sic!) – fol. 255, recto, in lines 16–17 proves it wrong. Barnes concludes his dis-
cussion of the dating of the text as follows: ‘The available external evidence indicates that
the Verona List depicts the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire as they were between
314/5 and 324, and the western provinces as they were between 303 and 314’ (p. 205). The
above conclusion can be more specific: the absence of Aegyptus Mercuriana indicates that
the depicted situation for the eastern provinces is that of AD 314/5–322/3. The Verona List
was a source for Map 101 in The Barrington Atlas.
73
See H. GELZER, H. HILGENFELD, O. CUNTZ, Patrum Nicaenorum nomina, Leipzig 1898,
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 52

52 CHAPTER ONE

The ‘later times’ mentioned by Ammianus correspond to the year 34174

(before 13 November75), in which the new province of Augustamnica was
created.76

pp. lx–lxiv (‘Index patrum Nicaenorum restitutus’); after BARNES, The New Empire of Dio-
cletian and Constantine (cit. supra, n. 53), p. 260.
74
Keph. (= Festal Index) 13 (a. 341) – see E. SCHWARTZ, ‘Zur Geschichte des Athanasius I’
[in:] Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 11, Göttingen
1904, p. 354: épemer¤syh ≤ AÈgoustamnikÆ; Index to Athanasius’ Festal Letters, translated
by E. PAYNE SMITH, [in:] A. ROBERTSON, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria (= Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series 4), Oxford – New York 1892,
pp. 503–506. See also Index Syriaque des lettres festales d’Athanase d’Alexandrie, ed. Micheline
ALBERT, tr. and comm. Annik MARTIN (= Source Chrétiennes 317), Paris 1985, pp. 240–241 (s. a.
341): ‘L’Augustamnique fut détachée (de l’Égypte)’, see also note 39 on p. 288.
According to R. S. BAGNALL (Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton 1993, p. 63) this occurred
in 357.
75
This is the date of the earliest document, P. Oxy. XII 1559, attesting the new
province and its first praeses, Flavius Iulius Ausonius (see P. Oxy. L 3576, 10–12 n.).
76
BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (cit. supra, n. 53), p. 212, claims
that Augustamnica corresponded to the earlier short-lived province of Arabia Nova.
Arabia Nova (pp. 213–214; more IDEM, ‘The Unity of the Verona List’, ZPE 16 [1975],
pp. 275–278) would then be a subdivision of the earlier Aegyptus, and the Verona List
would confirm its existence, as it mentions two Arabias (Arabia and item Arabia). Never-
theless the equation Augustamnica = Arabia Nova would suggest that Arabia Nova = Her-
culia, and there is no proof of that whatsoever in the papyri. Barnes’ argument that there
was a nome of Arabia (East Delta) within the alleged province is not convincing due to
the multitude of such toponyms all over Egypt. Barnes quotes an Oxyrhynchos papyrus,
yet unpublished at that time, attesting the existence of a province named Arabia Nova
between 314/5 and 318 and implying that a town called Eleutheropolis (different from the
well-known town in Palestine, where roads from Askalon and Gaza to Jerusalem met) in
Arabia Nova is close to Aegyptus Herculia (inv. P. Oxy. 29 4B.48/G [6–7]a). J. R. REA, how-
ever, rejected Barnes’ hypothesis when publishing the papyrus as P. Oxy. L 3574. He rea-
sonably remarked that there is only one town called Eleutheropolis attested so far. The
Semitic name of the petitioner, Malchus son of Ioanthes, who wrote this petition to a
praeses Herculiae may also point to a town in Palestine as its place of origin. What is more,
the existence of relations between Eleutheropolis in Palestine and Oxyrhynchos has
already been proven (P. Oxy. XIV 1722). This led Rea to a conclusion that at the time when
the Verona List was compiled there were indeed two Arabias. If a province called Nea
Arabia contained Eleutheropolis, it would probably have consisted of the west and south
of the region, centred at Petra, while the other Arabia, possibly called Old Arabia, would
have comprised the east and north, with its capital at Bostra. Rea’s reasoning seems to be
quite convincing, especially that it does not call for the creation of new entities, such as
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 53

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 53

In charge of it was a praeses with headquarters in Pelusium. Now, con-

trary to the view of Lallemand, we know that Pelusium belonged to the
province ever since its creation.77 Papyri speak of the nomes Oxyrhyn-
chite, Arsinoite and Herakleopolite as forming part of it.78 Besides Mid-
dle Egypt, the province embraced the East Delta and reached far beyond
Egypt in the geographical sense: Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII 16.3) lists
its main cities: Pelousion, Kasion (Ras Qasrun/Khatib el-Gals), Ostrakine
(el-Fekusiyat) and Rhinokolura (el-Arish) – all of them located on the
Mediterranean coast, the last three to the east of Pelusium.

Around AD 381–382 the diocese of Egypt was separated from the dio-
cese of Orient, created in the course of the reforms of Diocletian. Besides
the Egyptian provinces, it encompassed both Libyas: Inferior (neighbour-
ing Egypt) and Superior. The province was governed by a prefect, which
was clearly in line with centuries-old tradition (excluding the years 314/5
– ca. 325, when there was no prefect). His rank was accordingly empha-
sized by a new epithet – now his official title was praefectus Augustalis.79
This administrative change, important from the point of view of cen-
tral administration, does not seem to have brought about any changes in
the functioning of the province within the new diocese. A significant
change came a few years later with the establishment of the new province
of Arcadia. The terminus post quem for the creation of Arcadia is 17 Feb-
ruary 386, the date of CTh. I 14 1 addressed to Florentius, praefectus

an Eleutheropolis somewhere in the Delta. Barnes, however, stands by his own conclusion
– Rea wrote that ‘when I showed a draft of this edition to Professor Barnes he was unwill-
ing to accept this conclusion’.
77
P. Oxy. L 3576 (30 November 341), see introd. and 10–12 n., contra LALLEMAND, L’admi-
nistration civile, pp. 53–54.
78
LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, p. 53 expressed some doubts whether Hera-
kleopolis fell into the province of Augustamnica but P. Oxy. L 3577, an official letter of the
praeses Augustamnicae Flavius Iulius Ausonius issued on 28 January 342 in Herakleopolis (a
Latin note on the left margin: dat(a) | v Kal(endas) Febr(uarias) Heracl(eopoli)) is decisive
proof (see P. Oxy. L 3577, 12 n.).
79
It was a noteworthy change, as previously the head of the enormous diocese of Ori-
ent was called comes Orientis, Aegyptii et Mesopotamiae. For the creation of the diocese of
Egypt, see LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 55–57.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 54

54 CHAPTER ONE

Augustalis. It mentions tax collection in the Thebaid and Augustamnica,

but not in Arcadia,80 which provokes an important conclusion that Arca-
dia did not appear along with the administrative change that led to the
emergence of the diocese of Egypt (Aigyptiake), set apart from the Dio-
cese of Orient in ca. AD 381–382. The first document to mention Arcadia
is SPP XX 117 dated to AD 411.81
Arcadia – as we have mentioned before – emerged from the division of
Augustamnica. What used to be the vast Augustamnica fell apart into
three provinces in the sixth century: Augustamnica I (north part of East
Delta and the coastline as far as Rhinocolura), Augustamnica II (north
part of Eastern Delta),82 and Arcadia. Aegyptus (Western Delta) and the
Thebaid comprised two provinces (now eparchies) as well. All in all,
Egypt was divided into seven eparchies, which along with both Libyas
gives a total of nine provinces that made up the diocese of Egypt.
From the perspective of Middle Egypt, the creation of the province of
Arcadia meant regaining administrative autonomy by the region, like
when Mercuriana was set apart from the province of Aegyptus Herculia.

80
This was already the opinion of GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, pp. 8–9, accepted after
some hesitation by VANDERSLEYEN, La chronologie des préfets (cit. supra, n. 50), pp. 164–181;
see also P. Oxy. LI 3628–3636 introd., p. 75; and J. KEENAN, ‘The Provincial Administration
of Egyptian Arcadia’, Museum Philologum Londinense 2 (1977), pp. 193–202.
81
For the date of SPP XX 117, see R. S. BAGNALL, K. A. WORP, ‘The Consuls of AD
411–412’, Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 31 (1978), pp. 287–293. The editor of P. Oxy. XLIX 3480,
introd.) suggests that the new province of Arcadia was created in the later years of the
decade AD 380–390, but supplies no evidence for it.
82
Augustamnicae I and II appear in the account by George of Cyprus, Descriptio Orbis
Romani (ed. H. GELZER, Bibl. Teubneriana, Leipzig 1890). The work was compiled
ca. AD 605. As far as Egypt is concerned, the author gives chiefly a list of dioceses arranged
according to eparchiai (see BALL, Egypt in the Classical Geographers [cit. supra, n. 24],
pp. 176–179). The two Augustamnicae are called Augustae I and II by Hierokles, whose
Synecdemus (see ibidem, pp. 163–166) or ‘Travel-companion’ written in Greek in ca. AD 535 is
merely a catalogue of the most notable towns of the Eastern Empire. Hierokles’ division
differs from the one attested by Georgios at one key point: it does not divide Aegyptus
(which he calls Aegyptiaca) into two parts, hence the number of eparchies in the ex-
diocese of Egypt is smaller by one – there are eight of them.
For the works by Hierokles and George of Cyprus, see also E. HONIGMANN, Le Synekdè-
mos d’Hiéroklès et l’opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre; Brussels 1939 (non vidi).
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 55

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 55

This tradition must have been strong and evidence for it is found in the
passage from Eustathius.83 In the north the border of Arcadia was identi-
cal with that of the Heptanomia (both Hierokles and George of Cyprus
mention Letopolis among its cities). The territory was somewhat reduced
in the south, due to – as we have mentioned before – the northward shift
of Thebaid’s border in the 290s, which resulted in the taking over of the
Hermopolites and the Antinoopolites, formerly part of the Heptanomia.
The capital of Arcadia was – according to George of Cyprus – Oxy-
rhynchos.
The changes made in the fifth century were minor ones, and their
details remain unclear to us. It is known that during the reign of Theo-
dosius II, approximately in the second quarter of the fifth century, the
Thebaid was divided into two provinces: Thebaid Inferior (called pr≈th,
‘the first’ or ¶ggista, ‘the nearest’, sc. to Alexandria’ in Greek) with the
centre in Antinoopolis, and Superior (deut°ra, ‘second’ or ênv, ‘the
upper’) with a capital in Ptolemais. It is unknown when exactly the
Augustamnica and Aegyptus were divided, each into two provinces num-
bered I and II).
The state administration was reorganised by Justinianus. By the edicts
of 538/9 and 553/4 the dioceses ceased to exist.84 The state was still divided
into prefectures, the largest of which, Praefectura Orientis, encompassed
land from Moesia and Thracia through Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, to
Egypt and Libya. The prefecture was made up of provinces, now named
ducati (term derived from dux, official title originally bearing military
power, later taking over the duties of a civil administrator of the
province). These, in turn, were divided into eparchies. The former
province of Egypt was now divided into the following ducati: Aegyptus

83
Eustathius, Commentarium in Dionysii periegetae orbis descriptionem, 251, 3 (quoted
above, p. 32 n. 23).
84
See recently Anna Maria DEMICHELI, L’Editto XIII di Giustiniano. In tema di amminis-
trazione e fiscalità dell’Egitto bizantino, Torino 2000; EADEM, ‘L’amministrazione dell’Egitto
bizantino secondo l’Editto XIII’, [in:] S. PULIATTI and A. SANGUINETTI (eds.), Legislazione,
cultura giuridica, prassi dell’Impero d’Oriente in età giustinianea tra passato e futuro. Atti del con-
vegno Modena, 21–22 maggio 1998 (= Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche e della Facoltà
di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia 52), Milano 2002, pp. 418–446.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 56

56 CHAPTER ONE

(two eparchies), Augustamnica (two eparchies), Arcadia (one eparchy),

Thebaid (two eparchies), and Libya. The dux augustalis who governed the
province of Aegyptus from his seat in Alexandria was considered the
most important in the country, which resulted from his responsibility for
the organisation and realization of grain shipments to Constantinople.
The duces were directly dependent on the emperor. The eparchy was
administered by a civil official, still called a praeses (êrxvn or ≤gem≈n).

3. CONCLUSION

The above reasoning may be summarized as follows: Heptanomia, an

independent administrative unit that undoubtedly encompassed the
Fayum, i.e. the Arsinoite nome, was already in existence in AD 11/12 (P. Tebt.
II 302). It may have been a continuity of an administrative unit defined
in the decree of Kleopatra VIII and Ptolemy XIV (50/49 BC) as ofl Íp¢r
M°mfin nomo¤ (‘the nomes above Memphis’). However, if it were indeed
so, then we should also accept that at some point between 50/49 BC and
AD 11/12 the administrative area was altered (or slightly enlarged), having
engulfed the Letopolite nome. The Heptanomia derived its name from
the seven riverside nomes that were part of it. In addition to them it con-
tained the Arsinoite nome, the Small Oasis, the Antinoite nomarchy
turned into a nomos under Diocletian, and the Nilopolite nome, set apart
from the Herakleopolite in the first decades of the third century AD.
Heptanomia was one of four – as I agree with J. David Thomas – epi-
strategiai, which constituted the Roman province that encompassed the
whole country. The division was permanent and the fact that little – if at
all – changed in it from the first century AD to the end of the third cen-
tury implies that it turned out functional and worked well for the Roman
government. The system was durable enough to withstand the so-called
crisis of the third century, which, viewed from an Egyptian perspective,
does not seem to have been a grave danger to the state.
Changes came along with the times of Diocletian. The presented evo-
lution of the administrative structure of Egypt in the fourth century can
be arranged in the following scheme:
 025-059 Ch1

Table 1. Administrative units of Egypt (first–seventh cent. AD)

12/4/06
3:13 AM

To 297: province Before 411 Hierokles

Provinces (293? 314/5 – 322/3 341 – George of Cyprus
of Egypt divided 322/3 – ca. 325 ca. 325 – 341 (the later years (late 5th cent. –
or 297/8 – 314/5) =Verona list – beg. of 5th cent. (ca. AD 606)
into epistrategiai of the 380s?) – early 6th cent.)
Page 57

Aegypti
Western Aegyptus
Iovia Iovia Aegyptus Aegyptus I (near Alex.)
Delta (Aegyptiaca)
and II

Augustamnicae
Eastern Augustamnicae
Aegyptus Herculia Aegyptus Augustamnica I (Med. coast)
Delta I and II

L OW E R E G Y P T
and II
Herculia Augustamnica

Heptanomia Mercuriana Arcadia Arcadia Arcadia

Thebaides Thebaides
Thebais Thebais Thebais Thebais Thebais Thebais Thebais ¶ggista I (¶ggista)
and ênv and II (ênv)

UPPER EGYPT
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 58

58 CHAPTER ONE

The table above shows that the system remained quite stable, which
might at first seem surprising to an attentive reader of the reasoning pre-
sented beforehand. However, the Thebaid had always been an independ-
ent unit and the changes amounted to different combinations of the
three remaining units (being the old Roman epistrategiai). As for the bor-
der shifts between the three pieces of this puzzle, our knowledge can be
brought down to two points:

(1.) In the 290s the Thebaid expanded to the north, engulfing the
Hermopolite and the Antinoopolite nomes (the latter may have
been created on this occasion);85
(2.) According to Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII 16,6), Athribis in the
Delta belonged to the province of Aegyptus, while later on, in the
sixth century we find it in the province of Augustamnica II
(Hierokles and George of Cyprus).

Over a few centuries that is not much indeed. This period can even be
extended over the fifth and sixth centuries. The last two columns of the
table illustrate the division of Egypt into eparchies in the end of Byzan-
tine rule. It is visible at first glance that the changes introduced since the
end of the fourth century were not fundamental and came down to divid-
ing large units into smaller ones.

Our knowledge on the affiliation of the Arsinoite nome to superior

administrative units can be arranged as follows:

85
Perhaps the reason for the border shift was to make Antinoopolis, which had grown
to be a true metropolis by then, the capital of the Thebaid.
025-059 Ch1 11/30/06 2:38 AM Page 59

ARSINOITHS NOMOS IN THE EGYPTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 59

Table 2. Affiliation of the Arsinoite nome

to superior administrative units

From To Superior unit I Superior unit II

AD 11/12 AD 293 epistrategia Roman province
at latest at earliest of the Heptanomia of Egypt encompassing
perhaps 297/8 the whole country
293? 297/8 epistrategia the province of Aegyptus
of the Heptanomia (no longer including
the Thebaid)
ca. AD 297/8 ca. AD 314 Heptanomia the province of Aegyptus
ca. AD 314 ca. AD 331 Aegyptus Herculia –––––––
(= Mercuriana), a separate
province, independent
praeses Herculiae
ca. AD 331 AD 341 Aegyptus Herculia a larger unit (Iovia
+ Herculia + Mercuriana)?
praeses Herculiae
subordinate
to the praefect?
AD 341 before 411 Augustamnica –––––––
before 411 seventh cent. Arcadia –––––––
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 61

CHAPTER TWO

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION

OF THE NOME. THE MERIDES

1. INTRODUCTION

500 YEARS the trait that distinguished the Arsinoites from

F
OR OVER
other nomes of the Egyptian x≈ra was its division into smaller units
called mer¤dew. For a part of the Roman period each of them had its own
strategos, therefore it is necessary to deal with the central (at the nome
level) administration together with the issue of merides. The division into
merides, in turn, cannot be discussed apart from the subject of their ori-
gin, which is a matter deeply rooted in the Ptolemaic period, but closely
related to the functioning of these units as far as the third century AD,
and, what is more, an issue generally ignored by modern research. It has
been nearly 90 years since Ludwik Piotrowicz published his study in
Latin,1 so the problem can – and should – be re-examined, considering the
mass of sources published since that time.
Another topic related to nome-level administration is the problem of
nomarchai. The officials who bore this title – and who were the subject of a
monograph published recently by Fabian Reiter2 – functioned in the Arsi-
noites throughout the Roman period. I thought it would be interesting to
1
L. PIOTROWICZ, ‘De Nomi Arsinoitae tertio a. Chr. n. saeculo partitione’, [in:] Symb.
Philol. Posnaniensium, Poznań 1920, pp. 56–61.
2
F. REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites. Ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen Ägypten
(= Papyrologica Coloniensia 31), Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich 2004.
061-115 Ch2 12/4/06 3:20 AM Page 62

62 CHAPTER TWO

see in what ways they were similar and how they differed from the Ptole-
maic officials of the same name,3 at least in order to exclude the Roman
nomarchai from our field of interest as officials having rather different com-
petencies than strategoi, basilikoi grammateis, or komogrammateis. In the
Roman period their duties were limited exclusively to tax-related matters.4

2. THE PTOLEMAIC BACKGROUND:

BI- AND TRIPARTITE DIVISIONS OF THE FAYUM.
THE MERIDES

A. Bipartite division. The Henet of Moeris

The Fayum was (and still is) naturally divided into two parts – the proper,
geographical divide is Bahr Yusuf. In the Egyptian sources – as Katelijn
Vandorpe has convincingly proven – the Bahr Yusuf is always referred to
as ‘the Henet of Moeris’ (T3-h2n.t-(n-)Mr-wr).5 Egyptian documents from
the third century BC to the first century AD (the last attestation is from
3
Coincidentally, also in this point I am following the Polish scholar, Ludwik PIOTRO-
WICZ, whose study Stanowisko nomarchów w administracji Egiptu w okresie grecko-rzymskim
(= The Position of Nomarchai in the Administration of Graeco-Roman Egypt) published in Poznań
in 1922 was an excellent piece of scholarship at that time. Since it was published in Pol-
ish, this short study did not enter the circulation of international scientific literature until
2004, when it was given its due place in the history of papyrological studies by Fabian
REITER (Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites, pp. 3 and 7, and passim).
4
REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 2), passim and especially pp. 92–259.
According to this author, there was no connection between the Arsinoite nomarch of the
Roman period and the Ptolemaic official of the same name. Reiter argues that in the first
and second century AD the nomarch was a tax farmer who voluntarily took on the post and
that the nomarchy was not a liturgy but a ‘geschäfliche Unternehmung’. The nomarch or
nomarchs, as there could be more than one at a time, were in charge of the whole nome.
In the 220s, however, the nature of the office underwent fundamental changes: it became
a liturgy to which one was appointed by the town council and in this period there were
always several nomarchs in office at a time. As far as the social status is concerned, the
nomarchs were recruited from the higher strata: they were Roman citizens, at least dur-
ing the early Roman period, and members of the bouleutic class in the third century.
5
Katelijn VANDORPE, ‘The Henet of Moeris and the Ancient Administrative Division
of the Fayum in Two Parts’, ArchPF 50 (2004), pp. 61–78.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 63

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 63

AD 45) refer to towns in the Fayum specifying their location in respect to

the Henet of Moeris. Vandorpe recorded all such instances known to her6
and concluded that the villages which, according to Greek (as well as
demotic) documents, belong to the meris of Herakleides are to the north
(ct) of the Henet of Moeris, while those in the divisions of Themistos and
Polemon are located on its southern side.7
Much suggests that the divisions (merides) did not emerge simultane-
ously. As we shall see below, the meris of Herakleides appears in docu-
ments in 260 BC, whilst the two others – over a dozen years later. The divi-
sion of the nome into three merides turned out to be exceptionally
long-lasting; for more than 500 years official and notarial documents as
a rule also included mention of the meris when specifying the location of
a village. Notably, the tripartite division generally did not collide with the
traditional division into two parts – the one south of the Henet of Moeris
was simply divided in two. However, there is much to indicate that in
search for the most efficient administrative structure for the newly-
organised province of Egypt each of the two parts of the Fayum was for
some time divided into two smaller units. This is particularly evident in
P. Petrie III 128 (= P. Rev. App. II 4 [p. 189]).8

B. Ptolemaic nomarchs of the Arsinoites. ‘Big’ and ‘little’ nomarchs

In the context of the organisation of the Arsinoites in mid-third century
BC and the administration of newly gained land one should take a closer

6
Ibidem, pp. 64–67.
7
The Henet of Moeris gave its name to a city located by the canal. In the past, the
city was identified with Gurob in the south-west of the Fayum, where the Bahr Yusuf
turns north-westward (A. H. GARDINER, H. I. BELL, ‘The name of Lake Moeris’, JEA 29
[1943] pp. 37–50, esp. pp. 42–44), but VANDORPE (‘The Henet of Moeris’ [cit. supra, n. 5],
pp. 74–77) convincingly argues for its identification with the village Mo›riw of the Ptole-
maic and early Roman documents (SB I 5247, 6 of AD 47 being the latest document men-
tioning it – ibidem, pp. 76–77), then (before AD 62/3) reduced to a quarter of Krokodilopolis
(Ptolemais Euergetis) of the same name. If indeed so, then the city must have been locat-
ed very close to the capital of the Graeco-Roman Fayum, possibly to the north-east of it
(VANDORPE, ‘The Henet of Moeris’, p. 62).
8
See below, pp. 78–80.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 64

64 CHAPTER TWO

look at one of the classic problems of papyrology: who exactly were

nomarchs in Ptolemaic Egypt.9 The traditional belief that they were in
charge of the nome administration – a function in which they were soon
replaced by the strategoi – demands clarification, if not partial revision.
Fifteen years ago, Maria Rosaria Falivene published an interesting article
in which she undertook the task of arranging the administration of the
Egyptian chora under the first Ptolemies within a framework based on
three Greek word roots: érx- (‘government’) – ofik- (‘management’) –
graf- (‘writing’). The first, êrxein-function, understood as the actual
work of governing the land, was considered by Falivene to be a natives’
executive job (nomãrxhw, meridãrxhw, topãrxhw, kvmãrxhw). The second
function grouped all the officials whose titles had the root ofik-:
dioikÆthw, Ípodioikhta¤, ofikonÒmoi. Egypt was the oikos of the Ptolemies
and, therefore, it was for ofik-officials and not for the êrxein-officials to
determine the amount of revenues which should come to the Royal Trea-
sury. This function was in fact the management of Ptolemy’s household
including all Egypt as the king’s private property. The third was the func-
tion of all grammate›w/scribes to place on record all administrative oper-
ations performed in the area within their competence (nomÒw, tÒpow,
k≈mh), including ‘accounting’. Falivene was aware that her system did not
cover all the functions in the Ptolemaic administration, especially the
military ones, but she arrived at a conclusion that the interplay of these

9
On nomarchs in the administration of Ptolemaic Egypt: F. PREISIGKE, W. SPIEGELBERG,
O. Joach. (1914), pp. 40–43, Abschnitt: ‘Der nomãrxhw’; R. SEIDER, Beiträge zur Ptolemäischen
Verwaltungsgeschichte. Der Nomarches. Der Dioiketes Apollonios (= Quellen und Studien zur
Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums und des Mittelalters 8), Heidelberg 1938 (reviewed by
Claire PRÉAUX in ChrEg 15 [1940], pp. 174–176 and U. WILCKEN in ArchPF 14 [1941],
pp. 156–157); A. E. SAMUEL, ‘The Internal Organization of the Nomarch’s Bureau in the
Third Century B.C.’, [in:] Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles (= American Studies in Papy-
rology 1), New Haven 1966, pp. 213–229; J. David THOMAS, ‘Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil
Service: the Dioiketes and the Nomarch’, [in:] Das ptolemäische Ägypten, ed. H. MAEHLER and
V. M. STROCKA, Mainz am Rhein 1978, pp. 187–194; Suzanne HÉRAL, ‘Archives bilingues de
nomarques dans les papyrus de Ghôran’, [in:] Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from
Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (= SAOC 51), ed. Janet H. JOHNSON, Chicago 1992,
pp. 149–157; Suzanne HÉRAL, ‘Deux équivalents démotiques du titre de nomãrxhw’, ChrEg
65 (1990), pp. 304–320; REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 2), pp. 57–60.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 65

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 65

three administrative spheres (êrxein – ofikonome›n – grãfein) was the real

essence of how the whole administration was managed under the first
Ptolemies (especially during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos).10
While building up her system, Falivene recalled Grenfell’s interpreta-
tion of the title nomãrxhw:
the nomarchs were originally not chiefs of the ‘nome’ but chiefs of the ‘dis-
tribution’ (n°mv) of crops. (…) it is very doubtful whether … the nomarch
ever came to mean ‘chief of the nome’, as has been generally supposed. In
the instances where the nomarch is mentioned in Roman times he is con-
cerned with the administration of the royal revenues in various ways; but
the explanation of his exercise of these functions is to be looked for in the
position of the nomarch in the earlier Ptolemaic period, when he was one
of the chief revenue officials, being concerned with the important duty of
looking after the crops, especially those of the basilikØ g∞.11

Falivene followed in Grenfell’s footsteps, supporting his line of rea-

soning with an analysis of Greek literary sources (primarily Arrian and
Diodorus, or rather his source for Egypt, Hekataios of Abdera, but also
Herodotus and Ps.-Aristotelian Oeconomica). The conclusion which arises
from this analysis is that it is not to be considered a hopeless contradic-
tion that first we encounter two nomarchs appointed by Alexander for all
of Egypt (Arrian, Anab. III 5), and soon afterwards the same source
informs us:

He (i.e., Kleomenes of Naukratis) was instructed to permit the nomarchs

to govern their own districts (toÁw m¢n nomãrxaw §çn êrxein t«n nom«n) in
accordance with the ancient practices but to exact the tribute from them

10
Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, ‘Government, Management, Literacy. Aspects of Ptolemaic
Administration in the Early Hellenistic Period’, AncSoc 22 (1991) pp. 203–227. It is some-
what surprising that her article attracted so little attention of historians; it is, for instance,
not even listed in the bibliography either by W. HUSS, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332–30
v.Chr., München 2001 or G. HÖLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie und
religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994 (Eng-
lish translation: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London – New York 2001).
11
Grenfell first put forth this idea in his edition of the Revenue Laws (p. 133), and then
repeated it in P. Tebt. I 61(b), 46 note from whence the quotation comes.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 66

66 CHAPTER TWO

himself (aÈtÚn d¢ §kl°gein par' aÈt«n toÁw fÒrouw), while they were ordered
to pay it over to him.’12

Also Diodorus (I 73) mentions one nomarch per nome:

T∞w AfigÊptou d¢ pãshw efiw ple¤v m°rh di˙rhm°nhw, œn ßkaston katå tØn ÑEllh-
nikØn diãlekton Ùnomãzetai nomÒw, §f' •kãstƒ t°taktai nomãrxhw ı tØn èpãntvn
¶xvn §pim°leiãn te ka‹ front¤da.
And since Egypt as a whole is divided into several parts which in Greek are
called nomes, over each of these a nomarch is appointed who is charged
with both the oversight and care of all its affairs.13

This discrepancy can be resolved by accepting the hypothesis that the

nomarchs were present on various administrative levels, from the highest,
central level (two, and later one nomarch from Arrian’s passage – this offi-
cial has not hitherto appeared in papyri, which are scant for the reign of
Soter and the first years of Philadelphos), through the level of the nome
(two are known from third-century BC texts), down to a part of a nome,
its subdivision, which – as it shall be discussed below – was called
nomarx¤a at the beginning of Ptolemaic rule in the Fayum (such nomarchs
are known from the Fayum, where they are attested until ca. 230 BC).14 The
duties of the nomarch in the third century BC, the way they are seen by
Falivene, help to understand why an official bearing this title, but having
essentially fiscal duties, reappeared in the Roman period;15 this way it is

12
Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, Books I–IV, tr. P. A. BRUNT, Loeb Classical Library, p. 235.
13
Diodorus of Sicily, Books I and II, 1–34, tr. C. H. OLDFATHER, Loeb Classical Library,
p. 251.
14
J. David THOMAS, ‘Aspects of the Ptolemaic civil service’ (cit. supra, n. 9), pp. 193–194
proposed a justification for the inconsistency in the quoted passage from Arrian. Accord-
ing to Thomas, the explanation is found in the Egyptian word t3? behind the Greek nomÒw,
also used to designate the whole of Upper or Lower Egypt. However, this does not stand
in opposition to the later usage of the term nomãrxhw under the first Ptolemies, designat-
ing officials of different ranks. In the same article David Thomas (pp. 192–193) rejects the
hypothesis put forward by A. E. SAMUEL (‘The Internal Organization …’ [cit. supra, n. 9]),
who believed that the nomãrxhw was a rank, and not an office, a theory which was sup-
posed to explain the existence of nomarchs on different levels of the official hierarchy in
Ptolemaic Egypt. See also above, my note 4.
15
On the continuity of the office of nomarches between the Ptolemaic and Roman
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 67

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 67

also easy to comprehend the fiscal function of the meridarches.16 On the

other hand, the nome nomarch (for the sake of convenience I shall call
him the ‘big’ nomarch, as opposed to the ‘little’ nomarchs in charge of the
nomarx¤ai) may have been perceived as the head of administration in this
unit,17 though of course – following Falivene’s hypothesis – the oikonomos
of the nome was certainly more important from the point of view of the
king’s interests. Both of these areas, êrxein and ofikonome›n according to
Falivene’s terminology, were to be united in the office of the strategos,
which found reflection in his official designation: ı strathgÚw ka‹ §p‹ t«n
prosÒdvn. However, this title is not attested before the second half of the
second century BC.18

As already said, there has long been a confusion concerning the terms
nomãrxhw and nomarx¤a in its specific Arsinoite meaning. The title nom-
ãrxhw denoted two different officials, one heading the entire Arsinoite
nome (or perhaps, as argued above, one of the departments of nome

periods, see REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 2), pp. 57–59 and 288–290.
Reiter’s conclusion: ‘Die ptolemäischen Nomarchen waren zwar u.a. auch in der
Steuerverwaltung tätig, aber ihr Tätigkeitsbereich war weitaus umfangreicher als der der
römischen Nomarchen.’ (p. 59) is not contradictory to what has been said before based on
the theory put forward by Falivene.
16
For the office of meridarches, see F. COLIN, P. Bingen 57, commentary (pp. 238–240);
Andrea JÖRDENS, P. Louvre I 38 introduction; see also REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites
(cit. supra, n. 2), pp. 90, 276 and 285.
17
Perhaps this should be perceived as the cause of the reactivation of the nomarch as
head of the newly-created Antinoopolite nome (called nomarx¤a) in the second century,
although simultaneously in the Fayum there were officials called by the same title, but
having entirely different job responsibilities. At approximately the same time a nomarch
is attested in Naukratis (P. Oslo III 92 of AD 130). For the Antinoopolite nomarchs, see
M. ZAHRNT, ‘Antinoopolis in Ägypten: Die hadrianische Gründung und ihre Privilegien in
der neueren Forschung’, [in:] ANRW II.10.1 (1988) pp. 669–706, esp. pp. 689–690, older
literature cited therein.
18
For the office of ı strathgÚw ka‹ §p‹ t«n prosÒdvn, see REITER, Die Nomarchen des
Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 2), p. 67 n. 2 (with an abundant bibliography); for the list of offi-
cials, see B. PALME in commentary to P. Sijp. 19 (forthcoming).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 68

68 CHAPTER TWO

administration), the other – a subdivision of it. The problem was how

large these smaller units were. Willy Peremans and Edmond Van’t Dack
identified four such units, one of which was to include a part of the Mem-
phite nome. In other words their territory would have been similar to
that of the three later merides, though their boundaries seemed to have
been incongruent to those of the later division.19 It is now evident, how-
ever, that these nomarchiai were in fact much smaller. In an article pub-
lished in 1997, Willy Clarysse proved that nomarchiai were minor admin-
istrative units, comparable to the toparchiai, which practically replaced
them in the 230s BC.20 As a result, we have a dozen or so ‘little’ nomarchs,
but not all of those listed in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica (volumes I and
VIII) can be classified as part of this group. There is no doubt that in
236/5 BC a certain Ammonios was a nomarch of the entire Arsinoite nome
(Pros. Ptol. I 391) – P. Petrie III 75 drafted by him (lines 3–4: par' A
É mmv-
n[¤ou] | nomãrxou toË A É rsino˝tou) is a report on cultivation in the whole
nome. Thanks to this document we can have fairly high confidence that
the nomarch in P. Tebt. III.2 846, 4 is the same Ammonios.
This is to date the only known nomarch of the entire Arsinoite nome,
and one of the two ‘big’ nomarchs from the third century BC known so far,
or, to be more precise, of the nomarchs having their title followed by the
name of the nome.21 I also found no indirect evidence for the ‘big’
nomarchs, since the papyrus cited below cannot be taken into account.
P. Petrie III 26,22 dated to ca. 240 BC, contains a fragmentary copy of a

19
W. PEREMANS, E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Prosopographica XIII: Les nomarchies mentionées
dans P. Petrie II 39a = III 88’, [in:] Studia Hellenistica 9, Leuven 1953, pp. 73–80.
20
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Nomarchs and Toparchs in the Third Century Fayum’, [in:] Archeologia
e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del Convegno internazionale,
Siracusa, 24–25 Maggio 1996 (= Quaderni del Museo del Papiro 8), Siracusa 1997, pp. 69–76.
21
The remaining ones are: Apollonides, nomãrxhw t[oË ÉO]jurugx¤[tou] in BGU VI
1229. 18 (257/6 BC); O. Joachim 2. 4–5 (Omboi, 78 BC): §p‹ Pela¤ou suggenoË<w>4 ka‹ | 4strath-
gon (read strathgoË) <ka‹> nomarxh (read nomãrxou) toË ÉOmb¤tou.
22
Marie-Thérèse LENGER, ‘Le fragment de loi ptolémaïque P. Petrie III 26 (Bodl. MS.
Gr. class. d. 27. [P])’, [in:] Studi in Onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli, Firenze 1956, pp. 459–467 (esp.
pp. 460–463); see also Marga JAGER, Marijke REINSMA, ‘Ein missverstandenes Gesetz aus
ptolemäischer Zeit’, [in:] P. Lugd. Bat. XIV, pp. 114–115.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 69

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 69

royal (?) decree. The very beginning of the preserved text is as follows
(lines 1–3):
[ to]Áw topãrxa[w ]
kr¤mata ka`yÆkei efiw toÁw fÒrouw µ tå[w] »nå[w]23
éll' µ tÚn nomãrxhn metå toË strathgoË.
The text says that decisions regarding taxes or tax leases are not to be
made by toparchs, but are exclusively the responsibility of the nomarch
in conjunction with the strategos.24 The document is an interesting piece
of evidence for the interaction between the nomarchai and strategoi in the
mid-third century BC. Unfortunately, albeit this in an Arsinoite copy, the
decree itself was intended as a general act for all of Egypt and does not
apply to the specific situation of the Fayum.
Falivene’s reasoning cited at the beginning of this section may be re-
conciled with the conclusion of Clarysse who, having examined the rela-
tionship between the nomarchiai and toparchiai in the mid-third century
BC, sees the Arsinoite nomarchs (‘little’ nomarchs) as responsible for ‘the
organisation of the irrigation and distribution of newly gained lands,
when the financial and civil administration of the Fayum was already
given in the hands of the new regular officials (i.e., toparchs – TD)’.25
Clarysse’s conclusion seems to hold true for the Fayum, where nomarchs
are not attested after 230 BC; however, they did exist in other parts of
Egypt, including the Herakleopolite nome which bordered the Fayum,
throughout the Ptolemaic rule.26
The above can be summed up as follows: perhaps at the dawn of the
Ptolemaic period the nomarchs were at the head of nome administration,

23
See BL V, p. 84.
24
For the discussion of the text and a possible reconstruction of its beginning, see
E. SEIDL, Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte, Glückstadt – Hamburg – New York 1962, pp. 12–13.
Seidl dated the document to 246–242 BC.
25
CLARYSSE, ‘Nomarchs and Toparchs’ (cit. supra, n. 20), p. 76.
26
The Herakleopolite nome: BGU VIII 1821, 16 of 51/50 BC; BGU VIII 1781, 6 (61/60 BC),
BGU XIV 2428. 2, 23 (first century BC). Thebes: two documents from the archive of the
choachytai, UPZ II 161 (= P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis) of 119 BC and UPZ II 162 (= P. Tor. Choach. 12)
of 117 BC. Omboi: O. Joachim 5 and 13 (74 BC and 65 BC respectively).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 70

70 CHAPTER TWO

even though documents say little about it. They were rather – quoting
Grenfell and Falivene – chiefs of the ‘distribution’ (n°mv) of crops, and
– here we accept Clarysse’s conclusion – of newly gained lands, a function
particularly important in peculiar Fayumic conditions. Most of the
known Arsinoite nomarchs were ‘little’ nomarchs, who had authority
over an area comparable in size to the later toparchy. This picture is made
complete by one ‘big’ nomarch, whose administrative area covered the
entire Arsinoite nome. Around 230 BC nomarchs disappeared from the
Fayum administration, but remained in the other nomes, where they
most probably retained their fiscal and administrative function.27 This
seems to explain the re-emergence of the nomarchs already in the Roman
period as purely fiscal officials.28 If in the Ptolemaic period after 230 BC
the distinctive feature of the Fayum was the lack of nomarchs, in the
Roman period it was the existence of these officials that distinguished
this region from the rest of Egypt!

C. The creation of merides

As already said, for over 500 years (until the beginning of the fourth cen-
tury AD) the basic division of the Fayum was the division into three merides.
To the north of the Bahr Yusuf lay the meris of Herakleides, which en-
gulfed the administrative unit called Mikra Limne, perhaps already in the
230s BC. The part of the nome to the south of the Bahr Yusuf was divided
into two merides: the meris of Polemon, which covered the south-eastern

27
However, there is one noteworthy and somewhat unclear document dating from the
first century BC and mentioning a nomarch. P. Tebt. I 108 descr. (in the introduction to a land
lease dated either to 93 or 60 BC) = C. Ptol. Sklav. 195 has on its recto seven lines beginning
with: ÉEpe‹f iy. =Ê`si(w) A
É p[o]llv(n¤ou) nomãrx(ou) | êroura a. The remainder of the texts is
unpublished. There can hardly be doubt as to the reading (see a photograph at <http://dig-
italassets.lib.berkeley.edu/apis/ucb/images/ /AP00969aA.jpg> The verso contains
an account of wages paid to labourers performing work on various plots of land but its
relation to the verso is obscure. Scholl republished both sides but in the commentary he
paid no attention to the recto. The works were done §n t“ ÑOplohnoË(tow), ‘im Gebiet des
Oploenou( )’ (sic!). The toponym is unknown.
28
For these ‘new’ nomarchs, see above, pp. 61–62, esp. p. 62 n. 4.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 71

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 71

section, or the so-called Gharaq Basin, and the meris of Themistos, in the
western part of the oasis. The capital of the nome, the city of many names:
Krokodilopolis, Ptolemais Euergetis, Arsinoe, pÒliw t«n A É rsino˝tvn, was
located on the north side of the Bahr Yusuf, in the meris of Herakleides.
It takes just a glance at the map to conclude that these merides were not
equal in size. The area of the meris of Herakleides is slightly smaller than
that occupied by the merides of Polemon and Themistos together. The
cause of such a situation lies in the natural environment. The region to
the south of the Bahr Yusuf is not geologically homogenous. Its eastern
part, the meris of Polemon, occupies the Gharaq Basin. The situation is
different on the northern side of the Bahr Yusuf, which lacks such a clear-
ly defined formation.
These natural conditions could not have remained without influence
on Fayum’s history, especially during the extensive irrigation works and
the intensive (re)populating of the Fayum with new inhabitants. Much of
the history of third-century BC Fayum is revealed by toponyms. In an arti-
cle written in 2005, Willy Clarysse divided Fayumic toponyms into three
main types (descriptive names, villages named after gods or temples, vil-
lages named after towns outside Egypt, villages named after population
groups, villages named after towns inside Egypt, villages named after the
Alexandrian demes, dynastic names and villages named after private per-
sons), and examined their distribution in the particular merides. Of Cla-
rysse’s conclusions three are of utmost importance:
(1.) the meris of Herakleides was settled first,
(2.) the meris of Themistos was more heavily Greek and more centrally
organised,
(3.) the meris of Themistos was settled slightly later than the meris of
Polemon.29

29
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Toponymy of Fayum Villages in the Ptolemaic Period’, in the pro-
ceedings of the Fayum conference in Lecce 2005. Clarysse concludes the discussion of the
process of populating the Fayum in the third century BC in a more appealing manner: ‘the
Fayum province was constructed as a miniature Egypt: Delta cities in the north (Hera-
kleidou meris), Nile valley cities in the south (Polemon meris) and Alexandrian demes in
the East (Themistou meris). This is an easy way to remember it, but I doubt that this was
the way it was really planned’.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 72

72 CHAPTER TWO

It is commonly believed that the merides were named after three offi-
cials, their first administrators, although – considering the previously
adopted conclusions of Falivene – they were rather not meridarchai.30 Of
the three, only Themistos31 can be considered an active person. Since the
name Themistos is by far less common than the other two,32 we can iden-
tify a person appearing in the Arsinoite documents of the 250s with the
official after whom the meris was named. In P. Col. Zenon I 51, 3 the use of
parã indicates a person, not a shortened form of Yem¤stou (mer¤dow) as
the editors had assumed:33 Stotoetis, a well known Egyptian agent
(xeiristÆw) working for Zenon, obtained from Themistos 135 artabae of
aracus coming from two villages (Arsinoe and Trikomia) in his meris. The
‘village of Themistos’, no doubt named after him, is a Demotic name for
Athenas Kome, another village in his division.34 P. Petrie II 26 (7) = III 64
(a) (7) of 253/2 BC is a banker’s receipt for money paid katå tÚ sÊm[bolon]
tÚ parå Yem¤stou.35 Themistos, the superior of (‘little’) nomarch Damis

30
As suggested by E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Notes sur les circonscriptions d’origine grecque en
Égypte ptolémaïque’, [in:] Ptolemaica (= Studia Hellenistica 7), Louvain 1951, pp. 39–59 (see
p. 48).
31
In the past attempts have been made to identify documents that attested the activ-
ity of Polemon as well: B. A. VAN GRONINGEN, ‘Un autographe du méridarque Polémon?’,
Aegyptus 13 (1933) pp. 21–24, but were rightly refuted by Claire PRÉAUX, ‘Est-ce un auto-
graphe du méridarque Polémon?’, ChrEg 9 (1934), pp. 132–133. See also U. WILCKEN,
‘Urkunden-Referat’, ArchPF 11 (1933), p. 125.
32
For the name and its form (Themistos and not Themistes), see J. BINGEN, ‘Themis-
tos avec -os comme... Themistus’, ChrEg 62 (1987), pp. 234–239. The form Themistes,
based on the authority of Ulrich WILCKEN (Gött. gel. Anz. 1895, p. 145 n. 2), is often found
in scholarly literature, although some scholars of the past, including, e.g., Edmond VAN’T
DACK were well aware of its incorrectness – see his remark in ‘Circonscriptions’ (cit. supra,
n. 30), p. 48 n. 2.
33
See a corrigendum in P. Col. Zenon II, p. 205.
34
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Sureties in Fayum villages’, [in:] Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak (P. Horak),
ed. H. HARRAUER, R. PINTAUDI, Firenze 2004, vol. I, pp. 279–281, esp. p. 281. For the village
itself, see H. HARRAUER in CPR XIII, pp. 19–20 and Katja MUELLER, ‘Ptolemaic settle-
ments in space. Settlement size and hierarchy in the Fayum’, ArchPF 48 (2002) pp. 107–125
(esp. p. 120).
35
For the reading and interpretation, see Claire PRÉAUX in a review of P. Col. Zenon in
ChrEg 10 (1935), p. 150.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 73

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 73

in PSI IV 366 of 250/49 BC (Dçmiw ı parå Yem¤stou), is perhaps the same

person.36

The earliest references to merides are found in the documents of mid-

third century BC, but for instance in the Zenon archive they appear only
sporadically.37 Until 244/243 BC we have no documents describing locali-
ties in the Fayum as ‘village x of the meris of Herakleides (or Polemon, or
Themistos)’; after this date it became common very quickly. The earliest
attestations (before 235 BC) of this practice are:

244/3 BC P. Bürgsch.38 23, 2–3: village Arsinoe of the meris of Themistos39

242 BC P. Enteux. 80, 2: katoikoËntew A É rsinÒhn tØn §p‹ toË x≈matow
t∞w Yem¤1s2t2o2u mer¤dow.
239 BC SB XVI 12342, 9: §n A Ñ uÆrei t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow.
247–231 BC P. Petrie III 79 (c), 10: Íp¢r SebennÊtou t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou
(before 238)40 me(r¤dow).
247–231 BC P. Petrie III 78, 2–3: §n A É piãdi Íp¢r Lusimax¤dow | t∞w Yem¤stou
(before 238)41 me(r¤dow); lines 7–8: §n A
É piãdi Íp¢r SebennÊtou t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou
| mer¤dow; lines 9–10: ka‹ Íp¢r ÑHrakl°aw t∞w Yem¤stou | mer¤-

36
According to Willy CLARYSSE (personal communication), Damis’ superior may not be
identical with Themistos, the first administrator of the meris, since he was active around
Philadelpheia, which was in the meris of Herakleides.
37
This is, however, not surprising given the fact that only a few documents from the
Zenon archive are dated to the second half of the 240s decade (P. W. PESTMAN, with con-
tributions by W. CLARYSSE, M. KORVER, M. MUSZYŃSKI, Annette L. SCHUTGENS, W. J. TAIT
and J. K. WINNICKI, A Guide to the Zenon Archive, Leiden 1981, vol. I, p. 250), and the merides
in their classical form, as we shall demonstrate, started after ca. 245 BC.
38
Demotische Urkunden zum ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrechte vorzüglich der Ptolemäerzeit, ed.
K. SETHE and J. PARTSCH, Leipzig 1920 (= Abh. Sächs. 32), Urk. 23, pp. 478–486.
39
I owe this reference to Willy CLARYSSE.
40
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 280. ‘Before 238’ is Clarysse’s remark in his notes.
41
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 280.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 74

74 CHAPTER TWO

dow pur(oË) – Apias is a village in the meris of Themistos, but

not far from the border of the meris of Herakleides.
238/7 BC P. Hib. I 81, 2, 14–15: §n ÑHrakle¤ai t∞w Yem¤stou mer¤dow (for
two other villages mentioned in this document, see below).
238 BC UPZ I, p. 603, no. 3a = SB III 6942 = P.Lille dem. I 21 (p. 46)
(a Greek subscription below a demotic document): §n A É rsi-
nÒ[hi t]∞w Yem¤stou mer¤dow.
ca. 237 BC SB XVIII 14041, 5: [§k b]asilik∞w g∞[w per‹] A É `noubiãda t∞w
Yem[¤sto]u m`er¤dow.
236 BC P. Petrie III 58, 6–7: §n4 k≈mhi | AÈtod¤khi toË A É rsino˝tou t∞w
[Y]em¤stou mer¤dow.
236 BC P. Petrie III 117(a), ii 18: a village (its name lost) t∞w Pol°mvnow
mer¤dow.

Of the documents mentioned above, one is of special interest. P. Hib. I 81

(238/7 BC) contains official correspondence concerning cleruchs. Listed in
lines 14–18 are the cleruchs at Herakleia, designated as a village of the
meris of Themistos (§n ÑHrakle¤ai t∞w Yem¤stou mer¤dow). In the preceed-
ing lines other villages are mentioned without their meris designation, but
it is added on the left-hand margin: Boubastos accompanied with abbre-
viated ÑH2r1(akle¤dou) in line 7 and Theogonis with P2[o(l°monow) in line 8.
The document is witness to a change in bureaucratic habits and it shows
how the new system entered the formal language of the officials.
Already before 244/3 BC the merides were present in the titulature of
some officials:

259/8 BC P. Petrie III 56 (b), 6: éntigrafeÁw t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow.

244/3 BC P. Bürgsch. 22, 13–14: Philoxenos, phylakites of the meris of
Themistos.42

42
For archisitologos connected conjecturally with the meris of Themistos in P. Cairo
Zenon IV 59543, 3 (257 BC), see below., pp. 75–76
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 75

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 75

In the same period the merides also appear as a general geographical

designation:

260 BC P. Lille I 5, 19–20: the seed corn delivered Yeod≈rvi ÑHr≈idou,

efiw [∂n] ¶sparken §n t∞i ÑHra|kle¤dou mer¤di, ‘à Théodoros, fils
de Hérôdès, pour la terre qu’il a ensemencée dans le district
d’Héracleidès’.43
246/5 BC44 SB XXII 15278 (= PSI IV 415 + PSI VI 621), line 13: §n t∞i
Yem¤stou mer¤di as a general geographical reference.
245/4 BC P. Petrie III 63 records expenditures of the royal bank dis-
tributed through the merides t∞w Pol°mvnow (line 15) and
Yem¤stou (line 20).

Other early attestations of the merides as a geographical designation (with

no village specified) are two documents from the Zenon archive, both let-
ters sent to Zenon by Demetrios, a farmer of apomoira:

243 BC P. Cairo Zenon III 59357, 4–7: accounts of proceedings in

vineyards toÁw1 lÒgouw t«n gen|hmãtvn t∞w Yem¤stou | mer¤dow
ka‹ t∞w Pol°|mvnow …saÊtvw.
242 BC P. Cairo Zenon III 59361, 26: account arranged according to
merides, in which the divisions of Polemon and Themistos
are listed (line 4 and 26 respectively).

As already said, the merides are only rarely mentioned in the Zenon
papyri, the remaining examples are: SB XXII 15278, 13 (= PSI IV 415 + PSI
VI 621) of 246–245 BC – meris of Themistos mentioned as a general geo-
graphical designation with no village name attached and P. Lugd. Bat. XX
18, 6 (date unknown) – possibly a village in the meris of Herakleides.
There is also an archisitologos connected with the meris of Themistos in
P. Cairo Zenon IV 59543, 3 (257 BC) but the restoration offered in P. Tebt.

43
For this document, see below, pp. 76–77.
44
The date of the text is assured because it mentions the royal scribe Petosiris (Pros.
Ptol. I + VIII 465) – Clarysse’s personal communication.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 76

76 CHAPTER TWO

III.2 853, 21 note, is doubtful: [ÍpÚ Ptolema¤]ou érxisitolÒgou t∞w

Y2e[2 m¤stou mer¤dow].45 This appears even less probable in view of the evi-
dence collected here. Another document, P. Petrie II 18 (2a) dated by the
editor to 246 BC and mentioning in line 3 ÑHrak]le¤dou m[er¤dow in uncer-
tain context cannot be taken into account, since its exact date is indeter-
minable.46
Interestingly, the meris of Herakleides appears in documents signifi-
cantly earlier than the other two units. The texts in question are dated to
January of 259 BC (P. Lille I 5) and most probably September/October of
259 BC (P. Petrie III 56 [b]) –15 years before merides appeared in other doc-
uments, if one does not take into account the highly uncertain evidence
of P. Cairo Zenon IV 59543, 3 (257 BC). From ca. 245 BC onwards, the merides
were common in the administrative terminology for more than 500 years.
Let us now examine the two earliest documents.
P. Lille I 5 contains ‘deux ordres de distribution de semences’, partly
identical. The seed is to be taken from granaries (§g (= §k)4 LhtoËw pÒlevw
(line 6); §`k` K2ro1 k ` n pÒlevw (between lines 6 and 7 and passim); épÚ toË
` o` d` ¤` l` v
ÉIsie¤ou (line 24)47 and delivered to farmers:48 k1a‹2 ` t`o›2 w` ` p2arå | [tØn L¤m]n[h]n,
‘to those who live before the Lake’ (lines 4–5); ka‹ to›w Boubast¤taiw ‘to
the inhabitants of Boubastos’ (line 6); ka‹ to`›w §n t∞i Maimãxou mer¤di, ‘to
the farmers of the meris of Maimachos’ (line 18). Among the farmers from
the meris of Maimachos, there is a certain Theodoros, son of Herodes.
Since the entry is of special importance at this point, I quote it in full
(lines 19–22):
45
The document, however, has recently been quoted as the earliest attestation for the
meris of Themistos by Katja MUELLER, ‘Redistricting the Ptolemaic Fayum, Egypt. From
Nomarchies and Toparchies to Weighted voronoi tessalation’, ArchPF 51 (2005), pp. 112–126,
p. 113 n. 1. In the same note, the author gives UPZ II 151, 3 of 259 BC as the first attesta-
tion of the meris of Polemon, but the document, coming probably from the Thebaid, talks
about a battle ship (‘Kriegsschiff ’) of Polemon, not necessarily the eponym of one of the
Arsinoite merides! It is an enteuxis by a certain A
Ñ reÁw ép[Ú] t[∞w] | Pol°mvnow trihmiol¤aw
(lines 2–3); for the trihmiol¤a, see Wilcken’s commentary to lines 2–4. The same note is to
be found in her paper ‘Ptolemaic Settlements in Space’ (cit. supra, n. 34), p. 120 n. 47.
46
For the date, see P. Gurob 9, introd.
47
See P. Lille I 5, 6 comm.
48
Here I quote all the geographical references from the document.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 77

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 77

Yeod≈rvi ÑHr≈idou, efiw [∂n] ¶sparken §n t∞i ÑHra|kle¤dou mer¤di,

Åértãbaw •katÚn pentÆkonta ka‹ efiw jul›tin, ∂n2 mem¤syvtai prÚw
Farba¤yhi, sÁn t∞i shsam¤tid2i,1 49
˜sh ín ∑i §n t«i tÒpvi toÊtvi, ∂ g°gone jul›tiw, ∏w kat°sparke nËn §p‹
(éroÊraw) q tåw d¢
loipåw kataspe¤rei tåw bebregm°naw (éroÊraw) i, fÒrou tØn (éroÊran)
(értãbhn) a d'
à Théodoros, fils de Hérôdès, pour la terre qu’il a ensemencée dans le dis-
trict d’Héracleidès, 150 artabes, et pour la partie boisée qu’il a prise à bail
près de Pharbaitha, avec les cultures de sésame, quelque grandes qu’elles
soient dans cette région (§n t«i tÒpvi toÊtvi), qui sont devenues des bois,
terre dont il a ensemencé à l’heure actuelle 90 aroures, et dont il ense-
mence les 10 autres qui ont été recouvertes par l’inondation, revenu par
aroure, 1 artabe T (tr. P. Jouguet).

Another farmer from among those of the meris of Maimachos, Demet-

rios son of Apollonios, received the seed efiw tØn2 parå tØn L¤mnhn §n t∞i
Maimãxou mer¤di, ‘pour sa terre située près du Lac dans le district de
Maimachos’ (line 27).

A collection of different oaths was published by John Mahaffy as

P. Petrie III 56. Document (b), securely dated to 259/8 BC thanks to the
mention of the kanephoros Matela,50 has in lines 5–7:51

49
See BL VII, p. 77. The editio princeps has: sÁn t∞i shsamit¤ai.
50
J. IJSEWIJN, De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et Lagidarum eponymis (= Ver-
handelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kun-
sten van België. Klasse der Letteren 42), p. 24, no. 27, see BL VII, p. 162; W. CLARYSSE, G. VAN
DER VEKEN, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt. Chronological Lists of the Priests of Alexan-
dria and Ptolemais with a Study of the Demotic Transcriptions of Their Names (= Papyrologica Lug-
duno-Batava XXIV), Leiden 1983, pp. 6–7. See also HGV: ‘259 v. Chr., 22. Sept. – 21. Okt.
(Monat unsicher); Alternativdatierung: 26. März – 24. Apr. 258 v. Chr. Datierung nach dem
makedonischen Regierungsjahr.’
51
I quote the text as it was revised by Willy CLARYSSE, whom I thank for making his
notes available to me.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 78

78 CHAPTER TWO

Ùmn_o1´Êei D2em2Æ2trio2w2 Å....onow f¤lvnÄ ıw ka‹ Kerk¤v2n252 Svsifãnei

én2t2[igrafe›]
t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow basil°a Ptolema›on ka‹ A É r|sinÒhn Filãdelfon
yeoÁw A É delfoÁw Åka‹Ä toÁw to2Ê2t[2 vn]
g3o2ne2 ›w ∑ mØn53 katastaye‹w ÍpÚ soË prÚw t∞i ént[ig]r`a`|fe`¤a` i t∞w Kali-
krãtou mer¤dow.

The document is a written oath of a certain Demetrios, also called

Kerkion, on his appointment to office of the antigrapheia of the meris of
Kalikrates (sic!). He undertakes to manage affairs in connection with the
dykes uprightly and justly, and swears that he will not peculate himself of
allow anyone else to do so. The oath is sworn before Sosiphanes, the anti-
grapheus of the meris of Herakleides who seems to be the one appointing
Demetrios, also called Kerkion, for the new office (katastaye‹w ÍpÚ soË).
Being the only evidence for the meris of Kalikrates, the document was
thoroughly discussed by Hans Hauben.54
Another unit appearing with no connection to the division of Hera-
kleides is a meris named after Kalliphanes: P. Petrie II 37(a), 3–4 (258/7 BC)
– public works §n t∞i Kalli|fãnouw mer¤di t∞w N¤kvnow nomarx¤a[w].
Conclusively, these documents, all dating from a very short time
period (260–257 BC), mention three other merides apart from the meris of
Herakleides: those of Maimachos, Kallikrates and Kalliphanes. P. Petrie
III 56(b) – hitherto the only source attesting the existence of the meris of
Kallikrates – indicates its dependence upon the meris of Herakleides (its
antigrapheus is subordinate to the antigrapheus of the meris of Herakleides).
The meris of Herakleides, which encompassed the first irrigated land, was
also the first to obtain a kind of administrative identity, as it can be con-
cluded from the presence of an antigrapheus. What is more, one guesses

52
This reading (from Clarysse’s notes) solves a problem of the editio princeps: two
persons involved (ka‹ Kerki.[.]. ), but the verb ÙmnÊei and participle katastaye¤w in the
singular.
53
According to Clarysse’s reading, the scribe first wrote ei men and then corrected to
ei mhn. ∑ mÆn is a typical oath formula.
54
H. HAUBEN, ‘Kalikratou Meris and Kallikratous Kome in Middle Egypt’, ArchPF 26
(1978) pp. 51–56, esp. pp. 51–53.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 79

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 79

that in the period of dynamic changes in the Fayum the meris of Herak-
leides was divided into smaller units and one of them was the meris of
Kallikrates.
Of key importance for the understanding of the character of the
administrative division of the Fayum in the third quarter of the third cen-
tury BC is P. Petrie III 128 (= P. Rev. App. II 4 [p. 189]) – a document from
Gurob, dating from the 8th year of an unnamed king (line 3), undoubted-
ly Ptolemy III Euergetes I, which yields the year 240/39 BC.55 The docu-
ment contains a list of salaries of the phylakitai of the Arsinoites and
because of its significance for the administrative history of the Arsinoites
it is worthwhile to quote a large fragment of it:

[ ± 16 Í]p`¢`r fulakit«n
[ ± 6 ].....vi [§]pistãthi fulakit«n
[ ± 6 ] toË Xoiåx ka‹ TËbi toË h (¶touw)
4 […w toË] mhnÚw x(alkoË) t (draxmåw) x ka‹ Àste Ptolema¤vi
[ful]ak¤thi t∞w Pol°mvnow mer¤dow …w toË mhnÚw p
[ ± 5 ] xa(lkoË) rj ka‹ Àste ÉAm`ei` nob¤vi t∞w Yem¤stou
[…w toË mh]nÚw n xa(lkoË) r ka‹ Àste B¤vni t∞w ÑHrakle¤dou
8 [mer¤dow] …w toË mhnÚw m xal(koË) p ka‹ Àste
[ÉAgÆnor?56]i t∞w Mikrçw L¤mnhw …w toË mhnÚw l xa(lkoË) j

Despite the lacunae the meaning of the document is clear.57 The text
– as already mentioned – contains a list of salaries for two consecutive
months Choiak (January/February) and Tybi (February/March) of 239 BC.
Phylakitai mentioned in this document are police officers. At the head of
the police on nome level was §pistãthw fulakit«n listed in l. 2, who
received a monthly salary of 300 drachmae. In lower-rank administrative

55
For the date, see HGV.
56
P. KOOL, De phylakieten in Grieks-Romeins Egypte, Amsterdam 1954, p. 17 (= BL III,
p. 147) after line 16, where this name appears, although it is not quite certain whether that
Agenor was indeed a phylakites.
57
See KOOL, De phylakieten (cit. supra, n. 56), pp. 17–18.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 80

80 CHAPTER TWO

units his subordinates were (archi)phylakitai,58 and in the Arsinoites they

were (archi)phylakitai of particular merides. Ptolemaios, phylakites of the
division of Polemon, received 80 drachmae per month; Ameinobios, phy-
lakites of the division of Themistos – 50 drachmae; Bios, phylakites of the
division of Herakleides – 40 drachmae, and Agenor, phylakites of a divi-
sion called Mikra Limne – 30 drachmae. The rest of the document, heav-
ily damaged, talks about the number of personnel subordinate to the
aforementioned phylakitai of the particular merides. Therefore, this docu-
ment leaves no doubt that the division called Mikra Limne was treated as
equal to the other three merides. It remains open to discussion whether
the salary paid to phylakitai of the four divisions was proportional to the
area, the population, the difficulty of police tasks, or something else.
Anyhow – most importantly from our point of view – even though the
salary of the phylakites of the division called Mikra Limne was the lowest,
it did not differ greatly from the salary paid to the phylakitai of the divi-
sions of Herakleides and Themistos.
The division called Mikra Limne is to be located near the northern
border of the meris of Herakleides.59 It existed until at least 235 BC, if we
accept the evidence of P. Tebt. III.1 701. It is quite probable that the dis-
trict disappeared from the administrative map of the Arsinoites in the
230s BC, simultaneously with the changes in the nome administration,
which included the replacement of the nomarchiai by the toparchiai.60 It is
possible that approximately at that time the permanent (or seasonal)

58
KOOL, De phylakieten (cit. supra, n. 56), p. 13 believed that in P. Petrie III 128, as in many
documents of later date, the archiphylakitai were meant. Since this is the earliest attesta-
tion of phylakitai of a meris, I would rather suggest that the title born by these officials was
first phylakites, and changed to archiphylakites only some decades later.
59
VAN’T DACK, ‘Circonscriptions’ (cit. supra, n. 30), p. 46 with n. 3. This location is indi-
rectly confirmed by P. Tebt. III.1 701 (235 BC) – a register, arranged by the days of the
month, of copies of outgoing letters to various officials mostly in the northern part of the
meris of Herakleides, if parå t«n Mik2rolim2[na¤vn in line 322 (with a question mark by the
editors) is a correct reading (see comm. ad loc.). Ten lines below we find ofl Mik[ro-
limna›oi?] which is of course even more suspicious. The word Mikrolimna›ow is not attest-
ed elsewhere. See also the map in Suzanne HÉRAL, ‘Archives bilingues de nomarques’ (cit.
supra, n. 9).
60
See below, pp. 119–120.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 81

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 81

water body called Mikra Limne, which was perhaps the natural border
between the meris of Herakleides and a district called Mikra Limne,
ceased to exist. This district must have also originally encompassed
Philadelpheia – it is puzzling that among the infrequent references to
merides in the texts from the Zenon archive there is no mention of either
the meris of Herakleides, or the district called Mikra Limne. This is
explainable, considering the function of the merides in the language of
administration in use at the time – the name of the meris was specified
only when the matter concerned distant places located in a different dis-
trict of the Fayum than the one Philadelpheia was in.
A text that should probably be viewed in this context is P. Lugd. Bat.
XX, document c (pp. 268–269), a letter that concerns difficulties in organ-
ising Apollonios’ dorea, but does not belong to the Zenon archive.61 In
this letter, Limne, which was according to the editor a designation of the
entire Arsinoite nome, seems to be set in opposition to the district called
Mikra Limne. This document is dated to 257 BC, a time when the admin-
istrative structure of the Fayum was still forming. We know that the meris
of Herakleides already existed in this period; the area to the south and
west of the Bahr Yusuf was still, as it seems, in the phase of formation.
Limne in this document is – as it is believed – an equivalent of the name
of the Arsinoite nome, which at that time probably encompassed hardly
anything but the area north of the Bahr Yusuf, in other words, barely
more than the meris of Herakleides in its regular shape. Based on this doc-
ument it cannot be determined whether Mikra Limne was an independ-
ent nome or perhaps the second – besides Limne – part of the Arsinoite
nome. What seems to speak in favour of this second possibility is the
existence of a separate unit of that name within the Arsinoite nome 17
years later (P. Petrie III 128 [= P. Rev. App. II 4 (p. 189)] of 240/39 BC).
Hardly anything certain can be said about the meris of Maimachos
from P. Lille I 5. ka‹ to`›w §n t∞i Maimãxou mer¤di, ‘aux cultivateurs du dis-

61
The document is part of the archive of the architektones Kleon and Theodoros.
Kleon and his successor Theodoros were engineers, responsible for irrigation, quarrying,
and public works in the Arsinoites. Bart VAN BEEK is preparing a Ph.D. at Leuven with a
re-edition of this archive.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 82

82 CHAPTER TWO

trict de Maimachos’ in line 18 and the fact that one of them sows over
land in the meris of Herakleides (line 19) suggests that to the author of the
text the meris of Maimachos was an administrative unit on the same level
as the meris of Herakleides. A few lines below (l. 27) we read about the
seed efiw tØn parå tØn L¤mnhn §n t∞i Maimãxou mer¤di, ‘pour sa terre située
près du Lac dans le district de Maimachos’. If the Limne is Lake Moeris,
then this land must have been located south of it. If it was not in the meris
of Herakleides (since this one is specifically mentioned in the document),
then there is no other possibility than to place it to the south-west of the
Bahr Yusuf, where over a dozen years later there will have been the meris
of Themistos, about which we can infer that it was populated and organ-
ised later than the meris of Herakleides.62 Such a location of the meris of
Maimachos corresponds to the location of the later nomarcheia of Maima-
chos, confirmed by several documents, a unit that occupied the border
area between the merides of Herakleides and Themistos.63

Around 245 BC two more merides, Themistos and Polemon, began to

appear in the administrative terminology; from that time on these terms
were used for three purposes:
(1.) to specify the location of a given village (‘village x of meris y’);
(2.) to define the duties of officials (hence, mutatis mutandis, officials for
these three merides begin to appear);
(3.) as a general geographic term.
However, as it can be seen from the two documents discussed above,
the term meris was also used earlier. It is not without meaning that before

62
The editor of P. Lille I 5, Pierre JOUGUET, baffled by the document’s lack of precision,
concludes that ‘il est difficile d’admettre dans ces conditions que mer¤w soit un terme tech-
nique’ (comm. to line 18), and justifies his opinion with the use of the term mer¤w in a near-
contemporary document to designate a part of the nomarcheia of Nikon. Interestingly, the
French editor was not consistent enough to extend his conclusion over the meris of Hera-
kleides as well!
63
PEREMANS, VAN’T DACK, ‘Prosopographica XIII: Les nomarchies’ (cit. supra, n. 19) p. 79.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 83

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 83

ca. 245 BC there is no mention of the merides of Polemon and Themistos,

but the meris of Herakleides appears along with several other merides.
Merides existed in administrative terminology until ca. AD 308.64 They
lasted a few years longer than the toparchies, which in the Fayum were
actually quite peculiar administrative units.65

D. Officials of the merides

From the third century BC onwards the merides had a system of adminis-
tration with oikonomoi (SB X 10260, 5 of ca. 238 BC), antigrapheis (P. Petrie
III 56 [b], 6 of 259/58 BC), police officers (P. Bürgsch. 22: 244/243 BC), tax
officials, and perhaps an archisitologos (P. Cairo Zenon IV 59543 of 257 BC).66
SB X 10260, 3–5 (= P. Hib. I 133 descr.) of ca. 238/7 BC67 is a petition to
dioiketes Eutychos concerning an oikonomos of the meris of Herakleides
É pollv]|n¤ou toË ofikonomo`[Ëntow tØn ÑHrakle¤]|dou mer¤da). In addi-
(Íp' A
tion, there is an epistates of the meris of Themistos who is the addressee of
P. Köln III 140 (ca. 244–242 or 219–217 BC).
However, throughout the Ptolemaic period the Fayum formed one
nome with one strategos. An exception to this is found in P. Erasm. I 2
(after 30 September 152 BC), a petition to the strategos Melankomas (line 3:
M`elagkÒmai érxisvm[ato]fÊlaki ka‹ str[athg«i]).68 In lines 1–16 the
petitioner, a resident of Krokodilopolis and sitologos of Oxyrhyncha, tells
a story how some robbers attacked his two servants on their way from
Krokodilopolis to Oxyrhyncha. In its bottom part the papyrus is heavily
damaged. There is a mention of a [stra]t2hgÚw t∞w mer¤dow in lines 16–17,69
but it is by far not clear whether the words refer to Melankomas himself,

64
See, e.g., P. Graux II 17–19, passim (AD 307).
65
For the Arsinoite toparchies, see below, pp. 117–146.
66
This was shown already by Van’t DACK (‘Circonscriptions’ [cit. supra, n. 30], pp. 46–59);
my list contains only a few addenda.
67
For the date, see BL VI, p. 163.
68
For Melankomas, see also D. HAGEDORN, ‘Ein dritter Zeuge für Melankomas, den
Archisomatophylax und Strategen des Arsinoites?’, ZPE 38 (1980) p. 190.
69
Note that according to the editors the very reading is ‘far from certain’ (comm.
ad loc.).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 84

84 CHAPTER TWO

or to his subordinate, strategos of the meris, who in this case would have
carried out the inquiry.
The meris has often been associated with the office of meridarches.
There were even attempts to see Themistos, Polemon and Herakleides,
the eponyms of the three Fayum districts, as such officials, presumably in
charge of the entire meris (as the nomarch was head of the nomos). How-
ever, as Falivene pointed out, ‘on the analogy of nomãrxhw/n°mv, merid-
ãrxhw may well derive from mer¤zv ‘to assign one’s share’ to each of the
parties, e.g. king and lessees in land-leasing contracts, or king and tax-
farmers, especially in that fixed rates had to be readjusted as a conse-
quence of various possible kinds of disruption.’70

3. THE ARSINOITE NOME IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

A. The Ptolemaic and Roman strategia

Like other nomes, during the Ptolemaic period the Fayum was governed
by a single strategos. As it is implied by the title itself, originally the nature
of this office must have been purely military. The connection between
the military character of the office and the administrative competencies
of the head of the nome in the later period is to be found in the fact that
under the first Ptolemies the duties of the strategos included the affairs of
the Graeco-Macedonian cleruchs settled in the chora. His authority might
have been extended in that period over cleruchs settled in several areas,
in different nomes. In the course of the third century BC, the cleruchies
gradually lost their military character and progressively became more
civilian in nature. Undoubtedly the strategos became the head of local
administration on nome level by the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes.71
However, most probably this change did not merely come down to the

70
FALIVENE, ‘Government, Management, Literacy’ (cit. supra, n. 10), p. 217 n. 57.
71
For the Ptolemaic strategia, see H. BENGTSON, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein
Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, vol. III. Die Strategie im Ptolemäerreich (= Münchener Beiträge
zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 36), München 1952.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 85

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 85

replacement of the nomarch, who was now subordinate to the strategos,

but – as suggested above – it was a more complex process envolving
changes and shifts of duties within the nome administration.
In the Roman period the strategia was a continuation of the Ptolemaic
structure.72 A major change was that the office of strategos was no longer
accompanied by aulic titles (the standard title in the first century BC was
sugg°nhw). The combined office of ı strathgÚw ka‹ §p‹ t«n prosÒdvn
typical for the second and first century BC did not survive the change of
government, which perhaps had to do with the increase of the power of
basilikÚw grammateÊw who developed into an actual deputy strategos in
the nome, performing his duties in the period of transition. Despite these
changes, for the first three hundred years of Roman rule the strategos
remained the unquestionable chief of nome administration. An abun-
dance of sources from nomes of the Heptanomia allows a reconstruction
of the fasti of strategoi, mainly for the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchite nomes,
and somewhat less precisely for the Herakleopolite. Based on the fasti of
strategoi of the Oxyrhynchite from AD 69 till the end of the third century,
John Whitehorne concludes that the average period of time in office was
ca. three years and the term ranged from less than a year to up to eight
years.73 The ruling made by the prefect Tiberius Iulius Alexander in his

72
For the Roman strategia, see N. HOHLWEIN, Le stratège du nome, avant-propos de J. BIN-
GEN (= Papyrologica Bruxellensia 9), Bruxelles 1969; J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘The Role of the
Strategi in Administrative Continuity in Roman Egypt’, [in:] Proceedings of the Sixteenth
International Congress of Papyrology, Chico 1981, pp. 419–428; IDEM, ‘Recent Research on the
Strategi of Roman Egypt (to 1985)’, ANRW II.10.1 (1988) pp. 598–617; IDEM, ‘Some Prob-
lems of Administrative Continuity in Roman Egypt’, AULLA XX Proc. Papers, Newcastle
NSW 1980, vol. I, pp. 76–82 (non vidi). See also OERTEL, Die Liturgie, pp. 290–299.
Fasti of the Roman strategi: J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman
Egypt (Str. R. Scr.2) (= Papyrologica Florentina 37), Firenze 2006 – revised edition of G. BAS-
TIANINI and J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt. Chronological List
and Index (= Papyrologica Florentina 15), Firenze 1987; and for the Arsinoite, still of some
value: G. BASTIANINI, Gli strateghi dell’Arsinoites in epoca romana (= Papyrologica Bruxellensia
11), Bruxelles 1972.
73
Dionysodoros, discussed below (pp. 94–95 with n. 99), was strategos of the Arsinoites
for even up to 19 years (AD 14–33).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 86

86 CHAPTER TWO

edict of AD 68 (OGIS 669, 34–3574) that nome strategoi should serve for a
set term of three years remained, as it seems, a dead letter. There were
Roman citizens among strategoi, but even in the second century AD they
were not a majority – the first was Caius Iulius Gratus, strategos of the
Arsinoite in year 30 or 30+ of Augustus. The strategoi were usually
appointed at the prefect’s conventus for the Heptanomia and the Thebaid
in January to mid-April each year.75 The strategoi and basilikoi grammateis
were always appointed to serve outside their own nomes and outside the
nomes where their idia were located – this was proven for the strategoi
already by J. G. Tait,76 but only recently for the basilikoi grammateis.77 Inter-

74
New edition: G. CHALON, L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander. Étude historique et exégétique
(= Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 5), Olten – Lausanne 1964; the passage in question, p. 29;
commentary, pp. 172–182.
75
Giuliana FOTI TALAMANCA, Ricerche sul processo nell’Egitto greco-romano, vol. I. L’orga-
nizzazione del ‘conventus’ del ‘praefectus Aegypti’ (= Università di Roma. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto
di Diritto Romano e dei Diritti dell’Oriente Mediterraneo 48), Milano 1974, pp. 52–78, and 155
n. 421. According to WHITEHORNE, ‘Recent Research on the Strategi’ (cit. supra, n. 72),
pp. 600–601, ‘improvements to the fasti of the strategia can therefore be expected to have
a useful by-product in the form of a substantial addition to our knowledge of exactly when
the conventus itself was held each year’. For the activity of praefectus Aegypti during the
conventus, see now R. HAENSCH, ‘Zur Konventsordnung in Aegyptus und den übrigen Prov-
inzen des römischen Reiches’, [in:] Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses
(= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997, vol. I, pp. 320–391.
76
J. G. TAIT, ‘The Strategi and Royal Scribes in the Roman Period’, JEA 8 (1922),
pp. 166–173. Interesting from this point of view is also the career of Aurelius Sarapion alias
Apollonianos, an Oxyrhynchite citizen, who was a strategos in the Arsinoite nome and
later, in AD ca. 218–222, in the Hermopolite nome, see G. BASTIANINI, ‘La carriera di Sara-
pion alias Apollonianus’, Aegyptus 49 (1969), pp. 149–182; Maria Lauretta MOIOLI, ‘La
famiglia di Sarapion alias Apollonianus, stratego dei nomi Arsinoites ed Hermopolites’,
Acme 40 (1987), pp. 123–136. See also WHITEHORNE, ‘Recent Research on the Strategi’ (cit.
supra, n. 72), pp. 605–606, who points at the fact that in 221, as a strategos of the Her-
mopolite nome, Aurelius Sarapion alias Apollonnianos did some business with the public
bankers of the Oxyrhynchite nome, probably because of some previous office he held in
the Oxyrhynchite nome itself (P. Oxy. I 61).
77
R. SMOLDERS, ‘Two Archives from the Roman Arsinoites’, ChrEg 79 (2004), pp. 233–
240, the archive of Apollonios of Bakchias, pp. 233–237; IDEM, ‘Chairemon: Alexandrian
Citizen, Royal Scribe, Gymnasiarch, Landholder at Bakchias and Loving Father’, BASP 42
(2005), pp. 93–100. In AD 76–77, Chairemon served as a royal scribe as far from the Fayum
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 87

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 87

estingly, this is parallelled by the Arsinoite komogrammateis who were also

appointed to the office far from their home villages.78 The reason for this
arrangement has always been the same: an outsider, not involved in the
local interdependencies (regardless of whether it was a nome or a kome),
is less prone to corruption and is more likely to make impartial decisions
regarding the material welfare of inhabitants in the area he governs.

B. Did the merides constitute separate nomes

since the beginning of the Roman period?
In the Ptolemaic period the official titulature is far from precise and a spe-
cific function is only sporadically accompanied by territorial designation:
P. Gurob 2, 6–8 (Gurob; ca. 225 BC): [katå tÚ] | parå A
É risto[mãxou to]Ë
prÚw t∞i strat[hg]¤ai toË A É rsino˝tou no[moË tetagm°nou] | graf¢n aÈt«[i
prost]ãgma;
P. Tebt. III.1 700, iii 66–67 (Tebtynis; 124 BC): EÈb¤ou t`[oË prÚw t∞i stra-
thg¤ai] | tetagm°nou ka‹ §p‹ t«`[n prosÒdvn toË A É rsino˝tou?] – but this is
heavily reconstructed;
BGU VIII 1764, i 16 (Herakleopolite; 64–44 BC79): ÅDioskour¤[d]hwÄ ı
toË ÉArsino˝tou strathgÚw.
In addition to these documents, also noteworthy is the foundation
inscription from the temple of Soknopaios at Soknopaiou Nesos, dated
to the 7th day of Hathyr, year 20 of Ptolemy X Alexander I = 21 Novem-
ber 95 BC (lines 1–6): Íp¢r basil°vw Ptolema¤ou | toË ka‹ AÉ lejãndrou,
yeoË Filo|mÆtorow, ka‹ Lusan¤ou, toË | suggenoËw ka‹ strathgoË | ka‹ §p‹
t«n prosÒdvn toË AÉ r|sino˝tou.80

as the Small Diopolite nome in the Thebaid. I thank Ruben Smolders for providing me
with these articles before their publication.
78
See below, pp. 149–150.
79
For the date, see introduction, pp. 2–4; L. MOOREN, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic
Egypt. Introduction and Prosopography (= Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor
wetenschappen, letteren en schone kunsten van Belgïe. Klasse der Letteren. Jaargang XXXVII
[1975] Nr. 78), p. 139 no. 0174.
80
OGIS I 179 = WChr. 168 = SB V 8888 = I. Fayoum I 71. DITTENBERGER dates the inscrip-
tion to 20 November 95 and E. BERNAND to 3 November 95 BC – his dating is erroneous
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 88

88 CHAPTER TWO

The Fayum entered the Roman period divided into three merides. To
some extent these were separate administrative units, as it can be inferred
from the offices appointed in them. However, were the merides inde-
pendent nomes since the very beginning of the Roman rule? Notably, it is
only documents from as late as the second half of the first century AD
(more precisely, from ca. AD 60 onwards) that leave no doubt, as we shall
see below, that the merides were governed by three (and later two) strate-
goi – and therefore were nomes sui generis.
The answer to this question is made no easier by the fact that in the
documents from the Ptolemaic period and from the first few dozen years
of Roman rule there is never any information on the territory adminis-
trated by the strategos.81 Nevertheless, we shall start by examining the tit-
ulature of the strategoi of the period 30 BC – ca. AD 60 in documents where
the title is provided with an indication of the office holder’s territorial
jurisdiction (in bold face the documents mentioning the name of a
meris).82

AD 5 SB XVI 12713, 5 (Philadelpheia): ofl` [p]a`r`å` T2rÊ3 fvnow to`Ë

stra[t]hgoË toË ÉArsi`[n]o`[e]¤tou.83
AD 11 WChr. 344, 2 (Arsinoite): to›w ÍpÚ O‡ak`ow` str[at]hgoË [t]∞w
mer¤dow [ka‹] A
É sklhpiãdou ba[si]likoË gramm[at°vw].

