Settlements of the Ptolemies 9789042917095, 9042917091

Table of contents :
PTDC1
PTDC0790
PTDC0792
PTDC0794
PTDC0795
PTDC0796
PTDC0797
PTDC1101
PTDC0799
PTDC0801
PTDC0802
PTDC0803
PTDC0804
PTDC1102
PTDC1107
PTDC1106
PTDC0808
PTDC0811
PTDC1109
PTDC0814
PTDC0815
PTDC1110
PTDC0817
PTDC0818
PTDC1253
PTDC1115
PTDC0821
PTDC0822
PTDC0823
PTDC0825
PTDC0826
PTDC1117
PTDC0829
PTDC0830
PTDC0831
PTDC0832
PTDC1251
PTDC0835
PTDC0836
PTDC1121
PTDC0838
PTDC0839
PTDC0840
PTDC0841
PTDC0842
PTDC0843
PTDC0844
PTDC0845
PTDC0846
PTDC1122
PTDC0848
PTDC0849
PTDC0850
PTDC0851
PTDC0852
PTDC0853
PTDC1124
PTDC0855
PTDC0856
PTDC0857
PTDC0858
PTDC0859
PTDC0860
PTDC0861
PTDC0862
PTDC0863
PTDC1126
PTDC1128
PTDC1129
PTDC0867
PTDC1131
PTDC0869
PTDC0871
PTDC0874
PTDC1133
PTDC0876
PTDC1136
PTDC0879
PTDC0880
PTDC0883
PTDC0884
PTDC0885
PTDC1137
PTDC1139
PTDC1140
PTDC0890
PTDC0891 - copia
PTDC0892
PTDC0893
PTDC1142
PTDC0896
PTDC1144
PTDC0900
PTDC0901
PTDC0902
PTDC1146
PTDC1149
PTDC0907
PTDC0908
PTDC1151
PTDC0910
PTDC0911
PTDC0912
PTDC1152
PTDC0915
PTDC1154
PTDC0918
PTDC0919
PTDC1247
PTDC0922
PTDC1160
PTDC1162
PTDC0925
PTDC0927
PTDC0929
PTDC0930
PTDC0931
PTDC0932
PTDC0933
PTDC1168
PTDC0935
PTDC1169
PTDC1170
PTDC1171
PTDC1173
PTDC0942
PTDC1174
PTDC1177
PTDC0945
PTDC0946
PTDC0947
PTDC1178
PTDC0949
PTDC0951
PTDC0952
PTDC0953
PTDC0954
PTDC0955
PTDC1180
PTDC0957
PTDC0959
PTDC1181
PTDC1185
PTDC0962
PTDC0963
PTDC0964
PTDC1186
PTDC0966
PTDC0967
PTDC0968
PTDC0969
PTDC0970
PTDC1187
PTDC0972
PTDC0973
PTDC0975
PTDC1188
PTDC0978
PTDC0980
PTDC0981
PTDC0982
PTDC1191
PTDC1193
PTDC0988
PTDC1194
PTDC1195
PTDC0992
PTDC0993
PTDC0994
PTDC0995
PTDC1197
PTDC1198
PTDC1199
PTDC1200
PTDC1002
PTDC1003
PTDC1004
PTDC1005
PTDC1201
PTDC1202
PTDC1204
PTDC1205
PTDC1010
PTDC1011
PTDC1012
PTDC1208
PTDC1209
PTDC1210
PTDC1016
PTDC1017
PTDC1018
PTDC1019
PTDC1020
PTDC1021
PTDC1022
PTDC1212
PTDC1213
PTDC1216
PTDC1219
PTDC1220
PTDC1029
PTDC1030
PTDC1222
PTDC1223
PTDC1033
PTDC1224
PTDC1225
PTDC1037
PTDC1038
PTDC1226
PTDC1227
PTDC1042
PTDC1229
PTDC1045
PTDC1230
PTDC1231
PTDC1232
PTDC1051
PTDC1052
PTDC1053
PTDC1233
PTDC1055
PTDC1058
PTDC1059
PTDC1060
PTDC1061
PTDC1234
PTDC1235
PTDC1064
PTDC1065
PTDC1236
PTDC1067
PTDC1237
PTDC1070
PTDC1071
PTDC1238
PTDC1073
PTDC1074
PTDC1240
PTDC1076
PTDC1079
PTDC1080
PTDC1081
PTDC1082
PTDC1241
PTDC1242
PTDC1085
PTDC1086
PTDC1087
PTDC1088
PTDC1089
PTDC1090
PTDC1092
PTDC1093
PTDC1094
PTDC1095
PTDC1096
PTDC1097

Citation preview

STUDIA HELLENISTICA 43

SETTLEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES CITY FOUNDATIONS AND NEW SETTLEMENT IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD by

Katja MUELLER

PEETERS 2006

STUDIA HELLENISTICA

condiderunt

L. Cerfaux et W Peremans

continuaverunt

W. Peremans et E. Van 't Dack

ediderunt

L. Mooren, W. Clarysse, H. Heinen , M.J . Osborne et K. Vandorpe

curaverunt

L. Mooren et P. Van Dessel

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mueller, Katja. Settlements of the Ptolemies : city foundations and new settlement in the Hellenistic world / by Katja Mueller. p. cm. - (Studia Hellenistica ; 43) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-90-429-1709-5 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 90-429-1709-1 (alk. paper) l. Ptolemaic dynasty, 305-30 B.C. 2. Egypt--Colonization. 3. Mediterranean Region--Colonization. 4. Civilization, Classical. I. Title. II. Series. DT92.M74 2006 932' .021--dc22 200505863 1

(_7

D. 2006/0602/9 ISBN-IO 90-429-1709-1 ISBN-13 9789042917095 © 2006, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B - 3000 Leuven

CONTENTS

The Ptolemaic Dynasty . . . . . List ofFigures, Maps and Tables Abbreviations . . . Acknowledgements

XI

XII XIV

XVII

INTRODUCTION .

I

I. DYNASTIC TOPONYMS

9

1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 PTOLEMAIC NAMING HABITS

. . . . . . . . . . .

9 IO

J.I Rakote and Psoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15

3.2 Dynastic settlements in the Fayum . . . . . . J. 3 Nameless settlements - Toponyms abbreviated 3.4 All the same: homonymous settlements

23 30 32

3 DYNASTIC TOPONYMS -

MAKING AND USAGE

4 LOADED TOPONYMS

35

5 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

II. PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS AS .REGIONAL SYSTEMS l

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

A 'NATIONAL' SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 2.I What was it the Ptolemies ruled? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2 A regjonal perspective on Ptolemaic possessions . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Egypt, Lower Nubia, the Red Sea coast south to Ethiopia . . 2.2.2 Coele-Syria . . . . . . 2.2.3 Cyrenaica . . . . . . . 2.2.4 The Aegean Islands and Crete 2.2.5 Asia Minor (Ionia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Cilicia) and Cyprus 2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2 THE PTOLEMAIC EMPIRE.

42

46

47 50 53 53

54

55

SEITLEMENTS OF THE fYfOLEMIES

VIII

3 THE DISTRIBUTION OF PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS .

3. I Dynastic settlement in the Ptolemaic empire and beyond 3.2 Dynastic settlement in Egypt. . . . . . 4 FOUNDING NEW SEITLEMENT PATTERNS

4.r Frequency and continuity ofsites 4.2 Polis centre and its hinterland .

5.2 Locating and dating Ptolemaic methods offoundation

72 73 75 76 79

6 CONCLUSION. FROM REGIONAL VARIABILITY TO EMPIRE

83

III.

85

4. 3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . 5

METHODS OF FOUNDATION . . . .

5. r Classificatory muddles . . . . .

PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS AS 'URBAN' SYSTEMS

. . . .

INTROD UCTION: WHAT IS URBAN AND DOES IT MATTER?

I

SEITLEMENT AND POPULAT ION SI ZE . . . . . . . .

2

3

104

URBAN STRUCTURE AND ORIGIN . . . . . . . . .

