This volume contains an edition of 62 Greek (and in two cases partially Coptic) documentary papyri—mostly letters—from the early years of the Arab regime of Egypt (around 643/644 AD). Some of the documents are published here the first time, while others are re-editions of previously published papyri. These belong to the archive of Senouthios, the administrator (anystes) of the northern part of the district (pagarchy) of the middle Egyptian city Hermopolis (Arabic Al-Ashmunein). In some cases, it remains unclear whether the papyri belong to the archive or to a similar contemporary context. In addition to numerous documents published in journals since the early days of papyrology, this is the second volume dedicated exclusively to the archive after CPR XXX,[1] which was also published by Morelli and focused on documents relating to the construction of the newly founded Arab capital of Egypt, Fustat. The texts selected for this volume shed light on the everyday working of local administration on the echelon between the city and villages. We enter the world of village headmen, estate managers, and other local agents, as they fulfill their duties to the state and settle affairs with one another, more or less with success. Behind all of these activities lurks the presence of the conquerors, which usually emerges only from references to amīrs, muhājirūn, Saracens, and Arab names.
The volume begins with an introduction to the protagonists of the archive, the provisioning of the Arabs, taxes, the administrative system, money and measures, and palaeography. Of Morelli’s many important observations here, I would like to emphasize a couple. The author suggests (p. 12) that we probably should imagine the Egyptian administrative system in the first decades after the conquest not as a single unit, but as a cooperative interaction of two worlds: a sphere of local, Egyptian Christian bureaucrats, such as pagarchs and duces, as well as a distinct and hierarchically superior Arab world.[2] This view solves many difficulties in understanding the administrative system of the period, such as the question of the dux-amīr discussed previously by Morelli.[3] Furthermore, his nuanced discussion of the term ‘early Arab/Islamic Egypt’ is of major interest (p. 12–14). The author calls attention to the fact that the term ‘Islamic’ is problematic on many levels when talking of a period in which the country was still dominated by Christianity and Byzantine institutions. He prudently points out that there is no need to abandon these terms and that what matters is being aware of their implications, especially since such choices often connect to ‘marketing’ research. The introduction ends with the palaeographical analysis of the archive. On the basis of painstakingly compared letterforms, ligatures, and other characteristics, Morelli is able, with due caution, to group some documents by scribes. This is a difficult task and the methodology is self-reflective and highlights the limits of the paleographical method.
The editions of the papyri follow, presented in loose thematic order. Morelli introduces the papyri (some of which were edited by his students) with a detailed material description, followed by the edition conforming to papyrological standards, a translation and a very rich and thorough line-by-line commentary. The editions are of excellent quality: thanks to his deep acquaintance with the period and archive, Morelli has often managed to conjure up pure gold from sometimes small fragments, which would have seemed to be hopeless to others. This shows well that, despite occasional worries that papyrology no longer has many interesting texts to offer, collections are far from exhausted, even if much of the remaining material is fragmentary and thus harder to deal with.
Such a short review cannot do justice to the variety of the papyri published in the volume. Thus, I will single out some highlights. No. 1 is one of the most interesting texts of the volume. It contains a message asking for a list of Arab soldiers (muhājirūn) ‘in the villages and hamlets’ of an administrator, probably Senouthios. The text asks for a ‘making’ (= calculating) of the amount of ‘their gold’ and for ‘their names’ and ‘how much to each of them is due from the place.’ This is understood as evidence of a system of provisioning Arab soldiers dispersed in rural settlements shortly after the conquest. This is an attractive interpretation and could be connected to orders of payments in kind from the Hermopolite monastery of Apa Apollos in Bawit, the beneficiaries of which are Arabs,[4] and in one case even explicitly ‘the Saracen of (the settlement) of Pne’ (P.Louvre Bawit 2).
No. 2 sheds light on the poorly known process of the selection of village headmen: the decision made by the village elite had to be confirmed by the higher echelons of the administration.[5] No. 3 is a well-known important text (reedition of SB XXVI 16358) showing that village officials were supposed to show up in the provincial capital. The fragmentary no. 4, a letter by the pagarch Athanasios to Senouthios, offers a tantalizing incipit (brilliantly restored by Morelli): ‘I am having a bad day’, and continues with complaints about difficulties—Athanasios is a well-known personality of the archive, who is prone to negativity and anger (cf. e.g. SB XXVI 16350). The snippet no. 12 is a rare example of a Greek letter written by a Christian functionary to an Arab amīr, using a mix of traditional formulas and the Arab greeting ‘peace to you’, which no. 13 seems to attest in communication between Christians.[6] In no. 14 (reedition of SB XVI 12284), Athanasios instructs Senouthios to take back the goats of the dux (provincial governor) from a Saracen, who has apparently unlawfully seized them. No. 15 contains the fragmentary end of a letter about goats: in total 1422 are to be delivered from Senouthios’ (?) district, 91 of which are destined to the amīr of Hermopolis. No. 16 is an account of sheep for the Arabs, in no. 17 again sheep and milk are to be given to the muhājirūn, and no. 18 lists inter alia milk, oil, and honey destined for them. Other letters deal with requisitioning clothing (no. 19), pillows/mats (tylaria; no. 20), barley chaff (no. 21), and boiled wine (no. 24 = SB XX 14219). No. 31 deals with fugitives from the Oxyrhynchite nome in a Hermopolite village. In No. 33 a lawyer (scholastikos) intercedes on behalf of three sisters, who had problems with the taxes of land co-owned by them. No. 37–38 are formulaic letters asking for the release of unjustly detained persons. A recurring theme is protest against unjust or overly demanding requisitions (e.g. no. 40–41, 44). No. 45 deals with the resolution of a local dispute. No. 47 mentions a visit at the doctor. No. 48, addressed to a ‘persecutor of robbers’ (lestodioktes), offers rare evidence of conflict between an Arab (muhājirūn) and a peasant. The landowner Hypatios sends no. 52 to his steward, giving instructions about buying various objects and mentions in his postscript, as argued convincingly by Morelli, the most likely Christian wife of the amīr.