(7 Hathyr = 3 November, but in the Julian calendar!). See KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber,
p. 32.
81
With the exception of the strategos of the meris discussed above, pp. 83–84.
82
A note on the working method applied when writing this chapter is indispensable
at this point. I did not find it adequate to redo the fasti of Arsinoite strategoi of the Roman
period because they are available in the new edition of: WHITEHORNE, Strategi – the Arsi-
noite nome: pp. 10–52. The only exception was made for the period 30 BC – ca. AD 60 for
obvious reasons (see below, pp. 98–99). All the more so it did not make sense to copy the
fasti of basilikoi grammateis from a new and very comprehensive work by KRUSE, Der
königliche Schreiber, the Arsinoite nome: pp. 960–995.
83
For the date, see SB XVI, Nachträge, p. 542 and HGV. For more documents men-
tioning the strategos Tryphon, see below, p. 98 n. 108.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 89

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 89

AD 14 SB I 5238, 13–14 (Arsinoite): §p‹ Diofãntou toË diadexom°nou

(after 26 May) | [DionusÒdv]ron tÚn strathgÚn A É [rsi(no¤tou) not followed
84
by a meris designation.
ca. AD 14/5 P. Lond. II 445 (pp. 166–167), 1–2 (Arsinoite): Dionusod≈rvi
strathg«i | A É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 22 P. Strasb. II 118, 1–2 (Arsinoite): Dionusod≈rƒ strathg“ |
É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.
A
AD 22 P. Bingen 58, 1–2 (Philadelpheia): Dionusod≈rvi strathg«i |
É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.
A
AD 22 P. Oslo III 123, 1–2 (Arsinoite): [Dio]n`u`sod≈rvi strathg«`i` |
[ÉAr]sino¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 26 SB XIV 11335, 1–2 (Philadelpheia): Dionusod≈rv`i` strathg«i
|A É rsino˝to`u` not followed by a meris designation.
AD 28/9 P. Ryl. II 126, 1–2 (Euhemereia): 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [strathg«i] | [ÉArsi-
noe¤to]u not followed by a meris designation.
AD 30 P. Ryl. II 129, 1–2 (Euhemereia): Dionusod≈rvi strathg«i |
É rsinoe¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
A
AD 31 P. Ryl. II 131, 1–2 (Euhemereia): Dionusod≈irvi strathg(“) |
É rsinoe¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
A
AD 34 P. Ryl. II 135, 1 (Euhemereia): Lusan¤& strathg«i (corr. ex
strathgoi)4 A É rsinoe¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 37 P. Mich. V 226, 1 (Tebtynis): A É sklhpiãd˙ strathg“ Pol°-
mvnow mer¤dow
AD 47? P. Mich. V 227, 1–3 (Tebtynis): Tiber¤vi Klaud¤vi | Xrus°rmvi
strathg«i | A É rsinoe¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 47 P. Mich. V 228, 5 (Tebtynis): A
É pollvn¤ƒ strathg“ AÉ rsinoe¤tou
not followed by a meris designation.
AD 47/8 P. Mich. V 231, 1 (Tebtynis): A É pollvn¤vi strathg«i AÉ rsino-
e¤tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 48 P. Mich. V 229, 1 (Tebtynis): AÉ pollvn¤ƒ strathg“ AÉ rsinoe¤tou
not followed by a meris designation.

84
The document comes from the Satabous archive. For its date, see BL VII, p. 186;
ZPE 65 (1986), p. 154 n. 4 and CPR XV 7 introduction. For lines 13–14, see KRUSE, Der
königliche Schreiber, p. 862 n. 152.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 90

90 CHAPTER TWO

AD 48 P. Mich. V 230, 1 (Tebtynis): A É pollvn¤ƒ strathg“ A É rsino-

e¤t(ou) not followed by a meris designation.
AD 50/1 P. Gen. II 91, 1–2 = SB VI 9224 (Philadelpheia): A É mmvn¤vi
strathg«i [ÑHr]a`kl` e` ¤` [` do]u` k[a‹] | Pol°mvnow mer[¤dvn].
ca. AD 50/1 P. Mich. inv. 864,85 1 (Philadelpheia): A É m2mv 2 n2 ¤2 v
1 i2 1 strath(g“)
ÑHrakl¤d(ou) ka‹ Pol°mv(now) mer(¤dvn).
AD 51 SB IV 7463, 3–4 (Arsinoite): parå A É mmvn¤ou strathgoË |
É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.
A
AD 51 PSI I 57, 1–2 (Theadelpheia): ÖEr`vt`i` s`tr` a ` t` h` g«i | Yem¤stou
mer¤dow
ca. AD 54–60 P. Oxy. XLIX 3464, 1–2 (Arsinoite): Ga˝vi ÉIoul¤vi A É sinian«[i]
strathg«i | A É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.
AD 57 BGU I 181, 1–2 (Arsinoite): Ga¤vi ÉIoule¤vi [ÉAsinian«i] stra-
thg«i | AÉ rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.

The titulature of basilikoi grammateis is of no help. Generally speaking,

these officials appear very rarely in documents from this period. In his
prosopography, Kruse assigns basilikoi grammateis to particular merides for
the entire Roman period, not excluding the first century of Roman rule.
And so, for the meris of Herakleides in this period we have a Pasion
(AD 36/7) who performed the duties of strategos, a Hermaios in two texts
(SB XIV 11586, 1 = CPapGr II.1 5a of July/August AD 47 and BGU III 915,
15 and 24 of AD 48/9), and an Epainetos (BGU XI 2087, ii 1 = CPapGr II.1
11 of the reign of Claudius); for the meris of Themistos only Asklepiades
(P. Col. VIII 209, 1 = SB VI 7376 of 11 Oct. AD 3 and P. Merton I 9, 1 of 14–26
January AD 12); for the meris of Polemon – none.86 In addition, there are
documents mentioning a basilikos grammateus named Asklepiades (alto-
gether five texts from the years AD 11–15), which – according to Kruse
– are difficult to assign to a particular meris.87 None of these nine docu-

85
Of the document, a petition to strategos Ammonios, only lines 1–3 have been pub-
lished by L. C. YOUTIE, ‘P. Gen. inv. 211 and P. Mich. inv. 864’, ZPE 10 (1973), pp. 186–188.
The document has not been printed in SB.
86
KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 960–961, 980 and 987.
87
KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 994–995.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 91

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 91

ments supply a territorial jurisdiction of the basilikoi grammateis, which is

perhaps not incidental.
Three observations simultaneously come to mind when studying the
above list of documents that specify the territory of the strategos:

(1.) the most common is the formula strathgÚw A É rsino˝tou not followed
by a meris designation;
(2.) there are some documents mentioning the name of the meris, but
it is never combined with the name of the nome in the manner that
later, after ca. AD 60, became a standard (almost no exceptions):
strathgÚw A É rsino˝tou t∞w x mer¤dow;
(3.) in two documents there are two merides, those of Herakleides and
Polemon, combined under a single strategos – Ammonios, who is
also known from a third document, SB IV 7463 (AD 51). In this text,
however, he is styled strathgÚw A É rsino˝tou.

Besides Ammonios, whose titulature explicitly specifies two merides,

we also have two strategoi for whom we might assume that they performed
their duties in two merides, but this time the combined merides were those
of Herakleides and Themistos.

(1.) Dionysodoros. Listed by Bastianini and Whitehorne as strategos of

the meris of Herakleides from AD 14 (SB I 5238, 14–15 and SB I 5235, 11
– both petitions referring to the same crime) to July/August AD 26 (SB
XIV 11335, 1), and to AD 33 (P. Graux II 9, 4).88 A strategos of the same name
is attested in three petitions from Euhemereia (P. Ryl. II 126 = CPJ II
420b [AD 28/9], P. Ryl. II 129 [after 12 March AD 30] and P. Ryl. II 131 [after
12 March AD 31]) and, therefore, asigned by Bastianini and Whitehorne to
the meris of Themistos.89 None of the documents in which Dionysodoros
appears mention the name of the meris. One of them, however, P. Oslo III
123, was falsely interpreted by Bastianini and Whitehorne; it was classi-
fied as one of the attestations of Dionysodoros holding a post in the meris

88
BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 20; WHITEHORNE, Strategi, pp. 10–11.
89
BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 39; WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 32.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 92

92 CHAPTER TWO

of Herakleides, while judging from where the fid¤a of the petitioner were
located (Euhemereia), he ought to have been assigned to the meris of
Themistos.90 On these grounds we can be fairly sure that Dionysodoros,
strategos of the meris of Herakleides and Dionysodoros, strategos of the
meris of Themistos were in fact the same person.91

(2.) Caius Iulius Asklas, high-priest of Caius Caesar Augustus Germa-

nicus, exegetes and strategos known from three petitions addressed to him
(all dated to AD 39/40):
P. Merton I 11, 1–4 (Philadelpheia): Ga¤ou Ka¤sarow SebastoË | Ger-
manikoË érxiere› Ga¤ƒ` | ÉIoul¤ƒ A É sklò §jhghtª | ka‹ st[r]athg«i;
P. Rainer inv. R. 17292 (Soknopaiou Nesos?): G[a¤ou Ka¤s]arow SebastoË
Ger[mani]koË érxiere› Ga¤ƒ ÉIoul(¤ƒ) A É sklò §jhght∞i [ka‹ strathg]«i;
P. Ryl. II 149, 1–4 (Euhemereia): Ga¤ou Ka¤sarow SebastoË | Germani-
koË érxiere› Ga¤ƒ | ÉIoul¤vi A
É sklçi §jhgh(tª) | ka‹ strathg«i.
Since the authors of the petitions lived in two different merides, it is to
be assumed that C. Iulius Asklas was the strategos of the merides of Hera-
kleides and Themistos.93

90
KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 36–37.
91
The same conclusion was reached by KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 37. It is also
noteworthy that the very name Dionysodoros is not common. Somewhat disturbing from
this point of view is another Dionysodoros, who according to BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE,
Strategi was strategos of the Arsinoite nome in AD 45. A closer examination of the document
does not eliminate all doubts. SB IV 7461 = P. Graux I 1 (18 April AD 45) is a letter from
Dionysodoros to Caius Iulius Iollas (lines 1–2: DionusÒdvrow ÉIoul¤vi ÉIÒllai | t«i filtãtvi
ple›sta xa¤rein) who on the verso is explicitly titled strategos of the Herakleopolite (Ga¤vi
ÉIoul¤vi [ÉIÒll]a[i] str[at]hg«i ÑHrakleopol(e¤tou)). Indeed, it appears to be an official
letter of a strategos in office to a colleague holding the same post in a neighbouring nome,
although it says nothing about the author of the letter (even strathgÒw is lacking). Per-
haps this Dionysodoros was a relative, a son of the former?
92
And not CPR I 172, as in KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 37 n. 68; the reading after
P. Ryl. II 149, 1 note. The papyrus has been quoted by C. WESSELY, Karanis und Soknopaiou
Nesos: Studien zur Geschichte antiker Cultur- und Personenverhältnisse, Wien 1902, p. 66 and
now cannot be identified, see P. Vindob. Tandem, p. 242.
93
He is listed, therefore, by BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi twice, pp. 21 and 39 and
WHITEHORNE, Strategi, pp. 10–11 and 32; see also KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 37.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 93

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 93

It used to be a common belief that since the beginning of the Roman

period the Arsinoite nome was governed by three strategoi, and the terri-
torial span of their power covered one meris. Friedrich Preisigke, based on
documents distinguishing between strategoi toË Arsino˝tou and strategoi
t∞w x mer¤dow, suggested that there existed a hierarchy: the strategos of the
entire nome and his subordinates – strategoi of particular merides.94 The
existence of such a hierarchy would not be anything odd and a good anal-
ogy to it would be the case of the ‘big’ and ‘little’ nomarchs of the third
century BC. However, as it has been demonstrated by Thomas Kruse,
Preisigke’s hypothesis does not stand criticism – it is proven false by the
existence of officials who appear in some sources as strategoi toË ÉArsi-
no˝tou, and in other ones – as strategoi of one or two merides.95 Kruse,
based on the titulature found in documents, came to a conclusion that:

Wir halten also als Quintessenz der bisher Gesagten fest, daß seit dem
Beginn der römischen Herrschaft der Arsinoites in drei separate Ver-
waltungsbezirke geteilt war, die den Rang selbständiger Strategien
besaßen, wobei mitunter zwei mer¤dew zu einer Strategie zusammengefaßt
werden konnten.

Kruse’s conclusions look convincing only at first. One must remember

that Preisigke’s hypothesis provided an indirect explanation for the trans-
formation from one strategos at the head of the Fayum administration in
the Ptolemaic period to the system of three strategoi in charge of particu-
lar merides starting from ca. AD 60. Rejecting it, we lose the only rational
explanation for the changes that must have taken place in the period
30 BC – AD 60. Kruse assumes that the change occurred immediately after

94
P. Strasb. II 118 introd., pp. 66–69.
95
KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber (p. 38 n. 70) adds an argumentum ex silentio: if there were
indeed a hierarchy: strategos of the nome – strategoi of the merides, we would be bound to find
it in the sources sooner or later, because there must have been an intense exchange of offi-
cial correspondence between these two administrative levels. This argument sounds rea-
sonable, even though its force – as that of any argumentum ex silentio – is of course limited.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 94

94 CHAPTER TWO

Egypt had been captured by Augustus (‘seit dem Beginn der römischen
Herrschaft der Arsinoites in drei separate Verwaltungsbezirke geteilt
war’), but our documents say no such thing. On the contrary, there was
evidently some continuity on the lower levels of the Fayum administra-
tion: for instance the toparchs are present in Arsinoite documents for the
first hundred years of Roman rule.96
Unfortunately, the terminological inconsistency of official titulature
used at that time, as well as a relatively small (compared to second cen-
tury AD) number of documents, do not make this an easy task. In accept-
ing Kruse’s conclusions we would have to admit that the first hundred
years of Roman rule in the Fayum was a period of experiment and
attempts to rationalize the administration in the nome. For some reason
(we may only speculate why) it was decided that Fayum is too big a nome
to be governed by one strategos. Anyhow, before the new system (three
merides – three strategoi ) was introduced in ca. AD 60, attempts were made
to combine two merides under one strategos. It may baffle that the largest
of the three, the meris of Herakleides, was merged with each of the other
two, while there is hitherto no evidence for one administrative unit fus-
ing together the merides of Polemon and Themistos, as it was done in the
second century AD. The territory of the new administrative unit, created
as a result of combining the meris of Herakleides with one of the two
other units, would stretch on both sides of the Bahr Yusuf, encompassing
an area three times that of the third, remaining meris.
My hesitation, evident in the above paragraphs, as to whether to accept
Kruse’s conclusions, has one more reason. If one makes a register of all the
known strategoi of the Arsinoite nome from the beginning of Roman rule
up to AD 60, one will obtain a coherent list of officials whose terms – save
one exception – do not overlap.97 This exception is strategos Apollonios,
the author of an official letter to the toparches of Tebtynis, Akous, P. Tebt.

96
See below, pp. 119–122.
97
From this point of view the list of strategoi in the old study by BASTIANINI, Gli strateghi
dell’Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 72), pp. 8–15 (30 BC – AD 60), is clearer and much more conven-
ient than in the new ones, BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, pp. 20–21, 39–40 and 42–43;
and WHITEHORNE, Strategi, pp. 10–12, 31–33 and 35–36 – the officials listed by meris.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 95

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 95

II 289, 1 (= WChr. 271 = Sel. Pap. II 419) dating from 15 February AD 23,98
while at that time – as we have demonstrated before – the strategos of the
merides of Herakleides and Themistos was Dionysodoros. P. Bingen 58
confirms him on this post on 8 September AD 22, the next document is
SB XIV 11335 dated to July/August AD 26.99 If it were not for Apollonios,
the following hypothesis could be formed: until ca. AD 60 the Fayum was
governed by one strategos, who appears in the documents as strategos of the
Arsinoite with no meris designation, or strategos of meris x, or strategos of
merides x and y, or simply strategos.100 That the same official can be called a
strategos of the nome in one document and a strategos of one (or two) merides
in another should not come as a surprise, since we have a clear attestation
of this practice in the person of strategos Ammonios mentioned above.

98
We know of an Apollonios, strategos of the Arsinoite in AD 47–48, but the date of
P. Tebt. II 289 is secure: (¶touw) §nãtou Tiber¤ou Ka¤sarow SebastoË | Mex(e‹r) ka (lines
11–12), confirmed by the fact that the same Akous or Akousilaos appears in some other
Tebtynis papyri: P. Tebt. II 408–410.
99
There are a few hypothetical ways to eliminate this contradiction:
(1.) Dionysodoros was strategos of the merides of Herakleides and Themistos, Apollo-
nios headed the meris of Polemon. This solution is the simplest one, but unfortunately it
is irreconcilable with the hypothesis that there was one strategos until AD 60.
(2.) Dionysodoros is a special figure in the fasti of Arsinoite strategoi because he was in
office for at least 19 years (from AD 14 to 33), while not one of his colleagues is attested to
have held the post for longer than 2–3 years. Perhaps, therefore, his term in office should
be divided in two, or he should be split into two persons after all? It was already done by
Bastianini and Whitehorne. Let us note at the same time that not long afterwards (AD 45)
there is one more person of that name, quite rare anyway, in office of strategos of the Arsi-
noites (SB IV 7461, 1, without title). This possibility I find the most probable, see the fasti
of the Arsinoite strategoi in 30 BC – ca. AD 60, below, pp. 98–99.
And, finally, the option I find the least probable,
(3.) Apollonios of P. Tebt. II 289 was strategos of a different nome, e.g. the Herakleopo-
lite. Let us recall that in the document Apollonios is only styled strategos (in line 1 we read
[ÉA]poll≈niow strathgÒw with no geographical designation added). A strategos of the same
name (unfortunately a very popular one) is attested in the Herakleopolite nome in the
first century AD: P. Harris II 179, 1. Tebtynis, as well as the entire meris of Polemon, had
close ties with the Herakleopolite nome, its neighbour across the desert.
100
Already S. EITREM and L. AMUNDSEN, the editors of P. Oslo III 123 (a petition from
Euhemereia addressed to strategos Dionysodoros) came close to such a conclusion, see
pp. 182–183 of their edition. Their comments also contain a clear summary of the earlier
stage of the discussion on the strategoi of the Arsinoites and the strategoi of merides.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 96

96 CHAPTER TWO

This way we could solve the most important problem which completely
escaped the attention of modern scholars (Bastianini, Whitehorne, and
Kruse), that is, when exactly did the Fayum stop being governed by one
strategos. The situation would then be clear: until ca. AD 60 there was one
strategos, a direct successor of the Ptolemaic official,101 just as there were
still toparchai in the Fayum (Akous, for instance) for the first few dozen
years of Roman rule.102
As it has already been mentioned, the names of basilikoi grammateis,
rather scant in our documentation of the period from 30 BC to AD 60 any-
way, are never accompanied by a meris designation. Therefore, since in
that period there seems to have been only one strategos in power, perhaps
there was also just one basilikos grammateus. This would be the perfect
solution to the problem of basilikos grammateus Asklepiades – one of those
minor issues to which papyrologists have devoted quite a lot of attention
in the past.103 The heart of the matter comes down to the fact that a basi-
likos grammateus of that name is attested almost simultaneously in all three
merides: two texts concerning the inhabitants of the meris of Themistos
have already been mentioned (P. Col. VIII 209, 1 = SB VI 7376 of 11 Oct.
AD 3 and P. Merton I 9, 1 of 14–26 January AD 12 – both from Theadelpheia),
in addition there are two documents from the border between the merides
of Polemon and Themistos (P. Lond. II 256[a] and [e] [p. 95] – both of
October/November AD 11) and two texts from the archive of Satabous,
which documented the history of his conflict with Nestnephis (so-called
‘Nestnephisprozess’) over property in Soknopaiou Nesos (SB I 5239, 2 of
30 June AD 15, and an earlier MChr. 68, 3). The latter two documents indi-
cate that Soknopaiou Nesos, a village undoubtedly located in the meris of
Herakleides,104 lay within the jurisdiction of Asklepiades. The last docu-

101
For the fasti of Arsinoite strategoi in the form I proposed, see below, pp. 98–99.
102
See below, pp. 119–122.
103
P. Merton I 9, introd.; P. Vindob. Tandem 9, 17 comm., pp. 45–47; KRUSE, Der königliche
Schreiber, pp. 980 and 994–995.
104
For a very clear overview of the ‘Nestnephisprozess’, see P. R. SWARNEY, The Ptole-
maic and Roman Idios Logos (= American Studies in Papyrology 8), Toronto 1970, pp. 41–49;
Francisca A. J. HOOGENDIJK, ‘Het ‘Nestnêphis-proces’. Een strijd tussen Egyptische
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 97

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 97

ment to mention Asklepiades, P. Vindob. Tandem 9, in its preserved part

does not specify the village of the farmers who borrowed seed for
sewing.105 Due to the immense popularity of the name Asklepiades we
can of course assume that at approximately the same time (ca. AD 10–15)
each of the three Fayum merides had a basilikos grammateus of that name.
In my opinion, however, this sounds much less probable than the concept
that one Asklepiades controlled all of the Arsinoite nome, like his supe-
rior, the strategos, first Oiax, and then Valerius Varus. This would be fur-
ther indirect proof of the administrative unity of the Fayum in the first
hundred years of the Roman rule.
What is more, one of the abovementioned documents, P. Lond. II
256(a) and (e) (p. 95), confirms the existence in AD 11 of a common sitolo-
gos for the two Lysimachides; even though they belonged to two different
merides (of Polemon and Themistos), the villages were not far apart, per-
haps located on two sides of the canal separating the two merides.106 The
existence of a common sitologos for the two villages would then suggest
that either the sitologia was not organised within the administrative
boundaries of a single meris or, if we accept the unity of the nome con-
tinuing to ca. AD 60, that such boundaries did not yet exist at that time.

priesters in de 1ste eeuw n.Chr.’ Hermeneus 66 (1994), pp. 255–262; see also P. Vindob. Tan-
dem, pp. 46–47; KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 532–538. A new edition of the Demotic-
Greek contract of the house sale: M. SCHENTULEIT, ‘Die spätdemotische Hausverkauf-
urkunde P. BM 262: ein bilingues Dokument aus Soknopaiou Nesos mit griechischen
Übersetzungen’, Enchoria 27 (2001), pp. 127–154. Maren Schentuleit is preparing a re-
edition of the entire Satabous-archive.
Although the property was in Soknopaiou Nesos, the contract was for some reason
registered at the grapheion of the village of Psinachis in the meris of Themistos, see P. Vin-
dob. Tandem, pp. 46–47 and Schentuleit, art. cit., p. 149 with n. 113. However, this is with-
out significance from the point of view of the proper basilikos grammateus envolved in the
matter, in other words it is improbable that the jurisdiction of Asklepiades of SB I 5239
and MChr. 68 did not encompass the meris of Herakleides.
105
The basis for the Arsinoite attribution of this document is the mention of strategos
Valerius Varus.
106
The case of the two Lysimachides is important for reconstructing the boundary
between the merides and is discussed elsewhere (above, pp.22–23).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 98

98 CHAPTER TWO

C. Strategoi of the Arsinoites:

hypothetical fasti (30 BC – ca. AD 60)
The following is a list of strategoi of the Arsinoite nome, if my hypothesis
should turn out to be correct (in parentheses the meris to which the offi-
cial was assigned either by Bastianini and Whitehorne or by Whitehorne
alone):

19 BC Zobalos (Polemon)
year 30 or 30+ of Augustus Caius Iulius Gratus (Themistos)107
Nov./Dec. AD 5 Tryphon (Herakleides)108
Oct./Nov. AD 11 Oiax (Themistos)
after 7 June 12 – 28 Oct. AD 12 Valerius Varus (Themistos)
after 21 Aug. AD 13 Korrhagos(?) or Quadratus(?)109
(Herakleides)
before 28 Jan. AD 14 Tiberius(?) (Polemon)
May/Aug. AD 14 – Dionysodoros
– 12 Nov. AD 22 (Herakleides + Themistos)
15 Feb. AD 23 Apollonios (Polemon)

107
SB XX 14098 and 14099; see the editio princeps: J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘P. Mich. inv.
4343 and 4280: Petitions to the Strategus C. Julius Gratus’, Aegyptus 69 (1989), pp. 79–83.
For the date, see also BL X, p. 225.
108
Strategos Tryphon is known due to the documents from the archive of Isidoros of
Psophthis: SB XVI 12713, 5 and 15; SB XVI 12714, 6 and 6a (both dated to ca. 26 Dec. AD
9); SB XVI 12835, 5; P. Col. VIII 211, 5–6 (both dated to 16 Feb. AD 10). SB XXIV 15909
and 15910 (both 3 April AD 6) are addressed to the same Tryphon who is not styled strate-
gos. Note that in SB XVI 12714 Tryphon was first styled ı §p‹ t∞w prosÒdou (being a rem-
iniscence of the Ptolemaic title ı §p‹ t«n prosÒdvn) but the phrase was then cancelled.
For the archive, see Ann Ellis HANSON, ‘The Archive of Isidoros of Psophthis and P. Osto-
rius Scapula, Praefectus Aegypti’, BASP 21 (1984), pp. 77–87; EADEM, ‘Isidoros of Psophthis,
Augustan Cultivator: An Update’, [in:] Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses
(= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997, pp. 413–429; R. SMOLDERS, ‘Lawsuit of Isi-
doros vs. Tryphon’ available on Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections.
109
P. Louvre I 1, 1 (Soknopaiou Nesos): Ko[ 1 1 1] 1vi strathg«i; the letter following the
lacuna is either a tau or a gamma; see the editor’s commentary
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 99

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 99

AD 28/9 – AD 33 Dionysodoros (again at the office?)

(Herakleides + Themistos)
AD 33/4 Pasion (basilikÚw grammateÁw
diejãgvn tå t∞w strateg¤aw)110
after 17 Apr. AD 34 Lysanias (Themistos)
3 Apr. AD 37 Asklepiades (Polemon)
after 3 Apr. AD 38 Didymos Hierax (Themistos)
AD 39/40 Caius Iulius Asklas
(Herakleides + Themistos)
4 Apr. AD 42 Tiberius Claudius Philoxenos
(Themistos)
18 Apr. AD 45 Dionysodoros (Herakleides)
before AD 47/8 Tiberius Claudius Chrysermos
(Polemon)
AD 47/8 (48–51?) Apollonios (Polemon)
28 Jan. AD 51 Eros (Themistos)111
AD 50/1 – 16 Dec. AD 51 Ammonios
(Herakleides + Polemon)
29 March AD 54 Claudius Lysanias (Herakleides)
after 15 June AD 57 – 14 Sep. AD 59 Caius Iulius Asinianos

In the fasti I did not include the strategos Chelkias112 of SB XIV 11269, 2
(first century BC/first century AD – the absence of the aulic title suggenÆw
points to the Roman period) who was probably a strategos of the Hera-
kleopolite nome.113

110
See KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 960, especially n. 10.
111
The strategos is known due to a petition addressed to him, PSI I 57, which is to be
dated to 28 January AD 51; see P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘PSI I 57 Reconsidered’, ZPE 113 (1996) p. 168.
112
BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 20; WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 10.
113
See D. HAGEDORN, P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Die Stadtviertel von Herakleopolis’, ZPE 65
(1986), pp. 101–105, esp. p. 103 (= BL VIII, p. 369).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 100

100 CHAPTER TWO

D. Three merides, three strategoi (ca. AD 60 – 136/7)

As already said, the meris began to appear regularly in the titulature of
strategoi in ca. AD 60. Presented below is a list of officials from AD 62–100:

after Oct. 54,114 now rather after ca. AD 60115 WChr. 176 (= Sel. Pap. II 280),
1–2 (Arsinoite): Filoj°nvi kosmhteÊsanti strathg«i | A É rsi-
no˝tou Yem¤stou mer¤dow.
AD 66 P. Mich. IX 523, 1–2 (Karanis): Tib[e]r¤vi Klau[d]¤vi A
É ndro-
t¤mvi | strathg“ A
É rsinoe¤tou ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤d(ow).
AD 73/4 BGU XI 2066, 1–2 (Soknopaiou Nesos): A
É mmvn¤vi stra-
[t]h`g«`i` A
É [` rsi(no˝tou) ÑHrakl(e¤dou)] | mer[¤dow].
AD 76/7 BGU XI 2088, 1–2 (Ptolemais Euergetis): [ÉAmmvn¤vi strath-
g«i AÉ rsino˝tou ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤]d`ow` ` ka‹ D`iomÆdh`i | [basi-
lik«i grammate› t∞w aÈt∞w mer¤dow] – note that the reading
heavily depends on reconstruction.
June/August SB XVIII 13324, 2–3 (Ptolemais Euergetis); census return
AD 77 (Bagnall – Frier 75-Ar-2): [ÉA]mmvn¤vi strath(g“) [ÉA]rsi(no˝-
tou) ÑHrak(le¤dou) mer¤d[ow ka‹ NN basil(ik«i) gra(mmate›)]
|t∞w aÈt∞w mer¤dow.
ca. AD 87 P. Gen. I2 4, 15–17 (Arsinoite): k[e]l`eËsai gra|[f∞]n2ai t1“ t∞w
ÑHrakle¤dou | [mer¤]dow` [st]ra`th[g“] ÉI2o2ul2 ¤ƒ | ÉI[s]o1krãt1e1[i]
AD 81–96: P. Vindob. Bosw. 1, 35 (Nilopolis): ÉI 2s2vkr`ãt` `hw strat`hgÚw.116
(after 87?)
AD 90–96 P. Strasb. IV 210, 1 (Arsinoite): Tiber[¤]vi Klaud¤vi` ÑErm¤`&
strathg«i | AÉ rsino˝tou ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow.
AD 95 SB V 7599, 11 (Tebtynis): [ÉAnt¤oxow stra(thgÚw) A
É rsinoe¤t(ou)
Pol°mv]n`ow mer[¤dow]; line 18: [ÉAntiÒxƒ strathg]“

114
For the date (after death of Claudius), see BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 40;
WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 33.
115
Terminus post quem should be the introduction of regular meris-strategia in ca. AD 60.
The same Philoxenos in the office of strategos signed PSI I 51, 6 dated to AD 63/4.
116
And not S`vkr`ã`t`hw strat`hgÚw as in the editio princeps and in BASTIANINI, WHITE-
2
HORNE, Strategi, p. 22; for the reading, see P. Gen. I 4, 17–18 note, accepted by WHITEHORNE,
Strategi, p. 13. For the interpretation of the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber,
pp. 739–743 (Kruse, however, does not discuss the strategos appearing in line 35).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 101

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 101

A
É r` s`in`[o]e¤to`u` P`ol` °` m ` n[o]w` [mer]¤`do` [w]; the name recon-
` v
structed after line 17: A É n`[t¤o]x3ow strathgÚ`w seshmi`v[ma]i
(read seshme¤vmai).
AD 98? SB XVI 12549, 1–2 (Tebtynis): A É rre¤vi ÑHrak`[le¤dhi stra-
t(hg“) A É rsi(no¤tou)] | ÑHrakle¤do`[u mer¤dow.
AD 98 P. Mich. IX 524, 1–2 (Karanis): Klaud¤vi A É re¤vi strathg«i
A
É rsi(no¤tou) | ÑHrak(le¤dou) mer¤dow.
AD 99 MChr. 50, 1–2 (Arsinoite): Tiber¤vi Klaud¤vi A É re¤vi stra-
thg(“) A É rsi(no˝tou) | ÑHrakle¤d(ou) mer¤d(ow).
AD 100 SB XIV 12022, 1–2 (Psenarpsenesis): Klaud¤vi ÉA`re¤vi
str`a`t(hg“) | A É rsinoe¤t`(ou) ÑH`ra(kle¤dou) mer¤d(ow).
AD 100/1 P. Iand. III 27, 1 (Theadelpheia): Klaud[¤ƒ ÉErãsƒ] [stra-
t(hg“)] A É rsi(no¤tou) Yem¤stou m`[er¤]d`ow.

The other documents mentioning strategoi in this period do not specify

their territorial span at all. In other words, after ca. AD 60 we cease to en-
counter in the documents – with a few significant exceptions – the phrase
strathgÚw A É rsino˝tou not followed by a meris designation.117 Of over 500
documents from the period AD 60–260 which mention any one of the stra-
tegoi, the name of the meris was not given in the following three texts:118
P. Fouad I 23 (22 March 145119 ) contains a beginning of a copy of judicial
proceedings. A certain Dios son of Zeuxis came and said that he had
declared an oath to the strategos of the Arsinoite nome that he would
present himself to stand trial against his brothers (lines 3–5: De›ow [Z]eÊ-
jidow prosel|y∆n e‰pen: xeirograf`Æs2 aw t“ toË A É r|sinoe`¤[` tou s]t`ra`thg“).
We do not know before whom the trial was held (the epistrategos?), in any
case the event took place outside the Fayum. Note that the provenance
of the document is unknown.

117
The title strathgÚw A É rsino˝tou was to return after as many as two hundred years,
when in the 260s the Arsinoite nome was again to be united under one strategos, see below,
pp. 104–105.
118
Of course in the list below I did not include documents mentioning strathgo‹
É rsino˝tou (in the plural), because this form is by all means correct and adequate. For a
A
clear example, see, e.g., P. Flor. II 278, iv, 8 (AD 203 or later).
119
For the date, see HGV.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 102

102 CHAPTER TWO

MChr. 91, iii 13 (ca. AD 151–153): proceedings of a trial before idiologos

Sempronius Gemellus. The matter concerns a letter sent by this Sempro-
nius Gemellus to the strategos of the Arsinoite nome.
WChr. 363 = BGU II 599 (AD 204/5?120): a dioiketes gives instructions to
a strategos (lines 23–24: grãcantow di' §pis|[tol∞w strathg“ A É rsin]oe¤tou,
§ån mhd¢n Ùfe¤lh).
The documents cited above have one common feature: they were not
part of the regular circulation of documents within the Arsinoite nome.
They were written outside its borders and this must be the reason why
the meris does not appear in the titulature of the strategos.121
The documentation available for this period is not so poor as to keep
us from realising that the period ca. AD 60 brought some changes, if not
in the administration itself then at least in the terminology it used. The
new conventions quickly set in and remained in force until the next
change introduced in AD 136/7.

E. Three merides, two strategoi (AD 136/7 – ca. AD 260)

In 136/7, perhaps at the conventus, Herakleides became strategos of the two
divisions of Themistos and Polemon.122 As such he is attested for the first
time in PSI VIII 883, dated to 9 July 137. This change can be called a per-
sonal union sui generis, not a permanent fusion of two merides. One com-
mon strategos, two different basilikoi grammateis and two separate offices
– this was the administrative reality from AD 136/7 to at least AD 220, as it
is evident from hundreds of documents mentioning these officials.
120
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 30.
121
In a number of other documents there is enough space to supplement the name of
the meris: P. Turner 23, 1–2; P. Tebt. Tait 47, 1; perhaps also P. Oslo III 81, 1. Also in P. Flor. I
67 (AD 162?) there is room after §p‹ SerÆnou strathgÆsan[tow] in line 38 (for the reading,
see BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 27 = BL IX, p. 84) to reconstruct the name of the
meris, in this case the meris of Herakleides (see line 54) – for the photo of the document,
see G. CAVALLO et alii, Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico, Firenze 1998 (= Papyrologica
Florentina 30), pl. CXVI.
122
D. HAGEDORN, ‘Der erste Stratege der vereinigten Themistes- und Polemon-
Bezirke’, ZPE 44 (1981), pp. 137–140. The exact date for this change falls between August
136 (SB XVI 12504) and 9 July 137 (PSI VIII 883).
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 103

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 103

An important – and the only – document attesting the existence of a

common basilikos grammateus for the merides of Themistos and Polemon is
P. Hamb. inv. 483r – a petition addressed to Aurelius Hermaiskos who is
styled (lines 1–3): basil(ikÚw) gr(ammateÁw) A
É 2rsi1(no¤tou) Yem(¤stou) ka‹
Pol(°mvnow) mer¤d(vn).123
A noteworthy matter that Kruse failed to consider is that for the
merides of both Themistos and Polemon we have no attested basilikos gram-
mateus after Aurelius Hermaiskos (AD 223).124 In addition, the formula that
stands next to the geographical designation of the function held by Aure-
lius Hermaiskos is identical to the formula found in hundreds of docu-
ments mentioning strategoi of joint merides in the period 136/7 – ca. 260,
which may suggest that he did not hold this post, for instance, as a sub-
stitute, or only temporarily. It cannot be excluded, therefore, that in the
last two decades of the existence of the office of basilikos grammateus the
union between the two merides was strengthened – they not only had com-
mon strategoi, but also common basilikoi grammateis. Perhaps the year 220
AD marked the beginning of the process of reunification, which led to the
emergence of a single nome forty years later.
The last basilikos grammateus of the division of Herakleides is AÈrÆliow
É xilleÊw, attested as one of the addressees of a census declaration issued
A
between June and August 245 – BGU IV 1069 (Bagnall – Frier 243-Ar-3);
the other addressee is Septimius Didymos, strategos of the division of
Herakleides. Both officials are also the addressees of another census dec-
laration, BGU III 971, 16–21 (Bagnall – Frier 243-Ar-4), although Achileus’
name is conjectural in line 16. However, the administrative unit of Hera-
kleides did exist as a separate quasi-nome later on, at least till Thoth
(August/September) of 258.125 This observation is especially important,

123
The document, the beginning formula of which is quoted by KRUSE (Der königliche
Schreiber, p. 40), is to be published by Dieter HAGEDORN in P. Hamb. V.
124
For the last basilikoi grammateis of the meris of Themistos and Polemon, see Kruse’s
prosopography, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 986–987 and 993 respectively. Aurelius Her-
maiskos is the only representative of the category ‘Yem¤stou ka‹ Pol°mvnow mer¤w’ (sic!)
– p. 994.
125
This is the date of P. Princ. II 29, a petition addressed to the strategos Aurelius Apol-
lonios also called Hierax; cf. BASTIANINI, WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 38.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 104

104 CHAPTER TWO

since it rules out the association between the reunification of the Arsi-
noite nome and the reforms of Philip the Arabian, which brought the dis-
appearance of the basilikos grammateus, and re-introduced numbered
toparchies to the Fayum.126

F. After the reunification ca. AD 260. Strategoi of the fourth century

The first attested strategos of the Arsinoites reunified is Aurelius Hera-
kleides appearing in BGU I 244 as the addressee; the document is dated to
AD 262–268 after an oath by the genius of Gallienus as sole ruler in lines 4–5.
After the reunification of the three merides into a single nome, which
must have taken place ca. 260, numerous documents still attest the exis-
tence of merides. Insight into the administrative practice from this point
of view is provided by BGU III 754, a text cited in the chapter devoted
to komogrammateis.127 In it the central administration of the nome receives
sums of money remitted by komarchs and coming – as it had been dili-
gently noted and calculated for each of the merides – from these of Hera-
kleides and Themistos.
The beginning of the fourth century was witness to significant changes
in the administrative system of Egypt, the aim of which – there is no rea-
son to doubt the oppinio communis – was the uniformization of the local
administration throughout the country. Perhaps these changes were initi-
ated with the introduction of the office of curator civitatis, called logistÆw
in the Greek documents – the earliest attested in Egypt is the logistes of
Oxyrhynchos in AD 304; in Arsinoe – Valerius Sotas in AD 313. In AD 307/8
the pagus was introduced and headed by a praepositus pagi.128 Presumably
the changes at the top of the nome administration came at the same time
as the instatement of the bearer of the Latin title exactor (§jãktvr) or, in
full, exactor civitatis (§jãktvr t∞w pÒlevw).129 In the official terminology of

126
For numbered toparchies, see below, pp. 129–132.
127
See below, p. 254.
128
See below, pp. 263–279.
129
For the office of strategos/exactor, see GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, pp. 50–54; J. D.
THOMAS, ‘The Office of Exactor in Egypt’, ChrEg 34 (1959) pp. 124–140; IDEM, ‘The Strategus
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 105

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 105

the fourth century civitas was a term used to denote a whole territorial
community, which under Egyptian conditions corresponded to the nome.
The exactor was directly subordinate to the praeses, and in affairs concern-
ing the annona militaris – to the actuarius.
The title strathgÒw remained in use throughout the fourth century,
and also appeared in the phrase strathgÚw ≥toi §jãktvr. In the past it
has been suggested that these were, in fact, two separate offices and that
the strathgo‹ ≥toi §jãktvrew were people who held the two offices
simultaneously.130 However, the documents available today do not cor-
roborate the revision of Gelzer’s old hypothesis.131 Anyway, it is difficult
to explain this threefold terminology (exactor – strategos – strategos or exac-
tor), and the suggestion that its roots lie in the reluctance to use a purely
Latin term is not entirely convincing. After all, at the same time a differ-
ent Latin term, praepositus pagi, entered the administrative terminology
without a problem. Equally feeble are the hypotheses pointing to a terri-
torial diversity, with the old title being prevalent in the Thebaid and the
new, Latin one – in the northern part of the country. As far as the Arsi-
noite nome is concerned, it can only be said that both terms, strategos and
exactor, are present, but the title ‘strategos or exactor’ is not attested hith-

in Fourth Century Egypt’, ChrEg 35 (1960), pp. 262–270; IDEM, ‘The Earliest Occurrence
of the ‘exactor civitatis’ in Egypt (P. Giss. inv. 126 recto)’ [in:] N. LEWIS (ed.), Papyrology = YCS
28 (1985) pp. 115–125; IDEM, ‘Exactores in the Papyri and in the Legal Codes’ [in:] Egitto e sto-
ria antica. Atti del Colloquio internazionale. Bologna, 31.8–2.9.1987, Bologna 1989, pp. 683–691;
IDEM, ‘Strategos and Exactor in the Fourth Century: One Office or Two?’ ChrEg 70 (1995)
pp. 230–239; LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 118–126.
130
Such doubts were last signalised by P. J. SIJPESTEIJN when studying the meaning of
the conjunction ≥toi in papyri (‘The Meanings of ≥toi in the Papyri’, ZPE 90 [1992],
pp. 241–250).
131
The answer to Sijpesteijn’s objections is found in the last of the abovementioned
articles by J. D. THOMAS from 1995 (‘Strategos and Exactor’). The identification strategos
= exactor is also accepted by WHITEHORNE, ‘Recent Research on the Strategi’ (cit. supra,
n. 72), pp. 613–615; however, the same author together with Bastianini did not include
exactores in their list of strategoi, although they did include strategoi of the fourth century!
In the revised edition of 2006, Whitehorne again did not listed exactores (WHITEHORNE,
Strategi, the strategoi of the fourth century, pp. 50–51). For the list of known Arsinoite exac-
tores, see below, p. 108.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 106

106 CHAPTER TWO

erto. J. David Thomas is correct in seeing the cause of this diversity in the
character of the texts: in petitions and other documents reaching the
office from ‘below’ – the strategos prevails, and when dealing with docu-
ments drafted in the upper administrative levels (above all the office of
the praeses of the province) – the correct form, exactor, or sometimes even
exactor civitatis, is the dominant one.132
A document that is worth quoting not only for its Arsinoite origin pro-
vides the final proof for the identification strategos = exactor: P. Merton II
91 is a petition of AD 316, addressed to the strategos and drafted by the well-
known Aurelius Isidoros, who quotes a previous petition to the praeses
(that petition is also preserved: P. Cairo Isid. 74) and the subscriptio of the
praeses. In his subscriptio the praeses delegates the settling of the dispute to
the exactor (lines 20–21). The petitioner, however, addressed his petition
to Aurelius Octavius kratist“ strathg“ ÉArsi(no˝tou). There is no doubt
that the strategos and exactor is one and the same person.133
Possibly the job responsibilities of a strategos/exactor in the fourth cen-
tury were somewhat lesser than those of a third-century strategos, but the
main points remained the same: taxation and overseeing the land econo-
my.134 A significant change was that the strategos/exactor did not have to be
an outsider, as it was the case in the earlier period.135 On the contrary, he
had to belong to the decurion class, as it becomes clear from two docu-
ments from Oxyrhynchos, and, indirectly, from one Arsinoite text.136

132
THOMAS, ‘Strategos and Exactor’ (cit. supra, n. 129), pp. 234–239.
133
As a conclusive piece of evidence, the document is discussed by J. David THOMAS
twice, in 1959 (‘The Office of Exactor’ [cit. supra, n. 129], p. 125) and in 1995 (‘Strategos and
Exactor’ [cit. supra, n. 129], p. 235). For the practically identical job responsibilities of the
strategoi and the exactores, see ‘Strategos and Exactor’ (cit. supra, n. 129), pp. 230–233. For indi-
viduals called strategos in one text and exactor in another, see ibidem, pp. 235–236 (two exam-
ples: strategos/exactor of the Lycopolite and of the Hermopolite).
134
THOMAS, ‘The Strategus in Fourth Century Egypt’ (cit. supra, n. 129), pp. 262–264.
135
See above, p. 86 with n. 76.
136
P. Cairo Isid. 70 (ca. 310) is a petition sent to strategos Aurelius Chrestos who is re-
presented by Aurelius Nilos, currently prytanis and acting strategos. For the Oxyrhynchite
parallels, see THOMAS, ‘The Strategus in Fourth Century Egypt’ (cit. supra, n. 129), p. 266.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 107

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 107

Based on one of the documents from the archive of Flavius Abinnaios

(P. Abinn. 58 = P. Lond. II 233, p. 273 = WChr. 44 = FIRA III 160 of 1 Feb-
ruary 345) it is believed that the appointment to the office of exactor was
subject to imperial ratification. It was not a liturgical office which tended
to be avoided at all cost – on the contrary, there is reason to believe that
holding this post could lead to significant profits.137 As we learn from a
law of 386 (CTh. XII 6 20), between 345 and 386 an important change was
introduced: exactores were to be elected from among their own group by
the decurions, and imperial ratification was no longer needed. The law
certainly applied to Egypt, as it is quoted in a papyrus from Hermopolis
dated to ca. 450.138
A separate issue is the length of the term in office for the strategos/exac-
tor in the fourth century. Some insight in this matter is available thanks
to two strategoi/exactores of the Arsinoite nome. The first is Antonius
Sarapammon who was in office at least since 29 Mesore 312 (P. Strasb. I 45)
till 5 Mecheir 316 (P. Flor. I 54139); the other is Aurelius Gerontios – prae-
positus pagi V (Karanis) in 316–318, strategos/exactor of the Arsinoite in 323/4
(P. Ryl. IV 637) and also in 326 (P. Amh. II 138). It is noteworthy that the
two are styled strategos in all the documents mentioning them. The career
of Antonius Sarapammon combined with the well-known fact that the
administrative year in Egypt normally begun on 1 Thoth leads J. David
Thomas to a conclusion that either the strategos/exactor served regularly
for four years or Sarapammon’s term was for some reason prolonged.140 If

137
See THOMAS, ‘The Office of Exactor’ (cit. supra, n. 129), p. 132. This document was
interpreted differently by V. MARTIN, ‘Epistula exactoriae’ [in:] Actes du V e Congrès interna-
tional de Papyrologie, Oxford 30 août – 3 septembre 1937, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 260–285. Martin’s
reasoning was founded on a conviction a priori that exactoria was not a desirable post,
which, however, does not find confirmation in legal sources, as it has been proven by
THOMAS, loc. cit.
138
PSI VI 684; the document is dated based on instutional vocabulary by A. LANIADO,
Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’Empire protobyzantin (= Travaux et Mémoirs. Mono-
graphies 13), Paris 2002, pp. 120–123.
139
For the reading of line 1, see THOMAS, ‘The Strategus in Fourth Century Egypt’ (cit.
supra, n. 129), p. 267 n. 4.
140
THOMAS, ‘The Strategus in Fourth Century Egypt’ (cit. supra, n. 129), p. 267.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 108

108 CHAPTER TWO

the first possibility were true, it would mean that the term in office
changed since the third century, when it lasted three years.141
Now nothing stands in the way of adding exactores to the list of strategoi,
from which they are regrettably missing in the works of Bastianini and
Whitehorne. Hitherto known by name are only three Arsinoite strategoi/
exactores which were styled this second designation in documents. Among
them is Aurelius Octavius from the quoted P. Merton II 91, who is included
in the list drafted by Bastianini and Whitehorne because in the heading of
the letter he is addressed as: kratistÚw strathgÚw A É rsi(no˛tou). The other
two are addenda to Bastianini and Whitehorne:
Ploutãmmvn §jãktvr in P. Abinn. 13, 21 (dated, as all Abinnaios docu-
ments, to 342–351); the same Ploutammon is the sender of two other let-
ters (each of the three letters is in a different hand) from the Abinnaios
archive, but without his official title. The correspondence shows that mil-
itary and civil officials cooperated in fiscal matters, especially in the col-
lection of commodities for the annona militaris.142
Flavius Ision in P. Lond. inv. no. 2180 (fourth cent.):143 petition addressed
to Fl(aou¤ƒ) ÉIs¤vni politeuom2[°nƒ] ka‹ §jãk{k}tori | A É [rs]i1no˝t1 ou.
Exactores appear in some other documents of Arsinoite provenance
but, unfortunately, without names. We list them below in chronological
order:
P. Sakaon 34 (= P. Thead. 13 = ChLA XLI 1204 = CPL, Annexe 3): pro-
ceedings before a praeses Aegypti Herculiae Quintus Iper (12 December
321): an exactor is ordered to carry out the praeses’ decision, to secure that
the plaintiff be not disturbed further.144

141
WHITEHORNE, ‘Recent Research on the Strategi’ (cit. supra, n. 72), pp. 600–601; OER-
TEL, Die Liturgie, pp. 290–299.
142
For the role of strategoi/exactores in collecting annona militaris, see F. MITTHOF,
Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungs- und
Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Reiches im 3. bis 6. Jh. n.Chr. (= Papyrologica Florentina 32), Firen-
ze 2001, pp. 143–146. For annona militaris in the Abinnaios archive, see ibidem, pp. 469–472.
143
Edited by LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, p. 264. Since Lallemand published only
the address of the petition, the papyrus has not entered the Sammelbuch.
144
For details, see P. COLLINET, P. JOUGUET, ‘Papyrus bilingue du Musée du Caire. Une
affaire jugée par le Praeses Aygypti Herculiae’, ArchPF 3 (1903), pp. 339–348.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 109

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 109

P. Münch. III 69, 1 (AD 341/342) – Flavius Iulius Ausonius, praeses Augus-
tamnicae to the officials of the Arsinoite §jãktori, lo`gistª [ 1 1 1 ] | [ 1 1 1 ]
ka‹ nuktostratÆgoiw ka‹ kefalai[vta›w 1 1 1] | [ 1 1 1 toË] A
É rsino˝tou.
P. Strasb. V 309 (first half of the fourth century) is an official letter from
an exactor (line 1: (parå) toË §jãktorow) to the eirenarches of Philadelpheia.
SB XIV 12129145 is a supplementary military report: prÒsgrafon1 §moË
Gess¤ou diadÒt˙ §jãk`[tor 1 1 ]1 | noum°rou Transtigritan«n2 . [ 1 1 1 ]. Its Arsi-
noite provenance is indicated by the numerus Transtigritanorum which
formed part of the military garrison of the Fayum from at least February
406 into the sixth century AD.146 Shelton was rather in favour of rejecting
the possibility that the exactor in line 1 (the word only partly preserved)
was the chief of nome administration (see Shelton’s commentary and
translation), but Fritz Mithof expressed his support for this interpreta-
tion, suggesting that diadÒt˙ should be taken as diadÒtou.147 The transla-
tion should therefore be changed: ‘Supplementary report from me, Ges-
sios, diadotes, to exactor NN for the numerus Transitigitanorum’. Diadotes is
a distributor of military supplies.148

G. Did merides have capitals?

For most of the Roman period the Fayum was governed as three or two
separate nomes administered by a corresponding number of strategoi and
basilikoi grammateis. A question comes to mind where these officials
resided on a daily basis and where their offices were located.
Certainly the most important municipal centre in the Fayum was
Ptolemais Euergetis (Arsinoe, pÒliw t«n A É rsino˝tvn). Though it did not

145
Editio princeps: J. SHELTON, ‘Papyri from the Bonn Collection’, ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 159–
–183, pp. 175–176.
146
For this military unit, see H. C. YOUTIE, ‘P. Mich. Inv. 6223: Transtigritani’, ZPE 21
(1976) pp. 25–26; Francisca A.J. HOOGENDIJK, ‘Eine byzantinische Dialysis-Urkunde’, ZPE
107 (1995) pp. 105–112, esp. pp. 108–109.
147
MITTHOF, Annona militaris (cit. supra, n. 142), p. 530, and especially note 1069.
148
Ibidem, pp. 100–107.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 110

110 CHAPTER TWO

have the status of polis, it is most certain that the city had the basic
municipal structures, such as a gymnasion, baths, etc., long before the
reforms of Septimius Severus, which is important for the subsequent part
the discussion. The city itself – though some documents seem to indicate
otherwise149 – belonged to the meris of Herakleides, so there is no doubt
that it was the place of residence of the strategos and the basilikos gramma-
teus of this meris, i.e. nome. It seems, however, that during the Roman
period also the strategos of the joint merides of Themistos and Polemon (or
two strategoi in the years ca. 60 –136/7, when the two merides were governed
separately) resided in Ptolemais Euergetis. There is no direct proof of
this, but several ‘common sense’ arguments seem to speak in favour of
such a conclusion. First of all, the borders of all merides met in this city,
which meant that even if the strategos(-oi) of the merides of Polemon and
Themistos resided – formally speaking – outside of their nome, the terri-
tory they governed was just beyond the city gate. A glance at the map
leaves no doubt that when it came to practical administration there was
no difference between running the meris of Herakleides and running the
other merides. The officials could still reach the most remote parts of their
areas as fast as their colleague who governed the meris of Herakleides.
An argument against locating the seat of strategos(-oi) and basilikoi
grammateis in some – even large – paramunicipal centres of the Fayum
(like Oxyrhyncha, which has been suggested to be a meris capital,150 or
Tebtynis in the meris of Polemon) is that in the Roman period none of
these villages had a municipal infrastructure comparable to that of Ptole-
mais Euergetis. For representatives of Hellenic culture (to which the stra-
tegoi and their deputies – the basilikoi grammateis, most certainly belonged)
it was essential to live in a place where there was a good gymnasion and
baths at hand, even if over time more and more such institutions were
founded in large villages. Life in villages, even ones like Tebtynis or

149
P. Fay. 26 (Theadelpheia, after 26 February 150) is an official letter from Heraiskos
also called Herakleides and Dioskoros, two grammateis metropoleos and komogrammateis of
the merides of Themistos and Polemon, concerning tax collection.
150
VAN’T DACK, ‘Circonscriptions’ (cit. supra, n. 30), p. 47; see also above, p. 4.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 111

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 111

Oxyrhyncha, must have simply been boring; if it could be avoided, why

give up the amenities ensured by city life?
Let us note that the above line of reasoning is simply the argumenta-
tion concerning the seat of epistrategoi transposed to a lower level. They
too, like the strategoi of the merides of Polemon and Themistos, did not
fancy leaving Alexandria, though the administrative units assigned to
them lay very far from the city ad Aegyptum. Therefore, if the system of
government by a prefect who toured his province once a year worked out
well, and the epistrategoi could travel to their administrative units along
with the prefect, then it is quite easy to imagine meris officials who also
toured their divisions (by waterways? by land?) and dealt with many local
affairs on the spot.
In this aspect significant changes take place following the reign of Sep-
timius Severus. The nome capitals, having been raised to the rank of
poleis, gain importance and generate proper municipal infrastructure wor-
thy of Greek cities. Antinoopolis in Upper Egypt, founded already by
Hadrian, becomes a great metropolis. In the Byzantine period the city
became the capital of the province and the seat of the dux of the Thebaid.
Other cities, such as Panopolis, also gained importance and some devel-
oped into centres deserving the title of hubs of intellectual elite not only
of Egypt, but of the entire Byzantine Empire. Once again this process is
comparable to what went on in the lower strata of state administration,
or in the Fayum. As time passed the importance of some paramunicipal
centres grew; the height of this process is visible in the change of Tebty-
nis into Theodosiopolis and the emergence of a nome with its true capi-
tal in this city.

3. CONCLUSION

The most important conclusion arising from the above discussion is

that, as much suggests, until ca. AD 60 the Arsinoite nome survived in the
form to which it had been shaped by the Ptolemaic administration: a
large administrative unit, much bigger than other ones, governed by a sin-
gle strategos. At the same time an element of continuity is the sustained
presence of toparchies that after ca. AD 70 ceased to exist in the Fayum in
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 112

112 CHAPTER TWO

the form known from other parts of Egypt under Roman rule. Merides
– in existence since mid-third century BC – do not seem to have adminis-
trative importance at this time. The Roman government brought them
back (or established them) as late as the second half of the first cen-
tury AD, when, for reasons obscure to us, merides became separate nomes.
These reasons most probably had to do with the desire to rationalise the
administration – after this change the size of each of these Arsinoite
nomes fit within the Egyptian average. In AD 136/7, after over sixty years
of existence of three nomes, the two smaller ones were fused to form one
unit made up of the merides of Polemon and Themistos, only slightly
larger than the meris of Herakleides that remained a separate nome. Once
again the documents are silent as to the reasons for this change. We can
only guess that administrating two smaller merides separately did not
prove functional – they had too many things in common and the border
between them must have been perceived as an artificial barrier to some
extent (it may have been so in the village of Lysimachis divided between
the two units). Merging the merides of Polemon and Themistos restored
the old bipartite division of the Fayum into the lands to the north and
north-east and those to the south and south-west of the Bahr Yusuf,
which formed a more natural border within the Fayum.
In the 260s Fayum once again became a single nome. This time the
decision was perhaps influenced by changes in the natural environment.
The process of desertification of the edges of the Fayum, followed by the
depopulation of villages, had already begun, especially in the west
(Theadelpheia and the lands westward) and in the north (Soknopaiou
Nesos). At the end of the third century the reunified Fayum did not dif-
fer in size from the other Egyptian nomes as greatly as it did in the first
hundred years of Roman rule.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 113

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 113

A POSTSCRIPTUM:
THE THEODOSIOPOLITE NOME

There are two Theodosiopolite nomes in Egypt, one in the Thebaid,

between the Kynopolite and Hermopolite nomes (carved out of the ter-
ritory of the Hermopolite nome), the other in the Fayum.151 From the
date of the earliest occurrences (AD 455 for the Fayumic nome), we can
assume that the name of the two nomes honoured Emperor Theodosius
II (AD 408–450) rather than Theodosius I.152
The following villages are explicitly situated in the Theodosiopolite
nome: Tristomon (P. Ross. Georg. III 32, 4 of 12 September 504), Psinteo
(P. Prag. II 131 of 21 September 455), Ibion and Magdola (SB I 5139, 2),
Penne (SB I 4669, 6 of AD 614), Theogonis (BGU I 311, 5), Theaxenis (BGU
I 320, of AD 644), Eikosipentarouron (SPP III 72 bis, 2 and SPP XX 128, 5
– in the latter Ibion is situated in the Theodosiopolitike enoria), Eleusis
or Eleusina (SPP III 32, 2), Tin (SPP III 135, 2–3), Epoikion Strategiou
(CPR X 127, 8 of AD 584) and epoikion Kaoeisan (P. Lond. I 113 [6 c, p. 215],
11 of AD 635). Three of them – Tin, Epoikion Kaueisan and epoikion
Strategiou153 – are unknown from other sources, the remaining villages are
in the former meris of Polemon.
From this evidence Georgina Fantoni concluded that the Theodosio-
polite nome covered only the south-western part of the Arsinoite nome,
151
For the Theodosiopolite nome in the Thebaid, see Marie DREW-BEAR, Le Nome Her-
mopolite. Toponymes et sites (= American Studies in Papyrology 21), Missoula 1979, pp. 48–49 and
140–141; EADEM, ‘Le nome Hermopolite et sa métropole à l’époque gréco-romaine’, REA
83 (1981) pp. 21–33, esp. pp. 29–30; P. Oxy. LI 3636, 2 note. See also H. GAUTHIER, Les nomes
d’Égypte depuis Hérodote jusqu’à la conquête arabe (= Mémoirs de l’Institut d’Égypte 25), Cairo
1935, pp. 202–205.
152
It is also the case of the other Theodosiopolite nome for which the earliest refer-
ence is P. Wisc. I (= Pap. Lugd. Bat. 16) 10 of 10 October 468 (line 5: épÚ k≈mhw K°rka [K°rke
in the editio princeps] toË ênv Yeodosiopol¤tou nomoË, see the editor’s commentary who,
however, was of the opinion that ‘the Theodosiopolite nome was merely another name for
the Arsinoite nome’. But the village Kerka (for the reading of P. Wisc. I 10, 5, see P. Oxy. LI
3636, 2 note) is a variant spelling of Kirka, a village in the Hermopolite nome. P. Wisc. I 10
is, therefore, an important piece of evidence for the Theodosiopolite nome carved out of
the territory of the Hermopolites.
153
It is not to be excluded that some of them in fact belong to the Theodosiopolite
nome in Middle Egypt.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 114

114 CHAPTER TWO

corresponding to the former meris of Polemon.154 It is surprising to find

no mention of Theodosiopolis being the capital of the nome. Fantoni
tentatively identifies it with Tebtynis, based on an argumentum ex silentio:
there are no references to Tebtynis between the fifth century and the
seventh–eighth century, when the name reoccurs in some documents.155
In the second half of the sixth and in the first half of the seventh cen-
tury (the earliest reference is of AD 566, the latest of AD 622), together with
the Arsinoites, the Theodosiopolite nome constituted a pagarchia in the
province of Arcadia, under pagarchoi from the Apion family (in eleven out
of twelve documents attesting the office pagarxÚw t∞w A É rsinoit«n ka‹
Yeodosioupolit«n, the holders of the office belonged to this family).156
The pagarchia therefore covered the entire area of the Fayum as it was at
that time, corresponding to the former A É rsino˝thw nomÒw.

APPENDIX
INSCRIPTIONS MENTIONING
THE ARSINOITE STRATEGOI

The inscriptions mentioning the strategoi of the Arsinoite nome are

republished in a corpus by E. Bernand, I. Fayoum I–III. Since this edition
is not always mentioned in Bastianini and Whitehorne, Strategi, I enclose
below a concordance:

SB V 8134 = I. Fayoum III 164 (under Zobalos, Bastianini and White-

horne, Strategi, p. 42) – the date of the inscription given by E. Bernand is
wrong (this goes back to SB-edition). The proper date is 19/18 BC, see Bas-
tianini and Whitehorne, Strategi, loc. cit.

SB I 4278 = IGRR I 1127 = I. Fayoum III 214 (under C. Iulius Asinianus,

Bastianini and Whitehorne, Strategi , p. 21).

154
Georgina FANTONI, CPR XIV, pp. 41–48, appendix: ‘Arsinoe and Theodosiopolis’.
155
Ibidem, pp. 46–47.
061-115 Ch2 11/30/06 2:29 AM Page 115

THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NOME 115

OGIS II 664 = IGRR I 1188 = SB V 8900 = I. Fayoum I 75 (under Claudius

Lysanias, Bastianini and Whitehorne, Strategi, p. 21).

The inscriptions mentioning the strategoi of the Ptolemaic period (some

of them with corrected dates):

I. Fayoum I 13 of 2 April 42 BC (not 46 BC, as in the title!) – strategos

Ptolemaios son of Achilleus (Pros. Ptol. I 146)
I. Fayoum I 71 = OGIS I 179 = WChr. 168 = SB V 8888 of 20 November
95 BC (and not 3 November)157 – strategos Lysanias (Pros. Ptol. I 277)
I. Fayoum II 112 (= SB III 6152) of 19 February 93 BC – strategos Lysanias
(Pros. Ptol. I 277)
I. Fayoum II 113 (= SB III 6153) of 19 February 93 BC – second copy of
the above
I. Fayoum II 114 (= SB III 6236) of 25 July 70 BC (and not 29 July!) – stra-
tegos Apollonios (Pros. Ptol. I 224)
I. Fayoum II 116 (= SB I 1161) of 22 October 57 BC – strategos Dioskouri-
des (Pros. Ptol. I 246)
I. Fayoum II 117 – second copy of the above
I. Fayoum II 118 (= SB III 6156) – third copy
I. Fayoum II 135 (= SB III 6154) of 2 May 69 BC (and not 5 May) – stra-
tegos Apollonios (Pros. Ptol. I 224)
I. Fayoum II 136 (= SB I 5219) of 69/8 BC – anonymous

156
Ibidem, pp. 41–45.
157
See above, pp. 87–88 with n. 80.
061-115 Ch2 12/4/06 3:20 AM Page 62

62 CHAPTER TWO

see in what ways they were similar and how they differed from the Ptole-
maic officials of the same name,3 at least in order to exclude the Roman
nomarchai from our field of interest as officials having rather different com-
petencies than strategoi, basilikoi grammateis, or komogrammateis. In the
Roman period their duties were limited exclusively to tax-related matters.4

2. THE PTOLEMAIC BACKGROUND:

BI- AND TRIPARTITE DIVISIONS OF THE FAYUM.
THE MERIDES

A. Bipartite division. The Henet of Moeris

The Fayum was (and still is) naturally divided into two parts – the proper,
geographical divide is Bahr Yusuf. In the Egyptian sources – as Katelijn
Vandorpe has convincingly proven – the Bahr Yusuf is always referred to
as ‘the Henet of Moeris’ (T3-h2n.t-(n-)Mr-wr).5 Egyptian documents from
the third century BC to the first century AD (the last attestation is from
3
Coincidentally, also in this point I am following the Polish scholar, Ludwik PIOTRO-
WICZ, whose study Stanowisko nomarchów w administracji Egiptu w okresie grecko-rzymskim
(= The Position of Nomarchai in the Administration of Graeco-Roman Egypt) published in Poznań
in 1922 was an excellent piece of scholarship at that time. Since it was published in Pol-
ish, this short study did not enter the circulation of international scientific literature until
2004, when it was given its due place in the history of papyrological studies by Fabian
REITER (Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites, pp. 3 and 7, and passim).
4
REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites (cit. supra, n. 2), passim and especially pp. 92–259.
According to this author, there was no connection between the Arsinoite nomarch of the
Roman period and the Ptolemaic official of the same name. Reiter argues that in the first
and second century AD the nomarch was a tax farmer who voluntarily took on the post and
that the nomarchy was not a liturgy but a ‘geschäfliche Unternehmung’. The nomarch or
nomarchs, as there could be more than one at a time, were in charge of the whole nome.
In the 220s, however, the nature of the office underwent fundamental changes: it became
a liturgy to which one was appointed by the town council and in this period there were
always several nomarchs in office at a time. As far as the social status is concerned, the
nomarchs were recruited from the higher strata: they were Roman citizens, at least dur-
ing the early Roman period, and members of the bouleutic class in the third century.
5
Katelijn VANDORPE, ‘The Henet of Moeris and the Ancient Administrative Division
of the Fayum in Two Parts’, ArchPF 50 (2004), pp. 61–78.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 117

CHAPTER THREE

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES

1. INTRODUCTION

GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT, from the third century BC onwards, a toparchy

Iwas an administrative unit, a subdivision of a nomos. Among the ancient
N

authors only Strabo mentions the Egyptian toparchies; in his somewhat

misleading account (XVII 1, 3) he wrote:

≤ d¢ x≈ra tØn m¢n pr≈thn dia¤resin efiw nomoÁw ¶sxe, d°ka m¢n ≤ Yhba˝w,
d°ka d' ≤ §n t“ D°lta, •kka¤deka d' ≤ metajÊ: …w d° tinew, tosoËtoi ∑san
ofl sÊmpantew nomo‹ ˜sai afl §n t“ labur¤nyƒ aÈla¤: atai d' §lãttouw t«n
triãkonta [ka‹ ßj]: pãlin d' ofl nomo‹ tomåw êllaw ¶sxon: efiw går topar-
x¤aw ofl ple›stoi diπrhnto, ka‹ atai d' efiw êllaw tomãw: §lãxistai d' afl
êrourai mer¤dew.
The country was first divided into nomes, the Thebais containing ten, the
country in the Delta ten, and the country between them sixteen (ac-
cording to some, the number of the Nomes all told was the same as that of
the halls in the Labyrinth, but the number of these is less than thirty [or
thirty-six?]); and again the Nomes were divided into other sections, for
most [italics – TD] of them were divided into toparchies, and these also
into other sections; and the smallest portions were the arourae.1

1
The translation is by H. L. JONES (Loeb Classical Library). For the French translation
with a parallel commentary, see Strabon, Le voyage en Egypte. Un regard romain, préface
de J. YOYOTTE, traduction de P. CHARVET, commentaires de J. YOYOTTE et P. CHARVET,
Paris 1997.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 118

118 CHAPTER THREE

It is not our aim to discuss all the peculiarities of Strabo’s account; let
us point out one of his errors, especially surprising to a papyrologist: he
wrote ‘the arourae’ apparently instead of komai! Or should we imagine the
aroura as a division within a kome? On the other hand, Strabo seems to be
accurate in another place where he says that not all but ‘most’ of the
nomes were subdivided into toparchies. In the very beginning of Roman
rule in Egypt there were no toparchies in the Fayum. Was it the Arsinoite
nome that was hidden behind this word?
Strabo was not particularly interested in details of the administrative
division of Egypt, which does not surprise given his attitude to countries
he described;2 it is, however, more remarkable that contemporary papyro-
logists and historians of Roman Egypt, with few exceptions, seem to have
neglected this issue as well. For the general history of Egyptian toparchies
and toparchs we have at our disposal only an outdated study by Ludwik
Piotrowicz;3 a historian of Ptolemaic Egypt can consult Edmond Van’t
Dack’s study published in 1948.4
Toparchies in particular nomes drew the attention of several scholars
including Marie Drew-Bear and Jennifer A. Sheridan (Hermopolites),
Maria Rosaria Falivene (Herakleopolites), Paola Pruneti (Oxyrhynchites).5

2
For the method applied by Strabo, see G. AUJAC, Strabon et la science de son temps, Paris
1966, and Strabon, Le voyage en Egypte (cit. supra, n. 1), pp. 15–57. See also J. BALL, Egypt in
the Classical Geographers, Cairo 1942, pp. 53–70.
3
L. PIOTROWICZ, ‘De toparcharum Aegyptii Ptolemaeorum et Romanorum aetate con-
dicione’, Eos 19 (1913), pp. 134–153.
4
E. VAN’T DACK., ‘La toparchie dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque’, CE 23 (1948), pp. 147–161.
5
Hermopolites – Marie DREW-BEAR, Le Nome Hermopolite. Toponymes et sites (= American
Studies in Papyrology 21), Missoula 1979, pp. 45–49 (section IV: ‘Géographie administrative
du nome hérmopolite’); Jennifer A. SHERIDAN, chapter ‘The administration of the Hermo-
polite nome’ in P. Col. IX, pp. 107–134.
Herakleopolites – Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite Nome. A Catalogue of the
Toponyms, with Introduction and Commentary (= American Studies in Papyrology 37), Atlanta
1998, pp. 7–12 (chapter 2: ‘Toparchies and Pagi’); see also Falivene’s paper presented to the
Congress of Papyrologists in Copenhagen, ‘The Heracleopolite Nome: Internal and Ex-
ternal Borders’, [in:] Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copen-
hagen 1994, pp. 204–209.
Oxyrhynchites – Paola PRUNETI, I centri abitati dell’Ossirinchite. Repertorio toponomastico
(= Papyrologica Florentina 9), Firenze 1981 (appendix ‘Elenco dei centri abitati dell’Os-
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 119

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 119

Their studies, however, focus on the administrative borders of toparchies

inside the nomes in question and offer no help to a reader interested in
the role toparchies played in the economic life of Roman Egypt. A start-
ing point for such a broad study can be provided by some monographs on
particular offices of Roman Egypt, especially those organically connected
with the toparchies.6
None of the studies quoted above focus on the Fayum. Considerable
progress was made some years ago by Willy Clarysse7 who suggested that
toparchies have replaced the former nomarchies. My study intends to go
further in this direction. Its aim is to discuss the evidence for toparchies
in the Roman Fayum with the possible result that one day we both will
prepare a study on toparchies in the Fayum from their beginning until
their end.

2. PTOLEMAIC TOPARCHIES IN THE ARSINOITE NOME

AND THEIR CONTINUITY IN THE FIRST CENTURY
OF ROMAN RULE

As I already said, in the Ptolemaic Fayum there were two different

officials called nomarchai – one of them headed in some sense the entire
nome,8 while the other presided a smaller unit, or nomarchia, which was a
subdivision of the nome. For a long time it was believed that the Fayum
was divided into four such districts, but their relation to merides remained

sirinchite suddivisi secondo la toparchia e il pãgow di appartenenza’, pp. 235–237). The

study has no section on administrative division(s) of the Oxyrhynchite; the geographical
relation of toparchies and pagi is discussed in a separate article by Paola PRUNETI,
‘Toparchie e ‘pagi’: precisazioni topografiche relative al nomo Ossirinchite’, Aegyptus 69
(1989), pp. 113–118.
6
B. PALME Das Amt des épaithtÆw in Ägypten, Wien 1989. Lewis’s lists of compulsory
services will be used in this study for extracting the services connected with toparchies.
7
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Nomarchs and Toparchs in the Third Century Fayum’, in: Archeologia
e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del Convegno internazionale,
Siracusa, 24–25 Maggio 1996 (= Quaderni del Museo del Papiro. 8), Siracusa 1997, pp. 69–76.
8
For these ‘big’ nomarchs, see above, pp. 66–70.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 120

120 CHAPTER THREE

unclear.9 In a paper published in 1996, Willy Clarysse with the help of two
tiny scraps of papyrus proved that in the middle of the third century BC
there were at least seven nomarchs at the same time. On the other hand,
the toparchies, a well-known subdivision of the nome in Graeco-Roman
Egypt, are absent from the Arsinoite documents dated before 236/5 BC.
The last attested nomarch is Aristarchos in 231/30 BC. All this led Clarysse
to a conclusion that toparchies were successors of ‘little’ nomarchies.
A certain overlapping of nomarchies and toparchies occurred, but he
does not find this surprising. The two institutions were oriented differ-
ently; the nomarchs were mainly occupied with irrigation and distribu-
tion of newly gained land, while the toparchs dealt with financial and civil
administration. This would be the reason why for a certain period both
officials were concurrent – in the 230s in some districts of the Fayum the
nomarchs were still organising the irrigation, while in other parts of the
area where the works had been completed the toparchs organised and
headed their units in a way comparable to that known from other parts
of Egypt.10 The process of organising toparchies seems to be simultane-
ous with establishing the three merides (after a short-lived experiment
with a fourth unit).11 By 230 BC the nomÚw A É rsino˝thw took the shape that
lasted till the coming of the Romans or – as I have argued in the previous
chapter and as it is further indicated by the continuation of the old
‘Ptolemaic’ toparchies well to the Roman period – even a hundred years
longer, i.e. till ca. AD 60: one strategos, three merides, six or seven toparchies
and numerous komogrammateiai.
Quite recently Katja Mueller reconstructed the division of the Fayum
into toparchies.12 Her main source was a Ptolemaic salt-tax register
(P. Count), published by Willy Clarysse and Dorothy Thompson.13 Whether
9
W. PEREMANS, E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Prosopographica XIII: Les nomarchies mentionées dans
P. Petrie II 39a = III 88’, Studia Hellenistica 9 (1953), pp. 73–80.
10
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Nomarchs and toparchs’ (cit. supra, n. 7), pp. 69–76.
11
See above, pp. 70–82.
12
Katja MUELLER, ‘Redistricting the Ptolemaic Fayum, Egypt. From Nomarchies and
Toparchies to Weighted voronoi tessalation’, ArchPF 51 (2005), pp. 112–126.
13
Note that Mueller’s article was published before Clarysse and Thompson’s book:
Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, vol. I–II, Cambridge 2006.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 121

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 121

or not toparchies survived until the Roman period in the shape they had
assumed in the third-second cent. BC is difficult to determine due to the
scarcity of documents from the first cent. BC and first cent. AD. It is undis-
putable, however, that the toparchies survived until ca. AD 70, as it can be
seen from the following list of toparchs appearing in documents from the
Roman period:14

Date Toparch Document Remarks

October Ptolemaios, toparches P. Lond. II 256(d), the toparches listed among the
/November of Kynopolis in the p. 97 officials of Kynopolis
AD 11 meris of Polemon

13 Nov. AD 16 Akousilaos, toparches P. Tebt. II 410, 1–2 the same Akousilaos as dioiketes,
of Tebtynis and verso addressee of P. Tebt. II 408 and
409 (AD 3 and 5 respectively)

15 Feb. AD 23 Akous, toparches P. Tebt. II 289, 1–2 letter from strategos Apollonios15
of Tebtynis and verso

AD 45–47 Ptollas, toparches P. Mich. II 123, grapheion register from Tebtynis

of Tebtynis(?) xxii 41

March Iason, toparches BGU VII 1614B, 1 list of payments of the dyke tax
/April AD 70 of Philadelpheia

after the same BGU VII 1613B, tax list

AD 69/70 ii 16

beg. of the Artemidoros, P. Tebt. II 535 descr. order to arrest?

first cent. AD village unknown = SB XX 1513016

first cent. AD .r[…..], grammateus P. Fay. 246, 7 list of payments in money

of a toparches = SB XVIII 1314417
14
It is noteworthy that the term ‘toparchy’ is absent from documents of Arsinoite
provenience dated to the first century of Roman rule, just as the term toparches does not
appear in the centuries that follow.
15
For the document, see above, pp. 94–95.
16
Editio princeps: P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Another Order to Arrest?’, ZPE 87 (1991) pp. 259–260.
17
Editio princeps: P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Three Fayum Papyri’, Aegyptus 67 (1987) pp. 73–78
– document no. 2. The editor suggests first–second century AD as its date, but the appear-
ance of a toparch points to the first century (before ca. AD 70).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 122

122 CHAPTER THREE

The toparchai appeared in documents until AD 69/70. Perhaps until that

time in the Arsinoite nome toparchies existed in the shape inherited
from the Ptolemaic period, which would be in perfect agreement with
the dating for the re-organisation of the Fayum that was suggested in the
previous chapter. As one recalls, it was only then (and not – as previously
assumed – at the start of the Roman period) that Fayum began to be
administrated as three separate nomes, each headed by a strathgÚw t∞w
mer¤dow.

3. THE ROMAN TOPARCHIES.

THE CASE OF DOUBLED TOPARCHIES

In the documents of the Roman Fayum the toparchies are usually (but
not always) numbered, whereas in the rest of Egypt they take their names
from the main village, being, as it seems, their administrative centre,
from the Nile course (toparchies ênv and kãtv), or from their position
within the nome (toparx¤a mhtropÒlevw, m°sh toparx¤a). Even at first
glance, the numbering of toparchies seems to be another specific feature
of the Fayum,18 as are for instance the Arsinoite merides and many other
administrative peculiarities.
Whenever a numbered toparchy appears in a document of Fayumic
provenance, it is accompanied by a standard commentary which reflects
a communis opinio of the editors. Some general remarks of P. Tebt. II, p. 352
are referred to; according to Grenfell and Hunt
in the middle of the third century the three mer¤dew are found subdivided
into numbered toparx¤ai. (…) But whether this arrangement existed
before the changes introduced by Septimius Severus is very doubtful.

The editors dealing with toparchies with double numbers usually

quote Eric G. Turner, JEA 22 (1936), p. 8 (after Jouguet on P. Thead. 26):
In the Fayyum, in the merides of Heraclides and Themistes, toparchies are
paired off together (odd and even numbers together in Heraclides, even
and even or odd and odd in Themistes).
18
Numbers accompanying Hermopolite ‘toparchies’ in fourth-century documents are
not an analogy since they refer directly to pagi (see below, p. 265 n. 8).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 123

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 123

No one seems to have explored this issue, although a certain ‘naïvity’

in Jouguet’s opinion is striking: why pair off the toparchies in a way so
strange and varied, depending on the meris? What is more, all these
remarks describe the phenomenon without attempting to understand the
system behind it. As far as I know, no editor of Greek documents ever
discussed the unusual fact that, for instance, Karanis seems to have
belonged both to toparchy one and six and to toparchy four and five of
the Herakleides meris, see, e.g., P. Col. VII 137 (AD 301/2), lines 46, 91 and
96 vs. lines 23, 31 and 74 – (toparchy 1 + 6 and 4 + 5 respectively) and other
Isidoros papyri.

A. Toparchies in the Fayum and their villages

The significant items of evidence for the toparchies in the Roman Fayum
and the villages belonging to them may be tabulated as follows:

Toparchies not numbered (in Roman period only)

Name Document Date

top(arx¤a) t«n (sc. kvm«n) per‹ Seb°nnuton SPP XXII 94, 419 AD 111

toparx(¤a) Yeadelfe¤(aw) ka‹ êllvn [kvm«n] P. Fay. 81, 4 AD 115

toparx(¤a) Dionusiãdow P. Lond. II 295, 1 AD 118
20
top(arx¤a) t«n (sc. kvm«n) per‹ ÑHrak(le¤an) BGU III 755, 3 AD 118
21
toparx¤a MoÊxevw SB XVIII 13231 AD 119

19
For this document, see below, pp. 128–129.
20
For this document, see below, pp. 128–129.
21
The document contains a list, apparently registering receipts of money-tax collec-
tors (prãktorew érgurik«n) in the toparchy of Mouchis (line 3), ‘Tebtynis and other villages’
(line 7) and Apollonopolis (line 14). It is not to be excluded that ‘Tebtynis and other vil-
lages’ also refers to a toparchy. The document mentions different dates in reigns of Trajan
and Hadrian, the last is Pachon of year 2 (April/May AD 118).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 124

124 CHAPTER THREE

Numbered toparchies

Meris of Herakleides

Toparchies with a single number:

No. Village Document(s) Date
22
2 Soknopaiou Nesos (?) SB XVI 12833 AD 118 23
Sebennytos(?)24 25
3 BGU III 786, ii 7 AD 161
5 Kerkesoucha? P. Strasb. IV 216, 3 AD 126/7
5 Soknopaiou Nesos P. Gen. II 100, 17 AD 128
P. Gen. II 101, i 2 and 4 AD 128–129

Toparchies with a double number:

No. Village Document(s) Date
1+6 Karanis P. Cairo Isid. 31, 3 (?) AD 276
P. Cairo Isid. 39, 3 AD 296
P. Cairo Isid. 3, i, 3 AD 299
P. Cairo Isid. 4, 3, 9, 20 AD 299
P. Col. VII 137, iii 46, iv 91, 96 AD 301/2
P. Mert. II 88, viii 4, xvii 3 AD 298–301
26 27
2+3 Philadelpheia P. Wisc. II 86, 1 AD 245–247
BGU VII 1611, 4 AD 283
2+3 Kerkesoucha P. Tebt. II 368 AD 265
28
P. Tebt. II 581 descr. AD 268

22
For this document, see below, p. 132.
23
For the date see H.-A. RUPPRECHT [in:] Recht und Rechtserkenntnis. Festschrift für Ernst
Wolf zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. D. BICKEL, W. HADDING, Köln – Berlin – Bonn – München 1985,
p. 593 n. 65.
24
The papyrus comes from Soknopaiou Nesos, but the locality in the third toparchy
could be Sebennytos according to the editor (F. KREBS).
25
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 34.
26
The edition has toparx b with a following stroke but the photograph (Plate XLI)
clearly shows that instead of the stroke gamma should be read.
27
For the date, see BL X, p. 284.
28
For an edition, see T. DERDA, ‘P. Tebt. II 581: A Dekaprotos Receipt for Rent of Public
Land’, JJurP 31 (2001), pp. 13–14.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 125

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 125

No. Village Document(s) Date

2+3 Psenhyris BGU II 579, 4 (= WChr 279) AD 263
4+5 Karanis P. Cairo Isid. 32, 4 AD 279
P. Cairo Isid. 38, 4 AD 296
P. Cairo Isid. 2, 12 AD 298
P. Col. VII 137, ii 23, 31, iv 74 AD 301/2
P. Mert. II 88, x 4, xiii 3, xviii 4 AD 298–301
ChLA XLI 1203 i 5, 8, ii 43 AD 299
P. Mich. XII 636, 5 AD 302
P.NYU 20, 6 (= SB XII10881) AD 302
4+5 Ptolemais Nea P. Corn. 20, l. 3, 28, 47, 65, 84, AD 302
104, 127, 147, 169, 189 and 212 29
30
[7]+ 8 Psya P. Strasb. III 153, 5 AD 262/3

Merides of Themistos and Polemon

Toparchies with a single number:
No. Village Document(s) Date
2 Tebtynis P. Kron. 31, 4 AD 128
4 Philagris PSI XII 1236, 7 AD 128
6 Theadelpheia P. Meyer 4, 1 AD 161

Toparchies with a double number:

No. Village Document(s) Date
[2] + 4 Kerkethoeris SPP X 9131 ?
[2] + 4 Ibion SPP X 91 ?
Eikosipentarouron
2+4 Andromachis P. Flor. I 19, 2 AD 248

29
The document contains eleven declarations of land for the census of AD 302 (the
lines referred to are those containing the number of the toparchy); the declarants are from
Karanis, Arsinoe and Ptolemais Nea, but the plots declared are without exception in the
village of Ptolemais Nea.
30
For P. Strasb. III 153, see below, p. 128.
31
For SPP X 91, see below, pp. 127–128.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 126

126 CHAPTER THREE

2+4 ? P. Laur. III 62, 4 AD 253–261

6+8 Theadelpheia P. Fay. 85, 5 AD 247
P. Lips. I 83, 5 AD 257
P. Sakaon 11, 5 AD 296/7
P. Sakaon 82, 6 AD 296/7
P. Sakaon 12, 9 AD 298
P. Sakaon 76, 6 AD 298
SB X 10726, 6 (= P. Corn. 19)32 AD 298
P. Sakaon 86, 11 AD 300
7+9 Herakleia P. Flor. I 26, 7 AD 273
7+9 Dionysias P. Sakaon 2, 7, 9, 22 AD 300
7+9 Philoteris P. Sakaon 3, l. 5, 7, 21 AD 300

Remarks on some documents

P. Erl. 28 ii 8 (no photograph available) – the edition of this fragmen-
tary document has in line 8: d* top(arx¤aw) t∞w mer¤dow. The Arsinoite
provenance is suggested by the numbered toparchy and the meris (see
comm. on line 8). Given the palaeographical date (second century AD), the
reading of a single number of the toparchy is acceptable. Unfortunately,
no village name is preserved.

