IX. Polis Hellenis

POLIS HELLENIS

In the various sources for Hellenistic settlements one of the phrases used to describe a few of these foundations is polis Hellenis, i.e., Greek city.1 It is used, for example, by Strabo, Isidore of Charax, Josephus, and Plutarch, as well as in the Marmor Parium, to describe various settlements in southern Syria, Mesopotamia, and points farther east. As this phrase might be useful in furthering our understanding of the settlements I should like to consider briefly its various occurrences with regard to the settlements. I am particularly interested in the significance of the word Hellenis. Polis is, of course, a most important and complex problem when one comes to the Hellenistic period, and deserves continuing investigation; however, in the present study I focus on the first term when it is used to describe a polis. But here, too, one must move cautiously because Hellenis (and, by extension, ethnicity) was a fluid and dynamic term that—over time—was subject to multiple definitions and applications.²

If, originally the term Hellene had a primarily racial, linguistic, or geographic connotation, already in the fifth century it began to be used in a cultural context as well and, in fact, could be adopted.³ Thus, Herodotus, in an oft-cited and much-discussed passage, says that in 479 B.C. the Athenians talked about “the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices we all have in common and the likeness of our way of life” (8.144, trans. Godley). As Arnold Toynbee correctly noted, this Herodotean observation is noteworthy because it introduced a cultural component into what had previously been a racial and linguistic definition. Toynbee then pointed to Isocrates, who in 380 B.C. in another oft-quoted passage—this, from the Panegyricus—said that “the name ‘Hellenes’ suggests no longer a race but an intelligence (dianoia), and . . . the title ‘Hellenes’ is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share a common blood” (50, trans. Norlin). Toynbee remarked that “Isocrates was in advance of his time in giving ‘Hellenism’ an exclusively cultural connotation,” and emphasized that this was a “new conception of Hellenism.”4 But was it new? In a fragment from the opening lines of the lost Phrixos B´ (TrGF 77 F 819) Euripides described Kadmos as a Sidonian who came to Thebes and, although born a Phoenician, changed his genos, became a Hellene and lived in the Dirkaion (i.e., the Theban) Plain.⁵ The fragment—if it accurately reflects the Euripidean text—is worthy of comment. It would appear that already in the latter part of the fifth century B.C. “Hellene” was already losing its racial connotation — at least in the eyes of some Greeks. From Euripides’ perspective one could change one’s genos simply by moving. Even if in this fragment there is no word about whether or not Kadmos learned to speak Greek or adopted Greek habits or customs, we should note that for Euripides just moving to Thebes was enough. It would appear that Isocrates’ conception of “Hellenism”—or, at least, “Hellene”—might not have been so new after all. At the very least, we may suggest that Isocrates was reflecting and expanding on a more liberal definition of “Hellene” that was already present in some circles in Athens in the latter part of the fifth century B.C.⁶

That having been said, it is important to note that the extent to which Isocrates was actually advocating a cultural definition of a Hellene as opposed to writing a panegyric (so the title) for Athenian cultural dominance is a matter of continuing discussion. But even if one (correctly) wants to see Isocrates’ claim within the larger political context of the time, the fact remains that the orator was suggesting that, at the very least, Hellene had a cultural as well as an ethnic component. This in itself reflects a development in the understanding of the term.7 This interpretation, however, is by no means universally accepted. Thus, S. Said suggested that the orator did not completely abandon the older definition of Greek ethnicity. Rather, he meant that from now on to be considered a Greek it would not be sufficient to have Greek blood; one would also need to have had an Athenian education.⁸ On the other hand, a number of scholars have emphasized that in the speech Isocrates was extolling Athenian cultural dominance at the expense of Sparta. Thus N. Baynes argued that the Panegyricus was intended to glorify Athens and was directed against Sparta. And S. Usher claimed that in the Panegyricus Isocrates was “narrowing the idea of ‘Greekness’ . . . rather than extending it to foreigners” and that the orator was asserting that Athenian culture represented the highest form of Hellenism.⁹ In any event, around 300 B.C. Clearchus of Soloi described a Jew from Jerusalem (who had supposedly met Aristotle) as “a Greek not only in his language but also in his soul.”¹⁰ Clearly we have now moved beyond the simple racial value for the term “Greek.” In time, Hellenis would undergo further development and be used in other contexts—for example, in Ptolemaic Egypt and the early Christian world—with still other nuances and meanings. As a result, each use of the term polis Hellenis must be considered in the setting within which it occurs if one is to understand its particular application and meaning.

