Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mariafrank |
View: | 236 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 28
8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
1/28
The Strong Arm of the Law? Police Corruption in Ptolemaic EgyptAuthor(s): John BauschatzSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 2007), pp. 13-39Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657.
Accessed: 01/10/2013 11:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Classical Association of the Middle West and Southis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camwshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
2/28
THE
STRONG
ARM OF THE LAW?
POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC
EGYPT*
Abstract: iven
he road
owers ranted
ts
officers,
he tolemaicaw
enforcement
system ught
o
have been
plaguedby
official
buses.
Yet there re
few
ndications
that
police
misbehavior as
a
serious
problem.
illagers omplained
bout
police
misbehavior,
ut
many
omplaints
re
suspect,
ighlighting
abuses that ook ike
proper rocedure,ndthe act hat uchcomplaints ere ftenent opolice fficials
suggests
hat
eople
rusted hem.
nsubordination
n the
anks eems
o
havebeen
uncommon;
eprimands
o
subordinates
rompolice
administrators
re
few;
and
government
irculars nd decrees
oncerning
orruption
re
often
oo
vague
to
provideirm
onclusionsbout he xtent
reven he
ypes f
police
wrongdoing.
O
n
eptember
14,
109
BCE,
cobblernamed
Petermouthis
rom
the
Egyptian
village
of
Oxyrhyncha
petitioned
the
strategos
Ptolemaios
concerning
a brazen instance of officialabuse:
Dionysios,
the
ocal
police chief,
ad
come
to town
with
a number
of
accomplices
and set
upon
Petermouthis'
workshop
P.Coll.
Youtie 16
[Arsinoite,
09
BCE?]).'
The offenders
rabbed
the cobbler
and
drag-
ged
him
through
the streets
with
great
cruelty, nly releasing
him
after
hey
had
taken four ilver
drachmas,
1300 bronze
drachmas
nd
even the shirt
offhis back.
They
also
compelled
anotherman
to
ar-
range
an additional
payment
of 44
silver
drachmas
in
Petermouthis'
name)
at
the
bank. Not
wanting
these acts to
go unpunished,
Peter-
mouthis sked Ptolemaios
that he
offenders e
transported
o another
official,
robably
for
reprimand.
Unfortunately,
t this
point
in the
narrative he documentbreaksoff, long with ourknowledgeof the
case.
*
This
essay
is
a revised
and
expanded
version of a
paper
given
at the
2006
APA/AIA
annual
meeting.
Much
of the material derives
from ections of the
sixth
chapter
f
my
dissertation
Bauschatz
2005) 177-211).
would
like
to
thank .
Douglas
Olson and the
two
anonymous
readers at
The
Classical
Journal
or heir
many helpful
comments,
which
greatly mproved
the
piece,
and
Josh
osin for
his invaluable feed-
back on
an earlier
version
of
the
text. would also
like
to
thank
Swarthmore
College
for
faculty
ummer
research
ward
that
made
much
of
my
research
possible.
SAbbreviations
or ditions
of
papyri
are cited
after
Oates,
Bagnall,
et al.
(2006).
The
Heidelberger
Gesamtverzeichnis er
griechischen
Papyrusurkunden
Agyptens
(www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de
~gv0/gvz.html)
provides
dates
and
provenances
for
papyri,
where
possible.
On the
Ptolemaic
stratigos
nd
his
subordinates,
ee Van 't
Dack
(1948);
Bengtson
(1964-7)
vol.
3;
Hohlwein
(1969);
Mooren
(1984).
See
n.
4,
below,
formore on
police
chiefs
archiphylakitai).
THE
CLASSICAL
JOURNAL
103.1
2007)
13-39
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
3/28
14
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
Documents
like Petermouthis'
petition suggest
that the
Ptole-
maic chorawas rifewith criminals nd crookedcops. Complaintsof
police
misbehavior re well known:
unnecessary
iolence n
searches,
seizures and
investigations;
unauthorized
requisitions
of
goods;
arbitrary
etention and
denial of
release;
and mistreatment t
tax
time. Administrative
lip-ups
were
occasionally
a
problem
for
aw
enforcement
fficials,
nd insubordination
mong
officers
ometimes
affected
olice
work. Even
the
king
and
queen
of
Egypt
addressed
the
issue
of
corrupt
aw
enforcement
ractices
from ime to
time
n
royal
decrees. But
surprisingly, nly
a few scholarshave
approached
the
subject
of official
orruption
n
Ptolemaic
Egypt.2
he consensus
is a verygeneralone: thatthePtolemaicadministration as plagued
by corruption,
with aw enforcement o
exception.
But the evidence
for this claim is
complex
and more limited than one
might
have
thought.
Occasional abuses
may
have
occurred,
ut
nothing
uggests
that
a culture of
corruption
xisted
among
the officer
orps.
In this
paper
I
argue
that
corruption
within the ranks of the
Ptolemaic
police system
was minimal nd
that he
system
was for he
most
part
reliableand effective.
Given
the
wide
distribution f the
Ptolemaic
police
system
nd
the
greatautonomy
of
its
officers,
his is
surprising.
A
broad
spec-trum of officialsfromdifferent
pheres
policed
the
countryside.3
Military
nd
security ersonnel
provided
some
police
protection,
ut
the
lion's
share of law enforcement ell to the
phylakitai,
upervised
by archiphylakitai
essentiallypolice
chiefs)
n
the towns and
villages
of the
ch6ra
and
by epistatai
hylakit6npolice
commissionersof
a
sort)
at the
nome
level.4
The
phylakitai
nd their
upervisors
were
the
natural
points
of
contact orvictims f
crimes,
s well as for
central
governmentooking
o
enforce
aw
and order
n
the
Egyptian
ountry-
side.
These officials
erformed
number
of
functions.
hey
investi-
2
On
official
orruption
n
Ptolemaic
Egypt,
ee Crawford
1978);
Peremans
1982).
On official
orruption
nd violence in Roman
(and
Byzantine) Egypt,
see Baldwin
(1963)
258-9;
Davies
(1973)
204-5;
also
Bagnall
(1989);
Hobson
(1993);
Alston
(1994).
To
my
knowledge,
no
survey
of
police
corruption
n the
Roman
province
of
Egypt
has
appeared.
3
Bauschatz
(2005)
provides
the most
recent
nd
comprehensive
iscussion
of
po-
lice and
police
work n
Ptolemaic
Egypt.
ee also
Lesquier
1911) 260-4;
Berneker
1935)
78-9;
Kool
(1954);
Bouche-Leclercq
1963)
56-62;
Helmis
(1986);
Thompson
1997).
4
Phylakitai:
esquier
(1911)
261-2;
Kool
(1954);
Bevan
(1968)
163-5;
Thompson
(1997) 962-5;
Bauschatz
(2005)
27-34;
Chrest.Wilck.
pp.
411-16;
P.Tebt. 5
pp.
51 n.
ad
188, 550-1; P.Hib. II 198 pp. 97-104. Archiphylakitai:ngers 1909) 73-85; Kool (1954)
43-66;
Handrock
(1967)
49-50,
118-19;
Bauschatz
(2005) 34-9; O.Oslo
2
p.
13
with n.
Epistatai
hylakit6n:
an
't
Dack
(1949)
40-4;
Kool
(1954) 67-85;
Bauschatz
2005) 38-46;
P.Hamb. V 272
pp.
175-6 n.
ad
2.
For a brief
urvey
of officials rom
ther
pheres
of
the Ptolemaic
dministration ith
police
powers,
see Bauschatz
2005) 52-61;
for
olic-
ing
and
security
long
the borders and
trade routes of the
Ptolemaic
empire,
Hennig
(2003).
