Part I: The social world of fourth-century Kellis
Chapter 5: Mapping Kellites
5.1 Preliminary remarks: from database to network .1 Network terminology .1 Network terminology
5.1.2 Potential obstacles
A common criticism of social network analysis – especially the difficult source material from archaeological sites – is that the centrality detected is merely an artifice of the sources, rather than reflective of the social, historical reality. In the case of the Kellis material one might object that the figures who appear as most central in the network models are those who happen to recur in the preserved documents. The people of the House 1–3 texts appear much more central than they were, due to the survival of their archives, and so the models do not provide an accurate map of the social reality of these people. The real power brokers and influencers are invisible, or only visible on the margins of the texts – in fact, the models may obscure important actors and channels of communication, rather than highlight them. A case in point is the so-called Teacher: the descriptions of him in the Maria/Makarios circle makes it clear that he was an important actor, but in the network charts he features as a much more marginal figure. However, it should be made clear that the network charts are not meant to be complete pictures of social reality. The charts show the extent of contact between people as far as the evidence allows us to map them, and while the charts cannot present the entire social horizon of the villagers they allow us a glimpse of the way information was mediated on the ground, between the villagers themselves. The Teacher, for instance, was mainly confined to the Nile Valley, and probably a rather distant figure to the people remaining in House 1–3 in Kellis. It is the people who mediated his influence in Kellis itself that interest us here.
Linked to this is the problem of the dominance of the Pamour family, the owners of the House 3 archive. Their documents make up almost half the number of those currently published in total from the village. In order to locate central actors beyond the purvey of the key owners of this archive we have to account for their bias. Here I do so in two ways: by including iterations of the network where the House 3 letters are excluded altogether, as well as by filtering out the key members of the House 3 circles (and their closest associates),
122
showing the network structure as it looks without their presence.425 The second method also allows us to test how resilient the network is – i.e. how easily it fragments when key members are removed.
A stronger objection to the approach is that the model may give a misleading picture of connections. It subsumes often quite different events under the general term ‘interaction’, all equally visualised as lines, obscuring potentially important differences. Not all ties are of equal value. Some co-occurrences of names in a single document do not imply social interaction present in the text at all, such as emperors used to date them. These naturally have to be discounted. Ruffini, moreover, pointed out the danger in leaving large ‘event’
documents, such as fiscal registers, in the database: these documents contain a large number of actors, but do not imply any actual interaction or familiarity between them.426Ruffini’s solution was to remove such event documents. The only such large event document in the Kellis database is the KAB. Its income-expenditure entries evidence interaction or familiarity with the author (or at times his agents), but not internally between the vast majority of the ca. 170 tenants and artisans appearing there. It would provide valuable evidence for the social centrality and influence of its author – but his identity, unfortunately, remains unknown (see section 8.1). I have therefore removed it from the current network calculations.
Still, the same objection can also be made for smaller accounts or lists – the distinction is not always clear, – where the author similarly may have been the only shared point of contact. These make up a large part of the texts from Kellis (although less so from House 1–
3), in particular the ostraca. To a certain degree, the objection can even be made for ‘private’
letters, which together with orders and other types of letters make up a substantial amount of material from House 1–3.427 As Matthias Brand rightly points out, in connection with the co-occurrence of Charis and the ‘Teacher’ in Makarios’ letter pkc.19, ‘[a]lthough Charis may have known the Teacher, either by name or by reputation, the available evidence indicates
425 Through filtering an attribute given to the selected actors with the operator ‘NOT’.
426 Ruffini, Social networks, 203–4.
427 For a discussion of how to define ‘private’ letters as against memos, orders, and ‘official’ types of letters, see Choat, Belief and cult, 12–15. As the boundaries are fleeting I have decided to combine these different types of documents in the current networks.
only an indirect link via Makarios.’428 The Teacher is, however, an uncharacteristic figure.