No. 55 is remarkable because its author, Hypatios, whose Greek is excellent, criticizes a grammatically/stylistically faulty letter. The letter begins as follows: + τὴν δὲ̣ ϲεϲολυκιϲμένην (l. ϲεϲολοικιϲμένην) ἐπιϲ̣[τολὴ]ν αὐτῆϲ ἐδεξά̣μ̣η̣ν ⸌κ̣α̣ὶ̣⸍ ἐφύλαξα ἵνα̣ πάλιν μὴ ἀρνήϲητε (l. ἀρνήϲηται)[7] | τῇ ϲυνηθείᾳ αὐτῆϲ. Morelli translates, ‘La lettera scorretta di lei la ho ricevuta e conservata, affinché di nuovo non neghi a proposito della sua gratificazione.’ He takes αὐτῆϲ as a reference to a lady (‘una donna’) and τῇ ϲυνηθείᾳ as dativus relationis (2n.). I believe that the text gives a better sense if we understand αὐτή as a reference to the addressee, i.e. an abstract honorific, such as ἡ ὑμετέρα θεοφίλεια, which is implied in the continuation of the text. Furthermore, τῇ ϲυνηθείᾳ could also be understood as dativus modi and with a less technical meaning: ‘according to your custom.’ Thus, I think, the sender criticizes the letter of the addressee (‘La lettera scorretta di Lei’): ‘I have received your incorrect letter and I kept it in order that you cannot deny (that it is written faultily) according to your custom.’ No. 58–60 contain topographical registers, which give an impression about the range of villages figuring in the archive. The editions end with the usual papyrological indices.
Overall, this is an important book not only for papyrologists, but also for historians of the seventh century, especially those interested in the Byzantine-Arab transition of Egypt and more generally that of the previous Roman provinces. The book is well-produced, which is to be expected for its hefty price (129,95 Euros), and infelicities are minimal.[8] The plates are generally well readable, but for controlling difficult readings everyone will no doubt consult the digital images available online.
The many references to other unpublished papyri of the archive in the volume leave no doubt that this is not the last volume of Senouthios-papyri: many more await an edition in Vienna and other collections all over the world—not to mention the almost completely unexplored Coptic part of the archive. Thanks to the work of Morelli, the Senouthios-archive has been emerging over the last decades as one of the most important document-clusters of the seventh century, especially of the early Arab period: for this, the author deserves our deep gratitude.
Notes
[1] See https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011.06.05/.
[2] This view is reinforced passim in the book, see e.g. p. 282.
[3] F. Morelli, Duchi ed emiri: il gioco delle scatole cinesi in PSI XII 1266/P. Apoll. 9, in: A. Casanova—G. Messeri—R. Pintaudi (eds.), E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno, Firenze 2016 (Papyrologica Florentina 45), 267–282.
[4] See Alain Delattre, Le monastère de Baouît et l’administration arabe, in: Petra Sijpesteijn and Alexander T. Schubert (eds.), Documents and the History of the Early Islamic World, Leiden 2015, 43–49.
[5] For more context, see Lajos Berkes, Dorfverwaltung und Dorfgemeinschaft in Ägypten von Diokletian zu den Abbasiden, Wiesbaden 2017, 217–221.
[6] A similar early example of such a letter can be found on the unpublished side of P.Berol. 2791 (https://berlpap.smb.museum/16347/)—an edition is being prepared by the author of this review.
[7] Correcting ἀρνήϲητε to ἀρνήϲηται is not strictly necessary. The fact that the addressee would be referenced both in the 3rd sing. and 2nd pl. is paralleled in the contemporary epistolography and also the archive, cf. e.g. no. 47.2n.
[8] E.g. on p. 115 read ὄντος instead of ὄντως in the lemma of the commentary to lines 3–4. On p. 122 read ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ instead of ἕως ἀν ἔλθῃ. In no. 61, ἀρτάβαι is written without spiritus throughout the text.