PAPYRI AND THE ECONOMY OF THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD

Kai Ruffing

University of Kassel

ABSTRACTS In current research on the economy of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds it is taken for granted to use papyri as evidence for ancient economic structures,practices,and mentalities.Nevertheless,the utility of papyri is all but selfevident,at least as far as research of the 20th century is concerned.Egypt including its source material was considered a special,particular case and thought to be entirely useless for writing economic history of Greece and Rome.This was especially true for primitivist orthodoxy.Moreover,it was particularly German scholarship that showed some neglect towards economic history and thus papyri.Against the background of the general discussion on the character of ancient economy the present paper aims to trace how and to what extent papyri were and are used as evidence.It starts with the outbreak of the Bücher-Meyer controversy and tries to pursue the discussion to the present day.

In memory of Thomas Pekáry on the occasion of his 90th birthday

One of the most popular quotes for beginning an article about the modern views of the economy of the Greco-Roman world is a statement by Keith Hopkins,which characterizes very well the fierceness of the academic debate between the so-called modernists/formalists and primitivists/substanitvists:1See Cartledge 1998 regarding the new attributes“formalist”for modernist and“substantivist”for primitivist.“The ancient economy is an academic battleground.”2Cf.Hopkins 1983,ix.Even though–with regard to the past–the statement is true,today’s approach to the history of the ancient economy in general and to that of the Roman Empire in particular is entirely different:it is characterized through a plurality of methods and theoretical groundings,which were unthinkable some twenty or thirty years ago.3Ruffing 2012,13–14;Günther and Reinard 2017,90–92;Lo Cascio 2017,20–21.

Given the fierceness of the discussion in what also was called an“academic Hundred Years War”4Rathbone 1989,159.it might therefore not be without any interest to make some short remarks on the history of research and the particular positions of scholars working on the economic history of Egypt as a part of the ancient world.To start with,it has to be underlined that economic history originally did not play a major role among scholars of the classical world as well as among historians in general.It was the 20th century that brought in Classics a bigger interest in economic history with it,at least as far as the Belgian,English,French,Italian and Russian scholarship is concerned,whereas in the German-speaking branch of the research the position prevailed that economic history is a kind of grubby urchin within the field of historical studies,a concern which might be traced back to Jakob Burckhardt.In Burckhardt’s conception of history the economy did not have any impact on the historical process,whereas he conceived the state,the religion,and the culture–besides customs,law,and what he called“Volksgeist”–as the formative powers of history.He called these formative powers in German“Potenzen.”5Schulin 1991,152 and 155;Ruffing 2016,16.From this kind of reasoning there is a connection to the views of Max Weber,whose use of the concept of thehomo politicusinfluenced the way,in which the Cambridge School interpreted and styled itshomo politicusand thus characterized the ancient economy,6On the concept of the homo politicus,see Capogrossi Colognesi 2004,375.since it paved the way for Finley’s use of the concept of the“embedded economy.”7Ruffing 2015a,3–4.See id.2008,6–10,von Reden 2015,95–96,and Flohr and Wilson 2016,34–35,with a short summary of Finley’s positions regarding the ancient economy.Moreover,the denial of the importance of the economic structures for the historical process in Germany certainly had consequences for the research on the topic of the ancient economy.Beside some exceptions to the rule,8But see Schneider 2016c,278–279,who demonstrates that before 1895 the economy and society had some importance among German scholars.ancient historians were reluctant to dedicate their efforts to the Greek or Roman economy.Indeed,even in the 1970s scholars,who underlined the importance of the economy for historical developments,were suspected of being communists,as in the case of Helmuth Schneider.9Will 1991,3 with regard to Schneider 1974 and 1977 (see now id.2017).

In the anglophone world,too,economic history was not a focus of scholarly work in the field of Classical Studies.It was a paradox,as recently underlined by Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson,“...that,while Classics scholars of the eighteenth century were not interested in detailed study of ancient economies,scholars in other fields were developing ideas that would have a huge impact on later debates.”10Flohr and Wilson 2016,25.Thus the ancient economy was an issue that was of interest for scholars like David Hume,James Steuart and Adam Smith,and for these scholars the antiquity had many things in common with their own times,even though it was conceived as developed to a lower degree as far as trade and industry were concerned.11Ibid.,25–26.On the Scottish Enlightenment and its relations to antiquity,see Schneider 2016a.Interestingly,already August Boeckh was criticized for his groundbreaking study Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener,which was published in 1817:von Reden 2015,89.On Boeckh and his work,see Schneider 2016b.From the Scottish enlightenment,then,and from Adam Smith in particular there is a line of economic thought,which leads to the works of Karl Marx,who belongs to the so-called Classical School of economic thought.Marx,contrary to Hume and Smith,conceived the antiquity in his model of the four stages of the development of societies as being structurally different from the modern world.As a matter of consequence,the positions in the debate between“primitivists”and“modernists”were already predefined in the works of exponents of the Classical School.12Flohr and Wilson 2016,26.On Marx and ancient history,see Deglau and Reinard in press.

Meanwhile in Germany the“Historische Schule der Nationalökonomie”was developed by Wilhelm Roscher and others.Exponents of this way of thinking understood the present as a result of a historical process and underlined the importance of the interdependence between the spheres of economy and culture.13Gottschalk,Broyer and Schefold 2004,21–31,esp.21.As a matter of consequence the“Historische Schule der Nationalökonomie”and especially Gustav Schmoller as one of the most famous economists in Germany distinguished different stages of the historical development of economies.14Ibid.,28–29.

Now,this is the moment where Karl Bücher comes in.Karl Bücher was an exponent of the German“Younger Historical School of National Economics.”As such he developed his own model of the stages of the economy and used a historical perspective.In his famous workDie Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft,published in 1893,Bücher distinguished three different stages of economic development,firstly the“closed domestic economy”(“geschlossene Hauswirtschaft”),15Bücher 1922,92.secondly the“economy of direct exchange”(“Wirtschaft des direkten Austausches”),which he also called the“economy of cities,”16Ibid.,116.and,finally,the“national or political economy”(“Volkswirtschaft”).17Ibid.,135.Each of these stages referred to an historical epoch,thus the economy of the ancient world was seen by Bücher as a closed domestic economy.18On Bücher’s concepts,see Wagner-Hasel 2011,67–80.Bücher’s concepts had a huge impact on the scholarly discussions of his time and through the works of Max Weber,19Weber knew and used the publications of Wilcken and other papyrologists,for instance in his article on Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum:cf.Weber 1988,158,164,177–178,285.who was,in some respects,a worthy heir of Bücher,20Wagner-Hasel 2011,273–280.the primitivist positions in the debate on the character of the ancient economy depended on his concepts as well.Although until this point of time economic history was not an issue of major interest among scholars of the classical world,Bücher’s concept was heavily criticized and vigorously attacked by Eduard Meyer on the occasion of the third assembly of German historians in Frankfurt in 1895.Meyer not only aimed to show that Bücher was wrong in characterizing the ancient economy,but also drew comparisons between periods of the Ancient History with periods of Western European or German history:

Man sieht,wie unhaltbar das Bild ist,welches Bücher von der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung des Altertums entworfen hat.Das siebente und sechste Jahrhundert in der griechischen Geschichte entspricht in der Entwickelung der Neuzeit dem vierzehnten und fünfzehnten Jahrhundert n.Chr.;das fünfte dem sechzehnten.21Meyer 1895,28.

For the present context,however,more importantly in discussing the economy of the Hellenistic time in a footnote,Meyer made a reference to the papyri,although in 1895 only five editions were already published:22P.Petr.I;P.Petr.II;P.Lond.I;BGU I;CPR I:see the Checklist of Editions of Greek,Latin,Demotic,and Coptic Papyri,Ostraca,and Tablets:http://papyri.info/docs/checklist (13.02.2018).

Einen wie lebendigen Eindruck wir gegenwärtig durch die stets wachsende Zahl der Papyri aus dem Faijum und die Papyri und Ostraka aus dem übrigen Aegypten in die inneren Verhältnisse des Landes und vor allem in das Leben und Treiben einer gräcisierten ägyptischen Binnenstadt der Ptolemäer-und Römerzeit,in die Localverwaltung,die Gemeindefinanzen,die Geld-und Naturalsteuern (über die Steuerdeclaration und die in römischer Zeit alle 14 Jahre vor allem für die Erhebung der Kopfsteuer vorgenommenen Volkszählungen,von denen uns zahlreiche Zählbogen erhalten sind,s.Wilcken,πογραφα,im Hermes 28,230ff.) gewonnen haben,ist bekannt.23Meyer 1895,46–47 (n.2).

Meyer then,interestingly,compared the economy of the Hellenistic world with that of the 17th and 18th century in Europe:

Nur darauf möchte ich noch hinweisen,daß sie [sc.the Hellenistic world] im Gegensatz zu den landläufigen Anschauungen,die auch in wissenschaftlichen Kreisen weit verbreitet sind,in jeder Hinsicht nicht modern genug gedacht werden kann.Nur darf man nicht das neunzehnte Jahrhundert zum Vergleich heranziehen,sondern das siebzehnte und achtzehnte,wo auch der Seeverkehr durch Wind und Wetter vielfach gehemmt und nicht selten ganz unterbrochen,die Landverbindung häufig ganz miserabel und äußerst zeitraubend und durch Weggelder und Zölle,sowie durch das Paßwesen in weit höherem Grade erschwert und belästigt war als im Altertum,wo neben einer hohen raffinierten Kultur schlechte und verkommene Regierungen und brutale Kriege mit den schlimmen Excessen standen und wo doch ein hochentwickelter Weltverkehr und eine „Volkswirtschaft“ im Bücher’schen Sinn existierte.24Ibid.