In the classical period the term polis Hellenis was used to denote, among other things, (a) cities of Greece as opposed to those located elsewhere, and (b) colonies planted by Greek cities in barbarian territory, including Macedonia, along with the colonies on the west coast of Asia Minor, in Sicily, and in southern Italy. In these cases, there is a contrast implicit or explicit with either a general barbarian environment or organized barbarian opposition, and it is often a question of a recognizable group, such as “the Greek cities of Asia” or “the Greek cities of Sicily.”11

This category of meaning continues into the Hellenistic period and beyond. Thus, Strabo, writing in the late first century B.C./early first century A.D., cites Trapezous in Pontus (12.3.17), Mainaka in Spain (3.4.2), and (Ennius’s birthplace) Rhodiai in Italy (6.3.5) as poleis Hellenides. Interestingly, he also says that the Latin cities Tibur and Praeneste are called Greek (cities). Presumably the term refers to their legendary foundation stories: there was a tradition that Argives and Arcadians were involved in the founding of both.¹² In addition, Herakleides Pontikos (102, ed. Wehrli) referred to Rome as a “Greek city”—again, a reference to a mythological past. Similarly, Caere (Plut. Camil. 21.2; Strabo 5.2.3; Dion. Hal. 3.58) and Spina (Strabo 5.1.7; Dion. Hal. 1.18.3–4) were also called “Greek cities,” presumably an allusion to the mythological connection with the Pelasgians. We may note in passing that in these citations the term “Greek city” refers only to the foundation, not to contemporary characterizations of the inhabitants’ ethnicity or the character of the city. Stephanos (s.v. Τίβυρις, quoting Artemidorus) makes this explicit in his description of Tibur: “a Greek city with respect to its origins” (πόλις ῾Ελληνὶς τὴν ἀρχὴν γεγονυῖα).

In addition, there are a number of examples where “Greek city” appears to be equivalent to an independent or “autonomous city.” For example, when discussing the cities on the Macedonian coast, Ps.-Scylax (66 = GGM 1:52–53) distinguished between poleis and poleis Hellenides; the former were cities belonging to the Macedonian kingdom; the latter were independent city-states.¹³ When Polybius (21.24.8, “Greek cities”; 45.2, “autono- mous cities”) talks about the cities of Asia Minor, it would appear—as E. Bickerman has suggested—that the terms “Greek city” and “autonomous city” were used interchangeably.14 Interestingly, in the Jerusalem Talmud there are a number of instances in which a town is referred to as avtonit (i.e., autonomous) or boule.¹⁵ Finally, there are a number of Hellenistic inscriptions in which the term “the Greek cities” is often used interchangeably with “the Greeks” and the “individual cities”; this is explicitly the case, for example, in a decree of the Delphic Amphictyony in honor of Eumenes II (Syll.3 630.4–5, 14–15, 182 B.C.). Elsewhere, the decree of ANTIOCH in Persis (OGIS 233.37 = I. Estremo Oriente 252 = Euphrat 306 = IGIAC 53) mentions the Hellenic cities that had benefited from services provided by Magnesia on the Maeander. The decree of Teos honoring Antiochos III (SEG 41:1003, A/B 6–7) refers (in a partially restored section) to the king as the common benefactor of Teos and the other Hellenic poleis. And a letter from Eumenes II to the Ionian League (RC 52.11, 167/6 B.C.) mentions the king’s efforts on behalf of the inhabitants of “Greek cities.”

