Abstract
This chapter is divided into two sections. Section A contains a prosopographical study of all officials who are known for certain to have held the post of epistrategos in the Ptolemaic period. In section B I have more briefly discussed such persons as have to my knowledge at any time been alleged to have been epistrategoi, irrespective of whether I feel this suggestion to be probable, unlikely or impossible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
PP I 193. For a recent discussion of Hippalos and other second-century governors of the Thebaid see Mooren, Ancient Society iv (1973) 115–30.
In the first publication (P. Tebt. 778) the year number was read as δ, but see Skeat, Archiv Pap. xii (1936) 40f.
See Skeat, loc. cit. 41f.; this seems more cogent than Otto’s dating of the text to 181-79 (RE VIII 1659). The inscription has recently been republished by K. Herbert, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum (1972) no. 8, who still prefers to accept Otto’s dating. Recent demotic publications have indicated that the death of Kleopatra I lies between March and May 176, and the marriage with Kleopatra II between February and April 175
cf. Shore-Smith, JEA xlv (1959) 55
and Uebel, Arch. Pap. xix (1969) 75f.
So Peremans-Van’t Dack, Historia iii (1954/5) 343–5; doubtfully Van’t Dack 1952, 441 n. 2
and Mooren, Ancient Society i (1970) 11 n. 4; PP I 193 has ‘archisomato[phylaque et épistratège?].
Bevan, History of Egypt (1927), 294 n. 3, is uncertain, but Kenyon, Arch. Pap. ii (1903) 77, includes it without argument among examples of a demoticon. Possibly Ptolemais: Plaumann, Ptolemais (1910) 23
possibly Alexandria: Schubart, Arch. Pap. v (1913) 85 n. 5. P. Jouguet, La vie municipale (1911), includes it under Alexandria in his list on p. 127, but remarks on p. 125 that it is quite uncertain which city it belongs to or whether it is a demoticon at all.
My impression, however, is that there was little fusion of the races, that Greek families continued using Greek names and Egyptian families Egyptian ones, and that in consequence nomenclature is still a good guide to nationality even in the second and first centuries. Cf. e. g. Peremans, Le Muséon lix (1946) 241–52, who disputes earlier views that nomenclature ceases to have value as a guide after the third century.
I am gratified to find that Mooren, Ancient Society iii (1972) 127–32, has reached the same conclusion.
Doubts on the correctness of the dating of SB 8036 to 110/09 are already to be found in Bingen, CE xlv (1970) 377 n. 1, though Fraser, Ptol. Alex. II 314 n. 398, still accepts this date.
Rhein. Mus. lv (1900) 184, where he suggests that the identification is ‘wohl nicht zu kühn’.
PP I 191; see also Otto, RE VIII (1913) 887.
The changeover of strategoi of Cyprus tended to keep pace with dynastic changes, cf. Mitford, Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 169f.
and Stud. Calderini-Paribeni II (1957) 169.
Cf. esp. Peremans-Van’t Dack, Stud. Hell. cit. See this article and those by Wester-mann and Welles cited above for the career of this well-known Komanos; also Heichelheim, RE Suppl. VII (1940) 332–4, 1625-6
and Solmsen, C. Phil. xl (1945) 115–16.
IFAO, Bibl. d’étude xxiv (1953) 1-44, esp. 33-6. Egyptologists must judge the likelihood of Barguet’s reconstruction.
Nos. 24 and 28 of the texts reedited by Mitford, Opusc. Athen. i (1953) 156–7 and 160-1 (= BSA lvi (1961) 1-41, nos. 75-6). Ibid. n. 92 on p. 159 has a good bibliography on Lochos
see also Peremans-Van’t Dack, Stud. Hell. ix (1953) 40–5.
Reinach, Rev. épigr. i (1913) 109–12
Henne, Rev. Phil. x (1936) 318–24. This text is retained in SB 8036
cf. Kees, RE VA (1934) 1576.
P. Adler G. 10.4 and W.O. 1535.6 (cf. Wilcken, Archiv Pap. viii (1927) 78).
E. g. Bevan 335 (‘presumably’), Wilcken, Archiv Pap. vii (1924) 87
Collart, Rec. Champollion (1922) 280ff. and P. Bouriant pp. 55f.
Henne, REA xxxvii (1935) 25.
So Wilcken, Archiv Pap. viii (1927) 78.
Cf. Wilcken, Archiv Pap. viii (1927) 78. This question cannot be settled palaeographically. Even if the hands in the letters were different, Platon would have had more than one amanuensis he could employ.
The name is common enough, cf. Preisigke, Namenbuch, Foraboschi, Onomasticon, and Notopoulos, C. Phil. xxxiv (1939) 135–45.
Martin 56 n. 2 and 177; Bengtson 107 n. 4 thinks it a possibility. Wilcken, Archiv Pap. vii (1924) 87, denies it, but solely on the grounds that Platon was then epistrategos, for which see the text.
On an overlap in time between the reigns of Soter II (restored) and Alexander I see Samuel, CE xl (1965) 376–400, esp. 381-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomas, J.D. (1975). Prosopography. In: The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Papyrologica Coloniensia, vol 6. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-14297-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-14297-3_4
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-09906-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-663-14297-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive