Utilisateur:Michel Abada/Article en cours d'écriture/Babatha8
- → N'hésitez pas à publier sur le brouillon un texte inachevé et à le modifier autant que vous le souhaitez.
- → Pour enregistrer vos modifications au brouillon, il est nécessaire de cliquer sur le bouton bleu : « Publier les modifications ». Il n'y a pas d'enregistrement automatique.
Si votre but est de publier un nouvel article, votre brouillon doit respecter les points suivants :
- Respectez le droit d'auteur en créant un texte spécialement pour Wikipédia en français (pas de copier-coller venu d'ailleurs).
- Indiquez les éléments démontrant la notoriété du sujet (aide).
- Liez chaque fait présenté à une source de qualité (quelles sources – comment les insérer).
- Utilisez un ton neutre, qui ne soit ni orienté ni publicitaire (aide).
- Veillez également à structurer votre article, de manière à ce qu'il soit conforme aux autres pages de l'encyclopédie (structurer – mettre en page).
- → Si ces points sont respectés, pour transformer votre brouillon en article, utilisez le bouton « publier le brouillon » en haut à droite. Votre brouillon sera alors transféré dans l'espace encyclopédique.
LAND TENURE in the DOCUMENTS FROM THE NABATAEAN KINGDOM and THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF ARABIA modifier
The text and translation of the as-yet unpublished Nabataean P.Yadin 2 and 3 were put at my disposal by Ada Yardeni, who also discussed them with me, and rightly insisted on understanding them literally before trying to interpret them. I am grateful to her for her collaboration in this article as well as in our joint publication of the so-called Seiyâl collection (see note 3).
Land tenure in the documents from the Nabataean kingdom and after 106 from the Roman province of Arabia is a slippery issue. The documents contain indirect and not unambiguous information concerning the status of land in Nabataea/Arabia. What was the exact legal status of land said to be leased from the Nabataean king? Did the transition from independent kingdom to Roman province affect the status of this land? Did such land become private in the transition, or was it now leased from the Roman emper- or? Is the payment mentioned in the documents that of rent or of tax?1
The documents to be discussed here are of different nature: deeds of sale, P.Yadin 2 and 3 (Naba- taean, unpublished, 99 CE);2 receipts, XHev/Se gr 60 (125 CE) and XHev/Se ar 12 (131 CE); land declarations for the census, XHev/Se gr 62 and P.Yadin 16 (127 CE); and a deed of gift, XHev/Se gr 64 (129 CE). 3
P.Yadin 2 and 3 of 99 CE, two Nabataean deeds of sale, were written one month apart from each other by the same scribe. They describe the sale of the same date grove by a Nabataean woman, ’Abi‘adan daughter of ’Aftah daughter of Manigros, at first to a man called Archelaus son of ‘Abd‘ami- yu (P.Yadin 2) and a month later to Shim‘on – probably to be identified as Shim‘on bar Menahem, Babatha’s father – (P.Yadin 3).4 Both deeds contain a clause about an annual and fixed share to be paid to the Nabataean king. This clause can be reconstructed as follows from the inner and outer texts of the two almost identical contracts (P.Yadin 2 lines 13–14 = lines 37–38; P.Yadin 3 lines 15–16 = lines 41– 42):
| ‘In such a way this (same ) ’Abi‘adan divided
for this grove the share of our Lord, lease-rent for the year, in like manner ten se’ah therein, until there will be a new binding agreement and this grove will become part of this Archelaus’ (Shim‘on’s) property by the present contract’. |
5 yrka anarm qlj ad atng l[ ad ˆd[yba tqlp hndk
anmttw tdj rsa awhy yd d[ 6hrç[ ˆyas hb twk atnçl .hnd arfvb hnd (ˆw[mv) slkra rtab ad atng |
By 19 November and 18 December, the respective dates of P.Yadin 2 and 3, the lease-rent (yrka) due for the current year has not yet been paid. However, now that the date grove is changing hands, the lease-rent ought to be divided between seller and buyer. ’Abi‘adan is saying that she divided the share to the king for the current year, presumably between herself and the buyer (anarm qlj ... tqlp). The meaning of the phrase hrç[ ˆyas hb twk (‘in like manner ten se’ah therein’) in this context is obscure. Assuming that the hb (‘therein’) refers to the ‘share of our Lord’, it could be cautiously suggested that the ten se’ah constitute ’Abi‘adan’s part in the ‘share of our Lord’; alternatively if it refers to the ‘grove’, it may stand for the entire yearly share of the king in the grove. Be this as it may, this is to be done until a new agreement is made (tdj rsa awhy yd d[), and the date grove bought in the present contract actually becomes the possession of the buyer ([ˆw[mv] slkra rtab ad atng anmttw).
