A Late Ptolemaic Grapheion Archive in Berkeley[1]

Source of the Grapheion Papyri

There are approximately 47 papyri from the apparent bilingual grapheion archive. The papyri derive from two crocodile mummies (crocodiles 1 and 19) found together in a single tomb (crocodile tomb "a") in the cemetery of Tebtunis.[3] These papyri were studied at Oxford, but Grenfell and Hunt published only three of them as descripta in P.Tebt. I in 1902, probably because the majority of the texts were in Demotic.[4] The papyri were then shipped in 1938 to the University of California, Berkeley. Since then, only the Demotic text of one of the descripta has received full publication by Richard Parker in REgypt 24 in 1972.[5]

Date of the Grapheion Papyri

The texts can be broadly dated to the late 2^nd or early 1^st century BC, based on the references to large sums of inflated copper money.[6] They include specific mention of regnal years 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18.[7] These are presumably sequential regnal years, because the Demotic texts are all written by the same hand and were found together in the same crocodile mummies. Within the late 2^nd and early 1^st centuries BC, the sequence of regnal years 13–18 is only attested for Ptolemy XII (r. 81–51 BC),[8] and would correspond to years 69 to 63 BC.

Contents of the Grapheion Papyri

The 47 papyri from the posited bilingual grapheion archive are written predominantly in Demotic, and sometimes include Greek summaries at the bottom of the text or on the verso. The Demotic texts are all written with a fine reed pen in identical or very similar cursive hands. Although the papyri are quite fragmentary and are sometimes difficult to identify, most seem to fall into one of three categories:

1. abstracts of contracts: 23 papyri including
   • P.Tebt. I 227 descr. = REgypt 24 (1972) 129–136.
   • Tebt. frags. 6422–6423, 6451–6455, 6473–6479, 6491, 6501, 6531–6532.
2. registers of contracts in daybook format: 7 papyri including
   • P.Tebt. I 228 descr.
   • Tebt. frag. 6503.
3. accounts of money payments in daybook format: 10 papyri including
   • P.Tebt. I 140 descr.
   • UC 1731, 2489–2490.
   • Tebt. frag. 8141.

Category 1: Abstracts of Contracts

The largest group consists of approximately 23 fragmentary abstracts of Demotic contracts. These usually begin with the year, month and day, but without the names or epithets of the king or the eponymous priests. The date is then followed by the phrase: "a document of type X, which Contractor A made it" (wꜥ sẖ X r.ir s PN A). This formula is radically different from the usual formula of Demotic contracts, which begins with the dating and proceeds with "has said Contractor A to Contractor B" (ḏd Contractor A n Contractor B). Richard Parker suggested that one of these texts, P.Tebt. I 227, was an abstract of a contract.[9] This suggestion now seems to have been confirmed by an early Ptolemaic register of contracts among the Lille papyri, published by Françoise De Cenival in 1987.[10] The register is organized in daybook format, often with multiple entries recorded under each day. The entries often begin "a document of type X, which Contractor A made it" (wꜥ sẖ X r.ir s PN A), which is exactly the formula used in the Tebtunis abstracts. Three examples will illustrate the formula which recurs in the Tebtunis texts:

Category 2: Registers of Contracts

Perhaps not coincidently, a second group of texts consists of seven fragments of what appear to be bilingual registers of contracts, some clearly in daybook format, others clearly recording money payments. These documents list a series of days of the month, each followed by one or more entries beginning: "a document of type X, of Contractor A" (wꜥ sẖ X n PN A). Curiously, the formula is different from that of the Berkeley abstracts and the entries in the Lille register of contracts, which begin "a document of type X, which Contractor A made it." The entries may be followed by a sum of money. The entries for the last day of the month are followed by the total of the sums of money for the month. There may also be a Greek label on the otherwise blank verso, giving the date and nature of the text.

Category 3: Accounts of Money Payments

The third group of texts consists of ten fragmentary accounts of money payments in daybook format. Most of the accounts are written in Demotic with Greek summaries, and at least one account is entirely in Greek. These texts list a series of days of the month, each followed by the names of one or more commodities, followed by their price. Sometimes also a note about the purpose of the commodities is made, such as "for me," and the pattern is repeated for each day of the month. In the demotic accounts, the entries for the last day of the month are followed by the mention, in Greek, of the total for the entire month. There may also be a Greek label on the otherwise blank verso, giving the date and nature of the text. Here follow three examples of the particularities of this category of text.