Thus Eduard Meyer was the first person who outside the then small world of papyrologists saw and underlined the potential of papyri for an analysis of the Hellenistic as well as the Roman economy,at least as far as I can see.His comparison of the Hellenistic World with early modern Europe was also of some importance to the research on the ancient economy.

With Meyer’s furious attack on the positions of Bücher the famous Bücher-Meyer controversy was born.25On the whole controversy,see Schneider 2016c;Wagner-Hasel 2011,198–214.It is an obvious fact that Meyer’s reaction was not only fueled by a different disciplinary approach to the ancient world and its economy and thus the aim to have the prerogative of interpretation.Meyer deliberately rode his attack on the occasion of the assembly of German historians,which gave him a larger audience at a time that on the political level was rather difficult for Classical Studies in Germany.In 1890 the German emperor Wilhelm II launched an initiative for a reform of the school programs in Germany and underlined the necessity that young men should not be educated as young Greeks and Romans,but as young Germans,and that as a matter of consequence the weight of Greek and Latin in the school programs should be reduced.German classicists,then,saw the need to put ancient history in a relation to present.26Schneider 2016c,275–278.And it was exactly this that Meyer did in his reaction to Bücher.But there is another point,which should also be taken into consideration.The time,in which the controversy arose,was also difficult for Classical Studies on an academic level.Whereas from the very beginnings onwards classical antiquity played an important role in the universities,27See,for instance,the Philipps-Universität Marburg,where since 1529 a historicus had to teach ancient historiography:Wirth 1977,6.and although ancient history was institutionalized as own academic discipline in the second half of the 19th century,28Rebenich 2010.the end of the 19th century saw,at least in Germany,an evergrowing competition between Classical Studies on the one hand and natural sciences as well as philology of modern languages and economics on the other hand.29Wagner-Hasel 2011,210–211.Thus Meyer’s reaction to Bücher is to be seen in a highly politicized context,30Ibid.,212–213.not least because the first assembly of German historians in 1893 was already a reaction to the new political function of history,which the German emperor wanted.31Schneider 2016c,276.It was exactly this academic and political environment,in which papyrology in Germany emerged as a separate discipline within Classical Studies,which in the future should provide the scholars of classical antiquity with a huge amount of fascinating texts and in this way enriched the field of Classics to a high degree.That this German political environment was totally different from that of other European states needs here no further discussion.

Indeed papyrology,the younger sister of epigraphy,32Hagedorn 1997,60.developed rather quickly in the last decennium of the 19th century and the first decennium of the 20th century.It was particularly British scholars,who established this new field of Classical Studies.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie,33Römer 2007.Arthur Surridge Hunt and Bernard Pyne Grenfell34On Hunt and Grenfell,see Lehnus 2007;Palme 2012a;2012b.had been conducting systematic excavations in Egypt since the 1890s,which were explicitly dedicated to the discovery of new papyrus texts.The excavations in Egypt went hand in hand with the development of papyrology in different countries.35Rupprecht 1994,16.Thus in 1900 Pierre Jouguet started his excavations in Magdola and became a pioneer of French papyrology.36Husson 2007.Italian scholars started their first excavations in Egypt in the first decennium of the 20th century,and thus theSocietà Italiana per la ricerca dei papiriwas founded in 1908.37Montevecchi 1987/1998,55.In Austria in the 1880s and 1890s Carl Wesseley became the pioneer of studying papyri in Vienna.38Harrauer 2007.Indeed,contrary to Germany,papyrology became in Vienna an integral part of the study of ancient history,as it is today.In 1899 Ulrich Wilcken started his excavations in Heracleopolis.But the texts,which he found,were destroyed by a fire on the ship on which the texts were transported to Hamburg.39Rupprecht 1994,16;Kruse 2009,508–509.

Now,Ulrich Wilcken,a student of Theodor Mommsen and an autodidact in deciphering papyrus documents,was the founder of papyrology in Germany.40Poethke 2007;Kruse 2009;Palme 2012c.One of his major contributions to the developing field was his edition of Greek ostraca in 1899.41Wilcken 1899a;1899b.Wilcken himself understood the edition of the ostraca as a“Beitrag zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte,”the subtitle of his seminal book.The young Wilcken,a son of a merchant,42Poethke 2007,82.was from the very beginnings of his studies onwards fascinated by the ostraca and the texts that they bore,as he emphasized in his foreword.43Wilcken 1899a,VII.Thus his interest in the texts was not inspired by the Bücher-Meyer controversy,since he dedicated himself to the study of the texts from 1886 onwards,44Ibid.and as a matter of consequence it might have been indeed his youth in the house of a merchant that gave him the idea to the study of these texts.The first volume of the publication is a huge,profound commentary on taxation in Hellenistic Egypt,in which Wilcken aimed at

...die Steuern selbst und das Steuersystem zu erklären,die Methode,nach der das Steuersoll des Einzelnen bestimmt wurde,nachzuweisen und endlich den langen Weg,auf dem der einzelne Steuerbetrag aus der Lehmhütte des Fellachen schliesslich in die königliche Kasse in Alexandrien,resp.den kaiserlichen Fiscus in Rom gelangte,in seinen einzelnen Etappen aufzudecken.45Ibid.,X.

Thus Wilcken’s study,which he himself modestly called a commentary,46Cf.Kruse 2009,507.was originally not planned as his own contribution to the debate between Meyer and Bücher.But he was working on the commentary exactly at the time,when it emerged.This can be seen by means of a letter,which he wrote in May 1897 to Eduard Meyer,where he complained that he was absorbed by his work on the ostraca and that he was now finishing the commentary.47Poethke 2007,87.

But he took the occasion to take a stand in the controversy and he did that–not surprisingly–on the side of Meyer.Interestingly,he commented only in a footnote on the controversy between Bücher and Meyer:

Ich habe aus Bücher’s scharfsinniger theoretischer Construction ebenso wie aus Meyer’s glänzender historischer Skizze viel gelernt;in der Streitfrage aber hat mich Meyer überzeugt.Bücher ist inzwischen Meyer in der zweiten Auflage[...] ein gutes Stück entgegengekommen,indem auf S.58 folgenden Satz der 1.Auflage (S.15/6) stillschweigend entfernt hat:„Die Periode der geschlossenen Hauswirtschaft reicht von den Anfängen der Kultur bis in das Mittelalter hinein(etwa bis zum Beginn des zweiten Jahrtausends unserer Zeitrechnung).“ Gerade gegen diese horrende Behauptung,durch die das ganze Altertum mit Haut und Haaren der geschlossenen Hauswirtschaft zugewiesen war,hatte sich aber vor Allem Meyer’s Schrift gerichtet–nicht gegen eine von „Herrn Meyer construirte Windmühle.“ [...] Ich habe mich bemüht,das neue Material,ohne in den Streit einzugreifen,durch sich selbst wirken zu lassen.Möchte es von beiden Seiten vorurteilsfrei geprüft und weiter verfolgt werden.48Wilcken 1899a,664,n.1.

In the running text Wilcken emphasized the new insights provided by the Greek papyri and ostraca offering evidence which until this point of time was not used by anybody for any discussion of the ancient economy.He underlined,too,the necessity to check carefully the degree to which the results obtained by means of discussing the evidence for Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt could be used as evidence for the rest of the ancient world.49Ibid.,664–665.Wilcken,then,emphasized again the necessity to use the papyrological evidence for the academic discussion of the ancient economy in his seminal bookGrundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde,which was published in 1912.50Id.1912,239.Of course,Wilcken had earlier been a student of Eduard Meyer,51Poethke 2007,82–83.and thus one might be tempted to conclude that he only followed the opinion of his former professor,whom he cherished and whose opinion was of great importance to him during his academic career.52Ibid.,87;Kruse 2009,511–512.But that would mean a denial of Wilcken’s own academic efforts.On the contrary,it is possible to grasp already at this point in time another phenomenon.Those scholars,who used the evidence of papyri and ostraca,rarely took a position on the side of the primitivists/substantivists.

This is also true for Michael Rostovtzeff,who in his studies on the Hellenistic and Roman economy made broad use of ostraca and papyri as well as epigraphic,numismatic and archaeological evidence.53See Ruffing 2008,2–4 on Rostovtzeff’s conceptualization of the Hellenistic and Roman Economy.On Rostovtzeff and his work,see further Christ 1972,334–349;Bowersock 1974;Marcone 1995,VII–XXXIII;Christ 1999,234–239;Schneider 2012a.In an article published in 1920 he stated that thanks to the efforts of the papyrologists a reconstruction of the economic,social and political structures of Ptolemaic Egypt became possible.54Rostovtzeff 1920,163.Thus Rostovtzeff clearly saw the potential of the papyrological evidence for the study of the ancient economy.Already in 1922 Rostovtzeff published a small book on the Apollonios-estate in the Fayum.55Id.1922.In the introductory chapter the Russian scholar underlined the importance of the papyrus documents for the reconstruction of the economic and social life in Ptolemaic Egypt.56Ibid.1922,1–7.Accordingly,he also used the evidence of the papyri in his magistral studies of the Hellenistic and the Roman imperial economy.The latter one–theSocial and Economic History of the Roman Empire57Id.1926.–was originally published in 1926,the former one–theSocial and Economic History of the Hellenistic World58Id.1941.–in 1941.Thus through the works of Rostovtzeff,which in the case of the Hellenistic world have a huge impact until today,59Archibald and Davies 2011,1–2.the use of documentary papyrus texts for the study of the social and economic history had become a well-established practice.