What is meant by a ‘new binding agreement’ (tdj rsa)? It could refer to an individual private contract between the king and the new owner (Archelaus or Shim‘on) which would change or confirm the current terms of leasing and the rates. It seems more likely though that what is meant by a ‘new binding agreement’ is ‘a new order’, i.e. a periodic reorganization of all land leased from the king which was likely to be accompanied by a readjustment of the terms of lease. If this latter suggestion is accep- ted, it follows that ’Abi‘adan will go on paying her share to the king for as long as the ‘old order’ is still in force. The new order will confirm new owners in their possession; only then will the present contract take its final effect.7 Unfortunately, in the absence of further information, neither suggestion can be considered more than a working hypothesis.
The status of this date grove, leased from the Nabataean king, must have been different – although we do not in what way – from that piece of land designated in the description of the abutters as ‘the land (the garden) of our Lord, king Rab’el’ (aklm labr anarm [tng] [ra, P.Yadin 2 line 4 = line 24; P.Yadin 3 line 5 = lines 26–27). What we know from these two documents is that Nabataean legal practice allowed for land leased from the king to be alienated and sold (twice) on the open market, and transmitted to heirs (P.Yadin 2 line 9 = line 31; P.Yadin 3 line 10 = line 33). If the explanation suggested above for the ‘new binding agreement’ is accepted, then leased land could be alienated during the ‘present order’ – even if it takes its legal effect only when ‘a new order’ is established.
Was all land in the Nabataean kingdom, unless said to belong to the king (anarm [tng] [ra), con- ceived to be on lease from him? If so, then lease-rent could be considered as equivalent to tax.
What happened after 106 with the advent of the Romans? Did the status of the land undergo any changes?
The date grove of P.Yadin 2 and 3, as has been argued elsewhere, was given to Babatha by her father probably in 120 CE, and is to be identified with one of the two Algiphiammas described in Babatha’s land declaration during the census conducted in the Roman province of Arabia in 127 (P.Yadin 16 lines 17–24):8
| 1) kh' p on foinikw' n oç ej n oJ r iv o iç Mawzwn
legovmenon Algifiamma çpovrou kreiqh'ç çavtou eJno;ç kavbwn triw'n telou'nta foivnikoç çurivou kai; meivgmatoç çavta dekapevnte pathtou' çavta devka çtefanikou9 mevlan e}n lepta;10 triavkon- ta geivtoneç oJdo;ç kai; qavlaçça; 2) k h ' p o n foinikw' n oç ej n oJ r iv o iç Mawzwn legov m enon Algifiamma çpovrou krieqh'ç kavbou eJno;ãçà telou'nta tw'n geinomevnwn kaq∆ e[toç karpw'n mevroç h{miçu geivtoneç moçcantikh; kurivou Kaiv- çaroç kai; qavlaçça |
‘1) A date grove within the boundaries of Mahoza
called Algiphiamma, the area of sowing one se’ah and three qab of barley, paying fifteen se’ah of mixed and Syrian dates, ten se’ah of ‘splits’ and as stephanikon one ‘black’ and thirty lepta, abutted by the road and the sea; 2) a date grove within the boundaries of Mahoza called Algiphiamma, the area of sowing one qab of barley, paying a half share of the crops produced every year, abutted by the Moschantic estate of the emperor and by the sea.’ |
