Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:12:45.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Papyri and Roman Imperial History, 1960–75*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Alan K. Bowman
Alan K. Bowman
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘For those outside the circle of learned devotees important work by papyrologists too often remains unfamiliar’ (J. J. Wilkes, JRS 65 (1975), 187). In the past few years the contribution of the papyri to the history of the Roman Empire has been very important, and it is the main purpose of the notes which follow to provide for the historian a convenient summary of recent documentary evidence which demands his attention. This survey encompasses work which has appeared in the last fifteen years (though with reference to documents published earlier which have recently received significant discussion) and covers the period of Roman imperial history from Augustus to Constantine. The material is divided into three sections. In the first I collect items which provide new information on topics of general imperial history, mainly matters of chronology and prosopography relating to Emperors and the imperial house; to which I have added evidence for Emperors in direct contact with Egypt, relating largely to imperial visits and revolts. In the second part I discuss Egypt as a Roman province, its organization, officials, social and economic history; some of the fresh conclusions which have emerged naturally have a broader application, which I hope to have indicated in the course of my discussion. In the brief final section documents are collected which either have their provenance outside Egypt or specifically relate to places other than Egypt. It is hardly necessary to add that the overall selection of items is subjective and cannot hope to be comprehensive. It will be noticed that some important topics are intentionally excluded from systematic examination—in particular, Roman Law, Graeco-Roman religion and Christianity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 66 , November 1976 , pp. 153 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Alan K. Bowman 1976. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

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

References

1 For the sake of brevity all references are put in a form as short as is conveniently possible. Abbreviations of papyrological volumes follow, in the main, Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri, an Introduction (1968), 154–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is hoped that abbreviations of the titles of periodicals will be self-explanatory. The following abbreviations should be particularly noted: ANRW II = Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt IIGoogle Scholar, Principat (1974–) Actes x = Actes du Xe Congrès Internationale de Papyrologues, Varsovie-Cracovie 1961 (1964); Atti XI = Atti dell'XI Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Milano 1964 (1966); Proc. XII = Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 1968 (American Studies in Papyrology VII, 1970)Google Scholar; Akten XIII = Akten des XIII Internazionalen Papyrologenkongresses, Marburg 1971 (Münchener Beiträg zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 66, 1973)Google Scholar; Proc. XIV = Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists, Oxford 1974 (Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 61, 1975)Google Scholar.

During the fifteen years which I survey various bibliographies and surveys have appeared. Most comprehensive are those in the relevant issues of Aegyptus; note also those by J. Modrzejewski in RHD and by R. Rémondon in AEHE sect. IV (from 1954/5–1971/2). The surveys by M. Hombert in REG 78–9 (1965–6) are complete only up to 1959; likewise that of Pflaum, H.-G. in Ann. Univ. Saraviensis, Philosophische Fakultät 8 (1959), 105–15Google Scholar. A survey of Roman Egypt by Braunert, H. is announced for ANRW II. 9Google Scholar. For the Byzantine period there is a survey up to 1959 by Rémondon in Ann. Univ. Saraviensis, Phil. Fak. 8 (1959), 87–103, and a supplementary one in Akten XIII, 367–72. Some other surveys are cited in the following note.

A number of the items to which I have referred in the footnotes are unavailable to me. It nevertheless seemed useful to note their existence. Such items are marked with an asterisk.

2 Many of the issues discussed have a bearing upon Roman Law. Surveys with a juristic bias are to be found in the relevant issues of RHD, Iura and SDHI. See also E. Seidl, Rechtsgeschichte Ägyptens als römische Provinz (1974); J. Modrzejewski, Proc. XII, 317–77. For Christianity, see the surveys by K. Treu, APF 19 (1969), 169–206, 20 (1970), 217–83; also Naldini, M., Il Cristianesimo in Egitto (1968)Google Scholar and J. Van Haelst, Proc. XII, 497–503. Graeco-Roman religion is excluded principally because so much of the source material is epigraphical and could not receive fair treatment here. There are very useful bibliographical surveys by P. M. Fraser in JEA, the last of which appeared in vol. 48 (1962).

3 P. Köln inv. 4701, published by L. Koenen in ZPE 5 (1970), 217–83.

4 CP 67 (1972), 119–21, cf. Syme, , The Roman Revolution, 424, 434Google Scholar and Table VII.

5 ZPE 6 (1970), 227–38, cf. Modrzejewski, RHD 1971, 166–7 and 1972, 166.

6 ZPE 6 (1970), 239–43. The phrase is ἀξ[ιωθ]εὶςπλείσ[του] ῦψους, which Koenen renders back into Latin as ‘in summum rei publicae fastigium provectus.’

7 The notion that the name of Sejanus can be identified in the list (Heichelheim, F. M., Festschrift Oertel (1964), 19Google Scholar) seems to me fanciful.

8 Tacitus, Ann. 3. 70, PIR 2 A 1279. A possible alternative might be Fonteius Capito (cos. suff. in A.D. 12), PIR 2 F 470; but Dio 56. 26. 1 suggests that he was a man of little account.

9 PSI 1160 is re-edited as CPJ II, 150 where a date of 20–19 B.C. is argued. Musurillo, H. A., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (1954), 831–92Google Scholar argued for a Claudian dating but this is not likely, particularly since the publication of P. Oxy. 3020.

