P. Sänger, The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.): A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities, in: J. Dahlvik, Ch. Reinprecht, W. Sievers (Hrsg.),

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Sonderdruck aus

Julia Dahlvik / Christoph Reinprecht /Wiebke Sievers (Hg.)

Migration und Integration –wissenschaftliche Perspektivenaus Österreich

Jahrbuch 2/2013

Mit 18 Abbildungen

V& R unipress

Vienna University Press

ISBN 978-3-8471-0187-1

ISBN 978-3-8470-0187-4 (E-Book)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Inhalt

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Diversität

Steven Vertovec„Diversität“ und die gesellschaftliche Vorstellungswelt . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Integration

Patrick SängerThe Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.):A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Katja Pessl und Lena SpringerMigrantInnen aus China im Wiener Hochschul- und Gesundheitswesen:Dynamische Zwischenzonen und Einzelinitiativen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

David Reichel und Alina CibeaDie Verwendung von Integrationsindikatoren zur Messung der Wirkungvon Integrationspolitik in Europa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Dagmar Strohmeier, Marie-Therese Schultes und Vera PopperUnbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge in Österreich: Evaluation desProjekts „Connecting People“ der asylkoordination Österreich . . . . . . 105

Sprache

Wilfried Datler, Regina Studener-Kuras und Valentina BrunsDas Vergnügen am Fremden und die Entwicklung von Kompetenzen imBereich der Zweitsprache Deutsch. Aus dem Wiener Forschungsprojekt„Spracherwerb und lebensweltliche Mehrsprachigkeit im Kindergarten“ . 127

Rudolf de Cillia und Niku DorostkarIntegration und/durch Sprache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Sabine GattSprachenpolitik politisch kommuniziert: SymbolischeInstrumentalisierung zwischen Exklusion und Inklusion . . . . . . . . . 163

Theologie

Michael NausnerImagining Participation from a Boundary Perspective. PostcolonialTheology as Migratory Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Regina PolakPerspektiven einer migrationssensiblen Theologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Nachbarschaft

Josef Kohlbacher, Ursula Reeger und Philipp SchnellNachbarschaftliche Einbettung und Kontakte zwischen BewohnerInnenmit und ohne Migrationshintergrund in drei Wiener Wohngebieten . . . 217

Shiang-Yi Li and Talja BloklandChinatown’s Spatiality, Ethnic Community and Civic Engagement:Amsterdam and Berlin Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Irregularität

Brigitte KukovetzDer Wunsch zu bleiben: Kein Recht dazu – keine Alternative dazu. EinEinblick in soziale Praktiken: Warum Abschiebungen doch nichtstattfinden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Klaus KapuyDie Anwendung der Logik des Sozialrechts auf irreguläreArbeitsmigrantInnen – ein Schlüssel zur Lösung eines Dilemmas? . . . . 283

Asyl

Julia DahlvikInstitutionelle Einsichten: Die Bedeutsamkeit von Schriftlichkeit undDokumenten im Prozess der Bearbeitung von Asylanträgen . . . . . . . . 301

Inhalt6

Ariadna Ripoll Servent and Florian TraunerWhat Kind of Impact is Austria Exposed to? Analysing EU Asylum Law . 319

Verzeichnis der AutorInnen und HerausgeberInnen . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Inhalt 7

Integration

Patrick Sänger

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First CenturyB.C.): A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities1

1. Introduction

The conquests of Alexander the Great in the thirties and twenties of the fourthcentury B.C. brought a massive expansion of Greek culture. It was no longerrestricted to the Greek core regions but found its way into the Persian realm aswell. After the death of Alexander in the year 323 B.C., the Near East and Egyptwere ruled by Macedonian generals, who founded kingdoms characterised bycentralised governments. In these newly constituted realms or empires, whichwere incorporated into the Roman Empire in the second and first century B.C.,we are confronted with a mingling of Greek and west Asian civilisations that ledto dynamic processes at many levels. Regarding social matters, there is intenseinterest in the question of how the Greek or Macedonian ruling minority es-tablished their government, interacted with the subject peoples and reacted tothe requirements of the new era.

One important question which confronted the regimes of the Hellenisticempires concerned the acknowledgment and integration of minority groupswith a migrant background. In the case of Egypt, documentary papyri—sourcematerial particularly suitable for studies on social or economic history—pro-vide us with clear evidence that after the conquest by Alexander the Great,immigration into the country previously ruled by the Pharaohs (and in the 27thand the last or 31st dynasty by the Persian kings) reached dimensions which hadbeen previously unknown. Alongside the compatriots of the new masters, whobelonged to the Greek ethnic group from the Greek homeland, Macedonian orAsia Minor (or alternatively from Greek towns in other regions) came, for in-stance, Thracians from the east of the Balkan Peninsula, as well as Jewish, Per-

1 This study was completed in the framework of the APART-fellowship that was kindly awardedto me by the Austrian Academy of Sciences for the writing of my habilitation treatise („Daspoliteuma: Ursprung, Funktion und Definition einer ptolemäischen Organisationsform zurIntegration von Minderheiten“) on February 21, 2013. I would also like to thank Lisl Bailey,James M. S. Cowey, Elena Isayev, and Robert Kugler for their support and critical advice.

sian, and Arabic immigrants. In Hellenistic or Ptolemaic Egypt—named afterthe dynasty founded by Ptolemy I Soter, who was a general of Alexander andtook over the administration of Egypt after his death—we are therefore con-fronted with a multi-ethnic society which lends itself to observations about theinteraction between the government and the various ethnic groups—be it im-migrants or natives—and of course also the relationship between the variousparts of the population. To give some figures, we can see from a recently pub-lished calculation that in the third century B.C. approximately 5 per cent of thearound four million inhabitants of Egypt were Greek, and a little more than halfof these migrants, i. e. 2.9 per cent of the total population, were members of Greekmilitary families (Fischer-Bovet 2011).

Given the favourable body of source material—the papyri—and the livelyimmigration into Hellenistic Egypt—the core area of the Ptolemaic Kingdom—it is no coincidence that we find in this place (as well as to a lesser extent in thetemporary possessions of the Ptolemies outside of Egypt) a form of organisationwhich can be seen as a consequence of population movements in the EasternMediterranean area. We are dealing here with the politeuma.