P. Kron. 36 (no photograph available) had in its editio princeps (line 3):
Pa[Ê]niw si(tÒlogow) a` t`op(ar)x¤a(w) [ . . . ; in the re-edition (SB XIV
11864)33 the line reads as follows: PaËni w efiw ér`¤`y`(mhsin) Pax≈n.3

P. Köln VII 316, 4 (Karanis, AD 302) requires a more detailed comment.

Aurelii Serenos and Heron, both bouleutai of the city of Arsinoe and
dekaprotoi, write to a certain Areios, Íper°thw t∞w toparx¤aw (lines 1–4).

32
The re-edition is by H. C. YOUTIE, TAPA 94 (1963), pp. 331–335 = Scriptiunculae, Am-
sterdam 1973, pp. 383–387, who rightly corrected per‹ k]≈mhn Yeadelf¤an §k t∞w ÙgdÒhw
toparxe¤aw of the editio princeps into per‹ tØn aÈtØn k]≈mhn Yeadelf¤an ßkthw ÙgdÒhw
toparxe¤aw.
33
The re-edition (unfortunately without photograph): J. SHELTON, ‘P. Kronion 36 and the
Naubion Katoikon’, ChrEg 50 (1975), p. 270. The DDBDP on CD-ROM (PHI 7) still follows
the editio princeps whereas the Internet version quoted the re-edition.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 127

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 127

His office is unknown but the editors convincingly suggest to identify it

with bohyÚw dekapr≈tvn t∞w toparx¤aw known from some documents
from Karanis and Theadelpheia (see comm. to line 4). The toparchy has
no number because this is an internal document relevant to the activity of
the office but not intended for external use, as were the receipts issued by
dekaprotoi, which are our main source for the numbered toparchies.34

P. NYU 1, 12 (Karanis, AD 299– ), so the editors; the document should

be dated to the period AD 299–302 if the editor’s reading is correct (the
dekaprotoi and their toparchies disappeared between May and July of AD
302, see below). Perhaps there is enough space in the lacuna for the num-
bers of the toparchy that were originally there (1 + 6 or 4 + 5).

PSI Congr. XI 8, 5 (Arsinoite, AD 138/9) – the number of the toparchy

is in lacuna.

P. Tebt. II 368, 2 (AD 265) has dekãprvtow b` topar(x¤aw) of the meris of

Polemon (so the editio princeps); but the toparchy in question is the 2nd
and 3rd of the meris of Herakleides where the same dekaprotos, Aurelius
Agathodaimon served his office. The scribe working for him in Tebtynis
automatically wrote ‘of the meris of Polemon’; he committed the same
error in P. Tebt. II 581 descr.35

SPP X 91 – this is a fragment of a document written in a literary hand

typical of the second and third centuries AD. In the Vienna collection
some other fragments written in the same hand can be found, perhaps
belonging to a single document. The edition of SPP X 91 reads as follows:

Tal¤
ÑHrakle¤dhw
34
The toparchies are rendered without their numbers also in numerous receipts on
ostraca, see below, p. 142 with n. 44.
35
For an edition of P. Tebt. II 581, see above, n. 28. For the discussion of these two doc-
uments from Tebtynis, see my paper ‘Aurelius Agathodaemon, Dekaprotos of the Second
and Third Toparchy of the Arsinoite Nome’, JJurP 31 (2001), pp. 9–12.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 128

128 CHAPTER THREE

KerkeyouÆreow
4 Efib¤vnow (Efikosipent)aroÊ[rvn ?]
w* ka‹ d* toparx¤[aw ?]
MÊsyhw

It is clear that the toparchy (note that singular in line 5 is purely

hypothetical) in question cannot be sixth and fourth, as Wessely’s edition
suggests, since the numbers of the paired toparchies never appear in
descending order. What is more, the fac-simile of the document accom-
panying the edition leaves no doubt that the sigma is too far to the left to
be connected with the following delta; most probably it originally
belonged to the preceding column. The villages mentioned in connection
with the toparchy x and 4 are located in the meris of Polemon; the system
of the doubled toparchies as reconstructed here suggests toparchy 2 + 4;
the same toparchy 2 + 4 included the village of Andromachis. A century
earlier Tebtynis belonged to toparchy 2 and Philagris to toparchy 4
– all these villages are located not far from each other and they might
have previously belonged to two toparchies and later to the doubled
toparchy 2 + 4.
The occurrence of the double toparchy dates SPP X 91 to the second
half of the third century. It is important for our study of literary hands of
the Roman period, especially because the famous Potter’s Oracle was
written in a very similar hand.

P. Strasb. III 153 is a typical dekaprotoi receipt. Of the number of their

toparchy only an eta survived. The village mentioned in the receipt is Psya
Ptolemaiou in the meris of Herakleides. P. Strasb. III 153 is our only piece
of evidence for toparchy 8; to make it fit the system of doubled toparchies
(see table) we have to assume that the toparchy was originally 7 + 8. This
was already suggested by Jacques Schwartz (see his comm. to line 3) on
the assumption that the numbers should be combined according to the
pattern: odd and even (see my introductory remarks to this section).

SPP XXII 94 (Soknopaiou Nesos, AD 111) and BGU III 755 (AD 118)
should be discussed together. The first document is a letter the author of
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 129

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 129

which is (lines 3–4): Ptolema›ow gegum(nasiarxhk∆w) genãme(now) seito-

l(Ògow) (read sitolÒgow) top( ) t«n per‹ Seb°nnuton; it is a typical sitolo-
gos receipt issued by (line 3): ÑHra[k]le¤dhw ka‹ [m°]tox(oi) s[i]tol(Ògoi)
top( ) t«n per‹ ÑHrak(le¤an). In both cases top( ) was supplemented by
the editors as tÒp(vn), probably because of the following article t«n.
Topoi (the word not abbreviated) are indeed connected with sitologoi, but
only in documents dated to the second cent. BC, e.g. in P. Cairo Good. 7, i
4–6 (119/8 BC): parå KolloÊyou toË sitologoËntÒw tinaw tÒpouw t` ∞w ÑHra-
kle¤dou mer¤dow, similarly in P. Hels. I 6 (Herakleopolite, 164 BC) and P. Tebt.
III.2 837 (Tebtynis, 177 BC), also P. Oxy. XII 1447 of AD 44. But our two
documents are dated to the early second century AD when toparchies
started to appear again in the Arsinoite documents. Therefore I prefer to
expand the abbreviation differently: top(arx¤a) t«n (sc. kvm«n) per‹
ÑHrak(le¤an) and top(arx¤a) t«n per‹ Seb°nnuton respectively. Exact pa-
rallels can be found in: P. Strasb. IV 216, 3 (AD 126/7): toparx(¤a) t«n per‹
Kerk°soux(a) and P. Kron. 31, 5 (AD 128): toparx¤(a) t«n per‹ TeptËn(in).
See also BGU IV 1189, 8 (Herakleopolite, first cent. BC – first cent. AD):
tÒparxow t«n per‹ BoÊs`i[` rin].
If this reading is accepted, SPP XXII 94 will be the earliest attestation
of a toparchy in the Roman Fayum.

B. Two or one? A single toparchy with two numbers

or two toparchies paired off?
An important question arises in respect to the toparchies accompanied
by two numbers: do they form a single toparchy which came into being as
a result of unification of two separate (and presumably neighbouring) top-
archies? Or are there still two toparchies sharing officials and/or com-
bined for other reasons?
From the period since AD 247 onwards when a new system of topar-
chies with double numbers started, no document mentions a toparchy
with a single number. This would imply an affirmative answer to the first
question. Although the lack of single-numbered toparchies is an argu-
mentum ex silentio, we may reasonably assume that the doubled toparchies
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 130

130 CHAPTER THREE

were administrative units in the Fayum in the second half of the third
century.
In our documents the term toparx¤a is usually, but not always, abbre-
viated to top( ). The following list includes all the occurrences of the
term toparx¤a accompanied by two numbers, not abbreviated and not in
lacuna.

Singular
P. Cairo Isid. 2, 11–13 (AD 298): per‹ tØn prokim°nhn [k]≈mhn Karan¤da
tetãrthw p°mpthw toparx[¤]aw ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow.
P. Cairo Isid. 3, I, 3–4 (AD 298): [parå AÈrhl¤aw ÑHr]v¤dow XairÆmonow
épÚ k≈mhw Karan¤dow pr≈thw ßkthw toparx¤aw ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow
[toË AÉ ]rsino˝tou nomoË; lines 9–10: SÊrou [bohyoË dekapr≈t]vn t∞w
top[ar]x¤aw; line 38 (signature): AÈrÆliow SÊrow bohyÚw dekapr≈tvn t∞w
toparx¤aw.
P. Cairo Isid. 4, 3 (AD 299): parå A[È]rhl¤ou ÉIsid≈rou Ptolema¤ou épÚ
k≈mhw Karan¤dow pr≈thw ßkthw toparxe¤aw (read toparx¤aw) ÑHrakle¤-
dou mer¤dow; the singular is also found in lines 9 and 20.
P. Corn. 20, 2–3 (AD 302): AÈrhl¤ƒ A É lejãndrƒ êrjanti prutaneÊsantei
(read prutaneÊsanti) t∞w lamprçw Ymoueit«n pÒlevw énametrhtª A É rsi-
no˝tou toparxe¤aw (read toparx¤aw) tetãrthw p°mpthw ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow;
the same addressing formula is repeated in the heading of each of the
eleven columns of this roll. The location of each declared plot of land is
given in the same way: per‹ k≈mhn Ptolema˝da N°an t∞w prokim°nhw to-
parx¤aw (the term always in singular).
P. NYU 1, 12 (AD 299–302): [AÈr(Æliow) Sarap¤vn bohyÚw dekapr≈]t`v`n
t`∞`[w to]p`ar` x¤a`[w].
P. Sakaon 2, 7 (AD 300): per‹ tØn aÈtØn k≈mhn Dionusiãda •bdÒmhw [ka‹
§nãthw] toparx¤aw Yem¤[stou mer¤]dow; line 9: b[oh]y`oË dek[apr≈]tvn
t∞w toparx¤a[w]; the same in line 22.
P. Sakaon 3, 5: per‹ k≈mhn Filvt`e`r¤da •bdÒmhw §nãthw toparx¤aw Ye-
m¤stou mer¤dow toË aÈtoË nomoË; line 7: ka‹ Kopr¤a bo`h`yoË dekapr≈tvn
t∞w [topar]x¤aw; line 21: AÈrÆliow Kopr¤aw bohyÚw dekapr≈tvn t∞w to-
parx¤aw (signature).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 131

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 131

P. Sakaon 11, 5–6 (AD 296/7): dekãprotoi (read dekãprvtoi) w' ka‹ h' to-
parxe¤aw (read toparx¤aw).
P. Sakaon 76, 6 (AD 298): [per‹ tØn aÈtØn k]≈mhn Yead°lfian ßkthw Ùg-
dÒhw toparxe¤aw (read toparx¤aw) [Yem¤stou mer¤dow].
P. Sakaon 72, 5–6 (AD 296/7): dekãprotoi (read dekãprvtoi) w ka‹ h
toparxe¤aw (read toparx¤aw) [t∞w Ye]m¤stou mer¤dow.

Plural
P. Laur. III 62, 4 (AD 253–261): [?] b' ka‹ d* toparxi«n Yem¤stou mer¤-
[dow].
P. Lips. I 83, 4–5 (AD 257): dekãprvtoi w' ka‹ h' toparxi«n Yem¤stou
mer¤dow.
BGU II 579, 4–5 (= WChr. 279) (AD 263): de[k]ãprvtoi b' ka‹ g' topar-
xi«n ÑHrakl¤[dou mer]¤dow.

As is clear, the singular form prevails in our evidence, but the three
exceptions coming from an unknown village in the second and fourth
toparchy of the meris of Themistos, from Theadelpheia in the sixth and
eighth toparchy in the same meris, and from Psenhyris in the second and
third toparchy in the meris of Herakleides demand caution. I decided to
say ‘toparchy x and y’ although the evidence does not allow me to totally
exclude the possibility of ‘toparchies x and y’.
It is perhaps not coincidental that the three attestations of the plural
form are of a relatively early date, while those of singular come from the
documents dated to the very end of the existence of the toparchy system
in the Fayum. This could suggest that the doubled toparchies were intro-
duced in the 240s as separate units for some reason paired off. After fifty
years the officials became so familiar with the system that they began to
write of a single toparchy with two numbers. It must have been an impor-
tant factor that the toparchies in the third cent. AD were always double-
numbered and there was no practical reason to keep the old and perhaps
formally correct way of saying ‘toparchies first and fifth’ instead of
‘toparchy first and fifth’.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 132

132 CHAPTER THREE

C. Contradiction within the evidence

Our evidence is inconsistent in two points. According to one of the ear-
liest documents mentioning a numbered toparchy, P. Strasb. IV 216
(AD 126/7) Kerkesoucha belongs to toparchy no. 5. The reading of the doc-
ument is beyond doubt, as the toparchy number is written in full. A cen-
tury and a half later, in AD 265 and 268, a man of the same village of Kerke-
soucha delivers grain to the granary of Tebtynis (sic!) and receives a
receipt issued by Aurelius Agathodaimon, the dekaprotos of toparchy 2 and
3 of the meris of Herakleides (P. Tebt. II 368 and 581 respectively).36 This
suggests that the village belonged to Agathodaimon’s toparchy. On the
other hand, according to P. Gen. II 100 and 101 (AD 128 and 128–129
respectively) toparchy no. 5 was that of Soknopaiou Nesos. The docu-
ments are almost contemporary with the Strasbourg document. It is
unlikely to have toparchy no. 5 extending from Soknopaiou Nesos to
Kerkesoucha, the latter very close to Karanis. The solution of this prob-
lem can perhaps be found in the name of the sitologos and the name of his
father. They undoubtedly point to Soknopaiou Nesos as his homeland.
But why did he say ‘sitologos of toparchy no. 5 of the villages around
Kerkesoucha’? This must remain unsolved for the moment; perhaps Sto-
toetis son of Panephremmis, as many of his countrymen, owned land out-
side his home village, in Kerkesoucha. He was appointed a sitologos there
but in a document he automatically wrote the number of the toparchy of
Soknopaiou Nesos and not that of Kerkesoucha.37
SB XVI 12833 (former SPP XXII 39) is another piece of evidence for
Roman toparchies in the Fayum which is not clear to us. The focus is
again on Soknopaiou Nesos: Onnophris son of Onnophris complains
about a nomination for the liturgy of sitologia in the second toparchy of
the meris of Herakleides. We do not know, however, where this toparchy
was located; Onnophris may have been nominated for sitologos of the
toparchy where he owned his land, not necessarily in Soknopaiou Nesos.
36
See my paper quoted in note 28.
37
This would be to some extent a similar case to that of Aurelius Agathodaimon,
dekaprotos of toparchy two and three of the meris of Herakleides, who a century later
issued two documents in which he (or rather a scribe working for him) wrote the wrong
name of the meris; see my article ‘Aurelius Agathodaemon’ (cit. supra, n. 28).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 133

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 133

D. Officials connected with the toparchies

in the first period of numbered toparchies (AD 111–161)

Sitologoi and sitologia

P. Fay. 81, 3–5 (AD 115): D¤dumow [ka‹ m(°toxoi) sitol(Ògoi)] toparx(¤aw)
Yeadelfe¤(aw) ka‹ êllvn [kvm«n] – the document is a typical sitologoi
receipt; the function of Didymos is supplemented, but probable.
P. Lond. II 295, 1–2 (AD 118): PtÒllidi k(a‹) metÒx(oiw) sitolÒg(oiw) to-
parx(¤aw) Dionusiãd[ow].
SB XVI 12833, 11–12 (AD 118): efiw sitolog¤an deut°raw topar[x¤a]w
ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow.
P. Strasb. IV 216, 2–3 (AD 126/7): parå StotÒhtiw (read StotoÆtiow)
Panefr°mme`vw` toË TesenoÊfevw seitol(Ògou) (read sitolÒgou) p°mpthw
toparx(¤aw) t«n per‹ Kerk°soux(a).
P. Gen. II 100, 17 (AD 128): efiw seitolog¤an (read sitolog¤an) e' top[a]r-
x¤aw.
P. Gen. II 101, 3–4 (AD 128/9): AÑ rpagãyhw SataboËtow t[oË] Mar[e]ioËw
ép[Ú S]ok[no]pa¤ou [NÆso]u s2i1t`[o]l(Ògow) [e’] t[o]p[a]rx(¤aw) S[okno]-
pa¤ou NÆsou; line 2: s[i]tolÒgo[u] e top(arx¤aw).
P. Kron. 31, 3–5 (AD 128): Sarap¤vn ka‹ ofl m°tox(oi) sitolÒg(oi) b' to-
parx¤(aw) t«n per‹ TeptËn(in).
Other officials
PSI Congr. XI 8, 5 (AD 138/9): A
É p¤vnow genam(°nou) sitologoprãk(torow)
toparx(¤aw) followed by a lacuna.
PSI XII 1236, 7 (Philagris, AD 128): praktor argyrikon.
P. Meyer 4, 1 (AD 161) is addressed [ 1 1 ]1 pvi limnast∞i (ßkthw) top(ar-
x¤aw) [Ye]m¤stou. Limnastes, ‘supervisor of irrigation works’, official sub-
ordinate to the aigialophylax.38 Our document is the only evidence that
the area of responsibility of this official was the toparchy.
BGU III 786, ii 7 (AD 161): epiteresis of the third toparchy.
38
É s≈]pvi limnast∞i in the edition only exempli gratia. For limnastes and limnasteia, see
A
Danielle BONNEAU, Le régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine et byzan-
tine (= Probleme der Ägyptologie 8), Leiden 1993, pp. 203–206; for aigialophylax, see ibidem,
pp. 240–244; also P. Meyer 4 introduction.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 134

134 CHAPTER THREE

E. Officials connected with the toparchies

after the reintroduction of the toparchies in the 240s
In this period we find only few officials connected with this administra-
tive unit.

BohyÚw dekapr≈tvn
(toparchy number never mentioned)
P. Cairo Isid. 3, i 10 and 38 (Karanis; AD 299): Aurelius Syros.
P. Cairo Isid. 4, 8 and 20 (Karanis; AD 299): Aurelius Syros.
ChLA XLI 1203, 1, 8 and 2, 43 (Karanis; AD 299): Aurelius Sarapion.
P. NYU I 1, 12 (Karanis; AD 299–302): Aurelius Sarapion.
P. Sakaon 2, 9 and 26 (Ptolemais Euergetis; AD 300): Aurelius Koprias
(toparchy in question is seventh and ninth of the meris of Themistos).
P. Sakaon 3, 7 and 21 (Arsinoites; AD 300): the same boethos.

Hyperetes of toparchy
P. Köln VII 316, 3 (Karanis; AD 302): Areios, hyperetes of a toparchy (no
number) as a recipient of a letter of Aurelius Serenos, agor(anom…) and
Aurelius Heron, former high priest, both councillors of the polis of Arsi-
noe and dekaprotoi (no toparchy specified).

Dekaprotoi
BGU VII 1611, 4 (Philadelpheia, AD 283): Aurelii Mysthes and Isidoros,
both former high priests and former gymnasiarchs, dekaprotoi of the sec-
ond and third toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Cairo Isid. 31, 3 (Karanis, AD 276): Aurelius Kastor, municipal title
missing, dekaprotos of the first and sixth toparchy of the meris of Hera-
kleides.
P. Cairo Isid. 32, 4 (Karanis, AD 279): Aurelius Euporas, former prytanis
and Aurelius Priscus, both of them kom( ), dekaprotoi of the fourth and
fifth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 135

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 135

P. Cairo Isid. 38, 4 (Karanis, AD 296): Aurelius Severinus, senator of Alex-

andria, Aurelius Sarmates, former gymnasiarch, Aurelius Andreias, Aure-
lius Philadelphos, Aurelius Sabinus former gymnasiarch, all five dekaprotoi
of the fourth and fifth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Cairo Isid. 39, 3 (Karanis, AD 296): Aurelius Heron, former gym-
nasiarch, councillor, dekaprotos of the first and sixth toparchy of the meris
of Herakleides.
P. Col. VII 137, ii 23 (Karanis, AD 301/2): Aurelii Horion and Philotas,
dekaprotoi of the fourth and fifth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Col. VII 137, ii 31 (Karanis, AD 301/2): Aurelii Severinus and Andreias,
former exegetes, councillor of Alexandria, and the heirs of Sarmates, and
Sabinos, former gymnasiarch, (all) dekaprotoi of the fourth and fifth
toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Col. VII 137, iii 46 (Karanis, AD 301/2): Aurelius Didymos, former
gymnasiarch, councillor, dekaprotos of the first and sixth toparchy of the
meris of Herakleides.
P. Col. VII 137, iv 74 (Karanis, AD 301/2): Aurelii Horion and Sarmates,
dekaprotoi of the fourth and fifth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Col. VII 137, iv 91 (Karanis, AD 301/2): Aurelius Gerontios, dekaprotos
of the first and sixth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides (repeated in
line 96).
P. Fay. 85, 5 (Theadelpheia, AD 247): Aurelius Horion, former exegetes,
former prytanis; Aurelius Heras, former gymnasiarch; Aurelius Turbo, for-
mer kosmetes, all three councillors, and Aurelius Serenos, former gym-
nasiarch, all of the polis of Arsinoe, dekaprotoi of the sixth and eighth
toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Flor. I 19, 2 (Arsinoite, AD 248): Aurelius Hermias, former gymnasiarch
and councillor of the polis of Arsinoe, dekaprotos of the second and fourth
toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Flor. I 26, 7 (Arsinoite, AD 273): Aurelius Souchidas, former exegetes;
Aurelius Apollonios, former gymnasiarch; Aurelius Heron; Aurelius
Ischyrion and the remaining dekaprotoi, former gymnasiarchs, councillors,
all dekaprotoi of the seventh and ninth toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Lips. I 83, 4 (Soknopaiou Nesos, AD 257): Aurelius Ammonianos and
Aurelius Kastor, both former gymnasiarchs; Aurelius Heraïskos former
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 136

136 CHAPTER THREE

chief priest, and the heirs of Melas, former gymnasiarch, (all) dekaprotoi of
the sixth and eighth toparchy of the meris of Themistos — the documents
come from Soknopaiou Nesos but the dekaprotoi receive the grain in the
granary of Theadelpheia and issue their receipt there.
P. Merton II 88, viii 4 (Karanis, AD 298–301): Aurelius Didymos, former
gymnasiarch, dekaprotos of the first and sixth toparchy of the meris of
Herakleides; xvii, 3: Aurelios Didymos, former gymnasiarch, councillor,
dekaprotos of the first and sixth toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Sakaon 11, 5 (Theadelpheia, AD 296/7): Aurelii Heroninos, Athanasios,
Philadelphos and Serenion, all former exegetai of Alexandria, dekaprotoi of
the sixth and eighth toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Sakaon 12, 9 (Theadelpheia, AD 298): Aurelii Heroninos, Philadelphos
and Athanasios, all former exegetai of Alexandria, and Serenion, former
gymnasiarch, dekaprotoi of the sixth and eighth toparchy of the meris of
Themistos.
P. Sakaon 82, 5 (Theadelpheia, AD 296/7): Aurelii Heroninos and Athana-
sios and Philadelphos and Serenion, former exegetai of Alexandria, deka-
protoi of the sixth and eighth toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Sakaon 86, 11 (Theadelpheia, AD 300): Aurelii Heroninos and Athana-
sios and Philadelphos, all former exegetai of Alexandria, dekaprotoi of the
sixth and eighth toparchy of the meris of Themistos.
P. Strasb. III 153, 5 (Arsinoite, AD 262–3): Aurelii Kastor agor( ) and Se-
renion, both dekaprotoi of the seventh and eighth toparchy of the meris of
Herakleides.
BGU II 579, 4 = WChr. 279 (Arsinoite, AD 263): Aurelii Agathodaimon,
former gymnasiarch, and Athanasios, former gymnasiarch, and Sarap-
ammon and Kopres, the two being former gymnasiarchs and serving in
place of one (i.e., dekaprotos), and Souchammon, former kosmetes, all deka-
protoi of the second and third toparchy of the meris of Herakleides.
P. Tebt. II 368, 2 (Tebtynis, AD 265): Aurelius Agathodaimon, former kos-
metes, councillor, dekaprotos of the second and third toparchy of the meris
of Polemon (so the document; Aurelius Agathodaimon was in fact a deka-
protos of the second and third toparchy of the meris of Herakleides).
P. Tebt. II 581 descr. (Tebtynis, AD 268/9): the same Aurelius Agatho-
daimon with the same titles.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 137

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 137

P. Wisc. II 86, 1 (Philadelpheia, AD 244–246): this is the beginning of a

petition addressed to the dekaprotoi of the second and third toparchy of
the meris of Herakleides, their names not mentioned.

énametrhtØw A
É rsino˝tou
toparx¤aw tetãrthw p°mpthw ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow
P. Corn. 20 is a long roll containing eleven declarations of land for the
census of the year 302 AD. The declarations are made by different people
from Karanis, Arsinoe and Ptolemais Nea, but all plots are located in Pto-
lemais Nea. The documents are addressed énametrhtª ÉArsino˝tou
toparxe¤aw tetãrthw p°mpthw ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow i.e. to the land-meas-
urer responsible for verifying the land described by the declarants as
x°rsow or éd°spotow.

4. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Although the Arsinoite toparchies do not appear in documents very

often given the quantity of sources from this area, the picture emerging
from the data gathered in this chapter is fairly clear and coherent. The
toparchies are absent from the Fayumic documents from the beginning of
Roman rule until the second decade of the second century. The first ref-
erence appears in AD 111: this is ‘the toparchy of the villages around Seben-
nytos’ (SPP XXII 94), followed in AD 115 by ‘the toparchy of Theadelpheia
and other villages’ (P. Fay. 81). In AD 118 two more village-centered
toparchies are mentioned in P. Lond. II 295 and BGU III 755 (‘toparchy of
Dionysias’ and ‘toparchy of the villages around Herakleia’ respectively). In
all four documents the toparchies constitute the area of activity of the
sitologoi.
In the same year AD 118, however, the earliest evidence for the num-
bered toparchies is found: a certain Onnophris son of Onnophris, a priest
from Soknopaiou Nesos, addresses the epistrategos Iulius Maximianus in
protest against nomination for the liturgy of sitolog¤a deut°raw topar-
[x¤a]w ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow (SB XVI 12833).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 138

138 CHAPTER THREE

In an interesting lot of documents from the third decade of the second

century, the toparchies are at the same time numbered and named after a
village. In Tybi of year 11 of Hadrian (December 126 – January 127) Stoto-
etis son of Panephremmis, sitologos p°mpthw toparx(¤aw) t«n per‹ Kerk°-
souxa addresses a complaint against a thief to Asklepiades, strategos of the
meris of Herakleides. In AD 128 the Tebtynis sitologoi issue a receipt for
Harphaesis son of Kronion (P. Kron. 31). Lines 4–5 of the document read
as follows: ofl sitolÒg(oi) b toparx¤(aw) t«n per‹ TeptËnin. This is paral-
leled in the same year by P. Gen. II 101, line 4: s2it̀` [o]l(Ògow) [e'] t[o]p[a]r-
x(¤aw) S[okno]pa¤ou NÆsou. Though the number of the toparchy is in
lacuna, it seems certain since it appears in full in line 2.39 The three doc-
uments seem to witness a turning point: the toparchies are still called
after the name of their administrative centre but this is now accompanied
by a number. In the case of both the Strasbourg text and the Kronion
document, we may doubt whether the name is the official one; the name
of the village following the toparchy number may have been a kind of ex-
planation necessary at the time of introducing the new system. The third
document presents perhaps a similar case: first, in line 2, the toparchy is
introduced only with its number, which may already have become its offi-
cial name; in line 4, however, the scribe adds an additional piece of
information probably to avoid any misunderstanding. Even if this
assumption goes too far, we may say that the new system was introduced
in AD 118; for a few more years the people were not yet familiar enough
with it and the name of the toparchy’s administrative centre was still
added by some scribes. Our conclusion could be more decisive if we had
not had the documents of AD 118 where the toparchy is identified only by
its number.

39
P. Gen. II 101 contains an extract of an official register (for a correction of the read-
ing of line 1 see C. WEHRLI, ‘Les Papyrus de Genève, volume II: corrigenda et observa-
tions’, ZPE 67 [1987], p. 117 = BL IX, p. 91) concerning the nomination of Harpagathes son
of Satabous for the liturgy of the sitologos of toparchy no. 5, of Soknopaiou Nesos. Harpa-
gathes son of Satabous is from Soknopaiou Nesos but resides in the village of Apias,
where he cultivates five arourae of catoecic land. For the close ties between the two vil-
lages, see Deborah SAMUEL, ‘The Village of Apias in the Arsinoite Nome’, Aegyptus 62
(1982), pp. 80–123, especially pp. 88–91.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 139

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 139

There is no doubt that the toparchies were introduced in the Fayum in

connection with the sitologia. In the documents listed above, only sporadi-
cally is there a mention of officials other than the sitologoi (only one before
AD 130). One may ask whether the Arsinoite sitologoi were always toparchy
officials. In order to answer this question I have listed the sitologoi docu-
ments from the Fayum, dated to the period between AD 100–130:40

AD 101 BGU III 988: ‘sitologoi of Apias’.

AD 101 P. Grenf. II 44: ‘sitologoi of Philadelpheia’.
AD 101/2 BGU III 908: ‘sitologia of the village of Bakchias’.
AD 104 P. Iand. III 28: ‘sitologoi of Theadelpheia’.
AD 105 SB VI 8976: ‘sitologoi of the village (i.e. Soknopaiou Nesos)’.
AD 106 P. Mil. Vogl. III 197: ‘sitologoi’ with no further designation
(document issued in Tebtynis).
AD 106 P. Mil. Vogl. IV 245: ‘sitologoi’ with no further designation
(document issued in Tebtynis).
AD 106/7 P. Lond. II 291: ‘sitologoi of Apias and other villages’.
AD 111–113 P. Tebt. II 470 descr.: ‘sitologoi of Ibion Eikosipentarouron’.
AD 111 SPP XXII 94: ‘former sitologos of the toparchy of the
villages around Sebennytos’.
AD 111/2 SB XVIII 13134: ‘sitologos of the village of Talei’.
AD 112 P. Fam. Tebt. 12: ‘sitologoi’ with no further designation.
AD 113 P. Turner 20: ‘sitologoi of Tebtynis’.
AD 115 P. Fay. 81: ‘sitologoi of toparchy of Theadelpheia and other
villages’.
AD 116 P. Oslo II 28: ‘sitologoi of Theadelpheia and other villages’.
AD 116 SPP XXII 118: ‘sitologoi of Soknopaiou Nesos’.
AD 117–138 SPP IV 118 = P. Fay. 264: ‘sitologoi of Apias and other villages’.
AD 118 BGU III 755: ‘sitologoi of the toparchy of the villages around
Herakleia’.
AD 118 P. Lond. II 295: ‘sitologoi of the toparchy of Dionysias’.
40
Only documents exactly dated; the officials are styled as in the document, e.g. ‘sitolo-
gia of the village of Bakchias’ translates the Greek text sitolog¤a k≈mhw Bakxiãdow. The
dates of the documents where the sitologoi are connected with the toparchies, are printed
in bold type.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 140

140 CHAPTER THREE

AD 126 P. Kron. 30: ‘sitologoi of the village of Talei and other komai’
(but Talei is in lacuna).
AD 126/7 P. Strasb. IV 216: ‘sitologos of toparchy 5’.
AD 128 P. Gen. II 100: ‘sitologia of toparchy 5’.
AD 128 P. Kron. 31: ‘sitologoi of toparchy 2’.
AD 128/9 P. Gen. II 101: ‘sitologos of toparchy 5’.
AD 129 P. Mil. Vogl. IV 246: ‘sitologos of Tebtynis’.
AD 130 P. Kron. 32: ‘sitologoi of the village of Kerkeesis’.

The evidence suggests that in the period of AD 118–129 the toparchy

system constituted the only base for the sitologia. For only one document
from this period, P. Kron. 30, the editor suggests to connect the sitologoi
with the village of Talei. But the reading of line 3 including the name of
the village is largely based on supplement: ÑVr¤vn ka‹ m°tox(oi) si[t(olÒgoi)
Tale‹] k[a‹] êll[vn kvm«n]. The edition has no photograph; it is, there-
fore, difficult to estimate the size of the lacuna, but not too much space
is needed for three letters, if we assume that the word toparx¤a was
abbreviated to top.
Two sitologoi documents suggest that the execution of sitologia accord-
ing to the division into toparchies started before AD 118. Should we take
the date of the first, AD 111, for a terminus ante quem the new system was
introduced? If so, the authors of the four documents (SB XVIII 13134,
P. Turner 20, P. Oslo II 28 and SPP XXII 118) may have omitted the word
toparx¤a by mistake, which is quite imaginable in the first years of the
new system. Except for Talei from the Kronion document, the villages
mentioned in these receipts are attested by other documents as the cen-
tres of toparchies. We know that Talei was often connected with Tebty-
nis, which suggests that the lacuna could be supplemented in quite a dif-
ferent way: si[t(olÒgoi) top(arx¤aw) Tebt(Ênevw)] k[a‹] êll[vn kvm«n].
SPP IV 118 = P. Fay. 264 mentioning ‘sitologoi of Apias and other vil-
lages’, can be dated to the part of the reign of Hadrian after the toparchy
sitologia was abandoned in the Fayum, i.e., to AD 129–138.
After AD 129 the system of sitologia toparchies disappeared and sitologoi
were again connected with particular villages. We know neither why
the system was introduced nor why it was abandoned only after a few years.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 141

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 141

In the following decades of the second century AD the Fayum

toparchies appear only sporadically, four times in total. Three documents
are of fiscal content (prãktvr érgurik«n in AD 128, sitologoprãk(tvr)
toparx(¤aw) in AD 138/9 and §pitÆrhsiw in AD 161); the fourth (AD 161) is
addressed to the limnastes of toparchy 6 of the meris of Themistos.
From AD 161 (the last appearance of a toparchy with a single number)
to AD 247 when a new system of toparchies with doubled numbers starts
functioning, there is an eighty-year-long gap. Nevertheless, there is some
evidence that the system of numbering did not change during this almost
century-long break. In AD 161 Theadelpheia belonged to toparchy 6, in
AD 247 it is in toparchy 6 and 8.
The starting point for paired toparchies falls in the period of
AD 245–248, i.e. the reign of Philip the Arabian, and should be almost cer-
tainly connected with the reforms introduced by this emperor.

5. THE DEKAPROTOI
AND THEIR TOPARCHIES

Sitologoi appear regularly in papyri from all over Egypt up to the fourth
decade of the third century AD. As we argued before, in the Fayum they
were connected with individual villages except a short but significant gap
for the years AD 111–129. In the 240s the sitologoi were replaced by dekapro-
toi, first attested on 13 Pauni year 3 of the Philippi, i.e. 7 June 246 (P. Lond.
III 1157 verso = WChr. 375). In the Arsinoite nome, they appear at the lat-
est in AD 247 (P. Fay. 85) or perhaps even earlier (SB VIII 1020841).
The position of dekaprotoi appears to have been far higher than that of
sitologoi. They were members of municipal élite as is clearly shown by
their official and honorific titles. In formal documents (on papyrus not on
ostraca), their names are accompanied by their municipal titles. As a rule,
they were chosen from among metropolitan councillors and magistrates.
As far as we can judge from available evidence, their office was connected

41
See N. LEWIS’ remarks in BASP 4 (1967), pp. 34–36.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 142

142 CHAPTER THREE

with the toparchy all over Egypt.42 Each toparchy was usually supervised
by a college of two dekaprotoi;43 the doubled toparchies in the Fayum have
a college of four dekaprotoi. Sometimes they issue their receipts acting by
three, two, or even alone. In short receipts on ostraca the dekaprotoi are
mentioned without the area of their responsibility – this, no doubt, is due
to the less formal character of these documents.44 This could lead us to a
conclusion that the official name of a toparchy included the number(s)
but it was not accepted for common use as probably too sophisticated
and unpractical in everyday life.45

42
On dekaprotoi see in general an old but still very instructive study by E. G. TURNER,
‘Egypt and the Roman Empire: the dekapr«toi’ in JEA 22 (1936), pp. 7–20; J. D. THOMAS,
‘The Introduction of Dekaprotoi and Comarchs into Egypt in the Third Century AD’,
ZPE 19 (1975) pp. 111–119; J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Disappearance of the Dekaprotoi in Egypt’,
BASP 11 (1974) pp. 60–68. R. S. BAGNALL and J. D. THOMAS, ‘Dekaprotoi and Epigraphai’,
BASP 15 (1978) pp. 185–189. The way they conducted their duties in the last years of the
third cent. and the first two years of the fourth cent. in Theadelpheia and Karanis has
been discussed by R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Number and Term of the dekaprotoi’, Aegyptus 58
(1978), pp. 160–167.
43
P. Oxy. LIX 3980, 2–3 (AD 300–302): provides another one of the few exceptions to
this general rule first formulated by OERTEL, Die Liturgie, p. 211; other exceptions are noted
by TURNER, ‘Egypt and the Roman Empire’ (cit. supra, n. 42), p. 8 n. 9.
44
The usual pattern of the ostraca receipts issued by the dekaprotoi contains the name
of the village where a yhsaurÒw is located followed by the name(s) of the dekaprotos(-oi).
The document was then quite clear without giving the area of responsibility of the offi-
cial(s) although occasionally we find dekaprotoi with the name of the village; this is the case
of receipts issued for donkeys’ owners by the dekaprotoi to acknowledge the use of the ani-
mals for transportation of grain from a granary to a harbour: O. Berlin 83 (AD 255) and 84
(AD 256) – in both dekãprvtoi TeptÊnevw Magd≈lvn; O. Mich. I 69 (no exact date) and II
885 (no date): dekãprvtoi k≈(mhw) Dionusiãdow; O. Mich. I 70 (no date): dekãprvtoi
k≈(mhw) Kar(an¤dow); SB XVI 12789 (former BGU VII 1703, AD 260–282): dekãprvtoi
k≈(mhw) Filadelf(¤aw). None of these documents mention a thesauros (there was no rea-
son for that); in such an abbreviated form there was no room for the name of the village
and therefore it had to follow the name of the dekaprotos(-oi).
45
Numbers are not comfortable as names in everyday life! A parallel of Paris quarters
(arrondissements) can be quoted here. Officially introduced in the nineteenth century, they
entered the vocabulary of the inhabitants of the French capital after several decades only.
The numbered streets in American cities are not a good parallel since the people there
had no option to avoid the numbers.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 143

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 143

The office of the dekaprotoi seems to have been abolished between May
and July 302; the collection of dues in corn was again attributed to the
sitologoi.
The re-introducing of the numbered toparchies in the Fayum is then a
part of the administrative reforms in Egypt.46

In the period of doubled toparchies, in the joint merides of Themistos

and Polemon toparchies nos. 1, 3 and 5 are absent from our evidence.47
Therefore, we have no idea how these three toparchies were combined
with each other. We cannot even be certain that the number of toparchies
in the joint merides of Themistos and Polemon was exactly nine, and eight
in the meris of Herakleides. If we assume (purely hypothetically) that the
merides of Themistos and Polemon were indeed divided into nine
toparchies, we face the necessity of ‘creating’ either a toparchy of three
numbers or a combination of a single toparchy and a doubled one.

6. THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE TOPARCHIES

AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PAGI

In AD 307/8, the toparchies disappeared from the administrative sys-

tem of Egypt and were replaced by the pagi.48 As a rule, the pagi were
46
See P. J. PARSONS, ‘Philippus Arabs and Egypt’, JRS 57 (1967), pp. 134–141. His
conclusion is a personal summary of Roman history in the third century AD: ‘Third-cen-
tury Egypt begins with the reforms of Septimius Severus, and ends the reforms of Dio-
cletian. Philip’s reform, midway between the two, seems to have been no less ambitious.
All three faced the same problems. All three tried the same sorts of solution. All three
failed.’ Perhaps this conclusion goes a bit too far?
47
The editio princeps of P. Kron. 36 locates the village of Kerkeesis in toparchy 1 but the
reading has been changed (see above, notes on particular documents on p. 126).
48
In his fundamental study published almost a century ago, Michael GELZER deduced
from the evidence then available that the crucial years for the changeover in political
organisation of Egypt were AD 307–310, i.e. the years following the abdication of Dioclet-
ian (Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltung Ägyptens [= Leipziger historische Abhandlungen 13],
Leipzig 1909, pp. 57–58). Since the earliest pagus is dated to 6 August 308 (P. Cairo Isid.
125, 1) and there is no toparchy after AD 307, the date can be stated more precisely to the
administrative year AD 307/8 (see THOMAS, ‘The Disappearance of the dekaprotoi’ [cit. supra,
n. 42], pp. 60–61, esp. note 3).
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 144

144 CHAPTER THREE

more numerous than the toparchies,49 e.g. in the Oxyrhynchite 10 pagi

vs. 6 toparchies;50 in the Hermopolite 17 pagi vs. 11 toparchies.51 Some
Oxyrhynchite documents suggest that the new division was anticipated
in the last decades of the old system by the introduction of a subdivision
of toparchies into m°rh with prvtostãtai as their governors.52
After the disappearance of the dekaprotoi in AD 302, toparchies are
attested in the Hermopolite, Oxyrynchite, Memphite, and Great Oasis,
but not in the Fayum. Apart from the dekaprotoi, in the Fayum after AD 161
there were no other offices connected with the toparchies.53

49
This rule cannot be applied to the Fayum where the number of pagi (12) is smaller
than the number of toparchies if we take into account the toparchies of the Arsinoite as
a whole. For the Arsinoite pagi, see below, pp. 263–279.
50
LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 97–98.
51
For the discussion of the number of toparchies and pagi in the Hermopolite, see
P. Herm. Landlisten, p. 9 and. Jennifer A. SHERIDAN, in P. Col. IX, pp. 107–134, chapter ‘The
administration of the Hermopolite nome’.
52
So LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, p. 98. M°rh as a subdivision of toparchies is
also attested in other nomes (e.g., Herakleopolite), but not in the Fayum.
53
N. LEWIS in The Compulsory Public Services, listed, apart from dekaprotoi, several litur-
gies the area of responsibility of which (point 4 of the Lewis’ questionnaire) comprises all
known cases of toparchy or in some cases concerns the toparchy. These are: énãdosiw
(p. 13), épa¤thsiw – épaithtÆw (p. 14), diãdosiw – diadotÆw (p. 21), §jar¤ymhsiw yremmãtvn
(p. 24), §pitÆrhsiw – §pithrhtÆw (p. 28), praktore¤a – prãktvr (p. 42), sumbroxismÒw
(p. 45) and xvmat(o)epimhlhtÆw (p. 50). (Lewis also listed the office of toparches, discussed
separately in this chapter, see above, pp. 121–122.) The list above comprises offices of dif-
ferent rank and different significance for our understanding of the Roman administration;
some of the offices are known from a single document but other ones are quite well
attested by documents from the Roman period. Unfortunately, Lewis did not provide the
user of his catalogue with the provenience of sources, but having examined the Fayumic
evidence concerning the toparchies we can say that none of these offices are attested in
the Arsinoite nome.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from a study of apaitetai, officials of different rank
and different range of competence, but always connected with tax collecting (B. PALME,
Das Amt des épaithtÆw [cit. supra, n. 6]). The author presented the material in a detailed
way from the chronological point of view (in historical part of his study, pp. 31–184), but
only a few remarks regarding the geographical disposition of the documents can be found.
The indices, however, show that none of the many apaitetai connected with the toparchies
comes from the Fayum.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 145

THE ARSINOITE TOPARCHIES 145

For unknown reasons, in the Hermopolite the term ‘toparchy’

remained in technical vocabulary of local administration for at least 50
years after AD 307/8. It was used as a synonym for pagus; the two terms are
often found side by side in the same document, as e.g. in P. Harrauer 39
(AD 317/8, 332/3 or 347/8). As far as we can deduce from the available evi-
dence, the two terms are univocal. Outside the Hermopolite, not a single
document attests this phenomenon.54

7. CONCLUSION

The administrative division, at least as far as we can understand it,

sheds some light on the general problem to what degree the Fayum was a
typical nome in the Ptolemaic and Roman period. The system of num-
bered toparchies flourishing in the third century AD clearly shows the
idiosyncrasy of the Arsinoites from an administrative point of view along-
side the subdivision of the nome into three merides, which also continues
to function. The reforms introduced by Septimius Severus and Philip the
Arabian did not, therefore, bring about the unification of governing in all
Egyptian nomes, even if they were a step in that direction. The turning
point on this way is the introduction of pagi and the abandonment of
both the Arsinoite merides in AD 307/8 and the toparchies five years earli-
er. This was — at least in the Fayum, where the toparchies are not attest-
ed after AD 302 — not a simple replacement of one name by another, as it
is sometimes suggested in modern literature.55 As a result, we get, for the
first time since the beginning of Ptolemaic rule, the administrative
division of the Fayum identical with that of other nomes: a single nome
divided into numbered pagi.
54
Apart from P. Harrauer 39, the Hermopolite documents attesting this peculiarity in-
clude P. Herm. Landlisten (ca. 30 times in total); P. Charite 10, 12, 23 and 29; P. Cairo Preisigke
33, and P. Strasb. V 325 ii 3. For the correction of the last two documents as well as for an
analysis of the phenomenon, see §3 of the introduction to P. Herm. Landlisten (‘Die
Toparchie im IV. Jh. n.Chr.’, pp. 9–10). The editors, however, did not point out the excep-
tionality of the Hermopolite terminology in this respect. Unfortunately, Drew-Bear’s
book on the Hermopolite was published some years before the two volumes, P. Herm.
Landlisten and P. Charite.
55
See, e.g., PALME’S remarks in Das Amt des épaithtÆw (cit. supra, n. 6), pp. 70–71.
117-146 Ch3_30 str 11/30/06 3:05 AM Page 146

146 CHAPTER THREE

In the second century, the introduction of the toparchies as adminis-

trative units for the activity of the sitologoi may have been an attempt at
the unification of corn collection for the embole. We argued that the
attempt was not successful and the government withdrew from it after
only a few years of the new system.
The reforms of Philip the Arabian were introduced within the Fayum
more consequently as far as the office of dekaprotoi is concerned. In our
documents, these officials are connected with the toparchies more fre-
quently than the sitologoi were a century earlier.
Given the considerable number of documents from the Arsinoite
nome dated to the period AD 302–307, the absence of toparchies is cer-
tainly significant. They never existed in the Roman Fayum as separate
units of administrative division and were introduced only as a part of a
reform of a single segment of economic life of the country. It is true that
the segment was exceptionally important; the dekaprotoi were responsible
for collecting grain and transporting it to Alexandria where it would be
shipped to Rome. The grain was collected all over Egypt according to
clearly defined rules and the government at a certain moment decided to
leave no space for local peculiarities. This is why the toparchies entered
the Fayum, both in the second century and a century later.

PASSAGES CORRECTED

SPP XXII 94, 4 – instead of tÒp(vn) I suggest to read top(arx¤aw).

BGU III 755, 3 – instead of tÒp(vn) I suggest to read top(arx¤aw).
P. Strasb. III 153, 5 – must have had toparchy [7] and 8.
P. Strasb. V 325 ii 3 – something wrong, either the date (AD 321?) or the
reading top(arx¤aw).
P. Tebt. II 368, 2 – the toparchy is bg.
P. Tebt. II 581 descr. (reedited in JJurP 31 [2001], pp. 13–14) – the toparchy
is bg.
P. Wisc. II 86, 1 – the toparchy is bg.
SPP X 91, 4–5 – [b] ka‹ d toparxi[«n; the date: ca. AD 245–302.
P. Fay. 246 (= SB XVIII 13144) – the occurrence of a toparch points to the
first century (before ca. AD 70).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 147

CHAPTER FOUR

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI

VILLAGE OFFICIALS (KOMOGRAMMATEIS,

PRESBYTEROI ACTING AS KOMOGRAMMATEIS,
AMPHODOKOMOGRAMMATEIS, KOMARCHAI)

1. INTRODUCTION

HE KOMOGRAMMATEUS, OR VILLAGE SCRIBE(or ‘village secretary’ in older

T literature), was the official of highest rank in the village administra-
tion.1 His duties consisted mostly of the assessment of land taxes and

1
There is no monographic study on komogrammateis in the Roman period comparable
to that on basilikoi grammateis by Thomas KRUSE (Der königliche Schreiber und die Gauver-
waltung. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philip-
pus Arabs [30 v.Chr. – 245 n.Chr.], vol. I–II [= ArchPF Beiheft 11.1–2], München – Leipzig
2002) – the author discusses some aspects of the office of komogrammateus in different
places (the most convenient for the reader is to start with the index entry on p. 1137). For
the Ptolemaic komogrammateis, see Lucia CRISCUOLO, ‘Ricerche sul komogrammateus nel-
l’Egitto tolemaico’, Aegyptus 58 (1978) pp. 3–101; A. M. F. W. VERHOOGT, Menches, Komo-
grammateus of Kerkeosiris. The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period
(120–110 B.C.) (= Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 29), Leiden 1998. Carsten DRECOLL’S account
on komogrammateis, though perfunctory, is full of inaccuracies – Die Liturgien im römischen
Kaiserreich des 3. und 4. Jh. n.Chr. Untersuchung über Zugang, Inhalt und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung
der öffentlichen Zwangsdienste in Ägypten und anderen Provinzen (= Historia Einzelschriften 116),
Stuttgart 1997, pp. 201–202. For a general appreciation of Drecoll’s book, see R. S. BAG-
NALL’S review in Gnomon 73 (2001), pp. 459–461.
For the Arsinoite nome we have at our disposal an outdated prosopography: F. PAULUS,
Prosopographie der Beamten des Arsinoites Nomos in der Zeit von Augustus bis auf Diokletian, diss.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 148

148 CHAPTER FOUR

rents and the control of population. He received birth and death notifi-
cations and census declarations. He was also responsible for assessing the
total area under cultivation in his village each year.2
According to Naphtali Lewis, the office was compulsory since AD 136
at the latest, the term lasted three years and started on 1 Mecheir.3
Notably, Ptollas served as komogrammateus of Bakchias at a time when
Vedius Faustus was epistrategos of Heptanomia (BGU XI 2063), i.e. in AD
161/2 at the latest, and some five years later, in AD 167/8 (SB XVI 12562).4

Borna – Leipzig 1914. A list of Ptolemaic papyri mentioning komogrammateis and komo-
grammateia is to be found in the aforementioned paper by Criscuolo, appended by H.
MELAERTS in Studia Varia Bruxellensia 2 (1990), pp. 134–135. In Criscuolo’s paper there is no
prosopographical list of known komogrammetis. NB also that a remark by LEWIS in The
Compulsory Public Services, p. 35, suggesting that in Melaert’s article there is a ‘list of known
komogrammateis (i.e., in Roman Egypt)’ is not true. For the Roman period we have no
prosopographical list of the known kommogrammateis. There are lists of officials in Roman
Karanis, Theadelpheia, and Euhemereia in unpublished doctoral theses: Margaret E.
LARSON, The Officials of Karanis (27 B.C. – 337 A.D.). A Contribution to the Study of Local
Government in Egypt under Roman Rule, diss. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1954 and
J. FRANCE, Theadelpheia and Euhemereia. Village History in Greco-Roman Egypt, diss. Leuven
1999. Prosopographical research was also done to some extent by the students of
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven who prepared their MA theses on some Arsinoite villages:
P. HENDRIX in 1988 on Tebtynis, K. HEYLEN in 1992 on six villages in the meris of Themis-
tos, P. PEENE in 1987 on Oxyrhyncha, H. STUYCK in 1987 on Philadelpheia and X. VANLAUWE
in 1994 on Bakchias.
2
Our aim is not a detailed discussion of the activities of the komogrammateus. Oertel
places him among officials responsible for ‘Finanzverwaltung’ (Die Liturgie, pp. 157–160),
although the village presbyteroi who substitute the komogrammateus, as well as the succes-
sors of komogrammateis, as with some simplification one can call the komarchs, are dis-
cussed by him in the section ‘Dorfvertretung’ (pp. 146–153 and 153–156 respectively). I aim
to focus on the territorial range of competence of the komogrammateis, or – in other words
– the extent of the administrative unit that constituted the komogrammateia. Next to noth-
ing has been written on this subject hitherto, except a few notes in commentaries to par-
ticular documents that mention komogrammateis of village x ka‹ êllvn kvm«n (P. MEYER
in P. Hamb. I, p. 26; W. BRASHEAR in BGU XIII 2282).
3
N. LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Second Edition), Firenze 1997
(= Papyrologica Florentina 28), p. 35. For the length of term of komogrammateis, see also OER-
TEL, Die Liturgie, p. 158 and H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Topogrammate›w ka‹ komogrammate›w’, ZPE 24
(1977), pp. 138–139, esp. p. 139 n. 5.
4
See Louise C. YOUTIE – H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Three Declarations of Uninundated Land’,
ZPE 33 (1979), pp. 193–200, esp. p. 198.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 149

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 149

Petaus son of Petaus, a well-known komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hor-

mou, was in office for more than two years, from 184 till 186. Herieus
administrated the komogrammateia of Karanis from February 202 (BGU I
139) to 203/4 (BGU I 108, 5 = WChr. 227). A service term longer than a year
is also attested for Horion, who was komogrammateus of Philadelpheia
already in January 189 (P. Lips. II 145) and is attested still in office in Feb-
ruary/March 190 (P. Bad. II 235).
Petaus son of Petaus, komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hormou, was a res-
ident of Karanis, located some 35 km away. In turn, the residents of Ptole-
mais Hormou served as komogrammateis in Karanis (Neseus of P. Petaus 10)
and in Tamauis/Tamais, a village some 5 km from Karanis and 30 km from
Ptolemais Hormou (Ischyrion in P. Petaus 11). In P. Strasb. I 57 (AD 176?), a
certain Aponios, demosios georgos, while serving as sitologos in Theadel-
pheia, was named komogrammateus of Euhemereia. He protested against
the nomination on twofold grounds, arguing that (1.) simultaneous litur-
gies are not allowed, and (2.) Theadelpheia is too close to Euhemereia to
allow its inhabitant to serve as komogrammateus there.6 These four cases
seem to prove that the komogrammateus was recruited outside the village
(or villages) he was to serve in, which was quite an unusual procedure of
nominating liturgists in Roman Egypt.7 The reason for this is quite obvi-
ous: regardless the time and the place, an outsider who is not bound by

5
For the date, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 240 and 975.
6
For the discussion of this case, see P. Petaus, pp. 19–20.
7
See LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services, pp. 71–72 who, however, is more cautious in
concluding: ‘the scanty evidence on the point does not yet allow us to affirm it’. This is
interestingly paralleled by the administrative practice regarding the officials of higher
rank. The strategoi and basilikoi grammateis were always appointed to serve outside their
own nomes and outside the nomes where their idia were located – this was proven for the
strategoi already by J. G. TAIT (‘The Strategi and Royal Scribes in the Roman Period’, JEA
8 [1922], pp. 166–173), but only recently for the basilikoi grammateis – see R. SMOLDERS, ‘Two
Archives from the Roman Arsinoites’, ChrEg 79 (2004), pp. 233–240, the archive of Apol-
lonios of Bakchias, pp. 233–237; IDEM, ‘Chairemon: Alexandrian Citizen, Royal Scribe,
Gymnasiarch, Landholder at Bakchias and Loving Father’, BASP 42 (2005), pp. 93–100. In
AD 76–77, Chairemon served as a royal scribe as far from the Fayum as the Small Diopo-
lite nome in the Thebaid. I thank Ruben Smolders for making the results of his research
available to me well before the publication of these articles.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 150

150 CHAPTER FOUR

social and family ties ensures a proper functioning of the post, especially
when it comes to impartial appointing of candidates for liturgical offices.
Whether or not this solution really worked is a separate issue. It proba-
bly did to some extent, although now and then we hear of various corrupt
practices that occurred in the offices of komogrammateis.

Being in charge of a komogrammateia does not seem to have been an ex-

cessive burden in the first half of the first century AD, when for over three
decades we find members of a single family among the komogrammateis of
Tebtynis. Lysimachos was a komogrammateus in AD 16 (P. Tebt. II 410; the
same man mentioned as ex-komogrammateus in P. Tebt. II 346); his son,
Didymos – in AD 41/2 (P. Mich. V 267–268, verso, 1). Lysas, komogrammateus
of Tebtynis in AD 46/7 and Areios, son of Lysimachos, komogrammateus
probably in AD 49/50, may have also belonged to the same family (from
other documents we know Lysas, son of Galates, grandson of Lysimachos,
komogrammateus in AD 16).8 It was a clan of wealthy farmers which most
probably had to make a bid for this office. As mentioned before, komo-
grammateia was not yet a liturgical office at that time. It still kept much
of its significance from the Ptolemaic period, when the only well-known
Arsinoite komogrammateus Menches did not hesitate to lay out large sums
when pursuing this post, as it ensured contact with high-rank officials,
including the dioiketes in Alexandria.9
The significance of komogrammateis in the first and second centuries AD
is indicated in an indirect manner, through numerous mentions on assist-
ing personnel:
P. Col. VIII 209 (11 October AD 3) – a certain Soterichos is involved,
grammateÁw toË t∞w k≈mhw kvma2grat°vw (read kvmogrammat°vw), who
has sent a praktor and a policeman after the sender of this petition.

8
For the family of Lysimachos son of Didymos, see P. Mich. V, pp. 16–18 (with a stem-
ma on p. 17).
9
VERHOOGT, Menches (cit. supra, n. 1), passim, and especially conclusions, pp. 177–180.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 151

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 151

Another scribe of the komogrammateus appears in BGU XIII 2222

(Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-24), a census declaration of AD 161 (place of origin
unknown), signed as follows: A É xillçw kvmog[r(ammateÁw) diå] X2airÆ-
monow gr(ammat°vw) seshm(e¤vmai) (lines 12–13). Whatever the prove-
nance of the document, the komogrammateis (three or four in total) also
make use of their scribes (grammateis).
Another scribe of the komogrammateus appears in P. Strasb. V 312 = CPG
II.1 36, an announcement of death (9 September 139, Bakchias). Hareo-
tes, komogrammateus, acknowledges that he has received the announce-
ment diå D2i[.].. gr(ammat°vw). A similar case is P. Oslo III 97 = CPG II.1
42 (January/February 151, Bakchias): komogrammateus Ptolemaios has a
subordinate grammateus of the same name.
P. Hamb. I 9 contains a collective receipt for payment Íp¢r dipl≈matow
·ppvn for the years 6th to 9th of the reign of Antoninus Pius (AD 143–146).
The payer is Svtçw Ptolema¤o(u) mh2x(anãriow) Pr¤nkipow kv(mogramma-
t°vw?) Yeadelfe¤aw in line 5, the payment in question being that of AD 143.
The same person is mentioned in line 24, where the tax is for AD 146:
Svtçw Ptole(ma¤ou) [mh]x`(anãriow) Xare [` ` ]` w kv(mogrammat°vw)?10
Yeadel(fe¤aw). Sotas son of Ptolemaios was therefore a mechanarios serving
in Theadelpheia under two subsequent komogrammateis. The same Sotas is
known also from P. Prag. I 40 of AD 141, a purchase of a male horse, appar-
ently one of the three horses he owned two years later, in AD 143.11
In P. Ross. Georg. II 22, 8 (AD 154–159) a ÍpÒblhptow toË kvmogrammã-
tevw, ‘Strohmann’, ‘supposita persona’ (see comm. ad loc.) is mentioned.
SB XVIII 13162, 1–2 (26 August 173): [ ]hw kvmog[r(ammateÁw)
¶]sxon toÊtou [tÚ ‡so]n` diå ÑHrakl(e¤dou) bo`hy2 oË. – the document attests
the existence of boethoi of a komogrammateus of wherever it comes from.
In SPP XXII 38, 12 (AD 155) we read (line 10): [ı de›na kvmo]gr(am-
mateÁw) di(å) ÉI[o]ul`(¤ou) gr(ammat°vw) sesh(me¤vmai). This could mean
10
The editio princeps has in both places k≈(mhw) instead of kv(mogrammat°vw). For the
new reading and the proper names preceding kv(mogrammat°vw) in both lines see J. R.
REA in P. Oxy. LV 3818, 5–6 comm. with the discussion on the word pr¤gkic (princeps) used
as a personal name.
11
For the identity of Sotas son of Ptolemaios, see F. REITER, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu
dokumentarischen Papyri’, ZPE 107 (1995), pp. 96–97.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 152

152 CHAPTER FOUR

that this komogrammateus was illiterate, like Petaus. A similar phrase we

find in BGU VII 1583 (AD 203), a declaration of inherited plots with houses:
Pane 1 1 kvmogr(ammateÁw) [di'] §moË AÉ mmvn¤ou bohy(oË) seshm(e¤vtai).
P. Mich. VI 423 (Karanis, 22 May 197): a certain Sokras, a hyperetes of
presbyteroi who were also exercising the functions of the komogrammateus.
This document deserves a closer look. It is a petition to the strategos con-
cerning trespassing. As a result of disputes between neighbours (lines
12–22):
he (a certain Julius) again trespassed with his wife and a certain Zenas, hav-
ing with them a brephos (fetus, human embryo), intending to hem in my cul-
tivator with malice (…) Again, in the same manner they threw the same
brephos toward me, intending to hem me in also with malice, in the pres-
ence of Petesouchos and Ptollas, elders of the village of Karanis, who are
exercising also the functions of the village secretary, and of Sokras, the
assistant, and while the officials were there, Julius, after he had gathered in
the remaining crops from the fields, took the brephos away to his house.12

2. HOW LARGE WERE THE KOMOGRAMMATEIAI

IN THE ROMAN PERIOD?
AN ATTEMPT TO DRAW AN ADMINISTRATIVE MAP
OF THE ARSINOITE NOME IN THE FIRST–SECOND CENTURIES AD

As I have already demonstrated in the previous chapter,13 the topar-

chies in the Fayum were not, in fact, an intermediate administrative level
within a nome. Many factors indicate that in the Arsinoite nome such a
level, halfway between the administration of the nome (or actually the
meris) and that of particular villages, simply did not exist. The basic
administrative unit was still a kome, or rather – to be more precise – a vil-
lage district (komogrammateia), which always encompassed several villages
and in which, until the reforms introduced under Philip the Arabian, the

12
For the detailed analysis of magical pracitices described in this petition, see D FRANK-
FURTER, ‘Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears in Roman Egypt’, GRBS 46 (2006), pp. 37–62.
13
Chapter 4 ‘The Arsinoite toparchies’, pp. 117–146; see also my article, ‘Toparchies in
the Arsinoite nome: a study in administration of the Fayum in the Roman period’, JJurP
33 (2003), pp. 27–54.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 153

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 153

highest-rank official was the village scribe (komogrammateus) or – in the

Fayum after ca. AD 220 – the amphodokomogrammateis.14
The available texts do not provide answers for the most fundamental
questions about the nature of the komogrammateiai. For instance, we do
not know their number, nor how large they were, nor how many inhabi-
tants they had. There are, however, three major exceptions, which can be
discussed in greater detail: the komogrammateiai of (1.) Ptolemais Hormou,
(2.) Hiera Nesos, and (3.) Karanis. This will be followed by the evidence
of komogrammateiai which are known to have comprised two or more
komai.

A. Komogrammateia of Ptolemais Hormou

We know a great deal about the komogrammateia governed by Petaus, vil-
lage scribe in the years 184–186. The so-called Petaus archive, published
in 1969 (P. Petaus) by two couples of papyrologists (Ursula and Dieter
Hagedorn, Louise C. and Herbert C. Youtie), consists of over a hundred
documents, which are now part of two collections, one housed at Uni-
versity of Michigan in Ann Arbor and the other at University of Cologne.
The capital of this komogrammateia was located in Ptolemais Hormou.
This settlement is, no doubt, to be identified with modern-day el-Lahun,
a village at the gateway to the Fayum, where the waters of the Bahr Yusuf
enter the oasis.15 In the Roman period this area was part of the meris of
Herakleides. The komogrammateia of Petaus also encompassed Kerke-
soucha Orous (one of two villages bearing this name, the other located in
the meris of Polemon, not far from Tebtynis), Syron Kome, Herakleonos
Epoikion, Psenharyo/Psinaryo, Tanchoiris, Exo Pseur and Pharbaitha.
Unfortunately, none of these settlements can be identified with exact
points on the map, though three of them – Kerkesoucha, Syron Kome
14
For the amphodokomogrammateis, see Z. BORKOWSKI, D. HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomo-
grammateus. Zur Verwaltung der Dörfer Ägyptens im 3. Jh. n.Chr.’, [in:] Le monde grec. Hom-
mages à Claire Préaux, Bruxelles 1975, pp. 775–783.
15
For the village, see Danielle BONNEAU, ‘Ptolémaïs Hormou dans la documentation
papyrologique’, ChrEg 54 (1979), pp. 310–326. See also P. Petaus, pp. 22–25 and CPR X,
pp. 27–28.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 154

154 CHAPTER FOUR

and Pharbaitha – often appear in documents from the Zenon archive,16 so

perhaps they were located somewhere between Ptolemais Hormou and
Philadelpheia.17 None of the extant documents from the Petaus archive
permit to estimate the total extent of arable land that lay within the
boundaries of this komogrammateia.

The titulature used by Petaus himself and by the authors of documents

addressed to him is very informative. The following titles are found in 40
out of over 120 texts:

kvmogrammateÁw Ptolema¤dow ÜOrmou ka‹ êllvn kvm«n – 17 (P. Petaus

3, 1–2; 10, 2–3; 11, 2–3; 16, 2–3; 19, 2; 21, 1; 46, 2; 47, 2; 49, 5–6; 52, 2–3;
53, 2–3; 56, 3–5; 59, 2; 62, 3; 65, 3–4; 84, 2; 86, 3–5);
kvmogrammateÁw (k≈mhw) Ptolema¤dow ÜOrmou – 10 (P. Petaus 1, 1–2; 2,
13; 4, 17; 5, 16; 6, 14; 7, 18; 8, 20; 18, 1–2; 20, 1; 66, 2);
kvmogrammateÁw KerkesoÊxvn ÖOrouw ka‹ êllvn kvm«n – 4 (P. Petaus
55, 2–3; 76, 2–4; 77, 3–5; 85, 3–4);
kvmogrammateÁw KerkesoÊxvn ÖOrouw – 2 (P. Petaus 9, 19; 75, 3–4)
kvmogrammateÁw SÊrvn ka‹ êllvn kvm«n – 5 (P. Petaus 13, 2–3; 14, 2;
15, 2; 60, 3–4; 69, 1);
kvmogrammateÁw k≈mhw SÊrvn – 1 (P. Petaus 22, 1);
kvmogrammateÁw CinnarÊv – 1 (P. Petaus 17, 1–2).

Naturally Ptolemais Hormou is the dominant element on this list.

When the office of Petaus issued a document that concerned not only
the ‘capital’ of the komogrammateia, but also other villages, the first for-
mula was applied. If the matter had to do with a locality other than Ptole-
mais Hormou, Petaus was styled komogrammateus of that particular village.
The documents addressed to the royal scribe that were customarily for-
warded by him to the proper village scribe for verification also mention

16
P. W. PESTMAN et alii, A Guide to the Zenon Archive. Lists and Surveys (= Papyrologica Lug-
duno-Batava 21.A–B), Leiden, 1981, Index XIII. Geography.
17
For Kerkesoucha Orous, see also below, p. 167. For the location of Syron Kome, see
above, pp. 18–19. For the remaining villages, see pp. 14–23 with the map on p. 21.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 155

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 155

the name of the village which used to be inhabited by the deceased. For
instance, P. Petaus 9, a quasi-notification of death (two relatives of the
petitioner sentenced to damnatio ad bestias, efiw yhr¤aw) was sent by the
royal scribe to the kv(mogrammate›) KerkesoÊxvn. A document in which
the titulature was employed in an unusual manner is P. Petaus 84. In this
text Petaus, acting as kvmogrammateÁw Ptolema¤dow ÜOrmou ka‹ êllvn
kvm«n writes to the strategos of the nome about an issue that concerns
Kerkesoucha Orous and was presented to him by the presbyteroi of this vil-
lage. Following the general pattern, here we could expect Petaus to be
called kvmogrammateÁw KerkesoÊxvn ÖOrouw and not kvmogrammateÁw
Ptolema¤dow ÜOrmou.
The conclusions arising from this overview of titles used by Petaus will
be discussed later on. However, at this point it is worth noting that if it
were not for the knowledge gained through an analysis of the whole set
of documents, we would certainly be tempted to erroneously multiply
komogrammateiai. The Petaus documents – if not interpreted together
– could lead us to creating three ghost-komogrammateiai, i.e. those of
Kerkesoucha Orous, Syron Kome and Psenharyo.

B. Komogrammateia of Hiera Nesos

P. Bour. 42, a papyrus roll measuring 220 cm in length and 23 cm in width,
contains 13 columns of a cadastral register drafted in AD 166/7 by Petheus,
komogrammateus of Hiera (Nesos) and other villages (lines 1–2: parå
Pey°vw komogrammat°vw ÑIerçw ka‹ êllvn kvm«n). The komogrammateia
of Petheus comprised not only the village of Hiera Nesos (often called
Hiera for short) but also the drymos of Hiera Nesos, the drymos of Ker-
keesis, the village of Ptolemais Nea (or, simply, Ptolemais) and Epoikion
Perkeesis. These settlements were located in the northern part of the
meris of Herakleides, not far from Bakchias and Karanis. The area of cul-
tivated land belonging to each of these units was as follows:

Hiera Nesos – 4,061 QV 1/16 1/32 ar. = ca. 1119 ha

drymos of Hiera Nesos – 1,753 QT 1/64 ar. = ca. 473 ha
drymos of Kerkeesis – 556 QV 1/16 1/32 ar. = ca. 154 ha
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 156

156 CHAPTER FOUR

Ptolemais Nea – 3,924 1/16 ar. = ca. 1081 ha

epoikion of Perkeesis – 2,161 Q 1/32 ar. = ca. 595 ha18
total: 12,457 QT 1/32 1/64 ar. = ca. 3433 ha. = ca. 34.3 km2

There is no reason to doubt that the sum of 12,457 QT 1/32 1/64 ar. (equal to
ca. 3,433 ha. = ca. 34.3 km2) is the total area of cultivated land of the entire
komogrammateia of Petheus.

At this point it is necessary to discuss the problem of the joint komo-

grammateia of Hiera Nesos and Haueris. Its existence has been indirectly
suggested by the reading (or rather by the filling of a lacuna) of a Berlin
document. A presbÊterow k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexÒmenow tå katå tØn kvmo-
grammate¤an t«n kvm«n ÑIerçw ka‹ AÈÆrevw appears in BGU VII 1573
(AD 141/2). This is a fragmentarily preserved official document (P. Bodl. I
86 may be another fragment of the document, see ibidem, p. 210 n. 1) con-
cerning training on pledged real property (§mbade¤a). One of the officials
involved is a presbyteros performing the duties of komogrammateus. He is
usually styled as presbÊterow k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexÒmenow tå katå tØn
kvmogrammate¤an (for the clearest reading, see line 5). In lines 13–14 the
editor suggests to read: [parå toË de›now Ípogrammat°vw pÒlevw ka‹
presbut°rou k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexom°nou tå katå tØn] | [kvmogram-
mate¤an t«n kvm«n ÑIerçw] k`a`‹` AÈÆrevw, which would imply the joint
komogrammateia of Hiera and Haueris (Hawara). The reading, however, is
highly suspect. The plural kvm«n is of course reconstructed due to k`a`‹`
AÈÆrevw following the lacuna but is not supported by any analogy from
the remaining part of the document; line 17 where the editor reads [pres-
but°rƒ k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexom°nƒ tå katå tØn kvmogrammate¤an t«n
kvm«n ÑIerçw ka‹ AÈÆre]v2w2 with just two letters read after the lacuna, is
of no importance.
The combination of the villages Hiera, which is an abbreviated name
for Hiera Nesos, with Haueris, i.e. Hawara, within one komogrammateia
seems improbable, because of the distance between the two villages. On

18
The total area of villages comprising the komogrammateia of Petheus cited after the
editio princeps: tab. 1–6, pp. 138–141.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 157

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 157

the other hand, in the komogrammateia of Hiera Nesos, as we learn from

P. Bour. 42, there are two villages bearing names that end in -evw in the
genitive (Perkeesis and Kerkeesis). Should we read, e.g., the name of the
latter instead of the name of distant Haueris? This is only a guess which
is to be confirmed on the original.
There is also another objection to the reading presbut°rou k≈mhw
ÑIerçw diadexom°nou tå katå tØn] | [kvmogrammate¤an t«n kvm«n ÑIerçw]
k`a`‹` AÈÆrevw. This is based on external evidence coming from outside the
Fayum. From three documents from the Lykopolite nome, P. Rainer Cent.
65–67 discussed below (pp. 172–174), we know that an elder of a given vil-
lage performs the duties of a komogrammateus upon the absence of the lat-
ter only in one village of the komogrammateia and not in all of its villages.

C. Komogrammateia of Karanis
Even the largest villages were combined with smaller, neighbouring set-
tlements to form komogrammateiai, as it can be guessed from the titula-
ture of one of the komogrammateis of Karanis: kvmogrammateÁw Kara-
n¤dow ka‹ êllvn p[e]d¤vn in BGU II 457 = WChr. 252, 3–4 (AD 132/3).
However, it is perhaps a meaningful fact that the abundant documents
from Karanis do not attest the designation kvmogrammateÁw Karan¤dow
ka‹ êllvn kvm«n, typical in other units. Perhaps – bearing in mind that
this is an argumentum ex silentio – Karanis was such a large kome that, unlike
Ptolemais Hormou, it was impossible to combine it with other villages.
This phenomenon seems to reflect an administrative practice that sought
to combine a number of small villages into one komogrammateia, but left
large, quasi-urban centres and their immediate surroundings as inde-
pendent, mononuclear komogrammateiai.
There seems to be no doubt that the villages of Psenarpsenesis and
Patsontis belonged to the komogrammateia of Karanis. Both of them had
close ties with Karanis throughout the second century AD.19 Notably, nei-

19
For the villages of Psenarpsenesis and Patsontis and their links with Karanis, see
Hanna GEREMEK, Karanis, communauté rurale de l’Égypte romaine au II e–III e siècle de notre ère
(= Archiwum Filologiczne 17), Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków 1969, pp. 22–24.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 158

158 CHAPTER FOUR

ther of them was ever called a kome. Patsontis comprised plots of land be-
longing to various ousiai (P. Mich. VI 372 of AD 211–12[?]). Roman citizens
also marked their presence in Psenarpsenesis (P. Lond. II 196 [p. 152]
= MChr. 87 of AD 138–161).

A number of other villages had close relations with Karanis as well

– Kerkesoucha,20 Ptolemais Nea, Stratonos and Hiera Seuerou – but most
probably they were not part of the komogrammateia of Karanis. What we
know about the komogrammateia of Ptolemais Hormou and the one of
Hiera Nesos implies that one such unit may have comprised one or more
komai, which is in most cases reflected by the titulature of its komogram-
mateus (of the village x ka‹ êllvn kvm«n), however, as I have already men-
tioned – a designation in this form is never attested for Karanis. In other
words, the fact that we encounter a komogrammateus of village x and a
komogrammateus of village y does not necessarily mean that villages x and
y belonged to two different komogrammateiai. Only having found two dif-
ferent komogrammateis of villages x and y in the same year we could be
sure that villages x and y were part of two separate komogrammateiai.21
Unfortunately, such a coincidence does not occur for any of the afore-
mentioned komai. Therefore, their existence as separate administrative
units remains a hypothesis, although it was supported in this form by late

20
CALDERINI, DARIS, Dizionario III, pp. 106–107, 109–110; Suppl. I, p. 171; Suppl. II, p. 93;
P. Tebt. II, p. 384; GEREMEK, Karanis (cit. supra, n. 19), pp. 15–17; TIMM, Das christlich-koptische
Ägypten in arabischer Zeit, p. 1240. Kerkesoucha near Karanis should not be confused with
two villages of the same name, Kerkesoucha Orous, one in the meris of Polemon and the
other in the meris of Herakleides.
21
There is a substantial difference between the Ptolemaic komogrammateis and their
successors in the Roman period. The territorial jurisdiction of the Ptolemaic officials cov-
ered a single kome (e.g. Menches, komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris in 120–110 BC, see VER-
HOOGT, Menches [cit. supra, n. 1], section IV: ‘Menches, Village Scribe’, pp. 50–69) – in other
words, in Ptolemaic Egypt we have as many komai as komogrammateiai. We do not know
when the administration started to combine several komai in one administrative unit. The
turning point, that is the fusion of several komai into one administrative unit, is difficult
to indicate – we can only speculate whether or not this change was related to transform-
ing the komogrammateus into a liturgical official. A different, perhaps more probable even-
tuality is that the change occurred simultaneously with the changes introduced into the
administrative system of the Arsinoite nome ca. AD 60–70.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 159

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 159

Hanna Geremek: ‘Il n’y a pas de doute que Kerkesoucha, Ptolemaïs Néa,
Stratonos, Hiera Seuerou étaient des régions autonomes, d’importance
égale à celle de Karanis’ (p. 26).

D. Other komogrammateiai
Besides the three komogrammateiai in the meris of Herakleides, the ‘capi-
tals’ of which were Ptolemais Hormou, Hiera Nesos, and Karanis, among
the documents from the Arsinoite nome dated to the first–second cen-
turies AD we encounter a dozen or so texts in which the title komogram-
mateus is accompanied by more than one village name, which points to
the existence of komogrammateiai that included these localities. They are
listed below, according to meris.

1. Meris of Herakleides

Nilopolis and Soknopaiou Nesos

BGU I 163 (= SB XXIV 16258) and its duplicate in col. II of P. Mich.

inv. 6060 (= SB XXIV 16257)22 confirm the existence of a joint komo-
grammateia of Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis in AD 108. The two villages
were administered by the same komogrammateus in AD 184 (SPP XXII
37, 1–2), and again in AD 206–210 (P. Lond. III 1220, 2 with BL VII,
pp. 89–90). It is therefore justified to suppose that Heras, komogramma-
teus of Nilopolis in AD 177 (BGU I 194, 4 = WChr. 84) is identical with
Heras, komogrammateus of Soknopaiou Nesos, the addressee of P. Prag. I 19
22
See Ann Ellis HANSON, ‘A Petition and Court Proceedings: P. Michigan inv. 6060’,
ZPE 111 (1996), pp. 175–182. The Michigan document is a dossier of two cases involving
charges and counter-charges between priests of Soknopaiou Nesos and a certain Harpa-
gathes, a farmer from the same village. The first column contains a petition to Eudemos,
strategos of the meris of Herakleides dated to 18 October 123; the second column, dated to
10 February 108, is the report of official proceedings conducted before the strategos
Claudius Asklepiades. This column reproduces the proceedings recorded in BGU I 163,
a revised transcript of which was appended by Ann E. Hanson to her edition of the Michi-
gan document.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 160

160 CHAPTER FOUR

(177–180).23 These documents clearly point to the existence of a joint

komogrammateia of Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis at least in the second
century AD, which – as it is affirmed by the titulature of Petaus analysed
above – does not mean that in every document from this period the des-
ignation of every komogrammateus had to include both localities.
Soknopaiou Nesos is modern Dimai located at a distance of several
kilometres from the northern (modern-day!) shore of Birket el-Qarun.
The location of Nilopolis, however, is not evident. I followed Danielle
Bonneau’s suggestion to identify Nilopolis with Tell el-Rusas (or Qaret el-
Rusas) located on the eastern extremity of Birket el-Qarun.24
In a document dating from AD 50, a grapheion is said to be shared by
Nilopolis, Soknopaiou Nesos, and Herakleia (BGU I 297, 3–4).25 However,
Herakleia is known to have laid in the meris of Themistos (probably near
Pisai, today’s Ibshawai), while Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis undoubt-
edly belonged to the meris of Herakleides. Is it possible that one grapheion
served localities in different merides? It is worth recalling that the docu-
ment dates from AD 50, a time when – as it has been suggested above – the
merides did not yet constitute separate administrative units; these quasi-
nomes did not emerge until ca. AD 60.26 Moreover, Soknopaiou Nesos had
a grapheion of its own attested in AD 144.27 BGU I 297, therefore, does not
allow to conclude that Herakleia belonged to the same komogrammateia as
Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis, although naturally this village (as well
as Apias) had close ties with the inhabitants of Soknopaiou Nesos,
because many of them owned land there.
23
As it has already been suggested by R. PINTAUDI in the commentary to P. Prag. I 19, 2.
The document is dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (exact year in
lacuna).
24
Danielle BONNEAU, ‘Niloupolis du Fayoum‘, [in:] Actes du XVe Congrès International de
Papyrologie, vol. IV, Bruxelles 1979, pp. 258–273, esp. pp. 271–273; see above, Introduction,
pp. 16–17.
25
Deborah HOBSON, ‘The Village of Heraklia’, BASP 22 (1985), pp. 101–115 (on the rela-
tionship between Soknopaiou Nesos, Nilopolis and Herakleia, see pp. 104–105. See also
Deborah HOBSON, ‘The Inhabitants of Heraklia’, BASP 23 (1986), pp. 99–123; J. SCHWARTZ,
‘De quelques villages du nome Arsinoïte’, CRIPEL 10 (1988) pp. 141–148, see pp. 142–143.
26
See above, pp. 86–97.
27
BGU I 87 = MChr. 266; see also SCHWARTZ, ‘De quelques villages’ (cit. supra, n. 25), p. 143.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 161

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 161

Bakchias, Hephaistias, and pedion of Herakleia

Bakchias and Hephaistias shared some officials in the second and third
centuries AD. Their titles contained the names of the villages: sitolÒgoi
Bakxiãdow ÑHfaistiãdow, prãktorew nomarxik«n Bakxiãdow ÑHfaistiã-
dow, prãktorew érgurik«n Bakxiãdow ÑHfaistiãdow. It is noteworthy that
Bakchias is followed directly by the name of Hephaistias. The lack of con-
junction ka¤ is, according to Georges Nachtergael, significant and points
at a real fusion of the two villages.28 There is, therefore, no doubt that they
belonged to a single komogrammateia, although in the official titulature of
the komogrammateis Hephaistias is never mentioned,29 what suggests Bak-
chias as the ‘capital’ of the komogrammateia. Hephaistias appeared only
once at the time when in the Arsinoite nome amphodokomogrammateis
replaced ancient komogrammateis: P. Gron. 2 (AD 219/20) is a document parå
AÈrhl¤ou EÈagg°[l]ou é[mfo]do`kvm[o]gr(ammat°vw) Baxxiãdow ÑHfai-
stiãdow ka‹ p`ed¤(vn) ÑHrakl(e¤aw).

