2The Check Is in the MailAssessing and Collecting Taxes in Ancient Egypt

Agnes Choi

DOI: 10.4324/9781003041696-4

Egypt has frequently been described as “the bread basket of the ancient world,” for the crops raised in Egypt fed populations not only within, but also beyond, its borders. While earlier studies have considered the transport of foodstuffs from Egypt across the Mediterranean basin, less attention has been given to that which preceded the interregional journey at the intraregional level. While the adventures of sea travel certainly fire one’s historical imagination, the more mundane activities of such individuals as the farmer and the tax collector illuminate our understanding of ancient society and the workings of its economy, for their work ensured nothing less than the food supply of the Greco-Roman world. Thus, this essay will consider the mechanics of assessing and collecting the taxes in kind in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt that fueled her reputation as the ancient world’s “bread basket.” Special consideration will be given to the specific roles and responsibilities of the urban and rural figures involved, and it will be argued that urban-rural interaction was a common feature throughout the processes of tax assessment and tax collection. Before considering these two processes, it will be necessary to begin with a few words about the ancient system of tax farming.

Tax Farming in Antiquity

To the modern mind, it is perhaps surprising that taxes were not collected directly by civil servants.1 Instead, the responsibility for tax collection was delegated through a system of tax farming that existed throughout the ancient world, including in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Bingen, 2007: 160–63; Lewis, 1983: 161).2 In this system, private individuals purchased at auction a lease to collect taxes and tolls. This tax farmer was responsible to the government for a particular tax or toll, essentially underwriting it: although he retained any surplus beyond the amount contracted, he was also responsible to pay any shortfall (Youtie, 1967: 7–8). Nevertheless, tax farming in Egypt differed from the better-known system in Rome in at least one way: safeguards existed to protect the taxpayer (Youtie, 1967: 12). One safeguard related to the extent of the lease. While tax farmers submitted bids, the leases of the country were not sold to a single bidder. Instead, most leases were sold for the much smaller area of a single village. (On occasion, leases were sold for a nome or a meris.) Thus, it was quite likely that the tax farmer was resident in the district, if not the village itself, which had an important impact on tax collection. As Herbert Youtie states, “An absentee publicanus could face with equanimity the hatred of a far-off province, but any systematic attempt at extortion would make the Egyptian tax farmer a very unpopular and a very uncomfortable man” (Youtie, 1967: 13).

A second safeguard related to the compartmentalization and supervision involved in tax collection. Crown officials, who oversaw the auction of tax leases, were excluded from bidding at the annual auctions, serving as a partner in a tax-collection firm, or providing surety for a tax farmer (P.Rev. XV, 2–5; Youtie, 1967: 13; Harper, 1934b: 51–2). Further, the task of collecting taxes was not the tax farmer’s responsibility. Instead, this task fell to tax collectors who were supervised by a tax farmer, but paid by the state (P.Rev. XII, 13). The individuals who worked as tax collectors were determined by government officials and tax farmers with the goal that “the staff should represent a stable element with no personal interest in the returns” (Youtie, 1967: 13–4; cf. Harper, 1934b: 52–5; Bingen, 2007: 166–9; Manning, 2010: 152–7).

Having in mind this brief overview of tax farming in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, we may now turn our attention to specific taxation-related tasks, their timing with respect to the agricultural calendar, and those responsible for carrying them out. Taxation-related tasks may be organized into two categories, namely tax assessment and tax collection, which will be considered in turn.

Tax Assessment in Egypt

Tax assessment was undertaken annually in Egypt in order to determine the tax and rental rates on agricultural produce. These varied from year to year, for the rates were determined on the basis of a number of variables, including: the category to which the land belonged; the physical condition of the land; the type of crop to be cultivated; and, most importantly, the extent of the flooding of the Nile in that year (Wallace, 1938: 6–7, 31; Johnson, 1959: 503).

Our understanding of the process and mechanics of tax assessment in Ptolemaic Egypt is illuminated by a careful reading of the so-called Menches archive. Between 120 and 110 BCE, Menches served as the village scribe (κωμογραμματεύς) of Kerkeosiris in the Polemon division of the Arsinoite nome (in the southwest Fayum) (Verhoogt, 1998: 177). In this capacity, Menches’s primary responsibility was the administration of the land of Kerkeosiris. This consisted of reporting on the land, land use, and agricultural produce of the village, as well as ensuring that the appropriate taxes and rents were paid (Harper, 1934a: 18; Verhoogt, 1998: 107–20).