The abutters of the date grove in P.Yadin 2 and 3 are ‘to the east the road, and to the west the houses of Tha daughter of ‘Abdharatat and to the south the land of our Lord, king Rab’el, who maintained life and brought deliverance to his people, and to the north the swamp’: trb ajt ytb abr[mlw ajra ajndml aqqr alamçlw hm[ bzyçw yyja yd aklm labr anarm [ra anymylw ttrjdb[ (P.Yadin 2 lines 4–5 = lines 23– 24; P.Yadin 3 lines 4–5 = lines 25–27).11 Thus this date grove (whose name cannot be recovered in P.Yadin 3 line 3 = line 24), can be identified either as the first Algiphiamma abutted by the road and the sea (oJdo;ç kai; qavlaçça), or as the second Algiphiamma abutted by the Moschantic estate of the emperor and the sea (moçcantikh; kurivou Kaivçaroç kai; qavlaçça), assuming that the Nabataean king’s property to the south of the date grove mentioned in P.Yadin 2 and 3 was transformed into imperial property after the creation of the province,12 and the ‘shoals’ to the north of that date grove are to be be equated with the sea in P.Yadin 16. The ten se’ah of P.Yadin 2 and 3 do not favour one or the other of the two Algiphiammas. As was suggested above the ten se’ah may represent only the seller’s (’Abi‘adan’s) part in the yearly rent; as such they could be part of the foivnikoç çurivou kai; meivgmatoç çavta dekapevnte pathtou' çavta devka çtefanikou' mevlan e}n lepta; triavkonta of the first Algiphiamma, or part of tw'n geinomevnwn kaq∆ e[toç karpw'n mevroç h{miçu of the second Algiphiamma. Alternatively, the annual payment in P.Yadin 16 may represent the ‘new binding agreement’ (tdj rsa) of P.Yadin 2 and 3, which may have changed the terms of the lease when the date grove was sold to Shim‘on, Babatha’s father.
The participle of telei'n (‘paying’) applied to date groves in P.Yadin 16 (lines 19, 22–23, 26, 30–31) as in the other land declaration from Arabia, XHev/Se gr 62 (frg. a line 16; frg. b line 3; frgs. c–m lines 8, 12, 16), is taken to refer to the annual tax paid by the provincial population.13 But does it?
In fact two locutions in XHev/Se gr 62 favour an annual lease. Twice the participle telou'n comes together with fovrou (e.g. mevroç h{miçu cwvraç ... telou'n fovrou mevlan e}n, etc. frg. a lines 16–17; cf. frgs. c–m line 8). Fovroç, even if it may stand for tax, is the usual term for rent.14 Even more cogent is the presence of the term [ej]n≥iauvçion to describe the field declared in XHev/Se gr 62:
| aj p o≥ g rav f omai ej m auto; n ej t w' n triav k ont≥ a
[..]h≥l≥n≥i≥on≥ [ej]n≥iauvçion mevroç h{miçu cwv≥raç ejn oJ r iv o iç Mawzwn th' ç prog≥ e ≥ g rammev n ≥ h ≥ ç l≥e≥g≥o≥m≥ev≥nhç Arenoaraqa met≥och'ç th'ç pro;" ∆Iwnaqhn Çimwnoç o} mevr≥o≥ç h{miçuv ejçtin çpovro≥u kr≥eiqh'ç çavtou eJ≥ [ noo;≥ç≥ kavbwn triw≥'n≥ telou'n fovrou mevlan e}n lepta; teç≥ç≥a≥ravkonta≥ pevnte. |
‘I register myself, thirty years old, [as owner of?] a
yearly half share of a field, called Arenoaratha, within the boundaries of the aforesaid Mahoza, in partnership with Ionathes son of Shim‘on , which half share is (the area) of sowing one se’ah three qab of barley, paying as tax one ‘black’ and forty-five lepta.’ |
Unfortunately it is impossible to restore the word before [ej]n≥iauvçion mevroç h{miçu cwv≥raç, but the [ej ]n≥iauvçion strongly suggests ‘a yearly lease’, or rather ‘a lease for one year’.