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
4/28
POLICE CORRUPTION
IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 15
gated
crimes
(visiting
crime
scenes,
examining
evidence,
sealing
homes,questioningwitnesses and confiscating roperty), rocessed
offenders
arresting,
etaining
nd
prosecuting), rovided
protection
(guarding
state
infrastructures well as
private
individuals),
and
even collected
ax
revenue for
he central
overnment.5
Law
enforcement
machinery
xtended
throughout
he
Egyptian
ch6ra
nd was
present
t
every
administrative
evel,
from he
village
to the nome.
The roadblocks
to the
successful
completion
of
police
business
occurring
n
such a
wide-ranging ystem
ught
to have cre-
ated
an
environment n which certain
types
of
corruption
could
flourish.
Breakdowns
in
communication etween officers
n
remote
regions hould have been responsibleformuch ofthis.Police orders
were
generally
written n
papyrus
and
sent,
via
desertroads connec-
ting
small
settlements,
hrough
he
agency
of etter arriers r
police
officers,
o
officials
n
other administrative
reas.
Recipients
were
oftennot addressed
by
title nd
were sometimes dentified
nly by
their
first
ame
and
perhaps
a
patronymic.
Given
these
constraints,
we
might
expect delays
and
errors. n
addition,
time
was
of the
essence
forboth
the
completion
of
police
business and the
delivery
of commands.
On
the
surface,
he Ptolemaic
system
of
official orre-
spondence,
houghperhaps
expedient
or ts
time,
eems
prohibitively
slow. Withouta doubt,problemswithinter-officialommunication
were
responsible
foroccasional
delays
in
police
work.
That the
system
functioned o
well is
also
surprising
n
light
of
the
broad
powers enjoyed
by
police
officers.
y empowering
aw en-
forcement fficials
o
confiscate
goods,
collect tax
arrears,
provide
crowd
control nd arrest nd detain
offenders,
he Ptolemies
granted
5
Visitingcrime scenes: e.g. P.Enteux. 5 (Magdola, 221
BCE);
PSI IV 393 (Phila-
delphia,
241
BCE);
SB
XVIII
13160
(Moeris,
244 or
219
BCE?).
Examining
evidence:
P.Cair.Zen.
II
59379
(?)
(Philadelphia,
ca. 254-251
BCE);
P.Enteux.
70
(Magdola,
221
BCE);
P.Petr.
II
28,E
(Sebennytos?,
24-218
BCE).
Sealing
homes
(and
other
buildings):
e.g.
P.Mich. XVIII
779
(Mouchis,
after192
BCE);
SB
XIV
12089
(Herakleopolite,
130
BCE);
ZPE
141
(2002)
185-90
(Herakleopolite,
37
BCE),
wo
documents
concerning
he
same
instance.
Questioning
witnesses
or
receiving
witness
testimony:
.g.
P.Enteux.
6
(Magdola,
221
BCE);
P.Petr.
I 32,2a
(Arsinoite,
17
BCE);
SB
X
10271
(Magdola,
231 or
206
BCE?).
Confiscating roperty: .g.
P.Cair.Zen.
V
59620
(Arsinoite?,
48-239
BCE);
P.Enteux.
8
(Theogonis,
218
BCE);
UPZ
I 5,
6 and 6a
(Memphis,
163
BCE),
hree
peti-
tions
concerning
he
same
instance.
Arrest,
etention
nd
transport
f
offenders:
.g.
BGU
VI
1248
(Syene,
137
BCE?);
P.Lille
3
(Magdola,
after
16-215
BCE);
P.Ryl.
V 570
(Krokodilopolis,
ca.
254-251
BCE).Conducting
trials:
e.g.
P.Cair.Zen.
I
59145
(?,
256
BCE);
P.Hib. II 233
(?,
III
BCE);
P.Tebt. 43
(Alexandria,
117BCE).
Protecting griculture:
e.g.
BGU
VIII 1851
Herakleopolite,
4-44
BCE);Chrest.Wilck.
31
(Kerkeosiris,
13
BCE);
P.Cair.Zen. 59136
(Arsinoite,
56
BCE).
Protecting eople:
e.g.
C.Ord.Ptol.2
2
(Mem-
phis,
99
BCE);
P.Petr.
I
1
(Arsinoite,
II
BCE);
P.Tebt.
III.1
786
(Oxyrhyncha,
a. 138
BCE).
Collecting
tax
arrears:
.g.
C.Ord.Ptol.2
3
(Kerkeosiris?,
18
BCE);
P.Cair.Zen.
II
59407
(Philadelphia?,
II
BCE);
P.Tebt.
III.1
764
(Tebtynis,
85
or 161
BCE?).
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
5/28
16
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
them a kind of
monopoly
on violence.6
Brutality
etween
villagers
was not toleratedand was generallybroughtto a halt when police
were alerted
nd involved.'
Villager
ssaults on officials
were
usually
met
with
mmediate
rrest nd
imprisonment,
ut the same was not
always
the
case
when the roles
were
reversed.8
he reasons forthis
are
not difficulto
imagine.
Police
work
oftennecessitated
physical
element,
nd the
degree
to which
intimidation nd forcewere em-
ployed
depended
on
the nature of
the
operation being
carried out
and
the evel
of
cooperation
on the
part
of the
offending arty.
olice
often
had
to take
decisive,
physical
action to solve crimes.Without
doubt,
the
behavior
of Ptolemaic
law
enforcement
fficials ould
sometimesbe characterized s abuse. Butfromwhose pointof view?
Before
we
consider
the evidence
for
police
corruption
n
Ptole-
maic
Egypt,
point
of
terminology
must be clarified.9
will discuss
6
Though
it is
impossible
to
quantify,
herewas
certainly higher
evel of toler-
ance
for officialviolence
against villagers
n Ptolemaic
Egypt
than in most
modern
societies.
The Ptolemaic statewas determined
o have its
financial
needs met and em-
powered
its officials o
employ
almost
any
means
necessary
to meet them.As a con-
sequence,
villagers
sometimes
uffered
hysical
abuse at the hands
of
local
officials
when
cooperation
was
not full or
payment
was not offered.
Nevertheless,
s we shall
see,
the inhabitants f the
ch6ra
were
not
without recourse
when
physical
abuse be-
came excessive or even
life-threatening.
n officialviolence in Roman
Egypt,
see
Bagnall
(1989);
Alston
(1994).
To
my knowledge,
no
comparable study
of
the Ptole-
maic
period
exists.
PA
pair
of documents
from he archiveof
Dioskourides,
phrourarchos
f
Herakle-
opolis
in
the middle of the nd
century
CE,
demonstrates
hat
he
agents
of this official
were
quick
to
respond
to
public
disturbances.
n
the first ext
P.Diosk.
1
[Herakleo-
polite,
154
BCE?]),
petition
to
Dioskourides,
a
man
recounts
that an
agent
of
the
phrourarchos
ad
come to his home and arrested wo brawlers. n the
second
(P.Diosk.
6
[Herakleopolite,
46
BCE]),
nother
petition
o
Dioskourides,
a
pair
of men
asserted
that
hey
had been attacked everal
times,
nd describedthe arrest
f
a numberof
the
offenders,
hich
was
carried out
shortly
fter
ne of
the scuffles
y
an
agent
of the
phrourarchos.
ee
Bauschatz
(2005)
57-9 for
summary
f
the
police
duties of
phrour-
archoi,he heads of Ptolemaicgarrisons.For an overview of the office nd thearchive
of
Dioskourides,
as well as further
ibliography,
ee P.Diosk.
8
For
instance,
n
P.Tebt.