II.

I should like to list briefly the various Hellenistic settlements that are described as poleis Hellenides, with brief notes about each one. I begin with a doubtful case—Ktesiphon—and then move on to towns and cites that were probably Hellenistic (re)foundations. In each case, see the particular entry for fuller discussion.

A. KTESIPHON : Josephus (AJ 18.376) described Ktesiphon as a πόλις Ἑλληνίς; this was probably, as Tcherikover noted, a characterization of the city rather than a description of its status (HS 91). On the other hand, Strabo described it simply as a κώμη μεγάλη (16.1.16). The personal name Ktesiphon is Greek; however, it is not clear whether the toponym was taken from the Greek world or resulted from the Hellenization of an Oriental name. There is no extant evidence that specifically indicates Ktesiphon was a Hellenistic foundation.

B. ICHNAI: a “Greek city founded by the Macedonians” (Isidore 1). The toponym Ichnai is found in both Thessaly and Macedonia. Presumably Mesopotamian Ichnai was named for one of these towns.¹⁶

C. NIKEPHOR ION : a polis Hellenis (Isidore 1). It was founded by Alexander (Isidore; Pliny NH 6.119) or Seleukos I (App. Syr. 298). Cassius Dio says (40.13.1) that when M. Licinius Crassus was preparing for his campaign against the Parthians Nikephorion was one of the “Greek poleis” that supported him.17 According to Dio, many of the Greek and Macedonian colonists in the region regarded the Romans as “philhellenes.”

D. ALEXANDROPOLIS or ALEXANDREIA in Arachosia: “It is Greek” (Isidore 19).

E. ARTEMITA: a polis Hellenis in the district of Apolloniatis (Isidore 2). A “noteworthy polis” (Strabo 16.1.17). The toponym is Greek. Stephanos (s.v.) calls Artemita a “polis of the Parthians.”¹⁸ It is not clear whether Artemita was a Hellenistic refoundation or whether the Greeks in the town were descended from the Greeks transplanted to this area by Xerxes (Diod. 17.110.4–5).

F. CHALA: a polis Hellenis (Isidore 3). Is this identical with a group of Boeotians settled by Xerxes that is attested by Diodorus (17.110.4–5) as still keeping up the Greek language—for the most part—at the time of Alexander?

G. RHAGAI, [Herakleia], APAMEIA, and LAODIKEIA: “Greek cities in Media founded by the Macedonians” (Strabo 11.13.6).

H. ALEXANDREIA on the Tanais: a polis Hellenis (Marmor Parium, FGrH 239 B7).

I. ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus: Plutarch (De Fort. Alex. 328F) also mentions a “Greek city” founded by Alexander in the Caucasus; presumably this refers to Alexandreia of the Caucasus.

J. GAZA, GADARA, and HIPPOS: among the “Greek cities” that were detached from Archelaos’s territory and attached to the province of Syria (Joseph. AJ 17.320, BJ 2.96).

K. SKYTHOPOLIS: the designation Hellenis polis for Skythopolis is found on a dedicatory inscription that was discovered there. The dedication probably dates to 161–180 A.D.; it is probably also to be read—in abbreviated form—on some coins of the same period.¹⁹

I would note the following:

1. Isidore of Charax used the term polis Hellenis five times in his Parthian Stations. Tarn was unable to explain why Isidore sometimes used this expression.²⁰ He asserted that for Isidore, the term can mean nothing different from the simple polis, since according to Tarn, Isidore, following the official Parthian survey, keeps to the strict meaning of “city organized in Greek fashion” for the latter term.

2. It is not clear, incidentally, whether Strabo’s description of Rhagai, [Herakleia], Apameia, and Laodikeia as “Greek cities founded by the Macedonians” is based on conditions in his day or on Eratosthenes. The latter was his source for a good deal of information about this region, and he, of course, lived in the late third century B.C. In any event, Polybius (10.27.3) also says that Media was “ringed about” with Greek cities.