Hence Tenney Frank,60On Frank,see Broughton 1990;Barth 2012;Flohr and Wilson 2016,31–32.the editor of theEconomic Survey of Ancient Rome(ESAR),dedicated a whole volume to Roman Egypt,which was published by Allan Chester Johnson in 1936.61Johnson 1936.As Frank pointed out in the preface to the first volume of the ESAR,the aim of this undertaking was first and foremost to present the literary,papyrological and epigraphical sources and“...to give due attention to the economic meaning of the archaeological evidence.”62Frank 1933,VII.Evidently,the work was also a reaction to a request of modern economists,who needed English translations.63Ibid.See also Broughton 1990,73.Finally,Frank emphasized that the editors of the volumes deliberately avoided any theorizing,because they thought that would be“...now wise to return to the sources.”64Frank 1933,VIII.

Therefore,all in all,documentary sources (papyri,inscriptions,coins) and the archaeological evidence in general as well as the papyri in particular had seemingly found their place as important and necessary evidence for any study of the ancient economy.Simultaneously,the so-called modernists had apparently won the fight on the academic battlefield of ancient economic history.Indeed,Meyer evidently influenced both,Frank and Rostovtzeff.Frank was in touch with Meyer on the occasion of his stay in the US in 1909 and spent a part of the time of his sabbatical with Meyer in 1910–1911.65Broughton 1990,70.And it was Meyer,who together with Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf asked Rostovtzeff to write a social and economic history of the Roman Empire as well as of the Hellenistic World.66Flohr and Wilson 2016,30–31.After the death of Frank in 1939 and the publication of the final volume of the ESAR in 1940,the US continued to be a fertile ground for studies on the ancient economy,whereas scholars in the UK and in Germany did not participate in the academic discussion of the ancient economy.67Ibid.,32.

In the same period,however,Arnold Hugh Martin Jones published his first contributions to the study of the ancient economy.68On Jones’s life and academic career,see Rebenich 2012.Indeed,Jones had a rather pessimistic view on the ancient economy.Without any doubt,he was a pioneer of the (neo-)primitivist line of thinking,since his interpretations were shared by Moses I.Finley,the founder of the Cambridge School and–not to forget–the successor of Jones on the chair for ancient history in Cambridge.69Tschirner 1994,22–23;Lloyd 2016,182–184.Some of Jones’s views were similar to those of Finley in later times.Thus his interpretation of the role of cities,production,and trade,which he developed in a series of publications since 1940,is close to Finley’s view.Interestingly,Jones knew the works of Frank and Rostovtzeff,but did not discuss their statements.70Flohr and Wilson 2016,33.Jones’s most important publications on the ancient economy are Jones 1940;1948;1955.Nevertheless,in his seminal bookThe Later Roman EmpireJones made a widespread use of the Egyptian evidence.71E.g.Jones 1964,767–872.Thus also for Jones the papyrological evidence was an integral part of his study.

But things changed with the rise of what was later called the new orthodoxy,72Hopkins 1983,XI.which is the (neo-)primitivism or the Cambridge School with Moses I.Finley and his works as the main point of reference.73On Finley,his academic career and his work,see Tschirner 1994;Andreau 1995/2002;Tomkins 2006;Schneider 2012b;Harris 2013;Jew,Osborne and Scott 2016.Admittedly,Finley also made references to Ptolemaic,Roman and Byzantine (Finley did not distinguish between the two latter ones,for him both are Roman) Egypt in hisAncient Economy,74Finley 1985,98;107 with n.37.but by means of having a closer look at these references it becomes clear that he mainly refers to the evidence of Kerkeosiris,on which Dorothy Crawford published a study in 1971,75Crawford 1971.and the Apiones-Archive,76Finley 1985,99 and 101.for which he cites Jones’s study on the Late Antiquity as well as two articles of Danielle Bonneau and Itzhak Fikhman.77Ibid.,n.10.The impact of Finley’s negative view on Egypt was,however,more important for the future studies of the Greco-Roman economy during the some twenty years of the primitivist orthodoxy,since he understood the land on the Nile as being a quite particular region within the ancient world.In discussing,for instance,the population of Egypt in the first century AD he drew the conclusion that“...Egypt was the densest and most poverty-stricken province in the empire,so that no generalization follows.”78Ibid.,97.The following statement regarding the range of landholdings points to the same direction:

Let us begin with the extreme and untypical case of Egypt,untypical because its irrigation farming produced relative stable,high yields (perhaps tenfold for grain),because there was little waste land (as little as five per cent in the Fayum),because the native peasantry was never a free population like the classical Graeco-Roman.79Ibid.,98.

The same is true for the following observation,which he made in a passage about the life of the peasants:“Cato gave his chained slaves more bread than the average peasant in Graeco-Roman Egypt could count on as a regular staple.”80Ibid.,107.Discussing in the second edition of theAncient Economythe famous,then recently published papyri with leases of potteries (P.Oxy.L 3595–3597),he stated:

I do not suggest that the Oxyrhynchus leases represented a common method of putting potteries into production (though I see no way to demonstrate that it was uncommon).But I believe it to be certain,firstly,that there was a considerable variety of“methods,”not only in the great centers,Arezzo,Pisa,Puteoli,Lezoux,La Graufesenque,North Africa,but also in the countless small centres of production for purely local distribution;secondly that all landowners,large and small,who were fortunate enough to have the available raw materials directly or indirectly profited from their exploitation.That was inherent in the very fact of their being landowner.81Ibid.,191.

He thus disputed that the papyrological evidence had any significance.Finally,he underlined the difference between Egypt and the rest of the Graeco-Roman world in a footnote within the chapter about landlords and peasants:“I exclude the innumerable bits and pieces of the Greek papyri of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,reflecting an untypical land regime ....”82Ibid.,230,n.6.To sum up,Egypt was for Finley an untypical case and,in a certain sense,a developing country,for which a kind of development was triggered through the conquest of Alexander III and the reign of the Ptolemies:

In the century following Alexander’s conquest of Egypt,the Ptolemies thoroughly reconstructed that country.They reclaimed great quantities of land,they improved and extended the irrigations system,they introduced new crops,they moved Egypt belatedly from the bronze age into the iron age....83Ibid.,148.

As a matter of consequence scholars of the Cambridge School merely used the papyrological evidence as an exception,and they did that not without the claim that things in Egypt are unusual or untypical.Thus,for instance,Richard Duncan-Jones underlined that grain yields in Egypt were unusually high.84See e.g.Duncan-Jones 1974,51.

It was then Dominic Rathbone,who took a decisive stand against the negligence of the papyrus documents.In a programmatic paper published in 1989 Rathbone on the contrary emphasized the importance of the papyrological evidence for the study of the ancient economy:

There is little excuse,therefore,for the continuing failure to exploit the uniqueness of Graeco-Roman Egypt,its legacy of an ever growing corpus of documentary evidence which,even if it might seem relatively pitiful to historians of later periods,nonetheless provides us with a quantity and a quality of economic data which are without parallel in the classical world.[...] The problem here is that while Egypt has always been seen as an integral part of both the Hellenistic and the Byzantine worlds,the tradition is to view it as a unique province in the Roman empire,information from which therefore has little or no use as an indicator of what was happening in other parts of the empire.There is little mileage in abstract debate about the value and wider relevance of the Egyptian evidence.My starting assumptions are that there was great regional diversity in the society and economy in general,rather than a peculiar chasm between Egypt and the rest of that world,but that behind this general diversity there were also similar and at times even identical economic developments for which the Egyptian evidence provides a keyhole on a much wider panorama.85Rathbone 1989,160–161.

Rathbone himself demonstrated in his study on the Heroninos-Archive and through a huge series of important articles what he outlined in 1989.86E.g.id.1983;1990;1991;Bowman and Rathbone 1992;Rathbone 1993;1996;1997;2001;2003;2006;2009;2013;2014.Consequently,he became and is until today a leading scholar in the field of ancient economic history and the history of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt.

Rathbone’s 1989 paper was–so to speak–the reveille for a growing number of scholars,who studied the ancient economy using the evidence of the papyri.87Cf.Ruffing 2015a,5–6.In the 1990s groundbreaking studies were published,especially in the anglophone world.Roger Bagnall and Bruce W.Frier published their study on the demography of Roman Egypt.88Bagnall and Frier 1994.Furthermore,Bagnall showed throughout his career a keen interest in problems of the economic history,89E.g.Bagnall 1992;1993;2000.not to forget–beside a great number of other editions of papyri and ostraca–his edition of theKellis Agricultural Account Book.90Bagnall 1997.Dennis P.Kehoe published his monograph on the management of estates in Roman Egypt.91Kehoe 1992.All in all it can be said that in the UK and the US the economic history and the use of the papyri in that time had become a rather popular issue among Classics scholars.It was not by accident that Rathbone’s important paper was published in a volume that was edited by Italian scholars.92Criscuolo and Geraci 1989.On the one hand,there was the great Italian tradition of scholarship in the field of papyrology,on the other hand there was (and is) a strong tradition of economic history,which at any rate goes back to the beginning of 20th century,which saw the foundation of the seriesBiblioteca di Storia Economica.93Cf.Marcone 2016,esp.20–21.Moreover,also in Italy the conclusions and models of Moses I.Finley were heavily attacked by Andrea Carandini and his students as well as other research groups,especially that of the Istituto Gramsci.94See ibid.,23–29.On the Classics seminar of the Istituto Gramsci,see esp.Salvaterra and Cristofori 2016,59–61.Furthermore,Francesco de Robertis contributed not only important studies to the field of economic and social history,but also emphasized the importance of documentary sources for the study of structural history.95Ibid.,58.One of the most excellent Italian scholars is without any doubt Elio Lo Cascio,who made and makes an extensive use of papyrological sources in his research.96Lo Cascio 1993;1995;1997;1998;2003a;2007.For an overview of his extensive work,see Lo Cascio 2009.By means of doing that and by organizing workshops he contributed substantially to a re-adjustment of the socalled orthodoxy and successfully advocated for a new theoretical framework of Roman economic history.97For the workshops,see id.2003b;2006;2012.For this approach he recently coined the term“New Economic History.”98Id.2017.