I
15
(Kerkeosiris,
14
BCE)
t
was
reported
hat two men
had attacked
an
epistates
nd that one of them
had
been
captured
and
imprisoned
while the other had
escaped.
In
BGU
VIII
1780
(Herakleopolite,
56 or 50
BCE?)
an
accused
party
being transported
or
xaminationorchestrated n
attack
upon
a
hypo-
strategos
hich was
only
topped by
the
ntervention
f
a
machairophoros
nd
an
ephodos.
On
epistatai,
ee
n.
21,
below. On the
police
functions f
machairophoroi,
ee Bauschatz
(2005)
60 for
ttestations nd
additional
bibliography.
On
ephodoi
nd
their
uperiors,
see n.
27,
below.
9
I
append
here
an additional
clarification. he reader
will
notice that
employ
a
numberof
modern technical
nd
legal
terms o
designate
the officials
who
policed
the
Ptolemaic ch6ra cops, law enforcement, police ), the individuals theyappre-
hended for
wrongdoing
criminals )
and
the behavior of both
groups
( criminal,
illegal,
lawful,
legal,
unlawful ).
Admittedly,
many
of
these terms are in-
adequate
and/or
inaccurate when
applied
to
the
situation n
Ptolemaic
Egypt.
For
example,
it
is
certainly
nachronistic
o talk of the
existenceof
professional police
forces before such
organizations
were
introduced
in
Europe
in
the
17th nd
18th
centuries f our
era.
Nevertheless,
have chosen to
refer o the
police
of Ptolemaic
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
6/28
POLICE
CORRUPTION
IN
PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 17
two
types
of
police
abuses
in
this
ssay.
First,
will
examine
nstances
in
which police employed their considerablepowers of searching,
seizing,
arresting
nd
imprisoning
o
break
the
law.
I
will call
this
form
f
corruption
mistreatment.
fter
riefly
iscussing
some of
the
impediments
to
the
quick completion
of
police
business,
I
will
then touch
on
another
type
of
corruption:
occasions when
police
took no heed of official
rders
or
deliberately
disobeyed
them,
or
insubordination. will close with a
consideration f
a handful of
royal
decrees that
highlight olice corruption
fboth
types.10
Let us
begin
with
mistreatment. t first
lance,
there
appear
to
be
many
indications
that
mistreatment f civilians
by police
was
widespread. Most allegations of such abuses come frompetitions,
perhaps
our best source for the mechanics of
Ptolemaic
policing.
Petitions
provided
the
nhabitants
f the
Egyptian
countryside
with
a
fast,
eliable method of
invitingpolice
action.11
hey
demonstrate
that
the
Ptolemaic
populace
had
easy
access to law
enforcement.
After crimehad been
committed,
victim
ought
out a local
scribe,
presented
condensed
account of
events
and
sent a written
equest
for
action
to
an official t
the
village
level or
higher.
For the most
Egypt
because of the
many
similarities
etween the
duties
of
the officials o identified
and those
of
many
modern
police
officers
see above).
In
addition,
for he
purposes
of
this
essay
I
employ
the
terms
crime,
criminal and the like
as
synonyms
for
offense,
offender nd related
words
( evildoer,
evildoing, wrongdoing ).
The
reader
may object
that
many,
f
not most of the instances
of
wrongdoing
described
n
this
essay
are in fact orts
that
s,
civil
wrongs)
and
not
crimes,
nd that
my
use
of
the
terms crimes and criminals to describe
private
offenses nd
offenders
s
thus
misleading.
But
while this is true from he
standpoint
of the modern
English legal
system,
he distinction etween
the two
types
of
offenseswas
decidedly
ess
clear-cut
(if
t
existed)
n
Ptolemaic
Egypt.
Finally,
have chosen to
employ
a numberof terms
to
describe
Ptolemaic
society
hat
mply
the existence
f
a
body
of
aw
( breaking
he
law, illegal, lawful, legal, unlawful nd the ike) nspiteof thefact hat, s far
as we
know,
there was
no
universal
code of law
in
Ptolemaic
Egypt
to enforceor
break.
n
using
these terms
do not
mean
to
imply
thatofficials
ttempted
o
uphold
and offenders
ought
to violate a written ode of law.
Rather,
employ
the terms
to
describe
the maintenance
of
public
order
lawful,
legal,
et
al.)
or violations
of it
( breaking
the
law,
illegal,
unlawful,
et
al.).
Thus,
when
I
speak
of those
who
break the
aw,
I
mean those who disturb
he establishedorder
by committing
ffen-
ses
against
members
of the
society
n which
they
ive.
Those who act
in a lawful
fashion,
n the other
hand,
are
responsible
for
estoring
rder after uch offenses
ave
been committed
nd,
to
some
extent,
or
preventing
uch offenses
rom
occurring
n
the first
lace.
10
The
reader
may
object
that
my
use of the
term
corruption
o
encompass
both
typesof abuses is misleading,as corruption uggestsnot onlyofficialdishonesty,
bias
and
abuse,
but
also
(and
primarily)
inancial
wrongdoing
and even
bribery.
et
as
will become
clear,
most
of the
alleged police
wrongdoing
discussed
in
this
essay
is
financial
n nature.
Further,
n several cases
police
officials
ppear
to have
expected,
demanded or received
bribes
from
illagers.
Ptolemaic
petitions
in
general:
Hombert/Preaux
1942);
di Bitonto Kasser
(1967,
1968
and
1976);
Parca
(1985).
Petitions
o
police:
Bauschatz
(2005)
65-102.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
7/28
18
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
part, petitioners
eem
to have
known whom to contactfor
specific
formsof redress. f the appropriateofficialwas notknown,a peti-
tioner
might
ppeal
to
a
local official nd ask that the
right
man
be
notified.12
he
people
who submitted
petitions
came
from
ll
seg-
ments
of
Ptolemaic
society.Evidently,
he social limitations
mposed
by
sex,
ethnicity,
ge,
social
status,
profession
nd even
literacy
evel
did not
preventpetitioners
rom
writing ppeals.
Even the
poorest
and
most
disadvantaged
membersof
society
were effective
etition-
ers.13
Petitions re central o our
understanding
f
the Ptolemaic law
enforcement
ystem,
ut for number
of
reasons
they
mustbe hand-
led with care.To beginwith,petitions re heavilybiased documents.
In
his
or
her
appeal,
a
petitioner
ad the
opportunity
o
present
the
facts f an incident
xactly
s
he
or she saw
them,
without
ny
objec-
tion or cross-examination romthe accused. As a
result,
petition
provides
us with
only
one
side
of
a
story.
n
addition,
petitions
re
rhetorical
documents,
n which
descriptions
of
pathos
are central.
The writers
f
petitions learly
understood
that
detailed
accounts
of
pain
and
suffering
ere
important ngredients
or
uccessful laims.
Doubtless some
petitioners,
eeking
to evoke as much
pity
as
pos-
sible
in
the
recipients
f their
ppeals, magnified
he extent f their
suffering,
nvented dditional abuses or even lied
outright
bout the
mistreatment
hey alleged.
A
final
imitation f the
petitions
s evi-
dence for
police corruption
s their
cope. They protest
wrongdoing
by
individual
officers
nd their
ccomplices,
but
do not ndicate that
police organized
themselves
nto
groups
for
extortion,
heft nd
the
like.
Such institutionalized
orruption,
hough
well-known
today,
seems to have
been
for the
most
part foreign
o
the
Egypt
of
the
Ptolemies.
Though
there re indicationsthat
police
sometimes
oper-
ated
in
groups
for
nefarious
purposes,
there
are
virtually
no com-
plaintsoforganized,conspiratorial, ystematicxtortion.14
To
begin
with,
police
officerswere
occasionally
accused
of theft
and
confiscation. olice were
sometimes
alleged
to
have
misappro-
priated money,
produce,
animals
or other
goods.'5
In
one
case,
t
was
12
Addressees
in
petitions
o
police:
Bauschatz
(2005)
82-6.