In his study of Menches’s documents, A. M. F. W. Verhoogt acknowledges the dangers of drawing conclusions about the work of village scribes on the basis of Menches’s documents, not least because these documents do not actually constitute an archive. In fact, Menches’s documents were first weeded by one of his successors, and the discarded documents were then reused by others who wrote their own private documents on the blank sides. Approximately twenty years later, these same pages were reused again, this time in the mummification of crocodiles that were buried southwest of Tebtynis (Verhoogt, 1998: 22–49). Verhoogt concedes, then, that “[t]he picture of the village scribe to be drawn from a collection of documents with these restrictions (regarding both nature and chronology), is likely to be restricted as well” (Verhoogt, 1998: 177). In the absence of comparative information, it is difficult to determine whether Menches was a typical village scribe. Nevertheless, Verhoogt correctly concludes that “[w]ith regard to the general framework of the land administration and its ultimate purpose (establishing the Crown revenues from the land), there will not have been much difference between Menches and other village scribes” (Verhoogt, 1998: 180). Thus, it is appropriate to use Menches’s documents as evidence for the study of tax assessment in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The annual tax assessments took place in two stages, each involving a land survey, and the records arising from several of these land surveys have been preserved amongst Menches’s papers.3 The first survey was conducted in September at the beginning of Egypt’s civil and agricultural year, and this survey involved a thorough inspection of the land associated with each village (Rathbone, Thompson, and Verhoogt, 2012: 244). This is indicated in the title of one cadastral survey: “Year 53, from Menches village scribe of Kerkeosiris, survey [euthumetria] by man (i.e., landholder) by basin [perichoma] of the whole registered area around the village” (P.Tebt. I 84a [September 118 BCE], emphasis added; Rathbone, Thompson, and Verhoogt, 2012: 244).

The details typically recorded in these cadastral surveys are amply illustrated in the survey conducted in September 119 BCE and published in P.Tebt. I 84b and IV 1117c (although these two texts were published separately, they, in fact, constitute a single text; Rathbone, Thompson, and Verhoogt, 2012: 243). The first column of this 260-line account reads as follows:4

(Text and translation in Rathbone, Thompson, and Verhoogt, 2012: 246–7, 254)

Columns ii–xi continue in the same fashion: the basin being inspected is noted, followed by the recording of various details, including: the names of landholders; the dimensions and area of their land in arourae; details concerning the condition of the land (e.g., eroded, waterlogged, salted, unflooded), as well as any roads, dykes, canals, drains, or supply channels; the geographical relationship or orientation with respect to the previous plot of land; and the administrative category of each field, whether royal (βασιλική), sacred (ἱερά), or cleruchic (κληρουχική) (cf. Rostovtzeff, 1904: 201–3; Crawford, 1971: 10–14; Verhoogt, 1998: 142; Rathbone, Thompson, and Verhoogt, 2012: 244). It is evident, then, that the field-by-field survey (κατὰ περίχωμα) conducted each September was intended to be quite thorough.

The second stage of tax assessment took place in February prior to the harvest. An incomplete account of this type of survey is preserved in P.Tebt. IV 1122 (= P.Tebt. I 187 [late II BCE]), the first sixteen lines of which read as follows:

