A textile trade association?

178

structure depicted in Chapter 3. It seems that more evidence is needed in order to support such any such identification.

To sum up, Maria engaged in organising textile production herself, while Makarios and Matthaios appear to be trading in the Nile Valley. The precise role of Makarios and Matthaios among the traders is unclear, as is the precise relationship between Maria I and the weavers of the workshop. However, it is at any rate clear that Maria and her family were at one point an integral part of the Pamour trade network.

absorb economic hardship, and strengthening mutual business ties.⁵⁰¹ He has conceptualised them along Charles Tilly’s notion of trust networks; networks that ‘carry on major long-term enterprises such as procreation, long-distance trade, workers’ mutual aid or practice of an underground religion.’⁵⁰²

Going back to the Kellites, it must be stressed that there is no direct evidence for a formalised association in the documents so far published. Any argument for such a framework must be indirect. Furthermore, little is actually known about the concrete ways textile production was organised within trade associations, making arguments from the type of cooperation found in the account uncertain.⁵⁰³ That said, some circumstantial evidence can be adduced to suggest that the Kellites were organised as a formal occupational association of traders. For one, there is the close cooperation between different familial groups. Above I discussed the trading ties between the Pamour circle, the Maria/Makarios circle, and the workshop. Here familial ties were probably to some extent a background for their close cooperation. Although membership of a family in the same association is not inconsistent with formal organisations, these are unlikely to have consisted only of a single household group.⁵⁰⁴ However, we also find that the House 1–3 people were closely involved with traders outside this extended kinship group. The workshop had longstanding arrangements with a certain Ammon. In pkc.46, the account recipient is asked to go to the ‘storehouse’ of Ammon in Psbtnesis in order to retrieve a cowl. In pkc.44, it is mentioned that wool for several stikharia is located in the ‘cell of Amou’ (ll.22–24). An Ammon requested to be sent wool for a stikharion from Loudon II by way of Psais III (pkc.37): based on the similar context for these two men it is highly likely that they should be identified. Another trader of importance to the Pamour family was Psais Tryphanes, already examined in section 4.3.2. Here we should particularly note that he sent Pamour a request to help his son Tryphanes with selling goods (pkgr.73).

Although he sweetened the arrangement by offering Pamour payment for his efforts (ll.18–

20), his request shows a large degree of trust between the two. Short-term ‘mentorships’ of fellow traders, also those not belonging to the kinship group, may have been common within

501 Venticinque, ‘Family affairs’, 292–94

502 Tilly, Trust and rule, 4, cited in ibid., 276.

503 See Gibbs, ‘Trade associations’, 294.

504 Venticinque, ‘Family affairs’, 276.

180

this network, although it does not necessarily imply any formal framework.⁵⁰⁵ Tehat and Hatres were located with Tryphanes near certain ‘storehouses’ (pkc.50), perhaps related to that of Ammon.⁵⁰⁶ It illustrates the interlinked nature of this network. We should further include Loudon II and Timotheos, sons of Loudon I,⁵⁰⁷ the former of whom was involved in textiles and had longstanding ties to Tehat and Psais III (section 4.3.1).

These figures all had common, long-term trade interests with the House 1–3 people.

The network of Kellites involved with textile trade and production encompassed several families, with several storehouses located in the Oasis, and a group of traders operating in the Nile Valley. It could be objected that the activities of these families involved weavers as well as traders, women as well as men, and that a shared organisation would be somewhat at odds with the norm of single-occupation (and often male-only) participation in formal associations.

On the other hand, close cooperation between weavers (who often were women) and traders must have been common also in other trade organisations.⁵⁰⁸

Secondly, a formal association framework would be strongly supported if, as has often been supposed, membership in occupational associations became compulsory for traders and artisans at the time of Diocletian. However, this has been challenged by among others Adriaan J. B. Sirks, and the debate is still ongoing.⁵⁰⁹ Even so, the late Roman state seems to have preferred to collect taxes, and especially the chrysargyron tax, by way of occupational associations.⁵¹⁰ There may be some – albeit again circumstantial – evidence for collective payments of taxes in House 1–3. A receipt for a tax paid jointly by Philammon I and Pamour I

505 Contracts preserved in the papyri show that artisans, in particular weavers, often sent their children to fellow artisans for apprenticeship. See ibid., 288–92.

506 Payments to Psebtnesis are listed with those ‘at the Spring’ (pēgēi) and Bait() in the KAB (637–644). Bait() and the Spring were located in the district of Mesobe, east of Kellis. Following the principle that locations listed together can be taken to be located near each other (see Ruffini, Social networks, 128–29.), Psebtnesis was likely also in Mesobe – close to the road to Hibis, the ‘border’ where Tehat and Hatres were working in pkc.50. It could well be that Ammon’s was among the storehouses mentioned by Tehat in this letter. It may also be mentioned that the toponym (?) Ouait occurs in pkc.48, in connection with wool that has to be fulled for Ouait (l.3).

507 Timotheos was clearly an important associate, but in addition to the son of Loudon, there was also Timotheos son of Tiberios, also associated with Tehat (pkc.43), a man who also had an important role in an unfortunately very fragmented petition of the mid-fourth century (pkgr.2, ca. 340–50?). See further section 7.2.

508 Harland, Associations, 38.

509 A. J. B. Sirks, ‘Did the Late Roman government try to tie people to their profession or status?’, Tyche 8 (1993);

Venticinque, ‘Common causes’., 188–190, and 205–6.

510 Venticinque, ‘Common causes’, 180; Gibbs, ‘Trade associations’, 292.

in 301 (okell.4) could, based on its size, conceivably relate to a collective tax payment, implying that they were appointed representatives of a trade association. For the later traders, the chief piece of evidence is a letter to Pekysis (pkgr.76). Pekysis’ addressee, ‘brother’ Sarapis, has demanded money for the chrysargyron tax from Pekysis’ sister, a payment originally owed by her husband Kapiton, who has not paid. Pekysis writes Sarapis to inform him that he no longer has any common interests (pkgr.76, ll.29–30) with his brother-in-law, who has disappeared in Egypt. The absence of any official title for Sarapis and Pekysis’ use of ‘brother’

could perhaps indicate that Sarapis is not an officially appointed tax collector (such as the apaitetes in pkgr.17), but a representative acting on behalf of a trade association in which Pekysis and Kapiton were members.⁵¹¹ On the other hand, the statement has to be witnessed by Ploutogenes son of Pataias, and so an official capacity for Sarapis cannot be excluded.

In sum, we cannot know with certainty whether the traders of Kellis were organised as a formal association – if so, its documents must have been stored elsewhere. The absence of strong evidence should caution us against assuming a formal framework. Still, the papyri do show that the Pamour family cooperated closely with fellow-traders from Kellis outside their own kinship group, in a trading group that shared resources, storehouses, and supported each other in selling goods. It seems likely that we can speak of this group as a ‘trust network’. This collective effort would have assuaged some of the risks, deflected losses, and made it possible for the Pamour family to participate in the textile markets of the Nile Valley