The word politeuma is frequently used in the Greek language, and has a widespectrum of meanings. It can, for instance, refer to a ‘political act’ or appear as aterm for ‘government’, ‘citizenry’ or ‘state’. As a technical term politeuma can, inthe context of a Greek city-state or polis, also refer to the political leading class ofcitizens as a sovereign body with specific rights. Therefore, in an oligarchicconstitution the word refers to a section of the citizenry ; in a democratic one tothe entire citizenry. However, the word, as a technical term, is not just restrictedto the political organisation of a classical Greek polis, but can also be applied toname a specific and organised group of persons within an urban area.2 In thiscontext we are dealing, apart from one exception (namely a politeuma of soldiersin Alexandria; see below in section 3), with minorities whose ethnic designationis pointing to a migrant background. The members of such a politeuma wereconcentrated in a certain district of a town, which was initially foreign to themand where they lived as an ethnic community (on this definition Sänger[forthcoming]). To indicate which group of people is being referred to, the wordpoliteuma (t¹ pok¸teula) is followed by an ethnic label in the genitive plural, e. g.t¹ pok¸teula t_m Jqgt_m: ‘the politeuma of the Cretans’.

This paper intends to work out the characteristics of the last-mentionedcategory of politeumata. The questions addressed will be: in which sources andin which geographical regions do we find politeumata (section 2). Furthermore,

2 For the terminology, see the detailed study by Ruppel 1927, who collected all of the (at thattime) known literary and documentary evidence; also Biscardi 1984, 1205 – 1215, Zuckerman1985 – 1988, 174, and Lüderitz 1994, 183.

Patrick Sänger52

it should be pointed out with which groups of persons the politeumata are to belinked and which administrative purposes this form of organisation fulfilled(section 3). Finally, there will be new thoughts with regard to the introductionand institutional evolution of the politeumata (section 4), and, in conclusion, totheir political function (section 5). The argumentation brought forward willdemonstrate why interpreting the politeumata as an instrument to integrateminority groups is justified.

On the whole, the paper aims to point out that a micro-study of the politeu-mata provides an opportunity to investigate a form of organisation which can beseen as an outcome of migration processes in the Hellenistic period, as well as ofrelated real political consequences. For this case strongly attests how the Ptol-emaic government coped with the social challenges of its times and integratedgroups of people into the administrative structure of the Ptolemaic Kingdom bymeans of semi-autonomous communities. As we will see, the beneficiaries of thismeasure can be traced back to one of the largest migrant groups, highly im-portant for the regime: namely mercenaries (or their descendants) coming fromthe temporary outer possessions or the sphere of influence of the Ptolemies.

2. The Sources for and the Location of the politeumata

So far, eight ethnic politeumata have been discovered from Hellenistic times. Wefind what is probably the oldest of them in the town of Sidon on the coast ofpresent day Lebanon (Macridy 1904, 549 [stele A]; 551 [stele 2]; and 551 – 552[stele 3]3). Here the immigrants from the towns of Kaunos (in Caria), TermessosMinor near Oinoanda, and Pinara (both in Lycia)—situated in the south of AsiaMinor—appeared to each have a politeuma at their disposal at the end of thethird century B.C., when Sidon was controlled by the Ptolemies (in section 4 wewill return to this controversial case). Apart from the case in Sidon, this form oforganisation in Hellenistic times is otherwise only documented in the core areaof the Ptolemies. In Egypt, the members of a politeuma were also bound togetherby bearing the same ethnic label, which indicated that they belonged to a foreign(non-Egyptian) ethnic group. However, these labels were derived from a certaingeographical region4—unlike the case of Sidon, where belonging to the cit-

3 A politeuma is also mentioned in stele 8 (pp. 553 – 554); the name of the city with which thesecitizens were connected is lost.

4 By far the largest part of the ethnic labels documented in the papyri from the Ptolemaickingdom must be seen in the context of state categorisation. These ethnic labels can, but donot have to, point to a person’s actual origin. The same refers to ethnic designations, which arean expression of an individual’s self-definition and have an identity-establishing effect : suchdesignations, too, may be based on actual origin or may have no real relationship with it; e. g.

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 53

izenship of a certain polis was decisive. Accordingly, in Egypt are documented apoliteuma of Cilicians (named after the region of Cilicia in the south of AsiaMinor ; SB IV 7270 = SEG 8, 573 = Bernand 1975, no. 15 = id. , 1992b, no. 22),one of Boeotians (named after the region of Boeotia in the east of central Greece;SEG 2, 871 = SB III 6664), one of Cretans (P.Tebt. I 32 = W.Chr. 448), one of Jews(P.Polit.Iud. 1 – 20), and one of Idumaeans (named after the region of Idumaea,south of Judea; OGIS 737 = Milne 1905, 18 – 19, no. 33027 = SB V 8929 =

Bernand 1992a, no. 255). We come across all these politeumata in the second orfirst century B.C.6 As regards their localities we can only state that the Boeotianpoliteuma was based in the nome (regional) capital Xois, in the north of the Niledelta, the Idumaean one in the nome capital Memphis (south of the Nile delta),and the Jewish one in the nome capital Herakleopolis in Middle Egypt.7 TheCilician and the Cretan politeuma cannot be located exactly, but can at least belinked to the Fayum or the Arsinoite nome (also Middle Egypt).

Politeumata also existed while Egypt was ruled by the Romans and after it

Thompson 2001, and Legras 2004, 60. In the case of the politeumata, state categorisationmight correspond to the members’ self-definition (and to a certain degree probably also toactual origin); Sänger (forthcoming).

5 For the identification of the Idumaean politeuma see Thompson Crawford 1984, andead. 2012, 93 – 96.

6 The testimony for the Cilician politeuma mentioned above could also be dated to the thirdcentury B.C. Bernand 1992b, no. 22, p. 65 summarised the various dating proposals whichreach from the third to the first century B.C. and favoured based on Mooren 1975, 173, no. 281a dating to the first century B.C.