Adjoining on the east, projecting 2 9 16 sconia east of the property previously surveyed, 6½ arouras of an allotment for a 7-aroura cleruch of Chomenis, Haryotes son of Haryotes, measuring 5 13 16 X 5 13 16 X 23 32   X 19 32   scoinia, total 3 27 32 arouras, in wheat. Adjoining on the east, forming a southern boundary of the next lot, another bit of the allotment measuring 3 16 X 3 16   X 23 32   X 23 32 , total 1 8 aroura. Adjoining on the north, forming a western boundary of the next lot, belonging to the same man, another bit of the allotment measuring 1 16 X 1 8   X ½ X ½, total 3 64 . Adjoining on the east, projecting 1 7 8 schoinion north of the fields around Ibion Eikosipentarouron, another bit of the allotment measuring 1 X (?) X 1 5 8 X 1 1 8 , total 1 1 8 . Adjoining on the east, receding … of the property previously surveyed for 5 8 schoinion, another bit of Haryotes’ allotment, measuring 5 16   X (?) X 1 X 1, total 9 64   (?), in wheat. Adjoining on the south, projecting 1 schoinion beyond the property previously surveyed, the remainder of Haryotes’ allotment as a 7-aroura cleruch of Chomenis, measuring 1 15 16 X 1 15 16 X 22 32   X 19 32 , total 1 3 16 . Total for the allotment, 6 7 16 arouras, in wheat, farmed by NN.

(Text and translation in Keenan and Shelton, 1976: 177–80)

The survey conducted in February was not unlike that conducted in September in terms of the records kept about the landholders, the dimensions and area of their plots of land, and their orientation with respect to the previous plot of land. However, the survey conducted in February notes the crops, as well. In the survey quoted above, wheat was noted several times (ll. 3, 16); another survey noted lentils (P.Tebt. IV 1123 [late II BCE]). This second stage, then, consisted of a survey of agricultural produce (ἡ κατὰ φύλλον γεωμετρία) focused on cultivated land, detailing the crops grown in each field in order to determine the estimated yield and the anticipated revenue from each parcel of land (Rostovtzeff, 1904: 201–3; Harper, 1934a: 18; Crawford, 1971: 15–9; Verhoogt, 1998: 132, 143; Muhs, 2005: 18).

While the cadastral surveys reveal how tax assessment was conducted, accounts related to these surveys reveal who conducted them, and for this we are again indebted to Menches. In his accounts of the biannual surveys, he recorded the costs associated with conducting the cadastral surveys, including such necessary materials as papyrus and writing tablets, as well as other expenditures, such as a wide variety of foodstuffs, miscellaneous items (e.g., cooking pots, a mattress, wreaths), and various services (e.g., barber, bath manager, physician) (Verhoogt, 2005: 41–62). Because Menches’s accounts also record to whom payments or reimbursements were made, we are able to identify the specific individuals who participated in conducting the cadastral surveys.

It quickly becomes clear that these surveys involved representatives from each of Egypt’s three administrative levels. The nome level was represented by the nome’s primary official, the βασιλικός γραμματεύς. That he was personally present is indicated by two mentions of the “reception of the basilikos grammateus” (P.Tebt. I 112, ll. 89, 131 [112 BCE]; cf. Verhoogt, 1998: 136; 2005: 29). On another occasion, Menches received from the βασιλικός γραμματεύς a notice to join him in order to survey the village (P.Tebt. I 12, ll. 6–7 [118 BCE]). Alternatively, the βασιλικός γραμματεύς might be represented by one of his officials. Several are mentioned in Menches’s accounts as receiving payments, but it is his “usher” (εἰσαγγελεύς) who received the highest number of payments (Verhoogt, 1998: 136–7; 2005: 29). Verhoogt notes that three officials representing the βασιλικός γραμματεύς, namely, the “‘chief-armed attendant’, the ‘recorder’ and the ‘letter-writer’ were explicitly paid for the survey of agricultural produce, κατὰ φύλλον” (Verhoogt, 1998: 137).

The district level was represented by the τοπογραμματεύς (e.g., P.Tebt. I 149 [116–115 BCE]) or one of his representatives (e.g., P.Tebt. I 112, ll. 60–63, 81–83, 103 [112 BCE]; cf. Harper 1934a: 23; Verhoogt, 1998: 137; 2005: 30–31). Of his representatives, the scribe (γραμματεύς) of the τοπογραμματεύς received the highest number of payments (Verhoogt, 2005: 30).

The village level was represented by the village scribe, the κωμογραμματεύς (e.g., P.Tebt. I 12, ll. 7–8 [118 BCE], 72, ll. 189–190 [114–113 BCE]; Verhoogt, 1998: 137–9; Crawford, 1971: 29–30). This included not only the village scribe of the village being surveyed, but also those from other villages (Verhoogt, 1998: 137–8). In order to explain this curiosity, Verhoogt offers this suggestion: “Perhaps the presence of other village scribes should be ascribed to the general notion of the survey of agricultural produce as a nome activity, the shared responsibility of all officials who happened to be available” (Verhoogt, 1998: 139; cf. Verhoogt, 2005: 31–2).