Petitions o
officials
with
nstructions hat he
recipient otify
he
appropriate
official(s)
r
take the
correct
action:
e.g.
P.Heid.
X
422
(Tinteris,
58
BCE);
433
(Herakleopolite,
61-155
BCE);
P.Tebt.
141
(Kerkeosiris,
05-90
BCE).
13
Bauschatz
2005)
81-2.
14
A
handful of
royal
decrees and circulars
eem to call
attention o
widespread
extortion y police officials: .Ord.Ptol.20-1 (?, 183BCE);34 (Oxyrhynchus?,86BCE);
53
(Kerkeosiris?,
18
BCE);
55
(Tebtynis,
a.
118
BCE);
P.Hib.
I
198
(Arsinoite?,
fter 42
BCE);
P.Mil.Congr.
XVII
pg.
29.10-13
(?)
(?,
100-99
BCE).
Yet
royal
edicts did
not
neces-
sarily
eflect onfirmed
nstances f aw
enforcement
rongdoing.
On the
decrees isted
here,
ee below.
15
Money:
e.g.
P.Cair.Zen.
V
59753.70-4
?,
III
BCE),
n
which
the writernoted
that
he had been
discovered
hiding
a
ship by
some
rhabdophoroi
nd
paid
them
drachma,
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
8/28
POLICE
CORRUPTION
N PTOLEMAICEGYPT 19
reported
hat
n
assistant o the
strategos
ad been
extorting
ine
(ZPE 141 2002]: 82-4 Herakleopolite,38BCE]);heoffenderasto
be arrestednd tried. lsewhere
swineherd ho
had
beendetained
by
an
archiphylakitis
n
his
way
home
reported
hat
he
policeman
had
confiscatedome
pigs
P.Cair.Zen.
59819
Krokodilopolis?,
54
BCE]).
Anotherman
complained
hat
is
grain
ad
been stolen rom
pair
of
threshing
loors nd askedthat
hal6nophylax
nd his
associ-
ates
be arresteds
suspects P.Oxy.
XII
1465
Oxyrhynchite,
BCE]).16
We
also see occasional
harges
f
wrongful
rrest
nd/or
mprison-
ment.
n
at least
six
cases,
petitioners
laimed hat
police
officials
had
made
unjust
rrests nd carried
ut unwarranted
etentions.17
likely
under
compulsion;
P.Coll.Youtie
16
(Arsinoite,
109
BCE?),
where
an
archi-
phylakitis
nd
his
subordinates eized
four
ilver drachmas and 1300 bronze drachmas
from
man;
P.Enteux. 8
(Theogonis,
218
BCE),
n
which
a
man
accused a
phylakites
f
illegally taking
possession
of a
cup
and
12
drachmas and
only returning
he
cup.
Produce:
e.g.
P.Enteux.
55
(Magdola,
222
BCE),
where a
petitioner
lleged
that an
offender
cting
n
conjunction
with a
gendmatophylax
ad
illegally
own his allotment
and
subsequently
onfiscated
he
produce;
P.Erasm.
1
(Oxyrhyncha,
48-147
BCE),
n
which
a man
complained
of extortion
f
rent
by
a
phylakites
nd an
archiphylakitis;
P.Princ. II 117 (Theadelphia, 55-54 or 4-3 BCE?),a hypomnemaoncerning grain
deposit disagreement
etween
a
petitioner
nd
a
thisaurophylax.
nimals:
e.g.
BGU
III
1012
(Philadelphia,
170
BCE),
where a
man
charged
that
an
archiphylakites
ad
confis-
cated a number of
probata
without
cause;
P.Cair.Zen.
II
59312
(Arsinoite,
50
BCE),
list
of
pigs
with a note that the
agents
of a
phylakitis
ad stolen
one;
SB
XVI 12468
(Arsinoite?,
II
BCE),
n
which
a
man accused
a
phylakites
f
confiscating
donkey
laden with
sacks
of
grain
and bread. Other
goods: e.g.
UPZ
I
5,
6
and
6a
(Memphis,
163
BCE),
three accounts
of a series of raids
on
a
temple
by
a number of
religious
officials
nd
(in
one
instance)
a subordinate of
the
epistatis;
PE 141
(2002)
185-90
(Herakleopolite,
37
BCE),
wo documents
concerning
raid, arrest,
ome
sealing
and
confiscation
f a
pickled goose
and two
pillows, among
other
hings, y
the
agents
of
an
archiphylakitescting
without official anction.
On
rhabdophoroi,
ee
n.
19, below;
on gendmatophylakesnd the gendmatophylakia,. 32, below; on thesaurophylakes,ee
Bauschatz
(2005)
56.
16
As
their
title
suggests,
hal6nophylakes
uarded
threshing
loors.
They likely
played
an
important
role
in
the successful
completion
of the
gendmatophylakia,
he
annual
guarding
of
crops,
though hal6nophylakes
ccur
in
only
a few Ptolemaic texts
and the
form
hal6nophylaxnly
once:
P.Bingen
3.3
(?,
III-II
BCE):
a&r.wvoupX()
ca.
?]
E)OTopTa;
P.Cair.Zen.
V
59745.85-7
(Philadelphia?,
255-254
BCE):
IETEI'iv
I
Apapt
at.ovoq)uXalKOOVTi
Pheros
[88]
is
likely
lso
a
hal6nophylax);
.Col.
V
74.12
?)
(Phila-
delphia?,
248
BCE):
ca.
?]voqikXaKa;
.Oxy.
XII
1465.7-8
(Oxyrhynchite,
BCE):
2apa-
Trriova
&XhovopqpXa[K]a.
or more
on the
genematophylakia,
ee
below,
n. 32.
17
P.Coll.Youtie
16
(Arsinoite,
109
BCE?);
P.Enteux.
84
(Ghoran,
285-221
BCE);
P.Hib.
I
203 (?,
246-221
BCE);
P.Mich.
XVIII
773
(Oxyrhyncha
r
Krokodilopolis,
a.
194
BCE)
and 774
(Oxyrhyncha,
a. 194-193
BCE),
he same case inboth
texts;
P.Ryl.
V 570
(Krokodilopolis,
ca.
254-251
BCE);
P.Tebt.
III.1
777
(Tebtynis,
I
BCE).
n
P.Cair.Zen.
II
59475
(Philadelphia,
II
BCE)
phylakites
rrested
man and another
phylakitcs
fter he
two
gained possession
of a
runaway
horse that
had been locked
up by
the ocal
police.
The arrest eems
to
have been
the result
of a
mistake,
not bias. It should
be noted that
many
more
petitions
detailing
complaints
of
wrongful
rrest nd
detention urvive.
Those
not mentioned
here contain accusations
against
officials rom ther
pheres
of
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
9/28
20
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
These
petitioners
depicted
their arrest and
imprisonment
s
arbi-
trary.As one mightexpect, alleged victimsregularlymaintained
their nnocence
n
letters o officials
omplaining
of
these
practices.18
One
petitioner equested
an
investigation
nto
charges
that a
police
chief
had
wrongly
rrested ne
of his slaves
(P.Hib.
I 203
[?,
246-221
BCE]).
Elsewhere a man
complained
that
a
tax farmer nd a
rhabdo-
phoros
ad
unjustly
rrested nd
whipped
him,
extorted
lump
of
silver
and a necklace from
him,
and detained him for
one
night
(P.Mich.
XVIII 773
[Oxyrhyncha
r
Krokodilopolis,
a.