105

J.I Ancient Egyptian town planning . . . . . . .

106

Hippodamian ideas in the Hellenistic world . J.3 Ptolemaic town planning. . . . . . . . . . . .

109

3,2

89 91

96

11 2

Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemais in Cyrenaica 3.3.2 Foundations of the second generation . . . .

116

J. 4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 0

3.3.1

4 LIFE IN A SEITLEMENT. ORGANISATION AND FUNCTION . .

5

85 88

2.r The size of Ptolemaic and Seleukid foundations . . . . . Ptolemaic foundations and regional thresholds . . . . . . . 2. 3 The Graeco-Roman Fayum. Settlement size and facilities . 2. 4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2

u4

121

4. I Administrative organization . 4.2 Physical differentiation . . . . 4.3 Socio-economic differentiation

123 127

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . .

138

IY. l

56 56 60 65 66

COLONISING EGYPT AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN .

131

141

DATES AND FOUNDERS . . . . . . .

141

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Dating Ptolemaic foundations .

141

I.I I. 2

142

CONTENTS

IX

I. 3

The city of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica . . . . . . . . . . . . ft all began in Hellenistic Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.5 One, two or more Ptolemaic exploration programmes? . . I. p The Fayum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 Ptolemy II and the Red Sea coast . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 The Ptolemies on the fringe - the Aegean and Asia Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 6 A later recovery The foundations of Boethos I.4

2 MOVING PEOPLE OR TIME TO MIGRATE? 2. I 2.2

. . . . .

Settlers - where did they come from? . . . . . Emigration - who pays for the transfer and why emigrate?

143 146 149 149 151 157

159 165 166

174

3 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179

CONCLUSION

181

APPENDICES

Appendix l Estimated Population Size for Settlements in the Ptolemaic Fayum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix fl A Translation of the Pithom Stela . . . . . . . . Appendix Ill A Gazetteer of Ptolemaic Dynastic Settlements BIBLIOGRAPHY

187 192 200

213

THE PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY 304- 283 283 - 246 246 - 221 221 - 204 204 - 180 180 - 145 170 - 164 164 163 145 u6 107 -

163 145 u6 107 IOI

88 88 - 81 80 80- 58 58 - 56 56 - 55 55 - 51 51 - 30 51 - 47 47-44 44-30 30

IOI -

Ptolemy I Soter Ptolemy II Philadelphos Ptolemy III Euergetes Ptolemy IV Philopator Ptolemy V Epiphanes Ptolemy VI Philometor Ptolemy VI Philometor, Kleopacra 11, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Ptolemy VI Philometor, Kleopatra II Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, Kleopatra 11, Kleopatra III Kleopatra III, Ptolemy IX Soter II Kleopatra III, Ptolemy X Alexander Ptolemy X Alexander, Kleopatra Berenike III Ptolemy IX Soter II Kleopatra Berenike III, Ptolemy XI Alexander II Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos Berenike IV, Kleopatra VI Tryphaina Berenike IV, Archelaos Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos Kleopatra VII Philopator Ptolemy XIII Ptolemy XIV Ptolemy XV (Caesarion) Philopator Philometor Roman province - Alexandria et Aegyptus

LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES I. FIGURES

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2 . 7 Fig. 3.1 Fig.p

Ptolemaic rule over various regions . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Ptolemaic settlements with a d yn astic name Frequency of dynastic foundations : in Egypt and in the Fayum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of archaeological survey areas: Methana, Kcos C PSP, Western Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of ancient sites in three survey areas: Methana, Ko ressos on Keos and C PSP . . . . . . Continuity o f ancient sites in three survey areas Ptolemaic m ethods of foundation . . . . . . Plan of Philadelpheia, Fayum . . . . . . . . . Ancient 'street map' o f Philadelpheia, Fayum

68

69

79 11 7

128

2. MAPS

Map Map

1

2

Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 M ap 6 Map 7 Map 8

The Eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea Coast and Arabia . Ptolemaic Dynastic Setd ement5 in rhe Eastern Mediterranean . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Ptolemaic Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeological sites in the modern Fayum . . . Middle Nile Regio n / U pper and Lower Nubia Distribution of foreign city ethnics fo und in Ptolema ic Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of foreig n city ethnics fro m G reece and Asia Minor found in Ptolemaic Egypt . . . . . . . . . Distribution of foreign women city ethnics found in Ptolemaic Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 6

7 98 163

169 17 1

17 2

3. TABLES

Table

1.1

C heck-list of dynas tic names, epithets and G reek toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES

XIII

Table 1.2 Check-list of dynastic cult names and Greek toponyms 13 Table 1.3 Frequency and location of dynastic names . . . . . . . 14 Table 1.4 Greek and Demotic-Egyptian dynastic toponyms compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25 Table L5 A selection of non-dynastic toponyms . . . . . . . . . 27-29 Table r.6 Possible applications of abbreviated toponyms . . . . . 31-32 Table 2.1 Egyptian nomes sorted by size and population density. 64 Table 2.2 Possible methods of foundation . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table 2.3 Regional distribution of Ptolemaic foundation methods . 80 Table 3.1 Criteria for assessing urbanisation . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table 3.2 Archaeological size (in ha) of Seleukid and Ptolemaic 90 foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3-3 Hypothetical population size of Alexandria, Memphis 96 and Ptolemais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3-4 Settleme nt size in the Graeco-Roman Fayum . . . . . 97 Table 3.5 Selection of settlements with known population size 102 and facilities, Ptolemaic Fayum . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.6 Facilities coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Table 4.1 Ptolemaic dynastic settlements and hunting-stations 154-155

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations used here are those of the following works: L'Annee Philologique, for classical journals etc., and Lexikon der Agyptologie (LA), for Egyptological abbreviations. All papyrological sources are cited according to John F. Oates et al. 2001. Checklist of Editions of reek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets. Atlanta. A few other abbreviations to which I refer more frequently are given below: M ABSA AJA AJAH APF ASAE BASOR BASP BCH BIFAO BL BSFE CAH CE CGC C.Ord.Ptol. DE DGT DNB EA FGrHist

FHN

Archaologischer Anzeiger Annual of the British School at Athens American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Ancient History Archiv fur Papyrusforschung Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique Bulletin de l'lnstitut Franr;ais d'Archeologie Orientale Berichtigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Berlin Bulletin de la Societe Frarn,aise d'Egyptologie Cambridge Ancient History Chronique d'Egypte Kamal, A. 1905. Ste/es ptolemaiques et romaines, Catalogu.e glneml du Musee du Caire. Cairo Lenger, M.-T. 1980. Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolemi es, rnd edition, Bruxelles Discussion in Egyptology Daris, S. and Calderini, A. 1938-1986. Dizionario dei nom, geografici e topografici del!'Egitto greco-romano. Rome Erich Liiddeckens et al., 1980-. Demotisches Namenbuch, Wiesbaden Epigraphica Anatolica Jacoby, F. (ed.). 1923- Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin and Leiden Eide, T., Hagg, T., Pierce, R.H., and Torok, L. 1996. Fontes His-

toriae Nubiorum. Textual sources for the history of the middle Nile region between the eighth century BC and the sixth century AD, 11. From the mid-fifth to the first century BC. Bergen GM

Gottinger Miszellcn

ABBREVIATIONS

GRBS I.Cree. I.Fay.

