From 206 to 186 bce the Thebaid region of southern Egypt seceded from the Ptolemaic kingdom and became an independent state under pharaohs (or a single pharaoh) named Haronnophris and Chaonnophris. Although the Ptolemies reasserted power over the Thebaid, at least two other major disturbances followed in c. 165 and 88 bce, and a further revolt was pacified by C. Cornelius Gallus in 30/29 bce at the beginning of Roman rule. These episodes earned the Thebaid an ancient and modern reputation as particularly prone to rebellion. The volume under review endeavours to re-examine this discourse on Thebes by adopting ‘crisis’ as a more expansive framework that brings into view a broad range of social and material conditions and events, their entangled causes and the varying perspectives and responses of historical actors. The result is an introduction and thirteen essays (developed from papers at a 2019 conference in Berlin) that explore multiple kinds of crisis in the Ptolemaic Thebaid, with the emphasis on making better use of material evidence, examining the roles and perspectives of various historical actors, and thinking beyond received schemes of interpretation.
Revolt itself is the scheme most de-centred in this volume, and this is a significant departure from related scholarship. Over the last 30 years or so a number of studies have contributed to advancing our knowledge of the Theban revolts (and others in Ptolemaic Egypt) and redefining our understanding of their causes, character, extent and consequences. This re-evaluation began with a group of foundational studies in the 1990s and 2000s by W. Huss, P. Pestman, B. McGing, A.-E. Veïsse and J. Manning, and it has continued to the present in the work of many others. Among the most prominent debates has been the question whether ‘nationalism’ or comparable ethno-cultural sentiments provoked these revolts or whether they were the result of social and economic grievances caused by state interventions. Another debate has been over the extent and effects of these revolts, and whether they were part of a long ‘decline’ in the Ptolemaic state. Birk’s introduction to the volume provides an outline of these debates and trends, while also proposing ‘crisis’ as an alternative lens. He draws on historiographical, sociological and anthropological definitions of ‘crisis’ to focus on two notions. First, he explores the idea of a ‘crisis of time’ – the disruption of received temporal frameworks or perceptions of time – and connects this to Ptolemaic evidence, including changes in calendars and other means of marking time, as well as ‘apocalyptic’ texts such as the Demotic Chronicle and the Oracle of the Potter. Secondly, and more consequentially, Birk outlines the potential of a ‘revelatory crisis’ to expose fundamental structures and stresses in a society. This framework, he argues, opens our view to social, material and ideological dimensions of revolt other than those that have dominated scholarship over the last few decades. These are stimulating arguments; and even if the essays in the volume rarely engage in an explicit way with Birk’s concepts, they trace out lines for further investigation and help draw out the collective impact of the studies, which are generally more technical and specialised.
Existing interpretative schemes concerning Thebes and rebellion are most directly tested by A.-E. Veïsse and in the joint essay by S. Caneva and S. Pfeiffer. Veïsse dispels a mirage of continuity between the great revolt and the ‘revolt’ of 88 bce. In part through overemphasis on the testimony of Pausanias, this conflict has often been considered part of an endemic pattern. Veïsse, however, reviews the papyri from Pathyris and shows that the conflict was an episode in the dynastic struggle between Ptolemy X and Ptolemy IX, when the latter finally made a successful return after his expulsion in 107 bce. This was a crisis in the Thebaid, and it appears to have resulted in the victor dismantling garrison towns at Pathyris and Crocodilopolis, but its causes and the goals of the combatants were nothing like those of the great revolt. Caneva and Pfeiffer also shed light on later Ptolemaic Thebes in their study of the honorific decree for the strategos Kallimachos II (OGIS I 194). The high honours given to this Theban governor for his actions in aiding Thebes during a food shortage have suggested to many that he was exceeding his authority and acting as a semi-independent ruler. By contextualising the decree within both Late Period Egyptian ideals of the good official and patterns in contemporary Hellenistic honorific decrees (especially in the cities of Asia Minor), Caneva and Pfeiffer show that these were not insurrectionist gestures. The episode also demonstrates that a climate-induced food crisis did not necessarily lead to a political crisis at the local level in the supposedly rebellious Thebaid.
