Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists Abstracts of Papers

XICE – Abstract of Papers
one, especially at the local level. Equally, the population continued to live more or
less by its traditional principles, largely inherited from the past. In fact neither the
Ptolemies nor the Romans were willing to interfere in the Egyptian ways of life, as
long as their own interests were not at stake. In my paper my concern is to illustrate
that by widening their field of research Egyptologists are in a favourable position to
provide important contributions towards a better understanding of many aspects of the
Egyptian civilization. In my abstract two examples suffice to be presented:
1) Regarding the administration of justice in Ptolemaic times, Greek papyri reveal
a variety of law-courts. Besides special courts for Greek and other immigrants there
were particular law-courts —called Laokritai— for Egyptians. Papyrologists
suggested then that the judicial system in Hellenistic Egypt had been introduced by
the Ptolemies, namely by Ptolemaios Philadelphos. But Egyptologists know for sure
that during pharaonic times Egyptians had been seeking justice before their lawcourts.
Hence a question arises: Did the Ptolemaic king created new courts also for
Egyptians; otherwise, ancient Egyptian courts, did they survive during the Hellenistic
period? The outcome of our egyptological research in this respect was extremely
revealing. In fact, demotic documents used specific idioms (“the judges” and
“judgement house”) indicating the judicial apparatus. These idioms were standardized
as early as the reign of Psamatik I and remained in use throughout the Hellenistic
period. It is reasonable then to assume that the law-courts for Egyptians under Greek
rule were simply those inherited from the past; in Greek texts, however, they are
called Laokritai. Furthermore, at pharaonic law-courts there sat always an official —
simply qualified as “scribe”. He used to introduce the cases before the judges;
sometimes he took actions in cooperation with them. Under the Ptolemies, too, we
recognise this official discharging the same functions. But Greek texts mention him
with the designation eisagogeus; even in Demotic documents he is called eisagogeus.
It emerges then that many an ancient Egyptian institution persisted well into
Hellenistic times, but henceforth under a Greek name.
2) In respect of land-registration, the pharaonic administration was always diligent
in keeping records of agricultural land, which supplied much to the royal granaries
and treasury. Hence, royal archives for land possessions were kept by the
administration. In time, these archives began to be consulted for reasons other than
taxation – for instance, when disputes arose over private land. In such cases the lawcourt,
seeking a proof beyond reasonable doubt, had recourse to the land-registers. In
Hellenistic times, Greek documents mention an instrument called katagraphè —
pointing likewise to official land-registers recording private possessions of land.
During the Roman era, too, such registers existed in every town, labelled bibliothéké
enktéseon. Among other functions, they enhanced the publicity of private land
possessions, so that the purchaser of a piece of land, for example, could search the
archives and be assured that nothing would obstruct his acquisition. From these
separate facts, here put together, we infer that neither the Hellenistic instrument nor
the Roman land-archives were real innovations; indeed, a counterpart of the pharaonic
institution existed neither in Greece nor in Rome. It is plausible then to assume that
the Greek and Roman institutions successively arose from the Egyptian institution
that had been established long ago. Such examples demonstrate the importance of
interdisciplinary research carried out by Egyptologists. They are called for more and
more interdisciplinary work.
5