xv

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Guarducci, M. 1935-1950. lnscriptiones Creticae. 4 vols. Rome Bernand, E. 1975-1981. Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum I-Ill. Leiden Kern, 0 . 1900. Die lnschriften von Magnesia am Meander. Berlin I.Magn. I.Pan Bernand, A. 1972. La Paneion d'El-Kanai's. Les inscriptions grecques. Leiden I.Philae Bernand, E. and Bernand, A. 1969. Les inscriptions grecques de Philae I. Epoque ptolemaique. II: Haut et Bas Empire. 2 vols. Paris Israel Exploration Journal IEJ lnscriptiones Graecae IG International Journal of Nautical Archaeology IJNA Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JARCE Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen lnstituts JDAI Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JEA Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient JESHO Journal of Field Archaeology JFA Journal of Hellenic Studies JHS Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology ]MA Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNES ]RA Journal of Roman Archaeology KRI Kitchen, K.A. 1968-1989. Ramesside Inscriptions, historical and biographical I- VII. Oxford KRI-TANC Kitchen, K.A. 1993-1999. Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and annotated: notes and comments I-II. Oxford Kitchen, K.A. 1993-96. Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and KRI-TAT annotated: Translations I-II. Oxford LA H eick, W. and Otto, E. (eds.). 1972-1992. lexikon der Agyptologie. Wiesbaden LEM Gardiner, A.H. 1937. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Bruxelles Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen lnstituts, AbMDAIK ceilung Kairo Memoires de l'Institut Fran~ais d'Archeologie Orientale du Caire MIFAO OGIS Dittenberger, W 1960. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Hildesheim PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society PM Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1934-. Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefi and paintings. Oxford pp Peremans, W and Van 't Dack, E. 1950-2002. Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Leuven RDAC Reports of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Revue d'Egyptologie RdE Welles, C. B. 1934. Royal correspondence in the Hellenistic period. A RC study in Greek epigraphy. New Haven SAK Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur

XVI

SEG SCI SIG 3

TAPhA Urk II WB

ZAS ZPE

SETTLEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES »

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Scripta Classica Israelica Oittenberger, W (ed.) . 1915-1924. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edition. Leipzig Transactions of the American Philological Association Sethe, K. 1904. Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-romirchen Zeit. Leipzig Erman, A. and Grapow, H. 1926-31. Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache. Leipzig Zeitschrift fur agypcische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research for this book has taken its time as it has the time of many others. There are a number of people who have been extremely generous with their time, data and ideas. I am glad that I am now able to fully acknowledge their support here. Foremost, I am grateful to Dorothy Thompson for her encouragement over the past few years. Several aspects of this book could only have been pursued through the information generated by: Willy Clarysse and Dorothy Thompson's joint study entitled Counting the People (2006) and Willy Clarysse et al.'s KU Leuven Fayum Project. I thank both for allowing me to use their data unrestrictedly. Part of the research was carried out whilst I was an exchange student to the Research Centre of Graeco-Roman Egypt at the University of Trier. I thank Heinz Heinen for his kind invitation, and Sven Vleeming for introducing me to the Demotic- Egyptian language and Papyrology. Due to the courtesy of Barbel Kramer, I was also allowed an autopsy of the Trier collection of unpublished Greek papyri relating to the new foundation of Euergetis by Boethos. Persons and friends who have offered their help, criticism and patience include Joyce Reynolds, Karl-Th. Zauzich, John Tait, Dominic Rathbone, Cornelia Romer, Gina Muskett, Gertrud Dietze, Aptin Khanbaghi and William Lee. In the more literal sense, I am much indebted for financial assistance ro Peterhouse, Cambridge, the Cambridge European Trust, the Society for Libyan Studies, the Thomas Mulvey Fund, the Gerd-Henkel-Stiftung and the KU Leuven which granted me a Research Fellowship. Finally, but most importantly, I thank my sister and my mother for their unfailing support and inspiration. May this book serve as a token of my gratitude.

INTRODUCTION ODE TO PI-RAMESSE

'Beginning of the account of the victories of the lord of Egypt: His majesty built for himself a residence; Great of Victory is its name. It will separate Palestine from Egypt being filled and provisioned. It is like the plan of southern Heliopolis (Thebes). Its lifetime will be like that of the temple of the Ka of Ptah (Memphis). The sun rises in its horizon and sets within it. Everyone has abandoned their towns and settled in its district. Its west is the temple of Amun, its south the House of Seth, Astarte dwells in its East and Wadjct in its north. The residence, which is in it, it is like the horizon of the sky. Ramses, beloved of Arnun is in it as a god, Month in the Two Lands as Herald, Re of the rulers as Vizier, joy-bringer of Egypt, beloved of Arum as mayor. The land comes down to its place.' (P.Anastasi 11 1.1-2.5 ~ LEM n-13)

Ramses II built himself a new capital in Egypt. The literary account above glorifies the virtues of his new city. Pi-Ramesse was a great city, whose settlers arrived from all over Egypt. The gods embraced it. Under different aspects, the founder, Ramses II protected the city as god, herald, vizier and mayor. More than 1000 years later, long after Pi-Ramesse had been abandoned by the gods and peoples alike, Alexander the Great founded a new settlement in Egypt destined to became much greater and more famous - Alexandria ad Aegyptum ('next to Egypt'), as it was later known. After the death of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, took over Egypt and the task of nurturing the new city of Alexandria. This city provided the anchor for three hundred years of Ptolemaic rule over Egypt. Its foundation marked the beginning of intensive new settlement. Although the foundation of new settlements and internal migration were not unknown in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, the scale these reached under the early Ptolemies was unprecedented. In the early Hellenistic period, not only the Ptolemies, but the Seleukids also and the

2

SETILEMENTS OF THE PROLEMIES

Macedonian kings, all advanced new settlement throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, and far beyond. Very few regions were left untouched. New settlement was a vital feature common to all three kingdoms. It united scattered territories under the name of one dynasty. It allowed communication and trade to globalise. It made people move from one end of the Eastern Mediterranean to the other, and settle there. Like no other process, the foundation of new settlements shaped Hellenisci history. This book sets out to investigate the Ptolemaic contribution co chis important Hellenistic phenomenon. Studies on Hellenistic settlements are well advanced. Their findings reach beyond the mechanics of seeding people. Issues of the a rual method of settlement through to the literary reception of new serclement have all formed part of the modern discourse. In his study o n ' Hellenistische Scadtegri.indungen', Tscherikower (1927) made a beginning. Cohen (1978) has discussed 'Seleucid colonies' and, later, in the foot-steps of Tscherikower (1927) provides a revised gazetteer of l lclleniscic settlements (1995), Billows (1995) has dealt with Macedon ian 'Kings and colonises' and, Fraser (1996) with the 'Cities of Alexander the Great'. A full study of Ptolemaic settlement is glaringly absent. Only one monograph has ever been dedicated to one, and only one, new Pwlemaic settlement. Plaumann (1910) comprehensively discussed the role and constitution of Ptolemais Hermiou in Upper Egypt. He has been followed by only a small collection of isolated studies. The recent publication of Greek papyri relating to the foundation of Euergecis in Egypt has sparked a revival of interest in the subject. In 1his context, Heinen (199T 352) has brieAy summarised the currenr view of Ptolemaic settlement; in comparison to the Seleukids, the Ptolem ies are commonly perceived as little active in terms of city-foundations. This impression is correct when one focuses on Egypt only and then only on Greek settlements of the traditional polis type. Thereby one ca n easily overlook the fact that the Ptolemies pursued a very successful settlement policy. Earlier Cohen (1983: 69) argued that 'the Ptolemies were also active as colonizers, both in Egypt and in their foreign possessions. J draw this distinction because in considering the Ptolemaic approach to colonization one must differentiate - as they did - between Egypt itself and the overseas possessions .... except for Ptolemais (Hermiou) in Upper Egypt and some Red Sea ports on the Red Sea coast, the Ptolemies did not establish new foundations in Egypt. Nevertheless, . ..

