John
BAUSCHATZ Diversity in Detention: Ptolemaic
Prisons
The papyri provide a wealth of details
on the Ptolemaic prison system. Many scholars have made
valuable contributions to the study of its organization,
but much work remains. In this paper I argue for three
modifications to prevailing views on Ptolemaic
imprisonment: that incarceration followed a variety of
offenses; that a number of specialized prisons served
specific classes of offenders; and that very lengthy
detention was not uncommon. These findings could suggest
that we need a new model of the Ptolemaic prison system,
one that differs dramatically from those observable in
other ancient states.
The prevailing view holds that imprisonment in the Greek
world was primarily imposed for public and private debts.
Of 101 references to incarceration in the Ptolemaic
period, 17 seem to refer to prison stays for debts. Yet
more than half of these are dubious and may not even
concern imprisonment for debt. Further, at least 15
additional texts detail detentions carried out for crimes
ranging from assault to theft, from poor workmanship to
disturbing the peace. Unlike the prisons of other ancient
Mediterranean states, Ptolemaic holding-cells were
employed for far more than tax cheats.
It has likewise been argued that private offenders were
imprisoned in desmôtêria and fiscal
offenders in
praktoreia
or
logistêria. Yet in the
majority of cases the offenses for which individuals were
imprisoned in desmôtêria are unclear.
Further, it seems that many private offenders were placed
in phylakai. As for fiscal
offenders, we know of only one public debtor incarcerated
in a praktoreion and none
imprisoned in a logistêrion.
But three texts describe incarceration in heirktai
for such
offenses, and a handful of royal decrees specifically
prohibit detention for private violations in these same
buildings. Another text mentions detention in the
synochê for a debt to
the crown. As the evidence demonstrates, regulations for
the incarceration of suspects were more flexible than has
previously been allowed.
Periods of detention in Ptolemaic jails were also
flexible, as previous scholars have indicated. In almost
two dozen instances we know precisely how long offenders
were kept in prison. A dozen incarcerations were shorter
than one month. On the other hand, seven, and perhaps
eight or nine lasted more than one month, one as long as
three years. This startling split in the evidence and the
oft-repeated fear of prolonged suffering in jail, even
death, that we find expressed in letters from inmates
suggests that very lengthy stays in the lock-up may have
been a regular occurrence: a striking contrast to the
common belief that detention in the ancient world was
generally short-term.
The evidence for imprisonment in Ptolemaic times
demonstrates that the Greek rulers of Egypt provided
their police officials with a variety of options for the
incarceration of offenders in a number of specialized
prisons: a surprising discovery, given the prevailing
view of the Ptolemaic state as a rigid, autocratic
entity. The data also suggest that the Ptolemies
encouraged an active approach to arrests and
incarceration, in contrast to the generally hands-off
methods of crime-fighting and detention of criminals
observable in other ancient Mediterranean states, among
these Athens and Rome. The evidence for imprisonment in
Ptolemaic times provides a window into a strikingly
original, diverse and flexible entity.
Abstracts
Index