Statistically, it seems permissible to assume that actors appearing in the same letter knew each other by name and knew some way to access each other – as Ruffini argues, a ‘connection of some sort’ (cursive in original).429 In almost all documents naming only a few actors some sort of interaction between them is implied, and even some accounts and lists – e.g. dekania lists (villagers drafted for guard duty),430 priest lists, and to some extent the Coptic account reports (pkc.44, pkc.46–48) – do presuppose or imply relationships between all the actors named. It can moreover be plausibly argued that ties must have existed between people who, for instance, served or paid rent to the same landlord in such small accounts. While the specifics of each interaction is relegated to the background, the quantitative approach allows us to consider the entire field of people who had the opportunity to meet and greet.
This admittedly blunt method is suitable for the present purposes of mapping social relations on a general level. Specific patterns of interaction are considered more closely in the following chapters. Still, to account for the potentially distorting effect of different types of evidence (in particular accounts/lists) and for the dominance of the House 1–3 texts, I present several iterations of the same networks below. These include network iterations 1) based only on letters, memos, and receipts; 2) including official/judicial texts as well, but excluding accounts/lists; and 3) including also accounts/lists, barring only the KAB); in addition to 4) an iteration that excludes the House 3 letters. Actors who recur with a high centrality score in several of these iterations are more likely to have actually been central in some sense.
Finally, another potential issue should be mentioned, namely that of prosopographic identifications. The role of an individual actor can sometimes shift drastically depending on whether he or she is identified as present in a certain document or not. In the database, I have taken certainty into account as an attribute, assigning a degree of certainty for such presence from 0–6 to each edge.431 This makes it possible to make different reconstructions and charts
428 Brand, ‘Speech patterns’, 109.
429 Ruffini, Social networks, 25.
430 For dekania lists, see Roger S. Bagnall, ‘Army and police in Roman Upper Egypt’, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 14 (1977). For such lists from Kellis, see okell.124–137, and probably pkgr.60.
431 0 being the ‘core’ occurrence of an actor; 1 being a certain identification with 0, 2 an all but certain, 3 a very likely, 4 a moderately likely, 5 an uncertain, and 6 a tenuous identification. Evaluation is based on the presence
124
based on the strength of the evidence. I have chosen to rely on the links I deem moderately likely in the current analysis, as providing several iterations based on different degrees of certainty would take too much space for present purposes. This approach is intended to allow others to test my results.
5.2 The House 1–3 network ca. 350–400 5.2.1 House 1–3 texts
Having noted these limitations and obstacles, we can finally look closer at the network charts.
Let us start by considering the House 1–3 circles of the mid–late fourth century, based on a group of 138 texts dating ca. 350–390, a 40-years timespan (ca. two generations). ‘Private’
letters make up ca 75% (103 texts) of the documentary texts which this network is based on, the vast majority – but not all – of which stem from House 3. Together with short memos/orders, 6% (8 texts), they constitute the basis for the network of personal communications (‘letter network’) in Figure 7. Although a few of the documents are heavily damaged and/or contain little prosopographic data, most are well preserved. The judicial texts (contracts, petitions, oaths) make up another large group, ca. 15% (20 texts). They are added in Figure 8. Finally, the economic texts only make up about 4% (6 texts), and are added in Figure 10. Excluding the House 3 private letters (but not memos, or letters/memos from House 2) leaves 35% (41 texts) as the basis for Figure 9.
The first group of network iterations includes all House 1–3 actors (Figures 7–10). A second group of iterations (Figures 11–14) removes key Pamour family members, as well as key members of other circles such as Tehat (altogether 14 actors).432 The final group of iterations (Figures 15–18) further removes some of their closest family members and central associates (altogether 31 actors).433
of patronymics, the find spot of the documents, the rarity of the name, the presence of other shared actors in the document, dating, and the activity the name engages in.
432 Psais II, Pamour III, Pekysis, and Tekysis III; Maria I, Makarios, Matthaios, and Piene; Psais III and Andreas;
Tehat, Hatres, Horos I; Petros.