Meanwhile more and more scholars engaged with the primitivist orthodoxy.99Ruffing 2015a,6–10.This is first and foremost true for Henri Willem Pleket,whose disagreement with primitivist positions was a result of his work in the field of Greek epigraphy.100See esp.Pleket 1984;1988.As a matter of consequence he used a different approach in a chapter of theHandbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte,which he wrote about the Roman economy.In this chapter he underlined the necessity of a new concept for the ancient economy,since the primitivists were mainly concerned with the difference between ancient and modern economies without any hint as to what the ancient economy actually was like.Pleket,then,used the economy of the 17th and 18th centuries as a background for the interpretation of the Roman economy.101Id.1990.Fundamental criticism against the primitivists also emerged from Latin epigraphy and archaeology.In 1992 William V.Harris published the proceedings of a conference oninstrumentum domesticum,which clearly demonstrated the shortcomings of the primitivist model.In his introduction Harris argued for the necessity to develop a more dynamic model for the Roman economy,and demonstrated as a result of the conference that the market,which he characterized as quite an integrated market,was a decisive element of the Roman economy.102Harris 1993.

In Germany scholars of the classical world did not show much interest in economic history in the second half of the 20th century.One exception to this rule was Helmuth Schneider,who due to his studies on the role of social and economic factors in the fall of the Roman Republic and the origins of what he called the“Militärdidaktur”was suspected of being a communist.The other exception was Thomas Pekáry,who since 1971 held a chair of ancient history at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.Pekáry was born in Budapest in 1929 and emigrated from Hungary during the uprising in 1956.Maybe because of his Hungarian background he already showed a keen interest in economic history in his PhD-thesis and then during his whole academic career.103Drexhage and Ruffing 2011.Already in 1976 he published a book on the ancient economy.A second,revised edition appeared three years later.104Pekáry 1979.Pekáry was a declared primitivist as can be recognized from his article on the role of trade in antiquity,105Id.1994.which found the acceptance of Moses Finley in the second edition of hisAncient Economy.106Finley 1985,182.But,more importantly,Pekáry was very open-minded regarding the use of papyrus documents for the study of the ancient economy.Consequently he inspired his student Hans-Joachim Drexhage to dedicate his efforts to the collection of prices from Roman Egypt.Drexhage’s habilitation thesis of 1988,published in 1991,with its collection of data on prices,sales,leases,costs,and salaries was groundbreaking,107Drexhage 1991a.although it found its critics especially in the anglophone world.108See e.g.Rathbone 1997.For the first time it became possible to trace trends in the development of prices during the Early and the High Empire as well as to put prices and costs into a relationship in order to put forward a line of reasoning on living standards in Roman Egypt.109Drexhage 1991a,440–454.And,more importantly,Drexhage’s observations regarding the development of prices in Roman Egypt showed that the much-debated inflation of the 3rd century AD did not occur before the reign of Aurelian,110Id.1987.a position,which later on was taken over by Karl Strobel for the Roman Empire as a whole.111Strobel 1989;2002.Drexhage not only published a huge number of articles on the economy of Roman Egypt,112See e.g.Drexhage 1988a;1988b;1990;1991b;1991c;1992;1994;2001;Drexhage,Konen and Ruffing 2002a;Ruffing and Drexhage 2008;Drexhage and Ruffing 2008;Drexhage 2006.but–starting with Bernhard Tenger’s PhD-thesis on debts in Roman Egypt and finishing with Patrick Reinard’s book on letters and the economy of Roman Egypt–also inspired some of his PhD-students to dedicate their academic efforts to the economic history of Roman Egypt.113Tenger 1993;Ruffing 1999;Eiling 2001;Ruffing 2008;Reinard 2016.See also Droß-Krüpe 2011 and Schmidt 2014.For both Drexhage acted as second reviewer.Moreover in 2002,Drexhage published with other academics an introduction to the economy of the Roman Empire,114Drexhage,Konen and Ruffing 2002b.which aimed to provide an access to the sources,especially the papyri,for the reconstruction of the Roman economy without putting them in a theoretical framework,what was not meant–as wrongly conceived by others115E.g.Bang 2004,405.–as a Rankian approach to economic history.

The French speaking scholars in Belgium experienced in the second half of the 20th century a growing interest in the economic history Greco-Roman Egypt.Since for Finley something like a Hellenistic economy did not exist,116Finley 1985,183.these studies somehow remained outside the broader discussion on the character of the ancient economy.It was first and foremost the political economy of Ptolemaic Egypt which fueled this interest.The works of Claire Préaux had a particular impact.117Cf.Bingen 2007;Heinen 2012.Although she already published in the 1930s articles that demonstrated her interest in economic questions,118See e.g.Préaux 1934.it was her study on the royal Ptolemaic economy which for a long period of time remained the point of reference for the study of the Lagid economy.119Ead.1939.The title of her book as well as the model developed by her also influenced the study of the economic history of the Seleucid Empire,as can be aptly seen in the title of Gerassimos G.Aperghis’monograph.120Aperghis 2004.Moreover,Préaux made a valuable methodological contribution to the study of“Hellenistic”economies in general.121Préaux 1970.Of course,Préaux’s work on the Lagid economy was based on the Ptolemaic revenue laws (P.Rev.Laws).Jean Bingen,another French scholar with an interest in economic history,also worked on this group of texts since the 1940s,122Bingen 1946;1949.which he eventually edited in 1952.123Id.1952.And in Russia it was Itzhak Fikhman,who since the 1960s published important contributions to the social and economic history of Byzantine Egypt.124See his collected papers in Jördens 2006.

Towards the end of the 20th century,then,there was a growing interest in economic history among papyrologists.A couple of examples might be enough to illustrate this.Thus Dieter Hagedorn explicitly listed economic history among the fields of ancient history for which the papyri provide important source material.125Hagedorn 1997,67–68.Andrea Jördens,for instance,published an important paper on animal trade in the Fayum.126Jördens 1995.Her groundbreaking study on thepraefectus Aegypti,although dedicated to the administrative history,contains quite a lot of material that is important for economic history.127Ead.2009.Fabian Reiter’s book on thenomarchosprovided much information about taxation in Roman Egypt.128Reiter 2004.And,last but not least,Wolfgang Habermann,who started as an ancient historian and published a series of articles on the economy of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,129E.g.Habermann 1989;1998;2004;Habermann and Tenger 2004;Habermann 2009.clearly moved on the border between ancient (economic and administrative) history and papyrology through his reedition of P.Lond.III 1177.130Habermann 2000.Hélène Cadell and Georges Le Rider analyzed the grain prices in Ptolemaic Egypt.131Cadell and Le Rider 1997.Roger Bagnall,Christina Helms and Arthur Verhoogt commented on economic backgrounds in their edition of the first volume of the Berenike Ostraka.132Bagnall,Helms and Verhoogt 2000.Jean Straus published a study on the sale of slaves in Egypt.133Straus 2004.Jean Gascou contributed a lot of articles to the study of the taxes in Byzantine Egypt.134Cf.Gascou 2008.And,one should not forget that there is the edition of the population registers by Willy Clarysse and Dorothy Thompson together with the seminal analysis of the demography of Ptolemaic Egypt.135Clarysse and Thompson 2006a;2006b.And,last but not least,Federico Morelli recently published a monograph on prices in Byzantine Egypt.136Morelli 2019.Of course,this is not a complete list of all publications which would have to be mentioned in this context,but it nicely demonstrates that there was and is also among papyrologists an awareness for economic contexts.

Thus after the end of the primitivist orthodoxy,in a time,in which it has become possible to apply a lot of different theoretical frameworks to the study of the ancient economy,137Archibald and Davies 2011,4;Ruffing 2012,12–14.the documentary papyri became in the recent past and are today a natural and integral part of studies on the Graeco-Roman economy.Due to contemporary economic circumstances as well as the at least perceived economic crisis studies on the economic history of the Greco-Roman world–and of the Ancient Near East138See e.g.Jursa 2010;Pirngruber 2017;Monerie 2018.–began to flourish at the beginning of the 21st century.A milestone was the publication of theCambridge Economic History of Greco-Roman World,139Scheidel,Morris and Saller 2007.in which Ptolemaic Egypt as well as Roman Egypt had their own chapters.140Manning 2007;Rathbone 2007.