INTRODUCTION

3

if the Ptolemies did not found cities in Egypt the way the Seleucids did in Asia and Asia Minor, they did settle tens of thousands of GrecoMacedonians and other settlers.' Several issues spring from these two statements. Ptolemaic settlement was different from chat of the Seleukids, less extensive and less frequent. Ptolemaic settlement did not involve the foundation of a special type of city - the Greek polis. It was pursued mainly outside the framework of urban settlement. If we did not know better, there would apparently be no 'Cities of the Ptolemies', only 'Villages of the Ptolemies'. Mainly, it was Greek-Macedonians who were settled. And at the very least, there appears to have been a spatial divide in the settlement policy between within and outside Egypt, between Egypt and the Ptolemaic foreign possessions. Ptolemaic settlement was clearly complex, and these generalizations are unlikely to do justice to this complexity. There is the problem of defining the object. What was Ptolemaic settlement and how is it to be differentiated from ocher forms of settlement? My initial approach is based upon one assumption. The Hellenistic period witnessed the emergence of several competing kingdoms whose goal was to reassert rule over their particular territories. New settlement reinforced chis process in two ways: through physically securing access and through nominally laying claim to it through labelling a settlement with a dynastic name. By definition a dynastic settlement is a settlement whose toponym relates directly to a Hellenistic royal family or dynasty. It is not at all certain - neither do I here imply - that a settlement with a dynastic name was thus automatically founded by order of the king and dynasty who gave their names to the settlement (see discussion below). Throughout the Hellenistic period, the practice of giving dynastic names to settlements proved extremely popular. Many - and Tscherikower set an important example - would even go so far as to suggest chat new Hellenistic settlement was predominantly marked with dynastic names. In carrying a dynastic name, a settlement presents itself as a candidate with a high probability of being founded or significantly altered in its structure during the Hellenistic period. If we would follow the trail of dynastic settlements or what is left of them, we would eventually understand Hellenistic settlement. Clearly, the question must be raised whether this was the case, whether such settlements were any different from ocher (new) Hellenistic settlements. The focus here is with dynastic settlements, which are created as potential indica-

4

SEITLEMENTS OF THE PROLEMIES

tors for the frequency and volume of Ptolemaic settlement. A second aim of chis book will be to look beyond that tradition and co answer chis question on the otherness of dynastic settlement. Ptolemaic settlement may be viewed from a multitude of perspectives. So far the picture of Hellenistic settlement has been drawn primarily from written sources, more precisely from Greek written sources. Ptolemaic settlements, like those of ocher Hellenistic rulers, have consequently been perceived as a phenomenon of the Greek speaking phere. There are other sides co Ptolemaic settlement - archaeological and non-Greek. Ptolemaic Egypt is a rich source for studying chis phenomenon. Thousands of Greek and Demotic-Egyptian papyri, archaeological remains and, to a lesser degree, epigraphical records provide a vast amount of information. The same wealth gives us the unique opportunity to view this process of settlement within two different cultural frameworks - the Greek and the Egyptian - something which is rarely undertaken and mostly avoided elsewhere. Was there an Egyptian side to Ptolemaic settlement? The answer must clearly be 'yes' ; however, rhe problem lies in making chis aspect speak. Because of its wealth and opportunities, I shall necessarily be biased cowards Egypt. This brings us finally back to the scope of the present study. New settlement affected Egypt more deeply than any other region of the Ptolemaic realm. Scholars have continuously stressed this fa r. However, Ptolemaic rule and Ptolemaic settlement spread from as far north as Greece and as far south as the Ethiopian Red Sea coasl, and from Cyrenaica in the west to the coast of Asia Minor in the east. Despite che size of such a task, I have decided to retain a global view of Ptolemaic settlement, char is, to survey new settlement throughout rhe whole of the Ptolemaic empire. This is the only way chat differences between Ptolemaic settlement policies in and outside Egypt, and any regional differences can be verified, assessed and understood.

'

/~~ ...... -,. :·_./::·.

Rome

•

• Apollonia

Artaxata

.

.

Carthage

Athens

.

•

Ephesos

~

Syracuse


-

-

>-

80%

.c:

100%

~

80%

-

60% 40%

LR

Methana Survey

CPSP 100%

ER

r-

~ s

20%

60%

~s

40% 20% 0%

0%

CHI

CH2

EAi

EA2

LAI

HE

LR2

LR

R

Keos Survey

CPSP

100%

100% ,/ ,Z:

>80%

80%

60%

60%

~s

40% 20%

-

.c;

.l:;

,..

£

,c.

;;::.

foAS] ~

40% 20%

0%

HE

ER

LA

0%

CHI

CH2

EAi

EA2

LAI

LR2

Fig.2.6 Continuity of ancient sites in three survey areas (right column : Abandoned Sites (AS) against Continuing Sites (CS), left column : New Sites (NS) against Continuing Sites (CS))

-

70

SETILEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

Around Palaipaphos on Cyprus an altogether different pattern emerged (Fig. 2.5)8 4 • Far from giving signs of slowing down, the early Hellenistic period witnessed an enormous growth in the number of sites. But this growth was not constant throughout the entire survey area divided up by four rivers. The lower Ohiarizos River region, in the immediate proximity of Palaipaphos, and the lower Ezousas River region were mainly affected 85. The Dhiarizos and Ezousa River regions saw a steady growth, which climaxed in the early Roman period; this was followed by a loss of sites in the Late Roman period. The frequency of sites in the Xeropotamos and Khapotami River region initially developed a similar upward trend, but lost its trajectory already during the late Hellenistic period. A few sites were abandoned. The site densiLy remained at a moderate level. For the region aro und Palaipaphos, a dispersed settlement pattern, as on C lassical Keos and Methana, only just began to emerge during the Hellenistic period. Possible disruptions to the rural settlement patterns, ownership and agricultural exploitation may also be traced through an analysis of the continuity of a site through the centuries. A high continuity is commonly understood as a good indication of a stable landholding system in a rural hinterland 86 • But settlement patterns can also be viewed as any other system in which a high continuity of features is not always advantageous. Viability lies in flexibility. Most systems are steady-state phenomena, whose stability is caused by the interplay of a number of factors. The stability of systems may not necessa rily req uire the conti nuity of a high number of their main co mponents, but a balance rather between components gained and lost. A high continuity over a long period may even indicate a certain rigidity to a system, eventually destined to collapse. For settl ement patterns, a low conti nui ty of sites can be an indicator of two trends: either, as frequently suggested, it shows the disruption to a system, or it may attest to the dynamism of a system approximating a state of equilibrium 87 • To understand the narure of the continuity found here in all three survey areas, two ratios will be estab-

84 8' 86

87

S0 rensen and Rupp 1993 : cables 2-5. Lund 1993: 136, S0re nsen and Rupp 1993 : 189, Rupp 1997. Renfrew 1972 : 244-248, Alcock 1989a: 14-15, 1993: 56-58. Cf. Bintliff 1997= 30.

CHAPTER ll - PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS AS REGIONAL SYSTEMS

71

lished, first, between new site (NS) and continuing sites (CS) and, secondly, between abandoned sites (AS) and continuing sites (CS) within each region. How did the percentage of new and abandoned sites relate one co che ocher? Through chis calculation we may understand both how far che system was able to regenerate itself and the degree of its internal stability. In none of the three regions was the continuity of sites constantly high throughout the centuries (Fig. 2.6). For Cyprus, even when the continuity of sites was high, the system did not necessarily retain its shape and original stability. During the early Hellenistic period, the majority of sites continued co be occupied (ratio of AS/CS). The high frequency of new sites as reflected in the other ratio (NS/CS) for the same period clearly suggests chat che existing system expanded and changed beyond recognition. The same holds true for Keos and Mechana during the Late Roman period88 • The continuity of old sites was generally high, when set against the number of sites abandoned from the Roman to the Late Roman period. But at the same time, a substantial number of new sites emerged. Again it must be stressed chat high continuity of sites is not a feature of a stable and unchanging system. A high continuity of sites can occur within systems in a state of expansion. A settlement pattern could transform itself into yet another shape when che majority of sites were abandoned without the gain of new sites. For the regions surveyed on Keos and che Mechana peninsula, chis process is most visible during the early Roman period. On Cyprus coo, che number of sites dropped during the middle and late Roman periods (ER2/LR:x). Many new sites emerged, nonetheless. This process had a different nature from chat of the expansion of a secclement pattern. The abandonment of sites affected the entire settlement pattern, causing an overall disruption in site continuity. This was not simply a shrinking of the settlement pattern during which continuing sites might be expected co dominate within the NS/CS ratio. Many sites were abandoned and new sites emerged, at such a rate chat the entire secclemenc system was restructured. The three regions and their pattern of continuity split into two main groups. On Keos and Methana, the continuity of sites in whichever ratio

88

For Koressos, see Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani 1991b: table 17.6.