433 From the Pamour circle: Maria II, Partheni II, Kapiton I, Psenpnouthes, Kyria, Philammon II, Charis, Tapsais II, Theognostos, Lammon, Tapollon, Horos III. From the Psais/Andreas circle: Ploutogenes II, Horos II. From the Petros circle: Timotheos. From House 2: Tithoes I son of Petesis, Ploutogenes son of Pataias.
5.2.2 House 1–3 network charts All actors included
Figure 7: Letters, orders, receipts (House 1–3)
Figure 8: Letters, order, receipts, judicial documents (House 1–3)
126
Figure 10: All documents (House 1–3)
Figure 9: House 3 letters excluded (House 1–3)
Table 4: Centrality measures H1–3, all actors House 1–3 ca. 355–385, all actors
Letters orders receipts No accounts All documents No H3 letters Components
(of which, connected)
8 (3)
10 (4)
10 (4)
10 (8)
Actors 235 305 326 162
Average path length
2,436 2,599 2,611 2,492
Density 7,60 % 6 % 5,60 % 8,10 %
Giant component
Actors 226 290 311 127
Average path
length 2,436 2,600 2,611 2,507
Density 8,20 % 6,60 % 6,20 % 12,20 %
Diameter 5 6 6 5
Top ten names Degree centrality Philammon II (5051)
Andreas (5008) Lammon (5057) Pamour III (5073) Pekysis (5081) Psais II (5089) Psais III (1264) Charis (5052) Theognostos (5032) Maria I (5047)
Pamour III (5073) Philammon II (5051) Andreas (5008) Psais II (5089) Psenpnouthes (5010) Lammon (5057) Pekysis (5081) Kapiton (1014) Psais III (1264) Charis (5052)
Pamour III (5073) Philammon II (5051) Psais II (5089) Psenpnouthes (5010) Andreas (5008) Lammon (5057) Pekysis (5081) Kapiton I (1014) Psais III (1264) Charis (5052)
Pamour III (5073) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon. (5155) Psenpnouthes I (5010) Loudon II (5110) Tehat (5035) Psais s.Tryphanes (7036) Kapiton I (1014) Pataias (1011)
Closeness centrality
Philammon II (5051) Andreas (5008) Lammon (5057) Pekysis (5081) Pamour III (5073) Psais II (5089) Charis (5052) Psais III (1264) Hatres (5030) Theognostos (5032)
Pamour III (5073) Pekysis (5081) Psenpnouthes (5010) Philammon II (5051) Andreas (5008) Kapiton (1014) Lammon (5057) Psais II (5089) Charis (5052) Psais III (1264)
Pamour III (5073) Psenpnouthes (5010) Pekysis (5081) Philammon II (5051) Psais II (5089) Andreas (5008) Lammon (5057) Kapiton I (1014) Charis (5052) Partheni II (5087)
Pamour III (5073) Psenpnouthes I (5010) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon. (5155) Loudon II (5110) Psais s.Tryphanes (7036) Tehat (5035) Kapiton I (1014) Pataias (1011)
Betweenness centrality
Pekysis (5081) Psenpnouthes (5010) Andreas (5008) Philammon II (5051) Psais III (1264) Horos I (5024) Lammon (5057) Hatres (5030) Tehat (5035) Kapiton I (1014)
Pamour III (5073) Psenpnouthes (5010) Pekysis (5081) Kapiton I (1014) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Andreas (5008) Philammon II (5051) Psais III (1264) Psais II (5089) Horos I (5024)
Pamour III (5073) Psenpnouthes I (5010) Pekysis (5081) Tehat (5035) Kapiton I (1014) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Psais II (5089) Philammon II (5051) Andreas (5008) Psais III (1264)
Pamour III (5073) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Psenpnouthes I (5010) Tehat (5035) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon. (5155) Tithoes s.Petesis (5013) Psais II (5089) Harpokration (1026) Tapollon (5142)
128
14 circle heads removed