7 Contrary to the previous generally accepted interpretation of P.Polit.Iud. 1 – 20 Ritter (2011)rejected the existence of a Jewish politeuma in Herakleopolis, but his argumentation is notconvincing. The starting point is a new interpretation of the phrase to?r %qwousi t¹ kf (5tor)toO 1mJqajk´our pºkei pokite¼[la]tor t_m Youda¸ym (‘to the archons of the politeuma of theJews in Herakleopolis, holding office in the 37th year’) documented in P.Polit.Iud. 8, lines 4 – 5(Herakl. , 133 B.C.). According to Ritter (op. cit. , 10 – 17) t_m Youda¸ym should not be con-nected with pokite¼[la]tor but with to?r %qwousi t¹ kf (5tor). However, such a linguisticinterpretation seems to be too contrived to appear plausible. Since Ritter sees no pointer to aJewish politeuma in Herakleopolis, he deprives the related papyri of their general validity forthe form of organisation under investigation. As a consequence Ritter (op. cit. , 17 – 22)classified all the other known politeumata as private associations. Such an assessment pre-vailed immediately before the publication of P.Polit.Iud. as a result of an insufficient body ofsource material (below at note 8). Furthermore, based on the linguistic interpretation ofP.Polit.Iud. 8, lines 4 – 5, explained previously, Ritter (op. cit. , 23 – 33) considered that the wordpoliteuma in the context of P.Polit.Iud. refers to the ‘citizen body’ of Herakleopolis, and thatthis nome (regional) capital should be understood as a polis with politai and a politarches as itshighest official. On this point, it suffices to cite Ritter (op. cit. , 27) himself, who against his ownview stated correctly : “Admittedly, we have no other reference to the term politeuma in thesense of a city or civic body of a nome capital.” This discovery is not surprising, because (asremarked above) the word politeuma as a technical term—except for the specific, so-calledform of organisation—is related to the (ruling) citizens of a polis and the nome capitals ofHellenistic or Ptolemaic Egypt neither possessed the legal status of a Greek city or polis, norwere they organised as such.

Patrick Sänger54

became a Roman province in the year 30 B.C. At the end of the first century B.C.we come across a politeuma of Phrygians (named after the region of Phrygia inthe west of central Asia Minor ; OGIS 658 = SB V 7875 = IGR I 458 = Kayser 1994,no. 74), whose location is unknown, and in the year 120 A.D. we encounter apoliteuma of Lycians (named after the region of Lycia in the south of Asia Minor)which existed in Alexandria (SB III 6025 = V 8757 = IGR I 1078 = SEG 2, 848 =

Bernand 1992a, no. 61 = Kayser 1994, no. 24). We also know about a furtherpoliteuma of Jews at the end of the first century B.C. or the beginning of the firstcentury A.D. and, therefore, under Roman sovereignty (CIG III 5362 = SEG 16,931 = Lüderitz 1983, no. 70 and CIG III 5361 = Lüderitz 1983, no. 71). This waslocated in the Greek town of Berenike, founded by Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246 –221 B.C.) and situated on the coast of the western Kyrenaika (today the easternpart of Libya)—a region which until the beginning of the first century B.C. wasunder Ptolemaic control.

It was probably not only in Herakleopolis and Berenike that the Jewish groupshad a politeuma at their disposal. We know this because of an inscription whichis probably dated to the first century A.D. and which comes from the sur-rounding area of Leontopolis in the Heliopolite nome situated in the south of theNile Delta. In it a deceased Jew is non-specifically addressed in a grave epigramas ‘politarches in two locations’ (diss_m c²q te tºpym pokitaqw_m; SB I 5765 =

C.Pap.Jud. III 1530 A = Bernand 1969, no. 16, line 7). We are acquainted with theterm politarches from the context of the Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis,where it identifies the highest official of the politeuma (P.Polit.Iud. 1, line 1; 2,line 1, and 17, line 5). Thus, the inscription appears to bear evidence of a personwho, in the function of a politarches, was active in two Jewish politeumata. We donot, however, find out in which settlements these politeumata occurred. Aplausible theory would be to link one of them with the military colony inLeontopolis, whose foundation was verifiably granted to the Jewish dignitaryOnias at around 160 or 150 B.C. by Ptolemy VI Philometor and his sister and wifeCleopatra II. Onias himself can either be identified as Onias III, the last legit-imate Zadokite high priest in Jerusalem, who was deposed in 175/4 B.C, or as hisson, Onias IV (Kruse 2010, 94, id. 2008, 167, and Honigman 2003, 65 – 66).

We must also mention the so-called letter of Aristeas, which was probablywritten towards the end of the second century B.C. in the environment of theHellenised Jewry of Alexandria. This fictitious report, created as an epistolarynovel, relates the circumstances of the translation of the Pentateuch into theGreek language. In the final passage, where the presentation of the bible trans-lation, the Septuagint, to Ptolemaios II Philadelphos (285 – 246 B.C.) is de-scribed, among those who were responsible for the verification of the trans-lation, ‘the elders from those of the politeuma’ are particularly notable (oRpqesb¼teqoi ja· t_m !p¹ toO pokite¼lator; § 310). The interpretation of the

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 55

wording is disputed and it is therefore not clear whether ‘politeuma’ was used asa technical term and the letter of Aristeas can be regarded without a doubt asproof of a Jewish politeuma in Alexandria. However, its existence would not beunexpected (Honigman 2003, and Kasher 2008). This is so not only because ofthe background of the evidence from Berenike and Herakleopolis, but also inview of the verifiably strong Jewish community in Alexandria. There, accordingto the ancient author Strabo, writing in the early Augustan period (i. e. , at thebeginning of the Roman rule over Egypt) and cited by Falvius Josephus, Jews hadtheir own residential district, which was administrated by an official calledethnarches, whereas Philo, writing in the late Augustan period, mentions the titlegenarches (Ios. ant. Iud.14, 117 [= Strab. FGrH 2, A 91, F 7] and 19, 283; Phil.Flacc. 74; also Honigman 2003, 69 – 91, and Ameling 2003, 91 – 93).

What the nature of the politeuma was, and which political function wasallocated to this form of organisation in Hellenistic times—a topic which will bediscussed in the next section—have traditionally been controversial issues inresearch. The controversy was, above all, caused by the disparate state of records,leading to uncertainty as to whether a politeuma was a private association or apublicly recognized group which formed a semi-autonomous communitywithin a settlement.8 The first theory has prevailed, particularly in more recentliterature. This is because up to 2001, when the papyri which documented thepoliteuma of Jews in Herakleopolis were published and pointed towards thesecond theory, our information about the form of organisation in question wasalmost exclusively derived from isolated discoveries of inscriptions. These canindicate the places where we find a politeuma, which migrants came together insuch a body and, in the best cases, bring individual dignitaries to our attention.Further details, however, concerning internal organisation, the mode of functionand the range of tasks, are only provided in a satisfactory way by the newly foundpapyri. In spite of the new knowledge which these sources enable, and which willbe explained later on, nobody has used the papyri as a starting point for a far-