194
BCE]
nd
774
[Oxyrhyncha,
a.
194-193
BCE]).19
n
a
final
case,
a man who
had
been
placed
in
prison by
an
angry
relative
with
the
cooperation
of
a
phylakitesas denied releaseby a desmophylax,ven after herelative
had
requested
that he
be set free
(P.Enteux.
84
[Ghoran,
285-221
BCE]).20
Unjust
rrests ould involve
physical
buse,
often
utlined
n
grim
detail
by
petitioners.
n a
fragmentary
etter,
or
example,
a
prisoner
complained
of the
unjust
arrest
he had
suffered t
the hands of
the
Kerkesouchan
police,
who had acted with bia and
hybris
n
bringing
him n
(P.Ryl.
V
570
[Krokodilopolis,
a.
254-251
BCE]).
n
the
case of
the
cobblerfrom
Oxyrhyncha,
he
offending
fficialswere
alleged
to
have executed the
arrest
with
every
form f
mistreatment
nd hubris
and blows
(P.Coll.Youtie
16.15-16
[Arsinoite,
09
BCE?]:
pET&
TOO
TraVTO-r
I
OKUXhpO0
Kai
I3PpECO5
Kal
TIXTiyCwV).
According
to
another
government
r
do not
specify
he titles
or
administrative
omains
of
the
offending
parties.
See
e.g.
BGU
VIII
1821
(Herakleopolite,
57-56
BCE),
n
which a man com-
plained
that
he
had been
unjustly
rrested
by
a
tax
official
nd
some
accomplices;
P.Cair.Zen.
III
59368
(Memphis?,
241
BCE),
a letter
detailing
the
unjust
arrest and
detentionof a
chortophylaxy
an
oikonomos;
B
XX
14708
(Theadelphia,
151
BCE),
a
petitiondescribing hearbitraryailingof a man at the hands of a corruptkdmarchis.
On
phylakes
ith duties
n
the
realm of
aw enforcement
among
these
chortophylakes),
see Bauschatz
(2005)
52-6;
on
oikonomoi,
.
33,
below;
on
k6marchai,
erneker
1935)
127-30;
P.Yale
153
pp.
156-61.
18
Nevertheless,
etainees sometimes
dmitted hat
they
had erred and
asked for
forgiveness.
n
P.Cair.Zen. II
59495
(Philadelphia?,
II
BCE),
for
example,
two
swine-
herds
sought pity
from
Zenon fortheir
wrongdoing,owning up
to their
guilt
while
encouraging
him to
remember
hat
everyone
makes
mistakes
2-3:
dcv
yap ip6p-
TOPIEV
T[E]TIICOpfElEIOa
O
jE'iS
yaxp
(xvap6CpTlT65
oTrlv).
In
P.Polit.Iud.
(Herakleo-
polite,
a.
135
BCE),
prisoner
equested
that
he
be freedfrom
he
phylake
ince
he had
learned his lesson
and had
already spent enough
time
wasting
away
in
detention
6-
11:
TuYXQVCOl. cTatiCOSW VEVOUETTJP.EVO,
Kai
TTrpav
qpuXaKfi5E'iXrlq)CS
Kav6a
TE
I
Eiqipa5KaTErpOapl1pEvos).n Zenon,see n.35,below.
19
On
rhabdophoroi,
ee Bauschatz
(2005)
59-60. The
rhabdophoros
n
these
texts,
certain
Menelaos,
is
not
given
a
title,
but his
designation
as ho kata
polin
773.11-12;
774.12-13)
makes the
identification
ikely; compare
PSI IV 332.11
(Philadelphia,
257
BCE):
'p830o6pcw
TCO
KarKT rr6Atv.
20
Among
the
duties
of
desmophylakes
ere the
receipt
and
release of
prisoners
and
the
receipt
f
bail
payments:
Bauschatz
2005)
118-19 and 121.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
10/28
POLICE
CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
21
petition,
when
a
launderer
disputed
payment by
an
epistates
or a
cloak (himation)he launderer had been asked to wash, the epistates
beat and
stomped
him
and handed
him
over to
the
village police
(SB
XX
15001
[Krokodilopolis,
217
BCE]).21
ater,
the
epistates
eturned
with
accomplices,
administered
n additional
beating
and scattered
the aunderer's
merchandise ver the
floor f his
shop.
Occasionally police
officers arried
out
complex,
multifaceted
sting
operations.
These offensives
gainst
homes and
possessions
were often
erceived
as
unjust.
They
seem
to have
followed
a
predic-
table
series of
steps.
An
invasion
of a house or other
building typi-
cally
came
first,
ollowed
by
an
assault on
the
inhabitants,
search
forvaluables,and thendeparture, enerallywithgoods and/orpeo-
ple
in
tow.
The
story
of the cobbler
from
Oxyrhynchus
s a
good
example
P.Coll.Youtie
16
[Arsinoite,
09
BCE?]).
n
a similar
ncident,
a
number of
police
officials rrested
some
farmers,
ealed a
home,
confiscated
tems
and
departed,
all
without official anction
(ZPE
141
[2002]
185-90
[Herakleopolite,
37
BCE]).
n a
final
case,
an
agent
of a
temple
archiphylakites,
number
of
phylakitai
nd an
accomplice
illegally
earched
he
emple
for
weapons
allegedly
hidden
there
UPZ
I
5,
6
and 6a
[Memphis,
163
BCE]).2
Finding nothing,
he
police
left
the
scene;
but
the
accomplice
returned
ater,
n
what
looks
like a
surprise
inspection,
accompanied
by
an
agent
of the
epistatAs,
or
additional
searching
nd confiscation.23
On
the surface
at
least,
the evidence
from
petitions
for mis-
treatment
f civilians
by
police
seems
damning.
But is
it conclusive?
To
begin
with,
procedures
employed
in
illegal
confiscations
nd
those
sanctioned
by
the
government
or
the
payment
of tax arrears
are
similar.
n one
case,
a
petitioner
omplained
to
an
epistatis
hat n
archiphylakitis
ad
appropriated
some
of
his taxable livestock
and
enclosed
them
n
the home of one
of
his officers
BGU
III
1012
[Phila-
delphia,170BCE]).Elsewhere man notedthathewas beinghounded
by
an
archiphylakitis
or
the
return
f some
government
eed
as
well
as his
crops,
which had been
wrongly
onfiscated
y
another
official
21
Epistatai: avigne
(1945);
Van t
Dack
(1949)
39-44,
(1951)
20-3 and
46-7,
and
(1989);
Wolff
1970)
171-6;
Bauschatz
(2005)
46-9;
P.Enteux.
ntroduction.
hese offi-
cials,
the
highest-ranking
epresentatives
f the
central
government
n
the
towns
and
villages
of the
ch6ra,
ad direct
upervision
over
the
archiphylakitai
and
thus
by
exten-
sion
the
phylakitai)
n their dministrative
reas:
Bauschatz
2005)
48-9.
22
Archiphylakitai
ere found
in
villages,
the
regions
around
villages,
merides,
toparchies,
omes
and
even
temples:
Bauschatz
2005)
37.
23
See also BGU VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite,64-44 BCE), petitionconcerning n
instance
of
breaking
and
entering
y
a
group
of men
including
an
archephodos.
he
raiders
broke
down
the
door to the
petitioner's
ouse,
mistreated is
mother nd
took a
dovecote.
The
petitioner
haracterized
he
nvasion and
assault as violent
(p3iatov,
8)
and
requested
that
the activities
of the
offending
fficials
e
brought
o a
halt,
but
never
ndicated
that
there
was no
justification
or he
raid. For more
on this
text,
ee
below.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
11/28
22
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
(BGU
VIII 1836
[Herakleopolite,
1-50
BCE]).