Only two years later the first volume of theOxford Roman Economy Project(OXREP) was published.141Bowman and Wilson 2009.Since Alan Bowman,a leading scholar in the field of ancient social and economic history as well as in papyrology,is one of the directors of this project,the evidence provided by the documentary papyri plays an important role in OXREP.The project itself is part of the so-called New Economic History,because it aims to use quantifying methods for the description of the Roman economy,which is why the papyri and Roman Egypt with its richness of quantifiable data are such an important part of the project.As a matter of consequence quite a lot of articles,which can be found in the different volumes of the project,are dedicated to Roman Egypt.142Bowman 2009;2011;2013;Blouin 2013;Droß-Krüpe 2015;Ruffing 2015b.See also Marzano 2013 and Blouin 2014.Also Elio Lo Cascio,who organized a series of conferences in order to explore the ancient economy beyond the primitivist orthodoxy,evidently considered the evidence of Greco-Roman Egypt as important.143See Rathbone 2003;Foraboschi 2006.

Beside these extensive undertakings today it has become self-evident to take the evidence of the papyri into consideration.This is of course true for studies on the Hellenistic world which have their own tradition of including the Egyptian material from the very beginnings onwards,144For elder studies beyond Rostovtzeff,see e.g.the classical study of Préaux 1939.For recent approaches to the economy of Ptolemaic Egypt,see e.g.Manning 2003;Manning 2006;von Reden 2010;Criscuolo 2011;Manning 2011;Thompson 2011;von Reden 2011;Huß 2012.but also for conferences and workshops on economic history in general,which now regularly include papers on Ptolemaic,Roman and/or Byzantine Egypt,145E.g.Vandorpe 2015.Manning 2015;Bresson 2015;Yiftach 2015;Lerouxel 2015;Ratzan 2015.Reger 2017.and,last but not least for monographs on economic history,where references to the papyrological evidence can be found.146E.g.Erdkamp 2005;Bang 2008;Günther 2008;Hawkins 2016.

Thus Rathbone’s reveille was successful.The papyrological evidence is nowadays an integral part of ancient economic history,which today is freed from“...the matrix of description-plus-ideology....”147Archibald and Davies 2011,2.Beyond that,however,another point must be underlined.Of course it is true that the papyrological evidence provides a lot of data for every kind of qualitative as well as quantitative studies on the ancient economy,whatever the theoretical framework is.But the texts from Ptolemaic,Roman and Byzantine Egypt also have their own fascination,since they provide a closer look at everyday life than most other types of sources.And,now and then,texts are published,which give new fascinating,sometimes even spectacular insights.In this context some texts are worth a mention:for instance,the famous Muziris-Papyrus (SB XVIII 13167),the harbor register P.Bingen 77,or,last but not least,the contract to lose a wrestling match (P.Oxy.LXXIX 5209).The thousands of private letters or the hundreds of ostraca from the Eastern Desert should be adduced as well.As a matter of consequence,it has to be stated and underlined that the papyrological evidence is to be qualified as a valuable,unparalleled source for every attempt to arrive at a better understanding of the Greco-Roman world.

Of course,papyri are not only a valuable source for the economic and thus social history.Since the research on the economy is linked to other fields of interest,it has to be highlighted that the papyrus documents provide valuable insights in each of these fields.This is especially true for all aspects of the history of law,where the papyri are a unique source for the juridical and judicial life of Hellenistic,Roman and Late Antique Egypt.It goes without saying that the same can be said regarding administrative and religious history.And,last but not least,the papyri give information about a lot of aspects of cultural history.148Hagedorn 1997,66–70.

Bibliography

Andreau,J.1995/2002.

“Twenty Years after Moses I.Finley’sThe Ancient Economy.”In:W.Scheidel and S.von Reden (eds.),The Ancient Economy.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,33–49 (orig.publ.in:Annales HSS50 [1995]:947–960).

Aperghis,G.G.2004.

The Seleukid Royal Economy.The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Archibald,Z.and Davies,J.K.2011.

“Introduction.”In:Z.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies,Third to First Centuries BC.Oxford:Oxford University Press,1–18.

Bagnall,R.S.1992.

“Landholding in Late Roman Egypt:The Distribution of Wealth.”Journal of Roman Studies82:128–149.

—— 1993.

“Slavery and Society in Late Roman Egypt.”In:B.Halpern and D.W.Hobson(eds.),Law,Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World.Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press,220–240.

—— (ed.).1997.

The Kellis Agricultural Account Book (P.Kell.IV Gr.96).Dakhleh Oasis Project:Monograph No.7.Oxford:Oxbow Books.

—— 2000.

“Governmental Roles in the Economy of Late Antiquity.”In:E.Lo Cascio and D.W.Rathbone (eds.),Production and Public Powers in Classical Antiquity.Cambridge:Cambridge Philogical Society,86–91.

Bagnall,R.and Frier,B.W.1994.

The Demography of Roman Egypt.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bagnall,R.S.,Helms,Chr.and Verhoogt,A.M.F.W.2000.

Documents from Berenike.vol.I:Greek Ostraka from the 1996–1998 Seasons.Papyrologica Bruxellensia 31.Bruxelles:Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Bang,P.F.2004.

“Review of H.-J.Drexhage,H.Konen,K.Ruffing,Die Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches (1.–3.Jahrhundert).Eine Einführung,Berlin 2002.”Bonner Jahrbücher204:401–405.

Barth,M.2012.

“Frank,Tenney.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:417–419.

Bingen,J.1946.

“Les colonnes 60–72 du P.Revenue Laws et l’aspect fiscal du monopole des huiles.”Chronique d’Égypte21:127–148.

—— 1949.

“Contribution au texte du papyrus des Revenue-Laws.”Chronique d’Égypte24:113–122.

——1952.

Papyrus Revenue Laws.Nouvelle édition du texte.Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten,Beiheft 1.Göttingen:Hubert.

—— 2007.

“Claire Préaux (1904–1979).”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,287–294.

Blouin,K.2013.

“The Agricultural Economy of the Mendesian Nome under Roman Rule.”In:A.Bowman and A.Wilson (eds.),The Roman Agricultural Economy.Organization,Investment,and Production.Oxford:Oxford University Press,255–272.

—— 2014.

Triangular Landscapes.Environment,Society,and the State in the Nile Delta under Roman Rule.Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bowersock,G.W.1974.

“Review of M.I.Rostovtzeff,The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire,Oxford 1926.”Daedalus103:15–23.

Bowman,A.2009.

“Quantifying Egyptian Agriculture.”In:id.and A.Wilson (eds.),Quantifying the Roman Economy.Methods and Problems.Oxford:Oxford University Press,177–204.

—— 2011.

“Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.Population and Settlement.”In:id.and A.Wilson(eds.),Settlement,Urbanization and Population.Oxford:Oxford University Press,317–358.

—— 2013.

“Agricultural Production in Egypt.”In:id.and A.Wilson (eds.),The Roman Agricultural Economy.Organization,Investment,and Production.Oxford:Oxford Univeristy Press,219–253.

Bowman,A.and Rathbone,D.W.1992.

“Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt.”Journal of Roman Studies82:107–127.

Bowman,A.and Wilson,A.(eds.).2009.

Quantifying the Roman Economy.Methods and Problems.Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bresson,A.2005.

“Coinage and Money Supply in the Hellenistic Age.”In:Z.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),Making,Moving and Managing.The New World of Ancient Economies,323–31 BC.Oxford:Oxbow Books,44–72.

—— 2015.

“The Cost of Getting Money in Early Ptolemaic Egypt.The Case of P.Cair.Zen.1 59021 (258 B.C.E.).”In:D.Kehoe,D.M.Ratzan and U.Yiftach (eds.),Law and Transaction Costs in the Ancient Economy.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,118–144.

Broughton,T.R.S.1990.

“Tenney Frank.”In:W.W.Brigss and W.M.Calder III (eds.),Classical Scholarship.A Biographical Encyclopaedia.New York &London:Garland,68–76.

Bücher,K.1922.

“Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft.“ In:id.(ed.),Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft.Vorträge und Aufsätze.Erste Sammlung.16.Aufl.Tübingen:Verlag der Laupp’schen Buchhandlung,85–160.

Cadell,H.and Le Rider,G.1997.

Prix du blé et numéraire dans l’Égypte Lagide de 305 à 173.Papyrologica Bruxellensia 30.Bruxelles:Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Capogrossi Colognesi,L.2004.

Max Weber und die Wirtschaft der Antike.Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,Phil.-Hist.Klasse,Dritte Folge,Band 259.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.

Cartledge,P.1998.

“The Economy (Economies) of Ancient Greece.”Dialogos5:4–24.

Christ,K.1972.

Von Gibbon zu Rostovtzeff.Leben und Werk führender Althistoriker der Neuzeit.Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

—— 1999.

Hellas.Griechische Geschichte und deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft.Munich:Beck Verlag.

Clarysse,W.and Thompson,D.J.2006a.

Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt.vol.I:Population Registers (P.Count).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

—— 2006b.

Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt.vol.II:Historical Studies.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Crawford,D.J.1971.

Kerkeosiris.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Criscuolo,L.2011.

“Observations on the Economy in Kind in Ptolemaic Egypt.”In:Z.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies,Third to First Centuries BC.Oxford:Oxford University Press,166–176.

Criscuolo,L.and Geraci,G.(eds.).1989.

Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba.Bilancio di un confronto.Bologna:Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.

Deglau,C.and Reinard,P.(eds.).in press.

Aus dem Tempel und dem ewigen Genuß des Geistes verstoßen? Karl Marx und sein Einfluß auf die Altertums-und Geschichtswissenschaften.Philippika 126.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.

Drexhage,H.-J.1987.

“Zur Preisentwicklung im römischen Ägypten von ca.260 n.Chr.bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteVI/2:30–45.