That all three administrative levels participated in the cadastral surveys indicates that urban-rural interaction occurred during the biannual surveys as a result of urban-to-rural mobility. Moreover, this was not a passing interaction but involved at least several weeks in both September and February.

Urban-rural interaction also occurred as a result of rural-to-urban mobility. According to Menches’s documents, following the survey of agricultural production, the village scribe composed several reports; and sometime during or around March, he traveled to Ptolemais Euergetis, the nome capital, in order to present to the βασιλικός γραμματεύς the information collected during the most recent survey (Harper, 1934a: 22–3; Crawford, 1971: 33; Verhoogt, 1998: 98–101, 143–4). There is also evidence that the village scribe took another journey in May or June, this time to Alexandria, in order to participate in an annual meeting with the διοικητής (e.g., P.Tebt. I 26 [113 BCE]; Crawford, 1971: 34–5; Verhoogt, 1998: 83–90). This meeting was referred to either as the “audit” (διάλογος) or the “public reading of the survey according to crops” (ἀνάγνωσις τὴς κατὰ φύλλον γεωμετρίας) (Verhoogt, 1998: 88). There were several reasons for this meeting: the outcome of the survey of agricultural produce was presented to the διοικητής and, if necessary, special cases were brought to his attention (προσαγγέλλω); the διοικητής read these reports (ἀνάγνωσις) and commented in the margins (παρεπιγράφω); and, following the meeting, administrative changes were incorporated into the appropriate documents (προσάγω) (Verhoogt, 1998: 88–9).

From this brief foray into Menches’s papers, it seems clear that tax assessment involved urban-rural interaction at various times over the course of the year. Urban-to-rural mobility occurred as the βασιλικός γραμματεύς and τοπογραμματεύς (or their representatives) traveled to the villages for the biannual surveys. Rural-to-urban mobility occurred as the village scribes traveled to the nome capital and to Alexandria to present the findings of the survey of agricultural produce.5 Urban-rural interaction was not confined to the activities of tax assessment, however, but also extended to the activities of tax collection, to which we now turn.

Tax Collection in Egypt

Taxes in kind were typically paid in wheat, though barley was occasionally substituted. In order to understand the process of tax collection and the opportunities for urban-rural interaction therein, it is necessary to begin with the various stages or steps involved in harvesting grain.

In Egypt, wheat was typically harvested in April (Packman, 1968: 59). The first step in this process was to reap the grain in the fields. Reapers used a sickle or a scythe to cut the stalks, and the cut stalks were subsequently bundled into sheaves and transported to the threshing floor (White, 1970: 182–3; Halstead and Jones, 1989: 43–4; Whittaker, 2000: 63).

The second step in this process was to thresh the grain at the threshing floor, which was typically “a roughly circular area with a smooth, compact surface” (White, 1970: 184). Crawford observes that at Kerkeosiris, “[c]lose by the village nucleus to the north-east was a further area of derelict land, of which 10 arouras formed the village threshing floor, ἅλων.… [T]his floor probably served the whole village” (Crawford, 1971: 47). The cereal was spread on the threshing floor and then trampled under the hooves of animals (oxen, cows, donkeys, or mules) in order to crush and break the stalks and to release the seed (White, 1970: 185–6; Halstead and Jones, 1989: 44). Alternatively, animals could draw a threshing sledge, that is, “a heavy wooden platform fitted on the underside with flint teeth” (White, 1970: 185). Both methods resulted in a mixture of grain, straw, chaff, and dirt (Schuman, 1961: 255; White, 1970: 186–7).

The third step consisted of winnowing in order to separate the grain from the straw and chaff, a task that required a breeze. A winnowing fork, a fork with a long handle and broad flat tines, was used to toss the threshed crop into the air. The grain and heavier chaff would fall back down to the threshing floor, while the straw and light chaff would be carried aside by the breeze (Schuman, 1961: 255; Halstead and Jones, 1989: 44).