72

SETILEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

was not high throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Around Palaipaphos on Cyprus, in the late Roman period a similar trend set in. The initial phase of growth and high continuity of new sites gave way to a relatively low continuity. Between chis stage and the initial phase of expansion, the Cypriote survey (the Late Hellenistic to the Middle Roman Period) depicts a relatively even ratio of new and abandoned sites. A periodicity of expansion and abandonment is apparent. The three regions here are caught in different stages of this cycle, undergoing expansion and decrease in their respective rural settlement pattern at different times and, more importantly, with different degrees of magnitude89.

4.2

Pous

CENTRE AND ITS HINTERLAND

The picture of a region would be incomplete if activities in the rural landscape remained our sole focus. T he main settlement was at the heart of rural territory, part of the rural economy, the impulse, receiver and regulator all in one. Without an understanding of the developments within a polis centre, any explanation of the processes taking place in rural landscapes remains provisional 90. NI three surveys included the main local settlements. The survey of ancient Koressos largely confirmed the process which occurred in its rural hinterland. A reduction in the pottery density and virtually no finds of the second and first centuries BC suggest that ancient Koressos became largely abandoned. T he synoecism between Koressos and Ioulis was a decisive, if not to say reinforcing, factor in this process9'. The main centre of the Methana peninsula was ancient Methana. Magoula and O ga, both lower ranking settlements, completed the upper settlement hierarchy. These two villages were abandoned or partly deserted in the late third century BC. Ancient Methana, however, appears to have flourished when minting her own bronze coinage. To judge from a reduction in the spread of surface scatters, the setrlement contracted slighrly from 80,000 sq m to 70,000 sq m in this period92. 89 9° 9' 92

C f. Sallares 1991: 65-71, Renfrew 1972a: 386-8, fig.2. Alcock 1991, Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988, Whitelaw and Davis 1991. C herry, Davis and Manrzou rani 1991b: 339-343, W hitelaw and Davis 1991: 279. Mee and Forbes 199]: 122-127 (M S10), G ill et al. 1997: 72-73, Gill 1997: 278-281.

CHAPTER II - PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS AS REGIONAL SYSTEMS

73

Here again, as in the case of ancient Koressos, even when minor, the downward trend noticeable in the rural landscape finds reflection in the nucleated settlements. The CPSP survey investigated the rural hinterland of two major settlements, Nea Paphos and Palaipaphos. The city of Palaipaphos, close to the Dhiarizos River, appears to have shrunk in size during the Hellenistic period9 3• This area together with the Ezousas River region gained a large number of new rural sites. The level of rural and urban activities does not coincide, but rather behaves in a somewhat contrary way. The Ezousas River region has frequently been considered part of the extensive hinterland of Nea Paphos. But this is only partly true. With the foundation of Arsinoe, the region gained a new urban focus. New rural sites were clearly associated with Arsinoe and not with Nea Paphos.

4.3 DISCUSSION

Settlement patterns are complex systems for which simple-cause relationships between their behaviour and historical events are difficult to maintain. All three regions just discussed accommodated Ptolemaic foundations, yet they show different developments. Numerous attempts have been made to explain the settlement patterns and possible factors which could have influenced the dispersion or the abandonment of rural settlement94. The most favoured explanation has been that settlement patterns reflect demographic trends. Growing land pressure due to gradual population increase is said to cause rural dispersion. An intensification of rural exploitation tends to manifest itself in a dispersed settlement pattern95. The foundation of new settlements would introduce a significant number of new people. These were normally settled in nucleated centres. This would have led to an increase in the local population, maybe even putting pressure on local agricultural resources. When the land to be distributed was already pre-owned, a new foundation would change the pattern of land ownership and distribution. If areas were not already

93

9' 9i

Maier 1985: 24. Osborne 1987: 113-136, Alcock 1993 : 33-92, Bintliff 1997: 17. Acheson 1997: 182, Cherry, Davis and Mancwurani 1991b : 339, Bintliff 199T 12.

74

SETTLEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

under cultivation, the process of foundation would cause an extension and intensification of rural exploitation. The foundation of new settlements had very similar effects on rural areas as natural population growth with cwo minor differences. Whereas new settlement might induce a population increase abruptly, natural population growth cook its time. Whereas the foundation of a new settlement created a new site of an arguably medium or large population size, natural population increase resulted in the growth of existing ices and che emergence of minor sites. Archaeologists work within rather long-term chronological frameworks; ic is often impossible to grasp the exact timing of changes. However, relating archaeological size to che growth of sites hould allow the distinction co be made between new foundation and natural population growth. This was the approach Rupp (1997) took in his identification of Arsinoe near Palaipaphos. No intensification of rural activities is observable on Keos or Methana; on che contrary, in che territory of Koressos on Keos rural activities decreased severely during the late Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic Methana peninsula was slightly better off. Both settlements served as Ptolemaic garrison sites during most of chc chi rd century BC, and on the Mechana peninsula until 145 BC. On Keos, the depopulation and shift of rural activities cowards Ioulis and its northern harbour have been positively linked co the Ptolemaic presence. Cherry and Davis (1991: 26-8) argue chat the Ptolemaic garrison would have diminished resources essential for the survival of Koressos forcing the secclemenc into synoikism with its neighbour Ioulis96 . For the Ptolemies on Methana, modern assessment is more favourable. The identity of ancient Methana may have been strengthened, Gill cc al. (1997: 73-75) argued, as a result of the Ptolemaic garrison97 • On Western Cyprus, prosperity, a flourishing economy emanating from the urban growth of Nea Paphos as che new Ptolemaic island's capital and the foundation of Arsinoe generated growth in rural accivicies98 . As in Keos and the Mechana peninsula, most regions in mainland Greece witnessed a reduction of rural activities in the lace Hellenistic

Alcock 1993a: 167. Gill et al. 1997:73. 98 Alcock 1993a: 168-169, Lund 1993: 136, cf. Diod. 19.79.4, Maier 1985:24, Hauben 1987 : 213-220, S0rcnscn and Rupp 1993 : 192-3, Rupp 1997: 254. 96 97

CHAPTER II - PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS AS REG IONAL SYSTEMS

75

and ea rly Roman period . Urban centres suffered from similar co nstraints99. Depopulation set in after a period of a highly dispersed settlement pattern - a pattern which was just starting to emerge on Cyprus during the early Hellenistic period. A general cycle of growth and decline underlies the behaviour of rural settlement patterns. Local settlement patterns are pictured archaeologically at different stages of this cycle. The severity of responses varied according to region . The possi ble impact of histo rica l eve nts may be sought not by viewing the behaviour itself, but through the level of behav iour of the settlement pattern . The question then is not so much whether Ptolemaic garrisons triggered the observed decline or not, but whether they accelerated th e process. For Western Cyprus, an impulse fo r renewed growth came from outside, with the foundation of Arsinoe. There can be no doubt about that. On its foundation, a large number of new settlers were brought to the region. The contrast with Keos and Methana could not have been more marked. There two long-established settlements, both independent Greek poleis, received no demographic impulse. Ptolemaic foundations on Keos and Methana introduced no new settlers into their two urban systems. It appears likely that in both places the Ptolemaic garrisons in both places had no impact at all on the setclement pattern. They did not involve an actual settlement of people. Both settlements were simply renamed. Such a process of renaming may have had political implications, but it had no impact on the rural landscape.

5

METHODS OF FOUNDATION

Dynastic foundations came in different shapes, forms and size. The method of foundation defines how a new settlement is formed, structured and presented. Several main lines of argument dominate the discussion of Ptolemaic methods of new settlement. The Ptolemies would have been both simultaneously, active and inactive when it came to new settlement in the areas they ruled. The great divide here is apparently Egypt and all regions outside Egypt. Except for Ptolemais (Hermiou) in

99

Alcock 1993, Jameson et al. 1994: 394-5, Bintliff 1997 : 3-8.