3. A number of the settlements in the East continued to have some identifiable Greek character into the first century A.D. and beyond.21

III.

It is from southern Syria that we have the most extensive evidence for the term polis Hellenis. The earliest extant reference may be found in 2 Maccabees 6:8, which refers to an anti-Jewish decree that was published in the “neighboring Greek cities” at the time of the Antiochene persecutions. No further information is available as to which cities these were. Subsequently, at the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., there were rebellious protests in Jerusalem against the memory of the king and against his son, Archelaos. Augustus, after hearing appeals by various embassies and by “the Hellenic cities under Herod,” eventually decided how to handle the succession: Herod’s kingdom was broken up and divided among three of his sons.²²

Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 90 F136) mentions the rebellion against Herod’s children and against “the Greeks” that broke out after his death. Nicolaus also refers to the “Greek cities” that were subject to dispute and were demanding their “freedom” from Augustus. And Josephus (AJ 17.320, BJ 2.96) specifies that whereas Strato’s Tower, Sebaste, Joppa, and Jerusalem were cities that were included in the domain of Archelaos, Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos were among the “Greek cities” that were detached from Archelaos’s territory and attached to the province of Syria. If we search for a common thread connecting the three cities detached from Herodian territory, we note a number of factors:

1. All three seem to have been refounded during the Hellenistic period and given dynastic names: Gaza was renamed SELEUKEIA. HIPPOS, which, of course, is a Greek word, was renamed ANTIOCH. According to Stephanos (s.v. “Gadara”), GADARA was also called ANTIOCH as well as SELEUKEIA.

2. Two of the cities—Gadara and Hippos—are explicitly described as “Macedonian settlements” by George Synkellos (558–59).

3. According to Josephus (AJ 13.364) there was a council of 500 at Gaza in the second century B.C.

4. Like a number of others in the area, all three cities were also reconstituted or rebuilt through the efforts of Pompey and Gabinius. Furthermore, all three were absorbed into the province of Syria. We do not know, incidentally, whether the removal from the jurisdiction of the king to a Roman province involved the grant of autonomy to the various cities, though it is certainly possible they were granted some kind of nominal “freedom” or “autonomy.” After all, “freedom” from Archelaos was, according to Nicolaus, a major demand of the “Greek cities.”

5. Two of the cities—Gaza and Hippos—coined money with Greek legends.

6. Gadara was well known as a center of Hellenic culture. In short, in all three “Greek cities” at least part of the population was Hellenophone or Hellenophile in the first century B.C./A.D.

Now, however, I would turn cautious. I have mentioned that both Gaza and Hippos minted coins with Greek legends. On the other hand, in the Hellenistic period a number of the old Phoenician cities also minted coins with Greek inscriptions, though unlike the settlements with dynastic names, coins of these cities frequently had accompanying Phoenician inscriptions as well.23 Furthermore, from both Sidon and Tyre we have other examples of Greek culture—e.g., the erection of Greek inscriptions, townspeople appearing in victor lists at Delos and in the Panathenaia. Gravestones from Sidon, dated to the third or second century B.C., indicate the dead were Greek soldiers, mainly from Crete and Asia Minor, but some from Greece as well.²⁴ Sidonians appear in victor lists at, for example, the Theseia, the Panathenaia, and Delos.²⁵ And the Sidonians set up a statue— with accompanying Greek inscription—to commemorate the victory of Diotimos son of Dionysios at the Nemean games.²⁶ Interestingly, in the inscription Diotimos is described as a dikastes, i.e., shofet—a judge. As Fergus Millar has pointed out, this is a Phoenician office, not a Greek one. For all the use of the Greek language and the participation in Greek cultural activities, Sidon still maintained its native institutions.²⁷ Furthermore, the statue was sculpted by a Cretan—Timocharis—not a Sidonian. At Tyre, games in honor of Herakles/Melqart were celebrated every four years (2 Macc. 4:18–20). Nevertheless, the degree to which Hellenization asserted itself in the Phoenician cities is a matter of some discussion. Undoubtedly at the time there was an influential segment of the population that spoke or knew Greek. Nevertheless, no extant ancient author describes them as “Greek cities.”