Yet
archiphylakitai
nd
their ubordinateswereregularly mployedfor he collection fdebts
to the crown.24 he extraction
f state debts fromdebtors
unwilling
or
unable
to
pay
must
occasionally
have
involved
unpleasant
action
and even
prompted
petitions.
One
wonders how
many complaints
f
wrongful
onfiscation
y police
officialswere
written ut of
spite
or
resentment t
a
legal
(though physical)
seizure of assets
by
the
government.
o a
subsistence
armer he ine between
ust
and
unjust
extraction ould be blurred.
Similar
doubts
arise when we reconsider ases
in
which
villagers
complained
of unfair rrests
r
imprisonments.25 any
crimes ould
lead toimprisonmentnPtolemaicEgypt, ut incarceration as often
the
result of
debts.26
etitioners ometimes
claimed that
they
had
been
dragged away
or
locked
up
even
though they
owed
no
debt,
taxes or otherwise.One
prisoner omplained
thathe had
been arres-
ted
by
a tax official nd
accomplices
even
though
he owed
the crown
nothing
BGU
VIII
1821
[Herakleopolite,
7-56
BCE]).
Another sked
for
help
in
securing
release
from
prison,
where
he
had
been sent un-
justly
on
a
charge
of
debt,
though
he had
already
paid
the
crown ts
due
(P.Cair.Zen. II
59496
[Krokodilopolis,
248-241
BCE]).
Even the
cobbler
from
Oxyrhynchamay
not
have been the
nnocenthe
soughtto
appear
(P.Coll.Youtie 16
[Arsinoite,
09
BCE?]).
The factthat the
archiphylakitis
nd his
accomplices
extracted
large
amount of
money
fromhim-and
in
such a brazen
manner-suggests
thathe
had
de-
faultedon
a
debt to the state.
n
many,
f
not most
cases,
police
seem
to have arrested
people
believed to be state debtors
under orders
and with
just
cause. But because of slow
(or
no)
communication
between
officials,
mistakes were
sometimes made and the
wrong
people
arrested.
n
any
case,
violence was
certainly
mployed
from
time
to time
to
bring
n
those
thought
to
have defaulted on
debts.
Corruptionmaynot have been a huge factorn such arrests.Yet we
generally
cannot
be certain about
the
veracity
of claims
of
unjust
arrestfor
debt,
and
petitions
containing
uch
claims must accord-
ingly
be
handled
with
caution.
The
evidence for
police
raids
provides
both thebest
examples
of
alleged
police
mistreatment f civilians and
some of the finest n-
stances of dedicated
police
work. Without
question,
these
operations
could involve
violence
against people
and
property:
reaking
down
doors,
seizing
and
arresting
ndividuals
and
confiscating oods.
Yet,
as we have
just
seen,
routine
police
business
involved the same
sorts
ofactivities. etitionerswho complainedofpolice raidswere careful
24
Bauschatz
(2005)
170-3.
25
On
imprisonment
n
Ptolemaic
Egypt,
ee
Taubenschlag
1959);
H6lmis
(1986);
Ambaglio
1987);
Marcone
1999);
Bauschatz
(2005)
114-26.
26
Bauschatz
2005)
114-15.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
12/28
POLICE
CORRUPTION
IN PTOLEMAIC
EGYPT
23
to submit
graphic
accounts
of events.
But
though
they
often
pro-
claimed their nnocence, hey rarelydemonstrated onclusively hat
they
were
withoutfault
or blame.
In one
case,
a
man claimed
that a
group
of
men,
ncluding
an
archephodos,
ad
broken down
the door
to his
house,
mistreated
is mother
nd seized
a dovecote
BGU
VIII
1855
[Herakleopolite,
64-44
BCE]).27
he
writer
requested
that the
petitioned
official
ring
n
and
try
he
offenders,
o ensure
that
they
attempted othing
violent
n
the
future nd
would
receive
the
proper
punishment.
But the
details
of the raid are
puzzling.
Why
would
so
many
officials
ave carried
out
such a brutal
operation
olely
for he
purpose
of
taking
a birdhouse
and
beating up
an old
lady?
The
petitioner eems to have withheldinformation. or one thing,he
does
not
say
that
the
police
had
no
right
o seize
the
property.
ould
this
have been
a
government-sanctioned
peration
o obtain
payment
for
debt?
Perhaps
someone
had accused
the
petitioner's
mother
f
having
stolen
the
dovecote,
necessitating police
investigation
nd
confiscation
f the
allegedly
stolen
goods.28
Alternatively,
he
dove-
cote
may
have
been stolen
by
someone
else
and
deposited
in the
petitioner's
ouse
for
afekeeping.29
r
perhaps
twas stolen
property
that
had been
purchased
unawares
by
the
petitioner,
who
will then
have
thought
he was
in
the
right,
ven
if he was
not.
In
addition,
t
seems
likely
that
government
gents
bent on extortionwould have
taken
more
than
a
large
birdhouse.
Would
such
a
prize
have
merited
the
time and
effort o
assemble
a
team of
officials
nd coordinate
a
raid?
The evidence
not
supplied
in this
case,
and
in
a
handful of
others
ike
t,
raises
questions
about
the nformation
urnished
y
the
petitioner. g
ot
all
police
raids
were
necessarily
the actions
of
27
Archephodoippear
in
only
three
Ptolemaic
texts:
BGU
VIII 1855.7-8
(Herakle-
opolite,
64-44
BCE);
P.IFAO
II
4.3-4
(Arsinoite,
103
BCE);
P.Tebt.
90.i.1
(Tebtynis,
BCE).See Bauschatz (2005) 56-7.
28
Requests
for confiscation
f
stolen/borrowed
property:
.g.
BGU
VIII 1761
(Herakleopolite,
0
BCE),
n which a
man detailed
the
illegal
occupation
of his house
and confiscation
f his
crops by
an offender
nd
requested
thatthe
stolen
produce
be
impounded;
P.Cair.Zen.
I 59145
(?,
256
BCE),
where
a woman
who
had been
robbed
asked
Zenon to
have
an
archiphylakitis
nvestigate
nd
return
he stolen
tems,
which
had
been
found;
P.Enteux.
2
(Magdola,
221
BCE),
n which
a man
complained
that a
villager
had
not
returned
he
hoes and
money
he had
borrowed
and
asked that
the
epistatis
ompel
the accused
to hand
themover.
29
Harboring
of stolen
goods:
e.g.
P.Hib.
I
34
(Oxyrhynchite,
43
BCE)
and
73
(Oxyrhynchite,
44-243
BCE),
where an
archiphylakitis
llegally
?)
held a
stolen
donkey
in his
home;
II
198.86-92
(Arsinoite?,
fter
242
BCE),
a
royal
decree
specifying
hat
thosewho harboredrowerswho had runaway from heroyalfleetwere to be penal-
ized;
SB
VIII 9792
(Hermoupolis
Magna,
162
BCE),
n
which a
petitioner
elated that
one
of his
stolen
donkeys
had been
discovered
n a
temple
along
with the thief
?)
and
asked
that he
thief e
detained
and
the animal
returned.
30
See
also,
e.g.,
P.Cair.Zen.
I 59275
(Arsinoite,
51
BCE),
petition
from
man
who had
been
arrested
and
had his
home
sealed
and
his meat confiscated
by
a
number
of tax
officials,
ikely
because
of
a failure
o
pay
his taxes
though
he does
not
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
13/28
24
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
corrupt
officials;
many
were
likely egitimate,
f
sometimes
violent,
operationsdesignedtoobtainmissing, wed or stolenproperty.
