Revisions for P.Mich. X 578 (Census List)
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for more information. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
The editio princeps makes clear that P.Mich. X 578 (P.Mich. inv. 616) is from Philadelphia; that it belongs to the Julio-Claudian tax archive; and that its information ultimately derives from census submissions. The haphazard arrangement of the data is, as the first editor observes, most likely due to the fact that the ages given for these nine aphelikes were extracted from a register following the topographical arrangement of census takers and tax collectors, both of whom are known to have proceeded house-by-house at Philadelphia. He also dates the text to "probably 22/23 A.D.," with regnal year 6 belonging to the reign of Tiberius, CE 19/20, and argues that this text furnishes additional evidence for a census in that year (but see cautions in R.S. Bagnall and B.W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt [Cambridge 1994] 3, n. 10). I shall here argue that "regnal year 8" in P.Mich. 578.6, 7, 9, 10, refers to the census year of CE 47/48 in the reign of Claudius, as I promised I would do some time ago. My evidence for the revised date of P.Mich. 578 originally centered on my uneasiness over two aspects: first, the fact that documents in the Julio-Claudian tax archive dated to the reign of a named emperor only begin in the reign of Tiberius with regnal year 16, CE 29/30, and most texts in the archive with secure dates derive from reigns of Gaius, Claudius, and the first half of Nero. In this context references to regnal years 6, 7, and 8, seem out of place, if they be assigned to Tiberius (CE 19/20, 20/21, and 21/22). Second, and equally disturbing to me, is the editor's assumption about Stratippos, s. of Titan (l. 10): "The rarity of the name Titan makes it certain that the same Stratippos is referred to in all three papyri." The three papyri in question are: a declaration of death for Stratippos' son Nemesion, SB XII 11112.3–4, giving no age for Stratippos, s. of Titan, although the text itself is securely dated to CE 48; two papyri without precise dates which mention the age of a Stratippos, s. of Titan, P.Mich. 578.10, where he is 14 years old in year 8, and P.Alex. 9.7–8 + BL VI, 2, where he is 37 (ὡς ἐτῶν λζ). Thus the editor assigns a date of probably CE 22/23 to the Michigan papyrus on the assumption that the regnal year 6 in lines 2, 4, 5, refers to CE 19/20, and the date CE 44/45 to the Alexandrian papyrus, reflecting the 23 years he assumes separate Stratippos' age of 14 years in CE 21/22 and the year in which he would have been 37 years old.
Prosopographical evidence long ago suggested to me that the tax archive contains references to at least two men named Stratippos, s. of Titan – a grandfather and a grandson. And it is the grandson who is 14 years old in CE 47/48. But there is more from other texts from Philadelphia: not only is Stratippos, s. of Titan (l. 10), more comfortable as a 14 year old in CE 47/48, but both Kollouthos, s. of Ptollis (l. 3), and Kephalon, s. of Patouamtis (l. 7), are as well. Even Herakles, s. of Herakles (l. 6), with his very common name, is better placed as a 13 year old in CE 47/48. Data for the nine individuals listed in P.Mich. 578 are surveyed below in the line-by-line commentary to the text, as are the minor adjustments made to the Greek text in lines 3, 4, 5, 7. In short, nearly half of these aphelikes obviously benefit from the revised dating, and no entry opposes the reassignment of the census year to that in the eighth year of Claudius' reign.
|P.Mich. inv. 616 (P.Mich. X 578)||10.2 x 17.5 cm|
|Shortly after CE 47/48||Philadelphia|
1–2 The epsilon of Θέων is directly above the nu of Τανετβῆις. The scribe apparently tries to avoid a rough spot in the papyrus by beginning his first two lines about four letter-spaces to the right; his margin for lines 3–10 then shifts about four letter-spaces to the left.
