People of the block

96

pkc.18 provides a tie between the Petros letters and Tehat/Horion, as does the mention of

‘our brother’ Herakles (pkc.38; see pkc.58, pkgr.14). Furthermore, in pkc.41 the son asks his mother to make two headscarfs for him: it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the term for headscarfs (ⲫⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲓ) is otherwise only found in one of the Coptic accounts, where a Herakles again is involved in the weaving of one (pkc.48). These indications strongly suggest that the

‘mother’ can be identified with Tehat, or a woman in her immediate circle, and the ‘son’ with one of the younger men in the circle of Theognostos/Partheni. It would explain how pkc.91, linked with Psais/Andreas, might be written by the same author.³⁶⁴ Still, no precise identification can be made. The absence of other central actors from the Tehat circle and the Pamour family, and the presence of several otherwise unknown names, remains puzzling. I have therefore chosen to leave the question open.

3.3.3 Summary

To sum up, in addition to the Pamour family, we find two identifiable circles in the House 3 material, that of Tehat and that of Petros. The former can be directly linked to the Pamour family through several important figures, such as Horos I, Theognostos, and Partheni, tied by the marriage of Partheni and Pekysis. The link between the Petros circle and the Pamours is mostly indirect, but it, too, is closely tied to Partheni and Theognostos. It seems probable that the ‘son’ (author) and ‘mother’ (recipient) should be identified with figures from their group, but no direct identification can be made.

Households in Roman Egypt naturally differed from modern ones, and we have to be careful not to bring too many of our own assumptions into the material. Here we may turn to a study of Egyptian demographics by Bagnall and Frier, based on Roman census returns from Egypt, providing a glimpse into typical features of Egyptian households.³⁶⁵ Most households were complex, i.e. consisting either of extended families or multiple families. Husbands were in general older than their wives were. Wedded couples would often live with parents for some time after marriage (extending the family ‘upwards’, towards the older generation), as well as with siblings (extending it ‘horizontally’).³⁶⁶ They count many examples of same-generational multiple families, where ‘the archetype is the frérèche, a household in which siblings (especially brothers) remain in the household after more than one of them has married.’³⁶⁷ Lodgers (enoikoi) and slaves add another layer of complexity, as most Egyptian farmers could afford to hold a slave. Multiple family households, consisting of more than one conjugal family, may have made up around 25% of households.³⁶⁸ As to number of people in each unit, the size and social composition could vary markedly, and high mortality rates would much cause change within a household over time.³⁶⁹

We cannot directly apply such averages to the individual case of the House 1–3 papyri.

Still, several features of the family surveyed so far resonate with the above picture. The household of the extended Pamour family included multiple family groups. Pamour III and his brother Pekysis appear to have kept their families together, extending their shared household horizontally by way of their marriages, at least until Pamour went to the Nile Valley. The family of their sister Tekysis and her husband Kapiton were likewise involved. Letters from Pamour alternate between addressing Pekysis, Psais III, and Partheni as primary recipient; Pekysis varies between Psais III, Partheni (with Tekysis), Kapiton, and Horos. The elderly Maria I

365 For a discussion of the census forms as statistical data, see Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 40–51. The only census documents from Kellis stem from the second century, and document a single conjugal family at a much earlier period; the family of Tithoes and Talaeis, formally registered in Mesobe but living in Kellis with their two daughters and a female slave. Incidentally, Talaeis and both daughters are described as spinners.

366 Ibid., 57–64.

367 Ibid., 64.

368 For villages, they have ca. 15.8% solidary, 4.2% without family, 36% conjugal families, 17.9% extended families, and 25.3% multiple families. See ibid., 67.

369 Ibid., 68.

98

probably shared living space with a Pamour family member, staying with the ‘brother’ Psais III (pkgr.71) as noted by the editors.³⁷⁰ The older generation of Psais II/Philammon II and Makarios/Maria also cooperated with each other and the brothers, and so the ties went back at least one generation. The documents of Tehat/Horos may well indicate that the older generation of Pekysis’ wife, Partheni, shared in (or came to share in) this household. The Pamour family also took lodgers, such as Psais son of Syros (pkgr.32) or Marsis (pkgr.33, in Aphrodito). Slaves may also be in evidence (see section 7.1.3). This extended, multiple-family household also acted as a socio-economic unit, cooperating in a trade venture between Oasis and the Nile, as will be explored in Chapter 6. The activities of Pamour/Pekysis were continued by their younger brother or associate, Psais III, and the other young men and women located with him.