76

SETILEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

Upper Egypt, the Ptolemies would not have established new settlements or Greek cities, but instead may have settled thousands of cleruchs in Egypt. Founding true Greek cities, the Ptolemies did outside Egypt, if they did, then very rarely and sporadic. The Greekness of a settlement, its organisation as a Greek polis, has mattered in assessments of Ptolemaic (in)activity' 00 • A reassessment of the issue of Ptolemaic colonization and what exactly the Ptolemies did when they founded new settlements is long overdue. 5-I CLASSIFICATORY MUDDLES

Hellenistic foundations have been classified according to a number of factors: the size and physical shape of a settlement, its primary function or political-administrative constitution. Wherever we look, we find a lack of coherent classification. The classification of settlements and, indeed, of new foundations to date has involved a complicated mechanism in which the balance and imbalance of numerous variables play a defining role' 0 '. A constant oscillation between various perspectives is inescapable. We could well abandon the problem with Fraser: 'In general it seems clear that Alexander's urban settlements [ ... ] fall into specific groups, or fulfil certain regular functions'' 0 '. There then follows an analysis with changing emphasis on function, settlers and locations, drawing only on one specific aspect: 'Alexander's foundations seem, in terms of the original settlers, to form a uniform pattern throughout. With the possible exception of Alexandria in Egypt, the foundations were synoecisms of the classic type - concentrations of population from the surrounding neighbourhood together with new Greek or Macedonian settlers'rni. Were Alexander' settlements and his method of foundation really so uniform? Seleukid foundations were certainly not so, nor indeed were Ptolemaic foundations. Seleukos I and his successors did not found all their settlements through synoikism. They also were

' 00

Heinen 1997 as quoted here in chapter I, Jones 1940 : 14, Bean and Mitford 1962,

Robert 1960: 157-159, Cohen 1983: 70-1, Bagnall 1998: 1093. '°' Tscherikower 1927: 115-6, Toynbee 1954: 114, Carter 1995: 25, 99-101. '0' Fraser 1996: 171. ' 03 Fraser 1996: 185.

CHAPTER II - PTOLEMAJ C FOUNDATIONS AS REGIONAL SYSTEMS

77

different in size' 0 4. These differences in size emerge from the archaeological records Fraser and others have rarely looked at' 05 • Cohen has worked with a gradual evolutionary model of a foundation, developing from an initial colony to a city. How this may have worked in terms of city planning, he leaves unexplainedI06. To be fair, for a large number of foundations archaeological material is insufficient or has simply vanished. On archaeological grounds, it seems impossible to arrive at a consistent classification of foundations. Archaeological surveys make an important contribution to our understanding of foundations and to the processes involved. They can provide us with a new starting point. Different methods of settlement may be traced from the impact foundations had on the locality and/ or any preceding settlement pattern . The foundation of settlements, whether nominal or real, could have multiple effects on the locality - political, legal, social, economic and so on. Here, however, foundation will be viewed as an event with varying degrees of impact on the settlement pattern. Based on the idea of impact, we can broadly scale the methods of foundation. The crucial focus is, then, the relationship of the dynastic settlement to its local environment and the degree of change it inflicted upon its locality. I suggest four different categories of it. The impact increases continuously through these categories (Table 2.2). Preceding settlement pattern

Effects on Nature of change the preceding settlement pattern

Yes

No Yes

3

Yes Mixed foundation New foundation Yes

Yes

4

New foundation No

No

Cat. Process

Refoundation

I

2

Table 10 • 10 1

100

2.2

None, Renaming of older settlement Addition, Reinforcement New pattern, ment New pattern

Possible methods of foundation

See chapter Ill, p. 90, Grainger 1990: 91 -92, 101-106. Cohen 1978, Billows 1995, Fraser 1996. Cohen 1978: 38-40, 70, 83-84.

Replace-

78

SETTLEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

In the first category, foundation usually involves no more than the renaming of an already established settlement. The foundation is only nominal and without impact on the localiry encountered. In mixed foundations the existing local settlement pattern is reinforced, strengthened by foundation measures, and probably by the introduction of new settlers. The identiry of the existing urban system is retained. Most common here are foundations in which, with the change in name, some alterations were made to the physical shape of the urban centre. Cleruchic settlement in Ptolemaic Egypt, when associated to existing settlements, would fall within this category of mixed foundations. Cleruchic settlement usually occurred without actually renaming the existing settlement. For our purpose here, foundation starts with the renaming of a settlement. Cleruchic settlement withour this feature i.e. if no new (dynastic) name is given to rhe neighbouring centre does not qualify as dynastic foundation, despite being an important part of Ptolemaic settlement. In the Hellenistic period, a common mixed foundation was to refound a city recently destroyed in wartime. New foundations are all those sites which form a new 'urban' system . This can happen on l:rnd unexplored or/and that is in use. On either basis, and depending on the geophysical conditions, a new nucleated centre with its own minor dependencies in its immediate hinterland would emerge. These foundations caused substantial change and tended to reshape traditional urban networks in cases where settlement preceded the new foundation. In some such cases, we meet the classical form of synoecism; following the destruction of their earlier villages, people of several villages were transferred to settle in a much larger and nucleated, urban system. Lastly, some new settlement schemes included the establishment of not just one, but several new settlements. Such a development requires that the territory accommodated little or no previous habitation, otherwise this settlement would equal foundation of the third category. Exploration ventures or large-scale reclamation and exploration would be the main contexts for this type of foundation.

CHAPTER II - PTOLEMAIC FOUNDAT IONS AS REGIONAL SYSTEMS

79

5.2 LoCATING AND DATING PTOLEMAIC METHODS OF FOUNDATION

Evidence for the majority of Ptolemaic foundations is scarce; the dates of foundation and the locations are among the most disputed topics. The method of foundation is less of an issue. The categorisation below is rather conservative (Fig. 2.7). If neither archaeology nor written sources provide explicitly information on the method of foundation, I have given the method of foundation as uncertain. Refoundations and new foundations are almost equal in number. And if mixed foundations are added to new foundations, the situation shifts in favour of an active Ptolem aic foundation policy. Unfortunately, for some 64 % of settlements, the method of foundation is uncertain . But within the group of 'uncertain' settlements is a high number (30), which were established within zones of early Ptolemaic (re)exploration - the Fayum, the Egyptian and the Ethiopic Red Sea coast. Cat.1 (Refoundation); (13)

Uncertain (25)

Cat.3 (New Foundation) ; (12)

Fig. 2.7 Ptolemaic methods of foundation Many were probably new ettlements. The Ptolemies shaped rather than (re)designated their settlement patterns. Renaming setclements may have been the easiest way to found a dynastic settlement, but overall the Ptolemies did not take this route. Frequently Ptolemaic foundation was not simply a matter of renaming; it also involved the settlement of people, and is likely to have had had an acute impact on local settlement patterns.

80

SETILEMENTS OF THE IYTOLEMIES

Settlement patterns show differences in the level of settlement density. For Egypt, regional variability dictated the direction of Ptolemaic settlement. We have to see now whether such a variation can be substantiated for the whole of the Ptolemaic empire. If we merge new and mixed foundations of the second and third categories, three major groups emerge (cable 2.3). ~ ~

~

regions accommodating only new/mixed foundations , regions with both, new/mixed and refoundations, and regions with refoundations only.

Despite the limitation of our sample, the results are suggestive. In regions of a high density of pre-Ptolemaic settlement (chapter II 2.3, p. 55: group 1), the Ptolemies predominantly renamed existing settlements. In contrast, some regions with a previously low density (chapter II 2.3, p. 5f group 2) so far exhibit only new and mixed foundations . Some regions were effected by both new and refound ations. T his last category embraces regions of both low and high settlement density.