Identification as a Grapheion Archive

The identification of the 47 Berkeley papyri as a grapheion archive is based on a comparison with the early Roman grapheion archive from Tebtunis, now housed in Ann Arbor and in Florence. The early Roman Tebtunis grapheion archive consists of about 210 papyri dating from 7 AD to 56 AD.[12] Most of the papyri comprised in it fall into one of four categories, three of which correspond to those in the Berkeley papyri:

1. The early Roman Tebtunis archive contains a number of εἰρόμενον-registers, whose long entries include abstracts of contracts.[13] These seem to correspond functionally to the separate abstracts among the Berkeley papyri. (P.Mich. II 121 recto; V 241; and P. Mich. inv. 940, 949, 950, and 939).

2. It includes several ἀναγραφή-registers, whose shorter entries give only the type of contract and the name of the first contractor. These seem to correspond to the registers of contracts in the Berkeley papyri.

   Some of these ἀναγραφή-registers serve as indexes to the εἰρόμενον-registers[14] (P.Mich. II 121 verso). Some serve as accounts of the payment of the γραμματικόν,[15] the fee paid by the contracting parties to the grapheion to draw up and register the contracts[16] (P.Mich. II 125.10–28; II 126.1–13; II 128, cols. i(b), ii.1–27, iii; V 237–240). Others serve as accounts of the payment of the διαγραφή, the fee paid by the notary officials to lease the grapheion[17] (P.Mich. II 123 recto, cols. ii–xxii; II 124 recto, cols. i–ii, and verso).

3. It also includes a number of other accounts of revenues and daily expenses of the grapheion, which seem to correspond to the accounts of money payments in the Berkeley papyri (P.Mich. II 123 recto, col. i, and verso cols. ii–xii; II 124 recto, col. iii; II 125.1–9; and II 128, cols. i(a), ii.28–45).
4. Lastly, the large number of incomplete versions and copies of Greek and bilingual contracts found in the early Roman grapheion archive is seemingly without parallels in the Berkeley papyri (P.Mich. V 242–356; X 586–587; XI 621; XII 632–634; PSI VIII 901–918; SB VI 9109–9110; XVI 12539; XX 14313–14315; P.Bingen 59).

Proposed Relationship Between the Ptolemaic and Roman Grapheia

The similarities between the categories of documents in the early Roman grapheion archive from Tebtunis, and the late Ptolemaic Berkeley papyri, strongly suggest that the latter also belonged to a grapheion archive. Furthermore, the similarities raise the possibility that the late Ptolemaic grapheia are the institutional ancestor of the early Roman grapheia. The Ptolemaic ancestry of the early Roman grapheia can perhaps also be seen in a Greek offer to lease a grapheion from Soknopaiou Nesos, dated to 46 AD.[18] The offer includes a promise to register contracts in a pasted together roll (τόμος συγκολλήσιμος),[19] in an εἰρόμενον-register, and in an ἀναγραφή-register. This text shows that the early Roman grapheia were leased concessions, like the earlier Ptolemaic monopolies. And indeed, the accounts of money payments in the Berkeley papyri, with their monthly summaries in Greek, obey the requirements of P. Revenue Laws that lessees of tax farming contracts and monopolies balance their accounts every month. The concessionary nature of the early Roman grapheia was thus probably inherited from their Ptolemaic predecessors.

Function of the Ptolemaic Grapheia

The proposed Ptolemaic ancestry of the early Roman grapheia raises questions, however, about the function of the Ptolemaic grapheia. Early Roman grapheia served as notary offices and to some extent as registration offices of both Demotic and Greek contracts. They filled a niche created by the disappearance of Demotic temple notaries and Greek six-witness contracts shortly after the Roman conquest.[20] In the Ptolemaic period, however, Demotic contracts were usually written by temple notaries, and Greek six-witness contracts could be drawn up by anyone who could find six witnesses to authenticate them, and a syngraphophylax to preserve them. I propose, therefore, that the Ptolemaic grapheia were originally introduced primarily to register and collect the tax on Demotic and Greek contracts written outside the grapheia, and that their role as notaries was a secondary development. Evidence that Ptolemaic grapheia played a role in registration can be seen in Greek registration subscriptions on both Demotic and Greek contracts.[21] Many of these registration subscriptions state that "it (the contract) has been entered into the ἀναγραφή-register" (τέτακται or πέπτωκεν εἰς ἀναγραφήν), and some registration subscriptions explicitly state that this registration took place at the grapheion office.[22] Evidence that Ptolemaic grapheia played a role in taxation can be seen in the registers of contracts among the Berkeley papyri, which refer to sums of money and to the γραμματικόν. Note that Demotic contracts were also taxed by the temple notaries who wrote them, resulting in two layers of taxation.[23]