Figure 12: Letters, orders, receipts (circle heads removed. House 1–3)
Figure 11: Letters, order, receipts, judicial documents (circle heads removed. House 1–3)
Figure 13: All documents (circle heads removed. House 1–3)
Figure 14: House 3 letters excluded (circle heads removed. House 1–3)
130
House 1–3 ca. 355–385: heads of House 3–circles removed
Letters, orders, receipts Excluding accounts All documents included No H3 letters Components
(non-isolates) 10 (4)
14 (6)
14 (7)
14 (11)
Actors 221 291 312 156
Average path distance
2,711 2,869 2,874 2,696
Density 5,30 % 4,50 % 4,40 % 7,70 %
Giant component
Actors 209 270 291 111
Average path length
2,712 2,87 2,875 2,727
Density 5,90 % 5,30 % 5 % 13,50 %
Diameter 5 6 6 6
Top ten names Degree
centrality
Andreas (5008) Lammon (5057) Charis (5052) Theognostos (5032) Kyria I (5007) Psenpnouthes (5010) Tapsais I (5009) Partheni II (5087) Kapiton I (1014) Maria II (5090)
Philammon II (5008) Psenpnouthes (5010) Kapiton I (1014) Lammon (5057) Charis (5052) Theognostos (5032) Kyria I (5007) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Tapsais I (5009) Horion s.Tithoes (1090)
Philammon II (5008) Psenpnouthes (5010) Kapiton I (1014) Lammon (5057) Charis (5052) Theognostos (5032) Kyria I (5007) Partheni II (5087) Tapsais I (5009) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon. (5155) Psenpnouthes I (5010) Loudon II (5110) Kapiton I (1014) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Pataias (1011) Pinoutas Ploutog. (1016) Sarapammon s.Psais (1052)
Closeness centrality
Philammon II (5008) Lammon (5057) Theognostos (5032) Charis (5052) Maria II (5090) Kyria I (5007) Kapiton I (1014) Tapsais II (7014) Partheni II (5087) Tapsais I (5009)
Philammon II (5008) Kapiton I (1014) Psenpnouthes (5010) Lammon (5057) Theognostos (5032) Charis (5052) Kyria I (5007) Maria II (5090) Tapsais II (7014) Psais Tryphanes (7036)
Philammon II (5008) Psenpnouthes (5010) Kapiton I (1014) Lammon (5057) Theognostos (5032) Charis (5052) Kyria I (5007) Partheni II (5087) Maria II (5090) Tapsais I (5009)
Psenpnouthes I (5010) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon.(5155) Tithoes s.Petesis (5013) Loudon II (5110) Kapiton I (1014) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Kyria I (5007) Pataias (1011)
Betweenness centrality
Philammon II (5008) Lammon (5057) Theognostos (5032) Kapiton I (1014) Psenpnouthes (5010) Partheni II (5087) Timotheos (5033) Charis (5052) Ploutogenes II (5108) Tapsais II (7014)
Psenpnouthes (5010) Kapiton I (1014) Philammon II (5008) Theognostos (5032) Lammon (5057) Pebos s.Tithoes (5032) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Ploutogenes II (5108) Timotheos (5033) Partheni II (5087)
Psenpnouthes (5010) Kapiton I (1014) Philammon II (5008) Theognostos (5032) Lammon (5057) Pebos s.Tithoes (5032) Partheni II (5087) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Ploutogenes II (5108) Timotheos (5033)
Psenpnouthes I (5010) Kyria I (5007) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Tithoes s.Petesis (5013) Tapollon (5142) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon. (5155) Timotheos s.Harpokr. (1035) Harpokration (1026) Loudon II (5110) Table 5: Centrality table House 1–3: circle heads removed
31 members removed
Figure 15: Letters, order, receipts (31 actors removed. House 1–3)