2. Meris of Polemon

Kaminoi and Kerkesephis

A Berlin document (P. Berl. Leihg. II 26 = SB X 10614) may point to the

existence in AD 167/8 of a joint komogrammateia comprising these two vil-
lages, but the reading and interpretation are highly uncertain.30 Accord-
ing to Katja Mueller, the two villages were at a certain distance from each
other (see the map); if indeed they belonged to the same komogrammateia,
it must have comprised Thmoinotis and Bousiris as well, and perhaps also
Oxyrhyncha.
28
G. NACHTERGAEL, ‘La fusion de Bakchias et d’Hèphaistias d’après les reçus de taxes
de l’époque romaine’ [in:] M. CAPASSO, S. PERNIGOTTI (eds.), Studium atque urbanitas. Miscel-
lanea in onore di Sergio Daris (= Papyrologica Lupiensia 9 [2000]), Galatina 2001, pp. 297–310;
list of officials at pp. 307–310.
29
It is worth keeping in mind, however, that in census returns, one of which features
a komogrammateus as addressee, the official title is not accompanied by the name of the vil-
lage. The presumption that it was the komogrammateus of Bakchias is based on the place
of residence of the declarant.
30
For the document, see below, pp. 258–259, ‘Testimonia incerta et delenda’.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 162

162 CHAPTER FOUR

Theogonis and Kerkeosiris

BGU II 484 is a document issued after AD 201/2 by a certain Protas,
komogrammateus of Theogonis and Kerkeosiris.31

Apollonopolis and Psinteo

P. Oxy. XLV 3263, 4 (Mesore 215) contains a report from Aurelius Her[ ],
komogrammateus of Apollonopolis and Psinteo, to the strategos of the
merides of Polemon and Themistos. The joint komogrammateia is not
marked on my map. Apollonopolis was probably in the south-eastern part
of the meris of Polemon.32

Kalliphanous Epoikion,
Pterophorou Epoikion and Lotou Epoikion

P. Strasb. IV 232 (ca. 173, dated after the name of the strategos). None of
these three epoikia is attested in the titulature of another komogrammateus.

Talei and Ibion Eikosipentarouron

Two documents testify to the existence of a komogrammateia comprising
Talei and Ibion Eikosipentarouron in the southern part of the meris of Pole-
mon in the second century. The first, P. Mil. Vogl. II 98, most probably dat-
ing from 138/9, is a record of an investigation against Didymos alias Krispi-
nos, a komogrammateus of the two villages, who was accused of bribery. The
second document, BGU I 91 (AD 170/1), contains a list of people from Talei
and Ibion Eikosipentarouron able to help with irrigation works. The list
was prepared by Pasion alias Didymos, komogrammateus of Talei and Ibion
and sent to the strategos of the merides of Themistos and Polemon.
However, in AD 133 the addressee of a census declaration SB XII 10842
– besides the basilikos grammateus, who also performed the duties of strate-
gos of the meris of Polemon – is Melanas, komogrammateus of Ibion Eikosi-
31
For the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 1041–1045.
32
On Mueller’s map of the meris of Polemon Apollonos Polis was marked as an ‘uncer-
tain MDS centroid’, not far from Dikaiou Nesos (Katja MUELLER, ‘What’s Your Position?
Using Multi-Dimensional Scaling [MDS] and Geographical Information Systems [GIS] for
Locating Ancient Settlements in the Meris of Polemon/Graeco-Roman Egypt’, ArchPF 50
[2004], pp. 199–214, map p. 211). Psinteo was not a subject of Mueller’s research.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 163

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 163

pentarouron. This corresponds to the fact that the declared property is

found in this village – but it does not necessarily mean that in that year
Talei was outside of Melanas’ komogrammateia.33
In turn, three documents later than AD 170/1 feature komogrammateis of
Talei alone: SB XIV 11613 (AD 173), P. Fam. Tebt. 52 (AD 208), and BGU XI
2021 = CPG II.1 73 (AD 215). Also in these instances addressing the docu-
ment to the komogrammateus of Talei (or mentioning him) does not mean
that the komogrammateia did not include Ibion Eikosipentarouron. The
second of these documents is a report of unwatered land located in the
village of Talei and for this reason it was addressed to the komogrammateus
of Talei. The last of the texts contains a death announcement of an inhab-
itant of Talei – the document was forwarded to the komogrammateus of
Talei for verification. It cannot, therefore, be concluded unambiguously
whether or not the joint komogrammateia of Talei and Ibion Eikosipent-
arouron, attested in the 130s–170s, still existed in the third century.

Tebtynis and Kerkeesis

P. Fam. Tebt. 51 (24 March AD 206) is a return of inundated land, addressed
to Hierax, strategos of the merides of Themistos and Polemon, Herodianos,
basilikos grammateus of the meris of Polemon, and an unnamed komogramma-
teus of Tebtynis and Kerkeesis.
The document leaves no doubt as to the existence of a common komo-
grammateia for both villages in AD 206. However, first- and second-century
texts neither associate the komogrammateus of Tebtynis with any other
kome, nor attest a kvmogrammateÁw TebtÊnevw ka‹ êllvn kvm«n. More-
over, P. Fam. Tebt. 51 is the only document mentioning a komogrammateus of
Kerkeesis – such scant evidence makes it difficult to decisively infer the
presence or absence of a common komogrammateia for both komai in the
first or second century. It is sufficient, however, to locate Kerkeesis near
Tebtynis, as Rathbone had wanted.34

33
Census declarations addressed to komogrammateis never mention more than one
village within the komogrammateia – the one in which the immovable property is located.
34
See above, p. 17.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 164

164 CHAPTER FOUR

Samareia and Boukolos alias Tristomon

P. Lond. III 1219 (p. 123) = WChr. 172 testifies to the existence of a komo-
grammateia comprising Samareia and Boukolos alias Tristomon in the
western part of the meris of Polemon in 196. We cannot say when the joint
komogrammateia was created. In a census return of 133, P. Tebt. II 566 descr.
= SB XX 14163, 3 (Bagnall – Frier 131-Ar-7), komogrammateus is said to be
the official of Samareia only, but this cannot be taken as proof against the
existence of the joint komogrammateia, since the declarant lived per‹
k≈mhw Samare¤aw. Similarly, an announcement of death, P. Amst. I 32 = SB
XII 11176 = CPG II.1 70 (no date) is addressed exclusively to a komogram-
mateus of Boukolos alias Tristomon, but this is only because of the place
where the deceased resided.

Lysimachis (Lysimachides duo)

and Kynopolis (Pol./Them.)

Lysimachis, a border village on both sides of the canal separating the

meris of Polemon from the meris of Themistos35 deserves a comment also
in the chapter devoted to komogrammateis. Four documents dating from
AD 11–15 form the small archive of Akousilaos, a sitologos of the two Lysi-
machides. Three of these, together with two other texts, were glued
together to form a roll, the verso of which was later used to note three ora-
tions or rhetorical exercises; the roll has an inventory number 256, and
the documents labelled with letters a, d, and e were published as part of
P. Lond. II.
P. Lond. II 256a (p. 98), from 29 Oct. AD 15, is a letter to Akousilaos,
demosios sitologos of Lysimachis, sent by a naukleros who acknowledges the
delivery of cargo with grain. Akousilaos seems to have been in charge of
grain distribution. A komogrammateus is mentioned (without name) as a
member of the committee that sealed the cargo.
P. Lond. II 256d (p. 97), around 20 November AD 11, is a request from
officials of Kynopolis (Pnepheros, president of the farmers’ corporation;36

35
See above, Introduction, pp. 22–23.
36
≤goÊmen[ow gevrg«n], see P. Vindob. Tandem 9, 10 note (= BL VII, p. 83). The editio
princeps has ≤goÊmen[ow fler°vn].
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 165

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 165

Artemidoros, komogrammateus; Ptolemaios, toparches; Ision, grammateus

georgon), asking Akousilaos to distribute seed grain to public farmers;
Kynopolis was within his area of activity.
P. Lond. II 256e (p. 96), 20 Nov. AD 11 – Faustus Priscus, an imperial slave
or libertinus, asks Akousilaos, demosios sitologos of the two Lysimachides, to
measure off 483 artabas of seed grain to public farmers. This corresponds
to the request made by officials of Kynopolis = P. Lond. II 256d (p. 98).
The fourth document is P. Vindob. Tandem 9 (28 Oct. AD 12) – Akousi-
laos is to send seed grain to demosioi georgoi. Lysimachis is not mentioned,
but there is a connection to it through the figure of Akousilaos.
The documents from the Akousilaos archive are the only source attest-
ing komogrammateis in Lysimachis and Kynopolis. Both villages were within
the territorial jurisdiction of a sitologos who – as it is worth stressing – held
this function in both Lysimachides, even though they belonged to differ-
ent merides. The borders of sitologia districts did not, therefore, correspond
to the borders of merides, but this does not mean that the sitologoi them-
selves were not subordinate to the strategoi – in this period Fayum was still
administered by one strategos. It is impossible to determine, however, if
these documents indicate the affiliation of Lysimachis and Kynopolis to
one komogrammateia. Perhaps it was so, but due to the lack of definite
proof the two villages appear separately in the prosopography.37

3. Meris of Themistos
Athenas Kome and Anoubias
P. Oxy. XVII 2121 (AD 209/10) is a list of officials for the villages of
Athena and Anoubias, both in the meris of Themistos. It may have been
prepared by Hermes, komogrammateus of the two villages, although the
restoration of lines 1–3 is uncertain.
The komogrammateia of Athena and Anoubias is attested only in one
document. It should, however, be added that Hermes is only called there

37
The way the pagi were organised in the fourth century Arsinoites suggests the loca-
tion of Kynopolis further to the south-east from the border between the Themistos and
Polemon merides, see below, pp. 275–276.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 166

166 CHAPTER FOUR

kv(mogrammateÊw); the document contains a list of officials for the two

villages. It cannot be excluded that the two localities were not the only
ones belonging to the Hermes’ komogrammateia, and perhaps none of
them was an ‘eponimic’ one.

Lagis and Trikomia

There is a small archive (AD 161–164) consisting of five texts on four
papyri. BGU XIII 2250 and P. Berl. Leihg. I 7 are two versions of a report
by Isidoros, komogrammateus of Lagis and Trikomia, to strategos Harpokra-
tion. In the second one the names of both localities are extant and in the
first the lacuna is large enough to fit the name Trikomias.38 The archive
includes two more documents (P. Berl. Leihg. I 18 and II 19) addressed to
the same Isidoros, here only called kvmogrammateÁw Lage¤dow39 – just as
Petaus is called ‘komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hormou’ in some docu-
ments, and in other ones the komogrammateus of the village the document
concerns.40

4. Komogrammateiai
of the village x ka‹ t«n êllvn kvm«n
The existence of komogrammateiai comprising more than one kome is
also indicated by documents in which the term komogrammateus/komo-
grammateia is accompanied by the phrase ‘of the village x ka‹ t«n êllvn
kvm«n’:
BGU II 618 (AD 213/4): Pas¤vn kvmogrammateÁw MendÆtvn ka‹ êll[v]n`
kvm«n.
BGU XIII 2282 (AD 229/230): komogrammateia of Ptolemais Arabon
= Arabon Kome.41

38
BGU XIII 2250, 4–5: parå [ÉI]si[d≈rou kvmogrammat°vw] | Lage¤dow [ka‹ Tri-
kvm¤aw: P. Berl. Leihg. I 7, 2: parå ÉIsid≈rou kvmogra(mmat°vw) Lage¤dow ka‹ Trikvm¤aw.
39
For the document, see R. SMOLDERS, ‘Isidoros, komogrammateus of Lagis and Triko-
mia’ available on Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections.
40
For the titulature of Petaus, see above, pp. 154–155.
41
For the document, see below, pp. 177–178,
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 167

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 167

BGU XI 2085 (AD 119): kvmogrammateÁw Kerkes[oÊxv]n1 ÖVr2(ouw) ka1‹1

ê2l1l1vn kvm«[n]. This is the Kerkesoucha Orous in the meris of Hera-
kleides, the village belonging to the komogrammateia of Petaus in the 180s.
The komogrammateus of BGU XI 2085 might then have resided in Ptole-
mais Hormou, like Petaus.
Also, in one document from the Arsinoites the titulature of the komo-
grammateus includes the phrase ka‹ êllvn kvm«n, although the name of the
village itself is not extant: BGU I 235 = WChr. 399, 2–3: par[å] P[e]y°vw
[kv]mog[r(ammat°vw) . . . . . ka‹ êllvn] kvm«n.42
On must keep in mind that – as it is proven by the titulature of Petaus
– these documents only testify to the existence of a komogrammateia that
included the given village and some other ones, and not that the men-
tioned locality is necessarily the ‘capital’ of this komogrammateia.

E. Locating komogrammateiai on a map

On a map of the Fayum43 I have marked the hypothetical territory of the
komogrammateiai described above. For three komogrammateiai in the meris
of Herakleides (Ptolemais Hormou, Hiera Nesos, and Karanis) my con-
clusions are more detailed; in the other ones I only marked the localities
that comprised joint komogrammateiai, including the territory surrounding
each settlement. The names of villages for which a komogrammateus (komo-
grammateia) of x ka‹ t«n êllvn kvm«n is attested are circled.
In order to estimate the number of komogrammateiai in the entire
nome, one has to use the only certain figure – the area of cultivated land
of the komogrammateia that encompassed Hiera Nesos and the neigh-
bouring villages. According to P. Bour. 42 (AD 166/7) cited above it equals
12,457 QT 1/32 1/64 arourai, that is ca. 3433 ha. = ca. 34.3 km2. Nowadays the
total area of arable land in the Fayum greatly exceeds 1000 km2, and
according to some sources it is up to 1500 km2.44 This increase of acreage
42
Perhaps also PSI VII 766, if Fayum is indeed its place of origin, see below, p. 260.
43
For the methodolody I applied when drawing a map of the Fayum, see above, Intro-
duction, pp. 14–23.
44
R. NEIL HEWISON, The Fayoum. History and Guide, Cairo 2001, p. 9 mentions an area
2
of 342,005 feddân, or ca. 1437 km .
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 168

168 CHAPTER FOUR

over the last few decades is caused by the development of an irrigation

system, which brought about a growth of the overall volume of water
entering the oasis. In the third century BC the total area of the Fayum was
slightly less than 1500 km2.45 On this ground it can be inferred that about
35, maybe 45 komogrammateiai like the one of Hiera Nesos and the neigh-
bouring villages would be able to fit in the Fayum. Of course we do not
know if the komogrammateia of Petheus was of a typical size. Nevertheless,
a number of 30–50 komogrammateiai functioning in the Arsinoite nome
during the Roman period seems probable.
Finally, it is noteworthy that in the northern part of the Fayum we
obtain a complete sequence of komogrammateiai: the komogrammateia of
Soknopaiou Nesos and Nilopolis (if indeed this village was located on the
northern shore of Lake Moeris) adjacent to the komogrammateia of Kara-
nis ka‹ êllvn kvm«n, which, in turn, bordered the komogrammateia of
Bakchias and Hephaistias. The latter two komogrammateiai stretched
along the northern bank of the desert canal; across the canal lay the komo-
grammateia of Hiera Nesos.

3. PRESBYTEROI
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF KOMOGRAMMATEIS
(presbÊteroi diadexÒmenoi tå katå tåw kvmogrammate¤aw)

In the second century and the first half of the third century AD komo-
grammateis were lacking in some villages in certain periods and their
duties were temporarily performed by the village elders (presbyteroi).
Their range of competence, already broad in the Ptolemaic period, grew
even broader in the Roman period, although besides sporadic instances it
did not exceed the set of issues connected with agriculture and irrigation:
the storage of grain, collection of rents from public farmers, organization
of works on canals, etc.46

45
Dorothy J.THOMPSON – W. CLARYSSE Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, Cambridge
2006, vol. II. Historical Studies, p. 90 with n. 2.
46
There is an over-50-year old but still valuable monography by A. TOMSIN, ‘Étude sur
les presbuteroi des villages de la chora égyptienne’, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l’Aca-
 147-261 Ch4
11/30/06
3:54 AM
Page 169

THE FAYUM
Localities identified
•
x Location uncertain

Map 3. The Arsinoite komogrammateiai in Roman Period

147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 170

170 CHAPTER FOUR

All known documents collectively addressed to or sent by komo-

grammateis and presbyteroi performing their duties in villages where there
are no komogrammateis come from the Arsinoite nome (BGU I 15, col. i
= WChr. 393 of 26 July 194 quoted below and SB XVI 12750 of AD 155/6).
Texts from outside the Fayum, which are not overly numerous, always
mention officials from a particular village. It is difficult to determine
whether this was another peculiarity of the Arsinoite government, or if it
is a result of the scarcity of available sources.
This phenomenon is clearly illustrated by SB XVI 12504 dated to after
24–29 August 136. This document contains copies of two programmata
(public notices) issued by two successive strategoi of the meris of The-
mistos, Vegetius alias Sarapion and Herakleides, on 26 August 135 and in
July/August 136. The first programma announces the appointment of four
liturgical supervisors (epiteretai) of some taxes for the 20th year of Hadrian,
among whom is Gaius Antonius Gallicus. He, however, appealed to the
epistrategos, Gellius Bassus who wrote to the strategos Herakleides, the suc-
cessor of Vegetius alias Sarapion, ordering that Gaius Antonius Gallicus
be released because of physical disability due to old age. Herakleides then
issued the second programma releasing Gaius Antonius Gallicus and
appointing someone else. Herakleides refers to nominations made ‘by the
komogrammateis of the division and – in villages where there are no komo-
grammateis – by the presbyteroi performing the duties of the office of komo-
grammateis (lines 31–34: ÍpÚ t«n t∞w mer¤dow | kvmogrammat°vn œn d¢ kv-
m«n mÆ efisin` | kvmogrammate[›]w presbut°rvn diadexom°nvn | tå katå
tåw kvmogrammate¤aw).47
A parallel phrase is evidenced by P. Mich. Michael 2 (= SB XII 11104),
Karanis, 21 January 149, a summary copy of reports to a strategos,48

démie Royale de Belgique, 5e s., 38 (1952) pp. 95–130 and pp. 467–532; published also as a sep-
arate volume with an index of sources added (Bruxelles 1953). In the following footnotes,
page numbering of the two editions will be quoted.
47
For a detailed interpretation of the case, see the editio princeps: A. H. S. EL MOSAL-
LAMY, ‘Public notices concerning epitêrêsis of the ônê zytêras’, [in:] Proceedings of the Sixteenth
International Congress of Papyrology (New York 24–31 July 1980), Chico 1981, pp. 215–229.
48
For the date, see BL VII, p. 225.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 171

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 171

addressed (lines 1–4): ÑHr[a]kle¤d˙ stra(thg“) A

É rsi(noe¤tou) ÑHrak(le¤dou)
mer¤do(w) | parå t«n t∞w mer¤dow kvmogra(mmat°vn), | œn d¢ kvm«n mÆ2
efisi, presb(ut°rvn) | diepÒntvn tåw tãjeiw. (‘To Herakleides, strategos of
the Herakleides division of the Arsinoite nome, from the village secre-
taries of the division and in the case of those villages where there are none,
from the elders, performing the duties.’)

The presbyteroi acting as komogrammateis are common enough in the

Arsinoites and only sporadically appear in documents from other nomes.
This is summarized in the list below:

The Arsinoite nome

141/2 Hiera Nesos BGU VII 1573, 5
?144 Theadelpheia SB XVI 1252249
146 Dionysias P. Oxy. XLIII 3089, 3–4
149 Soknopaiou Nesos SPP XXII 18, 2
158/9 Mouchis (Pol.) BGU I 6
186 Philadelpheia (Her.) P. Aberdeen 81
186 Soknopaiou Nesos P. Gen. I2 37, 3–5 = WChr. 400
194 Nilopolis50 BGU I 15 = WChr. 39351
197 Karanis P. Mich. VI 423 dupl. 19 = VI 424
IInd Hermopolis (Them.) P. Iand. VII 138, 9–1052
(first half )

Other nomes
183 Rhise (Arabia) P. Oxy. LX 4066, 3
188 Nemera (Oxyrhynchites) P. Oxy. VIII 1112, 21

49
The document is a writing exercise with the beginning of a petition; the problem is,
should those mentioned in it be considered as real holders of the post?
50
One should remember, however, that in the second century AD Soknopaiou Nesos
shares a komogrammateia with Nilopolis, see above, pp. 159–160.
51
The document is quoted below, pp. 174–175.
52
The document has: diå ... pre`sb`( ) diadex( ), possibly the presbyteroi acting as komo-
grammateis, see below, p. 204 n. 135.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 172

172 CHAPTER FOUR

198–209 Kynopolites, village unknown BGU VII 1566 (Tomsin, p. 74)53

234 Thebaïke, Ptemo,
Tertenchon (Lykopolites) P. Rainer Cent. 65–67

All the documents of Arsinoite provenance and two other ones (P. Oxy.
LX 4066 from Rhise in the nome of Arabia and BGU VII 1566 most prob-
ably from the Lykopolites) contain the phrase: presbÊterow(-oi) diadexÒ-
menow(-oi) ka‹ tå katå tØn kvmogrammate¤an, while in three documents
from the Lykopolites (P. Rain. Cent. 65–67) and in one from Nemera in the
Oxyrhynchites (P. Oxy. VIII 1112) the title is shorter: presbÊterow(-oi) dia-
dexÒmenow(-oi) tØn kvmogrammate¤an.
What strikes – as already pointed out above – is the quantitative dis-
proportion between the attestations of presbyteroi acting as komogrammateis
in the villages of the Arsinoite and in the other nomes. Outside the Fayum
we do not have attestations of such a situation before the 180s, while in
the Arsinoite it occurs as early as the 140s, if not even some forty years
earlier.54 In total, however, the small number of attestations in comparison
to the plenitude of documents from the second century AD indicates that
the phenomenon of komogrammateis replaced by presbyteroi was rare in the
Arsinoite nome and elsewhere it was absolutely exceptional.
In relation to this point three documents from the Lykopolites seem
noteworthy: P. Rain. Cent. 65, 66 and 67 (= SPP XX 33). They are letters,
dated to the same day (24 July 234) and of nearly identical content,
addressed to the basilikos grammateus of the Lykopolites, Aurelius Apollo-
nios. In each of them the elders performing the duties of a komogramma-

53
The document comes from Philadelpheia. This is a substitute nomination for the
liturgy of the Ùnhlas¤a addressed to Serenos strategos of the Kynopolites and as such it
must have been issued by the presbyteroi of a village in this nome, although its name is lost;
see the editors’ commentary.
54
Two census returns of AD 104/5 are addressed to a certain Akousilaos: P. Heid. IV 298,
1–2 (= Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-14): AÉ kousil(ãƒ) ka‹ metÒx(oiw) diejãgousi tå k[atå t]Øn
kvmog(rammate¤an) Yeadel(fe¤aw); P. Lond. III 1221 (p. 24–25), 1–2 (for the reading of lines
1–2, see P. Heid. IV 298 introduction): AÉ kousilム[ka‹ m]etÒxoiw diejãgo(usi)2 tå k[atå
t]Øn kvmog(rammate¤an). These are the only known census returns of AD 104 from Thea-
delpheia. Although Akousilaos and his colleagues performing the duties of komogramma-
teus are not styled so, they probably were presbyteroi. The documents are forty years older
than the earliest documents showing presbyteroi acting as komogrammateis.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 173

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 173

teus in three different villages inform that none of the priests have neg-
lected their responsibilities that month, a fact which should be commu-
nicated to the idios logos and archiereus.55
As regards the discussion of the local administration, the most impor-
tant are the authors of these documents. It is difficult to imagine that an
absolutely exceptional situation when a komogrammateus is substituted by
the village elders simultaneously occurred in three different komogram-
mateiai of the Lykopolite. We know from the Arsinoite documents, how-
ever, that in the Roman period one komogrammateia could comprise sev-
eral komai,56 it is therefore highly probable that the three villages whose
presbyteroi sent these three Vienna documents belonged to one komogram-
mateia! Hence, these documents attest the absence of only one – not
three! – komogrammateus in office. This is further confirmed by the fact
that they were written on the same day, and two of them (P. Rainer Cent.
65 and 67) by one scribe.57 This, in turn, adds an important element to the
picture of the functioning of village administration in the second and
third centuries. When for some reason the komogrammateia was missing a
komogrammateus, his duties in the particular komai belonging to this
administrative unit were performed by different groups of presbyteroi, a
separate group in every kome – for this Lykopolite komogrammateia they
were: Aurelius Herakleides son of Paphibios and other elders of the vil-
lage of Thebaïke and surrounding topoi (P. Rain. Cent. 65), Aurelius Psen-
thaibis son of Isas and other elders of the village of Ptemo and surround-
ing topoi (P. Rain. Cent. 66), and Aurelius Hatres son of Paneys and other
elders of the topoi surrounding the village of Tertenchon (P. Rain. Cent. 67).
The fact that two documents written in the name of presbyteroi from two

55
The manner in which the priests perform their duties certainly interests the idios
logos because of possible penalties inflicted for neglecting their responsibilities. For the
contents of these unusual documents, see a lengthy commentary by E. BOSWINKEL in the
editio princeps, and KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 755–757.
56
See above, pp. 152–168 and my article ‘The Arsinoite komogrammateis and their komo-
grammateiai in the Roman Period’, in the proceedings of the Fayum conference in Lecce,
June 2005.
57
The editor of these texts, E. BOSWINKEL, was aware of the resemblance of hands,
especially P. Rainer Cent. 65 and 67 (see his introduction to the first document).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 174

174 CHAPTER FOUR

different villages were in the same hand means that these presbyteroi of
different villages drew up their documents with the help of the employ-
ees of the same office – the one of the komogrammateia.

An interesting document concerning a kome where a komogrammateus

was replaced by presbyteroi is BGU I 15, col. I = WChr. 393 = Sel. Pap. II 246
(26 July 194), a proceeding of a hearing before Iulius Quintianus, epistra-
tegos of the Heptanomia:

§j Ípomnhmatism«n ÉIoul¤ou KouintianoË toË krat¤stou

§pistratÆgou ¶touw deut°rou Louk¤ou
Septim¤ou SeouÆrou Pert¤nakow1 SebastoË MesorØ b. mey' (ßtera):
4 klhy°ntow PekËsiw A É pÊgxevw ka‹ ÍpakoÊsantow Diad°l-
fow =Ætvr e‰pen: §ãn soi dokª, kãleson tÚn t∞w Ne¤lou
pÒlevw kvmogrammat°a, ⁄ ı ≤m°terow §nkale›. klh-
y°ntow ka‹ mØ ÍpakoÊsantow A É rtem¤dvrow strathgÚw e‰p[e]n:
8 kvmogrammat°a oÈk ¶xei2 ≤ Ne¤lou pÒliw, éllå presbut°rouw
diadexom°nouw. Diãdelfow =Ætvr e‰pen: kek°leustai ÍpÚ
t«n katå kairÚn ≤gemÒnvn ßkaston efiw3 tØn •autoË k≈-
mhn ka‹ mØ ép' êllhw k≈mhw efiw êllhn metafa¤resyai.
12 ˜ti nËn kvmogrammateÁw §phreãzei t“ sunhgorou-
m[°]nƒ, én°dvken aÈtÚn prãktora érgurik«n t∞w fid¤aw
k≈mhw58 efiw êllhn leitourg¤an4. éjio› énagign≈skvn tå ke-
keleusm°na mØ éf°lkesyai épÚ t∞w fid¤aw efiw éllotr¤an.
16 KointianÚw e‰pen: strathgÚw dialÆmcetai, ˘ t«n §m«n
mer«n katalãbhtai, §p' §m¢ énap°mcein

From the minutes of his excellency Iulius Quintianus the epistrategos. The
second year of Lucius Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus, Mesore 2.

58
THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 84 n. 107 (= BL VIII, p. 17) suggests an emendation
in line 13: én°dvken aÈtÚn prãktora érgurik«n <épÚ> t∞w fid¤aw k≈mhw efiw êllhn leitour-
g¤an4 which seems unnecessary to me.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 175

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 175

Extract: – Pekysis son of Apynchis having been summoned and having

appeared, Diadelphos, advocate, said: ‘If it seem good to you, summon the
village scribe of Nilopolis whom my client accuses.’ When he had been
summoned and failed to appear, Artemidoros, strategos, said: ‘Nilopolis has
no village scribe, but only elders who are acting as deputies.’ Diadelphos,
advocate, said: ‘Orders have been given by successive praefects that every
individual is to be restricted to service in his own village and not trans-
ferred from one village to another. Now because the village scribe has a
spite against my client, he has nominated him, though collector of money
taxes in his own village, for another service (elsewhere). He begs you, and
he is ready to read the orders, not to let him be removed from his own vil-
lage to a strange one.’ Quintianus said: ‘The strategos will decide, referring
to me any question which he finds to be my concern.’59

This document is important primarily as a source on the functioning

of the system of liturgies. Pekysis son of Apynchis, a praktor in one village,
protests against his nomination to another service in another village. The
main issue of this protest is that Pekysis was named to the new liturgy not
in his own village (we do not actually know where Pekysis resided) but in
Nilopolis, and this was irregular. The komogrammateia being an exception,
liturgical service was fulfilled in the place where the individual resided,
worked, or owned property.60 It is interesting that the petitioner did not
protest against holding two liturgies at once, but the document is dated
to the beginning of Mesore, the last month of the year. This means that
simultaneous liturgies are not the case, since Pekysis is a praktor in the
current year, which is drawing to a close, and the nomination being
protested is to a liturgy in the year to come.61
However, as far as the functioning of the komogrammateia is concerned,
not everything is clear in this text. Pekysis accused the komogrammateus of

59
The translation, slightly adapted, is that of Sel. Pap. II 246.
60
LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services, pp. 165–166. For the special situation of komo-
grammateia, see above, pp. 149–150.
61
This is the interpretation of LEWIS, ibidem, p. 166, while U. WILCKEN, WChr. 393,
introd.: ‘Nicht die Kumulierung zweier Liturgien an sich ist verboten (vgl. z.B. P. Straßb.
57 [also discussed in this chapter, see above, p. 149 – TD]), sondern die gleichzeitige Belas-
tung eines Liturgen seiner fid¤a mit einer auswärtigen Liturgie.’
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 176

176 CHAPTER FOUR

Nilopolis, but the latter did not appear before the epistrategos. The strate-
gos, also present at the hearing, explained that Nilopolis has no komo-
grammateus but only presbyteroi acting as deputies. But the advocate for
Pekysis, not discouraged by this answer, continued to argue that the
komogrammateus §phreãzei and én°dvken aÈtÚn prãktora érgurik«n t∞w
fid¤aw k≈mhw efiw êllhn leitourg¤an4. How can these two contradictory facts
be explained? Was the intervention of the strategos caused only by the fact
that the komogrammateus of Nilopolis, known well to both him and Peky-
sis, failed to come despite being summoned? This appears to be the only
logical explanation: first, komogrammateus appointed Pekysis for the new
liturgy, which Diadelphos refers to, and later – before the case was pre-
sented to the epistrategos – he abandoned his post for reasons unknown to
us and was replaced by the presbyteroi.62

4. THE SUCCESSORS OF THE KOMOGRAMMATEIS:

AMPHODOKOMOGRAMMATEIS AND KOMARCHAI

A. Amphodokomogrammateis

After AD 217 komogrammateis are almost completely absent from Arsinoite

documents. For reasons obscure to us, the komogrammateis in the Arsi-
noite nome (and only there) are replaced by amphodokomogrammateis, as it
was proven 30 years ago by Dieter Hagedorn and Zbigniew Borkowski.63
The last komogrammateis attested in the Arsinoite nome in the second
decade of the third century are:

62
For a slightly different interpretation of the document, see P. JOUGUET, La vie munic-
ipale dans l’Egypte romaine (= Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 104), Paris
1911, pp. 109–111 and 476. See also DRECOLL, Die Liturgien im römischen Kaiserreich (cit. supra,
n. 1), p. 28
63
BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14). Their conclu-
sions were completely misunderstood by DRECOLL, Die Liturgien im römischen Kaiserreich
(cit. supra, n. 1), p. 202.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 177

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 177

4 March 214 – Kopres, komogrammateus of Karanis (SB IV 7360)

Mesore 215 – Aurelios Her.[.].., komogrammateus of Apollonopolis and
Psinteo (P. Oxy. XLV 3263)
215 – an unknown komogrammateus of Talei (BGU XI 2021 [with BL VI,
p. 20] = CPG II.1 73, 11)
215/6 and 216/7 – Aurelius Pasion, komogrammateus of Philadelpheia in
SB XXII 15784 and P. Yale III 137
217 – an unknown komogrammateus of Soknopaiou Nesos (SPP II 3)
26 May 220 (year uncertain) – Antonis, komogrammateus of an unknown
village (the document, SPP XXII 67 verso, comes from Soknopaiou
Nesos)

In turn, the earliest amphodokomogrammateus is Aurelios Euangelos,

amphodokomogrammateus of Bakchias, Hephaistias and pedion of Herakleia
in 219/20 (P. Gron. 2) and the next one is Aurelios Harpokration, amphodo-
komogrammateus of Tebtynis in 222/3 (P. Giss. Univ. VI 52), still in office in
224/5 (P. Heid. II 223 = SB VI 9543).
In my opinion, SPP XXII 67 verso does not prove that the office of
komogrammateus still existed in 220, even having accepted its quite uncer-
tain dating. The komogrammateus Antonis is mentioned here in a some-
what ‘informal’ context. The document is an account (‘rationes tributo-
rum’, according to the editio princeps). Antonis, who is listed among other
persons, could either be a former komogrammateus, or an amphodokomo-
grammateus referred to by the old term, the new one being considered
awkward (the term amphodokomogrammateus is long and clumsy indeed). If
the attestation in SPP XXII 67 verso were rejected, the time of change
would fall between SPP II 3 of AD 217 (terminus post quem) and P. Gron. 2 of
AD 219/20 (terminus ante quem).
It is, however, more difficult to explain the occurrence of the term
kvmogr(ammate¤a) in BGU XIII 2282 of AD 229/230. Two men who are
candidates for the office of village secretary in Ptolemais Arabon and
other villages draw up a list of individual assessments for the grain tax
([é]paitÆsimo`n kat' êndra sitik«n diå dhmos¤vn gevrg«n) for the cur-
rent year 229/30. The document begins (lines 1–3):
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 178

178 CHAPTER FOUR

[pa]rå AÈrhl¤vn A
É r¤vnow ka‹ A[... t«n]
2 §n klÆrƒ kvmogr(ammate¤aw) Ptolema¤dow AÉ rãbvn`
ka‹ êllvn kvm«n.

Ptolemais Arabon is a village in the meris of Herakleides, to be identi-

fied with Arabon Kome.64 Contrary to the editor’s opinion (‘[this docu-
ment] is in no way peculiar or noteworthy’), this text does have an inter-
esting feature: in the year 229/30 in a Fayum village secretaries are called
amphodokomogrammateis, and not komogrammateis.
However, a text worthy of mention in relation to this document is SB I
4419 of 224, probably of Fayumic provenance (Karanis) and mentioning a
komogrammateus.65 Perhaps the author of a report of amounts of wheat,
barley and lentils for various villages (meris of Themistos), BGU I 84 of
AD 242/3 was a komogrammateus, but its heading is so fragmentarily pre-
served that it is difficult to accept the document as a decisive piece of
evidence.66

A separate issue is whether the change of name was followed by a

change in the duties of officials. The documents that feature amphodo-
komogrammateis are not plentiful and based on these texts it is difficult to
distinguish any differences between their activity and the activity of
komogrammateis.67

64
For the villages bearing the name Ptolemais, see CPR X, pp. 27–28; for the Arsinoite
Ptolemais Arabon, see BGU XIII 2282. 2 note (with a wrong reference to BGU XIII 2280
instead of 2279). For the identity of Ptolemais Arabon and Arabon Kome, see Inge UYT-
TERHOEVEN – W. Clarysse, ‘Ptolemais Arabon – Arabon Kome (meris of Herakleides)’, Leu-
ven Database of the Fayum Villages, <http://fayum.arts.kuleuven.be/0285.html>.
65
For this document, see below, ‘Testimonia incerta et delenda’, pp. 257–258.
66
For this document, see below, ‘Testimonia incerta et delenda’, pp. 259–260.
67
Such are the conclusions of BORKOWSKI and HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’
(cit. supra, n. 14), pp. 779–780 (p. 780: ‘Komogrammateus und Amphodokomogrammateus
haben demnach, jedenfalls soweit wir erkennen können, geradezu identische Auf-
gabenkreise gehabt’).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 179

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 179

That the territorial jurisdiction of amphodokomogrammateis covered sev-

eral komai and was therefore identical with the large komogrammateiai of
the second century AD is indicated by the person of Aurelius Euangelos,
who in AD 219/20 was the amphodokomogrammateus of Bakchias, Hephais-
tias, and pedion of Herakleia. This is an isolated case, however. Docu-
ments later by a few or a dozen or so years show a very different situation.
None of the hundreds of documents dating from the first and second
cent. AD and mentioning komogrammateis attest more than one official to
a given komogrammateia (which encompassed up to several villages in the
Roman period). In turn, in the third and fourth decade of the third cen-
tury we have two amphodokomogrammateis in Tebtynis, in the village Arsi-
noe (we do not know which Arsinoe, the one in the meris of Themistos,
or that in the meris of Herakleides), as well as in an unknown village in the
meris of Themistos.

Tebtynis
P. Giss. Univ. VI 52, 1–2 (AD 222/3) comes [parå AÈrhl¤]v[n] AÑ rpokra-
t¤vnow ka‹ ÑHrakl°o`u[` w t«]n [b] émf[o]do[kvmogr(ammat°vn) TeptÊnev`w.
P. Heid. II 223 (= SB VI 9543), 3–5 (AD 224/5): parå AÈrhl¤vn AÑ rpokra-
t¤vnow k`[a‹] Diog°nouw t«n` b émfÒdokvmogra(mmat°vn) k≈mhw TebtÊnevw.

Arsinoe? in the meris of Themistos?

or in the meris of Herakleides?

P. Tebt. II 436, 2–3 (AD 222–235): parå AÈrhl¤vn Prv[t - - ka‹ - - - ]

t«n b émfÒdokv[mogra(mmat°vn) k≈[mhw A É rsinÒhw?].
unknown village in the meris of Themistos
BGU I 141, i 3 (AD 242/3): [parå AÈr(hl¤vn) ca. 6 ka‹ D]ionus¤vnow t«n
b [émfod]o-1 kv[mogr(ammat°vn) - - - -] t∞w Yem¤stou mer¤]d`o`w

Furthermore: P. Strasb. VIII 731 (AD 222–235) confirms the existence

of as many as three amphodokomogrammateis in the village of Hiera Nesos
in the meris of Herakleides: p`ar`å` A`È`[r(hl¤vn)] D¤vno`w` k`a`‹` [Dio]skÒrou
ka`‹ | `[ ` ` `] t«`n g émfodok[v]mogra`(mmat°vn) | k`≈`m`h`w` ÑIerçw NÆsou
(lines 1–3).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 180

180 CHAPTER FOUR

This doubling (or even tripling) of amphodokomogrammateis can hardly

be considered a coincidence, even less so that already the fifth decade of
the third century brought the return of the komarchs, officials – as
already said – who were to some extent the successors of the komogram-
mateis. What distinguished them from their predecessors, however, was
that their territorial jurisdiction was to cover only one kome and that in it
there was to be simultaneously two, and in the fourth century even three
or four komarchs. The evidence presented above is scant, too scant to
attempt any reliable conclusions. However, perhaps the transformation
from the ‘big’ komogrammateus (one for several komai) to the ‘small’
komarchs (two or more in one kome) occurred in the years when in the
Arsinoite nome the village officials were called amphodokomogrammateis?
In AD 219/20 there was still a ‘big’ official, and starting from AD 222/3 – only
the ‘small’ ones?

Later, in the 240s, the amphodokomogrammateis in the Arsinoite and the

komogrammateis in other nomes were replaced by komarchs (some excep-
tions will be discussed later on). The disappearance of komogrammateis
from the Egyptian scene (and amphodokomogrammateis from the Arsinoite)
was a step towards uniformization of the administration, or, rather,
assimilation of the government of the Arsinoites to that of the other
parts of Egypt. This process continued for a few dozen years until the
elimination of the merides and, finally, the creation of the pagi. These were
an innovative concept in the Fayum, being administrative units halfway
between the nome and the village (kome). This role was never played by
the toparchies, as I have demonstrated in the chapter devoted to this
administrative unit.68

68
See above, pp. 117–146.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 181

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 181

B. Komogrammateis in the fourth century and beyond

After AD 217 komogrammateis are absent from Arsinoite documents. How-

ever, they do not disappear completely from the corpus of Egyptian offi-
cials even after the reforms of Philip the Arabian in 245.
CPR VII 18 (23 October 364 or 379 or 394) was drafted by a certain
Aurelios Sarapammon, komogrammateus of kome Magdolon in the Her-
mopolite nome. There is no doubt about the reading. We know that in
the fourth century the Hermopolite officials kept the term ‘toparchy’ as
a name for the pagi,69 although we do not know the reason for this. We
also do not know why Aurelios Sarapammon called himself a komogram-
mateus over 100 years after the disappearance of this office. There is a
possibility that this komogrammateus was, in fact, an official called gram-
mateÁw t∞w k≈mhw who also appears in the Arsinoite nome (P. Cairo Isid.
68 probably dated to AD 309/10).70
Another fourth-century document which mentions a komogrammateus,
this time in Kellis (Great Oasis), is cited by Naphtali Lewis.71 There are
more such texts: P. Kellis I 3, 15 (mid-fourth cent.) and 14, 7 of AD 356. The
komarchs are attested in Kellis as well. What was the relationship
between these two offices? In the Ptolemaic period, when two officials
addressed with these titles functioned side by side, the komarches was
lower in rank than the komogrammateus72 – this, however, does not deter-
mine the state of affairs in the fourth century.73

69
See below, p. 265 n. 8.
70
The presence of the term komogrammateus in the formal language of the Hermopolite
nome cannot be explained by conservatism and unwillingness to accept new terms, like it
was proposed for explaining the use of the term toparchy instead of pagus – the obstacle is
the frequent occurrence of komarchs in fourth-century documents from this nome.
71
N. LEWIS, ‘Kleros, Komarch and Komogrammateus in the Fourth Century’, ChrEg 72
(1997), pp. 345–347.
72
See VERHOOGT, Menches (cit. supra, n. 1), p. 79.
73
For the office of komogrammateus re-emerging in the fourth century, see R. S. BAG-
NALL, Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton 1993, p. 134. However, the Karanis document to
which Bagnall refers, P. Cairo Isid. 68 (probably 309/10), mentions grammateÁw t∞w k≈mhw!
See N. LEWIS’ objections in ‘Kleros, Komarch and Komogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 71),
pp. 346–347.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 182

182 CHAPTER FOUR

P. Oxy. XVI 1835 recto, 4 (late fifth or early sixth cent.), see comm.
ad loc. – concerns the imprisonment of the wives of the protokometai;
according to this text, one of the latter is a komogrammateus, mentioned
along with meizones (headmen) and komarchs. It is very probable that the
komogrammateus mentioned in this text is simply a village secretary, called
a grammateÁw t∞w k≈mhw in other texts. It is impossible to determine the
identity of a komogrammateus appearing in a will of AD 586 (P. Oxy. XX 2283
descr., 10).
For the fourth century we have, therefore, one text attesting the exis-
tence of komogrammateis in the Hermopolites and a total of three such
documents from Kellis, as well as two later Oxyrhynchite texts. In my
opinion this does not constitute a sufficient basis for suggesting that the
office re-emerged. In the fourth century and beyond there existed a well-
attested office of grammateÁw t∞w k≈mhw74 – and this was not the same
thing! The appearance of a komogrammateus in the Hermopolites is
explainable, considering the peculiar terminology used in the administra-
tion of this nome. In Kellis it may be due to the remoteness of this
region, but I do realise that this is not a strong argument. Another indi-
cation of the ‘conservatism’ of the terminology used for officials in the
Great Oasis is that as late as AD 353 the strategos was still an office of some
significance in the Mothite nome.75

C. Komarchs in Later Roman Fayum

In the Ptolemaic period the office of komarch existed side by side with the
office of komogrammateus – the relationship between the two has been dis-
cussed above.76 The latest attestation of a Ptolemaic komarch is in O. Fay. 8
(6 BC). The re-emergence of the term – as in this case it is hard to talk about
the re-introduction of the office itself – should be associated with the

74
Germaine ROUILLARD, L’administration civile de l’Égypte byzantine, Paris 1928, pp. 71–72.
75
K. A. WORP in P. Kellis, p. 71.
76
This is evidenced by the documents from the archive of Menches, a komogrammateus
of Kerkeosiris in 120–110 BC, whose subordinate was a komarch, see above, p. 181.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 183

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 183

reforms of Philip the Arabian.77 The new komarch – attested for the first
time as a liturgical office in a Herakleopolite village in AD 248 (P. Oxy. XLIV
3178) – unaccompanied by a komogrammateus at the time, must have
assumed a greater part of his duties.78 In documents of Later Roman date
komarchs often appear in pairs, hence the natural conclusion that there
were simultaneously two such officials per kome. Their number grew in the
fourth century: in Tertembythis (Hermopolites) in AD 373 there were three
of them.79 The only document that attests the existence of four komarchs
expressis verbis is P. Gen. I2 66 (= WChr. 281) of 2 May 374, from Philadelpheia,
which points to a late dating for the introduction of this modification.80

77
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Introduction of Dekaprotoi and Comarchs into Egypt in the
Third Century AD’, ZPE 19 (1975) pp. 111–119. For the reforms of the 240s, see also P. J.
PARSONS, ‘Philippus Arabs and Egypt’, JRS 57 (1967) pp. 134–141. There is also a disserta-
tion devoted to komarchs: H. E. L. MISSLER, Der Komarch. Ein Beitrag zur Dorfverwaltung
im ptolemäischen, römischen und byzantinischen Ägypten, diss. Marburg 1970. This work, writ-
ten as a monograph of the office, discusses the competencies and activities of the
komarchs without differentiating between the Ptolemaic officials and the Later Roman
ones. The author is not aware of the fact that for over two and a half centuries the
komarchs were absent from the administrative reality of the Egyptian chora. For the office
of komarch, see also OERTEL, Die Liturgie, pp. 153–156, and LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Ser-
vices, pp. 34–35.
78
LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services, p. 34 quotes P. Marm. as the earliest example
of the office of komarch in Roman Egypt. Lewis printed the date: ‘ca. AD 204’, while the
document is in fact dated to AD 191. In this tax register there indeed appear various
komarchs (at least in two places the title is written kvmarx( ) which cannot be mistaken
for e.g. komogrammateus. However, the document comes from the Marmarica nome, locat-
ed between Egypt and Cyrenaica. Its administrative structure was very different from that
of other nomes, for instance the document does not mention toparchies and other sub-
divisions of the nome – see G. LA PIRA, ‘Esegesi del Papiro Vaticano (Documento della
Marmarica)’, BIDR 41 (1933), pp. 103–141 (esp. pp. 107–108). It is, therefore, difficult to
consider the presence of komarchs in this remote part of Egypt, which starting from the
end of the third cent. AD belonged to the Libya Inferior province, as proof of existence of
this office before the 240s.
79
P. Lips. I 86. 6–7: ofl tre›[w] kvmãrxai1 k≈mhw Ter[tenbÊ]y`[e]vw | toË [ÑE]rmoupole¤tou.
80
P. Gen. I2 66. 1–5: AÈrÆlioi1 A É m`vn2 ianÚw ÑEkÊ`[si]w | [ka‹ A
É l]lvn¤ou T 2 2 2 2 h2 .` y¤[ou] ka‹
Ti`m[` ag]°[n]o`(uw) | [ÉAs¤v]now | ka‹ AÉ moË`n` A
Ñ t` r∞, émf`Òter(oi) kvmãr(xai) | [t∞w] k≈mhw
F[i]ladelf¤aw` toË A É rsino|[˝to]u nomoË. Missler considered émfÒteroi proof that also at the
end of the fourth century the number of komarchs in Philadelpheia did not exceed two,
which resulted from his unawareness of the fact that émfÒteroi is an equivalent of ëpantew,
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 184

184 CHAPTER FOUR

Perhaps, therefore, the number of komarchs was not raised until the third
quarter of the fourth century.81
A separate issue is the territorial jurisdiction of the komarchs, espe-
cially compared to that of the komogrammateis and amphodokomogramma-
teis. In the titulature of the new officials there is nothing to suggest – as
it was the case with the komogrammateis in the second century – that the
territorial range of their duties exceeded one kome, in other words the
phrase komarches of the village x ka‹ êllvn kvm«n vel. sim. is nowhere to
be found. Hence, like Ptolemaic komogrammateis, and unlike the Roman
successors of the latter, the Later Roman komarchs were officials in
charge of one village.

1. Komarchs of Theadelpheia in the 240s/250s.

Was it komarchs who issued the libelli of the Decian
persecution in 250?
From among forty-six libelli of the Decian persecution82 a considerable
number of 33 come from Theadelpheia. A commission of two officials,
Aurelii Serenos and Hermas, issued several libelli on the consecutive days
of Pauni of year 1 of Decius, starting from the 18th (12 June 250) till the
29th (23 June) – with one day off, the 24th – 22 in total (Duttenhöffer

as it has already been pointed out by Diana Delia and Evan Haley who cited various
examples (Diana DELIA and E. HALEY, ‘Agreement Concerning Succession to a Komarchy’,
BASP 20 [1983], pp. 39–47, see p. 43 n. 11). Two other documents of the same archive
(of Aurelius Ol) also mention four officials, presumably komarchs, although in one their
names are not accompanied by any title and the other features an obcure title prot( ) – see
below, p. 194.
81
P. Princ. Roll. – as it has been argued by the authors of the re-edition, Roger S. BAG-
NALL and Klaas A. WORP – does not attest four komarchs in Philadelpheia in AD 312/3 – see
below, pp. 245–246.
82
For an updated list of libelli and analysis of their formula, see Ruth DUTTENHÖFFER in
P. Lips. II (2002), pp. 218–241 – I will use her numbering of the documents (see ‘Konkor-
danz’ on pp. 240–241). For a general overview of the documents, see G. H. R. HORSLEY,
New Documents II, pp. 180–185 (no. 105), see also J. R. REA, P. Oxy. LVIII 3929 introd. For
a general account of the Decian persecution, see Marta SORDI, ‘I rapporti fra il Cris-
tianesimo e l’impero dai Severi a Gallieno’, ANRW II.23.1, pp. 340–374 (‘La persecuzione
di Decio’, pp. 359–364).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 185

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 185

10–31). To these one should add one libellus issued on Pauni 2 – (Dutten-
höffer 32), one of Pauni with no day given (Duttenhöffer 33), two dated to
Epeiph, 3rd (27 June) and 20th (14 July) (Duttenhöffer 34 and 35) and
seven either dated to the year only (Duttenhöffer 36 and 37) or with no
surviving date (Duttenhöffer 38–42) – all these total to a number of 33
against 14 libelli from the rest of the country.83 This cannot be a coinci-
dence – the most plausible solution is that the Theadelpheian libelli con-
stitute an archive.84 The majority of these documents comes from a col-
lection in Hamburg,85 another five are from the John Rylands Library in
Manchester (Duttenhöffer 21, 25, 26, 36, 42),86 two are in Michigan (Dut-
tenhöffer 17 and 22),87 one is in possession of the Società Italiana in Flo-
rence (Duttenhöffer 32), and one is kept in Berlin (Duttenhöffer 16). A
separate issue is the relationship between the archive ‘of the libelli from
Theadelpheia’ and the Heroninos archive. One might suspect that it is
dependent on it in some way, or even forms part of it, if it were not for
the fact that the collections housing the documents of Heroninos
(Prague, Florence) do not match the places where the libelli are kept.88

83
This, by the way, requires caution for a reasoning presented in P. Oxy. LVIII 3929
introd. where the editor compared the number of libelli (46 at that time) with the number
of the published census returns (270), which led to a conclusion: ‘Certificates of sacrifice
were required only in AD 250; the census took place in Egypt at intervals of fourteen years
from at least AD 5/6 till AD 257/8. It may be doubtful deduction from the statistics, but the
comparatively large number of certificates seems to support the view that the head of every
household was required to apply for one on a system very like that of the census returns.’
84
The archive is not listed in MONTEVECCHI’S La papirologia. See ‘Decian libelli’ at Leu-
ven Homepage of Papyrus Collection <http://lhpc.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/archives>.
85
The majority of Hamburg libelli were published in a separate volume: P. M. MEYER,
Die Libelli aus der decianischen Christenverfolgung (= Aus dem Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der
Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre 1910), Berlin 1910.
86
P. Ryl. II 112, introd.: ‘Five others (sc. libelli) (…) have been acquired by the Rylands
Library. These belong to the same group, as the series in the Hamburg collection.’
87
P. Mich. III 157, introd.: ‘The papyri (…) were acquired in 1920’.
88
Ruben SMOLDERS in a letter of 18 December 2005: ‘The libelli certainly come from an
archive. Last year, I found out that the archive of Aphrodisios’ descendants (see
<http://lhpc.arts.kuleuven.be/archives/texts/294.pdf>) consists of papyri of – among
others – Berlin, Neutestamentliche Seminar (published in P. Meyer), Manchester and Flo-
rence. This archive was also found in Theadelpheia (just like the libelli). I know that these
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 186

186 CHAPTER FOUR

The libelli took the form of petitions, the majority of which (all from
Theadelpheia) were written by public scribes. The libellus is not a certifi-
cate of sacrifice (as it is sometimes called) issued upon the completion of
the prescribed act, but a request of the sacrificer asking for confirmation
that he had publicly performed this act. The documents from Thead-
elpheia were addressed to the Ωrhm°noi §p‹ t«n yus¤vn, i.e. to the mem-
bers of a local commission to oversee the sacrifices.
The libelli offer very little evidence for the position of the officials on
the commission. In one case a man who signed the document states that
he is the current prytannis, i.e. presiding officer of the town boule of Arsi-
noe (Duttenhöffer 2). A libellus from Narmuthis (Duttenhöffer 6 = New
Docs. II 105) is signed by as many as six men of whom we know nothing.
As already said, the documents from Theadelpheia are issued by Aurelii
Serenos and Hermas. One of these texts (Duttenhöffer 15, see above)
seems to be especially interesting: though issued by both officials, it is
signed only by Hermas. It can be said, therefore, that the officers issuing
the libelli in Theadelpheia worked in a college of two. Other sources
inform that the komarch of Theadelpheia in November 251 was a certain
Hermas, well known from Heroninos’ documents, and that – contrary to
theory – he held this post for several consecutive years. We also know
that the village had two komarchs, so perhaps it would be justified to sus-
pect that, at least in Theadelpheia, komarchs were part of the commis-
sion that confirmed the act of sacrifice in 250.89

three collections also house papyri of the libelli. That this distribution is so similar, is an
extra argument for the libelli being an archive. Both archives have been bought in Egypt
around the same time from the same dealer. But there is no link or dependency between
the archives, except that they were found at Theadelpheia around the same time (but at
different places in the village).’
89
The identification of Hermas the komarch with the member of a college issuing the
libelli has already been suggested by RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 20 n. 25. The doc-
uments from the Heroninos archive show numerous links between the administration of
the Appianus estate and the komarchs not only in Theadelpheia but also in other villages.
See, e.g., P. Flor. II 132 showing Alypios, a general manager of the Appianus estate, getting
the komarchs of Taurinou to correct an error to do with an estate employee at Theadel-
pheia. At Theadelpheia, and probably at most other phrontides where employees, like the
other villagers, paid taxes to komarchs, ad hoc intervetions of this kind are not rarely
attested, see RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 20.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 187

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 187

Naturally if it were so, the date of Hermas‘ term as komarch of Thead-

elpheia should be moved back to 250, and Aurelius Serenos should be
added as his colleague in office. Hermas’ handwriting (see his signature on
one of the libelli of the Decian persecution90) shows he was a real brad°vw
grãfvn, and his writing ability was by no means greater than that of
Petaus, the well-known komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hormou. Aurelius
Isidoros, a well-off farmer living in Karanis (for his career, see the next
section) was illiterate, which, however, did not keep him from holding the
office of komarch of Karanis in 308/9.
The careers of Hermas of Theadelpheia, Aurelius Isidoros of Karanis,
Aurelius Sakaon of Theadelpheia, to name only the best-known ko-
marchs of Arsinoite villages in the third and fourth centuries, show that
the rule of importing the most important local officials from outside the
village in which the post was to be held, enforced in the first and second
centuries, was long forgotten.91

2. The succession of komarchs in the 280s in Philadelpheia

and their position in the local community
SB XVI 12829 is an interesting document arranging the appointment
of komarchs of Philadelpheia for three successive years: 286/7, 287/8, and
288/9.92 The acting official, Aurelius Hol, agrees to nominate Aurelius
Kornelios as his successor on condition that Kornelios nominate Hol’s
brother to the post at the expiration of his term. It is therefore beyond
doubt that in Philadelpheia of the 280s the office of komarch was desir-
able and the persons holding the post came from one circle of family and
friends.
Hence, the picture of avoiding liturgy by means of substitution or ana-
choresis, which emerges from hundreds of documents from Later Roman
and Byzantine Egypt does not fully reflect the complex reality, as it is dif-

90
Duttenhöffer 15 = SB I 4440, photograph: R. SEIDER, Paläographie der griechischen
Papyri. Band I. Tafeln. Erster Teil: Urkunden, Stuttgart 1967, no. 44.
91
For Petaus, komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hormou, who was a resident of Karanis,
see above, pp. 149–150.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 188

188 CHAPTER FOUR

ficult to find at least a single text that would convey something contrary
to SB XVI 12829, one that would show any komarch attempting to avoid
his office. In turn, there are documents that reveal the deliberate
exploitation of their power for financial gain. In a petition addressed to
Iulius Iulianus, prefect of Egypt, P. Cairo Isid. 73 (with P. Cairo Isid. 71 and
72 containing memoranda for this petition), two inhabitants of Karanis
– Aurelius Isidoros, tesserarius (the main figure of the archive) and Aure-
lius Palemon, son of Tiberinus, quadrarius – complain about the conduct
of Theodoros, praepositus pagi, and the komarchs (mentioned in plural,
one of them being Isidoros son of Pelenios) acting in collusion with him.
The charges range from serious ones of a financial nature (the komarchs
supported by the praepositus made unauthorized tax assessments amount-
ing to 300 talents – what happened to the money is not known; the prae-
positus defrauded the village of 30 sheep and 47 talents) to minor abuse of
power (without authorisation the praepositus used donkeys that belonged
to the village for transporting beans to his own house).93 The examples of
corrupt practices of komarchs described in P. Cairo Isid. 71–73 are – if the
charges were indeed true – the most drastic ones, though we can also read
of conflicts between the farming community and the komarchs of their
village in other documents.94 The latter perceived in context of SB XVI
12829 cited at the beginning of this section, it is hard to resist an impres-
sion that the office of komarch was – unlike other liturgical offices
– sought-after not only because it gave the dishonest an opportunity to
abuse their power, but also because the komarch had a good opportunity
to protect interests of his own and those of his family in matters such as
the division of taxes and avoiding costly liturgies.95

92
The document has been edited with an extensive commentary by DELIA – HALEY,
‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), pp. 39–47.
93
The charges are presented in detail by A. E. R. BOAK and H. C. YOUTIE in P. Cairo
Isid. 73 introd. For Isidoros performing komarchy in 313/4, see P. Cairo Isid. 71 introd.
94
These examples – all of them from outside the Fayum – have been collected by
DELIA and HALEY, ‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), pp. 43–44.
95
This conclusion is essentially that drawn by DELIA and HALEY, ‘Succession to a
Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), esp. pp. 42–44.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 189

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 189

3. Aurelius Isidoros, komarch of Karanis in 308

Just as Petaus is the most famous komogrammateus, the best-known

komarch is Aurelius Isidoros, who held this office in Karanis. However,
there is a substantial difference between the documents of Petaus, which
say little about the career of this komogrammateus before and after holding
the office, and the archive of Isidoros. These documents belong to a large
group of papyri the dating of which stretches across an entire century
(ca. 270 – ca. 370). The earliest set of documents containing ca. 180 items
(ca. 270 – 324) focuses on Aurelius Isidoros.96
Isidoros was born ca. AD 270.97 He held various liturgical offices and the
post of komarch was only a step in his career ladder.98 First, in the year
298/9 he served as kephalaiotes of Karanis. In the following year he was a
pediophylax, field guard or rural policeman; in AD 300/1 he was assigned an
apaitetes or tax collector. In AD 303/4 he was a collector of meat for the
army – perhaps he also fulfilled this liturgy already in AD 301/2.99 In

96
For the internal relations between the three subgroups distinguished from among
the Karanis documents, see R. S. BAGNALL in P. Col. VII, pp. 1–9.
97
As usual, the documents give his age imprecisely, see P. Cairo Isid., introduction, p. 4
and 125, 14 note.
98
For the carreer of Isidoros, see most recently Karolien GEENS, ‘Aurelius Isidoros, son
of Ptolemaios’ available on Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections (page numbers are
quoted as in the PDF file). See also: A. E. R. BOAK, ‘An Egyptian Farmer of the Age of Dio-
cletian and Constantine’, Byzantina Metabyzantina 1 (1946), pp. 39–53 (non vidi). IDEM,
‘Village Liturgies in Fourth Century Karanis’, [in:] Akten des VIII. Internationalen Kongresses
für Papyrologie, Wien 1955 (29 August – 3 September) (= MPER N.S. 5), Wien, 1956, pp. 37–40.
A. E. R. BOAK – H. C. YOUTIE, P. Cairo Isid., pp. 3–20. J. D. THOMAS, ‘A Family Dispute from
Karanis and the Revolt of Domitius Domitianus’, ZPE 24 (1977), pp. 233–240. R. S. BAG-
NALL, P. Col. VII, introduction, pp. 1–9. P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Aurelius Isidoros en zijn familie.
Teksten uit een Egyptisch familiearchief van ca. 300 n. Chr.’, [in:] K. R. V EENHOF (ed.),
Schrijvend verleden. Documenten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en toegelicht, Leiden – Zut-
phen, 1983, pp. 204–210. D. P. KEHOE, Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt
During the Early Empire (= Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 40), Bonn, 1992, pp. 158–163.
99
P. Cairo Isid. 43 is a receipt of meat for the annona for the year AD 301/2, issued by the
collectors Aion and Komon. The papyrus was found among Isidoros’ papers. He may have
acted as agent for Aion and Komon, or he may have served as collector of meat in the year
AD 301/302; cf. A. E. R. BOAK – H. C. YOUTIE, P. Cairo Isid., introduction, p. 12, and GEENS,
‘Aurelius Isidoros’ (cit. supra, n. 98), p. 11 n. 31.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 190

190 CHAPTER FOUR

AD 308/9 we see him an acting komarch (with Aurelius Ptolemaios son of

Panisatis and Sarapias) which is explicitly stated by P. Cairo Isid. 125.100 In
the following year 309/10 Isidoros served as sitologos, and in 310/1 – as a
chaff collector, although he tried to avoid this nomination by issuing a
petition to the praepositus of the 5th pagus. In 313/4 Isidoros acted as tesse-
rarius of Karanis and this was his last office we know of. In 317 he was
appointed to perform an ergasia but was replaced by someone else due to
his old age (P. Cairo Isid. 123 is an acknowledgement of receipt of wages
issued by a certain Tanouphis whose son replaced Isidoros). In 318 Isi-
doros was again nominated to a liturgy and he tried to avoid it by an
exchange with a much younger man (P. Cairo Isid. 82). In AD 319 Isidoros
complains against another nomination. He argues that he is an old man
and his sons serve as sitologoi and tax collectors.
The career of Isidoros is an interesting example of a livelihood of a
wealthy farmer who has to repeatedly perform various liturgies which are
no doubt related to heavy financial burdens. From the perspective of our
discourse it is interesing that Isidoros did not try to avoid the post of
komarch, but there is nothing to suggest that he had asked for it or that
his predecessors in office had family or business ties with him, as it was
the case of the komarchs of Philadelpheia.101

4. Komarchs of Theadelpheia
in the first decades of the fourth century
The office of komarch was held repeatedly by Aurelius Sakaon, an inhab-
itant of Theadelpheia in its last decades of existence.102 Sakaon was born

100
The document issued at the very end of the Egyptian year (‘8 days before the Ides
of August’ = 6 August) contains a nomination of the komarchs for the coming year made
by the komarchs of AD 307/8. Two documents of AD 308/9, addressed to the komarchs of
Karanis (P. Cairo Isid. 129 and 130), do not mention them by name, but that the officials in
question were Isidoros and his fellow villager is confirmed by the very fact that the doc-
uments were found among his papers.
101
See below, pp. 193–194.
102
Documents from the Sakaon archive were collected by George M. PARÁSSOGLOU in
the volume P. Sakaon (1978). Unfortunately, this work, besides otherwise well published
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 191

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 191

in the 260s103 (as in the case of Aurelius Isidoros of Karanis, different doc-
uments supply different dates, Sakaon himself declared the year 265 to the
census [P. Sakaon 1]). He was komarch several times, in 303/4, 311/2, 323/4
and 324/5;104 he also served as sitologos in 314/5, 317/8 and 325/6. Sakaon is
attested alive for the last time in 343 (P. Sakaon 48). What is striking in
Sakaon’s curriculum is the fact that he served as komarch for two consec-
utive years: 323/4 and 324/5, together with the same colleague: Aoug son of
Melas. This is an absolutely exceptional case – in normal conditions the
office of komarch was held for one year. The reason for this state of affairs
may lie in the decline of Theadelpheia, once a large village, and in the 320s
occupied by a small group of inhabitants struggling against the problem of
less and less water reaching their fields. For this reason in the village there
were not many liable to the office of komarch, which required rather high
material status105 – among them was Sakaon, as well as the members of his
closest family, including his brother Paesis (komarch in 298/9) and his two
sons, Pennis (komarch in 325/6, probably also in 327/8) and Antoninos
(komarch in 326/7). Also the aforementioned Melas and his son Aoug (per-
haps the other son, Kanaoug, as well, if he is not identical with the latter)
form another ‘dynasty’ of komarchs in Theadelpheia.106

texts (with numerous corrections of readings of particular documents) and with good
English translations, does not contain any commentaries or introductory remarks to the
documents – cf. reviews of Parássoglou’s work by J. BINGEN, ChrEg 54 (1979), pp. 167–168;
P. J. PARSONS, JEA 71 (1985) pp. 209–210 and – perhaps the most instructive one – by J. D.
THOMAS, Gnomon 53 (1981) pp. 805–807. The editor did promise a separate volume of com-
mentaries, but it has not appeared hitherto. This makes the nearly a century-old com-
mentaries and long introduction by Pierre JOUGUET in P. Thead. (1911) irreplacable,
although they should be approached with caution, confronting the reading of the docu-
ments on which Jouguet based his reasoning with the edition of Parássoglou.
103
For his life, see P. JOUGUET, P. Thead., pp. 25–34 (‘Sakaon, fils de Satabous’) and 43–46
(‘Dates de la vie de Sakaon’), and R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Population of Theadelphia in the
Fourth Century’, Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie copte 24 (1979–1982), pp. 35–57, esp.
pp. 37–38.
104
And not in 325/6 as in BAGNALL, ‘The Population of Theadelphia’ (cit. supra, n. 103),
pp. 37–38. In that year the komarchs were Sakaon’s son Pennis and Zoilos son of Melas.
105
LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services, pp. 34–35: poros = 1,000 and 2,000 dr.’.
106
See DELIA – HALEY, ‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), p. 41. Their table
of komarchs of Theadelpheia should be augmented by the evidence of P. Sakaon 51 (6 May
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 192

192 CHAPTER FOUR

One of the documents addressed to Sakaon begins as follows (P. Sakaon

22, ii 6–9 of 5 September 324):

A
É tãeiw ka‹ ÑHrakl∞w
k≈marxoi §poik¤ou Leukog¤ou
8 Saka«ni ka‹ t“ koi(nvn“) kvmãr-
xaiw §poik¤ou Yeadelf¤aw x(a¤rein).

In this seemingly banal heading there are three interesting places:

(1.) The form (the reading is secure, see a photograph in P. Sakaon)

k≈marxoi implying k≈marxow as a singular nominative. This is a
common phenomenon and the two forms, ending in -arxhw and
-arxow are equally popular.107 Nevertheless, the coexistence of the
forms ending in -arxhw (line 8–9) and -arxow (line 7) is noteworthy.

(2.) In line 9 the scribe preceded the name of the village Theadelpheia
with the designative epoikion. What is more important, he started
with a kappa (leading to a standard form kvmãrxaiw k≈mhw Yea-
delf¤aw) then corrected to an epsilon (see Parrásoglou’s apparatus
and the photograph). This does not seem to be accidental. The use
of the term epoikion can be explained through its appearance before
the name Leukogion (line 6), but one also wonders if it is perhaps
the result of transformations taking place in Theadelpheia in the
third and fourth decade of the fourth century. The population of
this once large village had already shrunk considerably and perhaps
for this reason it lost – at least in the eyes of the scribe – the sta-
tus of kome.

324): Sakaon son of Satabous (the key figure of the archive) and Aoug son of Melas were
the komarchs of 323/4.
107
For the statistics of the two forms in Roman and Byzantine papyri, see L. R.
PALMER, A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri, vol. I. Accidence and Word-Formation. part 1.
The Suffixes (= Publications of the Philological Society 13), Oxford 1945, pp. 66–67.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 193

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 193

(3.) Another problem is the relationship between Leukogion and

Theadelpheia. If Leukogion from our text is the well-known port
on the canal connecting the Nile (from which it branched off
across from Aphoditopolis) with the Bahr Yusuf, then the two
localities are far apart. Perhaps this is a different town, to be locat-
ed in the Arsinoites, possibly in the meris of Themistos?108

5. The sequence of komarchs

in Philadelpheia in the 370s and 380s
The komarchs in office in Philadelpheia in the years 372, 374, 382 and
386 are known thanks to four documents from the archive of Aurelius
Hol/Hor. The archive consists of five contracts (four leases of land
[P. Gen. I2 66, 67, 69 and 70], one loan [P. Gen. I2 12],) and one receipt of

108
The location of Leukogion appearing as a port in many documents, predominantly
from Karanis, is not clear. CALDERINI – DARIS, Dizionario, s.v. say ‘all’ingresso meridionale
dell’Arsinoite’. FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite Nome, pp. 119–123, provides a lemma devoted to
this locality, but points out that it is not assigned to the Herakleopolites until the sixth cen-
tury! Leukogion is first attested by P. Oxy. XLII 3052 (itinerary of a journey by water from
Nikopolis to perhaps Oxyrhynchos); its scribe began to write the name in line 10 but then
he crossed it out and wrote Kenh (= KainÆ?) above it. Therefore, the document does not
say much about the location of Leukogion, besides the fact that it was a port either on the
Bahr Yusuf or on a canal connecting the Bahr Yusuf to the Nile and branching off from the
Nile across from Aphroditopolis (for more on this canal, see P. PARSONS, P. Oxy. XLII 3052,
9 note and E. WIKÉN, ‘Zur Topographie des Faijûm’, Corolla Archaeologica Principi hereditario
Regni Sueciae Gustavo Adolpho dedicata (= Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae 2), Lund 1932,
pp. 270–276, esp. pp. 272–273. Among documents mentioning Leukagion the majority (and
all of these from the fourth cent.) does have an evident Karanidian context – grain stored
in thesauroi of Karanis is sent to this port (O. Mich., passim, P. Cairo Isid., passim). Another
destination of grain transports from Karanis is the port of Kerke, undoubtedly in the
Memphite nome (see P. Hamb. I 74, 7 note). The grain was transported by caravans – a glance
at the map (e.g., The Barrington Atlas or above, p. 21) is enough to find this rational – it is
not far from Karanis to Kerke. But in that case why should Leukogion be somewhere far
in the south? Is it not more sensible to find a place for this port in the farthest north of the
Herakleopolite nome, in the toparchy the centre of which was Koma?
Falivene’s note on the location of Leukogion in pagus V of the Arsinoite nome (p. 122)
is an evident misunderstanding – P. Cairo Isid. 47, 39 only says that stored in Leukogion is
the grain of pagus V of the Arsinoite nome, the same pagus Karanis belonged to!
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 194

194 CHAPTER FOUR

movable goods (P. Gen. I2 68).109 From our point of view, of special inter-
est are the four leases of land. The land came from persons who were
unable to pay taxes or to take up their liturgies (épÚ épÒrvn Ùnomãtvn).
This land was then at the disposal of officials, which in only one case
(P. Gen. I2 66 of 374) are explicitly called komarchai. In P. Gen. I2 67 of 382
(or 383) and 70 of 372/3 the land is leased out by four (as in P. Gen. I2 66)
officials, whose names are not accompanied by any further designations,
it therefore seems very probable that they were also komarchs. In the
latest of these four land leases, P. Gen. I2 69 of 386, there are two officials
and next to their names there is an unclear term prot( ).110 Perhaps they
too were komarchs, though one can hardly be certain.111 Also noteworthy
are very probable family ties between these magistrates, which shows
that after a hundred years112 the office of komarch was still attractive to
members of the local elite.113

6. Komarchs – some notes

Komarchs, like Petaus the komogrammateus, do not have to know how

to read and write, as one can see from P. Cairo Isid. 58, a receipt issued by

109
See R. SMOLDERS, ‘Aurelius Ol’ available on Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collec-
tions (page numbers are quoted as in the PDF file). That the archive is connected with
the family of Aurelius Ol was suggested already by J. NICOLE in the first edition of P. Gen.
I (p. 100) and followed by Orsolina MONTEVECCHI (La Papirologia, p. 259). The editors of
P. Gen. I2, however, think that the documents were kept in the office of the notaries of
Philadelpheia because there is no prosopographical link between the lessee in P. Gen. I2 70
and Ol’s family. But, as Smolders pointed out, the amount of land leased in P. Gen. I2 70
is the same as in P. Gen. I 67 and 69 and the plot lies in the same topos as in P. Gen. I2 66
and 69.
110
For prot( ) and possible interpretations (prvtokvm∞tai?), see comm. ad loc.
111
Despite these doubts, all the officials of P. Gen. I2 66, 67, 69 and 70 have been
entered into the prosopography. All of them were also considered komarchs by DELIA and
HALEY, ‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), although their list on pp. 40–41 is
entitled tentatively ‘magistrates of Philadelphia’ vs. ‘komarchs of Theadelphia’ on p. 41.
112
See above, section ‘Succession of the komarchs in the 280s in Philadelpheia and
their position in the local community’, pp. 187–188.
113
In this context the magistrates of Philadelpheia in the 370s and 380s are presented
by DELIA and HALEY, ‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), loc. cit.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 195

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 195

the two komarchs of Karanis of 315/6 written down by a councillor

(bouleutes).114
In P. Corn. 20 (Ptolemais Nea, 302) each of the declarations of land is
signed by a college of officials including three geometrai who measured the
land, an ıriode¤kthw (boundary official), one of the meizones of the village,
and Olkanol, komarch. Significantly, only the geometrai signed their own
names, and for the rest of the officials a scribe signed, since they were
illiterate.
Interestingly, in the abundant material on komarchs in the fourth cen-
tury there is no mention of assisting personnel, no grammateis, hyperetai,
boethoi etc. This may point to lower prestige of the office, despite its pass-
ing on to family members. Moreover, there were two or – in the second
half of the fourth century – even four komarchs, which also may have lim-
ited the need for hiring assistants.
As already said, the term in office of the komarch lasted for a whole
Egyptian year, as it can be seen from the sequence of komarchs in several
villages (Philadelpheia, Theadelpheia, as well as Karanis in years
313/4–315/6). In one case we may have some doubts as to the date of intro-
duction of new komarchs. The case in question is P. Cairo Isid. 57, the
second column of which contains two receipts. In the first dated to
18 August 315, Herakles acknowledges that Germanos and Ariston,
komarchs of Karanis, delivered to him two shipments of barley, one of
28 4/5 art., the other of 29 7/10 art. The second receipt addressed to the same
komarchs was written on 11 September 315 by the shipmaster Kollouthos
who acknowledges that he received 21 1/2 art. All three shipments were
marked for delivery to Hephaistion, a horse breeder of the Blue faction
in Alexandria. In connection with the same matter of delivering barley
for Hephaistion, Germanos and Ariston issued a receipt for money in
payment of a requisition on 16 September 315 (P. Cairo Isid. 58). All these
documents imply that Germanos and Ariston did not end their term in

114
For the handwriting of Hermas, komarch of Theadelpheia in the 250s, see above,
p. 187.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 196

196 CHAPTER FOUR

office at the beginning of the new Egyptian year, which may suggest that
they held their posts for at least two years.115
It is generally accepted that komarchs acted in a college of two.116 How-
ever, in P. Corn. 20 (Ptolemais Nea, 302) eleven declarations are signed by
officials among which there is only one komarch, the same each time. This
may point to a single komarch in office in the village, but it is by no means
certain. In turn, the number of komarchs increases in the fourth century:
in the 370s and 380s there are four of them in Philadelpheia; in AD 373
– three in Tertembythis in the Hermopolite nome (P. Lips. I 86).117

5. KOMOGRAMMATEIS,
AMPHODOKOMOGRAMMATEIS AND KOMARCHAI
OF THE ARSINOITE VILLAGES IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
– A PROSOPOGRAPHY

I decided to divide this prosopography into four parts, very different in

size. The first one was set apart exclusively for the old Ptolemaic kom-
archs. Only one such official is known to us from the period after 30 BC,
but I considered it methodologically incorrect to list him together with
Later Roman komarchs. In the second, largest section the Reader will
find komogrammateis and presbyteroi who performed their duties (in the
period 30 BC – ca. AD 217). The third, small part contains the names of
amphodokomogrammateis, or village officials present in the Fayum villages
before the reintroduction of the komarchs in the 240s. I placed the

115
Unfortunately, these documents are the latest dated texts from the Isidoros archive
that mention komarchs, so we do not learn the names of officials neither in the subse-
quent months of 315/6 nor in the later years. Perhaps, therefore, it would be jumping to
conclusions to think that Germanos and Ariston, komarchs of 314/5, were also the
komarchs of 315/6, and their appearance in two documents issued in the first month of the
new year is hardly decisive, especially that both of them belong to a mini-dossier related
to a shipment for the Blue faction in Alexandria. Perhaps, therefore, this matter was
determined by a practical approach to the job – Germanos and Ariston opened the case,
so they had to close it.
116
See below, the prosopography of komarchs, pp. 235–252.
117
For the number of komarchai, see LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services, s.v. komarches,
and DELIA – HALEY, ‘Succession to a Komarchy’ (cit supra, n. 80), p. 43 n. 11.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 197

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 197

komarchs of the second half of the third and the fourth centuries in the
fourth section. Such a presentation of material is justified by a significant
change introduced into the very functioning of local government in the
time of Philip the Arabian – two (and in the fourth century up to four)
komarchs in each kome, instead of a single official, who sometimes admin-
istered even several neighbouring komai.
Unfortunately, the authors of numerous petitions addressed to officials
of subsequent levels give the names of the strategos and the basilikos gram-
mateus, but omit the name of the komogrammateus, e.g. BGU XI 2022.
However, if the document talks about a particular official, not mentioned
by name but clearly designated as komogrammateus of village so-and-so,
the latter is included below as anonymus. Hence the only omitted docu-
ments are the ones in which an official of higher rank, usually a strategos,
sends a letter to subordinate komogrammateis within the area under his
jurisdiction – in this case we are not dealing with individual addressees,
but with a group.
In the prosopography of the komogrammateis, the person is a komo-
grammateus whenever the name is not preceded by a letter. (PP) introduces
presbyteroi of a village acting in place of a komogrammateus. The number of
the letters in brackets points to the number of officials, e.g., (PP+) means
that in the document two presbyteroi are mentioned by name, followed by
a phrase ka‹ ofl loipo¤ vel. sim.

A. ‘Ptolemaic’ komarchai

Euhemereia (Them.)

Official Reference Date Document

118
PetesoËxow O. Fay. 8, 2 17 March 6 BC receipt for beer supplied;
SisÒitow ‘Ptolemaic’ komarches

118
For the date, see BL II.1, p. 13.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 198

198 CHAPTER FOUR

B. Komogrammateis (30 BC – ca. AD 217)

Alabanthis (Her.)
Official Reference Date Document
anonymus BGU IX 1898, after 24 July 172 alphabetical list of payments
xvi 321 of an unnamed tax; the text
reads: prÚ(w) gei(t.) kvmo-
gra(mmat°a) A
É laban`[y¤dow]

Andromachis (Them.) alone

Official Reference Date Document
ÜHrvn BGU III 891 verso, 1 May 144 sworn declaration
25 and 30119 by the presbyteroi addressed
to the strategos120

Andromachis and Theoxenis (Them.)