To date, Theon, s. of Panomgeus and Tanetbeis, appears in the archive only in this text. The first editor suggests that Theon, s. of Panom(geus), in P.Lond. II 257.39, a house-by-house register compiled in regnal year 14 of Domitian, CE 94/95, is likely to be a Philadelphia descendant of this Theon, despite the fact that other data (mother's name, Theon's age in 94/95) are missing (P.Mich. X, p. 4, n. 7). If the revised date for P.Mich. 578 is accepted, the same Theon who turns 13 in CE 45/46, might still be on the tax rolls in CE 94/95, a hyperetes of 62 years of age in his last year of liability for the poll tax (see P.Sijp. 26, note to l. 21, pp. 180–181).
3 [Κολλ]οῦθος is suggested as a possible restoration in the note to line 3 of the ed. prin., along with [Μεν]οῦθος, although the latter name is not found in the prosopography of early-Roman Philadelphia; the mother's name was read as the indeclinable Κολεῦς, but the raised letter after upsilon seems better read as tau for Κολεῦτ(ος), genitive of Κολεῦς.
In P.Sijp. 26.96–97 Kollouthos, s. of Ptollis and Koleus, heads the list of minors, 14 years of age, who are present for regnal year 11 (CE 50/51) from the census descriptions: καὶ προσγίνονται εἰς τ̣ὸ ια (ἔτος) ἀφήλικε(ς) (τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαετεῖς) ἐξ εἰκονισμ(οῦ) | Κολλοῦθ(ος) Πτόλλιδ(ος) μη(τρὸς) Κολεῦτ(ος). In P.Mich. 578.3 both the regnal year and Kollouthos' age are lost at right; while precise restoration of the two numerals is impossible, the local tax office considers Kollouthos liable for capitation taxes in the synopsis for regnal year 11 of Claudius, CE 50/51. Hence Kollouthos most likely attains 14 years of age in that year, or the year previous, having been first entered into census records as an 11 or 12 year old in CE 47/48 among those advancing toward age 14 years in regnal year 8: ἀφήλικες προσβαίνοντες εἰς (τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαετεῖς) (ἔτει) η. The numerals missing from the end of line 3 are likely to be (ἔτει) η ιβ (ἐτῶν), 12 years old in year 8.
4 Μ̣[ύ]σθας, instead of ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣θας in P.Mich. 578.4. For the form of the name Μύσθας in the Philadelphia archive, see G.M. Browne, P.Mich. XII 638.17 and note ad loc.: "the nominative of this name in all the unabbreviated forms is regularly Μύσθας and the genitive is Μύσθου." The initial traces in this line seem those of mu, but to date, no other Mysthas, s. of Harmiysis and Taesis, has appeared elsewhere in the prosopography of early-Roman Philadelphia. The Harmiysis, s. of Mysthas, who occurs in tax records for ca. CE 34 (SB XVI 12738 iii 12) and after ca. CE 46/47 (SB XX 14576.384), probably refers to the father of this aphelix. Mysthas himself is perhaps 12 or 13 years old in regnal year 6, CE 45/46, and therefore already subsumed into the tax rolls prior to the synopsis for regnal year 11, CE 50/51 (P.Sijp. 26).
5 Ἰσχῖς Κάλλιτος, for Μ̣άλλι̣τ̣ος in P.Mich. 578.5 (a name otherwise unattested in the papyri when the ed. prin. was published, see the note ad loc. p. 6, and one which remains so to the present day). To date, no other Ischis, s. of Kallis and Thenamounis, has appeared elsewhere in the prosopography of early-Roman Philadelphia. There is, however, some indication within the archive that both Ἰσχῖς and Κάλλις may represent shortened forms of Ἰσχυρίων and Καλλίστρατος respectively, and that the choice of whether or not to use the longer form is made by the scribe, not the taxpayer. See e.g. the alphabetical year-register for payments of capitation taxes for the year CE 29/30, P.Princ. I 9 vi 26, where Ἰ̣σ̣χ̣υ̣ρίων Καλλιστράτο(υ) can be read at the beginning of the line: ed. prin., ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ρ[ί]ων Καλλιστράτο(υ)); or the two brothers both Ἰσχυρίων, s. of Κάλλις, one "elder" and the other "younger," in a daybook of payments made for the year CE 30/31, SB XVI 12737 v 7–8. But Κάλλις, s. of Ἰσχυρίων, appears even more frequently in the daybooks also dated to the last years of the reign of Tiberius (e.g. P.Corn. I 21 xiii 378). This evidence does no more than show that the names Ischis (Ischyrion?) and Kallis (Kallistratos?) alternate in a Philadelphian family of peasant tax payers in Julio-Claudian times.