Origin of the Ptolemaic Grapheia

Another issue raised by the proposed Ptolemaic ancestry of the early Roman grapheia concerns the date when the Ptolemaic grapheia were introduced. The term grapheion does not become common until the middle of the 2^nd century BC, although a registration requirement for Greek contracts existed already from the reign of Ptolemy II onwards. A Greek legal manual for Alexandria dated to the 3^rd century BC (P.Hal.) states that a sales tax of five percent of the purchase price must be paid to a steward (ταμίας) whenever land, houses or other immovables were sold, and that the steward must register the names of buyer and seller and the date on which the sales tax was paid.[24] Outside of Alexandria, a fragmentary Greek papyrus dealing with tax laws from the reign of Ptolemy II states that sales and other transfers of slaves were required to be registered at the agoranomion or "market regulation office," and a tax on the sale or transfer that had to be paid at the royal bank.[25] Registers of Greek contracts provide further evidence for a registration requirement in the 3^rd century BC. Registers with shorter entries, and registers with longer entries or abstracts are both attested.[26] A registration requirement probably also existed for Demotic contracts from the reign of Ptolemy II onwards. Some Demotic contracts bear Greek registration subscriptions already from his reign,[27] and a few of these also name tax officials, implying a relationship between registration and taxation.[28] The absence of Greek subscriptions from some Demotic contracts may simply indicate that the subscriptions were optional. The registration itself was probably mandatory, however, given the association with taxation, whether or not the contracts received subscriptions. A single register of Demotic contracts with shorter entries provides further evidence for a registration requirement in the 3^rd century BC.[29]

Given the similarities between the functions of the early Ptolemaic agoranomia and the late Ptolemaic grapheia, I am inclined to follow the suggestion of Bärbel Kramer, that the agoranomion and the grapheion were different names or different aspects of the same offices.[30] The appearance of the term grapheion in the middle of the 2^nd century BC may be associated with a reform of the registration procedures for Demotic contracts. In 145 BC, a letter to a Greek official in Thebes describes in considerable detail the procedure for registering Demotic contracts written by temple notaries. [31] The letter says that the procedure is first to make an abstract of the Demotic contract, then to enter the information into the register of contracts, and finally to make a registration subscription on the Demotic contract, stating that it has been entered into the register of contracts. The letter stresses the importance of knowing the correct procedure, which suggests that the procedure had recently been revised.[32] The revisions were probably that the Greek registration subscription was now made mandatory, and that a separate abstract was now necessary. The introduction of the abstract brought the registration procedures for Demotic contracts much closer to those for Greek contracts. This revised procedure is the one seen in the posited Berkeley grapheion archive. The appearance of the term grapheion may also be associated with the growing use of Greek "agoranomic" contracts, in which the agoranomos served as notary.[33] This secondary notary function of the agoranomion may have given rise to the new name grapheion or "writing office," and may have enabled the late Ptolemaic grapheion to become a unified notary and registry in the early Roman period, when the traditional Greek six-witness contracts and Demotic temple notary contracts disappeared.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the agoranomion was probably introduced under Ptolemy II, to create a unified registration for Demotic temple notary contracts and Greek six-witness contracts. Ptolemy II and his fiscal advisors knew that to tax something properly, one first had to register it, whether it be people, real property, or sales. In the course of the Ptolemaic period, the agoranomion also began to serve as a notary itself, particularly for Greek contracts. Perhaps for this reason, it became known as the grapheion. Finally, in the early Roman period, as Demotic temple notaries and Greek six-witness contracts were eliminated, and the grapheia became a unified notary and registry, for both Greek and bilingual contracts.