Studies of the physical causes, conditions and consequences of crisis fulfil the project’s goal of engaging more thoroughly with the material evidence. Most attempt to trace the impact of crisis, but J. Manning’s contribution investigates causes and urges further study of climatic data. He revisits his earlier work on correlations between volcanic activity, low Nile floods and social unrest, noting that some of these episodes of environmental crisis found literary expression in the late Ptolemaic Oracle of the Potter. T. Faucher examines the numismatic evidence for signs of disruption at Thebes around the time of the great revolt, focusing on stray finds and hoards at Karnak and Luxor. With due methodological caution he presents evidence that money was hurriedly buried and that the use of Ptolemaic bronze coinage declined, with some Demotic legal documents suggesting a return to an older silver standard. On the other hand, coin issues from Alexandria still made their way to Thebes and its temples even in the face of political upheaval. F. Relats Montserrat reviews the complex evidence from the temple of Medamud to reconsider whether it was destroyed during the great revolt and subsequently rebuilt, as long ago proposed by F. Bisson de la Roque (and subsequently repeated). Drawing on documentation from earlier excavations as well as recent work at the site by the author and his collaborators, Relats Montserrat finds little evidence of destruction. The effects of crisis at Medamud (as at other temples such as Edfu) were indirect: there were periods in which construction and renovation work slowed or stopped, but there always followed a resumption of work and a reassertion of authority. In general, these contributions show both the promise and the methodological challenges of tracing correlations between the histoire événementielle of crisis and the material record.
Priests have long been understood as key actors in the politics of crisis and in mediating relations between the Ptolemaic dynasty and the inhabitants of Egypt. Several contributions analyse the responses of these priests, and especially their representations of crisis and of Ptolemaic rulers. Birk uses biographical inscriptions and related documents to examine disruptions to traditional patterns in the control of priestly offices and scribal position by prominent families in Thebes before and after the great revolt. The intriguing case of Pakhnoum demonstrates the mobility of one family that appears to have retreated to Memphis during the revolt and then returned. The evidence is circumstantial (and carefully handled as such), but it calls into question the idea of a monolithic Theban priesthood that resisted the Ptolemies. M.-P. Chaufray complements this in her careful search for signs of disruption in the evidence for temple overseers (lesoneis) of the Thebaid (focusing on Thebes, Edfu and Pathyris). The results are largely inconclusive, apart from the documents of Pathyris, which suggest that recognition of the rebel pharaohs had no major negative consequences for the priestly family connected with the office of lesonis there. J. Moje searches for traces of the revolt in Demotic documents from Elephantine, which remained under Ptolemaic control during the great revolt. There are only tantalising scraps in letters and petitions referring to prisoners or the flight of priests who sided with the rebels. In aggregate, the evidence suggests a decline in the use of Demotic in official spheres at Elephantine, perhaps related to the revolt, its suppression and the re-establishment of Ptolemaic power at this critical frontier zone.
Finally, several studies investigate whether crises in the Thebaid affected how priests represented the Ptolemaic dynasty, and whether these shifts were material interruptions caused by unsettled conditions (as in the case of temple building) or intentional adjustments. As an example of the latter, A. Nespoulous-Phalippou traces changes in the priestly decrees issued in the context of disputed royal authority under Ptolemy V. She points out the prominent agency of the generals Komanos and Aristonikos in the historical narrative sections of Philensis II (186) and the decree of 182 (now attested in a new copy found at Kom Ombo in 2018), which contrasts with the king’s prominence in the decree of 196 (first documented on the Rosetta Stone). D. von Recklinghausen examines the portrayal of events in Philensis II and shows that, although historical events are depicted in the narrative section, royal action is patterned after the correct role of the pharaonic king as protector of Egypt, and guarantor of Maat, while the rebels are associated with chaos (Isfet). As a complement to Nespoulous-Phalippou’s study, he points out that the names and actions of Komanos and Aristonikos only appear in the introduction and in the honours sections of the decrees, and their agency is subordinated to that of the king in the ideologically structured main narrative. Less direct impacts of crisis are found in royal cult and its representation in the temples. M. Minas-Nerpel reviews developments in ruler cult, especially for Ptolemaic queens, noting occasional crisis-related interruptions in temple inscriptions (especially under Ptolemy V). R. Preys examines changes in the representation of the royal cult in temple inscriptions, specifically type-scenes that show the living royal couple performing rituals for deceased ancestral couples, paired with others that emphasise legitimate inheritance and martial victory. During the Theban revolt this scheme goes into abeyance, although this may have been the result of practical factors. The pattern also responded to later crises, as dynastic conflict necessitated creative adaptation, and eventually abandonment. Coulon examines evidence of investment in Osirian cemeteries, which were closely connected to the dynastic cult, especially under Ptolemy IV, and documents correlations between periods of inactivity and the vagaries of Ptolemaic authority. In the face of incomplete evidence, Coulon is suitably cautious about whether this was intentional or circumstantial interruption.
As mentioned, making the connections between individual essays and the volume’s larger conceptual framework is scholarly work largely undertaken in the introduction, but the volume provides a rich variety of substantial contributions to knowledge. These contributions build a wider context in which to reinterpret established ideas about revolt and Ptolemaic Thebes, by attending to multiple forms of crisis, differing responses and a wide range of evidence both textual and material.