8 For the interpretation of the politeumata as private associations Zuckerman 1985 – 1988, 177 –178, 180 and 184, Lüderitz 1994, 202 – 204 as well as Goudriaan 2000, 50 – 52; also note 7 aboveand note 11 below. That the politeumata should be seen as semi-autonomous communitieswas the main thrust of Schubart 1910, 63 – 66; also Ruppel 1927, 305, 309, and 454, ThompsonCrawford 1984, 1073 (thinking of a community comparable to a polis or city), Launey 1987,1077 – 1081, as well as Kasher 1985 (summarising on pp. 356 – 357) with a focus on the Jewishpopulation. The last author interpreted the politeuma as a means by which a community couldseparate itself from its social environment on a local level, and therefore (assuming that largerJewish communities were normally organised as politeumata) argued for a Jewish separa-teness. The issue of segregation is doubtless overemphasised by Kasher and strongly rela-tivised by Zuckerman 1985 – 1988. Zuckerman’s argumentation against a Jewish separatenessis still valid, although a politeuma (against his own view) turned out to be more than just aprivate association.

Patrick Sänger56

reaching and thorough historical evaluation of the topic ‘politeuma’. So far,scholars have mainly concentrated on examining their significance for EgyptianJewry, paying special attention to the question of how Jews managed theircommunal life.9 The tackling of a systematic study of the phenomenon ‘poli-teuma’, with the Jewish politeuma in Herakleopolis as a starting point, istherefore long overdue. I will try to fulfil this desideratum in the near future(above note 1).

3. Social Origin and Administrative Character of the politeuma

A thorough historical analysis of the form of organisation called by the namepoliteuma is attractive because the issues linked to it touch on the field ofimmigration and the integration of minorities. A first superficial evaluation ofthe situation confirms this fact. If we consolidate all the information available upto now about the individual politeumata, known to us before the publication ofthe Herakleopolite papyri, we can come to several conclusions. First, all thepersons who came together in an ethnic politeuma can be connected with re-gions located in the temporary outer possessions of the Ptolemaic empire (Caria,Lycia, Cilicia, Judea, Idumaea) or at least in its sphere of influence (Boeotia,Crete, Phrygia). (For the controversial case of the Sidonian politeumata seebelow in section 4.) Second, we may also state that politeumata were establishedin Greek towns such as Berenike as well as in urban settlements of Egyptian orPhoenician origin. Therefore, the politeumata were flexible units which were nottied to a certain type of town. Third, in order to preserve the specific identity ofthe respective ethnic group, the members of the politeumata were permitted toexercise their own cult. This can be concluded from the circumstance that theCilician, Boeotian, and Idumaean politeuma each had its own sanctuary ortemple district, and that in the case of the Boeotian and Phrygian politeuma, apriest is documented who presided over the cult followed by each body. Fourth,we can also assume that all the recorded politeumata were related to the army.One reason for this is the historical fact that the Ptolemies, who were activelyrecruiting soldiers in their outer possessions (or sphere of influence), werehighly dependent on mercenaries for the defence of their territory. These troopscan be classified as one of the largest migrant groups of the Ptolemaic kingdom.They were settled in garrisons at various, strategically significant points (e. g.urban settlements) and could be divided into ethnic contingents (Griffith 1935,

9 P.Polit.Iud., pp. 3 – 32, Honigman 2002, Maresch/Cowey 2003, Honigman 2003, Kasher 2008,Kruse 2008 and 2010, as well as Thompson 2011, 109 – 113 who treated the politeuma of Jews inHerakleopolis as a case study for the situation of an ethnic minority in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 57

108 – 141, Van ’t Dack 1977, 91 – 92, and Thompson Crawford 1984, 1069). An-other reason is that the testimonies themselves offer clear pointers to support theview presented here. Thus, on the tomb steles which provide the source for theSidonian politeumata, soldiers bearing weapons are depicted. Furthermore, thetexts illuminating the politeumata of Cilicians, Boeotians, Cretans, and Idu-maeans indicate that these communities had close links with the military ap-paratus.10 As a further argument, one can point to an inscription which datesfrom the year 112/11 or 76/75 B.C. and documents a politeuma of soldiers ofunspecified ethnicity stationed in Alexandria (SEG 20, 499). Because its mem-bers are not defined by their origins in a foreign geographical region, but bytheir profession, this politeuma, just like the Sidonian politeumata (whosemembers where defined by being citizens of a certain polis), has to be classed asan isolated case. Apart from this, it supports the theory that the origin of thecommunities named politeuma—also of those which continued to exist underRoman rule—might be found in mercenaries (and their civilian staff), who were,ordinarily, linked by a common ethnic background, settling at their place ofdeployment (Thompson 2011, 109 – 110 and 112 – 113). The evolution of suchkinds of communities is perfectly described by Dorothy Thompson (2011, 112 –113) who stated: “Local ethnic communities in the Ptolemaic period often de-rived in origin from military groups; in their developed form they were totalcommunities, consisting of far more that just the military.” In the context ofPtolemaic Egypt, it is hardly to be doubted that this kind of internal compositioncan be assigned to most of the ethnic groups constituted as politeumata. At thispoint we can therefore already emphasise that a politeuma was not a facility forneedy and poor refugees, but functioned as a form of organisation for (ethnic)groups, including persons who served the king. Therefore, these communitieswere of some importance for the kingdom and held an elevated status in its socialframework.

Apart from this initial evaluation, it has not been possible for a long time toanswer the above-mentioned, decisive question for the constitutional catego-risation of the politeumata. However, once the papyri from Herakleopolis hadcome to our attention we were able to consider the lengthy debate as to thecharacter of the politeumata as concluded. For what the twenty papyri texts,

10 In the case of the Cilician politeuma, we encounter a high-ranking military officer acting as abenefactor of the community concerned. In the case of the Idumaean politeuma, a strategos(the highest nome official), who simultaneously held the position of a priest of machairo-phoroi (a troop of professional soldiers), was honoured by the Idumaeans. The Boeotianpoliteuma obviously consisted of a group of soldiers and a group of civilians (Zuckerman1985 – 1988, 175, and Thompson 2011, 110). Regarding the Cretan politeuma, it is docu-mented that the community elected two representatives who were involved in the admini-strative processing of the promotion of a soldier who was a member of the politeuma.