10 For comments on the Latin original of P. Köln inv. 4701 see Koenen, ZPE 5 (1970), 217–83.

11 J. D. Thomas, BICS 19 (1972), 103–12.

12 Traversa, A., Hommages Renard IIGoogle Scholar (Coll. Latomus 102, 1969), 718–25Google Scholar, republished in SDHI 36 (1970), 410–18 and as SB 10615; cf. J. Bingen, CE 44 (1969), 151–2.

13 J. F. Gilliam, CP 55 (1960). 177–8 on P. Clermont-Ganneau 16; the praenomen and nome are new.

14 P. Oxy. 2710.

15 Gilliam, J. F., Historia 16 (1967), 252–4Google Scholar.

16 H. C. Youtie, D. Hagedorn, L. C. Youtie, ZPE 10 (1973). 122–4.

17 P. Oxy. 3125. Other evidence for the consulship leads the editor to suggest that Proculus was replaced by Julianus not earlier than 29 April.

18 P. Oxy. 3027–8.

19 G. M. Browne, BASP 5 (1968), 17–24 = P. Oxy. 2873.

20 cf. Parássoglou, G. M., Roman Imperial Estates in Egypt (Diss. Yale, 1972), 32Google Scholar. This dissertation is due for publication in the series American Studies in Papyrology. For Egyptian property of Julia Augusta (Livia) see now N. Lewis, BASP II (1974). 52–4.

21 P. Ryl. 608 = Ch. Lat. Ant. IV, pp. 42–4, no. 245; see J. R. Rea, CE 43 (1968), 373–4. For the domus aurea see Tacitus, Ann. 15. 42.

22 P. Oxy. 2565. For discussions of the broader political significance of this event see F. Grosso, Rend. Accad. Lincei ser. 8, 23 (1965), 205–20; J. Modrzejewski, P. Lugd.-Bat. XVII (= Antidoron David), 59–69; J. Modrzejewski and T. Zawadski, RHD 1967, 565–611.

23 P. Wise. I, p. 127, cf. P. Oxy. 3089. 6 note.

24 Mélanges Seston (1974), 217–25Google Scholar, cf. M. A. H. el-Abbadi, Proc. XIV, 91–6.

25 ANRW II. 1, 857–88, based on the useful, but even now inevitably out-of-date, collection of evidence by Bureth, P., Les Titulatures impériales dans les papyrus… (Pap. Brux. 2, 1964Google Scholar). See also the useful review of this by J. Modrzejewski, RHD 1965, 644–9.

26 CE 39 (1964), 174–6.

27 Montevecchi, O., Aegyptus 51 (1971), 212–20Google Scholar.

28 Geraci, G., Akten XIII, 300–7Google Scholar.

29 P. J. Sijpesteijn, ZPE II (1973), 161–8.

30 ZPE 9 (1972), 1–19. The text, which also contains the latest known dating by Maximinus and Maximus, is republished as P. Oxy. 3107. For the dies imperii of Gordian III see Loriot, X., Mélanges Seston (1974). 297–312Google Scholar.

31 X. Loriot, ZPE II (1973). 147–55 argues that the scribe mistakenly wrote α for β.

32 P. Oxy. XL, pp. 15–30.

33 Rea's conclusion that the extra grant of tribunicia potestas came in 274 involves rejecting the (now unverifiable) evidence of some papyri. For Diocletian and Maximian see A. Chastagnol, Rev. Num. 9 (1967), 54–81, and Smith, R. E., Latomus 31 (1972), 1058–71Google Scholar; neither solution takes account of the difficulty presented by CIL VI, 1124 which suggests that Maximian's extra imperatorial acclamation came before 293.

34 See Bowman, A. K., The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (ASP XI, 1971Google Scholar), Appendix ii. The results there obtained are summarized and improved by J. R. Rea, P. Oxy. XLII, pp. 23–4 where it is suggested that the actual date of P. Oxy. 1413 is early in the Egyptian year 272–3, with the recovery of Egypt coming at the end of 271–2. Cf. P. Oxy. 3115. For a reference to disturbance in Alexandria, but perhaps earlier in the third century, see P. Oxy. 3065.

35 P. Mich. 610.

36 Van t'Dack, E., Zetesis (= Festschrift E. de Strijcker, 1973), 566–79Google Scholar.

37 Chastagnol, op. cit. (n. 33); J. D. Thomas, CE 46 (1971), 173–9.

38 Mertens, P., Hommages Herrmann (Coll. Latomus 44, 1960), 541–52Google Scholar; Fink, R. O., Synteleia Arangio-Ruiz (1964), 232 ff.Google Scholar; E. Van t'Dack, ANRW II. I, 875–6.

39 On P. Oxy. 2955 see P. J. Sijpesteijn, ZPE 13 (1974), 219–27, against which Koenen, ibid. 228–39. See also G. Flore, Synteleia Arangio-Ruiz (1964), 456–61, arguing that P. Harr. 75 reflects damnatio of the Philippi; alternatively, perhaps Severus Alexander.

40 Weingärtner, D. G., Die Ägyptenreise des Germanicus (1969), 80 ffGoogle Scholar. For an improvement to SB 3924 (Edict of Germanicus) see J. H. Oliver, Riv. Stor. Ant. I (1971), 229–30.