Official Reference Date Document
Musyar¤vn P. Fay. 40, 1 162/3 taxing list from the komo-
grammateus of Theoxenis
and Andromachis
– but the latter in lacuna!

Anoubias and Athenas Kome (Them.)121

Official Reference Date Document

ÑErm∞w122 P. Oxy. XVII 2121, 209/10 list of presbyteroi, archephodoi
[2] and 84 and other public officials
of villages, written
by the komogrammateus

119
For the reading, see BGU III, p. 8 (= BL I, p. 78).
120
For the document, see TOMSIN, ‘Étude sur les presbuteroi’ (cit. supra, n. 46), p. 522
(= p. 92).
121
For the joint komogrammateia of Athena and Anubias, see above, pp. 165–166.
122
The restoration of lines 1–3 is uncertain, see P. Petaus, p. 257 n. 4. The editio princeps
has kv(mãrxhw) instead of kv(mogrammateÊw), see comm. to l. 84; for the correction, see
BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14), p. 782.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 199

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 199

Apias (Them.)

Official Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Ryl. II 81, 17 11 July 107 letter by an aigialophylax
(year uncertain)123 concerning irrigation
Ne›low P. Giss. Univ. 132/3 census declaration
I 14, 2–3 Bagnall – Frier 131-Ar-4
DionÊsiow BGU XIII 2241, 2 ca. 155 petition(?) to the strategos
Papont«w SB XVI 12563, 20 March 201 declaration of uninundated
3 and 13 (month and day land, addressed to the
uncertain) strategos, the basilikos
grammateus and the komo-
grammateus Papontos of
Apias, by Anchophis, priest
of Soknopaiou Nesos
anonymus SPP XXII 34, 2 second– letter to Didymos, basilikos
–third cent. grammateus, and to the komo-
grammateus of Apias, by
Horos from Soknopaiou
Nesos; the document comes
from Soknopaiou Nesos

Apollonias (Them.)

Official Reference Date Document

anonymus BGU IV 1068 10 February 101 announcement of death;
= WChr. 62 the document is addressed
= CPJud II 427 to a basilikos grammateus
= CPG II.1 20 who asked the komo-
grammateus to verify it

123
For the date, see BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 40; WHITEHORNE, Strategi,
p. 33.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 200

200 CHAPTER FOUR

Apollonopolis and Psinteo (Pol.)

Official Reference Date Document

AÈrÆliow P. Oxy. XLV 3263, 4 July/August 215 report from Aurelius Her[ ],
ÑEr 1[ 1] 1 124
1 komogrammateus
of Apollonopolis
and Psinteo, to the strategos
of the merides of Polemon
and Themistos

Arabon Kome – Ptolemais Arabon (Her.)

Official Reference Date Document

AÈrÆlioi BGU XIII 2282 229/30 the two Aurelii are
A
É r¤vn candidates for the office
ka‹ A[... of komogrammateus125

Athenas Kome and Anoubias (Them.)

– see above, s.v. Anoubias

Bakchias (Her.)126

Official Reference Date Document

XairÆmvn P. Strasb. IV 200, 1 April/May 70 announcement of death
(cf. BL V, p. 137)
= CPG II.1 13
DiÒdvrow P. Strasb. VI 522, 1 January/ announcement of death
= CPG II.1 16 February 87
A
Ö reiow P. Mich. III 177, 1 December 104 census declaration
4 and 31 Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-8
Ptolema›ow P. Mich. III 178, 5 May 118 census declaration
3 and 30 Bagnall – Frier 117-Ar-4

124
The document reads (ll. 4–6): parå AÈrhl¤[o]u ÑEr 1[ 1] 1o( ) kvmogr(ammat°vw)
A
É pol[lv]n1ow pÒle1v2w k2a‹ Cint°v.
125
For the document, see above, pp. 177–178.
126
See a list of komogrammateis of Bakchias compiled by NACHTERGAEL, ‘La fusion de
Bakchias et d’Hèphaistias’ (cit. supra, n. 28), pp. 309–310.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 201

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 201

[ÑAr]e≈thw P. Strasb. V 312, 15 9 Sept. 139 announcement of death

= CPG II.1
Ptolema›ow P. Oslo III 97 January announcement of death
(with BL III, p. 125) /February 151
= CPG II.1 42, i 20
Ptollçw BGU XI 2063, ca. 157–162; petition to the epistrategos;
6 and 30 probably 161/2127 the name restored after l. 33
anonymus P. Mich. XI 618, 13–14 165–169 complaint against a liturgy
Ptollçw SB XVI 12562, 3 167/8 declaration
of uninundated land
anonymus P. Mich. VI 369, 1 171 declaration
of uninundated land
name lost P. Bakchias 25, 5 ca. September/ possibly komogrammateus
= SB VI 9331 verso /October 204128 nominated (§n klÆrƒ)
for office but whose
nomination was not yet
ratified (comm. ad loc.)
A
É nt≈(niow) P. Fay. 195 verso late second a message from 1 1 1
(descr.) or third cent. ≤goÊm(enow) prÚw A
É .
kvmogr(ammat°a)

Boubastos
alias Kamepolis (Her.)129

Official Reference Date Document

name lost BGU II 512 138–161 report of the komogrammateus
= WChr. 362 (Antoninus Pius) on the distribution of seed
corn

127
For the date, see THOMAS, Roman Epistrategos, p. 188 (date of epistrategia of Vedius
Faustus) and p. 145 (‘ca. 161’).
128
For the date, see BL IX, p. 256; for the document see also N. GONIS, ‘Korr. Tyche
236’, Tyche 12 (1997), pp. 250–251 and KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 759.
129
N. GONIS (in JJurP 31 [2001], p. 22 n. 23) suggests two homonymous villages, one in
Herakleides and one in Polemon.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 202

202 CHAPTER FOUR

Boukolos alias Tristomon (Pol.)

Official Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Amst. I 32, 5 second- announcement of death131
= SB XII 11176130 –third cent.
= CPG II.1 70
Pas¤vn P. Lond. III 1219 29 August 196 report from Pasion, komo-
(p. 123), 2 and 11 grammateus of Boukolos alias
= WChr. 172 Tristomon and Samareia,
to the strategos132

Dionysias (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

A
É m≈niow BGU I 53, 3 and 15 24 July 133 census return
Bagnall – Frier 131-Ar-5
É frod¤siow P. Gen. I2 5, 6–7
A predecessor registration of a slave
A
É frodis¤ou of Stotoetis, on a list of unsold goods
toË Fil≈tou, before 138–144
genÒmenow
kvmogrammateÊw
Stoto∞tiw P. Gen. I2 5, 3 138–144 registration of a slave
on a list of unsold goods
(RR+) P. Oxy. XLIII February/ report to the strategos by
SvtÆrixow 3089, 3–4 /March 146 the presbyteroi of Dionysias,
Ne¤lou acting in place
ka‹ D¤dumow of a komogrammateus
ÉEnat¤vnow133
130
Editio princeps: P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Twelve Documentary Papyri from the Amsterdam
Papyrus Collection’, Talanta 2 (1970), pp. 95–111, at pp. 103–104.
131
The document contains a draft of an announcement of death. The declarant start-
ed in line 4 with the address: kvmogr(ammate›) k≈mhw MoÊx4[evw]; the line was cancelled
and replaced by a new address: kvmogr(ammate›) k≈mhw Bouk[Òlou toË ka‹ TristÒm(ou)].
As Louise C. YOUTIE (‘Geographical Notes’, BASP 19 [1982], pp. 87–94 [p. 93, n. 22})
pointed out, Mouchis was a village in Polemon meris and was doubtless the residence of
the declarant himself, while the deceased lived in Boukolos also called Tristomos. By the
way, this confirms the existence of the komogrammateia of Mouchis, for which we have
some further evidence (see below).
132
For the place, see BL VIII, p. 187.
133
The document reads (lines 3–5): [parå] Svthr¤xou toË Ne¤lou ka‹ DidÊmou toË
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 203

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 203

Euhemereia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÑHrakle¤dhw P. Fay. 25, 1 AD 36 list, prepared by a komo-
grammateus, of three people
working on an embankment
of the dyke of Iossis
near Magais
ÑHrakle¤dhw P. Fay. 29, 1 7 August AD 37 announcement of death
= CPG II.1 4, 1
anonymus P. Fay. 214 descr. May/June AD 37 message to the komo-
grammateus of Euhemeria
telling him to give the bearer
a list of xvmatergolãboi
anonymus P. Fay. 237 descr. second– announcement of death
= CPG II.1 68, 9 –third cent. addressed to Didymos, royal
scribe of the meris of
Themistos,134 and sent to
a komogrammateus
for verification

Herakleia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÜHrvn P. Prag. I 23, 11 April 195 declaration
1 and 21 of uninundated land
anonymus BGU I 158, 5 26 May – address of a declaration
– 28 August 203 (census? uninundated land?)

ÉEnat¤|[vnow t]«n b ka‹ t«n loi(p«n) presbut(°rvn) diejagÒntvn ka‹ | [tå katå] tØn kvmo-
grammate¤an k≈mhw Dionus(iãdow).
134
For Didymos, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 987 – no more exact dating of
him is possible so far.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 204

204 CHAPTER FOUR

Hermopolis (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

(PP) P. Iand. VII first half deliveries of wheat
Pata[ ]x≈tou 138, 9–10 of the second from villages of the meris
toË Sa2ra1 p
2 çtow cent. (ca. 130?) of Themistos
ka‹ P`a`r`a`g`vn`tou
(gen.) ÑAtrÆouw135
anonymus PSI XII 1245 July/Aug. 207 petition concerning
= SB XIV 11980136 improper assignment
to a liturgy

Hiera (Nesos) = Hiera Seueros (Her.)137

Official(s) Reference Date Document
(P) anonymus138 BGU VII 1573, 141/2 official document
2, 5, 7, 14, 17–18 (cf. P. Bodl. I 86 being
perhaps another fragment)
concerning training
on pledged real property
(§mbade¤a)139

135
The document lists the deliveries of wheat from villages made through presbyteroi:
diå toË de›now ka‹ toË de›now presbut(°rvn), but in the case of Hermopolis the text is dif-
ferent: ÑErmoË pÒl[e]vw di(å) Pata[ ]x≈tou toË Sa2r1a2pçtow [k(a‹)] P`a`r`a`g`vn`tou ÑAtrÆouw
pre`sb`( ) diadex( ). The formula used here differs from the one employed for the other
villages , so it is possible that there is a different reality behind it as well. The editor read
the text as follows diå . . . pre`sb`(ut°reian) diadex(om°nvn), although he realized the diffi-
culties that follow such an interpretation: ‘einen Beleg für einen presbut°rouw oder pres-
but°reian diadexÒmenow habe ich sonst nicht gefunden.’. It is at least equally probable that
presbyteroi at Hermopolis were acting as komogrammateis: diå . . . pre`sb`(ut°rvn) diadex(o-
m°nvn) sc. tå katå tåw kvmogrammate¤aw vel sim.; see BGU I 15, col. I = WChr. 393 quoted
above, pp. 174–176, where the context is obvious, but presbÊteroi diadexÒmenoi sounds
like a technical phrase, similar to that of WChr. 393, 8–9, quoted above.
136
Ed. G. BASTIANINI, ‘Rilettura di PSI 1245’, MPhL 2 (1977) [Special Papyrological Num-
ber] pp. 19–26.
137
For the identity Hiera (Nesos) = Hiera Seueros, see GEREMEK, Karanis (cit. supra,
n. 19), pp. 20–21.
138
The document reads as follows: presbÊterow k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexÒmenow tå katå tØn
kvmogrammate¤an t«n kvm«n ÑIerçw ka‹ AÈÆrevw.
139
For the document and the villages’ names appearing in it, see above, pp. 156–157.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 205

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 205

PeyeÁw P. Bour. 42, 1 167 long roll containing

k. ÑIerçw ka‹ a cadastre covering
êllvn kvm«n the komogrammateia
of Petheus

Ibion Eikosipentarouron (Pol.)

– see also s.v. Talei

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Tebt. 112–117 letter from the strategos
II 470 descr. of the meris of Polemon
to the sitologoi of Ibion
Eikosipentarouron
concerning the crop
of wheat140
Melançw SB XII 10842, 3 4 August 133 letter from the basilikos
grammateus to Melanas,
komogrammateus of Ibion
Eikosipentarouron

Kalliphanous Epoikion (Pol.),

Pterophorou Epoikion (Pol.) and Lotou Epoikion (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÉEkÊsiw P. Strasb. IV 232 ca. 173 complaint against an official
(dated after called Zosimos, written
the strategos’ by Ekysis, komogrammateus
name) of the three epoikia

Kaminoi and Kerkesephis (Pol.)

– see below, ‘Testimonia incerta et delenda’

140
For the document and its date, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 375–377. On
the role played by the komogrammateus of Ibion Eikosipentarouron in this case, see ibidem,
p. 377.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 206

206 CHAPTER FOUR

Karanis (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Mich. VI 421, 25 41–68141 petition concerning theft
and maltreatment; kom-
grammateus (with presbyteroi)
negotiate with the villains
to release the petitioners
anonymus P. Lond. II 173 (p. 66) 21 Dec. 101 announcement of death
(see BL I, p. 245) addressed to a basilikos
= CPG II.1 21, 19 grammateus who asked the
komogrammateus to verify it
[ 1 1] 1 1ow142
P. Mich. IX 537, 1 20 Oct. 104 census declaration
= SB XIV 11577 Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-9
Ptolema›ow SB IV 7359 111 announcement of death
= CPJud III 487
= CPG II.1 25,
1 and 16
EÈda¤mvn BGU II 457, 3 132/3 komogrammateus to prãktvr
= WChr. 252 sitik«n concerning
tax collection
ÉOrs°noufiw BGU I 95, 3 24 July 147 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-12
ÉOrs°noufiw SB VI 9554 (1), 4 146/7 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-13
A
É mm≈niow BGU I 330, 31 Jan. 153 report (prosphonesis)
4 and 15 of the komogrammateus
to the praktores argyrikon
of Karanis
anonymus SB I 5138, 13 153 announcement of death sent
(A
É mm≈niow?) (with BL I, p. 420 to a komogrammateus
and II.2, p. 157) for verification
= CPG II.1 45

141
The document with its fragmentarily preserved heading was dated to the reign of
Claudius by the editor, but that of Nero is not to be excluded.
142
The document reads: [..]..vi kvmogrammate› Karan¤dow.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 207

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 207

A
Ñ rfãhsiw BGU I 58, 1 160–161 census declaration
= SB XX 14326143 Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-8
A
Ñ rfãhsiw BGU I 54, 1 7 July 161 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-7
A
Ñ rfãhsiw BGU II 524, 3 160/1 census declaration
(Bagnall – Frier) Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-10
Sokm∞niw P. Oslo II 26a, 163/4 two returns of unwatered
i 1–2 and 17; ii 1–2 land
ÑAtr∞w SB X 10757, 170/1 petition to the strategos
6 and 12 with request for conveyance
of confiscated land
anonymus BGU I 59, 4 June – census declaration
– August 175144 Bagnall – Frier 173-Ar-8
anonymus BGU II 447, 2 27 Nov. 175145 census declaration
= BGU I 26 Bagnall – Frier 173-Ar-9
= WChr. 270
anonymus SB VI 9573, 2 June – census declaration
– August 175146 Bagnall – Frier 173-Ar-10
NeseËw P. Petaus 10, 8–9 2 May 184 official notice by Petaus
for the strategos;
Neseus is a resident
of Ptolemais Hormou
name lost BGU XIII 2231 184 announcement of death
= CPG II.1 58,
1 and 11
Ptolema›ow BGU I 60, 3 1 June – census declaration
– 28 August 189 Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-24
anonymus P. Mich. VI 370, 4 9 August 189 census declaration
(Ptolema›ow) Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-27

143
Ed. R. S. BAGNALL, ‘Notes on Egyptian Census Declarations, IV’, BASP 29 (1992)
pp. 102-115, at pp. 102–103.
144
For the date, see BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 31; WHITEHORNE, Strategi,
p. 20.
145
For the date, see Renate ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung dokumentarischer
Papyri und Ostraka’, ZPE 114 (1996) pp. 157–161, esp. p. 159, and BL IX, p. 20
146
For the date, see BL IX, p. 262.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 208

208 CHAPTER FOUR

Ptolema›ow BGU II 430, 4 ca. June – census declaration(?);

– August 189147 only address preserved
Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-25
Ptolema›ow BGU XIII 2233, 15148 ca. 190 declaration
of unwatered land
(PP+) P. Mich. VI 423 22 May 197 petition to the strategos
PetesoËxow dupl., 19 = VI 424 concerning trespassing149
ka‹ Ptollçw
XairÆmvn SB XXII 15783, 2 196–198150 the document dated after
strategos Bolanos to whom
it is addressed
anonymus BGU XI 2023, 3 198–201 declaration
of unwatered land
Ne›low O. Mich. I 153, 3–4 second cent. mentioned
A
É pollvn¤ou as ex-komogrammateus
anonymus P. Mich. VI 381, 13 second cent. register of work on dykes
ÑErieÊw BGU I 139, 25 February 202 declaration
4 and 21 of uninundated land
anonymus P. Ryl. IV 682, ca. 202/3 declaration
(ÑErieÊw?) 3 descr.151 of uninundated land
anonymus WChr. 204, 3 202/3 census declaration
(ÑErieÊw?) = BGU I 97 Bagnall – Frier 201-Ar-8
anonymus BGU II 577, 3 = 21 April 203 census declaration
(ÑErieÊw?) Bagnall – Frier 201-Ar-9
147
For the date, see BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, pp. 33–34; WHITEHORNE, Strategi,
p. 25.
148
Karanis as the origin place of this document is printed with a question mark. This
is, however, based on solid ground: (1.) the identity of Marcus Sempronius Heraklides who
declares here unwatered land with Marcus Sempronius Heraklides, a property holder in
Karanis in AD 190 (BGU I 326. ii 5) and (2.) Ptolemaios is attested as a komogrammateus in
Karanis in AD 188/9 (see the preceding row).
149
The document reads (lines 18–19): pa[rÒ]ntvn PetesoÊxou ka‹ Ptollç presbut°rvn
k≈mhw Kara|n¤dow diadexo[m]°nvn ka‹ tå katå tØn kvmogrammate¤an ka‹ Svkrç Íphr°tou.
For the document, see above, p. 152.
150
We know that on 27 May 197 in Karanis there was no komogrammateus in office
(see the foregoing entry) but this does not help to establish the more exact date of SB
XXII 15783.
151
Edited by N. GONIS, ‘Two Declarations of Uninundated Land Reread’, = ZPE 126
(1999), pp. 207–210 (the Ryland document, pp. 209–210).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 209

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 209

ÑErieÊw BGU I 108, 5 203/4 declaration of sanded up land

= WChr. 227 location: must be Karanis
because of Herieus
komogrammateus
KÒprhw SB IV 7360, 1 4 March 214 declaration
of landholdings submitted
to the komogrammateus
anonymus BGU II 616, 5 second/ a request for a horiodeiktes
/third cent. to walk around a field
and establish the borders
of a newly purchased plot;
the komogrammateus is to be
notified of the results
anonymus SB IV 7368, 1, 14, second/ proceedings before
20, 39, 42, 47 /third cent. the strategos against
a komogrammateus

Kerkeosiris (Pol.) and Theogonis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Prvtçw BGU II 484, 1 206–211 letter from the komo-
k. Yeogon¤dow grammateus concerning
ka‹ Kerkeus¤revw kat' ofik¤an épografÆ 152
the joint komogrammateia of
Theogonis and Kerkeosiris

Kerkesoucha (Agoras) (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÑVr¤vn BGU VII 1579, 2 118/9 census declaration153
Bagnall – Frier 117-Ar-5
A[ 1 1 1 1 1 1] P. Mich. VI 367, 3–4 168 or 169 declaration
of uninundated land

152
Only the top part of the document is preserved; the letter lacks an addressee. For
a detailed interpretation, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 1041–1045.
153
The papyrus has kvmvgr( ) Kerk( ). The editor printed Kerk(esoÊxvn?) with a
question mark. The village in question is rather the Kerkesoucha near Karanis than either
of the two homonymous villages, Kerkesoucha Orous, one in the meris of Herakleides, the
other in the meris of Polemon.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 210

210 CHAPTER FOUR

Kefãlvn P. Mich. IV 224, 172/3 komogrammateus listed

3976 in the Karanis tax roll
anonymus P. Ryl. IV 596, 23 March 204 declaration
7 and 25 of uninundated land

Kerkesoucha Orous (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Ö reiow, k. BGU XI 2085, 1–3 3 April 119
A statement under oath
Kerkes[oÊxv]n1 by three presbyteroi
ÖVr2(ouw) addressed to the
ka2‹1 ê2l1l1vn komogrammateus
kvm«[n]
Petaus P. Petaus, passim 184–186 archive of Petaus,
see above, pp. 153–155
anonymus P. Petaus 9 Oct. 185 announcement of death
(Petaus) = CPG II.1 App. 2 sent for verification
to a komogrammateus154

Kerkesoucha Orous (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Tebt. II 401, after AD 14 account of a beer-seller;
30(?) and 39 (reign komogrammateus among
of Tiberius?) recipients of beer

Kerkesoucha Orous (Her.? Pol.?)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus WChr. 239, second cent. parallel declaration
6, 10 and 17 by bibliophylakes
= BGU I 11 and a komogrammateus
explaining the legal status
of a house

154
The document concerns two inhabitants of Kerkesoucha Orous sentenced to death
ad bestias.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 211

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 211

Kynopolis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

É rte1m¤2 [dvrow] P. Lond. II
A Oct./Nov. AD 11 komogrammateus listed among
256d (p. 97), 2–3 the officials of Kynopolis

Lagis (Them.) and Trikomia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

155
ÉIs¤dvrow BGU XIII 2250, 3 161/2 or 163/4 list of substitute farmers
k. Lag¤dow of Lagis prepared
[ka‹ Trikvm¤aw] by the komogrammateus
ÉIs¤dvrow P. Berl. Leihg. I 7, 1 December 162 list of farmers named
k. Lag¤dow 2 and 60 = Johnson, for sowing in place of those
ka‹ Roman Egypt, who fled or are disabled;
Trikvm¤aw pp. 114–115, no. 43 document prepared
by the komogrammateus
for the strategos
ÉIs¤dvrow P. Berl. Leihg. I 18, 22 March 163 petition to the komo-
k. Lag¤dow 1 and 23 = Johnson, grammateus from
Roman Egypt, p. 139, an Alexandrian citizen
no. 78 and his sister who want
to change the type
of cultivation on a land lot
belonging to them
ÉIs¤dvrow P. Berl. Leihg. II 29, 1 1 February 164 declaration of uninundated
k. Lag¤dow and irrigated land, addressed
to Isidoros, written
by demosioi and ousiakoi
georgoi of the village

Lotou Epoikion (Pol.),

Kalliphanous Epoikion (Pol.) and Pterophorou Epoikion (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÉEkÊsiw P. Strasb. IV 232 ca. 173 complaint against an official
(dated after called Zosimos, written
the strategos’ by Ekysis, komogrammateus
name) of the three epoikia

155
For the date, see Brashear’s note ad loc.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 212

212 CHAPTER FOUR

Lysimachis (Lysimachides duo)

(village by the canal dividing Themistos and Polemon merides)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Lond. II 256e 20 Nov. AD 11156 order for the delivery of
(p. 95), 3 seed corn to demosioi georgoi
= WChr. 344

Magdola (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

SisÒiw toË P. Köln II 95, 5 end of second/ komogrammateus
ÉOrsenoÊfevw /beg. of third listed as a tax payer157
mhtrÚw TaarmeiuËtow cent.

Memphis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus SB I 4415, 17 25 February 144 petition to the basilikos
grammateus to delete
the name of the previous
owner of a land plot;
petition redirected
to the komogrammateus158
Potãmvn P. Berl. Leihg. second cent. ex-komogrammateus listed
genÒ(menow) II 42A, 18 among the candidates
k. [M°m]fevw for a liturgy

Mendes (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Pas¤vn BGU II 618, 4 213/4 list of people designated
k. MendÆtvn to work on dykes, written
ka‹ êll[v]n` kvm«n by the komogrammateus

156
For the date, see Renate ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung dokumentarischer
Papyri und Ostraka’, ZPE 114 (1996), pp. 157–161 (p. 160). For the documents published as
P. Lond. II 256 a–e, see above, pp. 164–165.
157
The editors expressed their doubts about the person mentioned here, see comm.
to line 4–6.
158
For the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 632–635.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 213

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 213

Mouchis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

(PPP+) BGU I 6, 2–4 157/8 presbyteroi to the strategos
ÉOnn≈friw of the merides of Themistos
ÉOrsenoÊfevw and Polemon; list
ka‹ PanesneÁw of candidates for village
ÉOrse¤ouw liturgists with their poros:
ka‹ Pãxevw presbyteroi, archephodoi
XnoÊbevw159 and phylakes
anonymus P. Ryl. II 372 , 3 second cent. account of wheat

Narmouthis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

[ ]pi1ese1 1w? P. Col. V 1 ca. 153–162
komogrammateus confirms
P2e2t∞se2i1w verso 5 and 8 that two inhabitants
(for Pet∞siw?) = ZPE 105 (2005), of Narmouthis leased
pp. 141–146 a plot of public land from
the state represented
by the procurator Aelius
Socraticus160
161
[ ]onios SB XXIV 16015 28 August 203 census declaration
alias Polion Bagnall – Frier addendum

159
The document reads (lines 2–4): parå ÉOnn≈frevw ÉOrsenoÊfevw ka‹ Panesn°vw |
ÉOrse¤ouw ka‹ Pãxevw XnoÊbevw t«n *g ka‹ t«n lo(i)p(«n) | presb(ut°rvn) diadexom(°nvn)
ka‹ tå katå tØn kvmogr(ammate¤an) k≈(mhw) MoÊxevw.
160
The document has been recently reedited by D. HAGEDORN, ‘P. Col. V 1 Verso und
der Procurator Aelius Socraticus’, ZPE 105 (2005), pp. 141–146. The name of the komo-
grammateus mentioned in line 8 is not followed by the name of the village; the only indi-
cation that a komogrammateus of Narmouthis is meant is the fact that both lessees come
from this village. For the name of the komogrammateus, see the Hagedorn’s note to line 8;
for the date, see pp. 142–143.
161
Published by R. DUTTENHÖFFER, ‘Five census returns in the Beinecke Library’, BASP
34 (1997), pp. 53–78 (pp. 75–78).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 214

214 CHAPTER FOUR

Nilopolis (Her.)
– see also below, s.v. Soknopaiou Nesos

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Ptolema›ow BGU I 163, 3 after report of official proceedings
k. Ne¤lou = SB XXIV 16258, 10 Febr. 108 conducted before the strategos
pÒlevw ka‹ with duplicat Claudius Asklepiades;162
Soknopa¤ou P. Mich. inv. 6060 the joint komogrammeteia
NÆsou (SB XXIV 16257) of Nilopolis and Soknopaiou
Nesos

ÑHrçw WChr. 84, 4 28 Oct. 177 letter from the komo-

= BGU I 194 grammateus to the strategos
concerning liturgical
obligation of the priests

Diog°nhw SPP XXII 37, 25 Febr. 184 notification of birth;

k. Ne¤lou 1 and 14 the joint komogrammeteia
pÒlevw ka‹ of Nilopolis and Soknopaiou
Soknop. NÆsou Nesos

(PP) BGU I 15 194 a proceeding of a hearing

anonymi = WChr. 393 before Iulius Quintianus, the
presbyteroi epistrategos of Heptanomia163

anonymus BGU XI 2022, 4–5 202 declaration

of uninundated land

P[.]at( ) P. Lond. III 1220 206–210164 the komogrammateus qualifies

k. Neilou(p.) (p. 114), 1–3 two men for the liturgy
k(a‹) Sokno(p.) of praktoreia argyrikon;
NÆsou the joint komogrammeteia
of Nilopolis and Soknopaiou
Nesos

162
For the document, see above, p. 159 and n. 22.
163
The document is quoted in extenso and discussed above, pp. 174–175.
164
For the date, see BL VII, p. 89.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 215

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 215

Nestou Epoikion(?) (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

name lost BGU XV 2473 after 102165 notification of payment due
for loan secured by ÍpoyÆkh
and mesit¤a
anonymus SB XIV 11641, second cent. account
14, 17, 22166

Pelousion (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÉIs¤vn SB XVI 12685, 4 October 139 petition to the strategos
iii 49, 59, iv 72, 85, (Ision was of the merides of Themistos
87 = SPP XXII 184 in office in 135, and Polemon from seven
and v 98167 see lines 46–49) priests and presbyteroi
of Soknopaiou Nesos
concerning their dispute
with Nepheros over temple
benefices; in iv 85 Ision is
mentioned as [ı genÒme]now
komogrammateus
anonymus BGU I 84, i 1 242/3 report, prepared by a komo-
grammateus, for various
villages of amounts of
wheat, barley and lentils168

Persea(i) (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Mich. VI 368, 4 25 February 170 declaration
(k. Perse«n) of uninundated land

165
For the date, see BL IX, p. 34.
166
S. DARIS, ‘Note lessicali (P. Med. inv. 4 – P. Daris 21)’, Aegyptus 57 (1977) pp. 160–163.
167
For the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 743–749 and P. R. SWAR-
NEY, The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos (= American Studies in Papyrology 8), Toronto 1970,
pp. 86–89.
168
For the document, see below, ‘Testimonia incerta et delenda’, pp. 258–259.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 216

216 CHAPTER FOUR

Philagris and pedion Meleagridos (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

parå BGU I 20, 1 AD 141/2 tax report on basilike ge
H....[.].ou for Philagris and the pedion
k. Filagr¤d[o]w of Meleagris,
[ka]‹ ped¤ou Meleagr[¤]dow by the komogrammateus

Philadelpheia (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÑHrakle¤dhw SB I 5661, June AD 34 census declaration
3 and 25 Bagnall – Frier 33-Ar-2 13
Mãrvn P. Mich. Michael 10 December 48 announcement of death
= P. Mich. X,
p. 8 n. 19 = SB XII
11112 = CPG II.1 6, 1–2
ÑHrakle¤dhw P. Gen. II 91, i 3 50–51 list of people prepared
for the strategos
of the merides of Polemon
and Herakleides
by the komogrammateus
Ptolema›ow P. Phil. 7, 1 129 announcement of death
= CPG II.1 32b, 1
Kefalçw ı P. Phil. 4, after administrative
ka‹ Mãjimow lines 3, 5, 16 31 Dec. 141169 correspondence concerning
and 24 a suit filed against
a komogrammateus
anonymus SB XII 11389, 9 after Aug./ extract from official minutes
/Sept. 137(?) where people from Ph.
appear; the komogrammateus
in question possibly that of
Philadelpheia
Nemesçw P. Phil. 9, 13–23 Febr. 158 declaration
1 and 13 of uninundated land
[1 1 1 1 1 ]1 ã`d˙ P. Strasb. IV 268 June/August 175 census declaration
(dative) Bagnall – Frier 173-Ar-1

169
For the date, see HGV.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 217

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 217

(PP) anonymi P. Aberdeen 81, 1–2 10 August 186 receipt for §pispoudasmÚw
(ostracon) for°trvn170
(PP) anonymi PSI VI 693, 1 186? or 183? receipt for monodesm¤a171
ÑVr¤vn P. Lips. II 145 15–18 Jan. 189 petition to the praefect
recto, 24, 54–56 concerning the abuse of
power by a komogrammateus172
ÑVr¤vn P. Lips. II 146, 7 18 Jan. – another petition against
– 5 Apr 189 the same komogrammateus173
ÑVr¤vn P. Laur. III 66, June/ census declaration
3 and 21 /August 189174 Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-3
anonymus BGU VII 1575, 21 189/90 petition to the strategos
(ÑVr¤vn) from Longinia Nemesilla
concerning a diairesis
between her and her sister
ÑVr¤vn P. Bad. II 23, February/ a request to reduce a tax
6 and 23 March 190 due to ébrox¤a
[ ]çw P. Hamb. I 11, 25 March 202 a request to reduce a tax
3 and 25 due to ébrox¤a
Pane 1 1 BGU VII 1583, 27 February/ declaration of inherited
/March 203 plots with houses
AÈr. SB XXII 15784, 215/6 nomination of liturgists
Pas¤vn 3–4175
AÈr. P. Yale III 137 216/7 list of names and land
Pas¤vn holdings for tax purposes
prepared by the komo-
grammateus
170
See OERTEL, Liturgie, p. 147, and E. G. TURNER in P. Aberdeen 81. 1 comm.
171
See E. G. TURNER in P. Aberdeen 81, 1 comm.
172
See P. Lips. II 146, 7 comm.
173
Both documents regarding the appeal of Antonius Domnus, a citizen of Antinoo-
polis complaining about the conduct of Horion, komogrammateus of Philadelpheia. This
small archive contains also a third document, a fragmentarily preserved P. Lips. II 147 with
a record of a trial in front of an epistrategos. Besides exhaustive introductions to each doc-
ument and commentary Ruth DUTTENHÖFER, see also N. LEWIS, ‘New Light on Liturgies’,
ChrEg 79 (2004), pp. 228–231.
174
For the date, see BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 124; WHITEHORNE, Strategi,
p. 25.
175
Editio princeps: P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Known and Unknown Officials’. ZPE 106 (1995)
pp. 203–234 (document no. 12, pp. 219–220).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 218

218 CHAPTER FOUR

Philopator – Theogenous (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Ryl. II 371 descr. 135/6 list of names(?); reading
of the village name uncertain

Philoteris (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus PSI XII 1243, 15 March 208 komogrammateus of Philoteris
7 and 23 nominated a presbyteros
and farmer of Dionysias
to a liturgy in the village

Polydeukeia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Oxf. (= P. Lugd. 142 official letter to the komo-
Bat. III) 3, 1–2 grammateus concerning
the inspection of kuriakå
ktÆmata176
anonymus P. Strasb. VII 606, beg. of second letter concerning an illegal
3 and 10 cent. nomination (by the komo-
grammateus) to a liturgy
anonymus P. Strasb. V 468, 13 210–231 account177

Psenharyo/Psinaryo (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Petaus P. Petaus 17, 1–2 30 Aug. 184 Petaus archive

176
A‡li[o]w F∞lij` k`v`m`ogrammate[›] k`[a‹] ` [presbÊteroiw] k≈`mhw P`[olu]d`e`u`k`e[` ¤]a`w
Yem`¤`[s]t`o[u t]oË [ÉArsino˝tou]? – which would fill the lacuna perfectly. Aelius Felix was
rather not a strategos but a local official, perhaps an epimeletes, belonging to the department
which administered the kuriakå ktÆmata in Egypt (see editor’s commentary to line 1).
177
The document belongs to the archive of the village elders of Polydeukeia (P. Strasb.
V 438–469 sexies) and is dated after the entire dossier. Because of the appearance of a
komogrammateus, P. Strasb. V 468 might be dated to the period before AD 217, i.e. replacing
in the Arsinoite nome the komogrammateis with the amphodokomogrammateis, although
there are some documents dated after this date mentioning komogrammateis in an informal
context, see above, pp. 176–178.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 219

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 219

Psenhyris (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

[. . . . .] P. Mich. IX 538 126 announcement of death,
= CPG II.1 28, 1 document found at Karanis
anonymus P. Prag. II 129, 2 second cent. fragment of a register
(acting
komogrammateus)
anonymus P. Prag. II 129. 6 second cent. fragment of a register
(ex-komogrammateus)

Psinteo and Apollonopolis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈrÆliow P. Oxy. XLV 3263, 4 July/August 215 report from Aurelius Her[ ],
ÑEr 1[ 1] 1 178
1 k. of Apollonopolis
and Psinteo, to the strategos
of the meris

See also komogrammateus Panosneus listed below, under ‘villages unknown

or uncertain’.

Pterophorou Epoikion (Pol.),

Lotou Epoikion (Pol.) and Kalliphanous Epoikion (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÉEkÊsiw P. Strasb. IV 232 ca. 173 (dated complaint against an official
after the strategos) called Zosimos, written
by Ekysis, komogrammateus
of the three epoikia

Ptolemais Hormou (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

PetaËw P. Petaus, passim 184–186 archive of Petaus, komo-
PetaËtow grammateus of Ptolemais
Hormou and other villages

178
The document reads (ll. 4–6): parå AÈrhl¤[o]u ÑEr [1 ]1 o1 ( ) kvmogr(ammat°vw) A
É pol-
[lv]n2ow pÒle1vw2 2 k2a‹ Cint°v.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 220

220 CHAPTER FOUR

Ptolemais Nea (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Kãstvr P. Mich. VI 366, 1 168 declaration of unwatared land

Samareia (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Tebt. II 566, 3 133 census declaration
179
= SB XX 14163 Bagnall – Frier 131-Ar-7
Pas¤vn P. Lond. III 1219 29 August 196 report from Pasion,
(p. 123) = WChr. 172, komogrammateus of Boukolos
2 and 11 alias Tristomos and
Samareia, to the strategos180

Sentrempais (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Ryl. II 105 3 Nov. 136 death notification181
= Jur. Pap. 5
= CPG II.1 33

Soknopaiou Nesos (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Ptolema›ow BGU I 163, 3 after report of official proceedings
k. Ne¤lou = SB XXIV 16258, 10 Febr. 108 conducted before the strategos
pÒlevw ka‹ with duplicat Claudius Asklepiades;182
Soknopa¤ou SB XXIV 16257 the joint komogrammeteia
NÆsou of Nilopolis and Sok. Nesos
179
Ed. R. S. BAGNALL, ‘Census Declarations from Tebtunis’, Aegyptus 72 (1992) pp. 61–84
(P. Tebt. II 566 descr. at pp. 64–66.
180
For the place, see BL VIII, p. 187
181
A certain Thermion daughter of Satabous from the village of Sentrempais notifies
of the death of her father in a document addressed to Apollonios, a royal scribe of the
Themistos meris. His office forwarded the document for verification to the komogram-
mateus, whose name – as in similar cases – had not been given. Therefore – to be precise
– the document does not confirm the existence of a komogrammateia of Sentrempais – the
addressee of the letter could have been in charge of any komogrammateia that encompassed
the village of Sentrempais.
182
For the document, see above, p. 159 and n. 22.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 221

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 221

ÑErma›ow BGU III 706, 3 ca. June/Aug. 119 census declaration

ı ka‹ DrÊtvn Bagnall – Frier 117-Ar-7
A
É yhn¤vn BGU III 834, 11 25 August 125 a copy of a contract of sale
of grain; the buyer
is a komogrammateus
ÑHrakle¤dhw BGU XIII 2220, 3 131–133 census declaration;
Bagnall – Frier 131-Ar-9
the editor suggests
Soknopaiou Nesos
as the origin place
of the document183
Pnefer«w P. Amh. II 74, 2 147 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-20
[ 1 1 1 1 ]vn SPP XXII 100, 18 147/8 or 170/1 declaration of birth of a son
in a family of priests
(P+) ÉOrsenoËfiw SPP XXII 18, 2 14 April 149184 declaration of birth of a son
in a family of priests
anonymus SPP XXII 38, 3 September 155 declaration of birth of a son
2 and 12 in a family of priests
KrÒkow BGU XIII 2221, 2 160/1 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-23
the name restored after
BGU I 90 = 537 (AD 161)
anonymus BGU I 102, 2 2 July 161185 receipt for money from
(KrÒkow) a komogrammateus
and presbyteroi for fÒrow
probãtvn
KrÒkow BGU I 90 dupl., 1 28 July 161 census declaration
= BGU II 537, 1 Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-13

183
W. BRASHEAR in BGU XIII 2220, introduction: ‘Because the fragment was found
during Zucker’s excavation at Dime (1909/10), it is possible that the village name in line
three should be restored as Soknopaiou Nesos, but until there is positive proof (for exam-
ple, through the identification of Heraklides in line 2) the lacune is best left open.’ For the
date, see BL IX, p. 31 and BL X, p. 25; for the place, see also BAGNALL – FRIER, The Demo-
graphy of Roman Egypt, p. 208; see also KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 963 n. 30.
184
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 479.
185
For the date, see BL I, p. 20.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 222

222 CHAPTER FOUR

Pas¤vn P. Lond. II 338 11 Nov. 170 announcement of death

(p. 68) = CPG II.1
52, 1 and 23
ÑHrçw P. Prag. I 19, 1 and 18 177-180 announcement of death
Diog°nhw BGU I 28, 11 October 183 declaration of birth
1 and 21 of a daughter to a priestly
couple
(P+) P. Gen. I2 37, 3–5 20 July 186 replacement proposals
SvtÆrixow = WChr. 400 for liturgies addressed
S≈tou186 to a strategos
[ÑHrçw] BGU XI 2090, 3–4 July/August 189 census declaration187
Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-20
ÑHrçw P. Rein. I 46, 23 August 189 census declaration
4–5 and 22 Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-29
ÑHrçw SB XXII 15389, 3 26 August 189 dockets for a census report
Bagnall–Frier addendum
ÑHrçw P. Prag. I 22, 12 12 July 190 declaration
of uninundated land188
anonymus P. Bodl. I 135, 12 second cent. list of names
k. t∞w NÆsou
P[.]at( ) k. P. Lond. III 1220 206–210189 the komogrammateus qualifies
Neilou(p.) (p. 114), 1–3 two men to the liturgy
k(a‹) Sokno(p.) of praktoreia argyrikon;
NÆsou the joint komogrammeteia
of Nilopolis and Soknopaiou
Nesos

186
The document reads (lines 3–5): parå Svthr¤xou S≈tou ka‹ t«n loip(«n) presb(ut°-
rvn) diadex(om°nvn) ka‹ tå katå tØn kvmogr(ammate¤an) k≈(mhw) Soknop(a¤ou) NÆsou.
187
The name of Heras, as well as those of the strategos and the basilikos grammateus,
restored after P. Rein. I 46, 1–4. The reading is:
[ÉAmmvn¤ƒ stra(thg“) A É rsi(no¤tou) ÑHrak]le¤dou me[r¤dow]
[ka‹ A
Ñ rpokrat¤vni t“ ka‹ ÑI°raki b]a`sili`k`“ gr`a`m[` mate›]
[t∞w aÈt∞w mer¤dow ka‹ ÑHrò kvm]ogr1(ammate›) k[≈mhw]
4 [Soknopa¤ou] N`Æsou
The editor wonders if [Ne¤lou pÒlevw ka‹ Soknopa¤ou] N`Æsou is possible in line 4.
188
R. PINTAUDI clearly did not occupy himself with the issue of whether Heras komo-
grammateus in 190 is identical with Heras, komogrammateus in 177–180. In the index, how-
ever, in two different places (p. 226 and 236) he lists two different komogrammateis.
189
For the date, see BL VII, p. 89.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 223

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 223

Fãbiow BGU I 145, 3 and 23 May/June 213 list of tax-payers190

AÈrÆliow WChr. 358, 1 214/5 list of persons moving
PoÊariw = P. Lond. II 322 from Bakchias to
(p. 159) Soknopaiou Nesos prepared
by the komogrammateus
anonymus SPP II 3. i 2, 28 August 217 five census returns; all the
ii 2, 19, iii 2, Bagnall–Frier 215-Ar-2
iv 2, 16, v 2, 19 to 215-Ar-6 returns are
191
dated to the same day
A
É nt≈niw SPP XXII 67, 309 26 May 220 account; Antonis could
(year uncertain)192 be also komogrammateus
of another village

Syron Kome (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Petaus P. Petaus, passim 184–186 archive of Petaus,
see above, pp.153–155

Talei (Pol.)
and Ibion Eikosipentarouron (Pol.)
– joint komogrammateia

Official(s) Reference Date Document

D¤dumow ı ka‹ P. Mil. Vogl. II before 138/9 an investigation against
Krhspe›now 98, i 45 a komogrammateus
genÒmenow for extortion of a bribe
k. Talei
ka‹ ÉIb¤vnow
Pas¤vn BGU I 91, ii 3, 26 170/1 list of persons
ı ka‹ D¤dumow
k. Talei ka‹ ÉIb¤vnow

190
For the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 614.
191
For the documents, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 97–101
192
For the date, see F. REITER, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu dokumentarischen Papyri’,
ZPE 107 (1995), pp. 95–103 (SPP XXII 67 discussed at pp. 100–101). The date is especially
important, since the document would be the latest attestation of a komogrammateus (see
above, p. 177).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 224

224 CHAPTER FOUR

Talei (Pol.) alone

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus SB XIV 11613, 10193 July/August 173 citation from
the programmata issued
by the strategos
anonymus P. Fam. Tebt. 52, 26 March 208 declaration
3 and 14 of inundated land
anonymus BGU XI 2021, 11 215 announcement of death sent
(with BL VI, p. 20) for verification
= CPG II.1 73 to a komogrammateus

Tamais/Tamauis (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÉIsxur¤vn P. Petaus 11, 7 2 May 184 Petaus archive; Ischyrion
is a resident of Ptolemais
Hormou

Tanis (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

A
É xillçw SB XIV 12174 second cent. beginning of a proposal
(= SB I 5982) by komogrammateus for
a liturgy; see also Achillas,
below, listed under ‘villages
unknown’

Tebtynis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

ÑHra[kl]e¤dhw PSI X 1129, 1 24/3 BC komogrammateus leases out
ÑHraklÆou a plot of katoecic land

193
See also N. LEWIS, ’SB XIV 11614: More than Meets the Eye’, BASP 21 (1984)
pp. 157–160. Note the wrong number of the document both in the title of the paper and
throughout the text.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 225

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 225

Lus¤maxo(w) P. Tebt. II 410, 8 13 Nov. AD 16 letter from a certain

Hermias to the toparch
Akousilaos;
the komogrammateus should
be informed about the case;
Lysimachos identical
with the following?
Lus¤maxo(w) P. Tebt. II 346, 2 after AD 16 document dated after
genÒ(menow) the appearance of
kvmogr(ammateÊw) Lysimachos komogrammateus
register of rents and taxes;
Lysimachos and Didymos
D¤dumow P. Tebt. II 346, 4 appear as land owners
D¤dumow P. Mich. V 41–42 cession of katoecic land to
(presbÊterow) 267–268, verso 1 Didymos komogrammateus194
Lusimãxou
toË DidÊmou
Lusçw P. Mich. V 240, i 17 46–47 grapheion register: ‘lease
of 7 arourai of fodder,
(made) by Pakebkis
to Herakles through Lysas
the komogrammateus’
A
Ö reiow P. Tebt. II 299, 1–2 ca. 49/50 declaration of the birth
Lusimã[xou of a son of a priest
anonymus P. Tebt. II 302, 71/2 petition to the prefect from
9 and 15 the priests of Soknebtunis
concerning their right to
cultivate the former temple
land; the komogrammateus
examined the case
EÎtuxow SB V 7599, 25 May 95 sale of ÍpÒlogow land;
1 and 27 ordered by basilikos
grammateus, komogrammateus
made an inspection
of the land 195

194
For the person, see P. Mich. V, pp. 16–18. The same person appears also in P. Mich.
V 232, but not as a komogrammateus.
195
For the procedure, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 485–491.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 226

226 CHAPTER FOUR

anonymus SB XIV 11533, after komogrammateus without

(D¤dumow?) ii 7, iii 7 29 October 104 village mentioned, possibly
Tebtynis
196
D¤dumow P. Mich. XV 693, 3 104/5 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-13
D¤dumow PSI X 1136, 2–3 June/Aug. 105197 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-2
198
ÑHrakle¤dhw SB XX 15038, 17 January 117 notification of death
1 and 21
anonymus P. Tebt. II 297, ca. 123 proceedings concerning
7, 11 and 13 the purchase of a priestly
office; the komogrammateus
reported that the office
is for sale
anonymus P. Tebt. II 374, 22 31 January 131 lease of crown land;199
the komogrammateus is
‘to execute the lease in the
proper way’
anonymus P. Tebt. II 325, 19 after 145/6 application to the basilikos
grammateus concerning
a lease of land at reduced
rent; the komogrammateus
is to see that the law be
observed
Melançw P. Tebt. II 300, 1 9 February 151 announcement of death
and 24 (with BL I,
p. 426) = CPG II.1 41
äVrow P. Tebt. II 301, November/ announcement of death
1 and 20 /December 190
= CPG II.1 64

196
Note that the document’s date in DDBDP is wrong (AD 118/9).
197
For the date, see G. BASTIANINI, ‘Nota a P. Mich. XV 693’, ZPE 50 (1983), p. 172 and
BL X, p. 247 versus BL VIII, p. 407.
198
For the date, see editio princeps: R. DUTTENHÖFER, ‘Drei Todesanzeigen’, ZPE 79
(1989) pp. 229–232 [p. 230] and REITER, ‘Einige Bemerkungen’ (cit. supra, n. 192), p. 98.
199
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 492 and BL XI, p. 279. For the procedure applied, see
KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 583–584 n. 1615
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 227

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 227

anonymus P. Tebt. II 344, 7 second cent. survey report: account

of various plots or holdings
of land at various villages
anonymus SB XII 11150 202/3 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 201-Ar-3
Xrusçw P. Tebt. II 324, 21 March 208 return of inundated land
4 and 18

Tebtynis (Pol.) and Kerkeesis /Perkeesis (Pol.)

– joint komogrammateia

Official(s) Reference Date Document

200
anonymus P. Fam. Tebt. 51, 24 March 206 declaration
3 and 20 of inundated land

Theadelpheia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

É poll≈niow WChr. 200, 1
A 28 January 19 BC census declaration
= P. Grenf. I 45
ÉIs¤dvrow P. Mil. I 3, 1 22(?) Jan. AD 12 census declaration
201
= SB XX 14440 Bagnall – Frier 11-Ar-1
Sarap¤vn P. Iand. VIII 31, 1 96–117 announcement of death
(with BL I, p. 199) (BL VIII, p. 154)
= CPG II.1 27
(P+) P. Heid. IV 298, 1–2 104/5 census declaration
É kous¤laow202
A Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-14
(P+) P. Lond. III 1221 104/5 census declaration
É kous¤laow203 (pp. 24–25), 1–2
A Bagnall – Frier 103-Ar-11

200
For the date, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, p. 245 n. 570.
201
Ed. R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt’, GRBS 32 (1991),
pp. 255–265.
202
The document reads (lines 1–2): A
É kousil(ãƒ) ka‹ metÒx(oiw) diejãgousi tå k[atå t]Øn
kvmog(rammate¤an) Yeadel(fe¤aw); for the interpretation of Akousilaos as a presbyteros act-
ing as a komogrammateus, see above, p. 172 n. 54.
203
The document reads (lines 1–2): A É kousilム[ka‹ m]etÒxoiw diejãgo(usi)2 tå k[atå
t]Øn kvmog(rammate¤an). For the reading of lines 1–2, see P. Heid. IV 298 introduction,
p. 54).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 228

228 CHAPTER FOUR

anonymus SB XXII 15485 beg. of lease of basilike ge204

second cent.
anonymus SB VI 9252, 27 6 April 118 report of a trial regarding
= P. Fam. Tebt. 19 a dispute over the return
of borrowed money;
the strategos commands
the komogrammateus
to oversee the execution
of the sentence
anonymus P. Strasb. I 70, 17 27 Dec. 137 announcement of death sent
(with BL I, p. 406) – 25 Jan. 138 for verification
= CPG II.1 34 to a komogrammateus
name lost SB XXIV 15904205 AD 139–142 (?) in a letter to the strategos,
komogrammateus proposes
substitutes to liturgists
Pr¤gkic206 P. Hamb. I 9, 5 May 143 a collective receipt for
payment Íp¢r dipl≈matow
·ppvn for years 6–9
of Antoninus Pius
(PP+) N°vn SB XVI 12522, 4–8 before writing exercise with
Dhmokrãtouw 9 April 144 the beginning of a petition207
ka‹ PeyeyeÁw
De¤ou
111111111 SB XVI 12521, 3 before assigning of pledge possesion
9 April 144 to the creditor by the court
of chrematistai to be carried
out by local officials
including the komogrammateus
at the lowest level; location
uncertain

204
For the discussion of the document, see below, pp. 252–253.
205
Editio princeps: N. COHEN, ‘List of Substitutes to Liturgists. A Preliminary Discussion’,
[in:] Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongreßes (= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart – Leipzig
1997, vol. I, pp. 172–178. See also reconstruction of the text, translation and notes by
N. LEWIS, ‘Replacement of Two Nominees to an Epiteresis’, ArchPF 45 (1999), pp. 169–172.
206
For the name, see P. Oxy. LV 3818, 5–6 comm.
207
The document reads: parå N°vnow Dhmokrãtouw ka‹ Peyey°vw De¤ou t«n b ka‹ t«n
loip«n presbut°rvn diadexom°nvn tå katå tØn kv(mogrammate¤an) yeadel. It is not quite
certain if those mentioned should be regarded as persons actually holding the office?
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 229

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 229

Xare 1[ 1 1] P. Hamb. I 9, 24 146 a collective receipt for

payment Íp¢r dipl≈matow
·ppvn for years 6–9
of Antoninus Pius
ÑHrçw P. Wisc. I 18, 3 146/7 census declaration
Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-21
ÑHrçw P. Wisc. I 36, 9 July 147 census declaration
3 and 19 Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-24

anonymus P. Strasb. IX 848, ca. 150 private account

ii 18
Plout¤vn P. Berl. Leihg. I 5. i 1 158/9 report by the komogrammateus
of distribution of transport
expenses of corn
Plout¤vn P. Meyer 4, 18 October 161 official report of the
3 and 21 komogrammateus and
presbyteroi for the limnastes
of the sixth toparchy208
of the meris of Themistos

Theogonis/Theogenis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Kap¤tvn P. Tebt. II 341, October/ letter from Kapiton,
3 and 17 /November 140 komogrammateus of Theogonis
to the basilikos grammateus
concerning seed-corn
Prvtçw BGU II 484, 1 206–211 letter from a komogrammateus
k. Yeogon¤dow concerning kat' ofik¤an
ka‹ Kerkeus¤revw épografÆ;209 the joint
komogrammateia of
Theogonis and Kerkeosiris

208
For the limnastes, see above, p. 133.
209
Only the top part of the document is preserved; the letter lacks an addressee. For
a detailed interpretation, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 1041–1045.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 230

230 CHAPTER FOUR

Theoxenis (Them.) and Andromachis (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Musyar¤vn P. Fay. 40, 1 AD 162/3 taxing list from
k. Yeojen¤dow the komogrammateus of
[ka‹ A
É ndromax¤dow] Theoxenis and Andromachis
– but the latter in lacuna!

Trikomia (Them.)
– see above, s.v. Lagis (Them.)

Village unknown or uncertain

Official(s) Reference Date Document
Levnçw SB XX 14085, 12b 13/12 BC list of criminal cases
or AD 31/2 registered in a tomos
synkollesimos; Leonas
komogrammateus is accused
of a murder of a woman
Tr`Êfvn P. Vind. Tandem 9, 6 11 Nov. AD 10 a lease of seed grain to
A
É pollv`n¤ou demosioi georgoi supervised
by the komogrammateus
Ñ rpokrat¤vn BGU IV 1047, ii 5 after 28 Aug. 131 official correspondence;
A
a village in the meris
of Themistos210
A
É xillçw PSI VII 766, 12211 August/ report of komogrammateis;
/September 133 Arsinoite provenance
uncertain
Nemesçw k. PSI VII 766, 13 August/ report of komogrammateis;
[ ca. 7 ] ka`‹` /September 133 Arsinoite provenance
ê`l`l`[v]n k`[v]m`«n uncertain
Pix«`w PSI VII 766, 14 August/ report of komogrammateis;
..arxvw /September 133 Arsinoite provenance
k. [ ca. 8 ] ka‹ uncertain
ê`llvn kvm«n

210
For the document, see KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 1047–1052; see also JOHN-
SON, Roman Egypt, pp. 126–127, no. 59
211
For the provenance of this papyrus, see below, p. 260.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 231

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 231

ÑIerak¤vn PSI VII 766, 16 August/ report of komogrammateis;

k. Y`..eis[.]vw /September 133 Arsinoite provenance
uncertain
P[e]y°uw BGU I 235, 2–3 ca. 137 proposals for liturgical
[kv]mog[r(am.) = WChr. 399 offices
.....
ka‹ êllvn]
kvm«n
anonymus BGU I 5, ii 4 138 proceedings of a trial
anonymus BGU II 490, 9 144/5 a notice by the strategos
concerning episkepsis
of the merides of Themistos
and Polemon
A
É re›ow SB VI 9554 (2), 26 7 or 10 June 147 census declaration212
Bagnall – Frier 145-Ar-15
PantbeËw P. Flor. I 91, 24 ca. 148 fragment of a petition213
anonymus BGU II 619, 2 after 26 May 155 dispute about land;
Berenikis Aigialou
mentioned in line 17
but seems not to be the
centre of the komogrammateia
anonymus P. Ross. Georg. II 22, ca. 154–159 record of proceedings
8, 17 and 18
A
É xillçw BGU XIII 2222, 12 23 June 161 census declarations
Bagnall – Frier 159-Ar-24
PanosneËw P. Ross. Georg. II after 163/4 komogrammateus of
28, 6 Thmounegis or Psinteo,
or both? list of land leases
per‹] tØn k≈mhn ped¤ou
Ymounegei
212
The document comes from Karanis. But from BGU I 95, dated 30 Epeiph (24 July)
of the same year we learn that the komogrammateus of Karanis was a certain Orsenouphis.
It is, therefore, more likely that Areios was a komogrammateus in another village where the
census declaration was presented. To the arguments put forward by the editor (ChrEg 28
[1953], p. 340) we may add that the papyrus reads A`re`¤`ƒ k2v2mogra(mmate›) t∞w 1 [ 1 1 1 1] while
those mentioning the officials of Karanis usually have kvmogrammateÁw Karan¤dow.
213
The papyrus belongs to the same roll as P. Laur. I 2; see also R. HAENSCH, ‘Die Bear-
beitungsweisen von Petitionen in der Provinz Aegyptus’, ZPE 100 (1994), pp. 487–546 (at
p. 543 n. 39).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 232

232 CHAPTER FOUR

[ ]hw SB XVIII 13162, 1214 26 August 173 the komogrammateus acts

through his boethos
Herakleides
anonymus BGU II 660, ii 18 181 (?)215 a register of official activities
anonymus P. Strasb. V 313, 25 May 189 census declaration
4 and 17 Bagnall – Frier 187-Ar-1
anonymus BGU I 199, verso, 7 195 or after the recto (dated 18 Sept. 195)
contains a document issued
by praktor argyrikon
of Soknopaiou Nesos
for a strategos
[ ]ow P. Aberdeen 152, 2 second cent. report or declaration
or [ ]hw
[ ]w toË P. Prag. II 129, 12 second cent. ex-kommogrammateus of
Faust¤ou Psenhyris (see line 6)?
anonymus P. Leeds Museum 10 second– bottom part of
= CPG II.1 69, 2 –third cent. an announcement of death
addressed to a royal scribe
and sent to a komogrammateus
for verification

214
The Fayumic provenance of this document is uncertain. In the editio princeps (H. G.
GUNDEL, ‘Einige Giessener Fragmente [P. Giss. univ. bibl.]’, Anagennesis 4 [1986], pp.
210–211) we read ‘Faijûm’ with a question mark, while in the Sammelbuch the question
mark disappeared. In Gundel’s edition I found no arguments for the Fayumic provenance
except for that taken from the very name of Herakleides who in AD 163 ‘in Bakchias eine
Anzeige bescheinigt, wahrscheinlich als Komogrammateus, vgl. Wilcken, Chrest. Nr. 226
[= P. Grenf. II 56 with Wilcken’s remarks in ArchPF 3 (1906), p. 123 – TD], 12 [the line quot-
ed is 14 – TD]’. However, Wilcken does not claim that this Herakleides was komogramma-
teus in AD 163; what is more, we know that in AD 161/2 and 167/8 the komogrammateus of
Bakchias was Ptollas (see supra, p. 201). Therefore, there are no factors in favour of chang-
ing the interpretation of B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt who believed that this Herakleides
was a frontistÆw of Artemidora, apator, who in this document addressed to the basilikos
grammateus of the meris of Herakleides declared that 21 arourae of vineland near Bakchias
had not been irrigated in the current year and, therefore, she asked for exemption from
taxation. If so, then Gundel’s argument that this document is of Fayumic provenance is of
no value.
215
For the date, see BL VIII, p. 31; BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 32; and KRUSE,
Der königliche Schreiber, pp. 1030–1031, n. 343.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 233

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 233

anonymus BGU II 389, 5 211 – ca. 220 (?)216 fragmentarily preserved

proceedings of a trial
anonymus BGU II 390, third cent. proceedings of a hearing,
9 and 11 (before a komogrammateus
219/20?)217 of an unknown village
involved in the case
AÈrÆliow SB I 4419, 5 September/ see below, testimonia incerta
A
É frod¤siow /October 224 et delenda

C. Amphodokomogrammateis (ca. AD 217 – 245)

Bakchias (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈr. P. Gron. 2, 1–2218 219/20 preparation for episkepsis:
EÈãggelow list of land plots prepared by
the amphodokomogrammateus
of Bakchias, Hephaistias
and pedion of Herakleia
AÈr. P. Fay. 208 descr., 1 222–235 list of land plots subject
EÈãggelow to dues prepared by the
amphodokomogrammateus219

Dinnys (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈr. BGU VII 1634, 1–2 229/30 prepared by the amphodo-
A
É frod¤siow komogrammateus list of dyke
workers
216
Aurelii in the text point at the date later than Constitutio Antoniniana; a komogram-
mateus suggests the date earlier than AD 219/20 (introduction of amphodokomogrammateis),
or the 240s at the latest (re-introduction of the komarchs).
217
Terminus ante quem: introduction of amphodokomogrammateis in the Fayum. None of
the names is accompanied by the nomen Aurelius which could point at the date earlier than
Constitutio Antoniniana.
218
The document reads as follows: parå AÈrhl¤ou EÈagg°[l]ou é[mfo]do`kvm[o]-
gr(ammat°vw) Baxxiãdow ÑHfaistiãdow ka‹ p`ed¤(vn) ÑHrakl(e¤aw).
219
See BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14), p. 775 n. 3.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 234

234 CHAPTER FOUR

Hiera (Nesos) = Hiera Seueros (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈr. D¤vn P. Strasb. VIII 731, 222–235 administrative document
ka‹ DiÒskorow 1–4 concerning sowing
ka‹ `[ ` ` `] 220 prepared by the
amphodokomogrammateus

Psenhyris (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Ñ tr∞w PSI VII 796
AÈr. A 222/3 preparation for episkepsis:
list of olive trees and date
palms prepared by
the amphodokomogrammateus

Soknopaiou Nesos (Her.)

Official(s)Reference Date Document

AÈr. M°law BGU II 659, ii 1–2 20 May 229221 list of land plots subject
to dues prepared by
the amphodokomogrammateus

Tebtynis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈrÆlioi P. Giss. Univ. 222/3 preparation for episkepsis:
A
Ñ rpokrat¤vn VI 52, 1–2 list of land plots prepared by
ka‹ ÑHrakl∞w222 the amphodokomogrammateus
AÈrÆlioi P. Heid. II 223 224/5 proposals for liturgical
Ñ rpokrat¤vn = SB VI 9543, 3–5
A offices prepared by
ka‹ Diog°nhw223 the amphodokomogrammateus

220
The document reads: p`ar`å` A`È`[r(hl¤vn)] D¤vno`w` k`a`‹` [Dio]skÒrou ka`‹ | `[ ` ` ]` t«`n g
émfodok[v]mogra`(mmat°vn) k`≈`m`h`w` ÑIerçw NÆsou. For the reading, see BL VIII, p. 431.
221
For the date, see ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen’ (cit. supra, n. 145), p. 175.
222
The document reads: [parå AÈrhl¤]v[n] A Ñ rpokrat¤vnow ka‹ ÑHrakl°o`u`[w t«]n [b]
émf[o]do[kvmogr(ammat°vn) TeptÊnev`w.
223
The document reads: parå AÈrhl¤vn A
Ñ rpokrat¤vnow k`[a‹] Diog°nouw t«n` b émfÒdo-
kvmogra(mmat°vn) k≈mhw TebtÊnevw.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 235

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 235

Village unknown or uncertain

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈrÆlioi P. Tebt. II 436 222–235 beginning of an official
Prv[t -- descr., 2–3 return of crops at the village
ka‹ -- ]224 of Arsinoe prepared by
the amphodokomogrammateus
AÈrÆlioi BGU I 141, i 3 242/3 list of payments of rent
[- - -] ka‹ prepared by the
D]ionus¤vn225 amphodokomogrammateus226

D. Komarchs (after AD 245)

Alabanthis (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Münch. III.1 248–280227 the komarchs issued
115, 2–3 a receipt for monopoly tax
(pl¤nyow nomoË)

Andromachis (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Vars. 20, 2 third cent. official note, probably
(after 245) dealing with payments
for transport by ships;
the komarchs of the three
villages (Hermopolis,
Theoxenis and perhaps
Andromachis) are involved

224
The document reads: parå AÈrhl¤vn Prv[t --- ka‹ -- -] t«n b émfÒdokv[mogra(m-
É rsinÒhw?].
mat°vn) k≈[mhw A
225
The document reads: [parå AÈr(hl¤vn) ca. 6 ka‹ D]ionus¤vnow t«n b [émfod]o-1
kv[mogr(ammat°vn) - - - -] t∞w Yem¤stou mer¤]d`ow` .
226
See BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14), p. 775 n. 3
227
For the date, see HGV.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 236

236 CHAPTER FOUR

Apollonias (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU III 754, ii 9 second half list of payments prepared
of the third by the komarchs, to be
cent. delivered to the central
administration of the nome228

Arabon Kome = Ptolemais Arabon (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi Rathbone, November of a Heroninos’ account
Text 2,229 ii 34 year between 249
= SB XX 14645 and 253 (possibly
= P. Prag. Varcl II 5 251 or 252)230
= SB VI 9409.2
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 4, March/April 255 Heroninos’ account
iii 33 = SB VI 9409.1

Areos Kome (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent., letter addressed to the
second half? komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii 231

Boubastos alias Kamepolis (Her.)232

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi SB XVIII 13896, 1 245–264233 order for the komarchai
to send somebody accused
by the dekaprotoi
228
For the document, see below, pp. 253–254.
229
RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, Text 2, pp. 456–463.
230
For the date, see RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 456.
231
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
232
N. GONIS, in JJurP 31 (2001), p. 22 n. 23 suggests two homonymous villages, one in
Herakleides and one in Polemon.
233
For the date, see N. GONIS, ‘Chronological Notes on III.-V. Century Documents’,
ZPE 123 (1998) pp. 196–198 [p. 198].
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 237

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 237

Dionysias (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 4, March/April 255 Heroninos’ account
iii 35 (= SB VI 9409.1)
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 7, 8 ca. 255 Heroninos’ account
= SB VI 9409.4
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 6, November/ Heroninos’ account
ii 37 = SB VI 9409.3 /December 260

Euhemereia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi Rathbone, November of a Heroninos’ account
Text 2, ii 33 year between 249
= SB XX 14645 and 253 (possibly
= P. Prag. Varcl II 5 251 or 252)234
= SB VI 9409.2
anonymi Rathbone, June 253 Heroninos’ account
Text 1 recto, 39
= SB XX 14197235
= P. Prag. Varcl II 3 + 10
= SB VI 9408.2 + 9409.7
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 4, March/April 255 Heroninos’ account
iii 34 = SB VI 9409.1
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 7, 7 ca. 255 Heroninos’ account
= SB VI 9409.4

Hermopolis (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Vars. 20, 2 third cent. official note, probably
(after 245) dealing with payments
for transport by ships;
the komarchs of the three
villages (Hermopolis,
Theoxenis and perhaps
Andromachis) are involved
234
For the date, see RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 456.
235
Editio princeps: R. PINTAUDI – D. RATHBONE, ‘Brutta copia di un conto mensile di
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 238

238 CHAPTER FOUR

Ibion Eikosipentarouron (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi PSI V 460, 2 third– order from the chomatopeiktes
(ostracon) –fourth cent. about work on a dyke236

Isidorou Epoikion (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent., letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages237

Karanis (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈrÆlioi O. Mich. I 234 23 Dec. 273 receipt for fodder delivered
A
Ö riow ka‹ or 24 Dec. 274239 by Satabous and Melas
ÑHrvn›now
or SataboËw
ka‹ M°law238

Heroneinos del giugno 253 d.C.’, AnPap 1 (1989), pp. 79–144 with an Italian translation and
extensive commentary. In an appendix to his Economical Rationalism, D. RATHBONE reprinted
the text (without lines 189–206 on the verso) as Text 1, pp. 424–455 with an English trans-
lation. For the photographs, see the editio princeps.
236
The relation with Ibion Eikosipentarouron is uncertain due to lacuna in the text.
237
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
238
The text reads (lines 1–4):
AÈrÆlioi AÖ riow ka‹ ÑHrvn›now émfÒ-
teroi §pimelhta‹ xÒrtou kvmãrxai
k≈mhw Karan¤dow SataboËti ka‹
M°lani xa¤rein.
which is not clear. Either AÈrÆlioi AÖ riow ka‹ ÑHrvn›now émfÒ-|teroi §pimelhta‹ xÒrtou
<ka‹> kvmãrxai | k≈mhw Karan¤dow SataboËti ka‹ | M°lani xa¤rein which implies that
Aurelii Arios and Heroninos were komarchs and at the same time epimeletai chortou, or
AÈrÆlioi A
Ö riow ka‹ ÑHrvn›now émfÒ-|teroi §pimelhta‹ xÒrtou kvmãrxai<w> | k≈mhw Kara-
n¤dow SataboËti ka‹ | M°lani xa¤rein – in this case Satabous and Melas would have been
the komarchs.
239
For the date, see ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen’ (cit. supra, n. 145), p. 175.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 239

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 239

anonymi P. Mich. IX 530 before protest against nomination

240
26 April 278 to a liturgy by the komarchs
241
anonymi O. Mich. IV 1130, 2 26 Nov. 286? receipt for delivery of grain
= SB XIV 11517 brought by a Mares
to an unknown harbour
from the komarchs
and from Pannous,
boundary inspector
AÈr. P. Mich. IX 15 June 298 receipt for a pallium
Ptollar¤vn 547, 3–5 delivered by the komarch
AÈrÆlioi P. Mich. IX 6 Sept. 298 receipt from the groom
A
É l°jandrow 548, 5–8 of treasury horses in the
ka‹ A
É frod¤siow Alexandrian service to the
komarchs of Karanis who
delivered one whipbearer
for the service of the horses
AÈrÆlioi SB I 4421 ca. 302242 declaration (addressed to
PehoËw and BGU II 620 the strategos) by the
Ptolema¤ou (= WChr. 186) komarchs of a payment
ka‹ A
É nt≈niow through the tax
A
É ntvn¤ou office – two parallel
documents
AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 125, 6 August 308 nomination of komarchs:
ÉIs¤dvrow 2–4 and 17–18 acting komarchs
Sarap¤vnow
ka‹ AÉ i«n Sur¤onow
AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 125, 308/9 nomination of komarchs:
ÉIs¤dvrow 13–16 nominees for the coming
Ptolema¤ou year
mhtrÚw ÑHrv¤dow243
ka‹ Ptolema›ow
Panisãtevw
mhtrÚw Sarapiãdow
240
For the date, see BL VII, p. 112.
241
For the date, see F. REITER, ‘Vorschläge zu Lesung und Deutung einiger Transport-
bescheinigungen’, ZPE 134 (2001), pp. 191–207 (see p. 197 n. 32).
242
For the date, see BL VII, p. 184 and BASTIANINI – WHITEHORNE, Strategi, p. 56.
243
This Isidoros is the central figure of the well known archive, not to be mistaken
with two other men of the same name listed above and below.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 240

240 CHAPTER FOUR

anonymi P. Cairo Isid. 129, 2 308/9?244 order for arrest addressed

(AÈrÆlioi Is¤dvrow to the komarchs
Ptolema¤ou and demosioi
ka‹ Ptolema›ow
Panisãtevw)
anonymi P. Cairo Isid. 130, 2 308/9?245 order for arrest addressed
(AÈrÆlioi Is¤dvrow to the komarchs
Ptolema¤ou and demosioi
ka‹ Ptolema›ow
Panisãtevw)

AÈrÆlioi SB XXII 15786 ca. 310 nomination of liturgists

Kãsiow
Pelag¤o1u2
ka‹ NN

<ÉIs¤dvrow> P. Cairo Isid. 71, 1 313/4 memoranda for a petition

Pelhn¤ou246 (before
15 Jan. 314?)

anonymi P. Cairo Isid. 72, 313/4 memoranda for a petition247

(= AÈrÆlioi 10–11 and 35 (before
ÉIs¤dvrow 15 January 314?)
Pelhn¤ou
ka‹ DoËlow
Timoy°ou)

244
The names of komarchs are not given. A possible date is 308/9, since the document
belongs to the papers of Isidoros who served as one of the komarchs in that year.
245
The names of komarchs are not given. A possible date is 308/9, since the document
belongs to the papers of Isidoros who served as one of the komarchs in that year.
246
The text is as follows (line 1): merismo‹ k≈mhw Karan¤dow kvmarx¤aw <ÉIsid≈rou>
Pelhn¤ou. According to the editor (see P. Cairo Isid. 71, introd.), there is no doubt that the
komarches involved is Aurelios Isidoros son of Pelenios (= Palenios, cf. P. Cairo Isid. 59, 35).
According to the uncorrected text of line 1, the merismoi are assigned to the komarchy of
Pelenios, which is otherwise unattested. P. Cairo Isid. 71, together with 72 contain a series
of notes prepared in order to facilitate the writing of the petition, P. Cairo Isid. 73,
addressed to Iulius Iulianus, the prefect of Egypt. There is a good reason to date both,
P. Cairo Isid. 71 and 72 to the period before 15 January 314 (see P. Cairo Isid. 72, introd.).
247
For the text, see the preceding note.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 241

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 241

AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 54, 2–4 15 January 314 two komarchs together
ÉIs¤dvrow with Aurelius Isidoros
Pelhn¤ou at that time the tesserarius
ka‹ DoËlow issue this document for the
Timoy°ou248 strategos (receipt for the
price of vestis militaris)

anonymi P. Cairo Isid. 73, 314 petition to Iulius Iulianus,

(= AÈrÆlioi 3, 6, 15, 17 the prefect of Egypt sent
ÉIs¤dvrow by Aur. Isidoros son of
Pelhn¤ou Ptolemaios, tesserarius and
ka‹ DoËlow Aur. Palemon, son of
Timoy°ou) Tiberinus, quadrarius, against
the praepositus pagi
and the komarchs

AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 56, 1–2 28 July 315 the komarch delivered the
A
É r¤stvn village wood for the cellarium
ka‹ GermanÒw

AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 57, 18 Aug. 315 the komarch delivered

AÉ r¤stvn 14 and 25 (the first receipt) barley in a boat for
ka‹ GermanÒw 11 Sept. 315 Hephaistion, the horse-
(the second one) breeder of Alexandria
– two receipts

AÈrÆlioi P. Cairo Isid. 58, 1–2 16 Sept. 315 the komarch issued a receipt
A
É r¤stvn for money in payment for
Se[r]Ænou the barley for Hephaistion
ka‹ GermanÚw (see above), who is now
SelpoË described as a leader of the
Blue faction at Alexandria;
the komarchs are illiterate

Pnçw P. Cairo Isid. 24, 11 301–325 komarch mentioned

in a document of a pittakion
(agricultural firm)

248
The document is preserved in five copies, of which four have parå AÈrhl¤vn
ÉIsid≈rou Palhn¤ou ka‹ DoÊlou Timoy°ou émfot°rvn kvmãrxvn k≈[mhw] Karan¤dow, and
only one: parå AÈrhl¤ou ÉIsid≈rou ktl. The latter was chosen by Boak for the edition.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 242

242 CHAPTER FOUR

anonymi O. Mich. I 339, 1 late third/ list of persons (donkey-

/early fourth drivers?) ‘through the
cent. komarch’
anonymi O. Mich. I 340, 5 late third/ list of persons (donkey-
/early fourth drivers?) ‘through the
cent. komarch’
A
É i«n O. Mich. II 939, 7 late third/ list of persons,
/early fourth including one komarch
cent.

Kerkeesis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages249

Kerkesephis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages250

Kerkesoucha Orous (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages251

249
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
250
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
251
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 243

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 243

Leukogiou Epoikion (Them.?)