Patrick Sänger58

dated between 144/3 and 133/2 B.C., clearly prove, is the fact that the Jewishcommunity in question, with its politeuma, possessed a certain autonomous orself-governing character.11 We glean this fact from the sphere of authority of thearchons (and the presiding politarches) who governed the Jewish politeuma. Asregards the range of their activities, the documents only allow us insight intojudicial matters. It is documented that the archons were approached by means ofpetitions in order to secure the demands of the petitioners, ordinarily in privatelegal disputes between Jews, but sometimes, as will be shown, also between Jewsand non-Jews. The petitioners appear always to belong to the group of the Jews.For all intents and purposes, one can call this process a kind of special juris-diction (P.Polit.Iud., pp. 11 – 13, Kruse 2008, 171 – 172, and id. 2010, 98). Whatthe petitioners expected of the archons was not a judicial verdict or finding(rendered by a Greek court like the dikasterion or the court of the chrematistai)but an implementation of the legal claims they made by means of the authoritythat the archons possessed by virtue of their official function. Therefore, theprocedure followed the same patterns as the justice of Ptolemaic officials(P.Polit.Iud., pp. 13 – 15, Kruse 2008, 170 – 171, and id. 2010, 98). This means thatthe archons of the Jewish politeuma seemed to act (at least in judicial matters)like state functionaries (Kruse 2010, 97).

The authority of the archons does not seem to have been limited to just themembers of the Jewish politeuma, who apparently called themselves politai(pok?tai), therefore ‘citizens’.12 This is at least indicated by three petitions di-rected against persons, who obviously did not belong to the group of the Jews, asthese respondents were designated as ‘from those of the harbour’ (P.Polit.Iud. 1,10, and 11). The harbour district, located on the Bahr Yusuf, the western branchof the Nile, was 1.5 to 2 km removed and probably administratively separatefrom the town of Herakleopolis. Given the petitions just mentioned, it is rea-sonable to conclude that the Jewish functionaries were present in the harbourdistrict and, furthermore, were able and authorised to take action against theaccused persons. Consequently, the archons of the Jewish politeuma seem to

11 Kruse 2008, 168 – 169 and id. 2010, 95 and 97. Ameling 2003, 86 – 100, hardly considering thecase of the Jewish politeuma in Herakleopolis, furthermore adhered to the comparison with acommon (cult) association. However, his statement that it is not impossible, “daß sich derStaat der jüdischen Beamten bediente und ihnen in einem bestimmten, wohl geographischumgrenzten Gebiet Autorität verlieh” (op. cit. , 97 – 98), could be understood as a paraphrasefor a kind of ‘selbständige Rechtskörperschaft’, from which Ameling (op. cit. , 94 – 95) alsowanted to differentiate the form of organisation politeuma in Ptolemaic times. For theargumentation of Ritter, 2011, who also continued to interpret the politeumata as privateassociations, see note 7 above.

12 This can be inferred from P.Polit.Iud. 1, line 18 (135 B.C.), where a member of the Jewishpoliteuma distinguishes between politai, members of the politeuma, and allophyloi(!kkºvukoi), foreigners or non-members.

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 59

have had a general peacekeeping power in the harbour district of Herakleopolis.This probably indicates that it was in this district that the Jews belonging to thepoliteuma were concentrated (P.Polit.Iud., p. 12, Kruse 2008, 172, and id. 2010,99 – 100). A further argument for this localisation of the Jewish politeuma couldbe that, around the middle of the second century B.C., a fort was built in theharbour of Herakleopolis, as shown by several papyri (P.Polit.Iud., p. 12, andrecently detailed by Kruse 2011). That would fit with the abovementioned theorythat the origins of the politeumata lay in the settlement of mercenaries dividedinto ethnic contingents. Thus, a substantial part of the membership of the Jewishpoliteuma of Herakleopolis could have consisted of Jewish soldiers residing neartheir operational site. In addition, it has to be stated that the importance of theJewish politeuma was seemingly not only restricted to Herakleopolis or itsharbour district. For the papyri attest that Jews and Jewish communities outsideof Herakleopolis also seem to have made contact with the archons, or seem tohave had links to them—an unmistakable sign of the wide sphere of influence ofthe Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis.

There is no reason to attribute a singular character to the nature of a poli-teuma, as gleaned from the documents of the Jewish community in Her-akleopolis, for in the administration of the Ptolemaic empire, Jews in generalwere among the Hellenes or Greeks who were granted a slight tax relief (Mod-rzejewski 1983, 265 – 266, Thompson 2001, 307 – 310, and Clarysse/Thompson2006, 138 – 148). The term ‘Hellen’, was mostly intended to denote an ‘immi-grant’ or a ‘foreign settler’ who was to be distinguished from someone assignedto the population category Aigyptos, ‘Egyptian’ (Bagnall 1997, 3). Thus, Boeo-tians, Cilicians, Cretans, Lycians, Phrygians or Idumaeans, were also classified asHellenes. Therefore, viewed constitutionally and socio-politically, Jews did notform a separate class of population. When compared with the aforementionedethnic groups, which also had a politeuma at their disposal, Jews in this contextdo not hold a special position. Consequently, the model of the Jewish politeumain Herakleoplis might not be classified as an exceptional case. Rather, we canconsider—as a working hypothesis—that all the politeumata listed above heldthe same rights or the same semi-autonomous position in the state structure.The assessment becomes even more persuasive in the context of the PtolemaicKingdom which was structured in a strongly hierarchical fashion as far as ad-ministration was concerned. The centralised construction of the state leaveshardly any doubt that the politeumata had to be approved by the government orthe king respectively (Kruse 2008, 172, and id. 2010, 98).