Furtherevidence
for the need
to
closely
scrutinize
reports
of
police
mistreatment
f
civilians
comes from the fact that
alleged
victims ometimes
complained
about
police
officials o other
police
officers,
ften those
with
supervisory
powers
over the
offending
parties.
One
petitioner
omplained
to
an
epistates
hat an
archiphyla-
kiteshad
wrongly
confiscated ome of his flocks nd handed them
over to one
of his officers
BGU
III
1012
[Philadelphia,
170
BCE]).
Archiphylakitaiegularly
answered to
epistatai;
this
victim,
quite
reasonably, complained
to the offender's
uperior.31
ome
petitions
went over the heads of the town orvillage police. In theexample of
the
cobbler,
he
alleged
victimwrote
to
the
strategos oncerning
he
violent
extortion
f
the
archiphylakites
P.Coll.Youtie
16
[Arsinoite,
109
BCE?]).
The
petitioner
may
have had no recourseforhis
complaint
in the immediate
vicinity
nd
been
obliged
to
contact
a
provincial
official.
lsewhere,
nother
petitioner
ikewise
wrote
to
the
strategos
to
complain
that
he
had been cheated
by
a
genematophylax
nd an
accomplice
(P.Enteux.
55
[Magdola,
222
BCE]).32
e asked that
the
epistates
end the accused
for examinationbefore the
strategos.
he
picture
s clear: when law enforcement
fficials
misbehaved,
other
law enforcementfficialswere called on to
provide ustice.
Petitioners
would not have
complained
to
police
officers bout the
abuses
of
other
police
officers nless
they
felt
ome
general
confidence
n
the
police
system.
After
ll,
they
had the
option
of
reporting
olice
misbehavior o
civil or financial
fficials.
n
the case of the
aunderer ttacked
by
the
epistates,
he
alleged
victimfiled his
complaint
with the
oikonomos,
financial fficer
SB
XX
14999
[Krokodilopolis?,
17
BCE]).33
n
another
case,
a
grain transport
fficialwrote
to the
epimeletes
o
complain
that
an archiphylakitesad improperly rrested number ofshipbuilders
say
as
much);
P.Mich.
XVIII
779
(Mouchis,
after 92
BCE),
where a
man
requested
that
the
phylakitai
rrest r seal
the home of an oikonomos ho
had extorted
large
sum of
money
fromhim
(perhaps
as an overdue tax
payment;
see also P.Mich. XVIII
778);
UPZ
I
5,
6 and 6a
(Memphis,
163
BCE),
hree
petitionsdetailing
a
pair
of
searches for
weapons
carriedout
in a
templeby
an
agent
of the
temple archiphylakitis,
ome
phyla-
kitai and other
accomplices.
The
petitionerportrayed
the
searches
(especially
the
second)
as violent nd
unjust.
31
Epistatai
ad
many police
duties,
a
number
of which
overlapped
with those of
thephylakitaind their uperiors.See n. 21, above, formore on theseofficials. or the
administrative ies between
epistatai
nd
archiphylakitai,
ee
Bauschatz
(2005)
47-9.
32
Gendmatophylakia
nd
the
gendmatophylakes
ho
ran
it:
see
e.g.
Bauschatz
(2005)
148-52 and
158-66;
P.Mich.XVIII
769
pp.
99-103;
P.Tebt.
27
pp.
105-14.
33
Oikonomoi: erneker
1935)
94-102
in
general;
Bauschatz
(2005)
152-8 on the
relationship
between
oikonomoi,
rchiphylakitai
nd
epimeletai
on
whom
see the
fol-
lowing
note).
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
14/28
POLICE
CORRUPTION IN
PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
25
(Chrest.Wilck.
66
[Arsinoite,
18
BCE]).34
ometimes
petitioners p-
pealed to other mportant eople. The man who complained that a
phylakites
ad
wrongly
rrestedhis
brother-in-law rote to the
well-
known and well-connected
enon of Kaunos forredress
P.Cair.Zen.
III
59475
[Philadelphia,
II
BCE]).35
lsewhere
a
farmer
omplained
to
the
king
and
queen
that an
archiphylakites
nd a
phylakites
ad at-
tempted
to extract entfromhim
illegally
on
two
separate
occasions
(P.Erasm.
1
[Oxyrhyncha,
48-147
BCE]);
the
petitioner
sked that
the
sovereigns
contact
the
village
epistates
o
arrange
a
trial.36
here
was no official
ppeals procedure.
Petitioners eem to
have
con-
tacted
whomever
they
thought
might
ecure
full,
fast
atisfaction,
e
itpolice,civil,financial rother.The fact hatpetitioners othered o
submit such
grievances
to
government gents suggests
that
they
expected
to receive
justice.
That even a handful of
complaints
of
police
misbehaviorfound their
way
to
law enforcement
fficials
ug-
gests
that
he
police
force,
hough surely ontaining
few
bad
seeds,
for he most
part
upheld
the
aw
reliably.People
endured
abuses at
the
hands
of
the
policemen
who
served
them,
but not on a
regular
basis.
Yet
corruption
n the ranks
of hePtolemaic
police
was not imited
to
instances of
brutality
directed
at
villagers.
As with
any large
organization, reakdowns occurred n theadministrativemachinery
of law and order
n
Ptolemaic
Egypt.
Miscommunicationwas occa-
sionally
a
problem, eading
to
delayed
or
denied
justice
forvictims
of
crime.
n a few
cases,
police
were slow to act on official rders or
took no action whatsoever.
n
one
instance,
superior
took an archi-
phylakitis
o task for
failing
o act
expediently
n orders
concerning
quantity
f timber
P.Tebt.
II.1
747
[Tebtynis,
43
BCE]).37
In another.
a
petitioner
oted that
the
recipient
f his
complaint, stratigos,
ad
previously
ordered an
epistatis
o
transport
n offender ortrial
SB
XXIV
16295
[Oxyrhyncha,
99
BCE]).
The
epistates,
owever,
had not
taken action,so the
petitioner equested
thatthe
strategos ive
the
orderto send the accused
a second timeand
in
a more forcefulman-
ner. A
final
example
preserves
an instance of
multiple
counts of
34
The
epimel^tis
was
an
upper-level
officialwith
authority
n
certain areas of
financial dministration:
erneker
1935)
90-4.
35
On Zenon
and the archive of documents associated
with
him,
see Rostovtzeff
(1922);
Pestman
1981);
Orrieux
1983,
1985);
Clarysse
and
Vandorpe
(1995).
36
See
also,
e.g.,
P.Cair.Zen.
V
59819
(Krokodilopolis?,
254
BCE),
a letterfrom
swineherd o
Zenon,
in which the former
etailed his
three-day
etention
y
an
archi-
phylakitisnd theresultingoss of three f Zenon's pigs;P.Ryl.
V
570
(Krokodilopolis,
ca. 254-251
BCE),
petition
o Zenon
from man who
alleged
that he had been un-
justly
arrested
by
the
phylakitai
f
Kerkesoucha;
SB
XX
15001
(Krokodilopolis,
217
BCE),
n
appeal
to
the
king
concerning
buses suffered
t the hands
of an
epistatis
nd
his
accomplices.
37
The
archiphylakites,
atron,
s not
given
a
title
n this
text,
ut the dentification
is secure. See
n.
52,
below.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
15/28
26
JOHN
BAUSCHATZ
official
naction
SB
XVI12468
[Arsinoite?,
II
BCE]).