If the date groves declared in P.Yadin 16 and XHev/Se gr 62 were on lease from the emperor, then the payments mentioned in them are of rents and not of taxes, though it may seem odd at first sight that rent rather than tax is declared at the census. Nevertheless, the status of the land declared must have been different from that described in P.Yadin 16 as ‘the Moschantic estate of the emperor’ (moçcantikh kurivou Kaivçaroç), in the same way that the land sold by ’Abi‘adan daughter of ’Aftah to Shim‘on bar Menahem, Babatha’s father, although it paid lease-rent to the Nabataean king (see above on yrka) is likely to have been of a different status from the piece of land designated in P.Yadin 2 and 3 as ‘the land (the garden) of our Lord, king Rab’el’ (aklm labr anarm [tng] [ra).15
Similarly, it is hard to decide whether tax or rent is the subject of two very similar receipts from the
archive of Salome Komaïse daughter of Levi: one is in Greek from 29 January 125 (XHev/Se gr 60) and
the other one, in Aramaic, was written exactly six years later, on 30 January 131 (XHev/Se ar 12). The
text and a translation of both follow:
XHev/Se gr 60: modifier
| 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. o.q.a o oe≥t≥a o aa...oç≥ Iouda k≥ai; eJtaai'roo≥i≥ Maaonaahmw/o Iawaon≥ou caivri≥ano. ∆A≥pevç≥acoa≥men p≥aara; çou'o teimh;n fo≥iv≥n≥i≥k≥o≥ç ou| oj≥feivleiç K≥auor≥ivw Kaivçari ejn Mawvza/ e[touç ojktwkai- dekavtou, ejx w|n ajpeilhvfamen para çou' e≥jk cero;ç Ç≥a≥mmouvou Çivmwnoç mev- lepta; penthvkonta ojktw 9. laneç tevççare≥ç. ∆Egravfh ejn Mawvza/ ejpi 10. auJopavtwn tw'n met≥a;≥ u≥Jpativan Gl≥a≥brivwnoç 11 akoai; Qh≥banianou', e[≥t≥o≥auoç≥≥ ejnneakai- 12. 13. de≥akavtoou m≥h≥n≥o;≥ç≥ aPoe≥reit≥i≥vou taeççaoraeçkoa≥ideakavth/o hbtk hçyr |
[Names and patronyms] [
] son of Judah and colleagues to MenaΩem son of Iohannes greetings. We received from you the amount due for dates, which you owe to our Lord the Emperor in MaΩ oza for the eighteenth year (of the province). On account of which we have now received from you through Sammouos son of Shim‘on four blacks (and) fifty-eight lepta-units. Written in MaΩ oza in the year of the consulate which comes after that of Glabrio and Thebanianus, the nineteenth year (of the province), the fourteenth day in the month of Peritios. Reisha wrote this. |
XHev/Se ar 12: modifier
| 1. Ýlm, daughter of Levi; your brother
2. Yh . . . son of T h, and my friend 3. Ým[ . . . , ]we received from you the value in money of 4. dates – se’ah ten 5. and nine and a qab and a half, 6. which is with you(?), from . . . Levi 7. your father, in the year 8. twenty four (or: And as such) 9. in the day ten and fi- 10. ve of Shevat, 11. year twenty- 12. fi[v]e of the Eparch[y.] 13. Td/h[ . . . ] wrote it. |
̊wújaó yúwúl trób μlç .1
yúróbjów hçót rób ¡ ¡ jóyú .2 yúmóx ̊nm ˆlbq? ¿móç .3 d rç[ ˆyas ˆyúrómt .4 gúlópw bqw [óçtw .5 yúwúló bb ˆúmó ̊mó[ó ¡ [ .6 yd tnçb ̊ówúba .7 — lll aózúkó wú ˆú?y¿róç[ .8 jw hróçó[ó μwyb .9 fbçb hóçómó .10 ˆyrç[ tnç .11 ?hy¿krphl ç?m¿jw. 12 hbtk ¡ ¡ d t .13 |
In both receipts we find more than one tax or rent collector described as ‘colleagues’; the dates, 29 and 30 January respectively, imply that the tax or rent was collected at that time of year. The doubtful word ymd in line 3 of the Aramaic receipt is the construct-state of the word ˆymd (price, money, value), which is here the exact equivalent of timhv of the Greek receipt.16 Thus lines 3–5 of the Aramaic receipt gólópw bqw [óçtw rç[ ˆyas ˆúyúrómt ymódO ̊nm ˆlbq ‘We received from you the value in money (ymd) for nineteen and a quarter se’ah of dates’, are the exact equivalent of ∆A≥pevç≥acoa≥men p≥aara; çou'o teimh;n fo≥iv≥n≥i≥k≥o≥ç of lines 4–5 of the Greek receipt. The expression ˆúyúrómt ymód suggests that an adaeratio took place, i.e. the nineteen and a quarter se’ah of dates were paid in cash – like the procedure in the Greek receipt – rather than in kind, even though the sum in money is not specified. It is very tempting to interpret the three vertical strokes with a horizontal stroke going through them, following the ‘twenty’ (ˆyrç[) and the waw in line 8 of the Aramaic receipt as standing for the digit 4 (rather than for the doubtful azOkOw) – thus ‘in the twenty-fourth year’. The parallel with the Greek receipt will then be complete: just as in the Greek receipt, where the tax or rent due for ‘the eighteenth year of the province’ is paid in the ‘nineteenth year of the province’, in the Aramaic receipt the tax or rent for ‘the twenty-fourth year’ is paid in the ‘twenty-fifth year of the province’ (lines 11–12). Finally, the date in both receipts comes at the end. This is unlike all other Aramaic deeds from the Judaean Desert; it seems to follow the conventions of receipts in Greek.
