Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt (review)

The vast quantities of documentary texts surviving on papyrus (ancient paper) and excavated in Egypt provide unequaled access to the social lives of individuals and institutions in Byzantine world. Papyrologists are necessarily concerned with the demanding task of editing texts, but, increasingly, the data derived from such texts are providing the basis for statistical analysis and synthetic historical study. Ruffini significantly advances the application of quantatative analysis to data extracted from papyri. His study examines the social networks of two settlements in the sixth-century and, crucially, proposes a new model for understanding the social structures of the contemporary Byzantine Empire.

The edited corpora of two large finds of papyri from a district capital, Oxyrhynchos, and from a contemporary village, Aphrodito in the Antaiopolite district, provide the author's data. Chapters 1 and 3 introduce and evaluate the social networks of Oxyrhynchos and Aphrodito, respectively, employing traditional prosopography, whereas Chapters 2 and 4 use quantitative analysis derived from anthropological and sociological theory to support or challenge the results (2–3). In order to achieve the aims of Chapters 2 and 4, Ruffini uses the social network analysis software UCINET and the more powerful Pajek, together with NetDraw, a program that produces visualizations of the imported data.

Ruffini's conclusion—that Oxyrhynchos' centralized ties privileged an aristocratic elite whereas Aphrodito's decentralized ties provided non-elites with access to economic mobility (especially through literacy)—is not unexpected. As for which model might be more applicable to Byzantine Egypt and, likely, to the larger empire, Ruffini reasons that Byzantine Egypt, "probably looked quite a bit like Aphrodito in Oxyrhynchos, in which village networks formed from strong horizontal ties connected to nome-wide networks through centralizing vertical ties" (249).

The volume benefits from Ruffini's ability to communicate in simple, straight-forward language with surprisingly little jargon. He describes the limits of his methodology and datasets honestly, arguing in favor of transparency and providing a web address through which to access his datasets (21, n. 67). He acknowledges that social-network analysis cannot replace traditional prosopography, though it can be used as quantatative confirmation or as a means to challenge impressions gained through reading the texts (2). For example, his study provides quantitative support for Keenan's identification of the centrality of shepherds in Aphrodito's social network (218–226).¹

The integrity of the datasets is more troubling. The sources of Ruffini's data, Paola Pruneti's I centri abitati dell'Ossirinchite: repertorio top-onomastico (Florence, 1981) and V. A. Girgis' Prosopografia e Aphroditopolis (Berlin 1938), are not optimal. So far as quantity is concerned, twenty-three additional volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, many containing Byzantine texts, have been published since 1981 (for a total of seventy-two volumes in 2008), and Girgis' Aphrodito prosopography is now more than seventy years old. As for quality, Girgis has been much maligned by papyrologists on several counts. Ruffino characteristically addresses these concerns (200–201, 210–211), but he argues that the sample is statistically significant and capable of smoothing out errors nevertheless. An actual demonstration, however, would have been preferable. Ruffini's own forthcoming Aphrodito prosopography (150, n. 13) will redress this issue as a critical means by which to support or refute his method.

All in all, the book's pioneering use of social-network theory, underpinned by rigorous quantative analysis, is a welcome contribution to papyrology and the social history of the Byzantine world. The future of the field looks promising, indeed.