– if not identical with Leukogion in the Herakleopolite nome252

Official(s) Reference Date Document

A
É tãeiw P. Sakaon 22, ii, 6–7 5 September 324 receipt for grass issued
ka‹ ÑHrakl∞w = P. Thead. 34 by the komarch of Epoikion
Leukogiou for Sakaon
and his associate, the
komarchs of Theadelpheia

Magais (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU III 754, second half list of payments prepared
ii 10253 of the third by the komarchs, to be
cent. delivered to the central
administration of the nome

Oxyrhyncha (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages254

Pelousion (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi SB I 4422 third cent. strategos to the eirenarchos,
(after 245) komarchai and kephalaiotai
of the pittakia of a village
(sc. Pelousion?) concerning
the works (erga) carried out
in Pelousion

252
For the reasons why this Leukogiou Epoikion is listed here, see above, pp. 192–193
with n. 108.
253
For the document, see below, pp. 253–254.
254
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 244

244 CHAPTER FOUR

Phanesis (Her)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU III 754, ii 6255 second half list of payments prepared
of the third cent. by the komarchs, to be
delivered to the central
administration of the nome

Philadelpheia (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU VII 1612, 2 17 Aug. 259 receipt by a hekatontarches
or 17 Aug. 281256 of a compulsory delivery
of palm fibres
anonymi BGU XI 2080, third cent. order for arrest
3 and 1257 (after ca. 245)258
anonymi SB VI 9041259 January/ a receipt for 180 dr. issued
= O. Mich. I 13–24 /February 262 by the komarch to a person
(year uncertain)260 whose name is not given
Diog°nhw P. Grenf. I 50, 7 24 Oct. 260 a receipt from an exegetes
for a payment made
through Diogenes komarch
AÈrÆlioi O. Mich. I 25 19 Aug. 279 a receipt for barley
Sarap¤vn
ka‹ Mestçw
AÈrÆliow SB XVI 12829, 2 July/August 287 agreement on succession
àOl Kopr∞ to the komarchy
mh(trÚw) A
É pillçw

255
For the document, see below, pp. 253–254.
256
For the date, see P. Louvre I, p. 157
257
Line 1: [ 1 1 1 ]r`x3[ 1 1 1] ` `[ `] ` ` `m` ` `t`a` `m` `[ ` én]a`p`°mcate to`Áw t`[ ` ` `] with the editor’s
remark: ‘Wohl Kvmã]rx[aiw oder Topã]rx[˙. In view of the non-existence of the toparchiai
in the third century in the Arsinoite nome, only the first possibility is probable.
258
For the date, see J. D. THOMAS, in review of BGU XI (ed. H. MAEHLER), JEA 57
(1971), p. 238 (= BL VI, p. 21) and BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit.
supra, n. 14), p. 782 n. 4 (= BL VII, p. 24).
259
Editio princeps: H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Diplomatic Notes on Michigan Ostraca’, Class. Phil.
39 (1944), pp. 28–39 (see p. 39) = Scriptiunculae, Amsterdam 1973, vol. II, pp. 830–843.
260
For the date, see REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites, pp. 276–277 n. 47.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 245

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 245

AÈrÆliow SB XVI 12829 287/8 appointed by the agreement

KornÆliow (see above)
PÒsi mh(trÚw)
Efioulian∞w
AÈrÆliow SB XVI 12829 288/9 appointed by the agreement
DiÒskorow Kopr∞ (see above)261
mh(trÚw) A
É pillçw
(brother of Aurelius Hol)
AÈrÆlioi P. Princ. Roll. 312/3 a roll containing receipts
A
É rianÚw ii 47263 for taxes in wheat
262
ka‹ A
É pÒllvn and money
GoËnyow P. Princ. Roll. 314/5 see the preceding row
iii 158
AÈrÆlioi P. Gen. I2 70 372/3 contract of lease of land;
A
É mmvnianÚw ÑEkÊsevw the officials are not called
ka‹ Sarmãthw PaÊlou komarchai264
ka‹ Mous∞w ÜHrvnow
ka‹ A
É sãeiw AÑ tr∞
AÈrÆlioi P. Gen. I2 66 2 May 374 contract of lease of land
A
É mmvnianÚw = WChr. 281
ÑEkÊsiow
ka‹ A
É ll≈niow T ` ` ` `h y` ¤ou
ka‹ Timag°nhw A É s¤vnow
ka‹ A
É moËn AÉ tr∞ 265
261
For the succession of the komarchs in the 280s in Philadelpheia, see above,
pp. 187–188.
262
The text reads (lines 47–48): AÈrÆlioi A É rianÚw ka‹ AÉ pÒllvn ka‹ PÒsiw ka‹ A É i«n
x≈marxoi (read k≈marxoi) | ka‹ kefalevtai (read kefalaivta‹) kthn«n dhmos¤vn kat-
agvg∞w. The presence of four komarchs would be surprising at such an early date. The
editors (Bagnall and Worp) reasonably suggested that the first two names are those of the
komarchs, the second two of the kephalaiotai. The present list offers some new evidence
for this: in Philadelpheia a collegium of four komarchs is attested as late as 374; in Karanis
in 315/6 still two.
263
P. Princ. Roll = A Papyrus Roll in the Princeton Collection, ed. E. H. KASE, Jr. Baltimore,
diss. 1933; text reprinted as SB V 7621. A new edition by R. S. BAGNALL and K. A. WORP in
ArchPF 30 (1984) pp. 53–82 – so far not in SB.
264
For the sequence of komarchs in Philadelpheia in the 370s and 380s, see above,
pp. 193–194.
265
The text reads as follows (lines 1–5): AÈrÆlioi{w} A É mmvnianÚw ÑEkÊs[i]ow | [ka‹
É l]lvn¤ou (read A
A É ll≈niow) T ` ` ` `h2y¤ou ka‹ Tim[ag]°no(uw) (read Timag°n(hw)) | [ÉAs¤v]now ka‹
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 246

246 CHAPTER FOUR

AÈrÆlioi P. Gen. I2 67 19 Jan. 382 contract of lease of land;

A
É mmvnianÚw PekÊsi1ou (or 383) the officials are not called
ka‹ A É 2s2ãeiw AÑ tr∞ komarchai
ka‹ A É pfoËw MaÊrou
ka‹ Pouår A É t¤vn1o1w2
AÈrÆlioi P. Gen. I2 69 January – contract of lease of land;
A
É [n]nianow P2ek2 us¤o1u1 – April 386 the officials are not called
ka2‹1 A
É 2sãeiw A Ñ t1r∞ komarchai
anonymi P. Princ. II 99, 2 fourth cent. letter from the eirenach
Ptolemaios to the komarch
of Philadelpheia

Philopator – Theogenous (Her)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU III 754, second half list of payments prepared
ii 5266 of the third by the komarchs, to be
cent. delivered to the central
administration of the nome

Psanlebitonos (Epoikion) (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages267

Ptolemais Nea (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

Olkanvl P. Corn. 20, 302 declarations of land for
passim268 the census of the year 302

A
É moËn A É tr∞ émfÒter(oi) kvmãr(xai) | [t∞w] k≈mhw Filadelf¤aw toË A É rsino-|[˝t]ou nomoË,
cf. lines 16–18. For émfÒter(oi) = ëpantew, see WB, s.v. (1).
266
For the document, see below, pp. 253–254.
267
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
268
P. Corn. 20 was discussed in the chapter on toparchiai (see above, pp. 130 and 137). It
is a long roll containing eleven declarations of land for the census of the year 302 AD. The
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 247

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 247

Sebennytos (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈr. P. Leit. 3 ca. 313 nomination by the two
Serap¤vn = SB VIII 10194 komarchs to a liturgy
ka‹ [ 1 1 1 1 (sitologos)

Syron Kome (Her.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Giss. Univ. I 15, 2 third cent. order for arrest

Talei (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi Rathbone, November of a Heroninos’ account
Text 2, ii 34 year between 249
= SB XX 14645 and 253 (possibly
= P. Prag. Varcl II 5 251 or 252)269
= SB VI 9409.2
anonymi Rathbone, June 253 Heroninos’ account
Text 1, recto, 39
= SB XX 14197
= P. Prag. Varcl II 3 + 10
= SB VI 9408.2 + 9409.7
anonymi P. Prag. Varcl II 4, March/April 255 Heroninos’ account
iii 32 = SB VI 9409.1
anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages270

declarations are made by different people from Karanis, Arsinoe and Ptolemais Nea but
all plots are located in Ptolemais Nea. Each declarations is signed by a collegium of offi-
cials including three geometrai who measured the land, an ıriode¤kthw (boundary official),
one of the meizones of the village and Olkanol, komarch.
269
For the date, see RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 456.
270
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 248

248 CHAPTER FOUR

Taurinou Kome (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Flor. II 132, 2 257 Heroninos archive: a letter
from Alypios, general
manager of the Appianos
estate to the komarchs.
Alypios intervenes on behalf
of an estate employee271

Tebtynis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

272
AÈrÆlioi P. Michael. 21, 7 10(?) Febr. 285 receipt for the komarchs
PamoËn of Tebtynis273 for tunic
ka‹ Pe`me` i` ` and cloak
anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages274

Theadelpheia (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

AÈrÆlioi archive of libelli 12–25 June 250 twenty-two libelli of the
Ser∞now Decian persecution275
ka‹ ÑErmçw

271
See RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 20.
272
For the date, see BL V, p. 68; BAGNALL – WORP, Regnal Formulas, p. 2.
273
The text reads as follows: AÈrhl¤oiw | PamoËn ka‹ Pe`m`e`i ` ` 4amfoterv`n (l. émfot°roiw)
kvmar|xvn (l. kvmãrxaiw) k`≈mhw` ` ` `[ ` `]n`evw xa¤rein. k`≈mhw`` T2e1[btÊ]n`evw in line 7 is a pos-
sible reading.
274
For the document and its date, see below, section ‘Remarks on some documents.’
275
See above, pp. 184–187, section ‘Was it komarchs of Theadelpheia issued the libelli
of the Decian persecution in 250?’.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 249

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 249

ÑErmçw Rathbone, November of a Heroninos’ account;

Text 2, ii 34 year between 249 payments made
= SB XX 14645 and 253 (possibly at Theadelpheia ‘through
= P. Prag. Varcl II 5 251 or 252) Hermas komarch’
= SB VI 9409.2
ÑErmçw P. Prag. Varcl. April 252 Heroninos’ account;
II 4, 36 payments made
= SB VI 9409.1 at Theadelpheia ‘through
Hermas’
ÑErmçw Rathbone, June 253 Heroninos’ account;
Text 1, recto, 43 payments made
= SB XX 14197 at Theadelpheia ‘through
= P. Prag. Varcl II 3 + 10 Hermas’
= SB VI 9408.2 + 9409.7
ÑErmçw P. Prag. Varcl. II 7, 11 254–259 Heroninos’ account;
payments made
at Theadelpheia ‘through
Hermas’
ÑErmçw P. Flor. III 345 undated (250s) letter to Hermas about fiscal
and liturgical matters276
anonymus P. Laur. III 99, undated account of deliveries of wine
A, i 5; ii 3 and 8; (Heroninos for different individuals277
C, 6 archive)
M°law P. Sakaon 58, 5–6 5 July 299 engagement for labour
ÑHrakle¤dou = PSI VIII 873 on account of the village
ka‹ PaÆsiow
SataboËtow
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 13, 10 14 July 307278 receipts for money
ÑVr¤vn = P. Thead. 38 in commutation for chaff
ka‹ Saka«n and meat paid through
the komarch

276
See RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, p. 20 n. 25 and p. 417.
277
See RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism, pp. 360–362.
278
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, Regnal Formulas, p. 27.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 250

250 CHAPTER FOUR

AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 18, 5 29 April 312279 receipts for money

ÉEsoËrew = P. Thead. 42 in commutation for wheat
ka‹ Saka«n and meat paid through
the komarch
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 51, 2–5 6 May 324280 nomination of sitologoi
Saka«n = P. Thead. 50) and apaitetai
SataboËtow ka‹
A
É uo`Ëg M°lano[w]
282
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 22, i 2; 5–8 Sept. 324 five receipts for various
Saka«n ii 9–10; iv 24–25; taxes
ka‹ NN281 v 35–36
= P. Thead. 34
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 23, 3–4 24 Dec. 324283 receipt for labour
Saka«n = P. Thead. 58
ka‹ A
É 2o2Ë2g
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 24, 4–5 28 June 325285 receipt for labour
Saka«n = P. Thead. 35
ka‹ NN284
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 52, 21–22 19 Aug. 326 nomination of komarchs,
P°nniw = P. Strasb. III 177 see the following entry
Saka«`now
ka‹ Zv˝low
M°lanow
A
É nton›now P. Sakaon 52, 21 326/7 komarchs nominated
Saka«now ka‹ = P. Strasb. III 177 for the coming year
Koun¤aw M°lanow
AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 25, 4–5 30 Aug. and receipts for labour
P¤nni (P°ni) and 26–27 12 Sept. 327286
ka‹ KanaoËg = P. Thead. 36

279
For the date, see R. S. BAGNALL and K. A. WORP, ‘Chronological Notes on Byzan-
tine Documents. IV’, BASP 17 (1980), p. 12.
280
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, ‘Chronological Notes’ (cit. supra, n. 278), p. 12.
281
For the formula Saka«n ka‹ ı koi(nvnÚw) kvmãr(xai) Yeadelf¤aw, see above, p. 192.
282
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, ‘Chronological Notes’ (cit. supra, n. 278), p. 12.
283
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, ‘Chronological Notes’ (cit. supra, n. 278), p. 12.
284
For the formula Saka«n ka‹ ı koi(nvnÚw) kvmãr(xai) Yeadelf¤aw, see above, p. 192.
285
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, ‘Chronological Notes’ (cit. supra, n. 278), p. 12.
286
For the date, see BAGNALL – WORP, ‘Chronological Notes’ (cit. supra, n. 278), p. 12.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 251

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 251

AÈrÆlioi P. Sakaon 29, 3–5 284–343287 receipt for money

P¤nni (P°ni) = P. Thead. 47 in commutation for a sailor
ka‹ ÑVr¤vn
AÈrÆliow CPR VI 5, 336/7 a receipt for the komarchai
ÖHrvn i 3 and 12 (?) and others288

Theogonis/Theogenis (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent., letter addressed to the
second half? komarchai, demosioi and
tesserarii of the listed
villages289

Theoxenis (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Vars. 20, 3–5 third cent. official note, probably
(after 245) dealing with payments
for transport by ships;
the komarchs of the three
villages (Hermopolis,
Theoxenis and perhaps
Andromachis) are involved

Thraso (Them.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi BGU II 634, 1 third cent. order for arrest
(after ca. 245)290

287
The document has no date; the dates in the table are those of the documents of the
Sakaon archive.
288
Lines 1–2: [AÈrhl¤oiw] ÜH`rvni ka‹ to›w {4oi}4 koi(nvno›w) kvmãrx(aiw) | [k≈mhw
Yea]delf¤aw
289
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
290
For the date, see P. Mich. X, p. 48 (= BL VI, p. 12) and BORKOWSKI – HAGEDORN,
‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14), p. 782 n. 4 (= BL VII, p. 14).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 252

252 CHAPTER FOUR

Tristomon (Pol.)

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymus P. Bad. II 29 fifth cent. letter addressed
second half? to the komarchai, demosioi
and tesserarii of the listed
villages291

Village unknown or uncertain

Official(s) Reference Date Document

anonymi P. Flor. I 76, 21 ca. 250–265 Heroninos archive

REMARKS ON SOME DOCUMENTS

SB XXII 15485 (= P. Laur. II 30),292 palaeographically dated to the

beginning of the second century AD, is a ‘Pachtangebot’. The first seven
lines of Hagedorn’s edition are as follows:

CenamoËni N°vn`o[w ka‹ t“ de›ni - - -]

tow ka‹ DioskÒrvi Pto[lema¤ou toË ± 5 ]
menow ka‹ A
É drãstvi [toË de›now ka‹]
4 PetesoÊxvi Paxo¤t`[ow t«n Zahl ]
presbut°rvn ka‹ P[- - - A É fro]-
[ka‹ t“ de›ni kv-]
dis¤ou grammate› gev`[rg«n Yeadelfe¤aw]
mogrammate› t1∞2w1 a2È1t∞w

Lines 5b and 7 contain a new address. Why? It is possible that Psen-

amounis son of Neon and his colleagues were presbyteroi performing the
duties of a komogrammateus. When the office was taken over by a komo-
grammateus, whose name is unfortunately lost, their job was done and the
document had to be re-addressed to the proper official. This seems to be

291
For the document and its date, see below, pp. 254–255.
292
Reedited by D. HAGEDORN, ‘Bemerkungen zu verschiedenen Papyrusurkunden’,
JJurP 23 (1993) (Studies in Memory of Zbigniew Borkowski), pp. 49–59 [at pp. 54–57]).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 253

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 253

an interesting trace of the way of taking over the duties by a komogram-

mateus fulfilling his liturgy; the problem of such an interpretation is, how-
ever, the unusual formula without the phrase diadexÒmenoi tå katå tØn
kvmogrammate¤an etc.
One is certainly disconcerted by menow in the beginning of line 3. Hage-
dorn tries to suggest ≤gou]||m°no<i>w at the same time pointing to docu-
ments in which a college of hegoumenoi represents the village. This, how-
ever, would disagree with presbut°rvn two lines below? -menow as an
ending of a name is also difficult – Hagedorn takes it into consideration,
suggesting the name Poimen, which, however, seems to have come into
use in the fourth century.
To conclude: the document is not clear and these men are not included
in the prosopography.

SB XXII 15760293 has in lines 3–4: p2[a]rå2 A

É polinar[¤ou komogram-
mat°vw]|| §poik[¤ou NN. The way the editor suggested to fill the lacune is
impossible given the very date of the document (AD 294).

BGU III 754 dating from the third century, terminus post quem: re-
introduction of the office of komarch; terminus ante quem: disappearing of
merides. The aim of making such a list of payments, to be delivered to the
central administration of the nome (in the period when the three merides
were re-unified) is unclear.

apod[ 1 1 1 1 1 ]1 ow tå
ÍpÚ kv[ma]rx«n t«n •j∞w
kvm«n prostey°nta
4 ÑHrakle¤dou mer¤dow
[F]ilopãtorow (draxma‹) 347
F`anÆs`evw (draxma‹) 12
(g¤nontai) (draxma‹) 359

293
Editio princeps: P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Three Tax-Receipts from the Michigan Papyrus Col-
lection’, ZPE 103 (1994) pp. 93–97 (p. 96).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 254

254 CHAPTER FOUR

8 Yem¤stou mer¤dow
A
É pollvniãdow (draxma‹) 1
294
M2a2[ga¤]d1ow (draxma‹) 4
traces of one more line

The text provides us with no indications as to why these and not other
localities were listed. All of them have komarchs, even though these are
not the most important Fayum villages.

P. Bad. II 29295 is a fragmentarily preserved letter addressed to the

komarchs, demosioi and tesserarii of the listed villages, concerning the trans-
port (by ship) and packaging of coal. Its date is problematic: 26 March 404
was proposed on the basis of a Diocletian era year 120. This was questioned
by Bagnall296 since the era was first used in ordinary papyrus documents as
late as AD 657/8 (= year 374 of the era), i.e. after the Arab conquest.297 Let us
add that AD 404 would also be difficult in terms of palaeography; the sec-
ond half of the fifth century seems to be more probable.
The text, with the readings added after its editio princeps (especially in
P. Heid. IV, p. 289), is as follows:

p[(arå) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]1 w`
kvmãrxaiw ka‹ dhmos¤oiw ka‹ tes[ssarar¤oiw t«n Í]pogegramm°[n]vn
kvm[«n] xa(¤rein).
pollØn afit¤[a]n1 e1[fiw] Ím`çw` ok`[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]1 1 1 w1 tª é[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]1
4 ˜ti m°xri [toÊtou] oÈde[‹w ]
toË aflroËntow` [ ]a`
paradoËnai t“ épos`t[` Òlƒ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]1 r`[...]...[..]..t`etow` [..]..naiaw ka‹

294
For the reading of line 10, see BL I, p. 64.
295
For a photograph of lines 7–13, see R. SEIDER, Paläographie der griechischen Papyri.
Band I. Tafeln. Erster Teil: Urkunden, Stuttgart 1967, no. 39.
296
In K. A. WORP, ‘Chronological Observations on Later Byzantine Documents’,
BASP 22 (1985), pp. 357–363 [p. 358 n. 4]. The document is not mentioned in BAGNALL
– WORP, Chronological Systems.
297
BAGNALL – WORP, Chronological Systems, p. 64.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 255

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 255

ktÆnh efiw tØn toË ênyrakow kataskeuØn, éllå mØn ka‹ tå aflroËn2 Ím›n
ciãyia2
8 efiw tÚn katagÄgismÚn toË ênyrakow. §ån d¢ aÔyiw afitiãshtai Ímçw •a2[u]t1oÁw
m2[°m]fesyai, §peidØ3 plo›a ple›sta prosorme› toÊtou ßneken [§n ˜rmoiw]
k≈mhw Yeogen¤dow, TeptÊnevw, KerkesoÊxvn ÖOrouw, KerkÆsev[w],
Tale›, KerkesÆfevw, A Ö revw, ÉOxurÊgÄxvn, TristÒmou, §poik¤ou`
12 TristÒmou, §poik¤ou ÉIsid≈rou, §poik¤ou Canleb¤tvnow. 1 1 1 Fa-
men∆y l.
—
2. or tes[ssalar¤oiw 12. rk L ed. princ.; g(¤netai) kh Worp, BASP 22 (1985), p. 358 n. 4.

The village tesserarii are different from the military ones,298 see P. Oxy.
XII 1425, 5 comm. P. Bad. II 29 is the only attestation of tesserarii in the
Arsinoite nome.
Literally speaking, the villages listed at the end of this document
should have officials named in the heading, but of course this is far from
evident. Perhaps only some of them had tesserarii, perhaps some did not
have their komarchs, but according to the methodological guidelines
specified in the introductory remarks to the prosopography all the men-
tioned villages were assigned one anonymous komarch. Especially suspi-
cious are the two last localities, epoikia Isidorou and Psanlebitonos, for
which P. Bad. II 29 is the only attestation.

TESTIMONIA INCERTA ET DELENDA

SB XX 14085 of 13/12 BC or AD 31/2 contains a list of criminal cases reg-

istered in a tomos synkollesimos.299 Each entry contains information on the
perpetrator and the plaintiff; often, though not always, this is supple-

298
For the office, see A. E. R. BOAK, ‘Tesserarii and Quadrarii as Village Officials in
Egypt of the Fourth Century’, Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan
Chester Johnson, ed. P. R. COLEMAN-NORTON, Princeton 1951, pp. 322–335.
299
Editio princeps by Loisa CASARICO in Carla BALCONI, Emanuela BATTAGLIA, G. CASA-
NOVA, Loisa CASARICO, S. DARIS e Carla SALVATERRA, ‘Papiri documentari dell’Università
Cattolica di Milano’, Aegyptus 69 (1989), pp. 5–59 (at pp. 12–27), also containing a discus-
sion about the aim of making this register.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 256

256 CHAPTER FOUR

mented by information on the place where the crime was committed.

Entry 12 (the editor does not number the lines but only successive
entries!) in column II reads as follows:

Fa«(fi) iz B[ou]bã(stou) . . . . . i1ow ÑVr¤vno`w metrhmati<a¤>ou Leontç

Ùlumpion¤kou kap`[ ]
prÚw Levnçn kv`mo` g` ra(mmat°a) ka`i` . . . per‹ fÒ(nou) t∞w gun[aikÚw ]
Phaophi 17, (caso) di Boubastos, . . . . . ios di Horion, lavoratore agricolo, di
Leontas vincitore olimpico . . . . . contro Leonas komogrammateus ...... per
l’omicidio delle moglie . . . .

Leonas komogrammateus is accused of the murder of his(?) wife. The

case took place in Boubastos, the reading following the word komogram-
mateus is not easy. The editor left it as ka`i` . . ., without suggesting an
interpretation for this place in the text. Perhaps it was here that the name
of the village where Leonas held his post was written. Based on the pho-
tograph supplied by the editio princeps it can be said that the initial kappa
is certain, ai – rather difficult, if not impossible. The reading, however, is
difficult but based on a photograph I am unable to propose an alternative
reading.300 Anyhow, Leonas did not necessarily have to be a komogramma-
teus of Boubastos, and for this reason he was placed in the fasti section
labelled ‘village unknown‘.

SB I 4419301 contains a beginning of an official letter from a komogram-

mateus to an unknown official:

(¶touw) d AÈtokrãtorow Ka¤sarow

Mãrkou AÈrhl¤ou SeouÆrou

300
As is known from elsewere, in a Coptic document Boubastos is called poubaste
For Boubastos, see CALDERINI, DARIS, Dizionario II, p. 59; pp. 60–61 (2); Suppl. I p. 84;
Suppl. II p. 37 (2); P. Tebt. II, pp. 373–374; TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in arabischer
Zeit, pp. 2003–2004. For alternations of Boubastos–Kamepolis, see esp. Timm, p. 2004.
301
Editio princeps: E. J. GOODSPEAD, ‘A Group of Greek Papyrus Texts’, Classical Philology
1 (1906), p. 173 (text no. VIII).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 257

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 257

A
É lejãndrou EÈseboËw EÈtux[oËw]
4 SebastoË, Fa«fi.
AÈrÆliow AÉ frod¤siow kvmogr(ammateÁw)
di' §moË toË a.....ou

The date is certain: the month of Phaophi of the fourth year of

Alexander Severus, i.e. September/October 224. There is, however, noth-
ing in the text pointing to its Fayumic provenance. After AD 219/20 at the
latest, in the Arsinoite nome we have amphodokomogrammateis who
replaced komogrammateis. The editor (and the owner of the papyrus at
that) says that ‘all these [papyri], except the ninth, come from the Fayum,
and pretty certainly from Kôm Ushîm, the ancient Karanis’ (ibidem,
p. 167), without offering any details. In the case of SB I 4419 we have,
therefore, two possibilities: either we reject its Fayumic origin or we
assume that the document, although found at Karanis, concerns another
nome. However, in connection with this document it is worth recalling
BGU XIII 2282 issued in 229/30 by two candidates for the office of komo-
grammateus of Ptolemais Arabon and other villages.302

P. Berl. inv. 11559 has been edited twice:

(1.) by G. Poethke – SB X 10614,303
(2.) by A. Tomsin – P. Berl. Leihg. II 26.
The first part (‘A’ according to Tomsin, col. I – Poethke) of the docu-
ment (Theadelpheia, 167/8) is an order from Phokion, strategos of the
merides of Themistos and Polemon to the sitologoi of Theadelpheia to sup-
ply seed to the demosioi georgoi of the villages of Kaminoi and Kerke-
sephis.304 The land to be sowed is basilike ge in the territory of Argias, a vil-
lage in the meris of Themistos, while Kaminoi and Kerkesephis are in the
Polemon. Tomsin’s document B (= col. II in the Poethke’s edition) is a

302
For this document, see above, pp. 177–178.
303
G. POETHKE, Epimerismos. Betrachtungen zur Zwangspacht in Ägypten während der Prin-
zipatszeit (= Papyrologica Bruxellensia 8), Bruxelles 1969, pp. 93–99
304
For this type of documents, see TOMSIN, ‘Étude sur les presbuteroi’ (cit. supra, n. 46),
introduction, pp. 95–96 (= pp. 1–2).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 258

258 CHAPTER FOUR

receipt of the two demosioi georgoi of Kaminoi and the two of Kerkesephis
for the supplied seed. The receipt was signed in Poethke’s edition (lines
56–58): P`e`t`°`vn` presb(Êterow) ditexÒm(enow) (= diadexÒm(enow)) katå tØn
kv(mo)gr(ammate¤an) §pid°dvka. Palaeographically the reading is accept-
able, but there are two serious difficulties:
(1.) ditexÒm(enow) as a corruption of diadexÒm(enow);
(2.) the omission of (ka‹) tå before katå tØn kv(mo)gr(ammate¤an).
This would imply the existence of a komogrammateia of the two vil-
lages, if we accepted that the presbyteros issuing the document was that of
the home villages of the cultivators. But Tomsin’s reading seems to be
better at first glance, although – as he points out himself – equally prob-
able from the palaeographical point of view. The document is suggested
to be signed by a scribe (secretary) of the elders: ≤`me`[›w ofl] d’ pres-
b(Êteroi) é`p°`xom(en). | Kas`ç`w` Phk`« gra`(mmateÁw) §pi-|d°dvka.305 This
removes the two difficulties of the previous reading, but causes new seri-
ous troubles – the names, not touched upon by Tomsin in his commen-
tary. Preisigke in Namenbuch gives only one reference to Kasçw – SPP X
12, 1 (VII/VIII); the text (nothing in BL) reads as follows: §n ÙnÒmati toË
yeoË. Sabian uflÚ(w) Kasa with the editor’s remark ‘fünfmal wiederholt’;
Foraboschi, Onomasticon adds two references, but after a closer examina-
tion they turn out to be a single document: SB III 7196 = P. Berl. Leihg. I
4 (Theadelpheia, AD 165). On its verso, in col. viii, line 23 we read:
Di[Ò1]skoro(w) Kas(ç?).306 Even worse is for Phk`« – the name is still a
hapax legomenon.
Both readings are, therefore, uncertain although the impression that
Kaminoi and Kerkesephis could have belonged to one komogrammateia
remains.

BGU I 84. This document, dated to year 6 of the reign of Gordian III
(AD 242/3, no exact dating) contains a report on amounts of wheat, barley,
and lentils for various villages (meris of Themistos). The document, or its

305
For the role of secretary of the elders in the transmission of the documents of this
type, see TOMSIN, ‘Étude sur les presbuteroi’ (cit. supra, n. 46), p. 517 (p. 87).
306
A dot under the omikron in brackets and question mark are from the original edition.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 259

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 259

section concerning the village of Pelousion, begins with p[ar]å kvm[ ]

(col i, line 1) which was reasonably supplemented by the editor as p[ar]å
kvm[vgrammat°vw.307 It is difficult to determine if the term ‘komogram-
mateus’ was used instead of the proper, though long and clumsy term
amphodokomogrammateus, or if komogrammateis existed in the Fayum along-
side amphodokomogrammateis, although the latter are in great majority in
documents from the period AD 217–245.308 Perhaps the komogrammateis
were superior to amphodokomogrammateis? As one recalls, ca. AD 222/3
brought about an important change consisting of the introduction of two
(or even three) amphodokomogrammateis in one kome. Perhaps the large
komogrammateiai governed by komogrammateis still existed, and parts of
these administrative structures were administrated by amphodokomogram-
mateis? Unfortunately, the documents available today do not allow a veri-
fication of such a hypothesis, although it would explain the sporadic
occurrence of terms komogrammateus and komogrammateia at a time when
both should have been absent from the reality of the Arsinoite nome.309

P. Aberdeen 60: order for arrest; line 1 is supplemented by the editor:

[kvmãrx˙] k`≈`mhw Sokn`o`pa`¤`o`u NÆsou which is improbable because of the
date (first-second cent.) see P. Mich, X, p. 48.

P. Cairo Isid. 128 (Karanis, June/July 314) is a receipt issued by the

tesserarius, the komarchs and a demosios – all the officials of Buto in the
Memphite nome to Aurelius Isidoros being in that year the tesserarius of

307
For a very interesting interpretation of the document, see See P. VAN MINNEN,
‘Pelousion, an Arsinoite Village in Distress’, ZPE 77 (1989), pp. 199–200. The author, how-
ever, does not deal with the problem of the authorship of the report.
308
OERTEL, Die Liturgie, p. 157 on BGU I 84: ‘nicht über allem Zweifel erhaben’.
BORKOWSKI and HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus’ (cit. supra, n. 14), p. 780 n. 5 quote
Oertel’s opinion and leave the document aside.
309
There is yet another way to interpret BGU I 84: line 1 can be reconstructed as
p[ar]å kvm[arx«n. However, this seems improbable to me, as it would imply the rein-
troduction of komarchs into the Egyptian administration under Gordian III. Moreover,
documentation from other parts of Egypt leaves no doubt that this change was part of
reforms introduced by Philip the Arabian (see above, pp. 182–184). The latest komogram-
mateus outside the Arsinoite nome is attested in February/March 245 (P. Oxy. XLII 3047).
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 260

260 CHAPTER FOUR

the village of Karanis, concerning the fugitives from Buto surrendered in

Karanis by Isidoros.

PSI VII 766 contains the bottom part of a report of komogrammateis,

submitted on a day of Thoth of year 18 of Hadrian (August/September 133).
Its Arsinoite provenance has been suggested by its editor and eventually
accepted by the Duke Data Bank and Heidelberger Gesammtverzeichnis
(with a question mark).

6. CONCLUSION

As it was demonstrated in the first part of this chapter, in the second

cent. and in the first half of the third cent. komogrammateiai were sizeable
administrative units that usually encompassed several villages. In all of
the Fayum there were most probably ca. 30–40 of them. This was a sig-
nificant change comparing to the Ptolemaic system, when the area falling
under the jurisdiction of a komogrammateus – as is generally accepted – was
one village. A relatively small number of documents from the first cent.
AD and, above all, the lack of a dossier resembling the Petaus archive, so
crucial for our reasoning, prevent us from determining when this change
occurred. It might have been associated with the reforms that the gov-
ernment introduced ca. AD 60–70, when the toparchies disappeared and
the nome itself was divided into three independent nomes that territori-
ally corresponded to the merides that had functioned for over three cen-
turies. Another characteristic trait of the Roman administration on local
level was the lack of komarchs, who were re-introduced as part of the
reforms of the 240s. However, komarchs were by no means the successors
of the komogrammateis – their jurisdiction encompassed one kome and they
administered it in pairs or even – in the fourth century – in groups of four.
There are reasons to believe that the transformation from the ‘big’ komo-
grammateis (one for several komai) to the ‘small’ komarchs (two or more in
one kome) occurred in the years when in the Arsinoite nome the village
officials were called amphodokomogrammateis. This change must have
taken place between AD 219/20 and AD 222/3.
147-261 Ch4 11/30/06 3:54 AM Page 261

KOMOGRAMMATEIAI 261

CORRECTIONS

Date of P. Tebt. II 346 – ca. 41–42 after the komogrammateis

Provenance of WChr. 227, 5 (= BGU I 108) – Karanis because of Herieus,
komogrammateus
SB XXII 15760, 3–4: p2[a]rå2 A É polinar[¤ou komogrammat°vw]|| §poik[¤ou
NN impossible because of the very date of the document (AD 294).
Date of BGU II 389 – before 219/20, i.e. replacing the komogrammateis by
the amphodokomogrammateis; and after Constitutio Antoniniana.
Date of BGU II 390 – before 219/20, i.e. replacing the komogrammateis by
the amphodokomogrammateis
Date of BGU III 754 must be after ca. 245 because of komarchs.
Date of BGU VII 1612 must be after ca. 245 because of komarchs.
BGU XI 2080, 1: Kvmã]rx[aiw
Date of SB I 4422 must be after 245 (komarchs).
P. Michael. 21, 7: k`≈mhw`` T2e1[btÊ]n`evw in line 7 is a possible reading.
BGU VII 1573: presbÊterow k≈mhw ÑIerçw diadexÒmenow tå katå tØn
kvmogrammate¤an t«n kvm«n ÑIerçw ka‹ AÈÆrevw is impossible, see
above, p. 156.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 263

CHAPTER FIVE

THE ARSINOITE PAGI.

UNIFICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
STRUCTURES

1
1. INTRODUCTION

EGYPT as part of a fundamental reform

Tof political and administrative organisation that took place in the years
HE PAGI WERE INTRODUCED INTO

following the abdication of Diocletian. They replaced toparchies, which

disappeared from the administrative system of Egypt after AD 307/8.2 As a

1
A history of my interest in the Arsinoite pagi should be briefly recounted here. Actu-
ally, the creation of the pagi was the first subject with which I began my work on the
administration of the Fayum under Roman rule. After I had written a first draft of my
paper in 2000, I learnt that also Nikolaos GONIS was collecting evidence for pagi in the
Fayum and preparing a draft of a paper. His preliminary conclusion which I got to know
at an informal dinner in Vienna during the XXIIIrd Congress of Papyrology in Vienna in
July 2001 was substantially similar to mine (see the last section: ‘How was the Fayum
divided into pagi? A hypothesis’). He later sent me a draft of his unpublished paper, from
which he allowed me to quote. Then, in February 2002, when I was finishing the paper
for JJurP 31 (2001), I consulted him several times by e-mail. I decided to publish my paper
followed by Gonis’ edition of P. Aberd. 164 (‘Pagi in the Arsinoites: a Study in Administra-
tion of the Fayum in the Early Byzantine Period’, JJurP 31 [2001], pp. 17–32). An idea of a
paper on the Arsinoite pagi was also not unfamiliar to Fritz MITTHOF whom I met during
my stay in Vienna in February 2001. I would like to thank both of them for extremely
interesting comments.
2
In his fundamental study published almost a century ago, Matthias GELZER deduced
from the evidence then available that the crucial years for the changeover in the political
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 264

264 CHAPTER FIVE

rule,3 the pagi were more numerous than the toparchies, e.g. in the
Oxyrhynchite nome 10 pagi vs. 6 toparchies;4 in the Hermopolite 17 pagi vs.
11 toparchies.5 Some documents of Oxyrhynchite provenance seem to sug-
gest that the new division was anticipated in the last decades of the old sys-
tem by the introduction of a subdivision of toparchies into m°rh with prv-
tostãtai as their governors.6
Before the reforms of AD 307/8 the administrative division of the Arsi-
noite nome was quite different from that of other Egyptian nomes, at
least those we have enough evidence to judge. During the Roman period,
from ca. AD 60 the Fayum was first administered by three different stra-
tegoi, one for each meris; from AD 136/7 onwards the merides of Themistos
and Polemon were combined under a single strategos. During the reign of
Gallienus at the latest, the three merides were re-unified and the Arsinoite
nome began to be administered by one strategos.
A very characteristic trait of the administration of Roman Fayum is,
for most of the period, the lack of toparchies. They appear twice, each
time they last for a relatively short period; first in AD 111 (and disappear
twenty years later) in connection with the sitologia; for the second time
the toparchies came to the Fayum during the reign of Philip the Arabian
together with the dekaprotoi and together with them they disappeared
from the administrative division in AD 302.7 This is an important fact;

organisation of Egypt were AD 307–310, i.e. the years following the abdication of Dio-
cletian (GELZER, Verwaltung Ägyptens, pp. 57–58). Since the earliest occurrence of a pagus is
dated to 6 August 308 (P. Cairo Isidor. 125, 1) and there is no instance of a toparchy after
AD 307, the date can be stated more precisely to the administrative year AD 307/8 (see J. D.
THOMAS, ‘The Disappearance of the Dekaprotoi in Egypt’, BASP 11 [1974], pp. 60–61, esp.
note 3).
3
This rule cannot be applied to the Fayum where the number of pagi (12 or slightly
more, as will be argued) is by far smaller than the number of toparchies if we take into
account the toparchies of the Arsinoite nome as a whole.
4
LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 97–98.
5
For a discussion of the number of toparchies and pagi in the Hermopolite, see P. Herm.
Landlisten, p. 9.
6
So LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, p. 98. M°rh as a subdivision of toparchies are
also attested in other nomes (e.g., the Herakleopolite).
7
See above, pp. 117–146, especially pp. 143–145.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 265

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 265

unlike in other nomes where the toparchies are attested in the period
between the disappearance of the dekaprotoi and the creation of the pagi
(Hermopolite,8 Oxyrhynchite, Memphite, and Great Oasis), we cannot
speak of any continuity of toparchies and pagi in the Fayum.9 We may
rather think that the pagi were created in AD 307/8 ex nihilo, as a structure
quite new and absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Arsinoite
nome.
Each pagus was governed by a praepositus, one per pagus, although we
know of some exceptions when one pagus has two praepositi (in the Oxy-
rhynchite nome in AD 347) or two pagi are administered by one praepositus
(in the Hermopolite nome in AD 342).10 The praepositi pagorum were mem-
bers of the curial class of the city. They were responsible for supervising
the tax collection system and for appointing village officials; they acted as
police officers as well. The administrative changes which took place in
the first half of the fourth century AD are often described as the ‘munici-
palization’ of the nome. The pagi and their praepositi, wealthy metropoli-
tans as a rule, constitute the most important element of the new system.11
8
In the Hermopolite the continuity was exceptionally strong as we can judge from the
fact that for unknown reasons the term toparx¤a remained in the technical vocabulary of
the local administration for at least 50 years after the introduction of the pagi. It was used
as a synonym for pagus; we find the two terms side by side often in the same section of a
document, as, e.g., in P. Harrauer 39 (AD 317/8, 332/3 or 347/8). As far as we can judge from
the available evidence, the two terms are equivalent. There is not a single document from
outside the Hermopolite attesting this phenomenon.
Apart from P. Harrauer 39, the Hermopolite documents attesting this phenomenon
include P. Herm. Landlisten (ca. 30 times in total); P. Charite 10, 12, 23 and 29; P. Cairo Preisigke
33 and P. Strasb. V 325, ii 3. For corrections of the last two documents as well as for an analy-
sis of the phenomenon, see §3 of the introduction to P. Herm. Landlisten (‘Die Toparchie
im IV. Jh. n. Chr.’, pp. 9–10). The editors, however, did not point out the uniqueness of
the Hermopolite vocabulary in this respect. Unfortunately, Drew-Bear’s book on the Her-
mopolite had been written some years before the two volumes, P. Herm. Landlisten and
P. Charite, were published.
9
In the Fayum there is no evidence for m°rh, subdivision of the toparchies connected
in this way or another with the creating of pagi.
10
See LALLEMAND, L’administration civile, pp. 133–134.
11
For the pagi and ‘municipalization’ of the nome, see R. S. BAGNALL, Egypt in Late
Antiquity, p. 62 and 318; for the duties of the praepositus, see inter alia ŁUKASZEWICZ, ‘Un
acte d’agression au Fayoum (P. Heid. inv. G 226)’, [in:] Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyro-
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 266

266 CHAPTER FIVE

The introduction of the pagi is relatively well documented, while their

disappearance is much less discussed in papyrological literature. The
latest securely dated documents are: P. Select. (= P. Lugd. Bat. XIII) 13, 3 of
AD 421 – the village of Peensamoi in the thirteenth pagus of the Hera-
kleopolite nome; P. Oxy. LV 3803 – the village of Psobthis in the fourth
Oxyrhynchite pagus and SPP XX 117 (see BL VII, p. 262) – the village of
Koba in the twelfth Herakleopolite pagus, both of AD 411. These are the
only documents dated to the fifth century; it is striking that in all of them
the term pagus is used in its ‘topographical’ sense and no officials are
mentioned.12 The office of praepositus pagi was still extant in AD 365, as
CTh. XII 6, 8 shows. There is no papyrus attestation dated after AD 361,
the latest being P. Oxy. XLIX 3479.13 The latest holder of this office in the
Arsinoite nome is an unknown official mentioned in P. Abinn. 35, 33
(AD 342–351). This is also one of the two latest documents from the Arsi-
noite nome mentioning a pagus; the other one is P. Würzb. 16 (10 Octo-
ber 349).

2. PAGI IN THE ARSINOITE NOME

AND THEIR VILLAGES

Our evidence for the Arsinoite pagi is not ample. In the Fayum, fourth-
century papyri survived in a limited number of places. We have at our dis-
posal dozens of documents attesting for instance that Karanis belonged
to (and beyond any doubt was the centre of ) the fifth pagus; for a recon-
struction of the map of the pagi division we would need, however, much
more information. Below I print a list of known pagi with villages belong-
ing to them. The villages listed are not necessarily the centres of the pagi.

logenkongresses (= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997, vol. II, pp. 652–655, esp.
pp. 653–654.
12
All the documents mentioning pagi and dated to the fifth century should be exam-
ined; the documents dated to the later period are highly dubious.
13
Note that the date of AD 428, considered by the editors, seems implausible because
of the office of praepositus pagi. This was also the opinion of the editors who have dis-
counted the possibility.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 267

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 267

A. Pagi and villages belonging to them

pagus I Dinnys (formerly in the meris of Herakleides)

– P. Aberdeen 164, 2 (fourth century)14

pagus II Philadelpheia (Her.)

– P. Princ. Roll. (formerly SB V 7621) iii 71 (AD 314); viii
171 (AD 315) and ix 188 (AD 316); BGU IV 1049, 3 and 25
(AD 342)
Attinou (Her.)
– P. Aberdeen 164, 3
Tanis (Her.)
– P. Aberdeen 164, 4

pagus V Karanis (Her.)

– P. Cairo Isid., passim; ChLA XLI 1201, 4 (AD 309);
P. Col. VII 125, 2 (no date); 170, 1 (AD 318); P. Coll. Youtie
77 = P. Col. VII 171 (AD 324); P. Coll. Youtie 78 = P. Col.
VII 181 (AD 342)
Iseion (Her.)
– P. Bodl. I 129, 3–4: kvmãrxou` k≈mhw k`[ | ÉIs¤ou p°mpt`ou
[pãgou.15

14
For the edition, see N. GONIS, JJurP 31 (2001), pp. 30–31 (Appendix II to my paper:
‘Pagi in the Arsinoites’ [cit. supra, n. 1]).
15
N. GONIS: ‘ÉIs¤ou is either a village in the meris of Herakleides, in the vicinity of
Philadelphia and Karanis, or an êmfodon of Karanis. The expression is unusual; I cannot
think of a plausible supplement that could connect k≈mhw with ÉIs¤ou, so that the latter
possibility seems to me the likeliest.’
16
N. GONIS: ‘In CALDERINI & DARIS, Dizionario II 61, it is stated that according to the
editors of P. Mert. II 91 that text proves that Boubastos belonged to the sixth pagus. But
the only inference that may be drawn from the text is that Boubastos did not belong to
the fifth pagus.’
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 268

268 CHAPTER FIVE

pagus VI? Ampeliou (Pol.?), Arsinoe (Her.), Boubastos (Her.?)16,

Kerkesouchon Orous (Her.? Pol.?), Narmouthis (Pol.),
Oniton Koitai (Her.), Perkeesis/Kerkeesis (Her.)
– SPP X 27017

pagus VII18 Epoikion Piabaneos (meris ?)

– CPR XXIII 25 (ca. AD 318–321)19

pagus VIII Theadelpheia (Them.)

– CPR VI 5, ii 19 (AD 336/7), P. Sakaon, passim

pagus X Kerkesephis (Pol.)

– P. Würzb. 16, 1 (AD 349)

pagus X or X+ Kaminoi (Pol.)20

– SB XXIV 15913 21
17
For the discussion of this document, see below, the following section, pp. 269–270.
18
P. JOUGUET in P. Thead. 16, comm. to lines 10–11 suggested that Narmouthis belonged
to pagus VII, but his reasoning is highly unconvincing as it is based on the assumption that
Kaminoi belonged to pagus VII (see below, note 20).
19
The document is dated after Valerius Ziper, praeses provinciae Aegypti Herculiae; see
for him above, pp. 50–51. The village is mentioned by C. WESSELY, Topographie des Faijûm
(Arsinoites nomus) in griechischer Zeit, Wien 1904, p. 124. For the history of the papyrus
(P. Vindob. G 4670), see CPR XXIII 25, 2 note. Its editor, Fritz MITTHOF, in an e-mail of
30 January, 2002 wrote: ‘Es handelt sich um das Schreiben einer unbekannten Behörde des
Epoikion Piabaneos an den Exaktor des Arsinoites aus den Jahren ca. 318–321. Dieses
Epoikion gehört zum 7. Pagus. Die betreffende Stelle lautet wie folgt: Z. 2: ] §poik¤ou
Piabanevw z- pãgou’. The name of the village occurs only here.
20
Kaminoi was placed in pagus VII by WESSELY in his Topographie (cit. supra, n. 19), s.v.
Kaminoi, p. 81 based on ‘Paris App. 244 MN 7087’ which is SPP X 270 (see the following
section). In view of P. Heid. Inv. G 226 the reading is to be questioned. Unfortunately,
Wessely’s suggestion was the source for the reasoning by Jouguet concerning Narmouthis
(P. Thead. 16, comm. to lines 10–11).
21
P. Heid. Inv. G 226 (beg. fourth cent., ed. ŁUKASZEWICZ, ‘Un acte d’agression’ (cit.
supra, n. 11), pp. 652–655. The editor did not print the number of the pagus because ‘on y
lirait volontiers un gamma ou un iota, alors le 3ème ou le 10ème, voire même 11ème, 12ème etc.
pagus.’ In view of the evidence collected in this paper I strongly recommend to read i [
or i[. instead of the palaeographically possible gamma (see below, p. 275).
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 269

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 269

pagus XII Kynopolis (Pol.)

– BGU XIII 2252 (AD 330)22

B. SPP X 270
SPP X 270 is a list of villages with an indication in line 8: zÄ pãgou. Wes-
sely took all the villages preceding the indication to belong to the sixth
pagus.23 Not without hesitation this view was accepted by Grenfell and
Hunt with the result that the sixth pagus appeared to be a problem to
them. It is difficult to see how two localities as distant from each other
as Boubastos and Narmouthis, the latter (modern Medinet Madi) in the
south, the former in the north-east of the Fayum (near Philadepheia),
could have been grouped together.24
In the edition of SPP X 270 line 8 is the last one, but in his Topographie
Wessely repeatedly quoted line 9 listing the village of Kaminoi. The indi-

22
Note that in the DDBDP the document is listed as coming from the Kynopolite
nome.
23
WESSELY, Topographie (cit. supra, n. 19), pp. 35, 42, 53, 109, 113 and 121. GONIS in his
draft: ‘In SPP X Wessely assigned the papyrus to the seventh/eighth century, but this
throws up serious difficulties: at that date the pagi belonged to the distant past, and the
designation xvr¤on, typical of documents of this period, makes no appearance in the text.
One would think that the document is considerably earlier than the seventh/eighth cen-
tury (in his Topographie Wessely does not report on its date). A revision of the original
(held in the Louvre) is desirable.’
24
GRENFELL and HUNT tried to solve the problem by assuming a second village of the
same name. Their conclusion was rather negative: ‘the evidence is insufficient to justify
the hypothesis that there was a second Boubãstow in the south’ (P. Tebt. II p. 374). GONIS,
however, in his draft: ‘Evidence has meanwhile emerged that may substantiate Wessely’s
hypothesis, see P. Tebt. III.1 793, xii 9ff. n. It is also significant that in SPP X 245 Boubas-
tos couples with Talei (ll. 4–5), and in SPP X 242 Talei couples with Narmouthis (ll. 3–5);
Tali, modern Talit, lies on the south edge of the Fayum. We may further note that SPP X
23 parallels SPP X 270 in listing Arsinoe, Boubastos, and Kerkesouchon Orous together
(ll. 8, 9, 12); cf. also SPP X 24 (Boubastos in l. 1, Arsinoe in l. 2) and 30 (Pelkeesis in l. 4,
Boubastos in l. 6). To conclude, it seems not improbable that there were two distinct vil-
lages named Boubastos in the Fayum, and that SPP X 270 contains a list of villages of the
6th Arsinoite pagus.’
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 270

270 CHAPTER FIVE

cation in line 8 suggests that Kaminoi was in the seventh pagus, which is
apparently not true (see above).25
There are many doubts concerning Wessely’s edition of the document.
We do not know whether the localities listed in lines 1–7 belonged to the
sixth pagus. Kaminoi was not in the seventh pagus (as Wessely read in
line 9) but in the tenth pagus (or +10th). In SPP Wessely dated the papyrus
to the seventh/eighth century, but at that time the pagi did not exist for a
long time already. One would think that either the document is consider-
ably earlier than the seventh/eighth century or the reading z- pãgou in line
8 should be questioned. Anyway a revision of the original (held in the Lou-
vre) is desirable. For the moment, it seems to be reasonable not to take
SPP X 270 as a piece of evidence for the division of the Fayum into pagi.

C. P. Sakaon 35 (= P. Thead. 16)

There is an interesting document speaking of the topography of the pagi
in the south-western part of the Fayum which should be discussed here.
P. Sakaon 35 (formerly P. Thead. 16) contains a narratio on behalf of Sakaon
and two fellow villagers. Lines 1–13 read as follows:

n(arratio). l°geiw Íp¢r Zak[a]«now ka‹ ÜHrvnow ka‹ Kan-

aoËg t«n Ípoleif`y°ntvn §rÆmou k≈mhw
Yeadelf¤aw h’ pãgou AÉ rsino˝tou nomoË.
4 katå tÚn prop°rusi §niautÚn ka‹ p°rusi
t«n §daf«n [[t∞w §daf«n]] t∞w k≈mhw ≤m«n
§n Íchlo›w tÒpoiw ˆntvn ka‹ t«n ¶ggista
kvm«n, NarmoÊyevw ka‹ ÑErmoupÒlevw
8 k≈mhw ka‹ Yeojen¤dow, ÍpokleptÒntvn
≤m«n tå Ïdata ka‹ oÈk §pitrepÒntvn
érdeÊesyai ≤m«n t∞n g∞n, diå tÚ érxØn
aÈt«n e‰nai t«n pãgvn ka‹ ≤mçw Íst°rouw
12 e‰nai toË pãgou, ¶rhmon k≈mhn ofikoËn-
taw.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 271

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 271

The translation by Parássoglou reads as follows:

Address. You speak on behalf of Sakaon, Heron, and Kanaoug, who are left
in the deserted village of Theadelphia in the 8th pagus of the Arsinoite
nome.

The year before last, as well as last year, as the fields of our village (i.e.,
Theadelphia) are situated on elevated ground and the nearest villages (Nar-
mouthis, Hermoupolis, and Theoxenis) steal our water and prevent our
land from being irrigated, since they are at the front of the pagi (plural!
– TD) and we are at the far end of the pagus, we have become the inhabi-
tants of a deserted village.

The translation in P. Thead. 16 is substantially the same. Jouguet added a

commentary:
Le pluriel indique que les trois villages étaient dans des pagi différents. On
a des raisons de supposer, mais seulement de supposer, que Narmouthis
était dans le 6e. On pourrait mettre dans le 7e, où se trovait aussi Kaminoi
qui ne parait pas avoir été éloigné de ces deux bourgs, soit Théoxénis soit
Hermoupolis, soit tous les deux (cf. Grenfell et Hunt, P. Tebt. II, App. II,
p. 353). Mais la topographie des pagi est très mal connue.

The situation described in the document quoted above is not clear. Of

the three villages it is only Narmouthis whose localisation is known. It is
contemporary Medinet Madi, about 20 kilometers from Thedelpheia.
What is even more important, before AD 307 Narmouthis belonged to the
meris of Polemon while Theoxenis, Hermopolis and Theadelpheia itself
belonged to the meris of Themistos. We have enough evidence to say that
Theoxenis and Hermopolis were very close to Theadelpheia26 and there
is no ground upon which to assume that they belonged to another pagus
than Theadelpheia. However, the plural pãgvn in line 11 does not imply
that all three of the villages were in different pagi, as Jouguet seems to

25
The line, not transcribed in SPP X, is reported by WESSELY, Topographie (cit. supra,
n. 19), pp. 35, 42, 81, 109, 121, where the document is cited as ‘Paris App. 244 MN 7087’ (it
is mistakenly quoted as P. Rainer Geo. 183 in P. Tebt. II pp. 352–353).
26
See K. HEYLEN, Papyri uit het Fajoem. Een onderzoek naar zes dorpen in de meris van
Themistos, Leuven 1992 (unpublished MA diss.)
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 272

272 CHAPTER FIVE

suggest. It is enough to locate only one of them in another pagus, and the
natural choice of the list is Narmouthis.27
The document reflects the terminology used by the inhabitants of the
Arsinoite nome: the pagi had their ‘fronts’ (érxa¤) and consequently their
‘ends’. Were the ‘fronts’ in the middle of the Fayum? It is reasonable to
assume that the three villages were located at the main canal surrounding
the Fayum. However, the relation between the location of the villages in
respect to the canal and their affiliation to the pagi remains unclear.

D. Taxes and the pagi

In our documents, the term pagus occurs in two functions: (1.) as a topo-
graphical description of a village, e.g. ‘the village of Philadelpheia of the
second pagus’ and (2) as part of the formal name of an office, most often
praepositus pagi (see below, appended list of pagus officials). There is only
one document of Fayumic provenance where taxes are connected with this
administrative unit; P. Princ. Roll. ix 186–188 (Philadelpheia, AD 316):

di°(gracen) A Ñ rpokrart¤vn (read A

Ñ rpokrat¤vn) Ùn`Ò`m`(atow) Yãeidow
efiw lÒgo`n` plo¤vn yalas¤vn (read yalass¤vn) b pãgou
tãlanta tr¤a ka‹ dhn`ãri`a` pentakÒsia
Harpokration has paid in the name of Thaeis for the account of seagoing
ships for the second pagus three talents and five hundred denarii.

This is a charge assessed to pay for costs of transporting grain from

Alexandria to Rome and later to Constantinople. This was in fact a tax in
kind, assessed on land.28 Other taxes in this long roll are sporadically also
connected with the pagus: iii 71 and viii 171.

27
Frankly speaking, there is no evidence suggesting that the pagi went across the bor-
ders of the former merides (see below, p. 274).
28
See P. Col. VII 130 introd., P. Princ. Roll. ix 188 comm., BASP 13 (1974), p. 34: A. J. M.
MEYER-TERMEER, Die Haftung der Schiffer im Griechischen und Römischen Recht (= Studia
Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 13), Zutphen 1978,
p. 168 n. 113
 263-279 Ch5
11/30/06
4:16 AM
Page 273

THE FAYUM
identified
• Localities
x Location uncertain

Map 4. The Arsinoite pagi

263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 274

274 CHAPTER FIVE

3. HOW WAS THE FAYUM DIVIDED INTO PAGI?

A HYPOTHESIS
As it was already said and demonstrated, our evidence for the pagi in
the Arsinoite nome is not ample. We need more villages connected with
particular pagi to draw an administrative map of the nome in the period
AD 307/8 – ca. 350. But the evidence gathered above is enough, I believe, for
a very hypothetical sketch (see the preceding page). The nome might have
been divided into pagi as a pie into pieces with the city of Arsinoe in the
middle. The pagi were numbered counter-clockwise, starting from the
place where the Bahr Yusuf enters the Fayum. According to this system we
have Philadepheia in the 2nd pagus, Karanis in the 5th, Theadelpheia in the
8th. The highest numbers would be reserved for the villages of the former
meris of Polemon, and indeed we know of Kerkesephis in the tenth pagus,
Kynopolis in the twelfth pagus, and Kaminoi in the tenth pagus (or +10th).
Narmouthis thought by Wessely and Jouguet to have belonged to the sixth
pagus, would fit our system much better, if we assumed a higher pagus
number.29
The system of pagi so reconstructed is similar to the traditional divi-
sion of the Fayum into three merides which was abandoned exactly at the
moment when the pagi were created. According to my hypothesis, each
pagus would have had its ‘front’, i.e. the part located towards the middle
of the nome, close to the city of Arsinoe. This would explain the termi-
nology adopted by Sarapion and his fellow villagers from Theadelpheia
when they speak about the inhabitants of other villages who took the
water from the canal and prevented the land in Theadelpheia from being
irrigated. They could do so ‘since they are at the front of the pagi (plural!)
and we are at the far end of the pagus’.
Grenfell and Hunt were of the opinion that ‘the division into pagi quite
ignored the old division into mer¤dew’ (P. Tebt. II, p. 353). Their conclusion
was drawn from SPP X 270 and Wessely’s Topographie. Although this may
be paralleled in other nomes,30 the point is still far from a decisive resolu-
29
I would suggest that Narmouthis might have belonged to the ninth pagus, because
(1°) it would be the pagus neighbouring that of Theadelpheia and (2°) this would fit our sys-
tem perfectly.
30
For the Hermopolite evidence see P. Col. IX 123–126.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 275

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 275

tion. If we reject the evidence of SPP X 270 (for the reasons explained
above), we may conclude the contrary. We may say that at least there is no
evidence for assuming that the villages of different merides were grouped
in one pagus. A minimum of continuity seems acceptable at this point.

Adopting the way of dividing the nome into pagi as suggested above
entails several consequences:

(1.) Kaminoi as a village in the (former) meris of Polemon could not

have been located in the seventh pagus as it was suggested by Carl
Wessely. The number of its pagus is then 10 or 10 + x and I suggest
adding an iota to the text of the edition of SB XXIV 15913 (the
editor was of the same opinion but decided not to print the iota in
the edition).31

(2.) The highest number of a pagus attested so far is 12 (Kynopolis). My

impression is that the total number of pagi cannot have been much
higher, i.e. I think that 12 or 13 or 14 pagi is a possible number but
not, for instance, 19 or 20.

(3.) The arrangement of the pagi suggested above allows us to locate a

number of villages whose location is otherwise unknown. For inst-
ance, Kynopolis must have been located closer to the Bahr Yusuf
than Kerkesephis. Unfortunately, as for the number of the pagus of
Kaminoi we may only say that it is at least ‘10’ and this does not
help us too much with the location of this important village.

(4.) According to my hypothesis, pagus 10 (with Kerkesephis) would be

that adjacent to the former border between the Themistos and
Polemon merides. The fact that Kynopolis belonged to pagus 12
seems to suggest its localization in the midle or even eastern part

31
See sbove, n. 21..
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 276

276 CHAPTER FIVE

of the Polemon meris. However, the documents of the Akousilaos

archive (AD) 11–1532 suggest that the village shared a sitologos with
Lysimachis (or Lysimachides duo), perhaps even that they belonged
to the same komogrammateia. Lysimachis should be located at the
very border between the Themistos and Polemon merides.33 It is
difficult to find a solution for this contradiction. The existence of
the joint komogrammateia is by far not certain. Perhaps then the
villages were not so close to each other as we assumed from the
common sitologos.

4. PRAEPOSITI PAGORUM AND OTHER OFFICIALS

CONNECTED WITH THE ARSINOITE PAGI

A. Praepositi pagorum
Pagus V (Karanis)

Aurelius Herakles alias Heraklides

6 August 308 – P. Cairo Isid. 125
AD 308/9 – P. Cairo Isid. 126
after 30 November 309 – P. Cairo Isid. 9 (the name in lacuna)
4 December 312 – P. Cairo Isid. 11 – mentioned as ex-praepositus pagi

Theodoros
AD 314 – P. Cairo Isid. 73

Aurelius Gerontius
24 October 316 – P. Cairo Isid. 75
16 July 318 – P. Cairo Isid. 76; P. Col. VII 170 (a copy of the former)
Note: Aurelius Gerontius is the later strategos of the Arsinoite nome
(AD 323–326).34
32
See above, pp. 164–165.
33
See above, Introduction, pp. 22–23.
34
See P. Col. VII 170, 1 comm., BASTIANINI, Gli strategi, p. 61; PLRE, p. 394, s.v. ‘Geron-
tius 8’.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 277

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 277

Aurelius K[….]..[..]
AD 320 – P. Cairo Isid. 77

Dioscorus Caeso (the cognomen only in P. Coll. Youtie 77)

29 January 324 – P. Cairo Isid. 78
AD 324 – P. Coll. Youtie 77 = P. Col. VII 171
31 May 324 – P. Merton II 92, 1

Pagus VIII (Theadelpheia)

Kastorion
17 August 312 – P. Sakaon 38, 16

Note: In P. Sakaon 9 (= P. Thead. 48) of AD 314/5 a praepositus Kastorion

appears. The document is an account of payments in money for two per-
sons, one of them being Kastorion ‘praepositus in Narmouthis’ (line 4) and
‘praepositus §p‹ pÒlevw’. According to Jouguet, this man is not necessarily
identical with the praepositus pagi of P. Sakaon 38. Although the concur-
rence of the name is striking, he could be a praepositus in the military
meaning of this word. This seems even more probable in view of the fact
that Narmouthis most probably did not belong to the same pagus (see
above). But George M. Parássoglou lists him in his index sub voce ‘prae-
positus pagi’ (P. Sakaon, p. 236) and – given the lack of any commentary
– this is the only point by which we may guess the (re)-editor’s opinion.

Aurelius Olympios
7 August 318 – P. Sakaon 39, 1

Philotas
7 May 324 – P. Sakaon 51, 1

Aurelius Chairemon
19 August 326 – 6 November 327 – P. Sakaon 43, 1

Posidonios
before AD 332? – mentioned in P. Sakaon 35, 16 as a former praepositus
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 278

278 CHAPTER FIVE

Didymas
before AD 332? – mentioned in P. Sakaon 35, 16 as a former praepositus

Phileas
AD 332? – mentioned in P. Sakaon 35, 16 as praepositus in charge

Aurelius Ision, curialis of Pentakomia

29 March 342 – P. Sakaon 46, 1 and 47, 5 (written on the same day)
6 April 343 – P. Sakaon 48, 1

Pagus X or X+
Aurelius Alypios
beg. fourth cent. – SB XXIV 15913

Pagus XII (Kynopolis)

Aurelius Ammonios
16 February 330 – BGU XIII 2252

B. Other officials
ép[o]d`[°ktai] s¤`t`ou
CPR VI 5, ii 18–20 (AD 336/7):
AÈrÆlioi ÜHrvn` vac. ka‹ Mãrvn di(å) ÑHrç
émfÒteroi ép[o]d`[°ktai] s¤`to` u h pãgou ˜rm`ou
pÒlevw

eirenarch of the eighth pagus (Theadaelpheia)

Aurelius Ploutammon in P. Sakaon 45, 1 (and its copy, 45a, 1, both of
7 December 334)

Note that a komarch in P. Bodl. I 129 (fourth cent.), 3–4: kvmãrxou` k≈mhw
k`[ | ÉIs¤ou p°mpt`ou [pãgou. is an official connected with a k≈mh that is
located in the fifth pagus.
263-279 Ch5 11/30/06 4:16 AM Page 279

THE ARSINOITE PAGI 279

5. CONCLUSION

There is a general question: to what extent was the Arsinoite a typical

Egyptian nome over the centuries. The distinct character of this region
was very strong since the very beginning of Greek occupation under the
first two Ptolemies. The first 200 years of Roman occupation did not
change this very much. The reforms introduced both by Septimius
Severus and Philip the Arabian were a step towards the unification of the
administration of all Egyptian nomes, even if they did not succeed. The
crucial moment on this way was still to come. It was the introduction of
the pagi and the disappearance of the Arsinoite merides in AD 307/8 (the
toparchies in the Fayum did not exist since AD 302). As a result of these
changes, we get for the first time since the beginning of Ptolemaic rule an
administrative division of the Fayum identical with that of other nomes:
a single nome divided into numbered pagi. Their number was also not
exceptional, at least twelve, perhaps not many more.
281-285 Concl 11/30/06 4:24 AM Page 281

CONCLUSION

T HE CONCLUSION SHOULD BEGIN with a fundamental statement which

repeatedly appeared on the pages of this book. The Fayum, A
no˝thw nomÒw, was an exceptional nome on the administrative map of
É rsi-

Ptolemaic Egypt and the region maintained this position under Roman
rule. The great irrigation works conducted primarily under Ptolemy II
were an extraordinary project on the scale of the ancient world and they
demanded equally extraordinary coordination and support of the admin-
istration. There is much to indicate that they were conducted based on
the division of the Fayum into nomarchies and only later were the par-
ticular divisions (merides) of the Fayum handed over to officials for gov-
erning: first to Herakleides, a few years later to Polemon and Themistos
– their names were to enter the administrative vocabulary of the Fayum
for over five hundred years.
Just as Egypt was the granary of the Roman Empire, the Fayum was
the granary of Egypt. It produced a significant part of the grain which
reached Rome (and subsequently Constantinople) by waterways – first by
canals and the Nile, later by sea. In its own best interest the Roman gov-
ernment, as soon as it had installed Roman rule in the Egyptian chora,
proceeded with works aimed at improving the state of the irrigation sys-
tem. It is difficult to assess the magnitude of the crisis that affected the
irrigation network of the Fayum in the last decades of Ptolemaic rule; it
is therefore equally hard to assess the scale of the works.
As far as the functioning of the territorial administration is concerned,
the first hundred years of Roman rule did not bring many new elements.
281-285 Concl 11/30/06 4:24 AM Page 282

282 CONCLUSION

Although the strategos had been deprived of the title §p‹ t«n prosod«n,
and along with it – the superintendence over the king’s private income, he
was still in charge of the whole nome. The increase of the role of the basi-
likos grammateus – who gradually came to be an actual deputy strategos
– does not occur until the second half of the first century. An example of
an office that outlived the Lagide rule by at least a few decades is the
office of epistates, a Ptolemaic police-official who continued to exist in the
earlier Roman period (P. Tebt. II 290 introd.). The toparchies, a continu-
ity of the Ptolemaic units, were still in existence. A komarch of Euhe-
mereia attested in a document dating from 6 BC (O. Fay. 8) indicates that
at least for the first few decades of Roman rule this office still existed -
the structure of local administration on village level (kome) must have
remained, in fact, Ptolemaic, consisting of a komogrammateus and a subor-
dinate komarch. Perhaps – although there is no direct proof of this – the
disappearance of the office of komarch ought to be associated with a very
important change, that is the creation of large komogrammateiai encom-
passing several villages (komai). The Roman government introduced this
change in the first century AD.
A significant change occurred in ca. 60 AD – and this is the most impor-
tant conclusion of this book. The nome was then divided (if this word is
not too strong, as in the administrative vocabulary the A É rsino˝thw nomÒw
was still present) into three units – merides governed by three separate
strategoi and having independent status. The old, ‘Ptolemaic’ toparchies
named after their village capitals disappeared from the administrative
map of the Fayum. Already then (or a few decades later) they were
replaced by numbered toparchies, which, however – as it has been
demonstrated in the chapter devoted to this administrative unit – are not
the same as the toparchies of other nomes. The documents indicate that
the Fayumic toparchies in the second and third centuries are related
exclusively to the functioning of sitologia, therefore their existence is a
manifestation of centralism of the Roman government, which had special
supervision over this aspect of life in Egypt, as a matter of strategic sig-
nificance for the whole state.
Perhaps the changes that occurred in ca. AD 60 should be associated
with the emergence of a system of large komogrammateiai that encom-
281-285 Concl 11/30/06 4:24 AM Page 283

CONCLUSION 283

passed several komai. This system is well-known from dozens of second-

century documents. This change, although it is not easy to discern and
was dismissed for decades by the editors with comments such as: ‘it was
not unusual for several villages of diminutive importance to be placed
under a common jurisdiction’ (BGU XIII 2282, 3 note) vel sim., must have
been of great importance for the functioning of the Egyptian administra-
tive and fiscal system. When introducing it, the Roman government must
have been guided by rationalism. From its point of view, a komogrammateia
of 30–40 km2 in area (like that of Hiera Nesos in northern Fayum, or the
one with its centre in Ptolemais Hormou, administrated in the 180s by
Petaus son of Petaus) had to be an efficient unit that ensured a possibly
most functional administration of the land’s resources.
A historian who observes the changes made in the administrative sys-
tem of the Roman Fayum might perceive them as a chaotic pursuit of a
goal which is vague from our perspective. The evidence collected and
analyzed in this study introduces, I believe, some kind of order. Changes
– as far as the nome administration is concerned – were not as frequent
and sudden as it may seem. After a hundred years of continuing the Ptole-
maic system and – so to say – testing it, came the time of change. Thanks
to the reconstruction of the irrigation system, but also owing to a time of
prosperity the entire country profited from in the first and second cen-
turies AD, the Fayum came to be several times larger than other nomes,
too large to be governed as a single nome. The division into three nomes,
corresponding to the division into merides already established for cen-
turies, seems to be a patent and rational change. The meris of Herakleides
was much larger than each of the other ones (and only slightly smaller
than both of them together) – so already a few decades later (AD 136/7) the
two smaller merides of Themistos and Polemon were combined under one
strategos. An additional argument for the bipartite division of the Fayum
was its natural character – the border between the two parts, or both
nomes, was the Bahr Yusuf constituting a natural communication axis of
the region.
Another interesting conclusion arising from the observation of careers
of officials in charge of the particular units of territorial administration is
that the Roman government strived to ‘import’ officials from outside the
281-285 Concl 11/30/06 4:24 AM Page 284

284 CONCLUSION

unit. From outside the governed nome come the strategoi – as it has been
known for a long time already – and their actual deputies, basilikoi gram-
mateis – as we have come to know only recently. The same rule is in force
on the komogrammateia level – Petaus who held the office in Ptolemais
Hormou was a resident of Karanis, and his idia was also located there. In
turn, the inhabitants of villages in the komogrammateia governed by Petaus
held the post of komogrammateus in Karanis. This model of personnel
selection had to result from the intension to establish an outsider as head
of nome or komogrammateia, someone uninvolved in the local relations,
family ties, etc., which could influence particular decisions of these offi-
cials (tax assessment, nomination to liturgies, etc.). To some extent this
phenomenon is parallel to the rule that soldiers were not to be recruited
to legions from the provinces in which they were stationed. This system
functioned for several centuries, so it must have worked out well in
practice.
In the first decade of the fourth century AD the A É rsino˝thw nomÒw, or
civitas Arsinoitorum, lost its unique character. The administrative struc-
ture changed with the introduction of pagi headed by praepositi, and the
logistes (curator civitatis), who took over certain powers of the strategos,
became the highest official in the nome capital. The office of strategos, in
turn, changed its name to exactor civitatis. The Latinization of termino-
logy proceeded parallel to the process defined as the municipalization of
Egypt. However, the government’s greatest effort must have gone into
reorganizing the province according to the standards in effect in other
parts of the Empire. Under Egyptian conditions municipalization
equalled external unification, while in the peculiar Fayumic conditions an
important aspect of this change was internal unification – in terms of
administrative structure after ca. AD 310 nothing distinguished it from
dozens of other nomes.

The Fayum – as I have repeatedly stated in this book – is the best-

known region of Egypt. A rich source base makes it easier to observe
changes and to draw conclusions concerning this region than any other.
281-285 Concl 11/30/06 4:24 AM Page 285

CONCLUSION 285

The Fayum is a special district in many ways, starting from the natural
environment. This fact implies caution when extrapolating conclusions
drawn from Fayumic material onto other regions of Egypt. Nevertheless,
the results of this study provoke important questions, the most impor-
tant of which is if the changes that occurred in the Fayum ca. AD 60 were
a local phenomenon, or were they part of reforms introduced by the
Roman government throughout the country. This is a separate problem,
worth – I believe – verifying based on available source material from
other nomes, in the first place the ones known best (besides the Fayum),
that is the Oxyrhynchites, Herakleopolites, and Hermopolites.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 287

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. PRIMARY SOURCES

Ammianus Marcellinus
Text edition with a French translation: Ammien Marcellin, Histoire, ed. and
tr. E. GALLETIER, G. SABBAH, J. FONTAINE, E. FRÉOULS, J.-D. BERGER, M.-A.
MARIÉ, voll. I–VI, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1968–1999.

Arrianus Bithynius
Flavii Arriani quae extant omnia, voll. I–II, ed. A. G. ROOS, G. WIRTH, Teub-
ner, Leipzig 1967–1968.
English translation: Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, Books I–IV, tr. P. A. BRUNT,
Loeb Classical Library.

Athanasius
English translation: Index to Athanasius’ Festal Letters, translated by E. PAYNE
SMITH, [in:] A. ROBERTSON, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria (= Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series 4), Oxford – New
York 1892, pp. 503–506.
French translation: Index Syriaque des lettres festales d’Athanase d’Alexandrie,
ed. Micheline ALBERT, tr. and comm. Annik MARTIN (= Source Chrétiennes
317), Paris 1985.

Claudius Ptolemaeus
Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, ed. Carolus Fridericus Augustus NOBBE, voll.
I–II, Leipzig 1843–1845 (reprint Hildesheim 1966).
English translation: Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography; transl. by E. L. STEVEN-
SON; with an introd. by J. FISCHER, New York 1932 (reprint New York 1991).
Translation in a Web edition: <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/
Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/home.html>.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 288

288 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Codex Theodosianus
Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad
Theodosianum pertinentes, ed. Th. MOMMSEN e.a., I.1: Prolegomena; I.2: Textus
cum apparatu; II: Leges novellae, Berlin 1905.
English translation: The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Con-
stitutions, transl. with comm. by C. PHARR, introd. C. DICKERMANN (= The
Corpus of Roman Law [Corpus juris romani] 1), Princeton 1952.

Diodorus Siculus
Diodori bibliotheca historica, ed. I. BEKKER, L. DINDORF, F. VOGEL, C. Th. FI-
SCHER, voll. I–V, Teubner, Leipzig 1888–1906 (reprint Stuttgart 1964–1969).
Text edition with an English translation: Diodorus of Sicily, Books I and
II, 1–34, tr. C. H. OLDFATHER, Loeb Classical Library.

Eustathius
Eustathius, Commentarium in Dionysii periegetae orbis descriptionem, ed. K.
MÜLLER, Geographi Graeci minores, vol. II, Paris 1861 (reprint Hildesheim
1965), pp. 201–407.

George of Cyprus
Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis Romani. Accedit Leonis imperatoris Diatyposis
genuina adhuc inedita, ed. H. GELZER, Teubner, Leipzig 1890.

Herodotus
Text edition with a French translation: Hérodote, Histoires, voll. I–IX, ed.
and tr. Ph.-E. LEGRAND, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1960–1968.
Text edition with an English translation: Herodotus, ed. and tr. A. D. GOD-
LEY, voll. I–VI, Loeb Classical Library, London 1961–1966.

Strabo
Strabonis Geographica, ed. A. MEINEKE, voll. I–III, Leipzig, Teubner 1877
(reprint Graz 1969).
Text edition with an English translation: The Geography of Strabo, ed. and tr.
H. L. JONES, Loeb, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1972.
French translation with a parallel commentary: Strabon, Le voyage en
Egypte. Un regard romain, Préface de J. YOYOTTE. – Traduction de P. CHARVET
– Commentaires de J. YOYOTTE et P. CHARVET, Paris 1997.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 289

BIBLIOGRAPHY 289

II. SECONDARY SOURCES

J. G. C. ANDERSON, “The Genesis of Diocletian’s Provincial Re-organization”, JRS

22 (1932), pp. 24–32.
D. A[RNOLD], ‘Fajjum’, Lexicon der Ägyptologie, vol. II, coll. 87–93.
G. AUJAC, Strabon et la science de son temps, Paris 1966.

R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Number and Term of the Dekaprotoi’, Aegyptus 58 (1978),

pp. 160–167.
R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Population of Theadelphia in the Fourth Century’, Bulletin
de la Société d’Archéologie copte 24 [1979–1982] pp. 35–57 = R. S. BAGNALL,
Later Roman Egypt: Society, Religion, Economy and Administration [= Collected
Studies Series 758], Aldershot 2003, article VI.
R. S. BAGNALL, ‘The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt’, GRBS 32 (1991),
pp. 255–265.
R. S. BAGNALL, ‘Census Declarations from Tebtunis’, Aegyptus 72 (1992), pp. 61–84.
R. S. BAGNALL, ‘Notes on Egyptian Census Declarations, IV’, BASP 29 (1992),
pp. 102-115.
R. S. BAGNALL, Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton 1993.
R. S. BAGNALL – P. DEROW, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation,
Oxford 2003.
R. S. BAGNALL – B. W. FRIER, The Demography of Roman Egypt (= Cambridge Studies
in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23), Cambridge 1994.
R. S. BAGNALL – J. D. THOMAS, ‘Dekaprotoi and Epigraphai.’ BASP 15 (1978),
pp. 185–189.
R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, ‘The Consuls of AD 411–412’, Mnemosyne, 4th ser.,
31 (1978), pp. 287–293.
R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, Regnal Formulas in Byzantine Egypt (= BASP Supple-
ment 2), Missoula 1979.
R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, ‘Chronological Notes on Byzantine Documents.
IV’, BASP 17 (1980), pp. 5–18.
R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, ‘The Fourth-Century Tax Roll in the Princeton Col-
lection’, ArchPF 30 (1984), pp. 53–82.
R. S. BAGNALL – K. A. WORP, Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt. Second Edi-
tion, Leiden 2004.
Carla BALCONI, Emanuela BATTAGLIA, G. CASANOVA, Loisa CASARICO, S. DARIS,
Carla SALVATERRA, ‘Papiri documentari dell’Università Cattolica di Milano’,
Aegyptus 69 (1989), pp. 5–59.
J. BALL, Egypt in the Classical Geographers, Cairo 1942.
J. BANAJI, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Domin-
ance, Oxford 2002.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 290

290 BIBLIOGRAPHY

T. D. BARNES, ‘The Unity of the Verona List’, ZPE 16 (1975), pp. 275–278.
T. D. BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge (Mass.)
– London 1982.
The Barrington Atlas – R. J. A. TALBERT (ed.), in collaboration with R. S. BAGNALL et
alii, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (With Map-by-map Direc-
tory), Map Editors: Mary E. DOWNS, M. Joann MCDANIEL, Cartographic
Managers: Janet E. KELLY, Jeannine M. SCHONTA, D. F. STONG, Princeton –
Oxford 2000.
G. BASTIANINI, ‘Rilettura di PSI 1245’, Museum Philologum Londinense 2 (1977) = Spe-
cial Papyrological Number, pp. 19–26.
G. BASTIANINI, ‘La carriera di Sarapion alias Apollonianus’, Aegyptus 49 (1969),
pp. 149–182.
G. BASTIANINI, Gli strateghi dell’Arsinoites in epoca romana (= Papyrologica Bruxel-
lensia 11), Bruxelles 1972.
G. BASTIANINI, ‘Nota a P. Mich. XV 693’, ZPE 50 (1983), p. 172.
G. BASTIANINI and J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt.
Chronological List and Index (= Papyrologica Florentina 15), Firenze 1987.
H. BENGTSON, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht,
vol. III. Die Strategie im Ptolemäerreich (= Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrus-
forschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 36), München 1952.
J. BINGEN, review of P. Sakaon (ed. G. M. PARÁSSOGLOU), [in:] ChrEg 54 (1979),
pp. 167–168.
J. BINGEN, ‘Themistos avec -os comme ... Themistus’, ChrEg 62 (1987), pp. 234–239.
A. E. R. BOAK, ‘An Egyptian Farmer of the Age of Diocletian and Constantine’,
Byzantina Metabyzantina 1 (1946), pp. 39–53.
A. E. R. BOAK, ‘Tesserarii and Quadrarii as Village Officials in Egypt of the Fourth
Century’, Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan
Chester Johnson, ed. P. R. COLEMAN-NORTON, Princeton 1951, pp. 322–335.
A. E. R. BOAK, ‘Village Liturgies in Fourth Century Karanis’, [in:] Akten des VIII.
Internationalen Kongresses für Papyrologie, Wien 1955 (29 August – 3 September)
(= MPER N.S. 5), Vienna 1956, pp. 37–40.
Danielle BONNEAU, ‘Ptolémaïs Hormou dans la documentation papyrologique’,
ChrEg 54 (1979), pp. 310–326.
Danielle BONNEAU, ‘Niloupolis du Fayoum‘, [in:] Actes du XVe Congrès International
de Papyrologie, vol. IV, Bruxelles 1979, pp. 258–273.
Danielle BONNEAU, Le régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine
et byzantine (= Probleme der Ägyptologie 8), Leiden 1993.
Z. BORKOWSKI, D. HAGEDORN, ‘Amphodokomogrammateus. Zur Verwaltung der Dör-
fer Aegyptens im 3. Jh. n.Chr.’, [in:] Le monde grec. Hommages à Claire Préaux,
Bruxelles 1975, pp. 775–783.
A. K. BOWMAN, ‘Papyri and Roman Imperial History’, JRS 66 (1976), pp. 153–173.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 291

BIBLIOGRAPHY 291

A. K. BOWMAN, ‘The Military Occupation of Upper Egypt in the Reign of Dio-

cletian’, BASP 15 (1978), pp. 25–38.
R. H. BROWN, The Fayum and Lake Moeris, London 1892.

A. CALDERINI – S. DARIS, Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-

romano, vol. I.1: A – Halikarnasseus, Cairo 1935 (reprint, Milano 1972); vol. I.2:
Halikarnassos – Aolph[ , Madrid 1966; vol. II.1: B – Goniotai, Milano 1973; vol.
II.2: D – Hermopolitikos, Milano 1975; vol. II.3: Hermopolitis – Theadelpheia,
Milano 1975; vol. II.4: Theadelpheia – Thopsis, Milano 1977; vol. III.1: I – Kere-
bin, Milano 1978; vol. III.2: Kerzoulou – Loukanikos, Milano 1980; vol. III.3:
Loukanou – Mophi, Milano 1982; vol. III.4: N – Ochlon hodos, Milano 1983; vol.
IV.1: P – Pempo, Milano 1983; vol. IV.2: Penake – Pteme, Milano 1984; vol. IV.3:
Ptemithis – Stachuos, Milano 1986; vol. IV.4: S]tema[ – Titis, Milano 1986; vol.
V: Titkois – Ophites, Milano 1987; Supplemento 1 (1935–1986), Milano 1988; Sup-
plemento 2 (1987–1993), Bonn 1996; Supplemento 3 (1994–2001), Pisa 2003.
Livia CAPPONI, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (= Studies in Clas-
sics), New York – London 2005.
Loisa CASARICO, ‘Crocodilopolis – Ptolemais Euergetis in epoca tolemaica’,
Aegyptus 67 (1987), pp. 127–159.
Loisa CASARICO, ‘Per la storia di un toponimo: Ptolemais Euergetis – Arsinoiton
polis’, Aegyptus 67 (1987), pp. 161–170.
Gertrude CATON-THOMPSON and Elinor W. GARDNER, Desert Fayum, London 1934.
G. CAVALLO et alii, Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico (= Papyrologica Florentina
30), Firenze 1998.
G. CHALON, L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander. Étude historique et exégétique (= Biblio-
theca Helvetica Romana 5), Olten – Lausanne 1964.
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Nomarchs and Toparchs in the Third Century Fayum’, [in:] Archeo-
logia e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del Con-
vegno internazionale, Siracusa, 24-25 Maggio 1996 (= Quaderni del Museo del
Papiro 8), Siracusa 1997, pp. 69–76.
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Sureties in Fayum villages’, [in:] Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak (P. Horak),
ed. H. HARRAUER, R. PINTAUDI, Firenze 2004, vol. I, pp. 279–281.
W. CLARYSSE, ‘Toponymy of Fayum Villages in the Ptolemaic Period’, in the pro-
ceedings of the Fayum conference held in Lecce in June 2005 (in print).
W. CLARYSSE, Dorothy THOMPSON, Counting the People in Hellenistc Egypt, voll. I–II,
Cambridge 2006.
W. CLARYSSE – B. VAN BEEK, ‘Philagris, Perkethaut and Hermoupolis: Three Vil-
lages or One’, ZPE 140 (2002), pp. 195–200.
W. CLARYSSE – B. VAN BEEK, ‘Lysimachis’, at <http://fayum.arts.kuleuven.be/
1275.html>.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 292

292 BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. CLARYSSE, G. VAN DER VEKEN, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt. Chrono-
logical Lists of the Priests of Alexandria and Ptolemais with a Study of the Demotic
Transcriptions of Their Names (= Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 24), Leiden 1983.
Nahum COHEN, ‘List of Substitutes to Liturgists. A Preliminary Discussion’, [in:]
Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongreßes (= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart
– Leipzig 1997, vol. I, pp. 172–178.
R. A. COLES, ‘Caecilius [Cons]ultius, praefectus Aegypti’, BASP 22 (1985), pp. 25–27.
P. COLLINET, P. JOUGUET, ‘Papyrus bilingue du Musée du Caire. Une affaire jugée
par le Praeses Aygypti Herculiae’, ArchPF 3 (1903), pp. 339–348.
Dorothy J. CRAWFORD (THOMPSON), Kerkeosiris, an Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic
Period, Cambridge 1971.
Lucia CRISCUOLO, ‘Ricerche sul komogrammateus nell’Egitto tolemaico’, Aegyptus
58 (1978), pp. 3–101.