The striking resemblance between the two receipts suggests that the land for which tax or rent was paid was of the same status. The apparent presence of more than one revenue collector might suggest that both receipts deal with a body of conductores on an imperial estate.17 In Egypt, however, ordinary taxes were often collected by a group of people.18 We have no information about the system of taxation which operated in Arabia before or after 106. The crucial question seems to be whether oj≥feivleiç K≥auor≥ivw/ Kaivçari in lines 5–6 of the Greek receipt could be used to describe the public purse, i.e. the ordinary taxes, or whether it signifies exclusively the emperor’s private property, i.e. the lease-rent. The same doubts are raised by the payment mentioned in XHev/Se gr 64, a deed of gift from 129 CE. which belongs to the same archive.19 In this document written in singularly ungrammatical and non-idiomatic Greek the mother Salome Gropte (or Grapte)20 makes an immediate gift of a date grove in Mahoza to her daughter Salome Komaïse:
| Inner text: lines 6–11 oJmologw' ejnen≥o≥ca≥ evon≥ai ç≥o≥i≥ e≥ij≥ç≥ dovçin ajpo th'ç çhvmeron dovçin aijwnivou ta; uJpavrconta moi ejn Mawzaç a} ei[dh uJpotetagmevna k≥h'≥pon foineikw'noç k≥a≥louvmenon Ganna≥q Açadaia çu;n u{datoç aujth'ç ejf∆ h≥Jmerw'n eJpta; eijç eJpta; hJmevran≥ tetavrth hJ≥amoi≥w≥< iv>an mi≥va≥n: h|ç geivtwneç ajnaatoolw'n kh'pon kuri≥ako;n kalouv≥m≥enon Gannaq Abba≥idaia duçmw'n klhron≥ov≥amoo≥i Aretaç novtou oJdo;ç≥ borra' klhronovmoi Iwçhpoç Baba |
Outer text: lines 26 –33 ta; uJpavrconta aujth'ç≥ a} e≥i≥[dh e≥jn≥ aMoawzaç uJpotetagm<evn >a: k≥h'pon foineikwvnwn kalouvmen≥on G≥a≥nnaq Açadaia çu;n u{datoç tou aujtou' khvpou ejf∆ ahJomerw'n eJpta; eijç eJpta hJm≥evran tetavrth/ hJmiwr<ivan> mivan <h}> televçei kaq∆ e[toç eijç lovgon kuriakou' fivçkou' kaq∆ e[toç foivneikoç≥ pathtou' çavta devka kai; çurou' kai naarou çavta e{x, h|ç geivtwneç ajn≥atolw'n kh'pon kuriako;n kalouvmenon Ganna≥q Abba≥idaia duçmw'n klhronov≥moi Aretaç novtou oJdo;ç bor≥r≥a aklohronom≥oi Iwçhpoç Baba |
(In the translation the inner text is written in Roman font; the outer text is written in italics; when the texts coincide, it is written in bold): ‘I acknowledge that I have given you as a gift from this day and for ever my (her) property in Mahoza, which items are listed as follows: a date orchard called the Garden of Asadaia with its [the] water [allowance] (of that orchard), once a week on the fourth day, for one half-hour which will pay every year to the account of the fiscus of our Lord ten se’ah of ‘splits’, and six se’ah of the Syrian and the na’aran dates. The abutters on the east the orchard of our Lord [the emperor] called the Garden of ‘Abbaidaia, on the west the heirs of Aretas, on the south a road and on the north the heirs of Yosef son of Baba.