41 Weingärtner, loc. cit. (n. 40); Fishwick, D., JRS 63 (1973), 255–6Google Scholar.

42 J. D. Thomas, JEA 57 (1971), 236–7. He also discusses the general notion of the cura provinciae as applied to Egypt, to which P. Köln inv. 4701 (Koenen, ZPE 5 (1970), 217–83) is perhaps also relevant; cf. Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (ASP XIII, 1974). 14, 138Google Scholar.

43 Hennig, D., Chiron 2 (1972), 349–65Google Scholar.

44 As suggested by E. G. Turner in the editio princeps of P. Oxy. 2435.

45 Cf. P. Oxy. 3020, Jones, CERP 2, 474, n. 7 and compare P. Oxy. 41 and 2407 (with Bowman, The Town Councils, 50–2; N. Lewis, APF 21 (1971), 83 ff. suggests that 2407 may relate to Antinoopolis).

46 ZPE 3 (1968), 51–80. See also Jones, C. P., Historia 22 (1973), 309Google Scholar.

47 P. Oxy. XLII, p. 70, cf. C. Préaux, CE 44 (1969), 365.

48 S. Follet, Rev. de Phil. 42 (1968), 54–77 suggests that Hadrian also made a visit in 134, but this is convincingly refuted by J. Schwartz, CE 44 (1969), 164–8.

49 Sijpesteijn, P. J., Historia 18 (1969), 109–18Google Scholar (= O. Leid. 123), cf. N. Lewis, BASP 8 (1971), 19–20.

50 JRS 60 (1970), 20–6Google Scholar, where previous bibliography is cited. See also Schwartz, J., Ancient Society 4 (1973), 191–8Google Scholar.

51 Montevecchi, O., Akten XIII, 293–9Google Scholar; Aegyptus 50 (1970), 5–33Google Scholar. The letter is of a common type, refusing honours offered by the Arsinoites. On Nero and Egypt see now Montevecchi, , Parola del Passato 30 (1975), 48–58Google Scholar.

52 P. J. Sijpesteijn, ZPE 8 (1971), 186–92.

53 See e.g. Fisher, W. H., JRS 19 (1929), 125–49Google Scholar. On Firmus see J. Straub, BHAC 1971 (1974), 165–84.

54 This is the Greek equivalent of the Latin title corrector.

55 For other correctores in Egypt see P. Mart. II, Appendix; O. W. Reinmuth, BASP 4 (1967), 122; G. Bastianini, ZPE 17 (1975), 314, 317, 320.

56 Seston, W., Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie (1946), 147 ff.Google Scholar; Schwartz, J., Lucius Domitius Domitianus (Pap. Brux. 12, 1975), 110–16Google Scholar attempts to show that the HA's account of Firmus uses elements from the usurpation of Mussius Aemilianus as well as that of Achilleus.

57 For the prefecture of C. Claudius Firmus see now P. Oxy. 3113; for the correctura see the works cited in note 55, above.

58 See E. Birley, Bonner HAC 1968–9, 85, who sees this dux as a reflection of the African Firmus (cf. below), but does not refer to the Egyptian Firmus.

59 Cameron, A., JRS 61 (1971), 259–62Google Scholar against Syme, , Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 33Google Scholar.

60 T. C. Skeat, Papyri from Panopolis in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (1964), no. 1.

61 As attested in P. Beatty Panop. I. For the Diocletianic comitatus see Jones, , The Later Roman Empire I, 49 ff.Google Scholar, Seston, W., Historia 4 (1955), 284–96Google Scholar.

62 Mommsen, , Gesammelte Schriften II, 288Google Scholar.

63 Mélanges Ernout (1940), 345–54Google Scholar. The uncertainty over the date of the epistula means that it cannot be used as an argument for or against any particular theory on the revolt of Domitianus (see below).

64 For 296–7 most recently J. Schwartz, CE 38 (1963), 149–55 and L. Domitius Domitianus (Pap. Brux. 12, 1975)Google Scholar. For 297–8, A. C. Johnson, CP 45 (1950), 13–21; Skeat, P. Beatty Panop., pp. x–xv (tentatively); Vandersleyen, C., Chronologie des préfets d'Egypte de 284 à 395 (Coll. Latomus 55, 1962), 44–61Google Scholar; R. Rémondon, CE 41 (1966), 165–7.

65 In an article forthcoming in ZPE, J. D. Thomas argues this point of view in detail.

66 Skeat, P. Beatty Panop., pp. x–xv.

67 cf. J. Desanges, CE 44 (1969), 139–47.

68 CJ 8. 53. 24.

69 For the πρωτοστάτης see Bowman, A. K., Akten XIII, 43–51Google Scholar; P. Oxy. 3184; J. Schwartz, ZPE 16 (1975), 235–7, arguing that the evidence for this official does not especially favour a date of 297–8 for the revolt. For the non-appearance of the strategos in P. Cair. Isidor. I see J. D. Thomas, JEA 60 (1974), 300; Jones, CERP 2, 489, n. 50 (for an improvement to this text see Crawford, M. H. and Reynolds, J. M., JRS 65 (1975), 161–2Google Scholar). The earliest attestation of the πρωτοστάτης is in May 296.