~§~ -~ ·.::: ,:.

c::

0

_§ ..g ri

"Sn

~ § "'

~

"-' OU z=~

Cyprus Caria Cilicia Lycia Red Sea/Ethiopia Egypt Coele-Syria Cyrenaica Ionia C rete Aegean Pamphylia Nubia Thrace

Table

2 .3

"' .-.... .... ~c:: ... ::, "'

:j {Tl

;,:,

No face-to-face society, Compact form of the settlement inhabitants too many to know each other Economic community centred on a market, (consumer-city versus producer-city)

Concentration of industries, crafts, goods and stores

Group membership based on residence rather than kinship Appropriation by central authority of an economic surplus

~

n -:,

0

C

z

Possesses a territory, has Centre of a district in administration, municipal government commerce, jurisdiction, and traffic with partial autonomy

0

~

Defence circuit or cascle Fortification, centre of refuge and defence Monumental public architecture A continuity constraint which is either inclusive in order to cake in suburban and commuter areas or exclusive in order to set aside areas of loosely scattered settlement Specifically named settlements

~

r

{Tl

Differentiated internal pattern of sectlement: religious, administrative, indusrrial, and varied living quarters representing different classes of people

Developed social stratification

i5 z V, )> V,

C: ~

>

:;; V,

-
See Nicolet 1991 on the (re)explorations of the early Roman period. Said 1978, 1993. T heocritus (Idyll. 17.87) remarks that Ptolemy II cut off for h imself a part of Eth iop ia. Cf. D iod .Sic. 1.37.5, Agatharch. §20, Pliny NH 6. 183, FHN II 144, 145. Lists of the Nubian no mes bringing tributes to Isis, under Ptolemy II and VI at th e Temple o f Philae, under Ptolem y II (Urk II 12.27 = F HN JI 112) and Ptolemy VI (FHN II 137) . Also here Ptolemy II sent o ut expeditions towards Meroe, one under T imosthen es, who com posed a work entitled On harbours, and possibly a second under Philon (FGrHist 670, Burstein 1989: 32, D esanges 1978: 248-50, Fraser 1972: I 176, Fraser 1972: I 522, II 740 n.166, Torok 1997: 420-24). 5'

SJ

CHAPTER IV - COLONISING EGYPT AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

157

and the NabataeansH early in his reign. He may have campaigned prior to the planned exploration or clashed on the occasion of his exploration. However, having put pressure on these powers, Ptolemy II would have been in a far better position to pursue his objectives. The consolidation of Ptolemaic rule and the foundation of dynastic settlements under Ptolemy II right down to the straits of the Red Sea coast, beyond Ptolemais Theron, were arguably a prerequisite rather for hunting expeditions to come than the result of such expeditions. In sum, these southern Ptolemaic foundations were a response to several key ambitions and demands pursued by Ptolemy II. He and his immediate successor, Ptolemy Ill, could well have been responsible for founding all of the dynastic settlements in this region. 1.5.3 The Ptolemies on the fringe and Asia Minor

the Aegean

For Marquaille (2001: 175-195) the settlements of Arsinoe in the Aegean and Asia Minor present a homogenous group. They were special, all founded under Ptolemy II in honour of Arsinoe II, whose cult proved very popular throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. They all had an anchorage or harbour facilities, which reflects their origin in primarily strategic concerns for maintaining a Ptolemaic thalassocracy under Ptolemy IIH. She then suggests two groups of Arsinoe-settlements in the Aegean and Asia Minor. The first group consists of Arsinoe-Methana, Arsinoe-Koressos and Arsinoe-Rethymna on Crete. These were all set up on the eve of the Chremonidean War (267-261 BC), when Patroklos, the Ptolemaic commander in chief was sent from Alexandria to assist Athens. At this time and later, they served as stepping-stones and outposts for monitoring activities on the Greek mainland. Settlements in the second group: - Arsinoe-Patara, two Arsinoes in Cilicia and Pamphylia, and three Arsinoes on Cyprus - controlled and secured the coast of Asia Minor and Cyprus. Other dynastic settlements, not named after Arsinoe (II), had little strategic significance, beyond reasserting Ptolemaic rule under Ptolemy III, as for instance was the case for the settlements of Ptolemais in Asia Minor and Cyrenaica56 • 14 Diod. 3.43.5, Huss 2001: 289. 11 Robert 1960: 156. 16 M arquaille 2001: 175- 195.

158

SETILEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

It is fascinating that the Ptolemies founded only settlements of Arsinoe on Crete, Cyprus and in the Central Aegean. No other settlements with a dynastic name are attested. The barren and rocky islands of the Central Aegean were no place to establish new settlements. The lack of more such settlements may reflect the low potential of these islands, as also Ptolemaic decisions to avoid further settlement57. As the foundation of Arsinoe near Palaipaphos highlights, the Cypriote settlement pattern could support new settlement. But the question remains why were they all called Arsinoe? Dynastic toponyms in practice tell us actually very little about the settlement carrying that name. Marquaille's argument runs inversely. It tried to understand what toponyms tell us about those who founded settlements of Arsinoe or Arsinoe II itself. Much of this argument rests on the dating of these settlements of Arsinoe57•. Following Cohen (1995: 417), all were founded in the reign of Ptolemy II with reference co Arsinoe II. Bue this is not at all certain, some may date earlier, others lacer than Ptolemy II. If we return to Cyrenaica, Ptolemaic settlement here turns out to be a patchwork of undertakings, not a single venture. The same holds true for the Fayum. Hence why should Cyprus be any different? We probably find the same patchwork here too. Though Ptolemaic rule over Egypt together with Cyrenaica was more continuous and more permanent than in any other region, foundation activities were erratic, not all from the same hand. The Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor formed geopolitical buffer zones. Macedonian, Seleukid and Ptolemaic interests collided in these areas more severely than anywhere else throughout the Hellenistic Eastern Mediterranean. Ptolemaic rule was necessarily unstable, continuously under threat. This situation had implications for the survival of dynastic settlements. Earlier on, I sketched the fate of the settlement of Lebedos in lonia58• In the Hellenistic period, the inhabitants were moved several times, forced into synoikism with other settlements. Under the Ptolemies, Lebedos was reinstated as Ptolemais. Cities in the Aegean and Asia Minor were similarly exposed and unable to fight off the pressure of Hellenistic rulers. If Ptolemy II wished to establish a new settlement in the hinterland of a city, on the property of an existing settlement, there was little the dis57

57•

58

Chapter II 4. 3. For the cult of Arsinoe in Cyprus, see now Barbancani 2005. C hapter II 5.2.

CHAPTER IV - COLONISING EGYPT AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

159

owned city could do other than wait for a more favourable geopolitical situation to come about. This meant waiting until control over the region had changed 59 . New settlements owing their existence to a particular Hellenistic ruler faced a challenge to their existence and possible erasure by succeeding powers. The need for refoundation was consequently acute. We should expect Ptolemaic settlement in the Aegean and Asia Minor to have made up a similar patchwork, with each king adding a new settlement or renaming an old one. Ptolemy II was responsible for some, but not for all settlements with the name of Arsinoe, nor indeed for the majority of dynastic settlements throughout che Aegean and Asia Minor. However this may have been, the great majority of dynastic settlements in the Aegean, on Cyprus and in Asia Minor were coastal settlements. They facilitated communication throughout the Ptolemaic possessions, and some were established with a strategic objective in view. Ptolemaic possessions through the Aegean and along the coast of Asia Minor were widespread and distant from Alexandria 60• Frequently, Ptolemaic rule extended only over coastal territories. Sea-borne traffic and communications were a prerequisite for holding together the Ptolemaic realm. It seems natural that the majority of new, dynastic settlements had an anchorage or harbour in tallations. Through these new settlements, the Ptolemies were adapting older settlement patterns to fit new geopolitical realities - the realities of a Hellenistic empire based on sea power and based in Egypt. The Ptolemies needed new settlements with their harbours to reinforce the unification of their extensive Ptolemaic possessions.