The final step in this process was the sifting of the grain, which took place in two stages. A coarse or rough sifting was first completed using a sieve with a wider mesh (mesh size = approx. 6–10 mm). This was followed by a fine sifting with a fine sieve (mesh size = approx. 2.0–2.5 mm) (Schuman, 1961: 255–6; Halstead and Jones, 1989: 45–6). Fine sifting was not typically carried out at the threshing floor, but occurred throughout the year as part of the process of preparing food or the cleaning of seed corn (Halstead and Jones, 1989: 46).

The precise moment of tax collection is a matter of some debate. The cultivator bore the responsibility of transporting the sheaves from the field to the village threshing floor, and it has frequently been argued that taxes in kind were collected at the threshing floor throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods (e.g., Rostovtzeff, 1904: 204–5, 217; Wallace, 1938: 33–4; Crawford, 1971: 47). This position is supported by a series of four letters preserved in the papers of Menches concerning a certain Hermias, the overseer of the revenues (ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων), and his failure to carry out his duties (P.Tebt. I 27 [113 BCE]). Despite several earlier warnings, Hermias had been negligent in his management of the crops and the appointment of subordinates. This final warning to Hermias included a list of specific tasks that he must carry out, including the following:

But be sure that you are liable to accusation; and, before it is too late, believing that you will receive no pardon for any neglect, see that suitable persons are appointed to the aforesaid offices, and display unremitting zeal in what tends to increase the revenue; and procure from the komogrammateis the list of those who can be made to undertake the custody of the produce from those in the army and the other inhabitants of the district who are living in the neighbourhood and are conspicuous for honesty and steadiness, and appoint those fit to the posts in the villages; take from them and the phylacitae in each village two declarations upon oath by the sovereigns that they will provide in the best possible manner for the guardianship; and will allow none of the cultivators of Crown land or land ἐν ἀφέσει to touch the green stuffs and the other second crops except those intended for the fodder of the animals used in agriculture, which shall be supplied with the approval of the komogrammateis, and except amounts to be collected for which the prices and securities shall be paid and deposited at the banks to meet the dues to the treasury in accordance with the regulations previously issued; and will take care that all else is rightly done in the summer, and will convey the produce to the appointed places, and let nothing go until the proclamation concerning the release of crops is published, and unless everything has been duly delivered and the demands for previous years paid up.

(Text and translation in Grenfell, Hunt, and Smyly, 1902: 107–12)

Of particular note is the task of appointing two men in each village “to undertake the custody of the produce … [who] will allow none of the cultivators of Crown land or land ἐν ἀφέσει to touch the green stuffs and the other second crops … and let nothing go until the proclamation concerning the release of crops is published” (ll. 53–64). The editors of this text state, “ἄφεσις in this connexion means the official release of the harvest after the claims of the government had been met” (emphasis added).

That taxes were collected at the threshing floor may also be indicated in a petition that Menches received from Horus the kōmarch and the elders of the farmers (πρεσβύτεροι τῶν γεωργῶν) of Kerkeosiris (P.Tebt. I 48 [ca. 113 BCE]):

We signed an undertaking to Polemon the toparch that we would supply to the Treasury by the 10th of Pachon 1500 artabae of wheat, and we have been working night and day to make up the aforesaid amount and also the 80 artabae of wheat for the supplies imposed in connexion with the king’s visit. On the 3rd of the month mentioned below while we were engaged in the receipt of the rents and the threshing expenses, Lycus proceeded to the threshing-floor with other persons armed, and drawing their swords they seized one of us, Horus the komarch, making a violent attempt to carry him off, so that he threw away his garment and took to flight, and we together with the rest of the cultivators having had our suspicions aroused ran off with him; for which reason we were hindered with regard to the receipt of the rents and other imposts.

(Text and translation in Grenfell, Hunt, and Smyly, 1902: 155)

From this petition, we learn that a group of officials had been collecting wheat in preparation for the king’s impending visit. Although this collection may not have been for the payment of annual taxes, it is important to note that the petitioners were assaulted by a group of people led by a certain Lycus as they collected wheat at the threshing floor (ἐπὶ τὴν ἅλω, l. 18).

