Both the pharaohs and the Ptolemies maintained extensive archives. The Romans retained and enlarged this system of record-keeping. State archives existed on the local level (village or toparchy), the nome capital, and the main libraries in Alexandria (the katalogeion with its branches). Despite the fact that the only public record office that has survived archaeologically is from the capital Mendes-Thmouis in the Delta where only relatively few carbonized papyri were recovered (P. Thmouis I), it is clear that the quantity of archived documentation in Roman Egypt covered all aspects of civil and financial administration, from citizenship and taxation to ownership and inheritance of real estate. In addition, the Romans introduced a system that required that a document not written by a notary could only be used in a law-court if it was given publicity ( demosiosis) by submitting two copies to the state registry offices in Alexandria. The result was that the amount of documentation was overwhelming for all the officials involved from the bottom up; it was one of the prefect’s primary goals to ensure that the documents were kept in good condition and order throughout Egypt (Cockle 1984). Our best evidence for the difficulties caused by this requirement comes from an edict that was issued in 89 ce by the prefect Mettius Rufus (Sel. Pap. II 219), which likewise reveals the interest of the central authority in the way that records were kept and documentation secured on the local level. In sum, the edict is an excellent example of the micro-managerial style of the provincial administration, seeking to ensure control of people’s business to maximize Rome’s revenue. That said, the edict did not solve the problems of record-keeping. Two documents from the first quarter of the second century reveal an extraordinary disorder in the papers of the public record office and the registry of real property in the Heracleides division of the Arsinoite nome (P. Fam. Tebt. 15 and 24). One of these texts (no. 24) makes reference to Rufus’ edict, which was clearly ignored, since it goes on to describe documents and texts in the local office archive as being in ‘‘bad condition,’’ ‘‘mutilated,’’ and ‘‘lost and damaged.’’ The disarray led to investigations, and a dispute that lasted for several years.
The Roman interest in preserving records of every transaction is revealed clearly at the village level of administration. For instance, several surviving rolls from the village registry office of Tebtunis (the only local archive of which part has survived!), dating some 50 years before the edict of Mettius Rufus, show that his instructions about how summaries of transactions should be recorded in the local offices followed a standard Roman practice that was in use well before his time (P. Mich. II). The following brief excerpts are representative of the format of the abstracts and demonstrate that they fully conform to Rufus’ instructions:
To the good fortune. Register of the sixth year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, month Sebastos 8.
[Agreement] of obligation to remain in service (paramone) for the sum of 24 drach-mai, (made) by Herakleides to Stotoetis. (Fee:) 6 oboloi.
[On the 9th. Acknowledgment] of deposit of 248 drachma!, (made) by Ptolemaios and his wife to Herodion. (Fee:) 6 drachma!.
Acknowledgment of receipt of a maintenance, (made) by [- - -]onopis and her husband to Orseus. (Fee:) 4 drachmai.
[On the 10th. Acknowledgment] of receipt of rent and...of farming, (made) by Soueris to Kronion. (Fee:) 10 obols.
[Agreement of sale of cattle], (made) by Kronion to Horion. (Fee:) 6 drachmai, of which 4 drachmai were paid.
[On the 12th. Acknowledgment (of receipt)] of a dowry of 32 drachmai, (made) by Papontos to Didyme. (Fee:) 6 obols.
[Acknowledgment (of receipt)] of a dowry of 28 drachmai, (made) by Phemnasis to Menemachos. (Fee:) 6 obols. (P. Mich. II, no. 123, Recto, col. II, first 8 entries)
The documents from the Tebtunis archive record 800 such summaries for the year 45/6 CE, covering a broad range of transactions: dowry contracts, leases, sales, loans, mortgages, apprenticeship agreements, etc. Clearly, the staff at this village was kept very busy. Overall, the Roman administration tried to document - and thus control - every aspect of economic life by recording in detail people, land, and livestock. Such an intricate bureaucratic system relied on a very complex system of administrators, to which we shall now turn.
World History