Figure 16: Letters, order, receipts, judicial documents (31 actors removed. House 1–3)
132
Figure 17: All documents (31 actors removed. House 1–3)
Figure 18: House 3 letters excluded (31 actors removed. House 1–3)
Table 6: Centrality table House 1–3: 31 actors removed House 1–3 ca. 355–385: 31 central actors removed
Letters, orders, receipts Excluding accounts All documents included No H3 letters Components
(non-isolates) 27 (14) 29 (14) 27 (13) 17 (14)
Actors 204 274 295 146
Average path
distance 3,839 3,992 3,832 2,229
Density 3,30 % 3,40 % 3,30 % 7,40 %
Giant component
Actors 158 220 244 73
Average path
length 3,846 3,998 4,022 2,319
Density 5,30 % 5,10 % 4,60 % 23,80 %
Diameter 10 11 11 6
Top ten names Degree
centrality
Tapsais I (5009) Tamougenia (5054) Papnouthes (7055) Tsemnouthes I (5003) Isi (5058) Pena (5067) Tsemnouthes II (5004) Ammonios a.Makar (5053) Talaphanti (5060) Kame II (5064)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon (5155) Tapsais I (5009) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Tamougenia (5054) Loudon II (5110) Papnouthes (7055) Tsemnouthes I (5003) Timotheos s.Loud (5166)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon (5155) Tapsais I (5009) Papnouthes (7055) Loudon II (5110) Tsemnouthes I (5003) Tamougenia (5054) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Timotheos s.Loud (5166)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon (5155) Loudon II (5110) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Pataias (1011) Pinoutas Ploutog (1016) Timotheos s.Harpokr (1035) Sarapammon s.Psais (1052) Timotheos s.Loud (5166)
Closeness centrality**
Tapsais I (5009) Papnouthes (7055) Isi (5058) Tamougenia (5054) Tsemnouthes I (5003) Ammonios a.Makar (5053) Kame II (5064) Tsemnouthes II (5004) Talaphanti (5060) Drousiane (5055)
Psais Tryphanes (7036) Papnouthes (7055) Loudon II (5110) Kame II (5064) Tryphanes s.Psais (5091) Timotheos s.Loud (5166) Tapsais I (5009) Tsemnouthes III (5059) Isi (5058)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091)
Psais Tryphanes (7036) Loudon II (5110) Papnouthes (7055) Tamougenia (5054) Kame II (5064) Tapsais I (5009) Ammonios a.Psais (5111) Partheni the elder (5065) Tryphanes s.Psais (5091) Tsemnouthes I (5003)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon (5155) Loudon II (5110) Timotheos s.Harpokr (1035) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Harpokration (1026) Timotheos s.Loudon (5166) Pataias (1011)
Sarapammon s.Psais (1052)
Betweenness centrality
Papnouthes (7055) Tapsais I (5009) Plousiane (7017) Psais Tryphanes (7036) Horion b.Horos (5018) Tbekis II (5011) Tryphanes s.Psais (5091) Pini (5121)
Pollon (5143) Lysimachos (5077)
Psais Tryphanes (7036) Papnouthes (7055) Plousiane (7017) Horion b.Horos (5018) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Tapsais I (5009) Pini (5121) Pollon (5143) Loudon II (5110) Tryphanes s.Psais (5091)
Psais Tryphanes (7036) Papnouthes (7055) Loudon II (5110) Plousiane (7017) Pollon (5143) Horion b.Horos (5018) Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Pini (5121) Tapsais I (5009) Tamougenia (5054)
Pebos s.Tithoes (1091) Loudon II (5110) Timotheos s.Harpokr (1035) Horion s.Tithoes (1090) Ploutogenes s.Ouon (5155) Pebok (5012)
Demosthenes s.Polykr (1033) Harpokration (1026) Samoun s.Tithoes (5014) Psais Tryphanes (7036)
134