—— 1988a.

“Eigentumsdelikte im römischen Ägypten (1.–3.Jh.n.Chr.).Ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte.”Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen WeltII.10/1:952–1004.

—— 1988b.

“Einbruch,Diebstahl und Straßenraub im römischen Ägypten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten n.Chr.”In:I.Weiler (ed.),Soziale Randgruppen und Außenseiter im Altertum.Referate vom Symposion „Soziale Randgruppen und Außenseiter im Altertum“ (21.bis 23.September 1987).Graz:Leykam,313–323.

—— 1990.

—— 1991a.

Preise,Mieten/Pachten,Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.

—— 1991b.

—— 1991c.

—— 1992.

“Feminine Berufsbezeichnungen im hellenistischen Ägypten.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteXI/1:70–79.

—— 1994.

“Einige Bemerkungen zur Ziegelproduktion und den Ziegelproduzenten im römischen Ägypten (1.–3.Jh.n.Chr.).”In:R.Günther and S.Rebenich(eds.),E fontibus haurire.Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte und zu ihren Hilfswissenschaften.Paderborn et al.:Schöningh,263–272.

—— 2001.

“Nochmals zu den Komposita mit -πλης und -πρτης im hellenistischen Ägypten.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteXX/1:1–14.

—— 2006.

“Einige Bemerkungen zu den Nagelschmieden (λοκποι) nach dem papyrologischen und epigraphischen Befund.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteXXV/2:169–182.

Drexhage,H.-J.,Konen,H.and Ruffing,K.2002a.

“Die Wirtschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit in der modernen Deutung:Einige Überlegungen.”In:K.Strobel (ed.),Die Ökonomie des Imperium Romanum.Strukturen,Modelle und Wertungen im Spannungsfeld von Modernismus und Neoprimitivismus.Akten des 3.Trierer Symposiums zur Antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte.Pharos XVII.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag,1–66.

—— 2002b.

Die Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches (1.–3.Jahrhundert).Eine Einführung.Berlin:Akademie Verlag.

Drexhage,H.-J.and Ruffing,K.2008.

“P.Bingen 77 und der Handel zwischen Asia Minor und Ägypten.”In:E.Winter(ed.),Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus.Kleinasien in der Antike.Festschrift für E.Schwertheim zum 65.Geburtstag.Asia Minor Studien 65.Bonn:Habelt,153–166.

—— 2011.

“In memoriam Thomas Pekáry (13.9.1929–22.2.2010).”Marburger Beiträge zur Antiken Handels-,Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte29:VI–XVIII.

Droß-Krüpe,K.2011.

Wolle–Weber–Wirtschaft.Die Textilproduktion der römischen Kaiserzeit im Spiegel der papyrologischen Überlieferung.Philippika 46.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.

—— 2015.

“Spatial Concentration and Dispersal of Roman Textile Crafts.”In:A.Wilson and M.Flohr (eds.),Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World.Oxford:Oxford University Press,334–351.

Duncan-Jones,R.1974.

The Economy of the Roman Empire.Quantitative Studies.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Eiling,U.2001.

Philadelpheia.Studien zur Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte eines Dorfes im römischen Ägypten (1.–3.Jh.n.Chr.).Marburg:Tectum-Verlag.

Erdkamp,P.2005.

The Grain Market in the Roman Empire.A Social,Political and Economic Study.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Finley,M.I.1985.

The Ancient Economy.2nd ed.Berkeley &Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Flohr,M.and Wilson,A.2016.

“Roman Craftsmen and Traders:Towards an Intellectual History.”In:eid.(eds.),Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World.Oxford:Oxford University Press,23–54.

Foraboschi,D.2006.

“Agricoltura e manifatture indotte:il caso dell’Egitto.”In:E.Lo Cascio (ed.),Innovazione tecnica e progresso economico nel mondo romano.Attti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 13–16 aprile 2003).Pragmateiai 10.Bari:Edipuglia,131–144.

Frank,T.1933.

Rome and Italy of the Republic.An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 1.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press.

Gottschalk,M.,Broyer,S.and Schefold,B.2004.

“Einleitung.”In:B.Schefold (ed.),Wirtschaftssysteme im historischen Vergleich.Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 18.Stuttgart:Steiner Verlag,15–67.

Gascou,J.2008.

Fiscalité et société en Égypte byzantine.Bilans de recherche 4.Paris:Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance.

Günther,S.2008.

»Vectigalia nervos esse rei publicae«.Die indirekten Steuern in der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Diokletian.Philippika 26.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.

Günther,S.and Reinard,P.2017.

“Research Survey:The Ancient Economy–New Studies and Approaches.”Journal of Ancient Civilizations32:55–105.

Habermann,W.1989.

“Statistische Datenanalyse an den Zolldokumenten des Arsinoites aus römischer Zeit.”In:H.-J.Drexhage and J.Sünskes (eds.),Migratio et commutatio.Studien zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben.Th.Pekáry zum 60.Geburtstag am 13.September 1989 dargebracht von Freunden,Schülern und Kollegen.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag,157–175.

—— 1998.

“Zur chronologischen Verteilung der papyrologischen Zeugnisse.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik122:144–160.

—— 2000.

Zur Wasserversorgung einer Metropole im kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten.Neuedition von P.Lond.III 1177.Text–Übersetzung–Kommentar.Vestigia 53.Munich:Beck Verlag.

—— 2004.

“Gymnasien im ptolemäischen Ägypten–eine Skizze.”In:D.Kah and P.Scholz(eds.),Das hellenistische Gymnasion.Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8.Berlin:Akademie Verlag,335–348.

—— 2009.

“Brennstoffe im griechisch-römischen Ägypten (und darüber hinaus) I:Brennholz.”In:R.Eberhard et al.(eds.),„...vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!“ Papyrologische Beiträge zu Ehren von B.Kramer (P.Kramer).Archiv für Papyrusforschung Beiheft 27.Berlin &New York:Walter de Gruyter Verlag,32–71.

Habermann,W.and Tenger,B.2004.

“Ptolemäer.”In:B.Schefold (ed.),Wirtschaftssysteme im historischen Vergleich.Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M.18.Stuttgart:Steiner Verlag,271–333.

Hagedorn,D.1997.

“Papyrologie.”In:H.-G.Nesselrath (ed.),Einleitung in die griechische Philologie.Stuttgart &Leipzig:B.G.Teubner,59–71.

Harrauer,H.2007.

“Carl Wessely (1860–1931).”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,71–75.

Harris,W.V.1993.

“Between Archaic and Modern:Some Current Problems in the History of the Roman Economy.”In:id.(ed.),The Inscribed Economy.Production andDistribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum.The Proceedings of a Conference Held at The American Academy in Rome on 10–11 January,1992.Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 6.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,11–29.

—— (ed.).2013.

Moses Finley and Politics.Leiden &Boston:Brill.

Hasebroek,J.1928.

Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland.Untersuchungen zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte.Tübingen:Mohr.

Heichelheim,F.M.1938.

Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Altertums vom Paläolithikum bis zur Völkerwanderung der Germanen,Slaven und Araber.Bde.1–3.Leiden:Sijthoff.

Heinen,H.2012.

“Préaux,Claire.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:1015–1016.

Hopkins,K.1983.

“Introduction.”In:P.Garnsey,K.Hopkins and C.R.Whittaker (eds.),Trade in the Ancient Economy.London:Chatto &Windus,ix–xxv.

Husson,G.2007.

“Pierre Jouguet (1869–1949).”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,143–152.

Huß,W.2012.

Die Wirtschaft Ägyptens in hellenistischer Zeit.Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 105.Munich:C.H.Beck.

Jew,D.,Osborne,R.and Scott,M.(eds.).2016.

M.I.Finley.An Ancient Historian and his Impact.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Jördens,A.1995.

“Sozialstrukturen im Arbeitstierhandel des kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten.”Tyche10:37–100.

—— 2006.

Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im spätantiken Ägypten.Kleine Schriften I.F.Fikhman.Historia Einzelschriften 192.Stuttgart:Franz Steiner Verlag.

—— 2009.

Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit.Studien zumpraefectus Aegypti.Historia Einzelschriften 175.Stuttgart:Steiner Verlag.

Jones,A.H.M.1940.

The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian.Oxford:Clarendon Press.

—— 1948.

Ancient Economic History.London:H.K.Lewis.

—— 1955.

“The Economic Life of the Towns of the Roman Empire.”Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’Histoire Comparative des Institutions7:161–192.

—— 1964.

The Later Roman Empire,284–602.A Social,Economic and Administrative Survey.vol.II.Oxford:Blackwell.

Johnson,A.C.1936.

Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian.An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome II.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press.

Jursa,M.2010.

Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC.Economic Geography,Economic Mentalities,Agriculture,the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth.Veröffentlichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1.Jahrtausend v.Chr.Bd.4.Alter Orient und Altes Testament 377.Münster:Ugarit Verlag.

Kehoe,D.P.1992

Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire.Bonn:Habelt.

Kruse,Th.2009.

“Erkenntnis aus den kleinsten Einzelteilen.Der Althistoriker Ulrich Wilcken und die Papyrologie in Deutschland.”In:A.M.Baertschi and C.G.King (eds.),Die modernen Väter der Antike.Die Entwicklung der Altertumswissenschaften an Akademie und Universität im Berlin des 19.Jahrhunderts.Transformationen der Antike 3.Berlin:de Gruyter,503–527.

Lehnus,L.2007.

“Bernard Pyne Grenfell (1869–1926) and Arthur Surridge Hunt (1871–1934).”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,115–141.