3.4.2 The family and the Houses

Finally, we should consider whether this extended household in fact inhabited the physical space where the letters were found, i.e. the House 1–3 block, and in particular House 3.

Gardner and others questioned this possibility, noting that: ‘There would seem to be more textual remains and artefacts than can be accounted for by simple residential context.’³⁷¹ Instead, House 3 may well have functioned as a dumping ground from material collected from elsewhere. This would significantly weaken the argument that the groups considered above made up a single household, and furthermore make other evidence from the material context less salient for assessing this group. Colin A. Hope, on the other hand, suggested an answer in the affirmative in his concluding remarks on the archaeological context in CDT I:

it is certainly unnecessary to postulate that because of the quantity of material found in House 3 documents from diverse sources at Kellis, possibly houses near to House 3, might have been collected therein preparatory to removal on the abandonment of the area. … Whilst the 150 vessels and more from room 6 might seem surprising, and the number restored to date from the house is in the region of 200, these may also have been accumulated throughout the fourth century and also represent the possessions of various family groups or sub-groups who resided in House 3.³⁷²

370 Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 40.

371 Gardner, KLT I, ix.

372 Hope and Bowen, ‘The archaeological context’, 115–16.

Furthermore, in a study of the textile industry at Kellis, Gillian E. Bowen pointed to the discovery of weaving equipment and numerous textile fragments found in the block as indication that parts of it had been used as a weaving workshop, of which Tehat would be the most likely proprietor.³⁷³

Lisa Nevett questioned some of these connections in an article from 2011.³⁷⁴ She noted both the possibility of, but also difficulties in, reconciling archaeological finds with the actors of House 2. On House 3, she wrote: ‘there is little indication that the house was divided into separate, self-contained units … While it is possible that more than one household may have been resident in the house at once, there is nothing to demonstrate this in the archaeology’.³⁷⁵ However, after analysing finds from Karanis in a similar manner, she concluded: ‘Physical boundaries do not appear to have been required to separate co-resident groups. […] Rather, a physical house seems to have operated as an organic whole despite changes in the make-up of the occupying household or households.’³⁷⁶ Based on Nevett’s study, the building structure can neither prove nor disprove the possibility of a multiple-family household in House 3.

Somewhat more positively, Anna L. Boozer has indicated that the relationship between House 2 and 3 support a close connection between them, and may point to extended familial relations:

Clusters of autonomous units of houses with various designs and co-options of space indicate the presence of close relationships between households or extended family relationships between households or extended family relationships as parts of houses and streets are exchanged between neighbours due to inheritance, marriage, or sales. The relationships between the Kellis houses examined appear to fit this model.³⁷⁷

Finally, Gillian E. Bowen has made a renewed argument for the relationship between house and people of House 3 based on the prosopography.³⁷⁸ She establishes four separate archives based on find spots, and finds strong connections between them. Even where no direct links

373 See ibid., 116; Bowen, ‘Textiles, Basketry and Leather’, 97. See also section 7.1.3.

374 Nevett, ‘Family and Household’.

375 Ibid., 23.

376 Ibid., 29.

377Anna L. Boozer, ‘Towards an archaeology of household relationships in Roman Egypt’, in Mediterranean families in antiquity: households, extended families, and domestic space, ed. S. R. Huebner and G. Nathan (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 199.

378 Gillian E. Bowen, ‘The environment within: The archaeological context of the texts from House 3 at Kellis in Egypt's Dakhleh Oasis’, in Housing and habitat in the ancient Mediterranean: cultural and environmental responses, ed. A. A. Di Castro and Colin A. Hope (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2015).

100

in style or prosopography are found, indirect links are in evidence for most documents (as can also be seen in the examination above). Pointing to the interconnectedness of these four sub-archives, she confidently concludes that ‘the documents found in House 3 belonged to the occupants’.³⁷⁹ In addition to these arguments, the thesis may further be supported by the evidence of pkgr.38 (d.333), which describes a structure given to Psais II and locates it adjacent to the house of his family. The description of this structure fits largely – admittedly not perfectly – with the room just north of House 3.³⁸⁰

Based on these considerations, I hold it for likely that the extended, multiple-family household here called the Pamour family used the physical space of House 3.³⁸¹ It may be that rooms were at times rented out to lodgers. Perhaps lodging could account for the presence of, for instance, Psais,³⁸² Andreas, Theognostos, or Ploutogenes, but these actors were closely affiliated with Pamour and Pekysis, and familial ties are equally possible. If some of them were lodgers, their contracts must have been facilitated by pre-existing ties of friendship or kinship.

At any rate, the family retained a connection to House 3 at least until the 380s (pkgr.44).