1.6 A

LATER RECOVERY -

THE FOUNDATIONS OF 80ETH0S

Early Ptolemaic settlement took place in the context of an expanding Ptolemaic empire. New territories were seized and opened up. The better Ptolemaic possessions would become integrated, the more effectively and the longer Ptolemaic rule lasted. Such a unification of Ptolemaic rule could be achieved through securing the communication and acces-

19 6o

See che dispute between Nagidos and Arsinoe in Cilicia, Chaniotis 1993. Polyb. 5.35.10.

160

SETILEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

sibility of Ptolemaic possessions. In addition, someone had to meet the expenses of safeguarding and maintaining Ptolemaic rule. Cities, towns and villages were a vital key to all three necessities for Ptolemaic rule access, security and finance. It was essential to have settlements in the right places throughout the Ptolemaic realm. The early Ptolemies decided to do just that by founding new settlements, there where existing networks failed Ptolemaic needs. New settlement served as a means for reinforcing the cohesion of the Ptolemaic empire. By the end of the third century BC, the high volume of new settlements had given way to sporadic incidences. The Ptolemaic empire started crumbling. In 203/2 BC, Antiochos III and Philip V challenged Ptolemy V in Asia Minor, Thrace and Coele-Syria6 1• These territories were eventually lost. The Ptolemaic garrisons in the Central Aegean were temporarily withdrawn. Since ltanos on Crete requested troops from Ptolemy VI (180-145 BC), Ptolemaic troops were clearly not present at that time 62 • A short revitalisation of Ptolemaic garrisons at ltanos, on the island of Thera, and at Arsinoe-Methana followed , until the death of Ptolemy VI in 145 BC. Back in Egypt, internal unrest resulted in the secession of the Thebaid between 207 and 186 BC and the loss of Lower Nubia to the Meroitic ruler Adikhalamani 6l. From then onwards, only Egypt, the coastal regions of Ethiopia, Cyprus and Cyrenaica constituted the Ptolemaic realm. Cyprus and Cyrenaica began to play an important role in the dynastic struggles now erupting. Occasionally both regions functioned as semi-independent Ptolemaic kingdoms. On the death of Ptolemy Apion in 96 BC, Rome inherited Cyrenaica and eventually turned it into a Roman province. A similar fate awaited Cyprus in 58 BC. The Ptolemaic dynasty was now confined to Egypt. This changed briefly and without lasting effect, when Antony returned Cyprus, Cilicia, parts of Coele-Syria, Crete and Cyrene to Kleopatra Vil. In 30 BC, Octavian put an end to the Ptolemaic dynasty, and Egypt became a Roman province. The second and first centuries BC saw an important change in the naming pattern of royal couples. The name of Kleopatra entered the 61 62 63

Blume! 2000, Wiemer 2001. l.Cret. III 4.14, I.Cree. III 4.9, Bagnall 1976: 122, Wirschel 1997. FHN II 132, Urk II 217-230 = FHN II 134, McGing 1997: 285-288, Ye'isse 2004.

CHAPTER IV - COLONISING EGYPT AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

161

repertoire. The female dynastic names of Arsinoe and Berenike continued to be used, but only sporadically. Settlements of Kleopatra/Kleopatris begin to surface. Some five settlements named after a Kleopatra are attested. Given the significance and frequency of this royal name, these five settlements do not compare well with the high incidence of Arsinoes or Berenikes. Dynastic struggle and civil war overshadowed late Ptolemaic Egypt. In these circumstances founding, in particular naming dynastic settlements became a matter of political (in)correctness. Boethos, the strategos of the Thebaid, founded three dynastic settlements - Kleopatra and Philometoris in the Triakontaschoinos6 4 and Euergetis in Upper Egypt 65 • Kleopatra and Philometoris were established under Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II, who ruled between 163 BC and 145 BC, and named after the ruling couple. The naming of Euergetis is more problematic. After the death of Ptolemy VI in 145 BC, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes ascended the throne and in turn married Kleopatra II. A little later in 141/0 BC he married Kleopatra III. All three carried the cultic title of Theoi Euergetai. In 132 BC, shortly after Boethos founded the new settlement of Euergetis, Kleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII inflicted a civil war upon each other. Boethos probably did not take sides with Ptolemy VIII Euergetes when founding Euergetis 66 • The toponym need not necessarily signify just King Ptolemy - Ptolemy VIII Euergetes but could well refer to all three - the Theoi Euergetai. Boethos's latest foundation was perhaps dedicated to a personification of Ptolemaic rule, rather than to a specific ruler. Given the universality of the toponyrn, Ptolemy VIII could easily reclaim the settlement.

64 The length of one schoinos or its Egyptian equivalents itr. w is problematic. A similar term is Dodekaschoinos - a region which extends from Syene southwards to Takompso. Takompso has been identified as Hiera Sycaminos/ modern Maharraqa, FHN III 186a and 222. The relationship between Triakontaschoinos and Dodekaschoinos is debated. Weigall (1907: 67) published a rock-inscription from the late Ptolemaic period found between Tafa and Kalabscha, hence in the Dodekaschoinos. It addresses Isis, co whom was given a field of 30 ltr. w - the Triakontaschoinos. Comparable co the 12 itr. w offered ro the temple of Isis at Philae, the Dodekaschoinos must have laid within the northern part of the Triakontaschoinos, LA VI 759-762, Holbl 1994: 54, Dien.e 1994: 9195, Locher 1999: 230-251, 254-255. 6S OGIS I III.IO = SB V 8878, Kramer 1997, Heinen 1997. 66 Heinen 1997: 347.

162

SETTLEMENTS OF THE PTOLEMIES

Later settlement may have been sporadic but some of it retained a similar flavour of expansion as under the early Ptolemies. Between 151145 BC Boethos founded the two settlements of Philometoris and Kleopatra in the Triakontaschoinos. With the secession of the Thebaid, the Ptolemies were barred access to Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. Ptolemy V eventually recovered the Thebaid in c.186 BC and reinstated Ptolemaic rule. Whether he advanced much beyond Philae into Lower Nubia is doubtful. In a relief from the temple of Arensnuphis at Philae, he re-dedicated the Dodekaschoinos region to Isis, as did Ptolemy VI in 157 BC67. These are ritualised texts, rededicating the region repetitively for each new king. They are suggestive, but no proof that Ptolemy V regained parts of Lower Nubia. Reality may have been different. In a comparable culcic context, at Philae, personified Nubian nomes bring tribute to Isis and Ptolemy II and Ptolemy VI. Ptolemy II campaigned agai nst the Meroitic kingdom, as indeed Ptolemy VI may have done68 • Ptolemaic rule over Lower Nubia (Map 5) was firmly back in Ptolemaic hands under Ptolemies VI and VIII. A building inscription for Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra II, dated 172-70 BC, was found at the temple of Oebod 69 • Between 151-145 BC an inscription was set up at the Chnum-temple of Elephantine on behalf of Boethos, son of Nikostratos, by Heroides son of Demophon from Pergamon. Both individuals are of importance here. Boethos is described as archisomatophylax, strategos and ktistes of the poleis Philomecoris and Kleopatra in the Triakontaschoinos, and Heroides as phrourarchos of Syene and in charge of the upper regions7°. These upper regions must have formed part of Lower Nubia, now under Ptolemaic rule7'. Antiochos IV had withdrawn from Egypt after the 'day of Eleusis' leaving the Ptolemies with the certa inty that Rome had and could protect them from the imminent eleukid threat.

Dietze 1994: 93. For Ptolemy ll , see Urk II 12.z7 = FHN II 11 2, Ptolemy VI = FHN ll 137. 69 OGIS I 107, SB V 8461, FHN 11 138. 7o i,d TOJV &vw -r67TWV [crnxyµevo , ], OGIS I llJ.8-18 = SB V 8878, FHN II 141. 7' Bengtson 1952: 97-rn4, Mooren 1980: 266-7. For H eroides in charge of the Dodekaschoinos, see SB I 1918, an inscription found at Maharraqa, the border of the Dodekaschoinos. A certain Sokrates was strategos of the district aro und Syene prior to 17i/70 BC; if this person is the same as [So]krates holding the rank cr-rp