70 For the date see B. A. Van Groningen, Actes du Ve congrès international de papyrologie, Bruxelles, 1938, 508–11. For the prefect Publius and the visit see C. Vandersleyen, CE 33 (1958), 113–34 and Chronologie des préfets, 67–9. Compare the recent evidence for a prefectoral visit to the Arsinoite under Commodus (P. Mich. 536, P. Petaus 45–7).

71 Mommsen, , Chronica Minora I, p. 354Google Scholar, cf. Chron. Pasch. (Dindorf), p. 514.

72 P. Flor. 33; J. R. Rea, CE 46 (1971), 142–5.

73 P. Oxy. 2665; Lallemand, J., L'administration civile, 250Google Scholar; J. R. Rea, loc. cit. (n. 72).

74 Note the suggestion of T. C. Skeat (P. Beatty Panop., pp. xix–xx) that at this time Hermopolis was the headquarters of the praeses of the Thebaid.

75 Procopius, Hist. Arc. 26. 35. The evidence is discussed by C. Vandersleyen, Chronologie des préfets, 68–70, but he tries to discount the year 302 and link the distribution with the end of the revolt of Domitianus.

76 Proc. XII, 3–14.

77 J. Modrzejewski, Proc. XII, 322–6.

78 See Tacitus, Ann. 2. 59. 4; Hist. I. 11. 1; Res Gestae 27; Velleius I. 39. a and cf. CIL IV, 701. 2. The general issues are discussed on much the same lines by G. M. Parássoglou, op. cit. (n. 20).

79 Ann. 2. 59. 4.

80 Ann. 12. 60. 3.

81 JRS 65 (1975), 124Google Scholar. A question relevant to this issue in general, but not considered by Brunt, is that of the edictum provinciale; there is still no agreement as to whether there was an edictum provinciale for Egypt—for a range of views see Ankum, H., Anamnesis, Gedenkboek E. A. Leemans (1970), 63–9Google Scholar; Martini, R., Ricerche in tema di editto provinciale (1969), 144–6Google Scholar; Katzoff, R., Tijd. v. Rg. 37 (1969), 415–37Google Scholar; Modrzejewski, J., Proc. XII, 341–4Google Scholar; A. Biscardi, Studi G. Scherillo (1972), 111–51.

82 J. D. Thomas, Proc. XII, 465–9; Akten XIII, 397–403, cf. Jones, CERP 2, 295–314.

83 P. Beatty Panop., pp. xv–xxi. For a procurator of the Heptanomia in c. 302 see below.

84 loc. cit. (n. 83). The creation of the dioceses was probably under way before 395, cf. Hendy, M., JRS 62 (1972), 75–82Google Scholar. For the extended process of reform in local administration see Bowman, A. K., Akten XIII, 43–51Google Scholar.

85 Jones, CERP 2, 489, n. 50.

86 As argued by J. Lallemand, Acad. Roy. de Belgique, Bull. de la classe des lettres, 5. 36 (1950), 387–95.

87 de Salvo, L., Aegyptus 44 (1964), 34–46Google Scholar, arguing that Licinius had reason to evoke the connection with the first tetrarchy.

88 Principal treatments by Bury, J. B., JRS 13 (1923), 137 ff.Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., JRS 44 (1964), 21–9Google Scholar ( = The Roman Economy (1974), 263–9Google Scholar) arguing for a date between 312 and 314.

89 ZPE 16 (1975). 275–7.

90 As Barnes notes, it depends on the assumption that Eusebius was not guilty of anachronism; and the complex question of the date and stages of composition of the Martyrs makes it impossible to be quite certain that there was not some later revision in the relevant portion.

91 AE 1942–3, 84; 1955, 81; CIL VIII, 18905; cf. Kolbe, H.-G., Die Statthalter Numidiens von Gallienus bis Konstantin (Vestigia 4, 1962), 59–60, 69Google Scholar.

92 O. W. Reinmuth, BASP 4 (1967), 75–128; G. Bastianini, ZPE 17 (1975), 263–328. These lists both contain full annotation, unlike those compiled by Brunt, P. A., JRS 65 (1975), 142–7Google Scholar and Montevecchi, O., La Papirologia (1973), 129–35Google Scholar. For the early fourth century see Lallemand, J., L'administration civile de l'Egypte de l'avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse (1964), 237 ff.Google Scholar, Vandersleyen, C., Chronologie des préfets d'Egypte de 284 à 395 (Coll. Latomus 55, 1962Google Scholar).

93 P. Oxy. 2820, cf. N. Lewis, GRBS 16 (1975), 295–303, arguing that it may refer to the expedition to Arabia Felix.

94 Jones, C. P., Historia 22 (1973), 306Google Scholar.

95 BASF 6 (1969), 35–40; cf. J. D. Thomas, JHS 84 (1964), 207.

96 C. Vandersleyen, op. cit. (n. 92), 62–3. Septimius Valentio of ILS 619 is likely to be another early vicarius. Note also Julius Julianus, a known prefect and possibly grandfather of the Emperor Julian, attested holding a vicariate in about 315 (P. Oxy. 2952).

97 Most recently J. R. Rea, CE 46 (1971), 145.

98 P. Oxy. 2674.

99 P. Oxy. 3120. 8–9 note.

100 P. Oxy. 2674, 3123; P. Panop. 24, 27 (ZPE 10 (1973), 117, 126); D. Hagedorn, Proc. XII, 210; Worp, K. A, Mnemosyne 4 28 (1975), 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 P. Panop. 28.