Lerouxel,F.2015.

Lloyd,G.2016.

“Finley and the University of Cambridge.”In:D.Jew,R.Osborne and M.Scott(eds.),M.I.Finley.An Ancient Historian and his Impact.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,182–192.

Lo Cascio,E.1993.

“Prezzo dell’oro e prezzi delle merci.”In L.Camilli and S.Sorda (eds.),L’“inflazione”nel quarto secolo d.C.Atti dell’incontro di studio Roma 1988.Studi e Materiali 3.Rome:Istituto Italiano di Numismatica,155–188.

—— 1995.

“Aspetti della politica monetaria nel IV secolo.”In:Il tardo impero.Aspetti e significati nei suoi riflessi giuridici=Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana X.Convegno internazionale in onore di A.Biscardi (Spello–Perugia–Gubbio,7–10 ottobre 1991).Naples:Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,481–502.

—— 1997.

“Prezzi in oro e prezzi in unità di conto tra il III e il IV sec.d.C.”In:J.Andreau,P.Briant and R.Descat (eds.),Économie antique.Prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques.Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges:Musée archéologique départemental,161–182.

—— 1998.

“Considerazioni su circolazione monetaria,prezzi e fiscalità nel IV secolo.”In:Finanza e attività bancaria tra pubblico e privato nella tarda antichità:definizioni,normazione,prassi=Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana XII.Convegno internazionale in onore di M.Sargenti (Perugia–Spello,11–14 ottobre 1995).Naples:Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,121–136.

—— 2003a.

“Mercato libero e ‘commercio amministrato’ in età tardoantica.”In:C.Zaccagnini(ed.),Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico.Saggi di storia antica 21.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider,307–325.

—— (ed.).2003b.

Credito e moneta nel mondo romano.Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 12–14 ottobre 2000).Pragmateiai 8.Bari:Edipuglia.

—— (ed.).2006.

Innovazione tecnica e progresso economico nel mondo romano.Attti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 13–16 aprile 2003).Pragmateiai 10.

—— 2007.

“L’approvvigionamento dell’esercito romano:mercato libero o ‘commercio amministrato’?”In:L.De Blois and E.Lo Cascio (eds.),The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC–AD 476).Economic,Social,Political,Religious and Cultural Aspects.Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire,200 B.C.–A.D.476),Capri,March 29–April 2,2005.Impact of Empire 6.Leiden &Boston:Brill,195–206.

—— 2009.

Crescita e declino.Studi di storia dell’economia romana.Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità classica.Monografie 32.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider.

—— (ed.).2012.

L’impatto della ‘peste Antonina.’Pragmateiai 22.Bari:Edipuglia.

—— 2017.

Die neue Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Römischen Reiches.Paradigmen und Ansätze=Graduiertenkolleg 1878.Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsarchäologie 1.Bonn:R.Habelt.

Manning,J.G.2003.

Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt.The Structure of Land Tenure.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

—— 2006.

“The Ptolemaic Economy,Institutions,Economic Integration,and the Limits of Centralized Political Power.”In:R.Descat (ed.),Approches de l’économie hellénistique.Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges:Musée Archéologique Départemental,257–274.

—— 2007.

“Hellenistic Egypt.”In:Scheidel,Morris and Saller 2007,434–459.

—— 2011.

“Networks,Hierarchies,and Markets in the Ptolemaic Economy.”In:Z.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies,Third to First Centuries BC.Oxford:Oxford University Press,296–323.

—— 2015.

“Ptolemaic Governance and Transaction Costs.”In:D.Kehoe,D.M.Ratzan and U.Yiftach (eds.),Law and Transaction Costs in the Ancient Economy.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,99–117.

Marcone,A.(ed.).1995.

Michael I.Rostovtzeff.Scripta Varia.Ellenismo e impero romano.Munera 3.Bari:Edipuglia.

—— 2016.

“La Storia degli Studi.”In:id.(ed.),L’età romana.Liberi,semiliberi e schiavi in una società premoderna.Storia del lavoro in Italia.Rome:Castelvecchi,17–34.

Marzano,A.2014.

Harvesting the Sea.The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean.Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Meyer,E.1895.

Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung des Altertums.Ein Vortrag,gehalten auf derdritten Versammlung Deutscher Historiker in Frankfurt a.M.am 20.April 1895.Jena:G.Fischer.

Monerie,J.2018.

L’économie de la Babylonie à l’époque hellénistique.Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 14.Berlin &Boston:Walter de Gruyter.

Montevecchi,O.1987/1998.

“La papirologia.Bilancio di un cinquantennio e prospettive per l’avvenire.”In:S.Daris (ed.),O.Montevecchi.Scripta Selecta.Milano:Vita e Pensiero,53–73(orig.publ.in:Aevum61 [1987]:3–19).

Morelli,F.2019.

I prezzi dei materiali e prodotti artigianali nei documenti tardoantichi e del primo periodo arabo (IV ex.–VIII d.C.).Berlin:De Gruyter.

Palme,B.2012a.

“Grenfell,Bernard Pyne.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:495–498.

—— 2012b.

“Hunt,Arthur Surridge.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:605–606.

—— 2012c.

“Wilcken,Ulrich.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:1317–1320.

Pekáry,Th.1979.

Die Wirtschaft der griechisch-römischen Antike.2.Aufl.Wiesbaden:Steiner.

—— 1994.

“Zur Bedeutung des Handels in der Antike.”In:H.-J.Drexhage (ed.),Thomas Pekáry.Ausgewählte kleine Schriften.Pharos IV.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag,177–187.

Pirngruber,R.2017.

The Economy of Late Achaemenid and Seleucid Babylonia.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pleket,H.W.1984.

“Urban Elites and the Economy in the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteIII/1:3–36.

—— 1988.

“Greek Epigraphy and Comparative Ancient History:Two Case Studies.”Epigraphica Anatolica12:25–37.

—— 1990.

“Wirtschaft.”In:F.Vittinghoff (ed.),Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschaftsund Sozialgeschichte.Bd.1.Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,25–160.

Poethke,G.2007.

“Ulrich Wilcken.”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,81–96.

Préaux,C.1934.

“Restrictions à la liberté du travail dans l’Égypte grecque et romaine.”Chronique d’Égypte9:338–345.

—— 1939.

L’économie royale des Lagides.Brussels:Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

—— 1970.

“Époque hellénistique.”In:Troisième Conférence Internationale d’Histoire Économique,München 1965,Section VIII:The Ancient Empires and the Economy.Paris:La Haye,41–74.

Rathbone,D.W.1983

“Italian Wines in Roman Egypt.”Opus2:81–98.

—— 1989.

“The Ancient Economy and Graeco-Roman Egypt.”In:L.Criscuolo and G.Geraci(eds.),Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba.Bilancio di un confronto.Bologna:Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna,159–176.

—— 1990.

“Villages,Land and Population in Graeco-Roman Egypt.”Papers of the Cambridge Philological Society216:103–142.

—— 1991.

Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D.Egypt.The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

—— 1993.

“Egypt,Augustus and Roman Taxation.”Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz4:81–112.

—— 1996.

“Monetisation,Not Price-Inflation in Third-Century A.D.Egypt.”In:C.E.King and D.G.Wigg (eds.),Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World.The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Coinage History.Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 10.Berlin:Gebrüder Mann Verlag,321–339.

—— 1997.

“Prices and Price Formation in Roman Egypt.”In:J.Andreau,P.Briant and R.Descat (eds.),Prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques.Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire.Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 3.Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges:Musée Archéologique Départemental,183–244.

—— 2001.

“The ‘Muziris’ Papyrus (SB XVIII 13167):Financing Roman Trade with India.”Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie46:39–50.

—— 2003.

“The Financing of Maritime Commerce in the Roman Empire.”In:E.Lo Cascio(ed.),Credito e moneta nel mondo romano.Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 12–14 ottobre 2000).Pragmateiai 8.Bari:Edipuglia,197–229.

—— 2006.

“Poverty and Population in Roman Egypt.”In:M.Atkins and R.Osborne (eds.),Poverty in the Roman World.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,100–114.

—— 2007.

“Roman Egypt.”In:Scheidel,Morris and Saller 2007,698–719.

—— 2009.

“Earnings and Costs:Living Standards and the Roman Economy (First to Third Centuries AD).”In:A.Bowman and A.Wilson (ed.),Quantifying the Roman Economy.Methods and Problems.Oxford:Oxford University Press,299–326.

—— 2013.

“Village Markets in Roman Egypt.The Case of First-Century AD Tebtunis.”In:M.Frass (ed.),Kauf,Konsum und Märkte.Wirtschaftswelten im Fokus–Von der römischen Antike bis zur Gegenwart.Philippika 59.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag,123–142.

—— 2014.

“Mediterranean and Near Eastern Grain Prices c.300 to 31 BC.”In:H.D.Baker and M.Jursa (eds.),Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History.Methodology and Practice.Oxford &Philadelphia:Oxbow Books,313–320.

Ratzan,D.M.2015.

“Transaction Costs and Contract in Roman Egypt.A Case Study in Negotiating the Right of Repossession”In:D.Kehoe,D.M.Ratzan and U.Yiftach (eds.),Law and Transaction Costs in the Ancient Economy.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,185–230.

Rebenich,S.2010.

“Die Institutionalisierung der Alten Geschichte im 19.und 20.Jahrhundert.Wissenschaftshistorische Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Faches.”In:L.Burckhardt (ed.),Das Seminar für Alte Geschichte in Basel 1934–2007.Basel:Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Universität Basel,7–20.