Patrick Sänger60

4. Considerations on the Introduction and the InstitutionalEvolution of the politeumata

It does, however, appear that the political instrument ‘politeuma’ was not ap-plied in all Hellenistic states. Although this issue has not been explicitly ad-dressed in research, it seems that the form of organisation politeuma was acreation of the Ptolemies and only employed in their empire. A thorough study ofthe Sidonian politeumata leads us to this conclusion. Contrary to the situation ofthe other politeumata known to us so far, which were certainly part of thePtolemaic kingdom, it has not been certain until now whether this is also true forthe Sidonian politeumata, for on the grounds of the uncertain dates of theinscriptions bearing witness to them, it was considered possible to attributethem to the Seleucids (Hellenistic dynasty ruling over the core area of the formerAchaemenid Persian empire). However, this theory is unlikely. The argumentlies partly in the fact that Sidon was of immense importance for the Ptolemies asit was their main power base in Phoenicia, withstood a siege by the Seleucids inthe fourth Syrian war (219 – 217 B.C.) and passed into their possession duringthe fifth Syrian war (202 – 198 B.C.); more precisely in the spring/summer of 199B.C. (Polyb. 5, 69 – 70, Honigmann 1923, 2224, as well as Hölbl 1994, 113 and121). An even stronger argument provides the origin of the members of theSidonian politeumata. The named towns Kaunos, Pinara, and Termessos Minorwere all situated in territories which were under Ptolemaic control up to the fifthSyrian war, whereas this correlation would not occur in relation to the Seleucids.For Kaunos was definitely not lost to the Seleucids in the course of the conquestof the Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor by Antiochos III in the year 197 B.C.On the contrary, the Carian town (like other Carian towns) came under thecontrol of Rhodos, for this insular state purchased Kaunos from the Ptolemies inorder to protect it against Antiochos III (Wiemer 2002, 227 and 236 – 238). It ishardly conceivable that in spite of this political constellation, and even thoughthere continued to exist no relations to the Seleucids, soldiers from Kaunoswould have placed themselves in their service (or would have been given thechance to do so).

From the facts just presented, we can gain more information than merely thewell-proven theory that (corresponding to the scarcely explained assessment ofHuß 2011, 288) the Sidonian politeumata can be linked to the Ptolemies, and theresulting statement that the form of organisation under examination appears tohave existed only within the territory of the Ptolemaic empire. For in addition,we also receive a quite secure terminus ante quem for the introduction of thepoliteumata. Surprisingly, this not at all unimportant question still remainsunanswered, and for the time being without concrete explanations. Sylvie

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 61

Honigman (2003, 67) wrote on this topic in a relevant paper “that politeumata donot seem to have existed before Ptolemy VI Philometor’s reign (180 – 145 BCE).So far, there is no evidence for politeumata before this reign”. This statementneeds reconsideration in light of the historical contextualisation of the Sidonianpoliteumata, for the facts indicate, contrary to Honigman, that we should al-ready be looking for the creation of the politeumata not in the second, but in thethird century B.C.

A line of questioning which has also not been addressed so far and whichshould be followed would be whether communities which formed a politeumahad organised themselves in some form previously. Even if this idea is notcertain, it should at least be considered given the fact that private associations,well known from the Ptolemaic kingdom (San Nicol� 1972, a/b) and termedkoinon (joimºm; ‘having in common’) or synodos (s}modor; ‘assembly’), andpoliteumata—which have, as stated above, frequently been included amongstthe private associations by researchers—share common features. Thus, Reqe?r orpriests do not only appear in the context of politeumata, but rather also belongedto the most important institutions within the framework of associations. Fur-thermore, we find the offices of a pqost²tgr, a provost, and of a cqallate¼r, ascribe, which are documented in the case of the politeuma of soldiers stationedin Alexandria, amongst the terms known to us for functionaries of associations(on these San Nicol� 1972, b, 53 – 96). The council of archons, which presidedover the Jewish politeumata, is also known to us from the private synagogueassociations (Stökl Ben Ezra 2009, 291, and Hengel 1988, 446). Thus, it is feasiblethat the politeumata recorded might have evolved from private compatriot as-sociations whose members lived in a specific part of a town (e. g. near a garri-son). In order to emphasise the significance of the particular body of persons thecommunities were elevated to the status of a politeuma. The organisationalstructure was left unchanged. However, it was now awarded a public and in-stitutional character which probably applied to the jurisdiction of the formerassociations as well (on the jurisdiction of associations San Nicol� 1927). Thetransformation from an association to a politeuma might even be provenpractically in one case: in the eighties of the second century B.C. an inscriptionfrom Alexandria refers to a koinon of Lycians (joim¹m t_m Kuj¸ym; OGIS 99 = SBV 8274, line 4); roughly 250 years later—in Roman times—, we as has alreadybeen mentioned above, a politeuma of Lycians is attested in the same town.

5. Conclusion: The Political Function of the politeumata

The preceding brief investigation of the sources for the Jewish politeuma ofHerakleopolis, the general guidelines on the character of the form of organ-

Patrick Sänger62

isation which resulted from this evidence and the overlapping analysis of allfurther information available certainly does not answer all the questions relatedto the Ptolemaic politeumata. Nevertheless, it should have become clear thatdealing with politeumata on the historical basis offered reveals the possibility ofobserving, with the help of this concrete example, how an antique state reacted tomigration on an institutional and administrative level. The following and con-cluding considerations will reveal the political function of the politeumata byinterpreting them as an integration measure, and try to understand the reasonsthe Ptolemies might have had for the introduction of this form of organisation.As we will see, the focus will be on political integration, because it is in thissphere that our sources provide the best insights. To what extent the politeumataproduced integrative effects on a social level is more difficult to judge and needsfurther investigation. Nevertheless, regarding this, two aspects merit consid-eration. Locally, on the one hand, a politeuma certainly had an integrative effecton its members and on those who simply participated in the activities of thecommunity or identified with its principles—probably predominantly peoplebearing the same ethnic label as that which specified the politeuma and itsmembers. On the other hand, the privileged status of a politeuma could havepromoted a delimitation of its members and participants from their immediatesocial surroundings, namely from those belonging to the majority (Egyptian)society. So, on a social level, we probably have to consider integrative and sep-arating aspects of the form of organisation politeuma13.

But let us now return to the question of the political function of the poli-teumata. To begin with, we may note that the Ptolemies, by elevating a minoritygroup named after an ethnic label into a politeuma, officially recognised itsreligious and legal individuality. This involved sanctioning the authority andduties of the leading functionaries of the community. Unlike private associa-tions, a community constituted as politeuma can be considered as an in-stitutionalised part of the kingdom’s administrative structure which—similar toa polis—carried responsibility for itself. Because of this status, it was possiblymuch easier for the members to make (as a collective) direct contact with thegovernment. On the other hand, the described process of political integrationhad implications for the district of the town in which the members of the poli-teuma were concentrated. For constituting a community as politeuma probablyhad the result that the settlement area, in which the members of the respectiveminority group probably formed the dominant section of the population, offi-cially became ‘their’ district (a further decisive distinctive feature compared toprivate associations). In this district, the functionaries of the politeuma had a

13 The last mentioned aspect was undoubtedly overestimated by Kasher 1985; it was qualifiedand weakened by Zuckerman 1985 – 1988 (note 8).