6 The name Herakles, s. of Herakles, is omnipresent in the tax archive, yet at least eight of the men so named gain individuality through the different names provided for their mothers in some taxing documents: in addition to Herais here, there is also Glauke, Dionysia, Thanoubis, Sensouchis, Taknepheros, Tanesneus, and Tapontos. In P.Sijp. 26.92, the synopsis for CE 50/51, two men are said to enter military service in CE 49/50, ἐστρατευμέ(νοι) ι (ἔτει), and while one has the distinctive name Titan, s. of Nemesion (for whom, see below, note to l. 10), the other is Herakles, s. of Herakles, who may be the same young man of P.Mich. 578.6, then 13 years old in year 8, CE 47/48, for he would then be about 15 years old at the time he enters military service. This is probable, but not certain, since the name Herakles, s. of Herakles, is encountered so frequently in the Philadelphia tax rolls.
7 Kephalon, s. of Patouamtis and Taouos?: the ed. prin. does not take note of the fact that the omicron-upsilon in the mother's name represents a supralinear correction to the genitive Ταῶτος. While both Ταοῦς and Ταῶς are attested names for women, P.Mich. 578.7 represents the only occurrence thus far of Ταουῶς, if, in fact that be the correction the scribe intends. The first editor suggests that this Kephalon is likely an ancestor of the latter-day inhabitant of Philadelphia mentioned in P.Lond. II 257.212 (CE 94/95), Kephalon, s. of Patouamtis and Taoueis, with his paternal and maternal grandfathers listed respectively as Ptollis and Kephalon. But, if the revised dating argued for here is accepted, it is more likely that the same Kephalon appears in both papyri, as is also the case with Theon, s. of Panomgeus and Tanetbeuis in lines 1–2 above. The two young men Theon and Kephalon are embarking on their liability for capitation taxes in P.Mich. 578 and then leaving the tax rolls in P.Lond. II 257 some forty-seven years later. A photograph of the London papyrus makes clear that the second pi in Πατουάμπτιο(ς) is an error of the transcript (p. 26; cf. also l. 209, where the transcript again gives the incorrect Πατουάμπτιο(ς), and the father's name in both lines 212 and 209 is writ as Πατουάμτιο(ς). Kephalon himself is said to be 5[?] years of age in this house-by-house register, and although only a few traces remain of the numeral after ν ̣ , a reading of νθ̣ seems more likely than the other possible numbers, with the exception of νε̣. If the 59 year old Kephalon of CE 94/95 is also the aphelix of the Michigan text, he would have been 12 years old in regnal year 8 of Claudius, CE 47/48, 47 years previous. (By contrast, a 55 year old Kephalon in CE 94/95 would be only a seven or eight year old in regnal year 8 of Claudius, CE 47/48, rendering the reading of νε̣ for Kephalon's age in the London text less attractive than νθ̣.)
The name of Kephalon's mother, however, remains a mystery (Ταουεῖς?, Ταοῦς?, Ταῶς?), but both Kephalon, s. of Patouamtis, and his father, Patouamtis, s. of Ptollis, appear elsewhere in the Philadelphia tax archive, in which Patouamtis is a relatively rare name. Hence, it is attractive to consider the entry for Kephalon in P.Mich. 578.7 additional evidence that regnal year 8 belongs to Claudius, not Tiberius.