It would be useful, too, to consider what Josephus apparently meant by “Greek.” In describing Seleukeia on the Tigris he says explicitly (AJ 18.372–74) that the population consisted of “many Macedonians, a majority of Greeks and not a few Syrians” (trans. Feldman). Furthermore, he says that there had been civil unrest between the Greeks and the Syrians, but that after the growth of the Jewish community there, the Greeks and Syrians united and turned on the Jews. Clearly in this passage Josephus distinguished between Greek and Syrian, though it is unclear whether he was using the former term in an ethnic or simply a cultural sense.28

Let us also consider Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea—the old Straton’s Tower—was refounded by Herod the Great and named in honor of Augustus. It is nowhere described as a “Greek city” in the extant sources. In the time of the emperor Nero civil strife broke out at Caesarea. Josephus quite frequently refers to the Syrians in Caesarea (AJ 20.173–78). Nevertheless, at one point (BJ 3.409) he says that most of the inhabitants there were Greeks. Elsewhere (BJ 2.266), he describes how “the Jewish portion of the population rose against the Syrian inhabitants. They claimed that the city was theirs on the ground that its founder, King Herod, was a Jew. Their opponents admitted the Jewish origin of its second founder but maintained that the city itself belonged to the Greeks. . . . Every day the more venturesome in either camp would rush into combat; for the older members of the Jewish community were incapable of restraining their turbulent partisans and the Greeks considered it humiliating to give way to the Jews” (trans. Thackeray; my emphasis). Josephus then concludes his account of the difficulties at Caesarea by remarking (BJ 2.284): “Meanwhile the Greeks of Caesarea had won their case at Caesar’s tribunal.” In fact, in this narrative Josephus—who lived in the latter part of the first century A.D. and was describing events in the middle of the same century—identified the Syrians as Greeks. The fact that Apollonius of Tyana, who also lived in the first century A.D., praised the city for its “Greek culture” (Ep. 11 [ἦθος]) is interesting but does not say anything about the ethnic background of the inhabitants or the organization of the city.

Finally, I would call attention to the “Ancient Table of Contents” to Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities; the “Ancient Table of Contents” may date to the fifth/sixth century A.D. or earlier and, hence, is not without interest to the historian. One of the sections of the Table of Contents for book 15 lists “The founding of Greek cities (poleon hellenidon) which Herod accomplished.” The relevant sections of the text discuss the various towns and fortresses that Herod built or fortified: among these were Sebaste, Gaba, and Esbonitis, as well as Straton’s Tower, which he refounded as Caesarea. While the extent of the Hellenic element in these settlements may be debated, it would appear that—at the very least—these were not centers of Jewish habitation.29 But now hard reality intervenes: while Josephus did not describe Sebaste and Caesarea as “Greek cities,” the author of the “Ancient Table of Contents” did.

IV.

We can also see the progression and continuing elaboration in the meaning and use of the term Hellene if we consider Ptolemaic Egypt.30 Practically all the people in Ptolemaic Egypt were divided into essentially two groups, Hellenes and Egyptians. But here, too, we must move cautiously because, as Roger Bagnall has observed, “As far back as we can look . . . Ptolemaic ethnicity appears a bit slippery.”³¹ When considering Ptolemaic Egypt, therefore, one should distinguish between private or social ethnicity, which was often related to a person’s race or geographic background, and official ethnicity, which was not. Official ethnic designations (as given in official or legal documents) reflected a person’s status, not necessarily his (or her) geographic or racial background. In short, in the official life of Ptolemaic Egypt ethnicity was a legal question, not—paradoxically—an ethnic one. In this sphere one could become a Hellene.