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 63

general peacekeeping power and exercised their competences, and it was in thisquarter of town that the members, in addition to their status as ‘migrants’ orHellenes, could appear as native ‘citizens’. After revealing the profile of thepolitical model politeuma, the benefit the government expected from this formof organisation becomes obvious. For the establishment of a politeuma probablyrepresented an attempt on the part of the Ptolemies to strengthen the relation-ship of an ethnic group with its hometown, and ensure that the Ptolemaickingdom remained an attractive country of residence. The intention of thePtolemies was clearly to increase the certainty that they would be able to con-tinue to rely on the services of the relevant group of people (or parts of it)—according to their origin probably mainly in a military context. Therefore, bymeans of the communities constituted as politeumata, the Ptolemies were set-ting a striking signal in their settlement policy. For the form of organisationpoliteuma appear to be a unique, well thought-out political tool to carry out, at areligious, legal, and administrative level, a systematic policy of system in-tegration which—even though it was restricted to elevated parts of the pop-ulation categorised as Hellenes—was still of benefit for both sides: to the gov-ernment and to the minority14.

References

Abbreviations for Ancient Authors

Ios. ant. Iud. Iosephos, antiquitates IudaicaePhil. Flacc. Philon, In FlaccumPolyb. Polybios, HistoriaiStrab. FGrH 2, A Fragment of Strabon included in Jacoby, Felix 1926: Die

Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Zweiter Teil : Zeitge-schichte, A: Universalgeschichte und Hellenika, Berlin.

Abbreviations for inscriptions15

CIG III Franz, Johannes (Ed.) 1845 – 1853: Corpus InscriptionumGraecarum, vol. 3, Berlin.

14 As mentioned by Sänger (forthcoming), the politeumata could perhaps be interpreted as asign of instrumentalisation of ethnicity.

15 Oriented towards B�rard, FranÅois/Feissel, Denis/Laubry, Nicolas/Petitmengin, Pierre/Rousset, Denis/S�ve, Michel (Eds.) 2010: Guide de l’�pigraphiste. Bibliographie choisie des

Patrick Sänger64

IGR I Cagnat, Ren� (Ed.) 1906: Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanaspertinentes, vol. 1, Paris.

OGIS Dittenberger, Wilhelm (Ed.) 1903 – 1905: Orientis graeci in-scriptions selectae, 2 vol. , Leipzig.

SEG 2, 8, 16, 20 Supplementum epigraphicum graecum, vol. 2: 1924, 8: 1937,16: 1959, and 20: 1964, Leiden.

Abbreviations for papyri16

C.Pap.Jud. III Tcherikover, Victor A./Fuks, Alexander/Stern, Menahem (Eds.)1964: Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 3, Cambridge (Mass.).

P.Polit.Iud. Cowey, James M. S./Maresch, Klaus (Eds.) 2001: Urkunden desPoliteuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.)(Papyrologica Coloniensia, vol. 29). Wiesbaden.

P.Tebt. I Grenfell, Bernard P./Hunt, Arthur S./Smyly, Josiah G. (Eds.)1902: The Tebtunis Papyri, vol. 1 (University of California Pub-lications, Graeco-Roman Archaeology, vol. 1; Egypt ExplorationSociety, Graeco-Roman Memoirs, vol. 4), London.

SB I, III. IV, V Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, vol. 1: 1915,Straßburg; vol. 3: 1926, Berlin, Leipzig; vol. 4: 1931 and vol. 5:1934, Heidelberg.

W.Chr. Wilcken, Ulrich (Ed.) 1912: Grundzüge und Chrestomathie derPapyruskunde, Erster Band: Historischer Teil, Zweite Hälfte:Chrestomathie, Stuttgart.

Other Literature

Ameling, Walter 2003: ‘‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt: Die Juden in Alexandrien 38 n. Chr.’,Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Folge, vol. 27, 71 – 123.

Bagnall, Roger S. 1997: ‘The People of the Roman Fayum’, in: Roger S. Bagnall (Ed.):Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Sources and Approaches (Variorum Collected StudiesSeries), London, chap. XIV, 1 – 19.

�pigraphies antiques et m�di�vales (Guides et inventaires bibliographiques, 7), 4th ed. Paris,as far as an abbreviation is given there.

16 According to Oates, John F./Bagnall, Roger S./Clackson, Sarah J./O’Brien, Alexandra A./Sosin, Joshua D./Wilfong, Terry G./Worp, Klaas A. (Eds.): Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demoticand Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriporium/pa-pyrus/texts/clist.html, June 2011.

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 65

Bernand, Andr� 1992a: La prose sur pierre dans l’�gypte hell�nistique et romaine, Tome I:Textes et traductions, Tome II: Commentaires, Paris.

Bernand, �tienne 1969: Inscriptions m�triques de l’�gypte gr�co-romaine. Recherches surla po�sie �pigrammatique des Grecs en �gypte (Annales litt�raires de l’Universit� deBesanÅon, vol. 98), Paris.

Bernand, �tienne 1975: Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, Tome I: La «m�ris»d’H�rakleides, Leiden.

Bernand, �tienne 1992b: Inscriptions grecques d’�gypte et de Nubie au mus�e du Louvre,Paris.

Biscardi, Arnaldo 1984: ‘Polis, politeia, politeuma’, in: Atti del XVII Congresso Inter-nazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19—26 maggio 1983), Napoli, 1201 – 1215.

Clarysse, Willy/Thompson, Dorothy J. 2006: Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt,Volume 2: Historical Studies (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge.

Fischer-Bovet, Christelle 2011: ‘Counting the Greeks in Egypt: Immigration in the FirstCentury of Ptolemaic Rule’, in: Claire Holleran/April Pudsey (Eds.), Demography andthe Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches, Cambridge, 135 – 154.

Goudriaan, Koen 2000: ‘Les signes d’identit� ethnique en �gypte ptol�ma�que’, in:Christian D�cobert (Ed.): Valeur et distance: Identit�s et soci�t�s en �gypte (CollectionL’atelier m�diterran�en), Paris, 39 – 70.

Griffith, Guy T. 1935: The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge.Hengel, Martin 1988: Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter be-

sonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. (WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 10), 3rd ed. Tübingen.

Hölbl, Günther 1994: Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie und religiöseKultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt.

Honigman, Sylvie 2002: ‘The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis’, Scripta Classica Israelica,vol. 21, 251 – 266 (book review of P.Polit.Iud.).

Honigman, Sylvie 2003: ‘Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Ancient Society,vol. 33, 61 – 102.

Honigmann, Ernst 1923: ‘Sidon’ (no. 1), in: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischenAltertumswissenschaft, vol. 2 A, 2, 2216 – 2229.

