II. Overview of Conclusions
The evidence given above is first presented in a table form. This way, data can easily be compared and related to answer the questions that were raised in the General Introduction and Chapter 1, like: is there a chronological development showing that a transition of language and law occurred? is there a (direct and determinative) relationship between the background of the parties and the choice of language? is there a (direct and determinative) relationship between the language used and the law behind the documents?
These questions will be addressed briefly under separate headings after the table.
| Pap. | Year | Language | Legal act | Parties | Reference to law | Law behind the documents | ||||||
| 2 | 99 | Nabataean Aramaic | Sale | Two Nabataeans | ‘as is proper'; ‘as is customary' | References to general legal framework accepted by parties | ||||||
| 3 | 99 | Nabataean Aramaic | Sale | Nabataean (same vendor as in 2)—Jew | Instead of ‘as is proper' reference to specific rule; ‘as is customary' | References to general legal framework accepted by parties; specific arrangement according to law of one of the parties | ||||||
| 5 | 110 | Greek | Deposit | Two Jews | None specific (contrary to 17); papyrus is damaged in lines that concern, for example, liability; possibly reference to a retribution in duplum; explanation of legal position points at non -Roman law (wedding money) | No clear reference to ‘law of deposit' (contrary to 17); possibly no real deposit but attempt to formalize obscure relationship; reference to retribution in duplum might be due to an influence of oriental law | ||||||
| 6 | 119 | Nabataean Aramaic | Tenancy agreement | Two Jews | ‘according to the customary manner of working “and you shall till” followed by specific arrangements | Specific reference to Jewish law (for example to two different ways of harvesting based on local custom) | ||||||
| 8 | 122 | Jewish Aramaic (Greek signature) | Acknowl of receipt | Two Jews | None specific, standard form (compare 9) | General legal framework accepted by parties; same form as document in Nabataean Aramaic (9) | ||||||
| 9 | 122 | Nabataean Aramaic (Greek signature?) | Acknowl of receipt | Jew and Nabataean? | None specific, standard form (compare 8) | General legal framework accepted by parties; same form as document in Jewish Aramaic (8) | ||||||
| Pap. | Year | Language | Legal act | Parties | Reference to law | Law behind the documents | ||||||
| 11 | bgcolor=white>124Greek (completely) | Loan | Jew and Roman centurion | None specific | Roman features in wording and style; no stipulatio though (see 17, 21-22 below). | |||||||
| 17 | 128 | Greek (Aramaic subscriptions and signatures) | Deposit | Two Jews | ‘on account of a deposit,' ‘on deposit,' ‘of the deposit,' ‘in accordance with the law of deposit,' ‘the deposit' (Greek) and ‘on account of deposit,' ‘according to the law of deposit' (Aram. subscription) | Formal features: Roman (stipulatio, guardianship of women), substantive: Jewish law (in any case no link with the Roman depositum irregulare). | ||||||
| 21-22 | 130 | Greek (Aramaic subscriptions and signatures) | Share cropping arrangement | Two Jews | None specific; explanation of legal position points at non -Roman law (right to sell while not owner based on dowry and debt) | Formal features: Roman (stipulatio, guardianship of woman); substantive: position widow towards deceased's estate based on indigenous (Jewish) law | ||||||
| 23-24 | 130 | Greek (23 with Aramaic signatures) | Summons and related document | Jews | Explanation of right of orphans; points at Jewish law | Formal features: 23 summons to court of Roman governor (comparable to 14 and 25), substantive: explanation of order of succession indicates non-Roman legal context where contents is concerned | ||||||
| P.Hever 60 | 125 | Greek (Aramaic subscription) | Receipt | Jews | None specific (see resemblance to 12) | General legal framework (no clear difference between Greek and Aramaic receipt) | ||||||
| P.Hever 12 | 131 | Aramaic | Receipt | Jews | None specific (see resemblance to 60) | General legal framework (no clear difference between Greek and Aramaic receipt) | ||||||
Chronological development
The conquest of the area (in 106 CE) does not coincide with the use of Greek. After P.Yadin 5 (of 110) we find documents in Aramaic until P.Yadin 11 starts off a series of documents in Greek.[503] We do see that after a certain moment the documents are all (but one) in Greek.