S. DARIS, ‘Note lessicali (P. Med. inv. 4 – P. Daris 21)’, Aegyptus 57 (1977), pp. 160–163.
Paola DAVOLI, ‘Ricerche sull’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di epoca greco-
romana’ [in:] Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia. Sira-
cusa, 1–3 dicembre 1995 = Quaderni dell’Istituto Internazionale del Papiro 7), Sira-
cusa 1996, pp. 35–58.
Paola DAVOLI, L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana (= Missione
Congiunta delle Università di Bologna e di Lecce in Egitto, Monografie 1), Naples
1998.
Diana DELIA and E. HALEY, ‘Agreement Concerning Succession to a Komarchy’,
BASP 20 (1983), pp. 39–47.
Anna Maria DEMICHELI, L’Editto XIII di Giustiniano. In tema di amministrazione e fis-
calità dell’Egitto bizantino, Torino 2000.
Anna Maria DEMICHELI, ‘L’amministrazione dell’Egitto bizantino secondo l’Edit-
to XIII’, [in:] S. PULIATTI and A. SANGUINETTI (eds.), Legislazione, cultura
giuridica, prassi dell’Impero d’Oriente in età giustinianea tra passato e futuro. Atti
del convegno Modena, 21–22 maggio 1998 (= Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze
giuridiche e della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Modena e Reggio
Emilia 52), Milano 2002, pp. 418–446.
T. DERDA, ‘Aurelius Agathodaemon, dekaprôtos of the Second and Third Toparchy
of the Arsinoite Nome’, JJurP 31 (2001), pp. 9–12.
T. DERDA, ‘P. Tebt. II 581: A Dekaprotos Receipt for Rent of Public Land’, JJurP 31
(2001), pp. 13–14.
T. DERDA, ‘Pagi in the Arsinoites: a Study in Administration of the Fayum in the
Early Byzantine Period’, with an appended edition of P. Aberdeen 164 descr.
by N. GONIS, , JJurP 31 (2001), pp. 17–32.
T. DERDA, ‘Toparchies in the Arsinoite Nome: a Study in Administration of the
Fayum in the Roman Period’. JJurP 33 (2003), pp. 27–54.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 293

BIBLIOGRAPHY 293

T. DERDA, ‘The Arsinoite komogrammateis and their komogrammateiai in the

Roman Period’, in the proceedings of the Fayum conference held in Lecce
in June 2005 (in print).
T. DERDA, ‘A Note on P. Lille I 1 (= P. Zen. Pest., Appendix A)’, JJurP 36 (2006), in
print.
C. DRECOLL, Die Liturgien im römischen Kaiserreich des 3. und 4. Jh. n.Chr. Unter-
suchung über Zugang, Inhalt und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der öffentlichen
Zwangsdienste in Ägypten und anderen Provinzen (= Historia Einzelschriften 116),
Stuttgart 1997; with a review by R. S. BAGNALL in Gnomon 73 (2001),
pp. 459–461.
Marie DREW-BEAR, Le nome Hermopolite. Toponymes et sites (= American Studies in
Papyrology 21), Missoula 1979.
Marie DREW-BEAR, ‘Le nome Hermopolite et sa métropole à l’époque gréco-
romaine’, REA 83 (1981), pp. 21–33.
Ruth DUTTENHÖFER, ‘Drei Todesanzeigen’, ZPE 79 (1989), pp. 229–232.
Ruth DUTTENHÖFER, ‘Five Census Returns in the Beinecke Library’, BASP 34
(1997), pp. 53–78.
Ruth DUTTENHÖFER, ‘Liste der bisher publizierten Libelli’, [in:] P. Lips. II (2002),
pp. 226–232; ‘Auswertung der Liste der Libelli’, ibidem, pp. 233–239; ‘Kon-
kordanz der bisher publizierten Libelli’, ibidem, pp. 240–241.

W. ENSSLIN, ‘Zu Pap. Oxyrhynchus I 43 Recto’, Aegyptus 22 (1952), pp. 163–178.

Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, ‘Government, Management, Literacy. Aspects of Pto-

lemaic Administration in the Early Hellenistic Period’, AncSoc 22 (1991),
pp. 203–227.
Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, ‘The Heracleopolite Nome: Internal and External Bor-
ders’ [in:] Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copen-
hagen 1994, pp. 204–209.
Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, The Herakleopolite Nome. A Catalogue of the Toponyms, with
Introduction and Commentary (= American Studies in Papyrology 37), Atlanta 1998.
Maria Rosaria FALIVENE, ‘Sull’origine del P. L. Bat. XX Suppl. A (Progetto di dighe
e canali per la dvreã di Apollonios)’, [in:] Simona RUSSO (ed.), Atti del V
Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia. Firenze, 10–12 dicembre 1999,
Firenze 2000, pp. 115–121.
Georgina FANTONI, Appendix: ‘Arsinoe and Theodosiopolis’, [in:] CPR XIV
(1989), pp. 41–48.
Giuliana FOTI TALAMANCA, Ricerche sul processo nell’Egitto greco-romano, vol. I. L’or-
ganizzazione del ‘conventus’ del ‘praefectus Aegypti’ (= Università di Roma. Pubbli-
cazioni dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano e dei Diritti dell’Oriente Mediterraneo 48),
Milano 1974.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 294

294 BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. FRANCE, Theadelpheia and Euhemereia. Village History in Greco-Roman Egypt, diss.

Leuven 1999.
D. FRANKFURTER, ‘Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears in Roman Egypt’, GRBS 46
(2006), pp. 37–62.
P. M. FRASER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, voll. I–II, Oxford 1972.

G. GARBRECHT, ‘Historical Water Storage for Irrigation in the Fayum Depression

(Egypt)’, Irrigation and Drainage Systems 10 (1996), pp. 47–76.
G. GARBRECHT – H. JARITZ, Untersuchungen antiker Anlagen zur Wasserspeicherung im
Fayum, Ägypten (Leichtweiss-Institut für Wasserbau der Technischen Universität
Braunschweig. Mitteilungen, Heft 107), Braunschweig – Kairo 1990; with a
review by U. BUSKE in ArchPF 38 (1992), pp. 72–74.
G. GARBRECHT – H. JARITZ, ‘Neue Ergebnisse zu altägyptischen Wasserbauten im
Fayum’, Antike Welt 23 (1992), pp. 238–254.
A. H. GARDINER – H. I. BELL, ‘The Name of Lake Moeris’, JEA 29 (1943), pp. 37–50.
H. GAUTHIER, Les nomes d’Égypte depuis Hérodote jusqu’à la conquête arabe (= Mémoirs
de l’Institut d’Égypte 25), Cairo 1935, pp. 202–205.
Karolien GEENS, ‘Aurelius Isidoros, son of Ptolemaios’ at Leuven Homepage of
Papyrus Collections.
A. GEISSEN, ‘Numismatische Bemerkung zu dem Aufstand des L. Domitius
Domitianus’, ZPE 22 (1976), pp. 280–286.
H. GELZER, H. HILGENFELD, O. CUNTZ, Patrum Nicaenorum nomina, Leipzig 1898,
pp. lx–lxiv, ‘Index patrum Nicaenorum restitutus’.
M. GELZER, Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltung Ägyptens [= Leipziger historische
Abhandlungen 13], Leipzig 1909.
G. GERACI, ‘Un biglietto del prefetto d’Egitto Tiberio Giulio Alessandro relativo
al conventus del Menfite. Ancora su P. Med. inv. 69.66 verso’, Aegyptus 57
(1977), pp. 145–150.
Hanna GEREMEK, Karanis, communauté rurale de l’Égypte romaine au II e–III e siècle de
notre ère (= Archiwum Filologiczne 17), Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków 1969.
N. GONIS, ‘Two Declarations of Uninundated Land Reread’, ZPE 126 (1999),
pp. 207–210.
E. J. GOODSPEAD, ‘A Group of Greek Papyrus Texts’, Classical Philology 1 (1906),
pp. 167–175.
B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, ‘Excavations in the Fayum and at el-Hibeh’, [in:]
Egypt Exploration Fund. Archaeological Reports 1900–1901, pp. 4–7.
B. A. VAN GRONINGEN, ‘Un autographe du méridarque Polémon?’, Aegyptus 13
(1933), pp. 21–24.
H. G. GUNDEL, ‘Einige Giessener Fragmente (P. Giss. univ. bibl.)’, Anagennesis 4
(1986), pp. 197–221.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 295

BIBLIOGRAPHY 295

W. HABERMANN, ‘Kerkeosiris/Kerkeusiris im Arsinoites’, ChrEg 67 (1992),

pp. 101–111.
R. HAENSCH, ‘Die Bearbeitungsweisen von Petitionen in der Provinz Aegyptus’,
ZPE 100 (1994), pp. 487–546.
R. HAENSCH, ‘Zur Konventsordnung in Aegyptus und den übrigen Provinzen des
römischen Reiches’, [in:] Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses
(= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997, vol. I, pp. 320–391.
D. HAGEDORN, ‘Ein dritter Zeuge für Melankomas, den Archisomatophylax und
Strategen des Arsinoites?’, ZPE 38 (1980), p. 190.
D. HAGEDORN, ‘Der erste Stratege der vereinigten Themistes- und Polemon-
Bezirke’, ZPE 44 (1981), pp. 137–140.
D. HAGEDORN, ‘Bemerkungen zu verschiedenen Papyrusurkunden’, JJurP 23
(1993) (= Studies in Memory of Zbigniew Borkowski), pp. 49–59.
D. HAGEDORN, ‘P. Col. V 1 Verso und der Procurator Aelius Socraticus’, ZPE 153
(2005), pp. 141–146.
D. HAGEDORN – P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Die Stadtviertel von Herakleopolis’, ZPE 65
(1986), pp. 101–105.
P. W. HAIDER, ‘“Das Buch vom Fayum” und seine Historisierung bei Herodot’,
[in:] P. W. HAIDER, R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Althistorische Studien im Spannungs-
feld zwischen Universal- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Franz Hampl
gedacht zum 90. Geburtstag am 8. Dezember 2000, Stuttgart 2001, pp. 127-156.
Ann Ellis HANSON, ‘The Archive of Isidoros of Psophthis and P. Ostorius Scapula,
Praefectus Aegypti’, BASP 21 (1984), pp. 77–87.
Ann Ellis HANSON, ‘A Petition and Court Proceedings: P. Mich. inv. 6060’, ZPE
111 (1996), pp. 175–182.
Ann Ellis HANSON, ‘Isidoros of Psophthis, Augustan Cultivator: An Update’, [in:]
Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart
– Leipzig 1997, pp. 413–429.
H. HAUBEN, ‘Kalikratou Meris and Kallikratous Kome in Middle Egypt’, ArchPF
26 (1978), pp. 51–56.
H. HEINEN, Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v.Chr. Untersuchungen zur Regierungszeit
der 7. Kleopatra und des 13. Ptolemäers, diss. Tübingen 1966.
Suzanne HÉRAL, ‘Deux équivalents démotiques du titre de nomãrxhw’, ChrEg 65
(1990), pp. 304–320.
Suzanne HÉRAL, ‘Archives bilingues de nomarques dans les papyrus de Ghôran’,
[in:] Janet H. JOHNSON (ed.), Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cam-
byses to Constantine and Beyond (= SAOC 51) , Chicago 1992, pp. 149–157.
R. Neil HEWISON, The Fayoum: A Practical Guide, Cairo 1984.
R. Neil HEWISON, The Fayoum: History and Guide, Cairo – New York 2001.
K. HEYLEN, Papyri uit het Fajoem. Een onderzoek naar zes dorpen in de meris van The-
mistos, MA diss. Leuven 1992.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 296

296 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Deborah HOBSON, ‘The Village of Heraklia’, BASP 22 (1985), pp. 101–115.

Deborah HOBSON, ‘The Inhabitants of Heraklia’, BASP 23 (1986), pp. 99–123.
G. HÖLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von
Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994 (English
translation: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London – New York 2001).
N. HOHLWEIN, Le stratège du nome, avant-propos de Jean BINGEN (= Papyrologica
Bruxellensia 9), Bruxelles 1969.
E. HONIGMANN, Le Synekdèmos d’Hiéroklès et l’opuscule géographique de Georges de
Chypre, Brussels 1939.
Francisca A. J. HOOGENDIJK, ‘Het “Nestnêphis-proces”. Een strijd tussen Egyp-
tische priesters in de 1ste eeuw n.Chr.’ Hermeneus 66 (1994), pp. 255–262.
Francisca A. J. HOOGENDIJK, ‘Eine byzantinische Dialysis-Urkunde’, ZPE 107
(1995), pp. 105–112.
N. S. HOPKINS, ‘Contemporary Irrigation’, [in:] A. K. BOWMAN and E. ROGAN
(eds.), Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times (= Proceedings of the
British Academy 96), Oxford 1999, pp. 367–385.
G. H. R. HORSLEY, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 2. A Review of the
Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1977, North Ryde 1982.
W. HUSS, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332-30 v.Chr., München 2001.

J. IJSEWIJN, De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et Lagidarum eponymis

(= Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen,
Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Letteren 42), Bruxelles 1961.

Marga JAGER, Marijke REINSMA, ‘Ein mißverstandenes Gesetz aus ptolemäischer

Zeit’, [in:] Pap. Lugd. Bat. XIV, pp. 114–115.
A. Ch. JOHNSON, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. II. Roman Egypt to the
Reign of Diocletian, Baltimore 1936.
P. JOUGUET, La vie municipale dans l’Egypte romaine (= Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises
d’Athènes et de Rome 104), Paris 1911.

E. H. KASE, Jr. A Papyrus Roll in the Princeton Collection (= P. Princ. Roll), diss. Balti-
more 1933.
J. KEENAN, ‘The Provincial Administration of Egyptian Arcadia’, Museum Philo-
logum Londinense 2 (1977) = Special Papyrological Number, pp. 193–202.
D. P. KEHOE, Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt During the Early
Empire (= Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 40), Bonn 1992.
F. KOLB, ‘Die Datierung des ägyptischen Aufstands unter L. Domitius Domitia-
nus und Aurelius Achilleus’, Eos 76 (1988), pp. 325–343.
P. KOOL, De phylakieten in Grieks-Romeins Egypte, Amsterdam 1954.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 297

BIBLIOGRAPHY 297

Th. KRUSE, ‘Zum basilikÚw grammateÊw im ptolemäischen Ägypten. Bemer-

kungen zu John F. Oates, The Ptolemaic Basilikos Grammateus’, Tyche 12
(1997), pp. 149–158.
Th. KRUSE, Der königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung. Untersuchungen zur
Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philippus Arabs
(30 v. Chr. – 245 n. Chr.), voll. I–II (= ArchPF Beiheft 11.1–2), München
– Leipzig 2002.
W. KUNKEL, ‘Verwaltungsakten aus spätptolemäischer Zeit’, ArchPF 8 (1927),
pp. 169–215.

Jacqueline LALLEMAND, ‘La création des provinces d’Égypte Jovia et d’Égypte Her-
culia’, Académie royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences
morales et politiques, 5th ser., 36 (1950), pp. 387–395.
Jacqueline LALLEMAND, ‘Le monnayage de Domitius Domitianus’, RBN 97 (1951),
pp. 89-103.
Jacqueline LALLEMAND, ‘Lucius Domitius Domitianus’, Raccolta di scritti in onore di
Girolamo Vitelli, IV = Aegyptus 33 (1953), pp. 97–104.
Jacqueline LALLEMAND, L’administration civile de l’Égypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien
à la création du diocèse (284–382). Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre l’Égypte
et l’Empire à la fin du III e et au IV e siècle (= Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres
et des Sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 57.2),
Bruxelles 1964.
A. LANIADO, Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’Empire protobyzantin
(= TravMém. Monographies 13), Paris 2002.
G. LA PIRA, ‘Esegesi del Papiro Vaticano (Documento della Marmarica)’, BIDR
41 (1933), pp. 103–141.
Margaret E. LARSON, The Officials of Karanis (27 B.C. – 337 A.D.). A Contribution
to the Study of Local Government in Egypt under Roman Rule, diss. Ann
Arbor 1954.
Marie-Thérèse LENGER, ‘Le fragment de loi ptolémaïque P. Petrie III 26 (Bodl.
MS. Gr. class. d. 27. [P])’, [in:] Studi in Onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli, Firenze
1956, pp. 459–467.
N. LEWIS, ‘Two Petitions for Recovery (P. Col. Inv. Nos 61 and 62; 318 A.D.)’,
JJurP 2 (1948), pp. 51–66.
N. LEWIS, ‘Four Cornell Papyri’, RecPap 3 (1964), pp. 25–35.
N. LEWIS, ‘Noemata legontos 7–18’, BASP 4 (1967), pp. 27–36.
N. LEWIS, ‘Notationes legentis’, BASP 12 (1975), pp. 107–108.
N. LEWIS, ’SB XIV 11614: More than Meets the Eye’, BASP 21 (1984), pp. 157–160.
N. LEWIS, ‘Kleros, Komarch and Komogrammateus in the Fourth Century’, ChrEg
72 (1997), pp. 345–347.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 298

298 BIBLIOGRAPHY

N. LEWIS, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Second Edition) (= Papyro-
logica Florentina 27), Firenze 1997.
N. LEWIS, ‘Replacement of Two Nominees to an Epiteresis’, ArchPF 45 (1999),
pp. 169–172.
N. LEWIS, ‘New Light on Liturgies’, ChrEg 79 (2004), pp. 228–231.
A. B. LLOYD, Herodotus. Book II. Introduction (= Études préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l’Empire romain 43.1), Leiden 1975.
A. B. LLOYD, Herodotus. II. Commentary 1–98 (= Études préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l’Empire romain 43.2), Leiden 1976.
A. B. LLOYD, Herodotus. II. Commentary 99–182 (= Études préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l’Empire romain 43.3), Leiden 1988.

A. ŁUKASZEWICZ, ‘Un acte d’agression au Fayoum (P. Heid. inv. G 226)’, [in:] Akten
des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (= ArchPF Beiheft 3), Stuttgart
– Leipzig 1997, vol. II, pp. 652–655.

V. MARTIN, Les Épistrategès, Contributions à l’etude des institutions de l’Egypte greco-

romaine, Geneva 1911.
V. MARTIN, ‘Stratèges et basilicogrammates du nome Arsinoïte à l’époque
romaine’, ArchPF 6 (1920), pp. 137–175.
e
V. MARTIN, ‘Epistula exactoriae’ [in:] Actes du V Congrès international de Papyrologie,
Oxford 30 août – 3 septembre 1937, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 260–285.
H. MELAERTS. ‘Un papyrus ptolémaïque de la collection de Bruxelles’, [in:] R. DE
SMET, H. MELAERTS, Cecilia SAERENS (ed.), Studia varia Bruxellensia ad orbem
Graeco-Latinum pertinentia 2 = Twintig jaar Klassieke Filologie aan de Vrije Uni-
versiteit Brussel, Leuven 1990, pp. 127–137.
H. MELAERTS, ‘Une liste de villages de la méris de Polémôn’, [in:] R. DE SMET,
H. MELAERTS, Cecilia SAERENS (ed.) Studia varia Bruxellensia ad orbem Graeco-
Latinum pertinentia 4. In honorem Aloysi Gerlo, Leuven 1997, pp. 171–182.
P. M. MEYER, Die Libelli aus der decianischen Christenverfolgung (= Aus dem Anhang zu
den Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre
1910), Berlin 1910.
A. J. M. MEYER-TERMEER, Die Haftung der Schiffer im Griechischen und Römischen
Recht (= Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam
pertinentia 13), Zutphen 1978.
P. VAN MINNEN, ‘Pelousion, an Arsinoite Village in Distress’, ZPE 77 (1989),
pp. 199–200.
H. E. L. MISSLER, Der Komarch. Ein Beitrag zur Dorfverwaltung im ptolemäischen,
römischen und byzantinischen Ägypten, diss. Marburg 1970.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 299

BIBLIOGRAPHY 299

F. MITTHOF, Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Bei-

trag zur Verwaltungs- und Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Reiches im 3. bis 6. Jh.
n.Chr. (= Papyrologica Florentina 32), Firenze 2001.
Maria Lauretta MOIOLI, ‘La famiglia di Sarapion alias Apollonianus, stratego dei
nomi Arsinoites ed Hermopolites’, Acme 40 (1987), pp. 123-136.
Orsolina MONTEVECCHI et G. GERACI, ‘Documenta papyracea inedita ad Neronis
atque Othonis principatus pertinentia in papyris Mediolanensibus reperta’.
[in:] Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses Marburg/Lahn 1971,
München 1974, pp. 293–307.
Orsolina MONTEVECCHI, La papirologia. Ristampa riveduta e corretta con addenda
(= Trattati e manuali), Milano 1988.
L. MOOREN, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction and Prosopography
(= Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor wetenschappen, letteren en
schone kunsten van Belgïe. Klasse der Letteren. Jaargang XXXVII [1975] Nr. 78),
Leuven 1972.
A. H. S. EL MOSALLAMY, ‘Public Notices Concerning epitêrêsis of the ônê zytêras’,
[in:] Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology (New York
24–31 July 1980), Chico 1981, pp. 215–229.
Katja MUELLER, ‘Ptolemaic settlements in space. Settlement size and hierarchy in
the Fayum’, ArchPF 48 (2002), pp. 107-125.
Katja MUELLER, ‘Mastering Matrices and Clusters. Locating Graeco-Roman Set-
tlements in the meris of Herakleides (Fayum/Egypt) by Monte-Carlo-Sim-
ulation’, ArchPF 49 (2003), pp. 218–254;.
Katja MUELLER, ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris (Fayum/Graeco-
Roman Egypt). Locating Settlements by Multidimensional Scaling of
Papyri’, Ancient Society 33 (2003), pp. 103–125.
Katja MUELLER, ‘What’s Your Position? Using Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)
and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for Locating Ancient Settle-
ments in the Meris of Polemon/Graeco-Roman Egypt’, ArchPF 50 (2004),
pp. 199–214.
Katja MUELLER, ‘Redistricting the Ptolemaic Fayum, Egypt. From Nomarchies and
Toparchies to Weighted voronoi tessalation’, ArchPF 51 (2005), pp. 112–126.

G. NACHTERGAEL, ‘La fusion de Bakchias et d’Hèphaistias d’après les reçus de

taxes de l’époque romaine’, [in:] M. CAPASSO, S. PERNIGOTTI (eds.), Studium
atque urbanitas. Miscellanea in onore di Sergio Daris (= Papyrologica Lupiensia 9
[2000]), Galatina 2001, pp. 297–310.

F. OERTEL, Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung

Ägyptens, Leipzig 1917 (reprint 1965).
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 300

300 BIBLIOGRAPHY

B. PALME Das Amt des épaithtÆw in Ägypten, Wien 1989.

L. R. PALMER, A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri, vol. I. Accidence and Word-
Formation. Part 1. The Suffixes (= Publications of the Philological Society 13),
Oxford 1945.
P. J. PARSONS, ‘Philippus Arabs and Egypt’, JRS 57 (1967), pp. 134–141.
P. J. PARSONS, review of P. Sakaon (ed. G. M. PARÁSSOGLOU), [in:] JEA 71 (1985),
pp. 209–210.
F. PAULUS, Prosopographie der Beamten des Arsinoites Nomos in der Zeit von Augustus bis
auf Diokletian, diss. Borna – Leipzig 1914.
W. PEREMANS, E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Prosopographica XIII: Les nomarchies mentionées
dans P. Petrie II 39a = III 88’, [in:] Studia Hellenistica 9, Leuven 1953, pp. 73–80.
P. W. PESTMAN, with contributions by W. CLARYSSE, M. KORVER, M. MUSZYNSKI,
Annette L. SCHUTGENS, W. J. TAIT and J. K. WINNICKI, A Guide to the Zenon
Archive, voll. I–II (= Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 21A–B), Leiden 1981.
L. PIOTROWICZ, ‘De toparcharum Aegyptii Ptolemaeorum et Romanorum aetate
condicione’, Eos 19 (1913), pp. 134–153.
L. PIOTROWICZ, ‘De Nomi Arsinoitae tertio a. Chr. n. saeculo partitione’, [in:]
Symb. Philol. Posnaniensium, Poznań 1920, pp. 56–61.
L. PIOTROWICZ, Stanowisko nomarchów w administracji Egiptu w okresie grecko-rzym-
skim, Poznań 1922.
G. POETHKE, Epimerismos. Betrachtungen zur Zwangspacht in Ägypten während der
Prinzipatszeit (= Papyrologica Bruxellensia 8), Bruxelles 1969.
Claire PRÉAUX, ‘Est-ce un autographe du méridarque Polémon?’, ChrEg 9 (1934),
pp. 132–133.
Claire PRÉAUX, ‘Documents: Les papyrus de Zénon de l’Université Columbia’
(review of P. Col. Zenon), ChrEg 10 (1935), pp. 147–151.
F. PREISIGKE, W. SPIEGELBERG, O. Joach., pp. 40–43, Abschnitt: ‘Der nomãrxhw’.
The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I, AD 260–395, by A. H. M. JONES,
J. R. MARTINDALE and J. MORRIS, Cambridge 1971; vol. II, AD 395–527,
by J. R. MARTINDALE, Cambridge 1980.
Paola PRUNETI, I centri abitati dell’Ossirinchite. Repertorio toponomastico (= Papyro-
logica Florentina 9), Firenze 1981.
Paola PRUNETI, ‘Toparchie e “pagi”: precisazioni topografiche relative al nomo Os-
sirinchite’, Aegyptus 69 (1989), pp. 113–118.

D. RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt.

The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate (= Cambridge Classical Studies),
Cambridge 1991.
D. RATHBONE, ‘Towards a Historical Topography of the Fayum’, [in:] Archaeo-
logical Research in Roman Egypt. The Proceedings of The Seventeenth Classical
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY 301

Colloquium of The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum,

held on 1–4 December, 1993 (= JRA. Supplementary Series 19), Ann Arbor
(Mich.) 1996, pp. 50–56.
D. RATHBONE, ‘Surface Survey and the Settlement History of the Ancient Fayum’,
[in:] Archeologia e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive.
Atti del Convegno internazionale (= Quaderni del Museo del Papiro 8), Siracusa
1997, pp. 7–20;.
D. RATHBONE, ‘Mapping the South-west Fayyum: Sites and Texts’, [in:] Isabella
ANDORLINI, G. BASTIANINI, M. MANFREDI, Giovanna MENCI (ed.), Atti del
XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998, Firenze
2001, vol. II, pp. 1109–1117.
F. REITER, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu dokumentarischen Papyri’, ZPE 107 (1995),
pp. 95–103.
F. REITER, ‘Die arsinoitischen Nomarchen im römischen Ägypten’, [in:] Isabella
ANDORLINI, G. BASTIANINI, M. MANFREDI, Giovanna MENCI (ed.), Atti del
XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998, Firen-
ze 2001, vol. II, pp. 1119–1133.
F. REITER, ‘Vorschläge zu Lesung und Deutung einiger Transportbescheinigungen’,
ZPE 134 (2001), pp. 191–207.
F. REITER, Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites. Ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen
Ägypten (= Papyrologica Coloniensia 31), Paderborn – München – Wien
– Zürich 2004.
Cornelia Eva RÖMER, ‘Philoteris in the Themistou Meris. Report on the Archae-
ological Survey Carried Out as Part of the Fayum Survey Project’, ZPE 147
(2004), pp. 281–305.
Germaine ROUILLARD, L’administration civile de l’Égypte byzantine, Paris 1928,
pp. 71–72.
Jane ROWLANDSON, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt. The Social Relations of
Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome (= Oxford Classical Monographs), Oxford
1996.
H.-A. RUPPRECHT ‘Rechtsmittel gegen die Bestellung zu Liturgien nach den
Papyri’, [in:] D. BICKEL, W. HADDING (ed.), Recht und Rechtserkenntnis. Fest-
schrift für Ernst Wolf zum 70. Geburtstag, Köln – Berlin – Bonn – München
1985, pp. 581–594.

A. E. SAMUEL, ‘The internal organization of the nomarch’s bureau in the third

century B.C.’, [in:] Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles (= American Studies in
Papyrology 1), New Haven 1966, pp. 213–229.
Deborah SAMUEL, ‘The Village of Apias in the Arsinoite Nome’, Aegyptus 62
(1982), pp. 80–123.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 302

302 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Maren SCHENTULEIT, ‘Die spätdemotische Hausverkaufurkunde P. BM 262: ein

bilingues Dokument aus Soknopaiou Nesos mit griechischen Übersetzun-
gen’, Enchoria 27 (2001), pp. 127–154.
E. SCHWARTZ, ‘Zur Geschichte des Athanasius I’ [in:] Nachrichten von der königli-
chen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 11, Göttingen 1904.
J. SCHWARTZ, ‘L. Domitius Domitianus et l’épigraphé’, ChrEg 38 (1963), pp. 149–155.
J. SCHWARTZ, L. Domitius Domitianus (étude numismatique et papyrologique) (= Papyro-
logica Bruxellensia 12), Bruxelles 1975.
J. SCHWARTZ, ‘De quelques villages du nome Arsinoïte à l’époque romaine’, CRIPEL
10 (1988), pp. 141–148.
R. SEIDER, Beiträge zur Ptolemäischen Verwaltungsgeschichte. Der Nomarches. Der Dioi-
ketes Apollonios (= Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums
und des Mittelalters 8), Heidelberg 1938 (reviewed by Claire PRÉAUX in ChrEg
15 [1940], pp. 174–176 and U. WILCKEN in ArchPF 14 [1941], pp. 156–157).
R. SEIDER, Paläographie der griechischen Papyri. Band I. Tafeln. Erster Teil: Urkunden,
Stuttgart 1967.
E. SEIDL, Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte, Glückstadt – Hamburg – New York 1962.
W. SESTON, Dioclétien et la tétrarchie, vol. I. Guerres et réformes (284–300), (= Biblio-
thèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 162), Paris 1946.
J. SHELTON, ‘P. Kronion 36 and the Naubion Katoikon’, ChrEg 50 (1975), p. 270.
J. SHELTON, ‘Papyri from the Bonn Collection’, ZPE 25 (1977), pp. 159–183.
Jennifer A. SHERIDAN, Chapter ‘The administration of the Hermopolite nome’,
[in:] P. Col. IX (1998), pp. 107–134.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Twelve Documentary Papyri from the Amsterdam Papyrus Col-
lection’, Talanta 2 (1970), pp. 95–111.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Aurelius Isidoros en zijn familie. Teksten uit een Egyptisch fami-
liearchief van ca. 300 n. Chr.’, [in:] K. R. V EENHOF (ed.), Schrijvend verleden.
Documenten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en toegelicht, Leiden – Zut-
phen 1983, pp. 204–210.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Three Fayum Papyri’, Aegyptus 67 (1987), pp. 73–78.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Another Order to Arrest?’, ZPE 87 (1991), pp. 259-260.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘The Meanings of ≥toi in the Papyri’, ZPE 90 (1992), pp. 241–250.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Three Tax-Receipts from the Michigan Papyrus Collection’, ZPE
103 (1994), pp. 93–97.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘Known and Unknown Officials’, ZPE 106 (1995), pp. 203–234.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN, ‘PSI I 57 Reconsidered’, ZPE 113 (1996), p. 168.
P. J. SIJPESTEIJN – K. A. WORP, ‘Bittschrift an einen praepositus pagi’, Tyche 1 (1986),
pp. 189–194.
Th. C. SKEAT, ‘Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology. III. “The First Year Which Is
Also the Third.” A Date in the Reign of Cleopatra VII.’, JEA 47 (1962),
pp. 100–105.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 303

BIBLIOGRAPHY 303

R. SMOLDERS, ‘Two Archives from the Roman Arsinoites’, ChrEg 79 (2004),

pp. 233–240.
R. SMOLDERS, ‘Chairemon: Alexandrian Citizen, Royal Scribe, Gymnasiarch,
Landholder at Bakchias and Loving Father’, BASP 42 (2005), pp. 93–100.
R. SMOLDERS, ‘Isidoros, komogrammateus of Lagis and Trikomia’, at Leuven Home-
page of Papyrus Collections.
R. SMOLDERS, ‘Aurelius Ol’ at Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections.
R. SMOLDERS, ‘Lawsuit of Isidoros vs. Tryphon’ at Leuven Homepage of Papyrus
Collections (page numbers are quoted as in the PDF file).
Marta SORDI, ‘I rapporti fra il Cristianesimo e l’impero dai Severi a Gallieno’,
ANRW II.23.1, pp. 340–374.
P. R. SWARNEY, The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos (= American Studies in Papyro-
logy 8), Toronto 1970.

J. G. TAIT, ‘The Strategi and Royal Scribes in the Roman Period’, JEA 8 (1922),
pp. 166–173.
R. TAUBENSCHLAG, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 BC –
640 AD. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, voll. I–II, Warszawa 1955.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Office of Exactor in Egypt’, ChrEg 34 (1959), pp. 124–140.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Strategus in Fourth Century Egypt’, ChrEg 35 (1960),
pp. 262–270.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Nome Lists in the Papyrus of the Revenue Laws.’ Aegyptus 47
(1967), pp. 217-221.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Administrative Divisions of Egypt’, [in:] Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, Toronto 1970, pp. 465–469.
J. D. THOMAS, review of BGU XI (ed. H. MAEHLER), JEA 57 (1971), pp. 237–238.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘A New List of Nomes from Oxyrhynchus’, [in:] Akten des XIII.
Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses Marburg/Lahn 1971, München 1974,
pp. 397–403.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Disappearance of the Dekaprotoi in Egypt’, BASP 11 (1974),
pp. 60–68.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Introduction of Dekaprotoi and Comarchs into Egypt in the
Third Century A.D.’, ZPE 19 (1975), pp. 111–119;.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘A Petition to the Prefect of Egypt and Related Imperial Edicts.’
JEA 61 (1975), pp. 201-221.
J. D. THOMAS, The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Part 1. The Ptolemaic
Epistrategos (= Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften. Sonderreihe: Papyrologica Coloniensia 6.1), Opladen 1975.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘L. Domitius Domitianus’, ZPE 25 (1977), pp. 217–220.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Date of the Revolt of L. Domitius Domitianus.’ ZPE 22
(1976), pp. 253-279; with a corrigendum in ZPE 24 (1977), p. 24.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 304

304 BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. D. THOMAS, ‘Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: the Dioiketes and the
Nomarch, [in:] H. MAEHLER, V. M. STROCKA (ed.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten,
Mainz am Rhein 1978, pp. 187–194.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘Scutius Asclepiodotus and the Epistrategia of Eleven Nomes.’ [in:]
Actes du XV e Congrès International de Papyrologie, Bruxelles 1979, vol. IV,
pp. 132–140.
J. D. THOMAS, review of P. Sakaon (ed. G. M. PARÁSSOGLOU), [in:] Gnomon 53 (1981),
pp. 805–807.
J. D. THOMAS, The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Part 2. The Roman Epi-
strategos (= Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Sonderreihe: Papyrologica Coloniensia 6.2), Opladen 1982.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘Sabinianus, Praeses of Aegyptus Mercuriana?’, BASP 21 (1984),
pp. 225–234.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Earliest Occurrence of the ‘exactor civitatis’ in Egypt (P. Giss.
inv. 126 recto)’, [in:] Naphtali LEWIS (ed.), Papyrology = YCS 28 (1985),
pp. 115–125.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘Exactores in the Papyri and in the Legal Codes’ [in:] Egitto e storia
antica. Atti del Colloquio internazionale. Bologna, 31.8–2.9.1987, Bologna 1989,
pp. 683–691.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘1) Epistrategoi in P. Rainer Cent. 68. – 2) A Note on CPR XVIIA
16.’ Tyche 9 (1994), pp. 181-185.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘Strategos and Exactor in the Fourth Century: One Office or Two?’
ChrEg 70 (1995), pp. 230–239.
J. D. THOMAS, ‘The Administration of Roman Egypt: A Survey of Recent Research
and Some Outstanding Problems’, [in:] Isabella ANDORLINI, G. BASTIANINI,
M. MANFREDI, Giovanna MENCI (ed.), Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale
di Papirologia. Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998, Firenze 2001, vol. II, pp. 1245–1254.
J. D. THOMAS and R. S. BAGNALL, ‘Dekaprotoi and Epigraphai’, BASP 15 (1978),
pp. 185–189.
Dorothy J. THOMPSON, Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton 1988.
S. TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in arabischer Zeit. Eine Sammlung christlicher
Stätten in Ägypten in arabischer Zeit, unter Ausschluss von Alexandria, Kairo, des
Apa-Mena-Klosters (Der Abu Mina), der Sketis (Wadi n-Natrun) und der Sinai-
Region, voll. I–VI (= Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B.
41, 1–6), Wiesbaden 1984–1992.
A. TOMSIN, ‘Étude sur les presbuteroi des villages de la chora égyptienne’, Bulletin
de la Classe des Lettres de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 5e s., 38 (1952), pp.
95–130 and pp. 467–532; published also as a separate volume with an index
of sources added (Bruxelles 1953).
E. G. TURNER, ‘Egypt and the Roman Empire: the dekapr«toi’, JEA 22 (1936),
pp. 7–20.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 305

BIBLIOGRAPHY 305

Inge UYTTERHOEVEN – W. CLARYSSE, ‘Ptolemais Arabon – Arabon Kome (meris of

Herakleides)’, at Leuven Database of the Fayum Villages, <http://fayum.
arts.kuleuven.be/0285.html>.

C. VANDERSLEYEN, Chronologie des préfets d’Égypte de 284 à 395 (= Collection Latomus

55), Bruxelles 1962.
Katelijn VANDORPE, ‘The Henet of Moeris and the Ancient Administrative Divi-
sion of the Fayum in Two Parts’, ArchPF 50 (2004), pp. 61–78.
E. VAN’T DACK, ‘La toparchie dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque’, ChrEg 23 (1948),
pp. 147–161.
E. VAN’T DACK, ‘Notes sur les circonscriptions d’origine grecque en Égypte ptolé-
maïque’, [in:] Ptolemaica (= Studia Hellenistica 7), Louvain 1951, pp. 39–59.
A. M. F. W. VERHOOGT, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris. The Doings and
Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 B.C.), Leiden
1998 (= Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 29), Leiden 1998.

Sh. LeRoy WALLACE, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (= Princeton Uni-
versity Studies in Papyrology 2), Princeton 1938.
C. WEHRLI, ‘Les Papyrus de Genève, volume II: corrigenda et observations’, ZPE
67 (1987), pp. 117–118.
C. WESSELY, Karanis und Soknopaiu Nesos: Studien zur Geschichte antiker Cultur- und
Personenverhältnisse, Wien 1902 (reprint, Milano 1975).
C. WESSELY, Topographie des Faijûm (Arsinoites nomus) in griechischer Zeit, Wien 1904
(reprint, Milano 1975).
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘Some Problems of Administrative Continuity in Roman
Egypt’, AULLA XX Proc. Papers, Newcastle NSW 1980, vol. I, pp. 76–82.
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘The Role of the Strategi in Administrative Continuity in
Roman Egypt’, [in:] Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papy-
rology, Chico 1981, pp. 419–428.
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘Recent Research on the Strategi of Roman Egypt (to 1985)’,
ANRW II.10.1 (1988), pp. 598–617.
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, ‘P. Mich. inv. 4343 and 4280: Petitions to the Strategus C.
Julius Gratus’, Aegyptus 69 (1989), pp. 79–83.
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt (Str. R. Scr. 2) (= Papyro-
logica Florentina 37), Firenze 2006 – revised edition of G. BASTIANINI and
J. E. G. WHITEHORNE, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt. Chronological
List and Index (= Papyrologica Florentina 15), Firenze 1987.
E. WIKÉN, ‘Zur Topographie des Faijûm’, Corolla Archaeologica Principi hereditario
Regni Sueciae Gustavo Adolpho dedicata (= Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae 2),
Lund 1932, pp. 270–276.
U. WILCKEN, ‘Papyrus-Urkunde’, ArchPF 3 (1906), pp. 300–313.
287-306 Biblio 12/4/06 1:46 AM Page 306

306 BIBLIOGRAPHY

U. WILCKEN, ‘Urkunden-Referat’, ArchPF 11 (1933), pp. 117–152.

S. WILLIAMS, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, New York 1997, pp. 102–114.
K. A. WORP, ‘Chronological Observations on Later Byzantine Documents’, BASP
22 (1985), pp. 357–363.

H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Diplomatic Notes on Michigan Ostraca’, Class. Phil. 39 (1944),

pp. 28–39 = Scriptiunculae, Amsterdam 1973, vol. II, pp. 820–829.
H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Notes on papyri’, TAPA 94 (1963), pp. 331–335 = Scriptiunculae, Am-
sterdam 1973, pp. 383–387.
H. C. YOUTIE, ‘P. Mich. Inv. 6223: Transtigritani’, ZPE 21 (1976), pp. 25–26 = Scrip-
tiunculae Posteriores, Bonn 1981, vol. I, pp. 295-296.
H. C. YOUTIE, ‘Topogrammate›w ka‹ komogrammate›w’, ZPE 24 (1977), pp. 138–139
= Scriptiunculae Posteriores, Bonn 1981, vol. I, pp. 395–399.
H. C. YOUTIE, Scriptiunculae, voll. I–II, Amsterdam 1973; vol. III, Indexes, Amster-
dam 1975.
H. C. YOUTIE, Scriptiunculae Posteriores. Part One, Bonn 1981; Scriptiunculae poste-
riores. Part Two. with Indexes by R.W. DANIEL, Bonn 1982.
Louise C. YOUTIE, ‘P. Gen. inv. 211 and P. Mich. inv. 864’, ZPE 10 (1973),
pp. 186–188.
Louise C. YOUTIE, ‘Geographical Notes’, BASP 19 (1982), pp. 87–94.
Louise C. YOUTIE – H. C. YOUTIE, ‘ Three Declarations of Uninundated Land’,
ZPE 33 (1979), pp. 193–200.
J. YOYOTTE, ‘Etudes géographiques. I. La “cité des acacias” (Kafr Ammar)’, REg 13
(1961), pp. 71–105.
J. YOYOTTE, ‘Études géographiques. II. Les localités méridionales de la région
memphite et le “Péhou d’Héracléopolis”’, REg 14 (1962), pp. 75–111.

M. ZAHRNT, ‘Antinoopolis in Ägypten: Die hadrianische Gründung und ihre Priv-

ilegien in der neueren Forschung’, [in:] ANRW II.10.1 (1988), pp. 669–706.
Renate ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung dokumentarischer Papyri und
Ostraka’, ZPE 114 (1996), pp. 157–161.
Renate ZIEGLER, ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung von Papyri und Ostraka’, ZPE 128
(1999), pp. 169–176.
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 307

INDICES

1. PERSONS

Abbreviations: gr. – grammateus, bas. gr. – basilikos grammateus, kmgr. – komo-

grammateus, adkgr. – amphodokomogrammateus, kmar. – komarches, str. – strategos,
epstr. – epistrategos, s. – son, P – meris of Polemon, H – meris of Herakleides,
Th – meris of Themistos, Ars. – the Arsinoite nome, nom. – nomarch.

A[......], kmgr. of Kerkesoucha (H) – 209
(Aurelius) A[…], kmgr. of Arabon Kome
(H) – 200
A[……], kmgr. of Ptolemais Arabon (H) –
178
(Flavius) Abinnaios – 107, 108
Achillas, kmgr. in Ars. – 151, 231
Achillas, kmgr. in Ars. – 230
Achillas, kmgr. of Tanis (H) – 224
(Aurelius) Achilleus, bas. gr. of H – 103
Adrastos, presbyteros of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 252
Aelius Felix, epimeletes (?) – 218 n. 176
Aelius Publius, praefectus Aegypti – 45 n. 50
Aelius Socraticus, procurator – 213
(Aurelius) Agathodaimon, dekaprotos (H)
– 127 with n. 35, 132 with n. 37, 136
Agenor, phylakites of Mikra Limne – 79
with n. 56, 80,
(Aurelius) Aion s. of Syrion, kmar. of Kara-
nis (H) – 239
Aion, collector of meat for the annona – 189
n. 99
Aion, kephalaiotes (or kmar.) of Philadel-
pheia (H) – 245 n. 262
Aion, kmar. of Karanis (H) – 242
Akous (Akousilaos), toparch of Tebtynis
(P) – 94, 95 n. 98, 96, 121
Akousilaos, presbyteros of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 172 n. 54, 227 with nn. 202 and 203
Akousilaos, sitologos of Lysimachides duo
(P/Th) – 164, 165, 276
Akousilaos, toparch of Tebtynis (P) – 121, 225
Alexander Severus, Imp. – 256, 257
(Aurelius) Alexandros, anametretes – 130
(Aurelius) Alexandros, kmar. of Karanis (H)
– 239
(Aurelius) Allonios s. of T....e.thios, kmar.
of Philadelpheia (H) – 183 n. 80, 245 with
n. 265
(Aurelius) Alypios, praepositus pagi X or X+
– 278
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 308
308 INDICES
Alypios, general manager of the Appianos
estate – 186 n. 89, 248
Ameinobios, phylakites of Th. – 79, 80
Amenemhat III, king of Egypt – 12 n. 25, 14
Ammianus Marcellinus, writer – 51, 52, 53, 58
(Aurelius) Ammonianos s. of Hekysis,
kmar. of Philadelpheia (H) – 183 n. 80,
245 with n. 265
(Aurelius) Ammonianos s. of Pekysios,
kmar. of Philadelpheia (H) – 246
(Aurelius) Ammonianos, gymnasiarch,
dekaprotos – 135, 136
(Aurelius) Ammonios, praepositus pagi XII
– 278
Ammonios, boethos of kmgr. – 152
Ammonios, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 206
Ammonios, nom. of Ars. – 68
Ammonios, str. of Ars. – 90 with n. 85, 91,
95, 99
Ammonios, str. of H (AD 76/7) – 100
Ammonios, str. of H (AD 189) – 222 n. 187
Amonios, kmgr. of Dionysias (Th) – 202
(Aurelius) Amoun s. of Hatres, kmar. of
Philadelpheia (H) – 183 n. 80, 245, 246
with n. 265
Anchophis, priest in Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 199
(Aurelius) Andreias, dekaprotos of Karanis
(H) – 135
Androtimos see (Tiberius) Claudius Andro-
timos
(Aurelius) Annianos s. of Pekysios, kmar. of
Philadelpheia (H) – 246
Annius Diogenes, procurator Heptanomiae
– 47 n. 59
Antiochos, str. of P – 100, 101
Antoninos s. of Sakaon, kmar. of Thead-
elpheia (Th) – 191, 250
Antoninus Pius, Imp. – 151, 201, 228, 229
(Aurelius) Antonios s. of Antonios, kmar.
of Karanis (H) – 239
Antonios, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 201
Antonis, kmgr. – 177
Antonis, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 223
Antonius Domnus, citizen of Antinoopolis
– 217 n. 173
Antonius Sarapammon, str. of Ars. – 107
(Caius) Antonius Gallicus, epiteretes in Th.
– 170
(Aurelius) Aoug s. of Melas, kmar. of The-
adelpheia (Th) – 191, 192 n. 106, 250
Aphrodisios s. of Aphrodisios, grandson of
Philotas, ex-kmgr. of Dionysias (Th) – 202
(Aurelius) Aphrodisios, adkgr. of Dinnys
(H) – 233
(Aurelius) Aphrodisios, kmar. of Karanis (H)
– 239
(Aurelius) Aphrodisios, kmgr. in Ars. – 233,
257
Apion, sitologopraktor – 133
Apolinarios, kmgr.(?) – 253, 261
(Aurelius) Apollon, kmar. of Philadelpheia
(H) – 245 with n. 262
(Aurelius) Apollonianos, see (Aurelius) Sara-
pion
Apollonias, kmar. in H – 254
Apollonides, nom. of Oxyrh. – 68 n. 21
(Aurelius) Apollonios alias Hierax, str. of H
– 103 n. 125
(Aurelius) Apollonios, bas. gr. of the Lyko-
polites – 172
(Aurelius) Apollonios, gymnasiarch, deka-
protos – 135
Apollonios, bas. gr. of Th – 220 n. 181
Apollonios, dioiketes of Ptolemy II – 18
with n. 48, 19, 81
Apollonios, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th)
– 227
Apollonios, nom. – 70 n. 27
Apollonios, oikonomos of H. – 83
Apollonios, str. of Ars. – 89, 90, 94, 95 with
nn. 98 and 99, 98, 99, 121
Apollonios, str. of Ars. (69 BC) – 115
Aponios, sitologos of Euhemereia (Th) – 149
(Aurelius) Apphous s. of Mauros, kmar. of
Philadelpheia (H) – 246
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 309
PERSONS
Appianos, owner of the estate – 186 n. 89
Areios s. of Lysimachos, kmgr. of Tebtynis
(P) – 150, 225
Areios, hyperetes of a toparchy – 134
Areios, kmgr. in Ars. – 231 with n. 212
Areios, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 200
Areios, kmgr. of Kerkesoucha Orous (H)
– 210
Areios, see (Tib.) Claudius Areios
(Aurelius) Arianos, kmar. of Philadelpheia
(H) – 245 with n. 262
(Aurelius) Arion, kmgr. of Ptolemais Ara-
bon alias Arabon Kome (H) – 178, 200
(Aurelius) Arios, kmar. of Karanis (H) – 238
with n. 238
Aristarchos, nom. – 120
Aristomachos str. of Ars. – 87
(Aurelius) Ariston s. of Serenos, kmar. of
Karanis (H) – 195, 196 n. 115, 241
Arrian, historian – 65, 66 with n. 14
Artemidora – 232 n. 214
Artemidoros, kmgr. of Kynopolis (P) – 164,
165, 211
Artemidoros, str. of H – 174, 175
Artemidoros, toparch – 121
(Aurelius) Asaeis s. of Hatres, kmar. of Phil-
adelpheia (H) – 245, 246
Asinianos see (Caius) Iulius Asinianos
Asklas see (Caius) Iulius Asklas
Asklepiades, bas. gr. of Ars. – 88, 90, 96, 97
Asklepiades, see Claudius Asklepiades
Asklepiades, str. of Ars. – 89, 99
Asklepiades, str. of H – 138
Asklepiodotos, see Scutius Asklepiodotos
Ataeis, kmar. of Leukogiou Epoikion (Th)
– 192, 193, 243
(Aurelius) Athanasios, exegetes of Alexan-
dria, gymnasiarch, dekaprotos (Th) – 136
Athenion, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 221
Athenodoros, see Iulius Athenodoros
Augustus, Imp. – 6, 29, 30 n. 18, 94
Bios, phylakites of H. – 79, 80
309
Caius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, see Ca-
ligula
Caligula, Imp. – 92
(Aurelius) Chairemon, praepositus pagi VIII
– 277
Chairemon, bas. gr. of the Small Diopolites
– 86 n. 77, 149 n. 7
Chairemon, gr. of kmgr. – 151
Chairemon, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 200
Chairemon, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 208
Chare.[..], kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) –
229
Chelkias, str. of the Herakleopolites – 99
(Aurelius) Chrestos, str. – 106 n. 136
Chrysas, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 227
Chrysermos see (Tiberius) Claudius Chry-
sermos
Claudius Asklepiades, str. of H – 159 n. 22,
214, 220
Claudius Erasus, str. of Th – 101
Claudius Lysanias, str. of Ars. (AD 54) – 99
(Tiberius) Claudius Androtimos, str. of Th
– 100
(Tiberius) Claudius Chrysermos, str. of Ars.
– 89, 99
(Tiberius) Claudius Hermias, str. of H – 100
(Tiberius) Claudius Philoxenos, str. of Ars.
– 99
Claudius, Imp. – 31, 100 n. 114, 206 n. 141
(Tiberius) Claudius Areios, str. of H – 101
Commodus, Imp. – 160 n. 23
Damis, nom. – 72, 73 with n. 36
Decius, Imp. – 184, 187, 248 with n. 275
Demetrios alias Kerkion, antigrapheus of
meris of Kalikrates – 78
Demetrios s. of Apollonios, farmer – 75, 77
Diadelphos, advocate – 174–176
Didymas, praepositus pagi VIII – 278
Didymos alias Krispinos, ex-kmgr. of Talei
and Ibion (P) – 162, 223
Didymos Hierax, str. of Ars. – 99
Didymos s. of Enation, presbyteros of
Dionysias (Th) – 202, 203 with n. 133
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 310
310 INDICES
Didymos s. of Lysimachos grandson of
Didymos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) (AD 41/2)
– 150, 225
(Aurelius) Didymos, gymnasiarch, deka-
protos (H) – 135, 136
Didymos, bas. gr. of Th – 199, 203 with n. 134
Didymos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (after AD 16) –
150, 225
Didymos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 226
Didymos, sitologos in Theadelpheia (Th)
– 133
(Septimus) Didymos, str. of H – 103,
Diocletian, Imp. – 7, 36, 39, 44, 45 nn. 50 and
53, 46 with n. 54, 47 n. 57, 50, 51 n. 72, 53,
56, 143 nn. 46 and n. 48, 254, 263, 264 n. 2
Diodoros, employee of Apollonios, dioiketes
– 18, 19
Diodoros, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 200
Diodorus Siculus, writer – 13, 65, 66
Diogenes see Annius Diogenes
(Aurelius) Diogenes, adkgr. of Tebtynis (P)
– 179, 234 with n. 223
Diogenes, kmar. of Philadelpheia (H) – 244
Diogenes, kmgr. of Nilopolis and Sokno-
paiou Nesos (H) – 214
Diogenes, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H),
perhaps identical with the preceding – 222
Diomedes, bas. gr. of H – 100
(Aurelius) Dion, adkgr. of Hiera Nesos (H)
– 179, 234 with n. 220
(Aurelius) Dionysion, adkgr. in Ars. (Th) –
235 with n. 225
Dionysios, kmgr. of Apias (Th) – 199
Dionysios, nomarch of Antinoopolis – 38, 39
Dionysodoros, str. of Ars. (AD 14–33) – 85
n. 73, 89, 91, 92 n. 91, 95 with nn. 99 and
100, 98, 99
Dionysodoros, str. of Ars. (AD 45) – 92 n. 91,
99
Diophantos, deputy (?) str. of Ars. – 89
Dios s. of Zeuxis – 101
Dioscorus Caeso, praepositus pagi V – 277
Dioskoros s. of Ptolemaios, presbyteros in
Theadelpheia (Th) – 252
(Aurelius) Dioskoros s. of Kopres and Apil-
las, kmar. of Philadelpheia (H) – 245
(Aurelius) Dioskoros, adkgr. of Hiera Nesos
(H) – 179, 234 with n. 220
Dioskoros, grammateus metropoleos – 110
n. 149
Dioskourides, str. of Ars – 87, 115
(Lucius) Domitius Domitianus, leader of
the revolt – 45 n. 50, 45 n. 53, 46 with n. 57,
47 n. 57
Domnus see Antonius Domnus
Doulos s. of Timotheos, kmar. of Karanis
(H) – 240, 241 with n. 248
Dryton see Hermaios alias Dryton
Ekysis, kmgr. of Kalliphanous Epoikion,
Pterophorou Epoikion and Lotou Epoi-
kion (P) – 205, 211, 219
Epainetos, bas. gr. of Ars. – 90
Erasus see Claudius Erasus
Eros, str. of Ars. – 90, 99
(Aurelius) Esoures, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 250
(Aurelius) Euangelos, adkgr. of Bakchias and
Hephaistias (H) – 161, 177, 179, 233
Eubios, str. of Ars. (?) – 87
Eudaimon, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 206
Eudemos, str. of H – 159 n. 22
(Aurelius) Euporas, prytanis and dekaprotos
(H) – 134
Eustathius – 32 n. 23, 55
Eutychos, dioiketes – 83
Eutychos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 225
Faustus Priscus, imperial slave or libertinus
– 165
(Tiberius) Flavius Letus, praefectus Aegypti
– 50 with n. 70
Florentius, praefectus Augustalis – 53, 54
Gallienus, Imp. – 104, 264
Gellius Bassus, epstr. of the Heptanomia –
170
Gemellus see Sempronius Gemellus
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 311
PERSONS
George of Cyprus – 54 n. 82, 55, 58
(Aurelius) Germanos s. of Selpos, kmar. of
Karanis (H) – 195, 196 n. 115, 241
(Aurelius) Gerontios, dekaprotos (H) – 135
(Aurelius) Gerontios, praepositus pagi V,
later str. of Ars. – 107, 276
Gesios, diadotes – 109
Gordian III, Imp. – 258, 259 n. 309
Gounthos, kmar. of Philadelpheia (H) – 245
Gratus see (Caius) Iulius Gratus
(Aurelius) Gregorius, procurator Heptanomiae
– 48
Hadrian, Imp. – 111, 123 n. 21, 138, 140, 170,
260
Hareotes, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 151, 201
Hareus, seaman of the battle ship of Pole-
mon – 76 n. 45
Harpagathes s. of Satabous, grandson of
Mareios, sitologos – 133, 138 n. 39
Harpagathes, farmer from Soknopaiou
Nesos (H) – 159 n. 22
Harphaesis s. of Kronion – 138, see also Kro-
nion
Harphaesis, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 207
(Aurelius) Harpokrates, adkgr. of Tebtynis
(P) – 234 with n. 222
Harpokration alias Hierax, bas. gr. of H
– 222 n. 187
(Aurelius) Harpokration, adkgr. of Tebtynis
(P) – 177, 178, 234
Harpokration, from Philadelpheia (H) – 272
Harpokration, kmgr. of a village in Th – 230
Harpokration, str. of P and Th – 166
(Aurelius) Hatres s. of Paneys, presbyteros of
Tertenchon in the Lykopolites – 173
(Aurelius) Hatres, adkgr. of Psenhyris (H)
– 234
Hatres, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 207
He....[.].ou or E….[.].ou (gen.), kmgr. of
Persea(i) and pedion Meleagridos (Th) – 216
Hekataios of Abdera, writer – 65
Hephaistion, a horse breeder of Blue fac-
tion in Alexandria – 195, 241
311
(Aurelius) Her[ ], kmgr. of Apollonopolis
and Psinteo (P) – 162, 177, 200 with n. 124,
219 with n. 178
Heraiskos alias Herakleides, grammateus
metropoleos – 110 n. 149
(Aurelius) Heraïskos, priest and dekaprotos
– 135, 136
Herakleides s. of Herakles, kmgr. of Tebty-
nis (P) (24/3 BC) – 224
(Aurelius) Herakleides s. of Paphibios, pres-
byteros of Thebaïke in the Lykopolites
– 173
(Aurelius) Herakleides, str. of Ars. – 104
Herakleides, boethos of kmgr. – 151
Herakleides, kmgr. of Euhemereia (Th)
– 202
Herakleides, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H)
– 216
Herakleides, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos
(H) – 221 with n. 183
Herakleides, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) (AD 117)
– 226
Herakleides, sitologos – 129
Herakleides, str. of Th and H – 102, 170, 171
Herakles s. of Ploution, inhabitant of Kara-
nis (H) – 195
(Aurelius) Herakles, adkgr. of Tebtynis (P)
– 178, 234 with n. 222
Herakles, inhabitant of Tebtynis (P) – 225
Herakles, kmar. of Leukogiou Epoikion
(Th) – 192, 193, 243
(Aurelius) Herakles (or Heraklides), prae-
positus pagi V – 276
(Aurelius) Heras, gymnasiarch, councilor,
dekaprotos (Th) – 135
(Aurelius) Heras, praepositus pagi VIII in
the Oxyrhynchites – 49 n. 65
Heras, kmgr. of Nilopolis and Soknopaiou
Nesos (H) (AD 177–180) – 159, 214, 222
Heras, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
(AD 189–190) – 222 with nn. 187 and 188
Heras, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 229
Herieus, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 149, 208,
209, 261
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 312
312 INDICES
Hermaios alias Dryton, kmgr. of Sokno-
paiou Nesos (H) – 221
Hermaios, bas. gr. of Ars. – 90
(Aurelius) Hermaiskos, bas. gr. of Th and P
– 103 with n. 124
(Aurelius) Hermas, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 184, 186 with n. 89, 187, 195 n. 114,
248, 249
Hermes, kmgr. of Anoubias and Athena
(Th) – 165, 166, 198
Hermias see (Tiberius) Claudius Hermias
(Aurelius) Hermias, gymnasiarch, dekaprotos
– 135
Hermias, inhabitant of Tebtynis (P) – 225
Herodianos, praeses Thebaidae – 45 n. 52
Herodotus – 12 n. 25, 13, 65
(Aurelia) Heroïs daughter of Chairemon,
inhabitant of Karanis (H) – 130
(Aurelius) Heron, apodektes sitou of pagus
VIII – 278
(Aurelius) Heron, dekaprotos – 135
(Aurelius) Heron, high priest, bouleutes of the
city of Arsinoe, dekaprotos (H) – 134, 135
(Aurelius) Heron, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 251 with n. 288, 270, 271,
Heron, bouleutes of the city of Arsinoe – 126
Heron, kmgr. of Andromachis (Th) – 198
Heron, kmgr. of Herakleia (Th) – 203
(Aurelius) Heroninos, exegetes of Alexan-
dria, dekaprotos (Th) – 136, 185, 186 with
n. 89
(Aurelius) Heroninos, kmar. of Karanis (H)
– 238 with.n 238
Heroninos, manager of a unit of the Appia-
nos estate – 185, 186, 236, 237, 247–249, 252
Hierakion, kmgr. in Ars. – 231
Hierax see Didymos Hierax
Hierax, bas. gr. of H – 222 n. 187
Hierax, see (Aurelius) Apollonios alias Hierax
Hierokles – 54 n. 82, 55, 58
(Aurelius) Hol, kmar. of Philadelpheia (H)
– 187, 193 with n. 108, 245
(Aurelius) Hor, see (Aurelius) Hol
(Aurelius) Horion, dekaprotos (H) – 135
(Aurelius) Horion, exegetes, prytanis, counci-
lor, dekaprotos (Th) – 135
(Aurelius) Horion, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 249, 251
Horion, kmzgr of Philadelphia (H) – 149,
216 with n. 173
Horion, kmgr. of Kerkesoucha (H) – 209
Horion, sitologos of Talei (P) – 140
Horos, inhabitant of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 199
Horos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 226
Iason, toparch of Philadelpheia (H) – 121
Iollas see Caius Iulius Iollas
(Quintus) Iper (or Valerius Ziper), praeses
Aegypti Herculiae – 49 with n. 64, 50 with
n. 66, 108, 268 n. 19
Ischyrion kmgr. of Tamais/Tamauis (H) –
149, 224
(Aurelius) Ischyrion, dekaprotos – 135
Isidoros of Psophthis – 98 n. 108
(Aurelius) Isidoros s. of Pelenios (or Pale-
nios), kmar. of Karanis (H) – 188 with n.
93, 240 with n. 246, 241 with n. 248
(Aurelius) Isidoros s. of Ptolemaios and
Herois, kmar. of Karanis (H), tesserarius,
central figure of the archive – 106, 123,
130, 187, 188, 189 with nn. 98 and 99, 190,
191, 196 n. 115, 239 with n. 243, 240, 241,
259, 260
(Aurelius) Isidoros s. of Sarapion, kmar. of
Karanis (H) – 239
Isidoros, kmgr. of Lagis and Trikomia (Th)
– 166 with n. 38, 211
Isidoros, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 227
Isidoros, praeses Aegypti Ioviae – 48 n. 62
(Aurelius) Ision, praepositus pagi VIII – 278
(Flavius) Ision, str. of Ars. – 108
Ision, gramm. georgon of Kynopolis (P) – 165
Ision, kmgr. of Pelousion (Th) – 215
Isokrates see Iulius Isokrates
Iulianus see Iulius Iulianus
Iulius Athenodoros, praeses of the Thebaid
– 45
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 313
PERSONS
Iulius Isokrates, str. of H – 100
Iulius Iulianus, prefect of Egypt – 188, 240
n. 246, 241
Iulius Maximianus, epstr. of Heptanomia
– 137
Iulius Quintianus, epstr. of Heptanomia
– 174, 175, 214
Iulius, gr. of kmgr. – 151, 152
Iulius, inhabitant of Karanis (H) – 152
(Caius) Iulius Asinianos, str. of Ars. – 90,
99, 114
(Caius) Iulius Asklas, str. of Ars. – 92, 99
(Caius) Iulius Gratus, str. of Ars. – 86, 98
with n. 107
(Caius) Iulius Iollas, str. of H. – 92 n. 91
(Flavius) Iulius Ausonius, praeses Augustam-
nicae – 52 n. 75, 53 n. 78, 109
(Tiberius) Iulius Alexander, prefect – 28, 31,
85
Joseph, bibl. – 10 n. 20
Justinianus, Imp. – 55
(Aurelius) K[....]..[..], praepositus pagi V – 277
(Aurelius) Kanaoug s. of Melas, kmar. of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 191, 250, 270, 271
Kapiton, kmgr. of Theogonis (P) – 229
Kasas(?) s. of Peko(?), gr. of presbyteroi of
Kaminoi and Kerkesephis (P) – 258
(Aurelius) Kasios s. of Pelagios, kmar. of
Karanis (H) – 240
(Aurelius) Kastor (H) – 134
(Aurelius) Kastor, dekaprotos (H) – 136
(Aurelius) Kastor, gymnasiarch, dekaprotos –
135, 136
Kastor, kmgr. of Ptolemais Nea (H) – 220
Kastorion, praepositus pagi VIII – 277
Kephalas alias Maximos, kmgr. of Philadel-
pheia (H) – 216
Kephalon, kmgr. of Kerkesoucha (H) – 210
Kerkion see Demetrios
Kleomenes of Naukratis – 65
Kleon, architekton – 81 n. 61
313
Kleopatra Tryphaina, queen of Egypt – 26
n. 3, 29 n. 15
Kleopatra VII, queen of Egypt – 26 with
n. 3, 29, 36, 56
Kollouthos, shipmaster – 195
Kollouthos, sitologos – 129
Komon, collector – 189 n. 99
(Aurelius) Kopres, gymnasiarch, dekaprotos
(H) – 136
Kopres, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 177, 209
(Aurelius) Koprias, boethos of the dekaprotoi
(Th) – 130, 134
(Aurelius) Kornelios s. of Posi and Iouliane
(brother of Aurelius Hol), kmar. of Phil-
adelpheia (H) – 187, 245
Korrhagos (or Quadratus), str. of Ars. – 98
Kounias s. of Melas, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 250
Krispinos see Didymos alias Krispinos
Krokos, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H) –
221
Kronion, farmer from Tebtynis – 138, 140,
Leonas, kmgr. in H – 230, 256
Letus see (Tiberius) Flavius Letus
Licinius, Imp. – 50
Lysanias see Claudius Lysanias
Lysanias, str. of Ars. (95 BC) – 87, 115
Lysanias, str. of Ars. (AD 34) – 89, 99
Lysas s. of Galates, grandson of Lysima-
chos, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 150, 225
Lysimachos s. of Didymos, kmgr. of Tebty-
nis (P) – 150 with n. 8, 225
(Flavius) Magnus, praefectus Aegypti – 50
with n. 70
Malchus s. of Ioanthes, inhabitant of
Eleutheropolis – 52 n. 76
Marcellinus see Ammianus Marcellinus
Marcus Aurelius, Imp. – 160 n. 23,
Mares, inhabitant of Karanis (H) – 239
(Aurelius) Maron, apodektes sitou of pagus
VIII – 278
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 314
314 INDICES
Maron, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 216
Maximianus see Iulius Maximianus
Maximos see Kephalas alias Maximos
Melanas, kmgr. of Ibion Eikosipentarouron
(P) – 162, 163, 205
Melanas, kmgr. of Tebtynis (P) – 226
Melankomas, str. of Ars. (P?) – 83
Melas s. of Herakleides, kmar. of Thead-
elpheia (Th) – 191, 249
(Aurelius) Melas, adkgr. of Soknopaiou
Nesos (H) – 234
Melas, ex-gymnasiarch, dekaprotos – 136
Melas, kmar. of Karanis (H) – 238 with
n. 238
Menches, kmgr. of Kerkeosiris (P) – 150,
158 n. 21, 182 n. 76
(Aurelius) Mestas, kmar. of Philadelpheia
(H) – 244
(Aurelius) Mouses s. of Heron, kmar. of
Philadelpheia (H) – 245
Mystharion, kmgr. of Andromachis and
Theoxenis (Th) – 198, 230
(Aurelius) Mysthes, high priest and ex-gym-
nasiarch, dekaprotos (H) – 134
Nablusi, Arabic writer – 20
Neilos s. of Apollonios, kmgr. of Karanis
(H) – 208
Neilos, kmgr. of Apias (Th) – 199
Nemesas, kmgr. in Ars. – 230
Nemesas, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 216
Neon s. of Demokrates, presbyteros of Thead-
elpheia (Th) – 228 with n. 207
Nepheros, priest in Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 215
Nero, Imp. – 31, 206 n. 141
Neseus, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 149, 207
Nestnephis s. of Teses, priest in Sokno-
paiou Nesos (H) – 96
Nikon, nomarch – 82 n. 62
(Aurelius) Nilos, prytanis and str. of Ars.
– 106 n. 136
(Aurelius) Octavius, str. of Ars. – 106, 108
Oiax, str. of Ars. – 88, 97, 98
(Aurelius) Ol (archive of ) – 184 n. 80, 194
n. 109
(Aurelius) Ol s. of Kopres and Apilla, kmar.
of Philadelpheia (H) – 244
Olkanol, kmar. of Ptolemais Nea (H) – 195,
246, 247 n. 268
(Aurelius) Olympios, praepositus pagi VIII
– 277
Onnophris s. of Onnophris, sitologos (H)
– 132, 137
Onnophris s. of Orsenouphis, presbyteros of
Mouchis (P) – 213 with n. 159
Orsenouphis, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 206,
231 n. 212
Orsenouphis, presbyteros of Soknopaiou
Nesos (H) – 221
P[.]at( ), kmgr. of Nilopolis and Sokno-
paiou Nesos (H) – 214, 222
Pachis s. of Chnoubis, presbyteros of Mou-
chis (P) – 213
Paesis s. of Satabous, brother of Sakaon,
kmar. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 191, 249
Pakebkis, inhabitant of Tebtynis (P) – 225
(Aurelius) Palemon s. of Tiberinus, quadrar-
ius of Karanis (H) – 188, 241
(Aurelius) Pamoun, kmar. of Tebtynis (P)
– 248 with n. 273
Pane…, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 152,
217
Panesneus s. of Orseios, presbyteros of Mou-
chis (P) – 213
Pannous, boundary inspector in Karanis
(H) – 239
Panosneus, kmgr. in Ars. (of Thmounegis
or Psinteo or both) – 219, 231
Pantbeus, kmgr. in Ars. – 231
Papontos, kmgr. of Apias (Th) – 199
Paragontou (gen.) s. of Hatreus, kmgr. of
Hermopolis (Th) – 204 with n. 135
Pasion alias Didymos, kmgr. of Talei and
Ibion (P) – 162, 223
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 315
PERSONS
(Aurelius) Pasion, kmgr. of Philadelpheia
(H) – 177, 216
Pasion, bas. gr. of H., str. of Ars. – 90, 99
Pasion, kmgr. of Boukolos and Tristomon
(P) – 202
Pasion, kmgr. of Mendes (H) – 166, 212
Pasion, kmgr. of Samareia (P) – 220
Pasion, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 222
Pata[ ]chotou (gen.) s. of Sarapas, kmgr. of
Hermopolis (Th) – 204 with n. 135
(Aurelius) Peeous s. of Ptolemaios, kmar. of
Karanis (H) – 239
Pekysis s. of Apynchis, praktor – 174–176
Pelaios, str. and nom. of the Ombites – 68
n. 21
(Aurelius) Pemei(?), kmar. of Tebtynis (P)
– 248 with n. 273
Peni see (Aurelius) Pinni
(Aurelius) Pennis s. of Sakaon, kmar. of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 191, 250
Petaus s. of Petaus, kmgr. of Ptolemais
Hormou and other villages (H) – 8 n. 17,
18, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 160, 166 n. 40,
167, 187 with n. 91, 189, 194, 207, 210, 218,
219, 223, 260, 283, 284
Peteseis(?), kmgr. of Narmouthis (P) – 213
Petesouchos s. of Pachois, presbyteros of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 252
Petesouchos s. of Sisois, kmar. of Euhe-
mereia (Th) – 197
Petesouchos, presbyteros of Karanis (H)
– 152, 208 with n. 149
Pethetheus s. of Deios, presbyteros of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 228 with n. 207
Petheus, kmgr. in Ars. – 231
Petheus, kmgr. of Hiera Nesos (H) – 155,
156 with n. 18, 166, 168, 205
Petosiris, bas. gr. – 75 n. 44
Phabios, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 223
Phanesis, kmar. (H) – 253
(Aurelius) Philadelphos, exegetes of Alexan-
dria, dekaprotos (Th) – 136
315
Philatas, praepositus pagi VIII – 277
Phileas, praepositus pagi VIII – 278
Philip the Arabian, Imp. – 7, 104, 141, 143
n. 46, 145, 146, 152, 181, 183, 197, 259 n. 309,
264, 279
Philopator, kmar. (H) – 253
(Aurelius) Philotas, dekaprotos (H) – 135
Philoxenos see (Tiberius) Claudius Philo-
xenos, str. of Ars. – 99
Philoxenos, phylakites of Th – 74
Philoxenos, str. of Th – 100 with n. 115
Phokion, str. of Th and P – 257
Pichos, kmgr. in Ars. – 230
(Aurelius) Pinni (or Peni), kmar. of Thead-
elpheia (Th) – 250, 251
Pliny, writer – 13
(Aurelius) Ploutammon, eirenarch of pagus
VIII – 278
Ploutammon, str./exactor of Ars. – 108
Ploution, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 229
Pnas, kmar. of Karanis (H) – 241
Pnepheros, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H)
– 221
Polemon, ‘eponym’ of the meris – 72 n. 31, 76
n. 45
Polion see [ ]onios alias Polion
Pomponius Mela, writer – 13
Poseidonios, praepositus pagi VIII – 277
Posis, kephalaiotes of Philadelpheia (H)
– 245 n. 262
Potamon, ex-kmgr. of Memphis (P) – 212
(Aurelius) Pouar s. of Ation, kmar. of Phil-
adelpheia (H) – 246
(Aurelius) Pouaris, kmgr. of Soknopaiou
Nesos (H) – 223
Praiylos, str. of the Small Oasis, ex-str. of
the Oxyrynchites – 39
Prinkips, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 151,
228
(Aurelius) Priscus, dekaprotos (H) – 134
Priscus see Faustus Priscus
(Auerlius) Pro[t...], adkgr. in Ars. – 179, 235
with n. 224
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 316
316 INDICES
Protas, kmgr. of Theogonis and Kerkeosiris
(P) – 162, 209, 229
Psenamounis s. of Neon, presbyteros(?) of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 252
(Aurelius) Psenthaibis s. of Isas, presbyteros
of Ptemo in the Lykopolites – 173
Pseudo-Aristotle – 65
Ptolemaeus, geographer (Claudius Ptole-
maeus) – 28 n. 9, 32 with n. 25, 34 n. 26, 35
with n. 27, 36, 38 with n. 32, 39 with n. 35
(Aurelius) Ptolemaios s. of Panisatis and
Sarapias, kmar. of Karanis (H) – 190, 239,
240
Ptolemaios, archisitologos of Th – 76
Ptolemaios, eirenach in Philadelpheia (H)
– 246
Ptolemaios, ex-gymnasiarch, ex-sitologos
– 129
Ptolemaios, gr. of kmgr. of Bakchias (H)
– 151
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) (AD 118)
– 200
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) (AD 151)
– 151, 201
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Karanis (H) (AD 111) –
206
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Karanis (H) (AD 189–
–190) – 207, 208 with n. 148
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Nilopolis and
Soknopaiou Nesos (H) – 214, 220
Ptolemaios, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 216
Ptolemaios, phylakites of P. – 79, 80
Ptolemaios, s. of Achilleus, str. of Ars. – 115
Ptolemaios, s. of Herakleides, epstr. of
Thebaid – 27 n. 6, 30
Ptolemaios, toparch of Kynopolis (P) – 121,
165
Ptolemy I Soter, king of Egypt – 66, 279
Ptolemy II Philadelphos, king of Egypt
– 65, 66, 279, 281
Ptolemy III Euergetes, king of Egypt – 79,
84
Ptolemy X Alexander, king of Egypt – 87
Ptolemy XII Auletes, king of Egypt – 26
n. 3, 29 n. 15
Ptolemy XIV, king of Egypt – 26 with n. 3,
29, 36, 56
(Aurelius) Ptollarion, kmar. of Karanis (H)
– 239
Ptollas, kmgr. of Bakchias (H) – 148, 201
Ptollas, presbyteros of Karanis (H) – 152, 208
with n. 149
Ptollas, toparch of Tebtynis – 121
Ptollis, sitologos (Th) – 133
Quadratus see Korrhagos
Quintianus see Iulius Quintianus
Sabinianus, praeses Aegypti Mercurianae – 49
n. 64, 50 with nn. 68 and 69
(Aurelius) Sabinos, ex-gymnasiarch, deka-
protos (H) – 135
(Aurelius) Sakaon s. of Satabous, kmar. of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 190, with n. 102,
191, 192 with n. 106, 249, 250 with nn. 281
and 284, 270, 271
Sarapammon see Antonius Sarapammon
(Aurelius) Sarapammon, ex-gymnasiarch,
dekaprotos (H) – 136
(Aurelius) Sarapammon, kmgr. of Magdo-
lon in the Hermopolites – 181
Sarapion see Vegetius
(Aurelius) Sarapion alias Apollonianos of
Oxyrynchos, str. of Ars. and later of the
Hermopolites – 86 n. 76
(Aurelius) Sarapion, boethos of the dekapro-
toi (H) – 130, 134
(Aurelius) Sarapion, kmar. of Philadelpheia
(H) – 244
Sarapion, kmgr. of Theadelpheia (Th) – 227,
274
Sarapion, sitologos (P) – 133
(Aurelius) Sarmates s. of Paulos, kmar. of
Philadelpheia (H) – 245
(Aurelius) Sarmates, gymnasiarch, deka-
protos (H) – 135
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 317
PERSONS
(Aurelius) Satabous, kmar.(?) of Karanis (H)
– 238 with n. 238
Satabous, priest in Soknopaiou Nesos – 89
n. 84, 96, 97 n. 104
Scutius Asklepiodotos, epstr. of the Hep-
tanomia – 40 with n. 41
Sempronius Gemellus, idiologos – 102
(Marcus) Sempronius Herakleides, property
holder in Karanis (H) – 208 n. 148
Septimius Severus, Imp. – 7, 110, 111, 122,
143 n. 46, 145, 174, 279
(Aurelius) Serapion, kmar. of Sebennytos
(H) – 247
(Aurelius) Serenion, exegetes of Alexandria,
dekaprotos (Th) – 136
(Aurelius) Serenos, bouleutes of the city of
Arsinoe – 126
(Aurelius) Serenos, ex-gymnasiarch, deka-
protos – 135
(Aurelius) Serenos, high priest, bouleutes of
the city of Arsinoe, dekaprotos (H) – 134
(Aurelius) Serenos, kmar. of Theadelpheia
(Th) – 184, 186, 187, 248
Serenos, str. of the Kynopolites – 172 n. 53
(Aurelius) Severinus, senator of Alexandria,
dekaprotos (H) – 135
Sisois s. of Orsenouphis and Taarmieus,
kmgr. of Magdola (P) – 212
Sokmenis, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 207
Sokras, hyperetes of presbyteroi of Karanis
(H) – 152
Sokrates, ghost-str. – 100 n. 116, see Iulius
Isokrates, str. of H
Sosiphanes, antigrapheus of H – 78
Sotas s. of Ptolemaios, mechanarios of kmgr.
of Theadelpheia (Th) – 151 with n. 11,
Sotas see Valerius Sotas
Soterichos s. of Neilos, presbyteros of Dio-
nysias (Th) – 202, 203 with n. 133
Soterichos s. of Sotas, presbyteros of Sokno-
paiou Nesos (H) – 222 with n. 186
Soterichos, gr. of kmgr. – 150
(Aurelius) Souchammon, kosmetes, deka-
protos (H) – 136
317
(Aurelius) Souchidas, exegetes, dekaprotos – 135
Stotoetis s. of Panephremmis, grandson of
Tesenouphis, sitologos (H) – 132, 133, 138
Stotoetis, agent of Zenon – 72
Stotoetis, kmgr. of Dionysias (Th) – 202
Strabo, writer – 13, 19 n. 51, 27, 29 with n. 16,
30 with n. 18, 117, 118 with n. 2
(Aurelius) Syros, boethos of the dekaprotoi
(H) – 130, 134
Tanouphis, inhabitant of Karanis (H) – 190
Thaeis, inhabitant of Philadelpheia (H) – 272
Themistos, eponym of the meris – 72 with
n. 32, 73 with n. 36
Theodoros s. of Herodes, farmer from the
meris of Maimachos – 76, 77
Theodoros, architekton – 81 n. 61
Theodoros, praepositus pagi V – 188, 276
Theodosius I, Imp. – 113
Theodosius II, Imp. – 55, 113
Thermion, daughter of Satabous, from
Sentrempais (Th) – 220 n. 181
Tiberius, Imp. – 95 n. 98, 210
Tiberius, str.(?) of Ars. – 98
(Aurelius) Timagenes s. of Asion, kmar.(?)
of Philadelpheia (H) – 183 n. 80, 245 with
n. 265
Trajan, Imp. – 123 n. 21
Tryphon s. of Apollonios, kmgr. in Ars. – 230
Tryphon, str. of Ars. – 88 with n. 83, 98 with
n. 108
(Aurelius) Turbo, kosmetes, bouleutes of city
of Arsinoe, dekaprotos – 135
Valerius Sotas, curator of the city of Arsinoe
– 104
Valerius Varus, str. of Ars. – 97 with n. 105,
98
Valerius Ziper see (Quintus) Iper
Varus see Valerius Varus
Vedius Faustus, epstr. of the Heptanomia
– 148
Vegetius alias Sarapion, str. of Th – 170
Vespasian, Imp. – 31
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 318
318 INDICES
Zenas, inhabitant of Karanis (H) – 152
Zenon, manager of the Apollonios estate –
18 n. 48, 72, 73 with n. 37, 75, 81, 154
Ziper see (Quintus) Iper
Zobalos, str. of Ars. – 98, 114
(Aurelius) Zoilos s. of Melanos, kmar. of
Theadelpheia (Th) – 250
Zosimos, an official – 205, 211, 219
.[....]ades, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 216
.r[…..], gr. of a toparch – 121
[ ]onios alias Polion, kmgr. of Narmouthis
(P) – 213
2. PLACES
Aegyptus – 44, 45 n. 53, 47–51, 54 with n. 82,
55–57, 59, 111; Aegyptus Herculia – 44, 48,
49 with nn. 63 and 65, 50, 51 with n. 72, 52
n. 76, 54, 57, 59, 108, 268 n. 19; Aegyptus
Iovia – 44, 48 with n. 62, 50 with n. 71, 51
with n. 72, 57, 59; Aegyptus Mercuriana
– 49 with n. 64, 50 with nn. 68 and 69, 51
with n. 72, 54, 57, 59, see also Egypt
Aftih see Aphroditopolis
Akanthonpolis – 33, 34
Akoris (mod. Tinha el-Gebel) – 33, 34, 35
n. 27
Alabanthis (H) – 198, 235
Alabastra see Alabastronpolis
Alabastronpolis (mod. Kom el-Ahmar) – 33,
35 with n. 27
Alexandria – 6 n. 11, 19, 26, 31, 44, 48 n. 62,
55, 56, 71, 111, 146, 150, 195, 196 n. 115, 241,
272
Alexandrou Nesos (Th) – 4
Ampeliou (P?) – 268
Andriantes (mod. Biahmu) – 12 n. 25
[. . .]pos, limnastes of a toparchy (Th) – 133
[......]as, kmgr. of Philadelpheia (H) – 216
[......]es see [......]os
[......]es, kmgr. in Ars. (H?) – 232
[......]os (or [......]es), kmgr. in Ars. – 232
[....]on, kmgr. of Soknopaiou Nesos (H) –
221
[....]s s. of Phaustios, kmgr. in Ars. (Psen-
hyris [H]?) – 232
[..]..os, kmgr. of Karanis (H) – 206
[…..]ios s. of Horion, agriculture worker in
Boubastos – 256
Andromachis (Th) – 125, 128, 198, 230, 235,
251
Ankyronpolis (mod. el-Hiba) – 33, 34, 35
n. 27
Anoubias (Th) – 22 n. 62, 74, 165, 198, 200
Antinoopolis (mod. el-Sheikh Ibada), city
and nomarchia – 34, 35, 38 with n. 32, 39
with n. 35, 43, 44, 55, 56, 67 n. 17, 111
Antinoopolites, nome – 32 n. 24, 34, 35, 37,
39 n. 35, 47, 55, 58 with n. 85, 67 n. 17
Anz see Bahr Anz
Aphroditopolis (mod. Aftih) – 19 with n. 51,
33, 34, 35 n. 27, 193 n. 108
Aphroditopolites, nome – 19, 33, 34, 36, 37,
38, 42
Apias (Th) – 73, 74, 138 n. 39, 139, 140, 160,
199
Apollonias (Th) – 199, 200 with n. 124, 236
Apollonopolis (P) – 123 n. 21, 162, 162 n. 32,
200, 219, 219 n. 178
Arabia – 52 n. 76, 171, 172; Arabia Nova – 52
n. 76
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 319
PLACES
Arabon Kome alias Ptolemais Arabon (H)
– 166, 177, 178, 178 n. 64, 200, 236, 257
Arcadia – 32 n. 23, 53, 54, 54 n. 81, 55, 56, 57,
59, 114,
Areos Kome (P) – 236, 255
el-Arish see Rhinokolura
Arsinoe (H) – 178, 268
Arsinoe (Th) – 73, 74
Arsinoe see Ptolemais Euergetis
Arsinoites, nome – 4–6, 8 with n. 14, 15, 19
with nn. 51 and 53, 23 n. 63, 25, 28, 30, 33,
34, 36, 37, 38 with n. 32, 39, 40 with n. 39,
42 with n. 42, 43, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63,
67–70, 79–81, 83 n. 65, 85–87, 87, 88 with
n. 82, 89–91, 92 n. 91, 93, 94, 95 with
n. 99, 95 n. 100, 96 n. 101, 97 with n. 105,
98, 100, 101 with nn. 117 and 118, 102,
104, 106–109, 112–114, 117–120, 122, 126,
127, 129, 130, 134–137, 139, 141, 144 with
nn. 49 and 53, 145, 146, 148 n. 1, 150, 152,
158 n. 21, 159, 161, 165 n. 37, 167–173, 176,
178 n. 64, 180, 181, 183 n. 80, 187, 193 n.
108, 196, 218 n. 177, 230, 231, 246 n. 265,
255, 257, 259 with n. 309, 260, 263 with
n. 1, 264 with n. 3, 265, 266, 276, 279, 281,
282, 284
el-Ashmunein see Hermopolis Magna
Asia Minor – 55
Askalon – 52 n. 76
Aswan – 13
Athenas Kome alias Athena (Th) – 22 n. 62,
72, 165, 198, 200
Athribis (in Delta) – 58
Attinou (H) – 267
Aueris see Haueris
Augustamnica – 51, 52, 52 n. 76, 53 n. 78, 54,
54 n. 82, 56, 59, 109; Augustamnica I – 55,
57; Augustamnica II – 55, 57, 58
Autodike (Th) – 74
Baharia – 35, see also Small Oasis
el-Bahnasa see Oxyrhynchos
Bahr Anz, river – 10
Bahr el-Talat el-Ali, river – 10
319
Bahr el-Zawya, river – 10
Bahr Fidaymin, river – 10
Bahr Ibshaway, river – 10
Bahr Khalij Khardish, river – 10
Bahr Matar, river – 10
Bahr Naqalifa, river – 10
Bahr Sinnuris, river – 10
Bahr Tirsa, river – 10
Bahr Yusuf, river – 8, 9, 10, 10 with nn. 20
and 21, 11, 19, 20, 62, 63 n. 7, 70, 71, 81, 82,
94, 112, 153, 193 with n. 108, 274, 275, 283
Bakchias (H) – 3, 139, 139 n. 40, 148, 151, 155,
161 with n. 29, 168, 177, 179, 200 with n.
126, 201, 223 with n. 214, 233 with n. 218
Berenikis Aigialou (Th) – 231
Biahmu see Andriantes
Birket el-Qarun (Lake Qarun, Fayum Lake)
– 8–13, 14 n. 30, 16, 18, 160
Boubastos (H) – 17, 18, 74, 76, 201, 236, 256
with n. 300, 267 n. 16, 268, 269 with n. 24
Boukolos (P) – 164, 201, 202 n. 131, 220
Bousiris (in the Herakleopolites) – 129
Bousiris (P) – 161
Buto (in the Memphites) – 259
Cairo – 8
Casium (mod. Ras Qasrum, Khatib el-
Gals) – 53
Charga – 35, see also Great Oasis
Constantinople – 51, 56, 272, 281
Cyprus – 54 n. 82, 55, 58
Dachla – 35, see also Great Oasis
Dairut – 9
Dalas see Nilopolis
Delta – 30 n. 18, 34, 58, 71 n. 29, 117; Eastern
Delta – 30, 40 n. 41, 48, 49, 52 n. 76, 53,
57; Western Delta – 50 n. 71, 54, 57
Dikaiou Nesos (P) – 162 n. 32
Dimai or Dime see Soknopaiou Nesos
Dinnys (H) – 233, 267
Dionysias (Th) – 3, 14, 123, 126, 130, 133, 137,
139, 142 n. 44, 171, 202, 218, 237
Dumushiya see Mouchis
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 320
320 INDICES
Egypt, general – 3, 5 with n. 9, 6 with n. 11,
7 n. 12, 12 n. 25, 16 n. 37, 26, 27, 29, 30, 37,
39, 44, 45 with n. 53, 46 with n. 54, 48
with n. 60, 51, 52 n. 76, 53 with n. 79, 54
with n. 82, 55–59, 63, 64 with n. 9, 65, 66
with n. 14, 69, 70, 71 with 29, 94, 104,
107, 112, 117–120, 122, 141, 142, 143 with
nn. 46 and 48, 146, 148 n. 1, 149, 158 n. 21,
180, 183 nn. 77 and 78, 185 n. 83, 186 n. 88,
187, 218 n. 176, 240 n. 246, 259 n. 309, 263,
264 n. 2, 279, 281, 282, 284, 285; Lower
Egypt – 25, 30, 31, 36, 40 n. 41, 44, 47, 49;
Middle Egypt – 32, 38, 50 n. 71, 53, 54, 66
n. 14, 113 n. 151; Upper Egypt – 25, 36, 45
n. 53, 46, 47 n. 57, 66 n. 14, 111, see also
Aegyptus
Eleusis (or Eleusina) (P) – 20 with n. 56, 113
Eleutheropolis – 52 n. 76, 53 n. 76
Epoikion Kaoeisan – 113
Epoikion Perkeesis (H) – 155; see also Per-
keesis
Epoikion Strategiou – 113
Euhemereia (Th) – 89, 91, 92, 95 n. 100, 148
n. 1, 149, 203, 237, 282,
Exo Pseur (H) – 153
Fayum – 3–5, 7, 8 with nn. 14 and 16, 9 with
n. 19, 10 with n. 20, 11, 12, 13 with n. 27, 14
with n. 30, 15 with n. 34, 17, 20 with n. 59,
22, 25, 38 n. 32, 42, 43, 56, 62, 63 with n. 7,
66, 67 n. 17, 69, 70, 71 with n. 29, 73, 79,
81, 83, 84, 86 n. 77, 88, 94–97, 101, 104,
109–114, 118–120, 122, 123, 129, 131, 139,
140–143, 144 with nn. 49, 52 and 53, 145,
146, 149 n. 7, 152, 153, 157, 167 with nn. 42
and 43, 168–170, 172, 178, 180, 196, 232 n.
214, 233 n. 217, 254, 257, 259, 260, 263 n. 1,
264 with n. 3, 265 with n. 9, 266, 269 with
n. 24, 270, 272, 274, 279, 281–285
Fayum Lake see Birket el-Qarun
Fedimin see Psentymis
Fidaymin see Bahr Fidaymin
Gaza – 52 n. 76
Gebel el-Naqlun – 10
Gharaq Basin – 9, 20, 71, 128
Ghoram – 18 n. 48
Great Oasis – 35, 144, 181, 182, 265
Gurob – 63 n. 7, 79, 87
Haueris (H) – 11, 17, 73, 156, 157, 171, 261
Hawara see Haueris
Henet of Moeris – 10 n. 21, 20, 62, 63 with
n. 7
Hephaistias (H) – 161, 168, 177, 179, 233 with
n. 218
Heptanomia – 25–59, 85, 86, 148, 174, 214
Herakleia (Th) – 73, 74, 123, 126, 137, 139,
160, 177, 179, 203
Herakleia, pedion of H. (H) – 161, 233 with
n. 218
Herakleides, meris of – 4, 16, 18, 20, 63, 70,
71 with n. 29, 73 with n. 36, 74–80, 80 n.
59, 81–84, 90, 91, 92 with n. 91, 94, 95
with n. 99, 97 n. 104, 98–104, 110–112,
122–125, 127–131, 132 n. 37, 134–138, 143,
153, 155, 159, 160, 163, 167, 171, 178, 179, 193
n. 108, 216, 232 with n. 214, 236 n. 232, 253,
267, 281, 283
Herakleonos Epoikion (H) – 153
Herakleopolis Magna (mod. Ihnasiya el-
Medina) – 10, 32 n. 24, 33, 34, 35 n. 27, 53
n. 78
Herakleopolites, nome – 19 n. 51, 32 n. 24,
33, 34, 36–38, 42, 53, 56, 69 with n. 26, 85,
87, 95 n. 99, 118, 118 n. 5, 129, 144 n. 52,
183, 193 n. 108, 264 n. 6, 266, 285
Hermopolis (Th) – 171, 204, 235, 237, 251,
270–271
Hermopolis Magna (mod. el-Ashmunein) –
33, 35 with n. 27, 38, 107
Hermopolites, nome – 33, 35–37, 38 n. 32, 39,
42, 47, 55, 86 n. 76, 113 with n. 152, 118 with
n. 5, 122 n. 18, 144 with n. 51, 145 with n.
54, 181 with n. 70, 182, 183 with n. 79, 264
with n. 5, 265 with n. 8, 274 n. 30, 285
el-Hiba see Ankyronpolis
Hibis – 31
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 321
PLACES
Hiera Nesos (H) – 153, 155–157, 159, 167, 168,
171, 179, 204 with n. 137, 205, 234 with n.
220, 261, 283
Hiera Seueros (H) – 158, 159, 234
Ibion Eikosipentarouron (or Ibion) (P)
– 113, 125, 128, 139, 162, 163, 205 with
n. 140, 223, 238, 238 n. 236
Ibshaway see Bahr Ibshaway
Ihnasiya el-Medina see Herakleopolis Magna
Iossidos, choma of – 203
Iseion (H) – 267
Isidorou Epoikion (P) – 238, 255
Itsa – 11 n. 23, 20, 20 n. 56
Jerusalem – 52 n. 76
Kaine see Kene
Kalikrates, meris of – 78, 79
Kalliphanes, meris of – 78
Kalliphanous Epoikion (P) – 162, 205, 211,
219
Kamepolis (H) – 201, 236, 256 n. 300, see also
Boubastos
Kaminoi (P) – 161, 205, 257, 258, 268 with n.
18, 268 n. 20, 269, 270, 274, 275
Karanis (H) – 3, 4, 14, 100, 101, 107, 123, 124,
125 with n. 29, 126, 127, 130, 132, 134–137,
142 nn. 42 and 44, 148 n. 1, 149, 152, 153,
155, 157, 158 n. 20, 159, 167, 168, 170, 171,
177, 178, 181 n. 70, 187 with n. 91, 189–190,
189 n. 96, 190 with n. 100, 191, 193 n. 108,
195, 206, 207, 208 n. 150, 209, 210, 219,
231 n. 212, 238 with n. 238, 239, 240 n. 246,
241, 242, 247 n. 268, 257, 259–261, 266, 267
with n. 15, 274, 276, 284
Kellis (in Great Oasis) – 181, 182
Kene (or Kaine) – 193 n. 108
Kerka or Kirka (in the Hermopolites) – 113
n. 152
Kerke (in the Memphites) – 193 n. 108
Kerkeesis – Perkeesis (Pelkeesis) (H) – 16,
17 with n. 43, 155, 157, 227, 268, 269
n. 24
321
Kerkeesis (P) – 140, 143 n. 47, 163, 227, 242,
255
Kerkeosiris (P) – 22 n. 61, 162, 182 n. 76,
209, 229
Kerkeosiris (Th) – 14, 22 n. 61, 158 n. 21
Kerkesephis (P) – 161, 205, 242, 255, 257, 258,
268, 274, 275
Kerkesoucha (Agoras), near Karanis (H)
– 129, 132, 158 with n. 20, 159, 209 with n.
153, 210
Kerkesoucha Orous (H) – 124, 133, 138, 153,
154 with n. 17, 155, 158 n. 20, 167, 210 with
n. 154
Kerkesoucha Orous (P) – 153, 158 n. 20, 210,
242, 255,
Kerkesoucha Orous (H?, P?) – 210, 268, 269
n. 24
Kerkethoeris (P) – 18, 125, 128
Khalij Khardish see Bahr Khalij Khardish
Khatib el-Gals see Casium
Kirka see Kerka
Ko (mod. el-Qeis) – 33, 34, 35 n. 27
Koba (in the Herakleopolites) – 266
Kom Aushim – 257, see also Karanis (H)
Kom el-Ahmar see Alabastronpolis
Kom el-Khamsin – 18
Kom el-Kharaba el-Saghir – 17, see also Phil-
adelpheia (H)
Kom Hamuli – 20, see also Philagris (Th)
Koma (in the Memphites) – 193 n. 108
Krokodilopolis see Ptolemais Euergetis
Kussites, nome – 38 n. 32
Kynopolis (mod. el-Sheikh Fadl) – 33, 34, 35
n. 27
Kynopolis (P) – 22 n. 62, 121, 164, 165, 165 n.
37, 211, 269, 274, 275
Kynopolites, nome – 33, 34, 36, 37, 42, 113,
172, 269 n. 22
Labyrinth – 19
Lagis (Th) – 166 with n. 38, 211, 230
el-Lahun – 8–11, 19, 35 n. 27, 153, see also
Ptolemais Hormou
Letopolis – 55
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 322