Huß, Werner 2011: Die Verwaltung des ptolemaiischen Reiches (Münchener Beiträge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 104). München.

Kasher, Aryeh 1985: The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for EqualRights (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, vol. 7). Tübingen.

Kasher, Aryeh 2008: ‘The Jewish politeuma in Alexandria: A Pattern of Jewish CommunalLife in the Greco-Roman Diaspora’, in: Minna Rozen (Ed.), Homelands and Diasporas:Greek, Jews and Their Migrations (International Library of Migration Studies, vol. 2),London 2008, 109 – 125.

Kayser, FranÅois 1994: Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non fun�raires)d’Alexandrie imp�riale (Ier–IIIe s. apr. J.-C.) (Biblioth�que d’�tude, vol. 108). Le Caire.

Kruse, Thomas 2008: ‘Das politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis in Ägypten’, in: MartinKarrer/Wolfgang Kraus (Eds.): Die Septuaginta — Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. In-ternationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal20.–23. Juli 2006, Tübingen, 166 – 175.

Kruse, Thomas 2010: ‘Das jüdische politeuma von Herakleopolis und die Integration

Patrick Sänger66

fremder Ethnien im Ptolemäerreich’, in: Vera V. Dement’eva/Tassilo Schmitt (Eds.):Volk und Demokratie im Altertum (Bremer Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 1),Göttingen, 93 – 105.

Kruse, Thomas 2011: ‘Die Festung in Herakleopolis und der Zwist im Ptolemäerhaus’. In:Andrea Jördens/Joachim F. Quack (Eds.): Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist undäußerem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg16.–19.9. 2007 (Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen, vol. 45),Wiesbaden, 255 – 267.

Launey, Marcel 1987: Recherches sur les arm�es hell�nistiques (Biblioth�que des �colesfranÅaises d’Ath�nes et de Rome, vol. 169), R�impression avec addenda et mise � jour,en postface par Garlan, Yvon, Gauthier, Philippe, Orrieux, Claude: Paris.

Legras, Bernard 2004: L’�gypte grecque et romain, Paris.Lüderitz, Gert 1983: Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika mit einem Anhang von

Joyce M. Reynolds (Beihefte des Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Reihe B, vol. 53),Wiesbaden.

Lüderitz, Gert 1994: ‘What is the Politeuma?’, in: Jan W. van Henten/Pieter W. van derHorst (Eds.): Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antikenJudentums und des Urchristentums, vol. 21), Leiden/New York/Köln, 183 – 225.

Macridy, Theodor 1904: ‘� travers les n�cropoles sidoniennes’, Revue biblique, vol. 13 (=Nouvelle s�rie, vol. 1), 547 – 572.

Maresch, Klaus/Cowey, James M. S. 2003: ‘‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case ofthe Jews from their Ptolemaic Environment’? Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman’,Scripta Classica Israelica, vol. 22, 307 – 310.

Milne, Joseph G. 1905: Greek Inscriptions (Service des Antiquit�s de l’�gypte: Catalogueg�neral des antiquit�s �gyptiennes du Mus�e du Caire), Oxford.

Modrzejewski, Joseph 1983: ‘Le statut des Hell�nes dans l’�gypte lagide: Bilan et per-spectives des recherches’, Revue des �tudes grecques, vol. 96, 241 – 268.

Mooren, Leon 1975: The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction and Proso-pography (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Lette-ren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, vol. 78). Brüssel.

Ritter, Bradley 2011: ‘On the “pok¸teula in Heracleopolis”’, Scripta Classica Israelica,vol. 30, 9 – 37.

Ruppel, Walter 1927: ‘Politeuma. Bedeutungsgeschichte eines staatsrechtlichen Terminus’,Philologus, vol. 82, 268 – 312 and 433 – 454.

Sänger, Patrick (forthcoming): ‘Migration, Ethnizität, Identität, Netzwerk und Gemeinde:Überlegungen zur sozio-politischen Entwicklung der Organisationsform politeuma’,to be published in the proceedings of the ‘14. Gesamtösterreichischen Althistorikertagbzw. 2. Papyrologentag (16.–18.11. 2012)’.

San Nicol�, Mariano 1927: ‘Zur Vereinsgerichtsbarkeit im hellenistischen Ägypten’, in:EPITHLBIOM. Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht, Reichenberg, 255 – 300.

San Nicol�, Mariano 1972a: Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer,Erster Teil : Die Vereinsarten (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antikenRechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, 1), 2nd ed. München.

San Nicol�, Mariano 1972b: Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer,Zweiter Teil : Vereinswesen und Vereinsrecht (Münchener Beiträge zur Papy-rusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, 2), 2nd ed. München.

The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.) 67

Schubart, Wilhelm 1910: ‘Spuren politischer Autonomie in Aegypten unter den Ptol-emäern’, Klio, vol. 10, 41 – 71.

Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel 2009: ‘A Jewish ‘Archontesse’. Remarks on an Epitaph from Byblos’,Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 169, 287 – 293.

Thompson Crawford, Dorothy J. 1984: ‘The Idumaeans of Memphis and the PtolemaicPoliteuma’, in: Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19—26maggio 1983), Napoli, 1069 – 1075.

Thompson, Dorothy J. 2001: ‘Hellenistic Hellenes: The Case of Ptolemaic Egypt’, in: IradMalkin (Ed.): Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Center for Hellenic StudiesColloquia, vol. 5), Cambridge (Mass.)/London, 301 – 322.

Thompson, Dorothy J. 2011: ‘Ethnic Minorities in Hellenistic Egypt’, in: Onno M. van Nijf/Richard Alston (Eds.): Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age,Leuven/Paris/Walpole (Mass.), 101 – 117.

Thompson, Dorothy J. 2012: Memphis under the Ptolemies, 2nd edition, Princeton/Ox-ford.

Van ’t Dack, Edmond 1977: ‘Sur l’�volution des institutions militaires lagides’, in: Andr�Chastagnol (Ed.): Arm�e et fiscalit� dans le monde antique. Actes du colloque, Paris 14 –16 Octobre 1976 (Colloques nationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique,vol. 936), Paris, 77 – 105.

Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich 2002: Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichtedes hellenistischen Rhodos (Klio-Beiheft. Neue Folge, vol. 6). Berlin.

Zuckerman, Constantine 1985 – 1988: ‘Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews. A Re-consideration’, Scripta Classica Israelica, vol. 8/9, 171 – 185 (book review of Kasher1985).

Patrick Sänger68