—— 2012.

“Jones,Arnold Hugh Martin.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:627–628.

Reger,G.2017.

“Romans in the Egyptian Desert:From Desert Space to Roman Place.”In:P.Deron (ed.),Économie et inégalité.Ressources,échanges et pouvoir dansl’antiquité classique.Vandœuvres:Fondation Hardt pour l’Étude de l’Antiquité classique,115–144.

Reinard,P.2016.

Kommunikation und Ökonomie.Untersuchungen zu den privaten Papyrusbriefen aus dem kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten.Teil 1–2.Pharos XXXII.Rahden/Westf.:Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Reiter,F.2004.

Die Nomarchen des Arsinoites.Ein Beitrag zum Steuerwesen im römischen Ägypten.Papyrologica Coloniensia XXXI.Paderborn et al.:Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh.

Römer,C.2007.

“William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1853–1942).”In:M.Capasso (ed.),Hermae.Scholars and Scholarship in Papyrology.Biblioteca degli «Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia» 4.Pisa:Serra Edizioni,53–55.

Rostovtzeff,M.I.1920.

“The Foundations of Social and Economic Life in Egypt in Hellenistic Times.”Journal of Egytian Archaeology6:161–178.

—— 1922.

A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C.A Study in Economic History.Madison:University of Wisconsin.

—— 1926.

The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.Oxford:Clarendon Press.

—— 1941.

The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World.Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Ruffing,K.1999.

Weinbau im römischen Ägypten.Pharos XII.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.

—— 2008.

Die berufliche Spezialisierung in Handel und Handwerk.Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entwicklung und zu ihren Bedingungen in der römischen Kaiserzeit im östlichen Mittelmeerraum auf der Grundlage der griechischen Inschriften und Papyri.Pharos XXIV.Rahden/Westf.:Verlag Marie Leidorf.

—— 2012.

Wirtschaft in der griechisch-römischen Antike.Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

—— 2015a.

“Von der primitivistischen Orthodoxie zum römischen Basar.Die Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches in der Forschung des ausgehenden 20.und des beginnenden 21.Jahrhunderts.”In:R.Lafer and K.Strobel (eds.),Antike Lebenswelten.Althistorische und papyrologische Studien.Berlin &Boston:Walter de Gruyter Verlag,3–27.

—— 2015b.

“Driving Forces for Specialization:Market,Location Factors,Productivity Improvements.”In:A.Wilson and M.Flohr (eds.),Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World.Oxford:Oxford University Press,115–131.

—— 2016.

“Neue Institutionenökonomik (NIÖ) und Antike Wirtschaft.”In:K.Droß-Krüpe,S.Föllinger and K.Ruffing (eds.),Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Prägung.The Cultural Shaping of the Ancient Economy.Philippika 98.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag),11–22.

Ruffing,K.and Drexhage,H.-J.2008.

“Antike Sklavenpreise.”In:P.Mauritsch et al.(eds.),Antike Lebenswelten.Konstanz–Wandel–Wirkungsmacht.Festschrift für I.Weiler zum 70.Geburtstag.Philippika 25.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag,321–351.

Rupprecht,H.A.1994.

Introduzione alla papirologia.Turin:G.Giappichelli Editore.

Salvaterra,C.and Cristofori,A.2016.

“Twentieth Century Italian Scholarship on Roman Craftsmen,Traders,and their Professional Organizations.”In:A.Wilson and M.Flohr (eds.),Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World.Oxford:Oxford University Press,55–76.

Scheidel,W.Morris,I.and Saller,R.(eds.).2007.

The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt,S.2014.

Stadt und Wirtschaft im römischen Ägypten.Die Finanzen der Gaumetropolen.Philippika 76.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.

Schneider,H.1974.

Wirtschaft und Politik.Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Republik.Erlanger Studien 3.Erlangen:Palm &Enke.

—— 1977.

Die Entstehung der römischen Militärdiktatur.Krise und Niedergang einer antiken Republik.Cologne:Kiepenheuer &Witsch.

—— 2012a.

“Rostovtzeff,Michael Iwanowitsch.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:1083–1089.

—— 2012b.

“Finley,Moses I.”Der Neue Pauly Supplement6:401–405.

—— 2016a.

“Schottische Aufklärung und antike Gesellschaft.”In:K.Ruffing and K.Droß-Krüpe (eds.),Helmuth Schneider.Antike zwischen Tradition und Moderne.Gesammelte Schriften zur Wirtschafts-,Technik-und Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Philippika 95.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag,225–251.

—— 2016b.

“August Boekh.”In:K.Ruffing and K.Droß-Krüpe (eds.),Helmuth Schneider.Antike zwischen Tradition und Moderne.Gesammelte Schriften zur Wirtschafts-,Technik-und Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Philippika 95.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag,253–267.

—— 2016c.

“Die Bücher-Meyer Kontroverse.”In:K.Ruffing and K.Droß-Krüpe (eds.),Helmuth Schneider.Antike zwischen Tradition und Moderne.Gesammelte Schriften zur Wirtschafts-,Technik-und Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Philippika 95.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag,269–291.

—— 2017.

Die Entstehung der römischen Militärdiktatur.Krise und Niedergang einer antiken Republik.2.Aufl.Stuttgart:J.B.Metzler.

Schulin,E.1991.

“Kulturgeschichte und die Lehre von den Potenzen.Bemerkungen zu zwei Konzepten Burckhardts und ihrer Weiterentwicklung im 20.Jh.”In:H.Boockmann and K.Jürgensen (eds.),Nachdenken über Geschichte.Beiträge aus der Ökumene der Historiker in memoriam K.D.Erdmann.Neumünster:Wachholtz,145–156.

Straus,J.A.2004.

L’achat et la vente des esclaves dans l’Égypte romaine.Contribution papyrologique à l’étude de l’esclavage dans une province orientale de l’empire romain.Archiv für Papyrusforschung Beiheft 14.Munich:Saur Verlag.

Strobel,K.1989.

“Inflation und monetäre Wirtschaftsstrukturen im 3.Jh.n.Chr.Zu Daniel Sperbers Bild der wirtschafts-und währungsgeschichtlichen Krise.”Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken HandelsgeschichteVIII/2:10–31.

—— 2002.

“Geldwesen und Währungsgeschiche des Imperium Romanum im Spiegel der Entwicklung des 3.Jahrhunderts n.Chr.–Wirtschaftsgeschichte im Widerstreit von Metallismus und Nominalismus.”In:id.(ed.),Die Ökonomie des Imperium Romanum.Strukturen,Modelle und Wertungen im Spannungsfeld von Modernismus und Primitivismus.Pharos XVII.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag,86–168.

Tenger,B.1993.

Die Verschuldung im römischen Ägypten (1.–2.Jh.n.Chr.).Pharos III.St.Katharinen:Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.

Thompson,D.J.2011.

“Animal Husbandry in Ptolemaic Egypt.”In:Z.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies,Third to First Centuries BC.Oxford:Oxford University Press,390–401.

Tomkins,D.2006.

“The World of Moses Finkelstein:the Year 1939 in M.I.Finley’s Development as a Historian.”In:M.Meckler (ed.),Classical Antiquity and the Politics of America:From George Washington to George W.Bush.Waco:Baylor University Press,99–125.

Tschirner,M.1994.

Moses I.Finley.Studien zu Leben,Werk und Rezeption.Phil.Diss.:Universität Marburg.

Vandorpe,K.2015.

“Roman Egypt and the Organisation of Customs Duties.”In:P.Kritzinger,F.Schleicher and T.Stickler (eds.),Studien zum römischen Zollwesen.Duisburg:Wellem Verlag,89–110.

Von Reden,S.2010.

“Kulturbegegnung und wirtschaftliche Transformation in den ersten Generationen ptolemäischer Herrschaft.”In:G.Weber (ed.),Alexandreia und das ptolemäische Ägypten.Kulturbegegnungen in hellenistischer Zeit.Berlin:Verlag Antike,30–54.

—— 2011.

“Demand Creation,Consumption and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt.”In:Z.H.Archibald,J.K.Davies and V.Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies,Third to First Centuries BC.Oxford:Oxford University Press,421–440.

—— 2015.

Antike Wirtschaft.Enzyklopädie der griechisch-römischen Antike 10.Berlin &Boston:Walter de Gruyter Verlag.

Wagner-Hasel,B.2011.

Die Arbeit des Gelehrten.Der Nationalökonom Karl Bücher.Frankfurt &New York:Campus-Verlag.

Weber,M.1988.

“Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum.”In:id.(ed.),Max Weber.Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte.2.Aufl.Tübingen:Mohr,1–288.

Wilcken,U.1899a.

Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien.Ein Beitrag zur antikenWirtschaftsgeschichte.Erstes Buch.Leipzig &Berlin:Giesecke &Devrient.

—— 1899b.

Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien.Ein Beitrag zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte.Zweites Buch.Leipzig &Berlin:Giesecke &Devrient.

—— 1912.

Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde.Erster Band:Historischer Teil.Erste Hälfte:Grundzüge.Leipzig &Berlin:B.G.Teubner Verlag.

Will,W.1991.

Der römische Mob.Soziale Konflikte in der späten Republik.Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Yiftach,U.2015.

“The Grammatikon.Some Considerations on the Feeing Policies of Legal Documents in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods.”In:D.Kehoe,D.M.Ratzan and U.Yiftach (eds.),Law and Transaction Costs in the Ancient Economy.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,145–161.