BMCR 2008.11.10, Tomasz Derda, Arsinoites Nomos

Tomasz Derda, Arsinoites Nomos. Administration of the Fayum under Roman
Rule. The Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement, 7.  Warsaw:
Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University and Fundaja im. Rafala
Taubenschlaga, 2006.  Pp. xviii, 345; maps 4, tables 2.  ISBN
978-83-918250-6-8.  $79.00.

Reviewed by Peter Fibiger Bang, University of Copenhagen
([email protected])
Word count:  1251 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-11-10.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/11/20081110.html
-------------------------------

In this useful and interesting study of provincial Egypt, Tomasz Derda
has set himself the far from moderate task of disentangling the complex
and fragmented papyrological evidence relating to the formal aspects of
Roman administration in the Egyptian Fayum. The book grew out of his
engagement with the project of Willy Clarysse on "Fayum villages in the
Graeco-Roman Period" (p. XII) and as such reflects the classic concerns
of papyrology. First and foremost, this is a study of the formalities
of state administration; the emphasis is heavily on clarifying the use
of administrative terms which scholars encounter in the numerous
surviving documentary papyri in order to chart the nature of
administrative units and offices. A more penetrating analysis of the
relations of power underwriting Roman rule in Fayum society, on the
other hand, is not really attempted, though Derda does occasionally
offer some interesting observations on this topic too.

Conceived as a study of formal administrative divisions and their
chronological developments from late Ptolemaic times till the 4th
century, the structure of the book is more or less given. The
introduction and Chapter 1 set the scene and situate the Fayum as a
somewhat aberrant case within the administrative organisation of the
province of Egypt. Then follows a survey of the administration over
four chapters each dedicated to clarifying the character of a specific
kind of office and administrative division. Finally a conclusion
summarises the results.

Chapter 2 treats the subdivision of the greater Arsinoite nome (the
Fayum area) into three so-called merides. Stretching back into
Ptolemaic times, these entities served as the basis for a major reform
introduced by the Romans around AD 60. Till then, though exceptionally
large, the Arsinoite nome had been governed as a unity under one
strategos. But from then on, each of the subdivisions/merides had
appointed its own strategos, with the modification that from 136/37 the
two smallest merides were usually governed by the same man (p. 102).

Chapter 3 traces the fate of the so-called toparchies under the Romans.
Widespread in Egypt since the introduction under the Ptolemies, the
coming of Roman rule relegated the institution to a rather obscure
existence in the administration of the Fayum. It surfaces only briefly
in the second and a number of decades in the third together with the
office of the dekaprotoi introduced under Philip the Arab, in each
instance in connection with the sitologia, the collection of the grain
tax. In the beginning of the fourth century, the toparchies were
finally dismantled and the pagus-organisation introduced in their
place.

Before we come to the pagi, however, Chapter 4 deals with the lowest
rung on the administrative ladder, the komogrammateiai, the village
districts and scribes; or rather, Derda argues, an office which came to
group together small bundles of villages instead of just one as in the
preceding Ptolemaic period. This arrangement had previously been
thought to constitute the occasional exception to the general rule, but
now Derda makes a case for viewing it as the norm. To support his
argument, Derda has compiled a very useful prosopography of known
office holders. In general, this argument appears convincing, though
the documentation is sufficiently scarce to leave considerable scope
for alternative interpretations. In some, but still relatively few
instances, Derda is able to show how the komogrammateia of a particular
named village also comprised other villages not normally recorded in
the title of the office. But whether this was invariably the case, or
permanently, is a different matter. In practice, it is far from
unthinkable, probably even to be expected, that there would have been
considerable variation in the precise arrangements covering the many
villages of the Fayum as a consequence of either historical accident or
pragmatic compromise.

Derda's analysis of government administration, however, is generally
controlled by an expectation to find consistency and efficiency.
Administrative change is thus regularly interpreted an attempt to make
government more rational (e.g. p. 283 summarising his position). But
this, as anyone familiar with bureaucracies will instantly recognise,
hardly constitutes the only concern of administrative systems. When,
for instance, the Fayum began to be governed by 3 strategoi rather than
one, it might reflect an attempt to increase efficiency in a nome which
had become too large. However, when this number two generations later
was reduced to 2, should we necessarily see that as fine-tuning? Other
reasons are equally plausible, e.g. a deft strategos exploiting a
vacant position to attach an extra office to his own and then holding
on to it long enough for the new arrangement to harden into established
custom. It might also simply have originated as a temporary practical
arrangement if for some reason a suitable candidate for one of the
three positions had been missing.

Pragmatism and compromise also characterise the operation of
government. Derda interestingly documents how in the second century
even the village scribe was normally fetched from outside the district
he was to administer (pp. 149-50). Choosing an outsider increased
chances that he would not act in collusion with the locals to cheat the
government. However, this practice, familiar from many pre-industrial
bureaucracies, also entailed costs. A person standing outside a local
community would experience greater problems in penetrating the web of
local intrigue and might in the end find himself totally dependent on
the help and advice of a few trusted and privileged persons. At some
stage, therefore, this practice was abandoned. In the third century,
the contours of a new system are uncovered by Derda. Here village
scribes and leaders, with new titles, appear to be chosen from their
home communities. They now normally only hold office in a single
village and they have colleagues, first one, later several. There is no
reason to see this as a symptom of declining administrative standards,
and Derda does not fall into that trap. What is happening, as Derda
explains, is that the administration of the Fayum was gradually made to
resemble that of the rest of the province.

This process is at the centre of the 5th chapter of Derda's book. In
the third century, possibly under Gallienus, the Fayum had again been
unified under a single strategos. Around 302 the toparchies and the
office of the dekaprotos were abolished. The years following the
abdication of Diocletian saw further change: the introduction of Latin
titles in the administration, the disappearance of the 3 merides and
then the division of the nome into an unknown number of pagi each
headed by a praepositus drawn from the municipal elite. These changes
were part of the process which since the Severans saw the gradual
municipalisation of Egypt, assimilated the organisation of the province
to the wider empire and now brought the Arsinoite nome more in line
with the rest of Egypt.

Derda's study provides an interesting and at times even fascinating
window on the minutiae of local administration and their development
under Roman rule. There is much to interest here, also more than I can
deal with in detail. Documentary assemblages of leading peasants such
as the so-called archives of Petaus and Isidorus receive discussion;
attempts are made to reconstruct the administrative geography of the
Fayum, though they must remain tentative since too much is unknown.
Apparently much of the manuscript started out in Polish, but the
translation generally works well, apart from a few grammatical and
lexical errors and oddities such as "Philip the Arabian". To conclude,
this an interesting and valuable survey of the formal features of local
administration in the Fayum under the Romans.