102 P. Panop. 29, 30.

103 P. Panop. 25.

104 P. Oxy. 3126.

105 JRS (1975), 124–47.

106 Humbert, M. in Aspects de l'empire romain (1964), 95–147Google Scholar; Talamanca, G. F., L'organizzazione del ‘conventus’ del ‘Praefectus Aegypti’, Univ. di Roma, Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto di Diritto Romano e dei Diritti dell'Oriente Mediterraneo 48 (1974)Google Scholar. Also worth noting are *Seidl, E., Antologia Giuridica Romanistica I (1968), 199–210Google Scholar; *V. Bartoletti, ibid. 259–67; Schiller, A., The Classical Tradition: Essays in Honour of H. Caplan (1966), 293–312Google Scholar; *Szramkiewicz, R., Les gouverneurs de province à l'époque Augustéenne (1974)Google Scholar; R. Kateoff, ZSS 89 (1972), 256–92; and P. Petaus 9, providing the first mention in papyri of damnatio ad bestias (185).

107 cf. Thomas, J. D., The Ptolemaic Epistrategos (Pap. Colonensia 6, 1975), 67Google Scholar. For other recent work on the conventus see Zavattoni, G., Studi G. Scherillo I (1972), 153–64Google Scholar; J. Mathwich, ZPE 15 (1974), 61–78; N. Lewis, BASP 9 (1972), 23–36; 13 (1976), 5–14.

108 Talamanca, op. cit. (n. 106), 96–7, 198–201.

109 See also p. 168 below.

110 N. Lewis, RHD 1972, 5–12; 1973, 5–7; Hommages á Claire Préaux (1975), cf. E. Seidl, SDHI 38 (1972), 319–20.

111 For collection of prefectoral edicts see G. Chalon, L'édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander (1964), 251–6; P. Bureth, RHD 1968, 246–62 and ANRW II. 9 (announced); Montevecchi, O., La Papirologia (1973), 120–35Google Scholar. Recently published prefectoral edicts: Lewis, loc. cit. (n. 110); P. Oxy. 2954, 3017, 3071; P. Strasb. 574; G. M. Parássoglou, ZPE 13 (1974), 21–37; CE 49 (1974), 332–5; P. Mert. 101; BGU 2056; P. Mich. 522. For a prefectoral letter see A. Swiderek, *Festschrift 150 jähriges Bestehen des Berliner Ägypt. Museums (1974), 425–9Google Scholar. On administration directly connected with the Nile see *Bonneau, D. in Etudes Macqueron (1970)Google Scholar.

112 The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos (ASP VI II, 1970)Google Scholar, cf. H. J. Wolff, Tijd. v. Rg. 41 (1973), 372–7; J. D. Thomas, JEA 58 (1972), 329–30; Bowman, A. K., Phoenix 26 (1972), 415–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 See P. R. Swarney, op. cit. (n. 112), 133–4; Bowman, , Phoenix 26 (1972), 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G. M. Parássoglou, ZPE 13 (1974), 21–37; P. J. Parsons, CE 49 (1974), 146–7.

114 Proc. XII, 455–60.

115 ibid. 458–9.

116 Geraci, G., Akten XI II, 300–7Google Scholar.

117 Swarney, op. cit. (n. 114), 458 believes that the idios logos might sit in the prefe ct's consilium. Geraci (n. 116) has complex notes explaining why Tiberius Julius Alexander ‘delegated’ his jurisdiction; but it is worth adding the caution that the text is by no means securely established.

118 G. M. Parássoglou, op. cit. (n. 20), App. iii.

119 See n. 113.

120 Cited n. 118.

121 For the idios logos see above, p. 163 f. On the ratio privata, F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (forthcoming), Appendix 3; PLRE I, 1062 ff.; *Masi, A., Ricerche sulla ‘res privata’ del ‘Princeps’ (1971)Google Scholar. The earliest attestation of the officials of the privata in Egypt is in P. Beatty Panop. I of 298.

122 A. Swiderek, JJP 16–17 (1971), 45–6. For another text perhaps relevant to this revolt see BGU 2085. On the revolt in general, Fuks, A., JRS 51 (1961), 98–104Google Scholar; CPJ II, pp. 435–50.

123 P. Beatty Panop. I. 64 note.

124 Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 138–9Google Scholar disposes of other cases of early rationales.

125 There is a dioiketes in P. Mich. 623, dated by its editor to (probably) 299; but see J. R. Rea, JEA 60 (1974), 396–7.

126 Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres III (1961), 1083–9Google Scholar.

127 Pflaum, loc. cit. (n. 126); for the archiereus see the works cited n. 113 above.

128 G. M. Parássoglou, op. cit. (n. 20), App. iii; note that in P. Oxy. 3092 a procurator usiacus acts temporarily as dioiketes.

129 P. Oxy. 2567.9 note; 3118 (where the procurator Phari is responsible for enforcing restrictions on travel); 3046 (πρὸς ταῖς ἐπισκέψιν); 3089.6 note (on the title egregius used of freedmen in procuratorial posts); 3117. Note that the oikonomos, a Ptolemaic official of high rank, disappears from the upper reaches of the Roman bureaucracy (A. Świderek, CE 45 (1970), 150 ff.).

