Models and social reality

Having surveyed the evidence, and tested different network constructions in order to measure centrality, we need to consider a crucial question more carefully: in what way do these models reflect historical, social reality? As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the models are not intended to be accurate representations of power structures, but to provide maps which help us trace social relations. First, we may note that the models can be taken to reflect broad developments in this regard. Diachronic development can be seen in charts not included here, based on material from the mid–late third century. They feature several temple priests with high betweenness centrality. This is in line with the imposing position of the Tutu temple in

the village until the late third and even early fourth century.⁴⁴¹ While Egyptian temples in general lost prestige in Roman times, the Main Temple at Kellis was built, expanded, and refurbished under Roman rule,⁴⁴² and was an economic actor that owned wells in the area.⁴⁴³ The archaeological remains of the structure shows that it only went out of cultic use some time in the first half of the fourth century, at which point the priests also disappear, paving the way for the actors visible in the networks displayed above.

Let us next consider the more focused network of House 1–3. In Chapter 3, I argued that the House 3 material was dominated by an extended family: horizontally by the couples Pamour/Maria, Pekysis/Partheni, as well as Tekysis/Kapiton; upwards, to the older generation of Psais II, Maria I, and Horos I; and downwards, to the younger members of the Psais/Andreas circle. Although of different generations, most of these were at one point active contemporaneously. The network charts show the amount and strength of the ties between these groups, the extent to which even circles presumed to be chronologically separated, such as Tehat and Psais/Andreas, shared friends and family.Removing the heads of the circles did not alter the connectivity of the circles much (Figure 12), and even removing a sizable number of prominent actors did not disconnect the network (Figure 15). This gives quantitative weight to the argument that all the House 3 circles were intimately connected, and supports the hypothesis that they all belong to a single household.⁴⁴⁴

Still, the network of this household was clearly extensive. Figure 7 shows as many as 226 interconnected actors documented in the private correspondence network of House 1–3 (a few memos are included here, but are of little quantitative significance). It might be objected that some central documents, especially pkc.19, inflate the network, similar to the effect of event documents discussed in section 5.1.2: pkc.19 alone contains a large number of actors (altogether 32 included in the network), which automatically become interlinked by the method for constructing a one-mode network used here. However, the large majority of

441 A large and well-preserved mural from Shrine 1, a birth chapel connected to the Main Temple, depicts a sizable number of priests approaching the gods of the temple: altogether 64 priests, probably in connection with a palm rib festival perhaps peculiar for Dakhleh. Kaper, Temples and Gods, 87, 167–80.

442 Ibid., 29–30. For the decline of the priesthood, see Bowman, Egypt after the pharaohs, 179–82.

443 Kaper, Temples and Gods, 163.

444 The same result, based on a different network construction, is noted by Brand, ‘Speech patterns’, 110.

150

actors are found in the greetings section, addressed to families in the same area, all friends of Maria I, Makarios, and Matthaios. It seems reasonable to assume that they also had social ties to each other, and so there is no need to suspect that these links are artificial (see section 9.2.1 for a consideration of these families). Rather, this letter underscores the argument.

Turning to the larger network of the village, we find that adding more material decreased connectivity of the network somewhat (see Tables 4 and 7). We cannot thereby conclude that the House 1–3 circles were more ‘tightly’ interconnected than was normal in the village: it simply reflects the number and type of documentary texts that have (so far) been recovered from other parts of the village, as discussed in section 5.3.1. Similarly, the continued dominance of the Pamour family in centrality measures does not reflect any hegemony by this group over the village. When the private House 3 letters are removed, only a few actors (e.g.

Pamour III, Psais II, Psenpnouthes) remain central in terms of betweenness centrality, despite the fact that the family’s judicial and economic documents still make up a sizable part of the total documents, and the Pamour family disappears altogether when all their documents are removed. However, some of their contacts – notably Pebos and Horion, sons of Tithoes, and Pausanias the ex-magistrate – are central in almost all these charts. They appear to have been central in terms of social position within the village, as well.

The evaluation of individual centrality, however, is a difficult enterprise. On the one hand, some names may be mistakenly identified as a single actor, inflating the centrality of certain figures. On the other, the absence of identification may be equally distorting, which is especially problematic in the case of names such as Ploutogenes, Horos, Tithoes, Ammonios, and Psais. Some of the many occurrences of these names in for instance the ostraca lists could potentially refer to actors discussed above (e.g. Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis), even though identifications cannot be made due to the absence of patronymics or other supporting evidence, causing us to overlook actors of high centrality. The centrality of the actors identified as central above therefore needs to be considered in light of the content of the documents in which they occur. Some of these figures need to be considered more carefully below, in particular those who feature less distinctly in the already-discussed House 1–3 circles, but who play a part in our understanding of the local Manichaean community. These are Pebos son of Tithoes, traders such as Psais Tryphanes, the magistrate Pausanias, and Petros.

