Cavalrymen, Dowries, and Greek Onomastics: Two Oxyrhynchite Marriages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Ptolemaic and Roman Oxyrhynchus is relatively well-documented through the Greek papyri from the site, while there are far fewer texts written in Egyptian from the same locality, which can offer additional perspectives. This paper takes a small step towards addressing this issue by presenting an edition and study of three Oxyrhynchite Demotic documents related to two marriages from the late 1st century BC. Two papyri detail the first marriage, and the third text records the second one. Unique among Demotic materials published so far is the fact that one of the deeds is a ‘dowry document’ (sẖ-n-grg.t), providing new insights into the economic arrangements of Egyptian matrimony. The documents also contribute to our understanding of the relationship between military ranks, ethnicity, and onomastics at the time. The men bear Greek names and are, at least in one case, part of the catoecic cavalry at Oxyrhynchus, but still chose to enter the agreement through an Egyptian document. It is argued that while it is possible that the contracting parties may have been Hellenised Egyptians, it cannot be excluded that they were descendants of earlier Greek settlers who both spoke Egyptian and conducted their business in the native language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".