322 INDICES

Letopolis (H) – 76 Mouchis (P) – 20 with n. 57, 123 with n. 21,

Letopolites, nome – 27, 36–38, 42, 56 171, 202 n. 131, 213 with n. 159
Leukogiou Epoikion (Th?) – 192, 193 with
n. 108, 243 with n. 252 Naqalifa see Bahr Naqalifa
Libya – 51, 53, 55, 56; Libya Inferior – 53, 54, Naqlun see Gebel el-Naqlun
183 n. 78; Libya Superior – 53, 54 Narmouthis (P) – 18, 186, 213 with n. 160,
Limne, lake – 76, 77, 81, 82, see also Birket el- 268 with nn. 18 and 20, 269 with n. 24,
Qarun 270–272, 274 with n. 29, 277
Lotou Epoikion (P) – 162, 205, 211, 219 Naukratis – 67 n. 17
Lykopolites, nome – 172, 173 Nemera (in the Oxyrhynchites) – 171, 172
Lysimachis or Lysimachides duo (Th/P) – 22 Nestou Epoikion (H) – 215
with n. 62, 23 n. 62, 73, 97 with n. 106, 164, Nikaia (in Asia Minor) – 51
212, 276 Nikopolis (in the Delta) – 19, 193 n. 108
Nile, river – 8–14, 19, 42, 43, 122, 193 with n.
Magais (Th) – 203, 243, 254 108, 281
Magdola (P) – 22 n. 62, 113, 142 n. 44, 212 Nilopolis (H) – 12 n. 26, 16, 17 with n. 41,
Magdolon (in the Hermopolites) – 181 100, 159, 160, 168, 171, 171 n. 50, 174–176,
Maimachos, meris of – 76, 77, 81–82 214, 220, 222
el-Mala’a, basin – 14 n. 30 Nilopolis (mod. Dalas) – 33, 34, 35 n. 27, 38
Mallawi – 10 n. 33
Marmarica, nome – 183 n. 78 Nilopolites, nome – 37, 38, 42, 56
Matar see Bahr Matar
Medinet el-Fayum see Ptolemais Euergetis Omboi – 68 n. 21, 69 n. 26
Medinet Madi – 269, 271, see also Narmou- Onniton (Koitai) (H) – 268
this (Th) Ostrakine (mod. el-Fekusiyat) – 53
Medinet Quta – 8, 15 n. 34 Oxyrhyncha (P) – 4 n. 1, 14 n. 32, 22 n. 62,
Mediterranean Sea – 9, 53 83, 110, 111, 148 n. 1, 161, 243, 255
Meleagris, pedion of (Th) – 216 Oxyrhynchites, nome – 8 n. 14, 33, 34, 36, 37,
Memphis (mod. Mit Rahina) – 14 n. 32, 26 39, 40, 42, 49 n. 65, 53, 85, 86 n. 76, 118,
n. 3, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35 n. 27, 42, 43 with n. 43, 118–119 n. 5, 144, 172, 182, 264–266, 285
44, 56 Oxyrhynchos (mod. el-Bahnasa) – 19, 33, 34,
Memphis (P) – 212 35 n. 27, 45 n. 50, 49 n. 65, 52 n. 76, 55, 104,
Memphites, nome – 25–28, 30, 32, 33, 36–38, 105, 193 n. 108
42, 43, 68, 144, 259, 265
Mendes (H) – 166, 212 P3–ym – 13, see also Birket el-Qarun
Mikra Limne (see also Limne) – 70, 79, 80 Palestine – 52 n. 76, 55
with n. 59, 81 Panopolis – 111
Mit Rahina see Memphis Patsontis (H) – 157 with n. 19, 158
Moeris, lake – 13, 14 with n. 30, 18, 82, 168, pedion of Herakleia see Herakleia
see also Birket el-Qarun Peensamoi (in the Herakleopolites) – 266
Moeris see Henet of Moeris Pelkeesis see Kerkeesis – Perkeesis (H)
Moesia – 55 Pelousion (mod. el-Farama) – 30, 53
Mothites, nome – 182 Pelousion (Th) – 215, 243, 259
Penne (P) – 113
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 323
PLACES
Pentakomia, district in Th – 278
Pentapolis (in Cyrenaica) – 51
Perkeesis see Kerkeesis – Perkeesis (H)
Persea(i) (H) – 215
Petra – 52 n. 76
Phanesis (H) – 244
Pharbaitha (H) – 77, 153, 154
Philadelpheia (H) – 3, 8, 9, 17, 18 with nn. 45
and 48, 43, 73 n. 36, 81, 88–90, 92, 109, 121,
124, 134, 137, 139, 142 n. 44, 148 n. 1, 149,
154, 171, 172 n. 53, 177, 183 n. 78, 184 n. 81,
187, 188, 190, 193, 194 with nn. 109, and
111–113, 195, 196, 216,217, 244, 245 nn. 261
and 262, 246 n. 265, 267 with n. 15, 269,
272, 274
Philagris (Th) – 20, 125, 128, 216
Philopator – Theogenous (H) – 218, 246
Philoteris (Th) – 126, 130, 218
Phylakai (in the Hermopolites) – 33, 35
Phylake (in the Aphroditopolites) – 19
Piabaneos, epoikion – 268
Polemon, meris of – 4 with n. 1, 15 with n. 33,
16, 17, 20, 22 nn. 60–62, 23, 39, 63, 70, 71
with n. 29, 73–75, 76 n. 45, 80, 82–84,
89–91, 94, 95 with n. 99, 96–100, 102, 103
with n. 124, 110–114, 121, 125–128, 136, 143,
153, 161, 162 with n. 32, 163, 164, 165 n. 37,
202 n. 131, 213, 215, 216, 231, 236 n. 232, 257,
264, 275, 276, 281, 283
Polydeukeia (Th) – 218 with n. 177
Psanlebitonos Epoikion (P) – 246, 255
Psenarpsenesis (H) – 101, 157 with n. 19, 158
Psenharyo (or Psinaryo, or Psennaryo) (H)
– 18, 153, 154, 155, 218
Psenhyris (mod. Sinnouris) (H) – 18, 125,
131, 219, 232, 234, see also Psineuris
Psennaryo see Psenharyo
Psentymis (mod. Fedimin) – 20
Psinachis (Th) – 97 n. 104
Psinaryo see Psenharyo
Psineuris (mod. Sanhur? or identical with
Psenhyris?) (H) – 18
Psinteo (P) – 113, 162 with n. 32, 200 with
n. 124, 219 with n. 178, 231
323
Psobthis (in the Oxyrhynchites) – 266
Psophthis (Ars., meris unknown) – 98 n. 108
Psya (or Psya Ptolemaiou) (H) – 125, 128
Ptemo (in the Lykopolites) – 172, 173
Pterophorou Epoikion (P) – 162, 205, 211,
219
Ptolemais (in Upper Egypt) – 55
Ptolemais Arabon see Arabon Kome
Ptolemais Euergetis (Krokodilopolis, Arsi-
noe, polis ton Arsinoiton, mod. Medinet el-
Fayum) – 3, 9, 10, 12 n. 25, 19, 33, 34, 35 n.
27, 63 n. 7, 71, 72, 76, 83, 100, 104, 109,
110, 125 n. 29, 126, 134, 186, 247 n. 268,
269 n. 24, 274
Ptolemais Hormou (mod. el-Lahun) – 8 n. 17,
10, 18, 19, 33, 34, 35 n. 27, 149, 153–155,
157–159, 166, 167, 187 with n. 91, 207, 219,
283, 284, see also el-Lahun
Ptolemais Nea (H) – 125, 125 n. 29, 130, 137,
155, 156, 158, 159, 195, 196, 220, 246, 247
n. 268
Qarat el-Rusas – 12 with n. 26, 16, see also
Nilopolis (H) and Tell el-Rusas
Qarun see Birket el-Qarun
Qasr Qarun see Dionysias
el-Qeis see Ko
Ras Qasrum see Casium
Rhinokolura (mod. el-Arish) – 53, 54
Rhise (in Arabia) – 171, 172
Rome – 51, 146, 272, 281
Samareia (P) – 164, 202, 220
Sanhur – 18, see also Psineuris and Psenhyris
Sebennytos (H) – 73, 123, 124, 124 n. 24, 129,
137, 139, 247
Sentrempais (Th) – 220 with n. 181
el-Sheikh Fadl see Kynopolis
el-Sheikh Ibada see Antinoopolis
Shin Shana – 17
Sidamant el-Gebel – 19 nn. 50 and 53
Sinnuris – 10, 18, see also Psenhyris
Sinnuris see Bahr Sinnuris
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 324
324 INDICES
Small Diopolites, nome – 87 n. 77, 149 n. 7
Small Oasis – 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 56
Soknopaiou Nesos (H) – 3, 4, 8, 14, 17 n. 41,
43, 87, 92, 96, 97 n. 104, 98 n. 109, 100,
112, 124 with n. 24, 128, 132, 133, 135–137,
138 with n. 39, 139, 159 with n. 22, 160,
168, 171 with n. 50, 177, 199, 214, 215, 220,
221 with n. 183, 222 with nn. 186 and 187,
223, 234, 259
Stratonos (Kome) (H) – 158, 159
Syria – 55
Syron Kome (H) – 8 with n. 17, 18, 19 with
n. 53, 153, 154 with n. 17, 223, 247
Šy-wr (the Great Lake) – 13, see also Birket
el-Qarun
T3-h2n.t-(n-)Mr-wr – 62, see also Henet of
Moeris
el-Talat el-Ali see Bahr el-Talat el-Ali
Talei (P) – 18, 22 n. 61, 127, 139, 140, 162, 163,
177, 205, 223, 224, 247, 255, 269 n. 24
Talit see Talei
Tamais see Tamauis
Tamauis (H) – 149, 224
Tanchoiris (H) – 153
Tanis (H) – 17, 224, 267
Taurinou Kome (Th) – 186 n. 89, 248
Tebtynis (P) – 3, 8, 15, 17 with n. 43, 87, 89,
90, 94, 95 n. 98, 100, 101, 110, 111, 114, 121,
123 n. 21, 125, 127 with n. 35, 128, 129, 132,
136, 138–140, 142 n. 44, 148 n. 1, 150, 163,
177, 179, 224–227, 234, 248 with n. 273, 255,
261
Tell el-Rusas – 16, 17, 160, see also Nilopolis
(H) and Qarat el-Rusas
Tertembythis (in the Hermopolites) – 183,
183 n. 78, 196
Tertenchon or Tertenchnos (in the Lyko-
polites) – 172, 173
Theadelpheia (Th) – 90, 96, 101, 110 n. 149,
112, 123, 125, 126 with n. 32, 127, 131, 133,
135–137, 139, 141, 142 n. 42, 148 n. 1, 149,
151, 171, 172 n. 54, 183, 184, 185, 186 with n.
89, 187, 190, 191 with n. 106, 192, 193, 194
n. 111, 195 with n. 114, 227 with n. 202,
228, 229, 248 with n. 275, 249, 250 with
nn. 281 and 284, 251 with n. 288, 252, 257,
268, 270–271, 274 with n. 29
Theaxenis (P) – 113
Thebaid – 26, 27 n. 6, 28, 29–30 n. 17, 30
with n. 18, 31, 35–37, 38 n. 32, 43, 44, 45
with nn. 52 and 53, 46 with n. 55, 47, 48,
51, 54–57, 58 with n. 85, 59, 76 n. 45, 86, 87
n. 77, 111, 113 with n. 151, 117, 149 n. 7
Thebaïke (in the Lykopolites) – 172, 173
Thebes – 69 n. 26
Themistos, meris of – 15 with n. 33, 16 n. 36,
20, 22 nn. 60–62, 23 with n. 62, 39, 63, 71
with n. 29, 73, 74 with n. 42, 75, 76 with
n. 45, 79, 80, 82–84, 90–92, 94, 95 with
n. 99, 96–102, 103 with n. 124, 104, 110–112,
122, 125, 126, 130–132, 135, 136, 141, 143, 148
n. 1, 160, 162, 163, 165 with n. 37, 170, 178,
179, 193, 203, 204, 213, 215, 229, 231, 254,
257, 258, 264, 271, 275, 276, 281, 283
Theodosiopolis – 111, 113, 114, see also Tebty-
nis
Theodosiopolites, nome – 113 with nn. 151–
–153, 114
Theogenis see Theogonis (P)
Theogenous see Philopator – Theogenous
(H)
Theogonis (or Theogenis) (P) – 22 n. 62, 74,
113, 162, 229, 251, 255
Theoxenis (Th) – 198, 230, 235, 237, 251,
270–271
Thmoinotis (P) – 161
Thmouis, city in Delta – 130
Thmounegis (P? or in the Herakleopolites?)
– 231
Thracia – 55
Thraso (Th) – 251
Tin (P?) – 113
Tinha el-Gebel see Akoris
Tirsa see Bahr Tirsa
Tmoushi (copt.) – 20 n. 57, see also Mouchis
Touphis (in the Aphroditopolites) – 19
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 325
SUBJECTS
Trikomia (Th) – 22 n. 62, 72, 166 with n. 38,
211, 230
Tristomon (P) – 113, 164, 201, 202 n. 131,
220, 252, 255, see also Boukolos
Wadi Rayan – 13 n. 27
3. SUBJECTS
Abinnaios’ (Flavius), archive – 107, 108
abrochia – 217, see also uninundated land
administrative change in ca. AD 60–70
– 86–97, 158 n. 21, 160, 165, 282, 283
administrative division of Egypt under
Roman rule – 28–30
administrative division of Egypt under the
Ptolemies – 25–27
administrative reforms of Diocletian – 45
n. 53, 46, 56, 143 n. 46 and 48, 263
administrative reforms of Philip the Arabi-
an – 104, 141, 143 n. 46, 145, 152, 153, 182,
183, 259 n. 309, 264
administrative reforms of Septimius
Severus – 122, 143 n. 46, 145
administrative structures of the Fayum, our
knowledge of – 4
aigialophylax – 133, 199
amphodokomogrammateis – 5, 176–180, 184,
257, 259, 261; two or three a. per village –
179–180
anadosis (of toparchy) – 144 n. 53
anametretes – 137
annona militaris – 108 with n. 142, 109, 189,
241
antigrapheis, antigrapheia – 78
apaitetes – 119 n. 6, 144 n. 53, 189, 250
Apiones, family – 114
Appianus estate – 186 n. 89
Arcadia, establishment of – 53, 54
archephodoi – 198, 213
archiereus – 173
325
el-Wasta – 9
Yusuf see Bahr Yusuf
Zawya see Bahr el-Zawya
el-Zeriba – 19 n. 50
archiphylakites, archiphylakitai – 79; see also
phylakites, phylakitai
archisitologos – 74–76
archisomatophylax – 83
architektones, archive of a. Kleon and Theo-
doros – 81 n. 61
Augustamnica, establishment of – 51, 52
with n. 74; identical with Arabia Nova?
– 52 n. 76
bank, royal – 75
basilike ge – 228, 257
basilikos grammateus – 5, 62, 86, 90, 91, 96,
97, 99, 103, 149 n. 7, 162, 172, 199, 203,
205, 212, 220 n. 181, 222 n. 187, 225, 226,
229, 232 n. 214, 282; common b. gr. for
merides of Themistos and Polemon – 103
bibliophylakes – 210
bi-partite division of the Fayum – 10 n. 21,
62, 63, 112, 283
Birket el-Qarun, dimensions – 12 with n. 26;
name – 13, 14; identification with Lake of
Moiris – 14 n. 30
birth notifications – 148, 214, 221, 222, 225
Blue, faction in Alexandria – 195, 241
boethoi (of dekaprotoi) – 134; of komogram-
mateis – 151, 232
bouleutai (of the city of Arsinoe) – 126,
134–136, 186
canals in the Fayum in Ptolemaic and Roman
periods – 20, 22, 164, 281
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 326
326 INDICES
census (kat’ oikian apographe) – 125 n. 29, 161
n. 29, 172 n. 54; 185 n. 83, 209, 222, 229, 246
census returns – 161 n. 29, 164, 172 n. 54,
199, 200, 202, 203, 206–209, 213, 216,
220–223, 226, 227, 229, 231 with n. 212, 232
chomatergolaboi – 203
chomatoepimeletes (of toparchy) – 144 n. 53
chomatopeiktes – 238
chora, Egyptian – 84
chrematistai – 228
civitas Arsinoitorum – 284
cleruchs – 84
compulsory services (liturgies) – 119 n. 6,
132, 137, 138 n. 39, 144 n. 53, 148, 150, 158
n. 21, 172 n. 53, 174–176, 187, 188, 190, 191,
194, 200, 204, 212, 214, 217, 218, 222, 224,
228, 231, 239, 247, 249
Constitutio Antoniniana – 261
conventus – 30, 44, 86 with n. 75, 102, 111
corruption, regulations against c. – 86–87
crown land – 226
curator civitatis (logistes) – 104
curialis – 278
cursus honorum of equites – 30 n. 18
customs houses; at Memphis – 43 with
n. 43; at Arsinoite villages – 43
damnatio ad bestias – 155, 210 n. 154
death notifications – 148, 164, 199–203, 206,
207, 210, 216, 219, 220, 222, 226–228, 232
decree, royal (Ptolemy XIV and Kleopatra
VII?, Auletes and Kleopatra Tryphaina?)
– 25–29, 36, 56
decree, royal of ca. 240 BC – 68–69
decuriones, decurion class – 106
dekaprotoi – 126–128, 130, 131, 132 with n. 37,
134–136, 141, 142, 146, 236, 264; boethoi of
d. – 134
demes, Alexandrian – 71
demosioi – 240, 242, 246–248, 251, 252, 254,
255, 259; demosioi georgoi – 211, 212, 230,
257, 258
desertification of the edges of the Fayum –
112, 270–272
diadotes – 109, 144 n. 53
diairesis – 217
diocese of Egypt – 53 with n. 79, 54
diocese of Orient – 45 with n. 53, 53 with n.
79, 54
Diocletian’s visit to Egypt – 45 n. 50, 46
with n. 54, 46–47 n. 57
dioiketes – 64, 150
L. Domitius Domitianus, revolt of – 45 n.
53, 46, 46–47 n. 57
ducati – 55–56
duces – 55–56
edict of Tiberius Iulius Alexander – 28
eirenarches – 109, 243, 246, 278
‘Eleven Nomes’ as a synonym of Hep-
tanomia – 40
eparchiai – 54, 56
epi ton prosodon, see strategos kai ho epi ton
prosodon
epimeletes – 218 n. 176; epimeletai chortou
– 238 n. 238
episkepsis – 231, 233, 234
epistates of phylakitai – 79, 282
epistrategiai, epistrategoi – 6 n. 11, 25, 27, 27 n.
6, 28, 29, 29–30 n. 17, 30, 40 with n. 41,
42, 44, 45, 46 n. 55, 47 n. 60, 49, 56, 111,
137, 170, 174, 201, 214, 217 n. 173; number
of e. – 30, 46, 48; reorganization under
Augustus – 30 n. 18
epiteresis (of toparchy) – 133, 144 n. 53
epiteretai – 170
epitropos see procurator of Heptanomia
epokion (as designation of village) – 192
equites – 30 n. 18
ethnarchs – 29, 30
exactor, exactor civitatis, see strategos
exarhithmesis thremmaton (of toparchy) – 144
n. 53
exegetes – 92, 135, 136, 244
Fayum, the, natural environment of – 8–14
Geographical Information Systems, mathe-
matical method – 16
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 327
SUBJECTS
Governorate of the Fayum – 8
grammateis – 64; gr, of komogrammateis – 150,
151, 174; gr. of presbyteroi – 258; gr. metro-
poleos – 110 n. 149; gr. georgon – 165; gr. tes
komes – 181
grapheion – 160, 225
Greenwich Meridian reference system – 32
n. 25
gymnasiarch – 134–136
hegemon see praeses
hegoumenos see praeses
hegoumenos georgon – 164
hekatontarches – 244
Heptanomia, creation – 28, 31; Claudius
Ptolemaeus’ account – 32–36; seven
‘eponymous’ nomes – 36–37, 56; number
of nomes – 37, 40, 42 with n. 42; capital –
42, 44; procurator of Heptanomia – 47, 47
n. 60; date of disappearance – 45 n. 50;
official name changed to Aegyptus Mer-
curiana – 49
Heroninos archive – 185, 236, 237, 247, 248,
249, 252
Hol/Hor (Aurelius) archive – 193–194 with
n. 109
horiodeiktes (boundary official) – 209,
246–247 n. 268
horizontal formation of the Fayum (three
terraces) – 9–11
hydrology of the Fayum – 7, 20, 22
hyperetes (of toparchy) – 134; of presbyteroi
– 152
hypodioiketes – 64
hypologos land – 225
idios logos – 173
illiteracy – 152, 187, 194–195, 241
internal borders in Egypt – 42
inundation – 13, see also uninundated land
irrigation system, irrigation works – 11, 12,
69, 71, 168, 199, 281
Isidoros (Aurelius) archive – 189–190, 240
with n. 245
Isidoros of Psophthis archive – 98 n. 108
327
kanephoros – 77
kephalaiotes – 189, 245 n. 262; k. of pittakion
– 243
Kerkeesis, location of – 17, 163
komarchs – 5, 64, 104, 180, 181, 182–196, 197,
253–255, 259, 261, 278, 282; number of k.
– 195–196, 245 n. 262; status of k. – 195; k.
as suboridinates of komogrammateis – 181,
182 n. 76, 282; k. in the Marmarica nome
– 183 n. 78; succession of k. in Philadel-
pheia in the 280s – 187–188; in the 370s
and 380s – 193–194; succession of k. in
Theadelpheia (Sakaon and his relatives)
– 191–192;
kome (village) – 152, 192, 282, 283
komogrammateia (office) – 147–152, 258, 260;
term of k. – 148–149; k. as a liturgical
office – 158 n. 21
komogrammateiai (territorial units) – 4, 276,
282, 284; Ptolemaic k. – 158 n. 21; k. of
Ptolemais Hormou and other villages
– 153–155, 283; k. of Hiera Nesos and
other villages – 155–157, 168, 283; k. of Ka-
ranis – 157–159, 168; joint k. of Sokno-
paiou Nesos and Nilopolis – 17 n. 41,
159–160, 168, 171 n. 50, 214, 220, 222; joint
k. of Bakchias, Hephaistias and pedion of
Herakleia – 161, 168; joint k. of Kaminoi
and Kerkesephis – 161; joint k. of Theo-
gonis and Kerkeosiris – 162, 209, 229;
joint k. of Apollonopolis and Psinteo
– 162; joint k. of Kalliphanous Epoikion,
Pterophorou Epoikion and Lotou
Epoikion – 162; joint k. of Talei and Ibion
Eikosipentarouron – 162–163; joint k. of
Tebtynis and Kerkeesis – 17, 163; joint k.
of Samareia and Boukolos alias Tristo-
mon – 164, 220; joint k. of Lysimachis
and Kynopolis – 164–165; joint k. of Hiera
Nesos and Aueris – 156; joint k. of
Athenas Kome and Anoubias – 165–166,
198; joint k. of Lagis and Trikomia – 166;
capitals of k. – 153–154, 166–167; ghost-k.
– 155; k. of village x and other villages
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 328
328 INDICES
– 166–167; size of k. – 167–168; number of
k. – 168
komogrammateis – 5, 62, 104, 110 n. 149, 252,
253, 256, 259 with n. 309, 260, 261, 282;
disappearance of k. – 176–177; k. in the
4th cent. – 181–182; ‘dynasty’ of k. in Teb-
tynis – 150, 225; see also presbyteroi
kosmetes – 136
Kronion archive – 126, 138
Kynopolis, location of – 165 n. 37, 275–276
land distribution – 69
Later Roman Egypt – 7 with n. 12
Latinization of administrative terminology
– 105
Leukogion, location of – 193 n. 108
Leuven Database of the Fayum Villages – 15
libelli of Decian persecution – 184–187; ar-
chive of l. from Theadelpheia – 185–186
with n. 88, 248
limen Mempheos – 42, 43 with n. 43
limnastes – 133, 229
Limne, administrative unit – 81
Lysimachides du0, two homonymous vil-
lages – 22–23
magic – 152
mechanarios – 151
meizones (of village) – 182, 246–247 n. 268
meridarches – 64, 67, 72 with n. 31, 84
meris, merides – 3, 4, 20, 22, 23 n. 63, 39, 61,
70–83, 87, 109–111, 131, 134, 152, 153, 159,
260, 276, 281, 282; borders of – 20, 20
n. 58, 70–71, 82, 97 n. 106, 110, 112, 165
n. 37, 272 n. 27, 274, 283; size of m. – 71;
capitals of m. – 109–111; capital of m. of
Herakleides – 3–4; eponyms of m. – 72–73;
m. of Herakleides – passim; m. of Themis-
tos – passim; m. of Polemon – passim; m. of
Maimachos – 76–78, 81, 82; m. of Kalli-
krates – 77, 78; m. of Kalliphanes – 77, 78;
m. as separate nomes – 87–92, 122; m. of
Themistos and Polemon under one stra-
tegos – 102–104, 143; m. designation in
titulature of strategoi – 88–91, 95–97,
100–102; m. designation in titulature of
basilikoi grammateis – 90–91, 96–97;
reunification of the three merides into a
single nome – 104, 112, 253; abandonment
of m. – 83, 145; see also Mikra Limne
meros, subdivision of toparchies in the Oxy-
rhynchite – 144, 264
Mikra Limne, administrative unit – 79–81
Monte-Carlo-Simulation, mathematical
method – 16
Multi-Dimensional Scaling, mathematical
method – 16
municipal élite – 141, 265
municipial infrastructure – 110
‘municipalization’ of Egyptian nomes – 265,
284
naukleros – 164
Nicene, Council – 51
Nilopolis, identification with Tell el-Rusas
– 16–17, 160
nomarchiai, in the Arsinoite nome – 68, 80,
82, 119, 281; n. replaced by toparchies
– 119; n. of Antinoopolis – 38–39
nomarchs – 6, 29, 30, 38, 39, 61, 62 with n. 4,
64–66, 69, 72; n. of Antinoopolis – 39
with n. 35; n. of Naukratis – 67 n. 17; ‘big’
and ‘little’ n. – 66–69, 93, 120; n. outside
the Arsinoites – 69 n. 26, 70; continuity
of the office of n. between the Ptolemaic
and Roman periods – 66–67 n. 15, 70
nomes – 47; nome capitals – 111, 114; regis-
ter of n. – 37–38; Arsinoite merides as sep-
arate nomes – 87–92, 283
‘nomes above Memphis’ – 25, 26 with n. 3,
27, 30, 36, 56
numerus Transitigritanorum, military unit
– 109
officials, of merides – 83, 88; of toparchies
– 133–137
oikonomoi – 64; o. of meris – 83
ostraca, receipts on – 142 n. 44
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 329
SUBJECTS
ousiakoi georgoi – 211
pagarchia – 114
pagus, pagi – 4, 118 n. 5, 143–145, 180, 193
n. 108, 263–279, 284; number of p. in the
Arsinoites – 264 with n. 3, 275; continuity
of p. and toparchies – 265; p. used in
topographical sense – 266, 272; ‘fronts’
and ‘ends’ of p. – 271, 274–276; officials of
p. – 272; borders of Arsinoite p. – 271, 272
with n. 27; p. in the Hermopolites – 122
n. 18, 144, 181, 265 with n. 8; p. in the Oxy-
rhynchites – 144, 264; p. vs. toparchies
– 144, 263, 264, see also praepositus pagi
pediophylax – 189
Petaus, komogrammateus of Ptolemais Hor-
mou and other villages, archive of – 8
n. 17, 153, 210, 218, 219, 223, 224; titulature
of Petaus – 154
phoros probaton – 221
phylakes – 213
phylakites, phylakitai – 74, 79
pittakion (agricultural firm) – 241, 243
Pleistocene, middle and late – 9
pool irrigation system – 10, 11
Potter’s Oracle – 128
praepositus pagi – 5, 105, 107, 188, 190, 241,
265, 266, 276–278, 284
praeses (hegemon or hegoumenos) – 48 with
n. 62, 50, 106; p. of the Thebaid – 45 with
n. 52, 46 n. 55; p. of Aegyptus Herculia
– 49 with nn. 64 and 65, 50, 52 n. 76, 108;
p. of Aegyptus Mercuriana – 50 with
nn. 68 and 69; p. of Aegyptus Iovia – 50
n. 71; p. of Augustamnica – 53, 109
praktor argyrikon – 123 n. 21, 133, 141, 144 n.
53, 150, 175, 206, 214, 222, 232
praktor sitikon – 206
prefect of Egypt – 30, 48 n. 62, 50 with nn.
70 and 71, 53, 85, 86, 111, 225; his official
title praefectus Augustalis – 53, 54
prehistory (of the Fayum) – 9
presbyteroi, presbyteroi performing the duties
of komogrammateis – 152, 156, 157, 168,
329
170–176, 198, 202, 204 n. 135, 210, 213, 218,
221, 227 n. 202, 228 with n. 207, 229, 252,
253, 258, 261
proceedings, reports of proceedings – 40,
48 n. 62, 174–176, 214, 226, 231, 233
procurator – 213; procurator (epitropos) of
Heptanomia – 47 with n. 60, 49 n. 65;
procuratores (epitropoi) of Lower and
Upper Thebaid – 47
programmata (public notices) issued by stra-
tegoi – 170, 224
protokometai – 182, 194 n. 110
protostatai, governors of mere of Oxyrhyn-
chite toparchies – 144, 264
province, Roman p. of Egypt – 6 n. 11, 7, 44,
50
prytannis – 106 n. 136, 134, 186
Ptolemaic government – 64
quadrarius – 188, 241
Roman government – 6, 94, 112, 284
Sakaon archive – 190–193
Satabous archive – 89 n. 84, 96, 96–97
n. 104
ship-canal, prolongation of the Bahr Yusuf
– 19
sitologia, sitologos – 6, 23 n. 63, 83, 97, 126,
129, 132, 133, 138–141, 149, 164, 165, 190,
247, 250, 257, 264, 276, 282; common s. for
two Lysimachides – 97, 165
sitologopraktor – 133, 141
Strabo’s journey through Egypt – 29 n. 16,
30 n. 18; Strabo’s account of Egyptian
administrative units – 117–119
strategia; Ptolemaic. s. – 84–85; Roman s.
– 85; term of s. – 85, 85 n. 73
strategos, strategoi – 5 with n. 8, 39, 64, 83–112,
122, 162, 170, 171, 174, 175, 198, 199, 202,
205, 207, 209, 214–216, 220, 222, 224, 228,
232, 239, 243, 257, 276; s. of meris – 83, 84,
88 n. 81, 93 with n. 95, 159 n. 22; trans-
formation from one s. of the Arsinoites
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 330

330 INDICES

to the system of three s. – 93–99, 122;
s./exactor – 104–109; term in office
– 85–86, 95 n. 99, 98–99, 107; s. serving
outside their nomes – 149 n. 7; program-
mata (public notices) issued by s. – 170;
fasti – 5 n. 8, 85 n. 72, 86 n. 75, 88 n. 82, 98,
94, 99; s. kai ho epi ton prosodon – 67, 85, 98
n. 108, 282
surface survey of the Fayum – 15
Syron Kome, location of – 18–19
tax collection, taxation – 6, 54, 69, 106, 110
n. 149, 123 n. 21, 147, 188, 232 n. 214, 272
temple land – 225
temple of Hibis – 31
tesserarius – 188, 190, 236, 238, 241, 242,
246–248, 251, 252, 254, 255, 259
‘third-century crisis’ – 7
toparchiai – 4, 6, 64, 69, 80, 83, 111, 117–146,
152, 180, 183 n. 78, 193 n. 108, 229, 244
n. 257, 246–247 n. 268, 260, 263, 264, 265,
282; numbered t. in the Arsinoites – 104,
122–132, 137–143, 282; t. in other nomes
– 117–119; names of t. – 122; t. as synonym
for pagi in the Hermopolites – 122 n. 18,
145, 181 with n. 70, 265 n. 8
toparchs – 69, 94, 96, 120–121, 144 n. 53,
165, 225
toponymy of Arsinoite villages – 71
uniformization of administration in the
4th cent. – 104, 279, 284
uninundated land, declaration of – 199,
201–203, 207–211, 214–216, 220, 222, 227
Verona List – 51 with n. 72, 52 n. 76
water basins in southern Fayum – 14
water system of the Fayum – 10
Zenon archive – 72, 73 with n. 37, 75, 81, 154

4. SOURCES

A. Literary Sources

Ammianus Marcellinus Diodorus Siculus

XXII 16 – 51, 58 I 52 – 13
I 73 – 66
Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri
III 5 – 65–66 Eustathius, Commentarium in Dionysii perie-
getae orbis descriptionem
Athanasius 251, 3 – 32 n. 23, 55
Festal letters – 52 n. 74
Georgius Cyprius, Descriptio Orbis Romani
CTh. 54 n. 82, 55, 57, 58
I 14 1 – 53–54
XII 6 8 – 266 Herodotus
XII 6 20 – 107 II 148 – 13
II 149 – 12 n. 25
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 331

SOURCES 331

Hierokles, Synekdemos – 54 n. 82, 57, 58 Ptolemaeus (Claudius), Geographia

IV 5 – 32–36, 38, 39 n. 35
Plinius, Historia naturalis
V 9 – 13 Strabo
XXXVI 16 – 13 XVII 1, 3 – 117
XVII 1, 13 – 29
Pomponius Mela, De Chronographia XVII 1, 37 – 13
I 9, 55 – 13

B. Papyri and Ostraca

BGU I 181 – 90
I 5 – 235 I 194 (= WChr. 84) – 40, 159, 214
I 6 – 171, 213 I 199 – 232
I 11 (= WChr. 239) – 210 I 235 (= WChr. 399) – 167, 231
I 15 (= WChr. 393 = Sel. Pap. II 246) – 170, I 244 – 104
171, 174–175, 204 n. 135, 214 I 297 – 160
I 20 – 216 I 311 – 113
I 28 – 222 I 320 – 113
I 26 – see BGU II 447 I 326 – 208 n. 148
I 53 – 202 I 330 – 206
I 54 – 207 II 389 – 233, 261
I 58 (= SB XX 14326) – 207 II 390 – 233, 261
I 59 – 207 II 430 – 208
I 60 – 207 II 447 (= BGU I 26 = WChr. 270) – 207
I 87 (= MChr. 266) – 160 n. 27 II 457 (= WChr. 252) – 157, 206
I 84 – 178, 215, 258–259 with n. 308 and II 484 – 162, 209, 229
309 II 490 – 231
I 90 dupl. (= BGU II 537) – 221 II 512 (= WChr. 362) – 201
I 91 – 162, 223 II 524 – 207
I 95 – 206, 231 n. 212 II 537 – cf. BGU I 90 dupl.
I 97 (= WChr. 204) – 208 II 577 – 208
I 102 – 221 II 579 (= WChr. 279) – 125, 131, 136
I 108 (= WChr. 227) – 149, 209, 261 II 599 (=WChr. 363) – 102
I 139 – 149, 208 II 616 – 209
I 141 – 179, 235 II 618 – 166, 212
I 145 – 223 II 619 – 231
I 158 – 203 II 620 (= WChr. 186) – 239
I 163 (= SB XXIV 16258) – 159 with n. 22, II 634 – 251
214, 220 II 659 – 234
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 332

332 INDICES

II 660 – 232 XI 2063 – 148, 201

III 706 – 221 XI 2066 – 100
III 754 – 104, 236, 243, 244, 246, 253–254, XI 2080 – 244, 261
261 XI 2085 – 167, 210
III 755 – 123, 128–129, 137, 139, 146 XI 2087 (= CPG II.1 11) – 90
III 786 – 124, 133 with n. 38 XI 2088 – 100
III 834 – 221 XI 2090 – 222
III 891 verso – 198 XIII 2220 – 221 with n. 183
III 908 – 139 XIII 2221 – 221
III 915 – 90 XIII 2222 – 151, 231
III 971 – 103 XIII 2231 (= CPG II.1 58) – 207
III 988 – 139 XIII 2233 – 208
IV 1047 – 230 XIII 2241 – 199
IV 1049 – 267 XIII 2250 – 166 with n. 38, 211
IV 1068 (= WChr. 62 = CPJ II 427 = CPG XIII 2252 – 269, 278
II.1 20) – 199 XIII 2279 – 178 n. 64
IV 1069 – 103 XIII 2280 – 178 n. 64
IV 1189 –129 XIII 2282 – 166, 177–178 with n. 64, 200,
VI 1229 – 68 n. 21 257, 283
VII 1566 – 172 XIV 2428 – 69 n. 26
VII 1573 – 171, 204 XV 2473 – 215
VII 1579 – 209
VII 1583 – 152 ChLA
VII 1611 – 124, 134 XLI 1201 – 267
VII 1612 – 261 XLI 1203 – 125, 134
VII 1613B – 121 XLI 1204 – see P. Thead. 13
VII 1614B – 121
VII 1573 – 156, 261 C. Ord. Ptol.
VII 1575 – 217 73 – see BGU VIII 1730
VII 1583 – 217
VII 1612 – 244 CPG
VII 1634 – 233 II.1 4 – see P. Fay. 29
VII 1703 – see SB XVI 12789 II.1 5a – see SB XIV 11586
VIII 1730 (= Sel. Pap. II 209 = SB IV 7419 II.1 6 – see P. Mich. Michael 10
= C. Pap. Hengstl 12 = C. Ptol. Sklav. II.1 11 – see BGU XI 2087
I 10 = CPJ. I 137 = C. Ord. Ptol. 73) II.1 13 – see P. Strasb. IV 200
– 25, 27 with n. 7, 29 with n. 15, 30 II.1 16 – see P. Strasb. VI 522
VIII 1764 – 87 II.1 20 – see BGU IV 1068
VIII 1781 – 69 n. 26 II.1 21 – see P. Lond. II 173
VIII 1821 – 69 n. 26 II.1 25 – see SB IV 7359
IX 1898 – 198 II.1 27 – see P. Iand. III 31
XI 2021 (= CPG II.1 73) – 163, 177, 224 II.1 28 – see P. Mich. IX 538
XI 2022 – 197, 214 II.1 32b – see P. Phil. 7
XI 2023 – 208 II.1 33 – see P. Ryl. II 105
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 333

SOURCES 333

II.1 34 – see P. Strasb. I 70 Johnson, Roman Egypt

II.1 36 – see P. Strasb. V 312 pp. 114–115, no. 43 – see P. Berl. Leihg. I 7
II.1 41 – see P. Tebt. II 300 p. 139, no. 78 – see P. Berl. Leihg. I 18
II.1 42 – see P. Oslo III 97
II.1 45 – see SB I 5138 Jur. Pap.
II.1 52 – see P. Lond. II 338 5 – see P. Ryl. II 105
II.1 58 – see BGU XIII 2231
II.1 64 – see P. Tebt. II 301 MChr.
II.1 68 – see P. Fay. 237 descr. 50 – 101
II.1 69 – see P. Leeds Museum 10 68 – 95, 96–97 n. 104
II.1 70 – see P. Amst. I 32 87 – see P. Lond. II 196
II.1 73 – see BGU XI 2021 91 – 102
II.1 App. 2 – see P. Petaus 9 266 – see BGU I 87

C. Pap. Hengstl Meyer, Jur. Pap.

12 – see BGU VIII 1730 821 – see P. Oxy. 709

CPJ. O. Berlin
I 137 – see BGU VIII 1730 83 – 142 n. 44
II 420b – see P. Ryl. II 126 84 – 142 n. 44
II 427 – see BGU IV 1068
III 487 – see SB IV 7359 O. Fay.
8 – 182, 197, 282
CPL
Annexe 3 – see P. Thead. 13 O. Joachim
2 – 68 n. 21
CPR 5 – 69 n. 26
I 172 – 92 n. 92 13 – 69 n. 26
V 7 – 49–50 with nn. 64 and 66
VI 5 – 251, 268, 278 O. Mich.
VII 18 – 181 I 13–24 (= SB VI 9041) – 244
X 127 – 113 I 25 – 244
XIII 2 + 5 – see P. Count. 23 I 69 – 142 n. 44
XV 7 introd. – 89 n. 84 I 153 – 208
XVIII 21a – 22 n. 62 I 234 – 238
XXIII 25 – 50 n. 66, 268 I 339 – 242
I 340 – 242
C. Ptol. Sklav. II 939 – 242
I 10 – see BGU VIII 1730 IV 1130 (= SB XIV 11517) – 239
II 195 – see P. Tebt. I 108
P. Aberdeen
FIRA 60 – 259
III 160 – see P. Abinn. 58 81 – 171, 217
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 334

334 INDICES

152 – 232 P. Bodl.

164 – 263 n. 1, 267 I 86 – 156
I 129 – 267, 278
P. Abinn. I 135 – 222
13 – 108
35 – 266 P. Bour.
58 (= P. Lond. II 233 = WChr. 44 = FIRA 42 – 155, 157, 167, 205
III 160) – 107
P. Bürgsch.
P. Amh. 22 – 74, 83
II 74 – 221 23 – 73
II 138 – 107
P. Cairo. Good.
P. Amst. 7 – 129
I 32 (= SB XII 11176 = CPG II.1 70) – 164,
202 P. Cairo Isid.
2 – 130
P. Bad. 3 – 124, 130, 134
II 23 – 149, 217 4 – 124, 130, 134
II 29 – 236, 238, 242, 243, 246–248, 251, 9 – 276
252, 254–255 11 – 276
24 – 241
P. Bakchias 31 – 124, 134
25 (= SB VI 9331 verso) – 201 32 – 125, 134
38 – 125, 135
P. Beatty Panop. 39 – 124, 135
1 – 45, 46 n. 55, 46–47 with n. 57 43 – 189 n. 99
47 – 193 n. 108
P. Berl. Leihg. 54 – 241
I 4 see SB III 7196 56 – 241
I 5 – 229 57 – 195, 241
I 7 (= Johnson, Roman Egypt, pp. 114–115, 58 – 194, 195, 241
no. 43) – 166 with n. 38, 211 59 – 240 n. 246
I 18 (= Johnson, Roman Egypt, p. 139, no. 68 – 181 with n. 73
78) – 166, 211 70 – 106 n. 136
II 19 – 166 71 – 188, 240 with n. 246
II 26 – see SB X 10614 72 – 188, 240 with n. 246
II 29 – 211 73 – 48 n. 61, 188, 240 n. 246, 241, 276
II 42A – 212 74 – 48 n. 61, 106
75 – 276
P. Bingen 76 – 276
57 – 67 n. 16 77 – 276
58 – 89, 95 78 – 278
82 – 190
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 335

SOURCES 335

123 – 190 P. Corn.

125 – 143 n. 48, 190, 239, 263–264 n. 2, 276 19 – see SB X 10726
126 – 276 20 – 125, 130, 137, 195, 196, 246 with n. 268
128 – 259–260
129 – 190 n. 100, 240 P. Count.
130 – 190 n. 100, 240 23 (= CPR XIII 2 + 5) – 22 n. 62

P. Cairo Preisigke P. Enteux.

33 – 145 n. 54, 265 n. 8 80 – 73

P. Cairo Zenon P. Erasm.

III 59357 – 75 I 2 – 83
III 59361 – 75
IV 59543 – 74 n. 42, 75, 76, 83 P. Erl.
28 – 126
P. Charite
10 – 145 n. 54, 265 n. 8 P. Fam. Tebt.
12 – 145 n. 54, 265 n. 8 12 – 139
23 – 145 n. 54. 265 n. 8 19 – see SB VI 9252
29 – 145 n. 54, 265 n. 8 42 – 39 n. 34
51 – 17, 163, 227
P. Col. 52 – 163, 224
V 1 verso (= ZPE 105 [2005], pp. 141–146)
– 213 with n. 160 P. Fay.
VII 125 – 267 25 – 203
VII 130 – 272 n. 28 26 – 110
VII 137 – 123, 124, 125, 135 29 (= CPG II.1 4) – 203
VII 169 – 50 40 – 198, 230
VII 170 – 267, 276 with n. 34 81 – 123, 133, 137, 139
VII 171 – see P. Coll. Youtie 77 85 – 126, 135, 141
VII 181 – see P. Coll. Youtie 78 195 verso (descr.) – 201
VIII 209 (= SB VI 7376) – 90, 95, 150 208 descr. – 233
VIII 211 – 98 n. 108 237 descr. (= CPG II.1 68) – 203
246 (= SB XVIII 13144) – 121
P. Col. Lewis 264 – see SPP IV 118
1 (= SB VI 9187) – 50 n. 67
P. Flor.
P. Col. Zenon I 19 – 125, 135
I 51 – 72 I 26 – 126, 135
I 54 – 107
P. Coll. Youtie I 67 – 102 n. 121
77 (= P. Col. VII 171) – 267, 277 I 76 – 252
78 (= P. Col. VII 181) – 267 I 91 – 231
II 132 – 186 n. 89, 248
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 336

336 INDICES

II 278 – 101 n. 118 P. Hamb.

III 345 – 249 I 9 – 151, 228, 229
I 11 – 217
P. Fouad I 74 – 193 n. 108
I 23 – 101 inv. 483r – 103

P. Gen. P. Harrauer
I2 4 – 100 with n. 116 39 – 145 with n. 54, 265 n. 8
I2 5 – 202
I2 12 – 193 P. Harris
I2 37 (= WChr. 400) – 171, 222 II 179 – 95 n. 99
I2 66 (= WChr. 281) – 183 with n. 80, 193,
194 with nn. 109 and 111, 245 P. Heid.
I2 67 – 194 with nn. 109 and 111, 246 II 223 (= SB VI 9543) – 177, 179, 234
I2 68 – 194 IV 298 – 172 n. 54, 227 with n. 203
I2 69 – 194 with nn. 109 and 111, 246
I2 70 – 194 n. 109 and 111, 245 P. Hels.
II 91 (= SB VI 9224) – 90, 216 I 6 – 129
II 100 – 124, 132, 133, 140
II 101 – 124, 132, 133, 138 with n. 39, 140 P. Hib.
I 133 descr. – see SB I 10260
P. Giss. Univ. I 81 – 74
I 14 – 199
I 15 – 247 P. Iand.
VI 52 – 177, 179, 234 III 27 – 101
III 28 – 139
P. Graux III 31 (= CPG II.1 27) – 227
I 1 – see SB IV 7461 VII 138 – 171, 204
II 9 – 91
II 17–19 – 83 n. 64 P. Kellis
I 3 – 181
P. Grenf.
I 45 (= WChr. 200) – 227 P. Köln
I 50 – 244 II 95 – 212
II 44 – 139 III 140 – 83
VII 316 – 126, 134
P. Gron.
2 – 161, 177, 233 P. Kron.
30 – 140
P. Gurob 31 – 125, 129, 133, 138, 140
2 – 87 32 – 140
9 – 76 n. 46 36 – 126, 143 n. 47
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 337

SOURCES 337

P. Laur. II 445, p. 166 – 89

I 2 – 231 n. 212 III 1157 verso, p. 109 (= WChr. 375) – 141
II 30 – see SB XXII 15485 III 1219, p. 123 (= WChr. 172) – 164, 202,
III 62 – 126, 131 220
III 66 – 217 III 1220, p. 114 – 159, 214, 222
III 99 – 249 III 1221, p. 24 – 172 n. 54, 227

P. Leeds Museum P. Lond.

10 (= CPG II.1 69) – 232 inv. no. 2180 – 108

P. Leit. P. Louvre
3 (= SB VIII 10194) – 247 I 1 – 98 n. 109
I 38 – 67 n. 16
P. Lille
I 1 (= P.Zen.Pest., Appendix A) – 18 with P. Lugd. Bat.
n. 48, 19 n. 52 XVI – see P. Wisc. I
I 5 – 75, 76 with note 47, 81–82 with note XX 18 – 75
62
I 11 – 22 n. 62 P. Marm.
183 n. 78
P. Lille dem.
I 21, p. 46 – see UPZ I, p. 603, no. 3a P. Med.
inv. 69.66 verso – 28 n. 12
P. Lips.
I 83 – 126, 131, 135 P. Merton
I 86 – 183 n. 79, 196 I 9 – 90, 95, 96 n. 103
II 145 – 149, 217 I 11 – 92
II 146 – 217 II 88 – 124, 125, 136
II 147 – 217 n. 173 II 91 – 106, 108, 267 n. 16
II 92 – 277
P. Lond.
I 113 6c, p. 215 – 113 P. Meyer
II 173, p. 66 (= CPG II.1 21) – 206 4 – 125, 133, 229
II 196, p. 152 (= MChr. 87) – 158
II 233, p. 273 – see P. Abinn. 58 P. Mich.
II 256a, p. 98 – 22–23 n. 62, 96, 97, 164, II 123 – 121
212 n. 156 III 177 – 200
II 256d, p. 97 – 121, 164, 165, 211, 212 n. 156 III 178 – 200
II 256e, p. 96 (= WChr. 344) – 22–23 n. 62, IV 224 – 210
88, 96, 97, 165, 212 with n. 156 V 226 – 89
II 291, p. xxviii – 139 V 227 – 89
II 295, p. 99 – 123, 133, 137, 139 V 228 – 89
II 322, p. 159 (= WChr. 358) – 223 V 229 – 89
II 338, p. 68 (= CPG II.1 52) – 222 V 230 – 90
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 338

338 INDICES

V 231 – 89 IV 245 – 139

V 240 – 225 IV 246 – 140
V 267 – 150, 225
V 268 verso – 150, 225 P. Münch.
VI 366 – 220 III 69 – 109
VI 367 – 209 III.1 115 – 235
VI 368 – 215
VI 369 – 201 P. NYU
VI 370 – 207 1 – 127, 130, 134
VI 381 – 208 20 (= SB XII 10881) – 125
VI 421 – 206
VI 423 dupl. = VI 424 – 152, 171, 208 P. Oslo
X, p. 8 n. 19 – see P. Mich. Michael 10 II 26a – 207
IX 523 – 100 II 28 – 139, 140
IX 524 – 101 III 81 – 102 n. 121
IX 530 – 239 III 92 – 67 n. 17
IX 537 – see SB XIV 11577 III 97 (= CPG II.1 42) – 151, 201
IX 538 (= CPG II.1 28) – 219 III 123 – 89, 91, 95 n. 100
IX 547 – 239
IX 548 – 239 P. Oxf. (= P. Lugd. Bat. III)
XI 618 – 201 3 – 218
XII 636 – 125
XV 693 – 226
XVIII 770 – 22 n. 62 P. Oxy.
I 43 recto – 45, 46 n. 54
P. Mich. I 60 (= WChr. 43) – 50
inv. 864 – 90 I 61 – 86 n. 76
inv. 6060 (= SB XXIV 16257) – 159, 214, IV 709 (= WChr. 32 = Meyer, Jur. Pap. 821)
220 – 30, 42
VIII 1112 – 171
P. Mich. Michael VIII 1120 – 172
2 (= SB XII 11104) – 170 XII 1416 – 45 n. 50, 46 n. 55, 47 n. 60
10 (= P. Mich. X, p. 8 n. 19 = SB XII 11112 XII 1425 – 255
= CPG II.1 6) – 216 XII 1447 – 129
XII 1559 – 52 n. 75
P. Michael. XIV 1722 – 52 n. 76
21 – 248, 261 XVI 1835 recto – 182
XVII 2113 – 49 n. 65
P. Mil. XVII 2114 – 48,49 n. 65
I 3 (= SB XX 14440) – 227 XVII 2121 – 165, 198
XVII 2134 – 39
P. Mil. Vogl. XX 2283 – 182
II 98 – 162, 223 XLII 3031 – 47 n. 59
III 197 – 139 XLII 3047 – 259 n. 309
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 339

SOURCES 339

XLII 3052 – 19 n. 51, 193 n. 108 14 – 154

XLIII 3089 – 171, 202 15 – 154
XLIV 3178 – 183 16 – 154
XLV 3261 – 50, 69 17 – 154, 218
XLV 3263 – 162, 177, 200, 219 18 – 154
XLVII 3362 (= J. D. THOMAS, ‘A New List 19 – 154
of Nomes from Oxyrhynchus’, [in:] 20 – 154
Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papy- 21 – 154
rologenkongresses Marburg/Lahn 1971, 22 – 154
München 1974, pp. 397–403 = SB 46 – 154
XXII 11045) – 36, 37–40 with n. 39 47 – 154
and 41 49 – 154
XLIX 3464 – 90 52 – 154
XLIX 3479 – 266 53 – 154
XLIX 3480 – 54 n. 81 55 – 154
L 3562 – 40 and n. 41 56 – 154
L 3574 – 52 n. 76 59 – 154
L 3576 – 52 n. 75, 53 n. 77 60 – 154
L 3577 – 53 n. 78 62 – 154
LI 3619 – 48 n. 62 65 – 154
LI 3620 – 50 n. 70 66 – 154
LI 3628–3636 introd. – 54 n. 80 69 – 154
LI 3636 – 113 n. 151 and 152 75 – 154
LIV 3756 – 48 n. 62, 50 n. 70 76 – 154
LIV 3758 – 50 n. 69 77 – 154
LIV 3759 – 50 n. 70 84 – 154, 155
LV 3803 – 266 85 – 154
LV 3818 – 151 n. 10, 228 n. 206 86 – 154
LIX 3980 – 142 n. 43
LX 4066 – 171, 172 P. Petrie
II 18 (2a) – 76
P. Petaus II 26 (7) (= P. Petrie III 64 [a] [7]) – 72
1 – 154 II 37 (a) – 78
2 – 154 III 26 – 68–69
3 – 154 III 56 (b) – 74, 76, 77, 78, 83
4 – 154 III 58 – 74
5 – 154 III 63 – 75
6 – 154 III 64 (a) (7) – see P. Petrie II 26 (7)
7 – 154 III 75 – 68
8 – 154 III 78 – 22 n. 62, 73
9 (= CPG II.1 App. 2) – 154, 155, 210 III 79 a+c – 22 n. 62, 73
10 – 149, 154, 207 III 117(a) – 74
11 – 149, 154, 224 III 128 (= P. Rev. App. II 4) – 63, 79, 80
13 – 154 n. 58, 81
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 340

340 INDICES

P. Phil. P. Rev.
4 – 216 App. II 4 – see P. Petrie III 128
7 (= CPG II.1 32b) – 216
9 – 216 P. Ross. Georg.
II 22 – 151, 231
P. Prag. II 28 – 231
I 23 – 203 III 32 – 113
I 19 – 159–160 with n. 23, 222
I 22 – 222 P. Ryl.
I 40 – 151 II 90 – 22 n. 62
II 129 – 219, 232 II 81 – 199
II 131 – 113 II 105 (= Jur. Pap. 5 = CPG II.1 33) – 220
II 126 (= CPJ II 420b) – 89, 91
P. Prag Varcl II 129 – 89
II 3 – see Rathbone, Economic Rationalism, II 131 – 89, 91
Text 1 II 135 – 89
II 4 (= SB VI 9409.1) – 236, 237, 247, 249 II 149 – 92 with n. 92
II 5 – see Rathbone, Economic Rationalism, II 371 descr. – 218
Text 2 II 372 – 213
II 6 (= SB VI 9409.3) – 237 IV 596 – 210
II 7 (= SB VI 9409.4) – 237, 249 IV 637 – 107
II 10 – see Rathbone, Economic Rational- IV 659 (= P. Sakaon 41) – 49 n. 64
ism, Text 1 IV 682 – 208

P. Princ. P. Sakaon
II 29 – 103 n. 125 1 – 191
II 99 – 246 2 – 126, 130, 134
3 – 126, 130, 134
P. Princ. Roll. (= SB V 7621) 9 – see P. Thead. 48
ii 47 – 245 11 – 126, 131, 136
iii 71 – 267, 272 12 – 126, 136
vii 158 – 245 13 – see P. Thead. 38
viii 171 – 267, 272 18 – see P. Thead. 42
ix 186–188 – 272 22 – see P. Thead. 34
ix 188 – 267, 272 n. 28 23 – see P. Thead. 58
24 – see P. Thead. 35
P. Rainer Cent. 25 – see P. Thead. 36
65 – 157, 172, 173 29 – see P. Thead. 47
66 – 157, 172, 173 34 – see P. Thead. 13
67 (= SPP XX 33) – 157, 172, 173 35 – see P. Thead. 16
38 – 277
P. Rein. 39 – 277
I 46 – 222 with n. 187 41 – see P. Ryl. IV 659
inv. R. 172 – 92 42 – see P. Thead. 20
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 341

SOURCES 341

43 – 277 II 118 – 89, 93 n. 94

45 – 278 III 153 – 125 with n. 30, 128, 136, 146
46 – 278 III 177 (= P. Sakaon 52) – 250
48 – 191, 278 IV 200 (= CPG. II.1 13) – 200
51 – see P. Thead. 50 IV 210 – 100
52 – see P. Strasb. III 177 IV 216 – 124, 129, 132, 133, 140
58 – see PSI VIII 873 IV 232 – 162, 205, 211, 219
76 – 126, 131 IV 268 – 216
72 – 131 V 305 (recto) – 22 n. 62
82 – 126, 136 V 309 – 109
86 – 126, 136 V 312 (= CPG II.1 36) – 151, 201
V 313 – 232
P. Select. (= P. Lugd. Bat. XIII) V 325 – 145 n. 54, 146, 265 n. 8
13 – 266 V 468 – 218 with n. 177
VI 522 (= CPG II.1 16) – 200
PSI VII 606 – 218
I 51 – 100 n. 115 VIII 731 – 179, 234
I 57 – 90, 99 n. 111 IX 848 – 229
IV 366 – 73
IV 415 – see SB XXII 15278 P. Tebt.
V 460 – 238 I 61(b) – 65 n. 11
VI 621 – see SB XXII 15278 I 108 descr. (= C. Ptol. Sklav. II 195) – 70
VI 684 – 107 n. 138 n. 27
VI 693 – 217 II 289 (= WChr. 271 = Sel. Pap. II 419) –
VII 766 – 167 n. 42, 230, 231, 260 94–95 with n. 98 and 99, 121
VII 796 – 234 II 290 – 282
VIII 873 (= P. Sakaon 58) – 249 II 297 – 226
VIII 883 – 102 n. 122 II 299 – 225
X 1129 – 224 II 300 (= CPG II.1 41) – 226
X 1136 – 226 II 301 (= CPG II.1 64) – 226
XII 1236 – 125, 133 II 302 – 28, 29, 30, 56, 225
XII 1243 – 218 II 324 – 227
XII 1245 (= SB XIV 11980) – 203 II 325 – 226
II 341 – 229
PSI Congr. XI II 344 – 227
8 – 127, 133 II 346 – 150, 225, 261
II 368 – 124, 127, 132, 136, 146
P. Sijp. II 374 – 226
19 – 67 n. 18 II 401 – 210
II 408–410 – 95 n. 98
P. Strasb. II 410 – 121, 150, 225
I 45 – 107 II 436 – 179, 235
I 57 – 149 II 470 descr. – 139, 205
I 70 (= CPG II.1 34) – 228 II 535 descr. (= SB XX 15130) – 121
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 342

342 INDICES

II 566 descr. (= SB XX 14163) – 164, 220 P. Vindob. Tandem

II 569 descr. – 40 9 – 95–96 with n. 103 and 104, 164, 165,
II 581 descr. – 124, 127 n. 35, 132, 136, 146 230
III.1 700 – 87 p. 242 – 92 n. 93
III.1 701 – 80 with n. 59
III.1 793 – 269 n. 24 P. Wisc. (= P. Lugd. Bat. XVI)
III.2 837 – 129 I 10 – 113 n. 152
III.2 846 – 68 I 18 – 229
III.2 853 – 75–76 I 36 – 229
II 86 – 124, 137, 146
P. Tebt. Tait
47 – 102 n. 121 P. Würzb.
8 – 39 n. 34
P. Thead. 16 – 266, 268
13 (= P. Sakaon 34 = ChLA XLI 1204 =
CPL, Annexe 3) – 50 P. Yale
16 (= P. Sakaon 35) – 268 n. 18 and 20, III 137 – 177, 217
270–272, 277, 278
20 (= P. Sakaon 42) – 49 n. 64 P. Zen. Pest.
26 – 122 Appendix A – see P. Lille I 1
34 (= P. Sakaon 22) – 192, 243, 250
35 (= P. Sakaon 24) – 250 Rathbone, Economic Rationalism
36 (= P. Sakaon 25) – 250 Text 2 (= SB XX 14645 = P. Prag Varcl II 5
38 (= P. Sakaon 13) – 249 = SB VI 9409.2) – 236, 237, 247, 249
42 (= P. Sakaon 18) – 250 Text 1 (= SB XX 14197 = P. Prag Varcl II 3
47 (= P. Sakaon 29) – 251 + 10 = SB VI 9408.2 + 9409.7) – 237,
48 (= P. Sakaon 9) – 277 247, 249
50 (= P. Sakaon 51) – 191 n. 106, 250, 277
58 (= P. Sakaon 23) – 250 SB
I 1161 – see I. Fayoum II 116
P. Tor. Choach. I 4278 (= IGRR I 1127 = I. Fayoum III 214)
11 bis (= UPZ II 161) – 69 n. 26 – 114
12 (= UPZ II 162) – 69 n. 26 I 4415 – 212
I 4419 – 178, 233, 256–257
P. Turner I 4421 – 239
20 – 139, 140 I 4422 – 243, 261
23 – 102 n. 121 I 4440 – 187 n. 90
I 4669 – 113
P. Vars. I 5138 (= CPG II.1 45) – 206
20 – 235, 237, 251 I 5139 – 113
I 5219 – see I. Fayoum II 136
P. Vindob. Bosw. I 5235 – 91
1 – 100 I 5238 – 89, 91
I 5239 – 96, 96–97 n. 104
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 343
SOURCES
I 5247 – 63 n. 7
I 5661 – 216
I 5982 – see SB XIV 12174
III 6152 – see I. Fayoum II 112
III 6153 – see I. Fayoum II 113
III 6154 – see I. Fayoum II 135
III 6156 – see I. Fayoum II 118
III 6236 – see I. Fayoum II 114
III 6942 – see UPZ I, p. 603, no. 3a
III 7196 (= P. Berl. Leihg. I 4) – 258
III 7200 – 22 n. 61
IV 7359 (= CPJ III 487 = CPG II.1 25)
– 206
IV 7360 – 177, 209
IV 7368 – 209
IV 7419 – see BGU VIII 1730
IV 7461 – 95 n. 99
IV 7463 – 90, 91
V 7599 – 100, 225
V 7621 – see P. Princ. Roll.
V 8134 (= I. Fayoum III 164 ) – 114
V 8888 – see OGIS 179
V 8900 – see OGIS II 664
VI 7376 – see P. Col. VIII 209
VI 7461 (= P. Graux I 1) – 92 n. 91
VI 8976 – 139
VI 9041 – see O. Mich. I 13–24
VI 9187 – see P. Col. Lewis 1
VI 9224 – see P. Gen. II 91
VI 9252 (= P. Fam. Tebt. 19) – 228
VI 9331 – see P. Bakchias 25
VI 9408.2 – see Rathbone, Economic
Rationalism, Text 1
VI 9409.1 – see P. Prag Varcl II 4
VI 9409.2 – see Rathbone, Economic
Rationalism, Text 2
VI 9409.3 – see P. Prag Varcl II 6
VI 9409.4 – see P. Prag Varcl II 7
VI 9409.7 – see Rathbone, Economic
Rationalism, Text 1
VI 9543 – see P. Heid. II 223
VI 9554 – 206, 231
VI 9573 – 207
VIII 9905 – 39
343
VIII 10208 – 141
VIII 10194 – see P. Leit. 3
X 10260 (= P. Hib. I 133 descr.) – 83
X 10614 (= P. Berl. Leihg. II 26) – 161,
257–258
X 10726 (= P. Corn. 19) – 126
X 10757 – 207
XII 10842 – 162, 205
XII 10881 – see P.NYU 20
XII 11104 – see P. Mich. Michael 2
XII 11112 – see P. Mich. Michael 10
XII 11150 – 227
XII 11176 – see P. Amst. I 32
XII 11389 – 216
XIV 11269 – 99
XIV 11335 – 89, 91, 95
XIV 11517 – see O. Mich. IV 1130
XIV 11533 – 226
XIV 11577 (= P. Mich. IX 537) – 206
XIV 11586 (= CPG II.1 5a) – 90
XIV 11613 – 163, 224
XIV 11640 – 28
XIV 11641 – 215
XIV 11980 – see PSI XII 1245
XIV 12022 – 101
XIV 12129 – 109
XIV 12174 (= SB I 5982) – 224
XVI 12342 – 73
XVI 12504 – 102 n. 122, 170
XVI 12521 – 228
XVI 12522 – 171, 228
XVI 12549 – 101
XVI 12562 – 148, 201
XVI 12563 – 199
XVI 12685 (= SPP XXII 184) – 215
XVI 12713 – 88, 98 n. 108
XVI 12714 – 98 n. 108
XVI 12750 – 170
XVI 12789 (= BGU VII 1703) – 142 n. 44
XVI 12829 – 187, 188, 244, 245
XVI 12833 (= SPP XXII 39) – 124, 132, 133,
137
XVI 12835 – 98 n. 108
XVIII 13134 – 139, 140
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 344

344 INDICES

XVIII 13144 – see P. Fay. 246 III 72 bis – 113

XVIII 13162 – 151, 232 III 135 – 113
XVIII 13231 – 123 IV 118 (= P. Fay. 264) – 139, 140
XVIII 13324 – 100 X 12 – 258
XVIII 13896 – 236 X 91 – 125 with n. 31, 127–128, 146
XVIII 14041 – 74 X 23 – 269 n. 24
XX 14085 – 230, 255–256 X 24 – 269 n. 24
XX 14098 – 98 n. 107 X 242 – 269 n. 24
XX 14099 – 98 n. 107 X 245 – 269 n. 24
XX 14163 – see P. Tebt. II 566 descr. X 270 – 268 with n. 20, 269–270 with
XX 14197 – see Rathbone, Economic n. 24, 274, 275
Rationalism, Text 1 XX 33 – see P. Rain. Cent. 67
XX 14326 – see BGU I 58 XX 94 – 129
XX 14440 – see P. Mil. I 3 XX 117 – 54 with n. 81, 266
XX 14645 – see Rathbone, Economic XX 128 – 113
Rationalism, Text 2 XXII 18 – 171, 221
XX 15038 – 226 XXII 34 – 199
XX 15130 – see P. Tebt. II 535 descr. XXII 37 – 159, 214
XXII 11045 – see P. Oxy. XLVII 3362 XXII 38 – 151, 221
XXII 15278 (= PSI IV 415 + PSI VI 621) – XXII 39 – see SB XVI 12833
75 XXII 67 – 177, 223 with n. 192
XXII 15389 – 222 XXII 94 – 123, 128–129, 137, 139, 146
XXII 15485 (= P. Laur. II 30) – 228, 252 XXII 100 – 221
XXII 15760 – 253, 261 XXII 118 – 139, 140
XXII 15783 – 208 with n. 150 XXII 184 – see SB XVI 12685
XXII 15784 – 177, 217
XXII 15786 – 240 UPZ
XXIV 15904 – 228 I, p. 603, no. 3a (= SB III 6942 = P. Lille
XXIV 15909 – 98 n. 108 dem. I 21, p. 46) – 74
XXIV 15910 – 98 n. 108 II 151 – 76 n. 45
XXIV 15913 – 268, 275, 278 II 161 – see P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis
XXIV 16015 – 213 II 162 – see P. Tor. Choach. 12
XXIV 16257 – see P. Mich. inv. 6060
XXIV 16258 – see BGU I 163 WChr.
32 – see P. Oxy. IV 709
Sel. Pap. 43 – see P. Oxy. I 60
II 209 – see BGU VIII 1730 44 – see P. Abinn. 58
II 246 – see BGU I 15 62 – see BGU IV 1068
II 280 – see WChr. 176 84 – see BGU I 194
II 419 – see P. Tebt. II 289 172 – see P. Lond. III 1219
176 (= Sel . Pap. II 280) – 100
SPP 186 – see BGU II 620
II 3 – 177, 223 200 – see P. Grenf. I 45
III 32 – 113 204 – see BGU I 97
307-345 Indeksy 12/4/06 1:51 AM Page 345

SOURCES 345

227– see BGU I 108 362 – see BGU II 512

239 – see BGU I 11 363 – see BGU II 599
252 – see BGU II 457 375 – see P. Lond. III 1157 verso
270 – see BGU II 447 393 – see BGU I 15
271 – see P. Tebt. II 289 399 – see BGU I 235
279 – see BGU II 579 400 – see P. Gen. I2 37
281 – see P. Gen. I2 66
344 – see P. Lond. II 256e ZPE
358 – see P. Lond. II 322 153 (2005), pp. 141–146 – see P. Col. V 1 verso

C. Inscriptions

I. Fayoum IGRR
I 13 – 115 I 1127 – see SB I 4278
I 71 – see OGIS I 179 I 1188 – see OGIS II 664
I 75 – see OGIS II 664
II 112 (= SB III 6152) – 115 I. Phil.
II 113 (= SB III 6153) – 115 II 135 – 27 n. 6, 30
II 114 (= SB III 6236) – 115
II 116 (= SB I 1161) – 115 OGIS
II 117 – 115 I 179 (= WChr. 168 = SB V 8888 = I. Fay-
II 118 (= SB III 6156) – 115 oum I 71) – 87 with n. 80
II 135 (= SB III 6154) – 115 II 664 (= IGRR I 1188 = SB V 8900 = I.
II 136 (= SB I 5219) – 115 Fayoum I 75) – 115
III 164 – see SB V 8134 II 669 – 85–86
III 214 – see SB I 4278

D. Other Sources

Patrum Nicenorum nomina – 51 with n. 73 Verona List – 51, 52 n. 76, 57