8 To date, no other Psosneus, s. of Hatres and Talous, has appeared elsewhere in the prosopography of early-Roman Philadelphia, despite the fact that the orthography for Psosneus varies in the archive, thus presenting more possibilities for identifications. (See especially P.Thomas 5.2–3, where the name Psosneus is written in two different ways in successive lines by two different hands).
9 To date, the name of Herakles, s. of Orsenouphis and Taesis, has not appeared elsewhere in the prosopography of early-Roman Philadelphia.
10 Titan, Stratippos' father, has a rare name, attested in the Herakleopolite nome by P.Oxy. XIX 2230.5, 6, 11, and otherwise only at Philadelphia over the course of several centuries (in addition to the Julio-Claudian archive, see P.Yale III 76, CE 216/217, Diogenes, s. of Titan). In the mid-first century CE two distinct families of Philadelphia employ the name: Titan, s. of Apollonios and Tanomgeus, 49 years old in CE 46/47, sometimes mentioned together with his brother Sostratos (e.g. P.Princ. I 8 iv 5–7); and the family of this Stratippos, s. of Titan and Helenous, 14 years old in regnal year 8.
Of particular importance here is the still unpublished P.Brit.Mus. inv. 2248 (the front side of P.Lond. VI 1912, Claudius' Letter to the Alexandrians), itself a year ledger of payments for regnal year 2 of Gaius, CE 37/38; at iii 37–42 three men are listed, Stratippos, s. of Titan, and his sons Nemesion and Titan, and each of the three entries is marked in the margin by ἀπολ(ύσιμος) Καισάρων, priviledged farmer involved with the imperial estate of Gaius and Gemellus. Both Stratippos' sons, Nemesion and Titan, must be more than 14 years old in CE 37/38, because their names occur in a tax register among those liable to laographia, even though their payments are handled separately by the Philadelphia tax office (P.Sijp. 26.9, 95, 131 and the two notes with commentary to the subject matter of l. 9 – that is, the note to lines 9, 95, 131 and also the note to lines 9-15). Their father, Stratippos, s. of Titan, is probably the man mentioned as 37 years old in P.Alex. 9.7–8, if the paleographic arguments advanced by the first editor of P.Mich. 578 in behalf of an early date for P.Alex. 9 be valid (P.Mich. X, pp. 3–4 and n. 4). This Stratippos, s. of Titan, 37 years old when he signs the mutilated contract for Panemgeus, is likewise the father of two adult sons Nemesion and Titan in CE 37/38 (P.Brit.Mus. inv. 2248), and the one who submits the death notice for his son Nemesion in CE 48 (SB XII 11112.3). For father Stratippos also to be the 14 year old in regnal year 8 of Tiberius, CE 21/22, he must immediately after turning 14 years rapidly produce the two boys who will themselves both be 14 years or older by CE 37/38, for this scenario allows for only 16 years between the point at which father Stratippos himself turns 14 years of age and the time when both his sons must themselves be 14 or older. This is perhaps biologically possible, but uncommon in the culture.
Fortunately, there is a second Stratippos, s. of Titan, in the Julio-Claudian tax archive whose biography better meshes with a 14 year old in regnal year 8, provided that the year is CE 47/48. By the time father Stratippos announces the death of his son in CE 48, this Nemesion, s. of Stratippos, has himself fathered a son, Titan, s. of Nemesion, who enters military service in CE 49/50 (P.Sijp. 26.92). If the Herakles, s. of Herakles, who enters the military at the same time as this Titan, also has a mother named Herais, he would be about 15 years old in CE 49/50 (above, note to l. 6), and Titan, s. of Nemesion, one of the grandsons of Stratippos, s. of Titan, may be of similar age. Father Stratippos' other son Titan likewise produces sons whose names appear in Philadelphia tax records, yet his boys have different mothers and apparently are half-brothers: Nemesion, s. of Titan and Ta[pon]tos (SB XX 14526.22, after CE 56/57, a private document belonging to the tax collector Nemesion, s. of Zoilos) and this Stratippos, s. of Titan and Helenous of P.Mich. 578.10, 14 years old in regnal year 8 of Claudius, CE 47/48.