First, let us consider Pebos son of Tithoes. He was the only associate of the family who is not clearly present in the private letters, but still has a central position in the House 1–3 network.⁴⁴⁵ He drew up documents on behalf of the Pamour family on several occasions (pkgr.42–44). His centrality, then, could simply reflect the high centrality scribes attained by virtue of being the ones to write (and sign) much of the evidence preserved for posterity.⁴⁴⁶ However, these contracts belong to different actors (pkgr.42 to Pamour II brother of Psais II, pkgr.44 to Pekysis), extend over a long period (pkgr.42 is dated 364; pkgr.44, 382); and show that while originally from Kellis, Pebos – like important members of the Pamour family – moved to Aphrodito in the Nile Valley (pkgr.43–44). These factors indicate that his association with the family went beyond mere scribal work. His role as a prominent signatory to pkgr.24 from 352, in a group for which Pamour III writes, supports this idea. He was a key supporter of the komarch Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis in a feud with the ex-magistrate Harpokration in pkgr.23 (d. 353). Here Pebos is credited with disarming the supporters of the ex-magistrate Harpokration, indicating that he wielded much influence in the village in the 350s (sections 2.3.2, 4.3.2). The importance of Horion son of Tithoes, who occurs with his brother in both pkgr.23 and pkgr.24 and as a landowner in the KAB, strengthens the impression that the sons of Tithoes were prominent actors in mid-fourth century Kellis (section 4.3.2).

When removing central Pamour associates, both in the House 1–3 network only and in the larger village network, a group of less visible House 1–3 affiliates increased in centrality:

Papnouthes, Psais Tryphanes, Loudon II, and Horion (‘brother’ of Horos I). These figures shared close business ties with the Pamour family as well as with the circle of Tehat.⁴⁴⁷ Psais Tryphanes and Loudon II had prominent roles in the village, as indicated by their occurrence among the first group of signatories in pkgr.24. The nature of their cooperation with the Pamour family is considered more closely in section 6.4, where I argue that we are dealing with a (informal) Kellite trade association.

445 It is, however, possible that he should identified with ‘brother’ Pebos referred to by Pamour III in pkc.66, perhaps another ‘brother’ Pebos writing Psais III in pkc.111, or even a ‘father’ Pebos featuring in pkc.120. All of these figures were involved in text production, which fits with this man,. An identification with one or more of these would tie Pebos son of Tithoes closely to the Manichaean community. See however section 11.3.2.

446 Ruffini, Social networks, 214–15.

447 While Papnouthes does not feature in the letters of Tehat, we may note that a Papnouthes occurs in the KAB, who, among other actions, brought cotton from Tehat. See section 8.2.

152

Finally, two figures who feature prominently in the village network only, but who at times interacted with the House 1–3 people, need to be considered: Pausanias and Petros.

Pausanias has already been discussed in section 4.2.1, where it was argued that he can be identified with an Oasis magistrate occurring both in House 1–3 and in other documents, particularly those from the domestic structure D/8. His prominence in the network above is based on occurrences both in texts from House 1–3, from D/8, and from the West Church. The identification of the different occurrences with the man is reasonably secure. He has a high degree of betweenness centrality in all the networks that include material from the rest of the village. This strongly suggests that he was a man of considerable influence in the period he was active in the village, which was perhaps limited to ca. 320–40s. In this period, however, he may have played an important role as patron for a larger Manichaean community here, a question I examine in more detail in section 9.2.3.

Petros is somewhat more problematic. In the House 1–3 network he features as the primary recurring actor in the Petros letters (pkc.38–39), where the son consistently refer to him as ‘our brother’ and entrust him with various messages and writings. However, he is not particularly central outside this circle, occurring only in a letter of Horion involving textiles for

‘presbyter’ (pkc.18). His prominence in the network is based on an identification with a Petros that occurs in a group of West Church ostraca accounts. A key text is okell.121, which features five actors in an account of a liquid, probably olive oil. Two co-occurring actors are Psais the monk (monakhos) and Bok (for Pebok, a ‘father’ associated with a monastery in pkc.12?). The argument for identifying Petros in House 1–3 and in the West Church is derived from the KAB (not included in the networks here), which features a Petros ‘the monk’ who pays rents on behalf of a topos Mani, also dealing in olive oil.⁴⁴⁸ It suggests that okell.121 deals with monks, and that Petros the monk had some role in the economic life of the village. The name ‘Petros’

is moreover not common in Kellis, outside the West Church texts and the House 1–3 texts. I therefore take Petros, found in the KAB, the House 1–3 texts, and okell.121, as a Manichaean Elect active in the village in the 360s. Based on find-spot, this man may furthermore be

448 That this was some kind of monastic institution is quite clear from its link to Petros the monk, and a connection to the Manichaeans in House 1–3 seems highly plausible. See furthermore section 11.4.3.

identified with Petros, son of Belles, who occurs on several other potsherds from the West Church (okell.114–115, okell.117).

This explains his prominent position in the network charts of section 5.3. However, it may be objected that the identification of the monk with the man in these potsherds is relatively uncertain (at least in the case of okell.114–115, okell.117), and so his centrality could be inflated. Moreover, even granting the identification, he is only central in the networks that include accounts/lists, which are not necessarily good indicators of social centrality. He may have had little interaction with the others listed there. Even so, it is clear that a monk by that name had some sort of role as an economic agent in Kellis in this period, as is affirmed by the KAB on its own. The documents of House 1–3 and okell.121 suggests that he was not restricted to interacting with the KAB manager, and that he played an important role as a mediator between the village and a Manichaean religious institution. It supports the notion that the Pamour family’s affiliation with Manichaeism was not an isolated case in Kellis.