The position that taxes continued to be collected at the threshing floor in Roman Egypt is supported by an oath taken by Aurelius Papontos, son of Theon, and Aurelius Horus, son of Archelaus, the kōmarchs of Ision Panga (P.Oxy. X 1255 [292 CE]). The body of the oath states:

Having been enjoined by you to keep in safety the crops at the threshing-floors in our lands until the decaproti have received payment in full of the public taxes from each person, we accordingly agree, swearing by the fortune of our lords Diocletian and Maximian Augusti, to be on the watch and to permit no one to touch the produce until each person has paid to the local decaproti the amount due from him, the measurement being made so that no complaint may ensue; otherwise we may be liable to the penalties attaching to the oath.

(Text and translation in Grenfell and Hunt, 1914: 173–4)

The oath of these kōmarchs specifies that crops were to remain at the threshing floors until the taxes due were paid. Only after payment for taxes had been received could the produce be removed from the threshing floor.

If taxes in kind were collected at the threshing floor, then urban-rural interaction would have taken place there between the urban officials supervising the process and the rural cultivators bringing in the harvest. There are at least three issues, however, complicating this proposal. First, if taxes in kind were collected at the threshing floor before the cultivator claimed his harvest, then it is difficult to explain the well-attested accumulation of arrears (e.g., SB I 5230 [10–11 CE]; cf. Wallace, 1938: 370, n. 22; Johnson, 1959: 490).

Second, the dates on the receipts issued for the payment of taxes and rents in kind do not usually coincide with the harvest season. In Zola Packman’s The Taxes in Grain in Ptolemaic Egypt, we find a study of the receipts issued from the granary of Diospolis Magna from 164 to 88 BCE, including consideration of the date of tax payments. Although some receipts for payments in wheat for current taxes were dated to April, that is, during Egypt’s wheat harvest, the vast majority of receipts for current wheat taxes were dated to the months of May through September, that is, weeks or months after the harvest (Packman, 1968: 59). According to Packman’s analysis, the number of payments made each month were as follows: February = 1; March = 1; April = 10; May = 9; June = 27; July = 12; August = 16; September = 5 (Packman, 1968: Table 22). That payments were made even during July and August is evidence for the position that taxes were not collected at the threshing floor, for both fields and threshing floors were flooded by the Nile during these months. Thus, Packman concludes that taxes in kind were paid not at the threshing floor, but were paid in installments at the state granary weeks or even months after the harvest season (Packman, 1968: 63).

The third complication with the proposal of taxes being paid at the threshing floor pertains to the standard of quality that taxes in kind were required to meet. In Pharaonic and Ptolemaic Egypt, wheat and barley were cultivated as a maslin, that is, they were deliberately sown, reaped, and winnowed together as a single crop, thereby reducing the risk of crop failure (Mayerson, 2005: 51; cf. Halstead and Jones, 1995: 103–14; Mayerson, 2002: 210–13). Under the Romans, however, taxes paid in wheat were required to be pure or clean, rather than a mixture of wheat and barley (Mayerson, 2005: 51–4). This is illustrated, for example, in P.Oxy. IV 708 (188 CE), which consists of two letters from Antonius Aelianus to the strategus of the Diospolite nome in the Thebaid. The first of these letters reads as follows:

Antonius Aelianus to the strategus of the Diospolite nome in the Thebaid, greeting. Since the cargo dispatched from the nome under you in charge of [.]ausis son of Sipos and his companions, amounting to 2000 artabae of wheat, appeared at the weighing of the samples to have been adulterated, I ordered that the amount of barley and earth in half an artaba of it should be ascertained, and it proved to be under measure by 2 per cent. of barley and likewise ½ per cent. of earth. Accordingly exact at your own risk from the sitologi who shipped the wheat the difference on the whole amount of the corn, 50¾ artabae of wheat, and the extra payments and other expenses, and when you have added this total to the account of the chiliarch let me know.

(Text and translation in Grenfell and Hunt, 1904: 173)

The letter concerns a large shipment of wheat (2000 artabae) from which a half-artaba sample had been examined and found to contain 2 percent of barley and 0.5 percent of earth. Because this fell short of the expected standards, the strategus was instructed to exact 50¾ artabae of wheat from the sitologoi who had shipped this wheat in order to make up the difference (Mayerson, 2002: 112; 2005: 54).