130 Pflaum, op. cit. (n. 126), 1090–2; Vandoni, M., Gli Epistrategi nell'Egitto Greco-romano (1971)Google Scholar; J. R. Rea, ZPE II (1973), 120.

131 Les épistratèges (1911).

132 Cited n. 107 above.

133 P. Oxy. 1416 attests an epistrategos in (probably) 298; in P. Oxy. 3031 of c. 302 there is a procurator Heptanomiae.

134 N. Lewis, CE 44 (1969), 339–44, stressing the limited nature of the role, but see now P. Oxy. 3025.

135 Le stratège du nome (Pap. Brux. 9, 1969).

136 See G. Mussies, P. Lugd.-Bat. XIV (1965), 13–46; Bastianini, G., Gli Strategi dell'Arsinoites (Pap. Brux. II, 1972)Google Scholar; J. D. Thomas, CE 34 (1959), 124–40, 35 (1960), 262–70; Lallemand, J., L'administration civile (1964), 126–31Google Scholar; A. Bowman, K., The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (ASP XI, 1971), 76Google Scholar.

137 See the items cited above, n. 69.

138 J. D. Thomas, JEA 60 (1974), 300.

139 Not the only possible conclusion, see J. Schwartz, ZPE 16 (1975), 235–7.

140 Cited in n. 136 above, cf. J. D. Thomas, JEA 60 (1974), 298–301. The papyri described in Appendix iv are published in P. Oxy. XLIV and XLV.

141 P. Oxy. XL, see p. 170 below.

142 I. Fikhman, APF 22–3 (1974), 47–87 (Russian).

143 H. Braunert, JJP 14 (1962), 73–88; N. Lewis, Proc. XII, 3–14.

144 Bowman, The Town Councils, Ch. iv.

145 Inventory of Compulsory Services in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (ASP III, 1968)Google Scholar with BASP 6 (1969), 13–16, 12 (1975), 9–12. Some of Lewis' numerous articles are cited in the bibliography of Bowman, The Town Councils; note particularly the series of notes published in BASP under the titles NOHMATA ΛΕГΟΝΤΟΣ and Notationes Legentis.

146 J. D. Thomas, BASP II (1974), 60–8 and ZPE 19 (1975). 111–19.

147 Missler, H. E. L., Der Komarch (Diss. Marburg, 1970)Google Scholar; cf. Thomas, ZPE 19 (1975), 111–19.

148 Larson, M. E., The Officials of Karanis (27 B.C.–A.D. 337) (Diss. Michigan, 1971Google Scholar).

149 P. Oxy. XLIII, pp. 21–4, improving upon Bowman, The Town Councils, App. ii; Parsons, P. J.. JRS 57 (1967), 134–41Google Scholar.

150 Studi Calderini-Paribeni (1957), 211 ff.; Actes x, 81–95; Festschrift Oertel (1964), 81–100; Mélanges Fohalle (1969), 271 ff.; CE 46 (1971), 333–5

151 Actes X, 81–95, cf. N. Lewis, Proc. XII, 3–14.

152 op. cit. (n. 20). See also *Kühnke, H. C., Οὐσιακὴ γῆ. Domänenland in den Papyri der Prinzipatszeit (Diss. Köln, 1971)Google Scholar; D. Crawford, Studies in Roman Property (ed. M. I. Finley, 1976), 35–70.

153 ZPE II (1973), 21–3, cf. BGU 2060.

154 M. A. H. el-Abbadi, Proc. XIV, 91–6.

155 See J. F. Oates, Proc. XII, 385–7; *Geremek, H., Karanis, Communauté rurale de l'Egypte romaine au II–IIIe siècle de notre ère (Archivum Filologiczne 1969)Google Scholar.

156 Poethke, G., Epimerismos (Pap. Brux. 8, 1969)Google Scholar; Bonneau, D., Le fisc et le Nil (1971)Google Scholar.

157 Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938), now to be used with C. and K. A. Worp, ZPE 16 (1975), 83–120.

158 Scriptiunculae I£III (1973–5).

159 L'édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander (1964).

160 Oates, J. F., Essays in Honour of C. B. Welles (ASP I, 1966), 87–95Google Scholar, cf. P. Mich. 594; E. G. Turner, HSCP 79 (1975), 14; Bonneau, D., Le fisc et le Nil (1971), 165–71Google Scholar; Chalon, op. cit. (n. 159), 53–68.

161 BIFAO 65 (1967), 215–26.

162 P. Lugd.-Bat. XIV (1965), 106–13; the publication of P. Mich. 582 (A.D. 49–50) has made it clear that the πράκτορες ἀργυρικῶν were in existence before the reign of Trajan.

163 Bowman, , The Town Councils, 69–77Google Scholar.

164 J. D. Thomas, JEA 61 (1975), 201–31, esp. 217 ff., cf. H. Braunert, JEA 9–10 (1955–1956), 211–328; D. Crawford and P. Easterling, JEA 55 (1969), 184–90.

165 Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 134–41Google Scholar; P. Oxy. 3046–50.

166 J. D. Thomas, ZPE 19 (1975), 111–19.

167 J. Schwartz, BIFAO 47 (1948), 179–200; Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 136–7Google Scholar; P. Oxy. XLII, p. 126.

168 Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 134–41Google Scholar; JEA 57 (1971), 165–80; P. Oxy. 3046–50, 2664.