A man
en routeto
visit a prisonerhad had his donkeyconfiscatedby a phylakites.e
had
submitted
petition
o
a
police
official bout the
theft,
ut did
not receive a
summons,
o he went
to an
archimachimos
or
redress.38
Yet not even this
had
produced
satisfactory
esults,
nd the victim
was
compelled
to write
again
to the official
riginallypetitioned
o
urge
the
archimachimos
o return is
property.39
Police inaction and slow
response
seem to have
been serious
issues. Government
gents occasionally
ended their nstructions o
subordinates
with threats
of
punishment
for naction or
improper
action.
In
one
case,
for
instance,
an officialwas ordered to
bring
a policeman into anotheradministrative istrict nd told not to do
otherwise
SB
VI
9104
[Arsinoite,
95
BCE]).
n
another,
n oikonomos
commanded an
archiphylakitis
o
make an
arrest and assured him
that
he
would
be
doing wrong
if
he failed to follow orders
P.Heid.
VII 393
[Arsinoite/
emphite,
III
BCE]).40
lsewhere,
an unknown
official orwarded nstructions
oncerning
he
harvesting
f treesfor
the
king, xhorting
he man
in
charge
of the
police
([T6v]brri
C)v
q)uaKITTCV, 14)
not
to
disregard
the
orders,
but to
make their xecu-
tion a
priority
SB
VI
9215
[Oxyrhynchus,
50
BCE]).
n
a final
case,
an officialwas asked to
prevent phylakitis
rom
ecoming
entangled
in unnecessarybusiness and to compelhim to remainsober, nsofar
as he
was able
(BGU
III
1011.iii.4-9
?,
II
BCE]).
Clearly,police
were
not immune frombad behavior or the bad
reputations
connected
with it.41
38
The official
etitioned
n
this case is nowhere
given
a title.
Machimoi: cholar-
ship
on
these officials nd their
upervisors
archimachimoi)
s
extensive;
ee
Goudriaan
(1988)
121-5;
Oates
(1994);
and
especially
P.Yale I
33
pp.
86-91,
where a
very
detailed
account
of
the attestations or
nd duties
of,
s
well as
previous
scholarship
on,
machi-
moi
s
given.
39
See also,
e.g.,
P.Enteux. 5
(Magdola,
221BCE),where a
petitioner
oted thathe
had
previously
submitted
complaint
to the
stratigos
oncerning
he
distribution f
some
grain,
nd thatthe
strategos
ad
subsequently
rdered the
competent pistatis
o
take
action,
but the
epistates
ad done
nothing;
P.Mich. XVIII 779
(Mouchis,
after192
BCE),
n
which
a
petitioner
elated that after
previous petition
to an
agent
of the
dioiketis
oncerning
xtortion
P.Mich.
XVIII
778),
an
archiphylakitis
ad been
instructed
to
bring
n
an
offender,
ut had not done
so;
P.Princ.
II
117
(Theadelphia,
55-54 or 4-3
BCE?),
where
a
woman noted
that fter he had been
cheated
by
a
thisaurophylax,
he
had
submitted
petition
o the
addressee
(a
stratigos)
who in turn
ordered he
village
epistates
o
bring
n
the
accused.
The
epistates
ad
arrested
he
thesaurophylax,
ut had
takenno
steps
to
transport
im.
40
Neither
he
oikonomos,
ephyros,
nor the
archiphylakitis,
ikaios,
is
given
a
title
in thedocument.Fortheidentification fZephyros, ee P.Heid.VII 393 pp. 43-4; for
Dikaios, P.Heid.
VII 393
pp.
45-6;
Pros.Ptol.
562.
41
It
was
not
exclusively
their
uperiors
who
developed
bad
impressions
of un-
disciplined police
officials. ometimes
n
unpopular
policeman might
indhimself
he
object
of ridicule:
P.Kijln
X
367.2
(Arsinoite
or
Herakleopolite?,
I
BCE):
6
KEKOXXO-
TTEUKCO AIOVGuIO5
6
&pX()P[u(\aKiTTnI)].
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf
16/28
POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 27
We
are
especially
well-informed bout the
activities f
a
certain
policeofficial nownonly s Ptolemaios,who was regularly eminded
thathe
was to follow orders and
not foul
up.42
He
is
given
a title n
none of the texts
n
which he
appears,
but the
scope
of his
duties
(extracting
rent
payments,
running
errands,
transporting
eople)
and
the
officials romwhom he
received instruction
including
an
archiphylakitis
nd an
oikonomos)
ed the editorsof P.Hib.
I
(p.
194)
to
suggest
thathe
may
have
been a
phylakites.43
he official
nstructions
that
reached
him
regularly
ncluded forceful
anguage.
We see
him
threatened
with
having
to
pay
for
any
inaccuracies detected
n
the
agricultural
ccounts
entrusted o
him,
told not to
drag
his feet n
accomplishingbusiness, scolded forharassing a taxpayer, ncour-
aged
not to
do
otherthan as he was instructed
nd,
in
one
instance,
upbraided
for
poor
conduct
n the
village
and threatenedwith
pun-
ishment orhis
actions.44
nfortunately,
he
evidence
that
Ptolemaios
was
not
themost
responsible
f
police
officers,
houghoverwhelming,
is all circumstantial.
ndeed,
it
may
provide
more nformation bout
the
management style
of
commanding
officers han
the
poor
work
habits
of subordinates.
The
reasons behind
instances of official naction are
usually
impossible
to
determine,
ut sensible
explanations
can
occasionallybe offered.n one case, for
xample,
a numberof
phylakitai
hom an
archiphylakitis
ad
selected
to serve as
gendmatophylakes
ailed to
42
Ptolemaios
appears
in
the
following
16
texts,
ll of
Oxyrhynchite
rovenance
(except
where
ndicated):
P.Hib.
51
(245 BCE);
2
(ca.
245
BCE);
53
(246
BCE);
54
(ca.
245
BCE);
57
(248
BCE);
58
(245-244 BCE);
59
(ca.
245
BCE);
60
(ca.
245
BCE);
61
(245 BCE);
62
(Hibeh,
245
BCE);
130
(ca.
247
BCE);
167
(ca.
245
BCE);
168
(ca.
245
BCE);
I 240
(?,
ca. 250-
245
BCE);
nd
P.
Yale
I
34
(250 BCE)
and
35
(249 BCE).
For
a
discussion of
these
papyri,
see
P.
Yale
pp.
94-5.
43
The editors
of
P.Yale
I
later
suggested
that
Ptolemaios
was most
ikely
k6mo-
grammateus,iting
s
compelling
ndicators
his
attested
police
and financialduties and
his contactwith theoikonomos
pp.
94-5). Yet the Ptolemaic
police
had a number of
financial
duties
in
their
villages
and maintained
regular
contact
with the
oikonomos:
Bauschatz
(2005)
152-8.
Certainty
s
impossible,
but
it
seems more
likely
that Ptole-
maios was a
police,
rather
han a
civil,
official.
xtracting ayments:
P.Hib.
51; 52; 53;
130;
167
(?);
P.Yale I
35.
Running
errands:
P.Hib.
I
54;
58.
Executing
arrests/transfers:
P.Hib.
157;
59; 60; 61; 62;
168; P.Yale
34.
Ptolemaios received
a
reprimand
rom
atron,
archiphylakitis
n
P.Yale
I 35
(see
n.
52,
below,
for he identification
f
Patron).
He was
contacted
by
Zenodoros,
oikonomosnd
toparches
n
P.Hib.
I
59
and
60,
and wrote to
Zenodoros
in
P.Hib.
I
240
(see
Pros.Ptol. 53a
=
1042
[?]
=
1043 for
he
dentification
f
Zenodoros).
44
Inaccuracies:
P.Hib.
1
53.3-4:
1TEIpC
o)v
&oapahXc5
Eyyuav
cbS
TrpOS
a
I
ToO
X6[y]ou
icopovo