That this shipment was deemed οὐ καθαροῦ (l. 5) raises the question of the standards for payments in wheat. The text of P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2874 (October 12, 108 CE) indicates that rent paid in grain “was commonly required to be clean, pure and winnowed before delivery” (Rowlandson, 1996: 225, n. 67). An extant lease of land is also helpful in this regard, for it stipulates that the lessor was to pay the annual rent in wheat that was νέος, καθαρός, ἄδολος, ἄκριθος, and κεκοσκινευμένος (P.Oxy. XVIII 2188 [107 CE], ll. 5–7). Verne B. Schuman (1961: 254, n. 2) defines these terms as follows:

“New wheat” (νέος) must indicate grain from the harvest of the year for which the tax was paid; καθαρός, I believe, means that the individual grains of wheat must not be soiled in any way, e.g., by the animals used in the threshing process; ἄδολος indicates the absence of foreign matter of any kind; ἄκριθος, literally “without barley”, [sic] can hardly mean that the wheat paid in taxes had to be entirely free of that grain, but that a very small proportion only was allowable; κεκοσκινευμένος, “sifted,” i.e., processed in a sieve to remove any foreign matter not previously separated from the wheat.

Clearly, grain at the threshing floor would not meet this standard (Schuman, 1961: 255). While coarse sifting at the threshing floor removed some of the impurities from the grain, some would inevitably remain. Thus, a final cleaning of the grain would be necessary. Schuman’s ultimate conclusion, with which Packman agreed, is that taxes in kind were not paid at the threshing floor, but weeks or months after the harvest. In this way, “ample time was thus given for bringing some substandard grain up to government specifications” (Schuman, 1961: 256).

In short, the moment that taxes in kind were collected, whether at the threshing floor or later at the granary, remains an open question. However, John C. Whittaker’s ethnoarchaeological study of threshing in twentieth-century Cyprus may offer a solution: Whittaker observed that the threshed grain was measured and assessed for taxes at the threshing floor before it was taken home by the cultivator, apparently for cleaning (Whittaker, 2000: 64). Thus, it is conceivable that a similar procedure was followed in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, such that the amount of taxes to be paid was determined at the threshing floor, with payments being delivered to the granary after the grain was cleaned.

Regardless of whether taxes in kind were paid at the threshing floor or at the granary, urban-rural interaction occurred at the threshing floor. Moreover, the cultivator was responsible for transporting the grain to the granary; thus, urban-rural interaction also occurred at the granary between the rural farmers and the workers at the urban granary (Wallace, 1938: 34–5, 370, nn. 26 and 27).

Conclusion

The study of seemingly mundane areas of inquiry has revealed much about ancient society and its economy. The work of cultivating crops for the agricultural economy was clearly enormous. In addition to this, however, was the work by Crown officials, tax farmers, and tax collectors in assessing taxes, in order to determine how much of the harvest would enter the agricultural economy’s supply chain, as well as in collecting those taxes, whether at the threshing floor or at the state granary. Long before grain could be loaded onto ships, this labor involved individuals of varying statuses, from both the urban and the rural populations, interacting extensively at regular and frequent intervals. Clearly, it was no mean feat, then, to serve as the ancient world’s “bread basket,” for it was, in fact, exceedingly laborious to put the check in the mail.

Notes

  1. To be clear, “civil servants” in the ancient world were not precisely the same as the so-called “civil servants” in societies where bureaucracy was fully developed or well established.
  2. While there were certainly differences between Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’s tax-farming systems, the mechanics of tax assessment and tax collection continued without significant changes. Livia Capponi has argued a similar point (2005: 123–56).
  3. For tax assessment in the Thebaid in the same two-stage manner, see Vandorpe, 2000: 175, 186, and Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe, 2017: 9–12.
  4. The notation ⸌⸍ indicates that what lies between them was inserted above the line.
  5. These cadastral surveys continued in the Roman period without significant change (e.g., P.Berl.Leihg. 13). Cf. Rostovtzeff, 1904: 212–3, 217; Wallace, 1938: 7–8.

Bibliography