This shows that there was a tendency to use Greek for legal documents. At the same time, we see that these documents have Aramaic subscriptions. This means that Aramaic continued to play a part in legal documents. That Aramaic was sometimes translated into Greek to yield a completely Greek document need not say much about the use of Aramaic as a language for legal documents: both P.Yadin 11 and 16 concern copies of documents that originally did contain subscriptions in Aramaic, and in the case of P.Yadin 16 also in Latin. It appears that for some documents, a completely Greek version was preferred or was simply conventional.[504]The use of languages against the background of the parties
The overview shows that the use of languages can partly be related to the background of the parties. If we accept that Greek became the predominant language for legal documents after a given moment, we cannot relate the use of language to the background of the parties after that point. This means that the use of Greek in an act between two Jews after 125 cannot be explained in this way. However, even before that period the divergences the material presents are telling. On the one hand, there seems to be a clear relationship between the background of the parties and the language they choose for their dealings. In P.Yadin 2, two Nabataeans have an act drawn up in Nabataean Aramaic, in P.Yadin 8, a Jew has Jewish Aramaic employed in an acknowledgement of receipt after a deal with his brother. An acknowledgement of receipt of the same nature (and written by the same scribe) is issued in Nabataean Aramaic, perhaps for a Nabataean party. In P.Yadin 3, sale of the same orchard of P.Yadin 2 by the same vendor to a Jewish purchaser, Nabataean Aramaic is used as well. However, on the other hand, we see that two Jews can use Nabataean Aramaic (P.Yadin 6) and that Jews use Greek amongst each other, even as early as in 110 (while Aramaic is still used until 122 or 125). This means that the documents do not show unequivocally that the choice of language was based on the background of the parties.
This is important because the use of language has also been related to the use of law. I referred above to assumptions that Nabataean Aramaic documents refer to Nabataean law.[505] In some cases this seems to be obvious. When two Nabataeans make a deal in Nabataean Aramaic, like in P.Yadin 2, there needs to be no doubt as to whether they wanted Nabataean law to apply to their deal. Phrases like ‘as is proper' and ‘as is customary' have to refer to a common legal context, probably of Nabataean law. Yet the presence of P.Yadin 3, a deal between a Nabataean and a Jew, that is almost a copy of the deal we find in P.Yadin 2, presents us with the intriguing case of divergence from the general legal framework (referred to by ‘as is proper') in using reference to a specific arrangement. This arrangement could have its origin in the legal background of the Jewish party.[506] A more explicit example can be found in P.Yadin 6, a document in Nabataean Aramaic, that clearly refers to Jewish law (‘according to the customary manner of working “and you shall till”).[507] This means that the language of the document does not determine a priori what law is referred to. This has to be deduced from the actual references or arrangements in the documents. That the same applies to the Greek documents can be seen in P.Yadin 17, where reference is made to ‘the law of deposit.' This reference is clearly not to Roman law.[508] Furthermore, documents like P.Yadin 21-22 take certain rights for granted that are part of a non-Roman legal context (the position of the widow towards her deceased husband's estate).[509] These rights are explicitly described in the papyrus text, as the foundation of and the reason for the legal act. This means that external features like language or wording are not what should guide us in determining the law behind the documents but rather internal evidence, like references to the applicable law or descriptions of rights and legal positions.References to law in the documents
The documents seem to determine what the applicable law was in two ways. On the one hand, documents can refer to a general legal background (with ‘as is proper,' ‘as is customary') and give specific rules for specific cases (as in P.Yadin 3 with the watering rights). On the other hand, they can refer to a specific applicable law (as in P.Yadin 17) or explain specific legal positions (as in P.Yadin 21-22 and 23-24).
In these later papyri the references to the applicable law and descriptions of rights and legal positions should be distinguished from other indications of the applicable law, like the appearance of guardians for women or mention of the stipulatio. In the table these indications are not classified under references to law, since they are not references to law in the strict sense of the term. Yet these indications do connect with a specific legal system that was applicable to the legal act: Roman law required women to act with guardians, Roman law knew of a stipulatio to have a party declare himself bound. But although in P.Yadin 17 a guardian occurs for Babatha and there is mention of the stipulatio, the law of deposit referred to is clearly not Roman. This means that there is a contrast in legal orientation between the references and descriptions of legal rights and positions, and the other indications of the applicable law as found in the documents.
Law behind the documents
Unlike the references to law and the descriptions of rights and legal positions, the other indications of the applicable law do not see to contents of the legal act (to the law that is applicable to the legal arrangements in the act, such as the sale, or the deposit) but that arrange for legal matters that can be qualified as formal. The difference between indications of the law that applies substantively and the indications of the law that applies formally is crucial for our understanding of the relationship between several applicable laws in these documents. This division seems to develop after the Roman conquest. The reasons for the development in references to law and for the presence of features that point at different legal systems that are applicable to the same act will be the subject of Chapter 3.
More on the topic II. Overview of Conclusions:
- Overview and Implications
- Overview of locations
- Overview of Nanotechnologies
- An overview of judges at Rome
- The ‘Second Life’ or Roman Law: A Brief Overview
- The Development in the Twentieth Century (Overview)
- Chapter 1 The Historical and Constitutional Context of Roman Law: A Brief Overview
- CONCLUSIONS
- Conclusions
- III. Conclusions
- International intervention, be it with the aim of emergency relief, peacebuilding or development aid, often involves such a multitude of actors that it is hard to get an overview.
- Conclusions
- CONCLUSIONS
- II. Conclusions
- CONCLUSIONS
- Conclusions
- CONCLUSIONS
- CONCLUSIONS
- Conclusions