169 J. Schwartz, CE 38 (1963), 149–55 and in L. Domitius Domitianus (Pap. Brux. 12, 1975Google Scholar) argued for a starting date of 286–7. J. D. Thomas, in a paper presented at the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists, argued cogently that a starting date of 287–8 (as originally proposed by L. Amundsen, O. Oslo, pp. 65 ff.) produces a smaller number of anomalous pieces of evidence.

170 P. Oxy. 2578–9, 2716–7, 3036–45. 3184 introd.; PUG I, 19, cf. R. Rémondon, Proc. XII, 436. P. Oxy. 2717 perhaps records a payment for 294–5, but the reading of the date is not secure.

171 AE 1937, 232.

172 cf. Lactantius, de mort. pers. 7. 6–7.

173 J. D. Thomas, BASP II (1974), 60–8.

174 BASP 4 (1967), 59–74.

175 The Town Councils, 70–4, cf. HA, Aur. 45. 1.

176 Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 137–8Google Scholar, to which should be added P. Ryl. 114. 23 (cf. J. R. Rea, BASP 5 (1968), 40).

177 See n. 170 above.

178 Rickman, G. E., Roman Granaries and Store Buildings (1971), 278–83Google Scholar.

179 For an analysis of the data see P. Beatty Panop., pp. 133–5.

180 CE 49 (1974), 163–74.

181 The remarks which follow are intended merely to indicate points which a comprehensive investigation might elucidate.

182 P. Beatty Panop. 2. 215–18, cf. Bingen, J., Atti XI, 369–78Google Scholar, CE 40 (1965), 206–8, 431–4.

183 R. and Naumann, F., Der Rundbau in Aezani (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft 10, 1973), 57Google Scholar, cf. M. H. Crawford, CR n.s. 25 (1975), 276 f. For the value of the ‘follis’ see P. Beatty Panop. 2.ll. 299–308 (cf. A. Segreè, CE 40 (1965), 198–205 and Crawford loc. cit.).

183a J. Schwartz, ZPE I (1967), 197–217; Lewis, N., Papyrus in Classical Antiquity (1974), 115–34Google Scholar; Wipszycka, E., L'industrie textile dans l'Egypte romaine (1965)Google Scholar; M. Raschke, Proc. XIV, 241–6.

184 Roman Social Relations (1974).

185 JJP 14 (1962), 73–88.

186 Bowman, , The Town Councils, 121–7Google Scholar.

187 Bowman, , The Town Councils, 9–11Google Scholar, cf. P. D. A. Garnsey, ANRW II. 1, 229–51.

188 CRAI 1972, 468–90; Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 63 (1973), 86–98Google Scholar.

189 D. Hagedorn, ZPE I (1967), 140–1. See also Herrmann, P., Chiron 2 (1973), 519–30Google Scholar, discussing earlier views and arguing that it was known in Lydia by early March 213, against which Rubin, Z., Latomus 34 (1975), 430–6Google Scholar.

190 JEA 48 (1962), 106–23; Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria II (1972), 130Google Scholar. See also BGU 2060 and E. G. Turner, HSCP 79 (1975), 10.

191 See the items cited n. 187 above, and I. Fikhman, APF 22–3 (1974), 47–87 (Russian).

192 P. Oxy. 3099–3102, cf. E. G. Turner, APF 12 (1937), 79–86; M. A. H. el-Abbadi, JEA 50 (1964), 164–9.

193 cf. Oliver, J. H., The Sacred Genista (Hesperia, Suppl. VI, 1941Google Scholar).

194 O. Montevecchi, Proc. XIV, 227–32; see also Nelson, C. A., Akten XIII, 300–14Google Scholar.

195 For particular aspects of this area see Oates, J. F., Atti XI, 351–74Google Scholar; H. Braunert, P. Lugd.-Bat. XVII, 11–21.

196 See Samuel, A. E. et al. , Death and Taxes (ASP x, 1970)Google Scholar; cf. P. S., & Derow, E. O., Phoenix 27 (1973), 80–8Google Scholar.

197 Some recent items of evidence are collected by J. Herrmann in the reprint of M. San Nicolò, Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (1972).

198 ZPE II (1973), 33–63.

199 See also E. G. Turner, HSCP 79 (1975), 16–24; N. Lewis, CE 49 (1974), 158–62; J. M. Carter and K. M. Hopkins, ZPE 13 (1974), 195–6; D. Hagedorn, ZPE 14 (1974), 300.

200 Scriptiunculae II, 611–28, 629–51; ZPE 17 (1975), 201–21.

201 ‘ΆΠΑΤΟΡΕΣ: Law vs. Custom in Roman Egypt’; given at the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists and published in Le Monde grec …. Hommages à Claire Préaux (1975), 723.

202 L'armée romaine de l'Egypte d'Augusts à Dioclétien (Mém. IFAO 41, 1018).

203 Syria 44 (1967), 339–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

204 Roman Military Records on Papyrus (APA Philological Monographs 26, 1971)Google Scholar.

205 Documenti per la storia dell'esercito romano in Egitto (1964).

206 JRS 63 (1973), 141–7.

207 Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'histoire Orientales et Slaves 13 (1953)Google Scholar = Mélanges I. Lévy, 390–421.