Originally, in third-century B.C. Egypt, most ethnic designations were precisely that: designations of a person’s city or regional background. The term “Hellene,” when it was used, referred primarily to persons who were Greek by descent, in opposition to the native Egyptians. And this usage continued throughout much of the period of Ptolemaic rule. For example, in a well-known document dating to 163 B.C. a certain Ptolemaios son of Glaukias complained that he had been attacked because he was a Greek (UPZ 17.21–22). And the ordinances of Ptolemy VIII in 118 B.C. distinguished between Greeks and Egyptians.³² If the basic distinction in the population of Ptolemaic Egypt continued—not surprisingly—to be between Hellenes and Egyptians, the designation of the term “Hellene” evolved. In time it came to include not just the descendants of ethnic Greeks but also most non-Egyptians—Macedonians, of course, and Thracians, Gauls, Syrians, and Jews, among others.³³

There is, in addition, another usage of the term “Hellene” that we find in Hellenistic Egypt. Under the Ptolemies ethnic designations also came to be used in official contexts to categorize or identify a person, i.e., to designate a person’s status rather than his (or her) race or geographic background. Thus, individuals who were not necessarily Greeks by origin or descent were so designated for official purposes. As a result we find “Hellenes” mentioned in a number of different official contexts—fiscal,34 judicial,³⁵ military,³⁶ and agricultural.³⁷

It is interesting, incidentally, to note that later, with the arrival of the Romans, the juridical categories of the population changed: (1) Roman citizens (“cives Romani”), (2) citizens of the three (later, four) Greek cities of Egypt (“cives peregrini”), (3) the rest of the population beyond those included in the two other groups (“peregrini Aegyptii”). In this scheme, the Hellenes now became simply “Egyptians,” just like the native Egyptians themselves.³⁸

By way of further comparison, let us consider another (near-)contemporary source: the New Testament. It is generally—though not universally— agreed that in the many instances in which Jews and Greeks are contrasted in the New Testament the latter reference is actually to “Gentiles.”³⁹ For example, at Galatians 3:28 we read: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female.”⁴⁰ And at Mark 7:26 we read about the woman of Tyre who is specifically called a “Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth” (cf. Matthew 15:22, “a Canaanite woman”). Clearly this woman was not an ethnic Greek, though presumably she was a Hellenophone or, at least, a Hellenophile. Finally, we may note that in late antiquity persons described as Greeks could, in fact, be either Greeks or pagans.⁴¹ It will not be surprising, therefore, to find that in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes 9:11 (248.20–21, ed. M. Gronewald), Didymos the Blind— who lived in the fourth century A.D.—described Chorazin and Bethsaida as Jewish poleis and Tyre and Sidon as “Hellenic [poleis].” Interestingly, Gronewald translated the latter as “the heathen cities.”

I would also call attention to the term “Hellenist” (Hellenistes). Its earliest occurrence is in Acts in the New Testament, where it is found three times (Acts 6:1, 9:29; 11:20). The precise meaning of the term has been the subject of much discussion: does it, for example, refer to (a) Greek-speaking Jews, (b) Gentiles, (c) Jewish proselytes who converted to Christianity, or (d) Hellenophones? Briefly, it would appear most likely that it means simply “Hellenophone,” without reference to any ethnic or national group; this, at least, is the meaning that appears to fit best all three occurrences.42 But this is only a conjecture because here, too, the precise meaning of the term still eludes us.⁴³

VI.

From the world of the New Testament let us turn to the still pagan Graeco- Roman world of the first and second centuries A.D. Here I would mention a well-known observation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who flourished in the last third of the first century B.C./first half of the first century A.D. He defined to Hellenikon as speaking the Greek language, having a Greek way of life, acknowledging the same gods, and having the same equitable laws (1.89.4). The similarity to Herodotus’s criteria, which I mentioned earlier, is striking. The one omission in Dionysius—and a not insignificant one—is “of common blood.”⁴⁴ Now the cultural element becomes predominant, if not always exclusive. This becomes clear if we consider, for example, Dio Chrysostom, who lived in the latter half of the first century/early second century A.D.