208 ANRW II. 1, 493–507, 299–338. Also very useful are Davies' articles on the Roman military diet (Britannia 2 (1971), 122–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and the police role of the army in Egypt (Ancient Society 4 (1973), 199–212Google Scholar).

209 Cavenaile, R., Aegyptus 50 (1970), 213–320Google Scholar; H. Devijver, ANRW II. 1, 452–92; De Aegypto et exercitu Romano sive Prosopographia Militiarum Equestrium quae ab Augusta ad Gallienum seu statione seu origins ad Aegyptum pertinebant (Studio Hellenistica 22, 1975Google Scholar). See also his article on the terminology of the equestrian militiae in Zetesis = Festschrift E. de Strijcker (1973), 549–65.

210 See Criniti, N., Aegyptus 53 (1973), 93–158Google Scholar.

211 Hommages Grenier III (Coll. Latomus 58, 1962), 1397–1406Google Scholar.

212 BASP 8 (1971), 39–44; Aegyptus 53 (1973), 75–92Google Scholar; BASP 10 (1973), 21–6. On the language of the Terentianus archive, Adams, J. N., The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (Manchester U.P., forthcoming)Google Scholar.

213 BASP 2 (1965), 65–73.

214 L'armée de Dioclétien et la réforme constantinienne (1952), 59–71; he argued that the cavalry and legionary units constituted the army of occupation and defence, whilst the role of the alae and cohorts was to guard the annona depots and exercise constraint over the civil population.

215 P. Wisc. 14, cf. J. F. Gilliam, BASP 5 (1968), 93–8; P. Mich. 592–3; P. Oxy. 2950–1, 2953; Sijpesteijn, P. J., Talanta 5 (1973), 72–84Google Scholar.

216 BGU 2074, cf. M. Speidel, ANRW II. 3, 223–4.

217 Maehler, H., Akten XIII, 241–50Google Scholar. See also p. 173 below.

217a J. F. Gilliam, BJ 157 (1967), 233–43.

218 A collection owned by Florida State University is to be published by R. S. Bagnall (see Proc. XIV, 10); for ostraka from Bu-Djem in Libya see R. Rebuffat and R. Marichal, REL 51 (1973), 281–6.

219 R. W. Davies, BJ 168 (1968), 161–5.

220 P. Oxy. 3014 (Gnomon of the Idios Logos) has a clause not in BGU 1210 which shows (if it is correctly dated to the first century A.D.) that the rule that children of soldiers born during service can inherit as long as they are eiusdem generis is earlier than Hadrian; if there are no heirs eiusdem generis, the property goes to the camp as a whole.

221 In RMR (see n. 204).

222 Davies, R. W., JRS 57 (1967), 20–3Google Scholar argues that he was procurator of Syria Coele; R. O. Fink, AJP 88 (1967), 84–5, that he was commander of an auxiliary cohort or a high-ranking officer in the praetorian guard. For some other notes on Dura papyri see Davies, BASP 5 (1968), 31–4.

223 Syme, , JRS 49 (1959), 26–33Google Scholar, arguing for A.D. 105–8; Fink, RMR, 219 ff., putting a (weaker) case for 100. On this papyrus see also Davies, BASP 5 (1968), 121–8.

224 ZPE 18 (1975), 179–91.

225 See now Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D., Historia 24 (1975), 463–78Google Scholar, with bibliography to date.

226 Benoit, P., Milik, J. T. and de Vaux, R., Les Grottes de Murdbba'at (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II, 1961Google Scholar); P. Mur. 115 = SB 10305.

227 Y. Yadin, IEJ II (1961), 36–52; 12 (1962), 227–57; B. Lifshitz, IEJ II (1961), 53–62; H. J. Polotsky, IEJ 12 (1962), 258–62; Eretz Israel 8 (1967), 47 ffGoogle Scholar. = SB 10288. For general and detailed comments on the documents see: Y. Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (1971), 124–39, 172–83, 222–53; Lifshitz, B., Aegyptus 42 (1962), 240–56Google Scholar; Scriptorium 19 (1965), 286–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Bingen, CE 36 (1961), 413; *Volterra, E., Iura 14 (1963), 29–70Google Scholar; B. Kanael, IEJ 21 (1971), 39–46; *Goren, S., Mahanaim 59 (1961), 6–15Google Scholar (Hebrew); Lemosse, M., The Irish Jurist 3 (1968), 363 ff.Google Scholar; Biscardi, A., Studi G. Scherillo I (1972), 111–5Google Scholar (on the ξενοκρίται see now P. Oxy. 3016); G. Vermes, JJS 26 (1975), 1–14; Schürer, E., History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ I (revised by G. Vermes and F. Millar 1973), 118–22, 534–57Google Scholar.

228 See Bowersock, G. W., JRS 61 (1971), 219–42, esp. 228–36Google Scholar.

229 P. Mich. 562. The current state of the problem and earlier bibliography is summarized by Bowersock, , JRS 65 (1975), 184Google Scholar.

230 Proc. XIV, 241–6.

231 Maehler, H., Akten XIII, 241–50Google Scholar (see p. 172 above).

232 P. Oxy. 2951.

233 J. F. Oates, JEA 55 (1969), 191–210.

234 Summarized by J. Schwartz, CE 45 (1971), 173–5. For improvements of detail see H. C. Youtie, ZPE 7 (1971), 169; 15 (1974), 145–7.