If the main polarity in the New Testament is between Greeks and Jews, in Dio it is between Greeks and barbarians.45 On the other hand, what precisely was meant by “Hellene” (and “barbarian”) was rather fluid. Dio, for example, observed (48.8) that one could be a Hellene by cultivation (paideia). Elsewhere he remarked that citizens in the cities near Caesarea in Asia Minor were “well-born people and very Greek” (47.13); he also noted that there was a specifically Hellenic type of beauty (21.16). In the address to his native city, Prousa, Dio framed his exhortation to the Prousians to make their city “truly Greek” by urging them to cultivate the “finer things” (44.10). Nevertheless, Dio makes clear that, in his view, descent (physis) remained an essential component in defining “Greekness,” as did religious rites, customs, and festivals (38.46, 40.28, 48.8).

VII.

Ethnics are mutable today, and they were in antiquity. They could be created and modified; they could also be manipulated.⁴⁶ I mention a number of examples from disparate times and regions. I have already mentioned Euripides’ description of how Kadmos changed his genos. In Alexandreia, Josephus tells us that the Jews were given permission to take the title “Macedonian” (BJ 2. 488). Of course, we are all familiar with the fact that in the Ptolemaic army ethnics came to designate branches of the military. The same was true elsewhere. Josephus (BJ 5.460, trans. Thackeray), for example, says that Antiochus Epiphanes of Commagene had “a bodyguard calling themselves ‘Macedonians’ . . . armed and trained in the Macedonian fashion, from which circumstance they took their title, most of them lacking any claim to belong to that race.”⁴⁷

We may also consider an incident that took place at the Temple in Jerusalem. According to the Mishnah Yomah (6.4), when the scapegoat was being led out on the Day of Atonement the Babylonians used to pull at its hair. But according to the Gemara (66b) to this passage, “Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: These were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, and because they [the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians, they called them [the Alexandrians] by their [the Babylonians’] name. It was taught: R. Judah said, They were not Babylonians, but Alexandrians.”⁴⁸ It is not clear, incidentally, whether the reference here is to Babylon in Mesopotamia or the settlement of the same name in Egypt.⁴⁹ Another example: Procopius (History of the Wars 1.18.38) says that almost all the Isaurians fighting in the battle of Callinicum in 531 A.D. were killed. Further on he says: “They were not in fact all Isaurians but the majority of them were Lycaonians.”50 Another example: it has been convincingly argued that in Italy of the late fifth century A.D. the terms “Roman” and “Goth” were created categories and were correlated more with profession than with language, religion, or ethnic background.⁵¹ And Peter Brown has pointed out that further east, the Syriac sources in the sixth century A.D. used the word “Goth” to mean “soldier.”⁵²

Earlier I mentioned Strabo’s description of Trapezous as a polis Hellenis. In his book on the Black Sea region Neal Ascherson discussed the Pontic Greeks in the Turkish city of Trabezon, the modern Trapezous: “Sophisticates in Trebizond might address one another in the fifteenth century as ‘Hellenes’, but this was a cultural fancy rather than an ethnic description. Outsiders . . . referred to them and to all the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire as ‘Rom’ . . . people, or as ‘Romanians’, citizens of the Roman Empire, in other words, who were also distinguished by their orthodox Christian faith. Struggling with these categories, a Pontic Turk whose village had once been Greek . . . [said:] . . . “This is Roman (Rum) country; they spoke Christian here.”⁵³ As in fifteenth-century A.D. Pontus, so in the Hellenistic and Roman periods: “Hellene” was both a “cultural fancy” and an “ethnic description.” Furthermore, usage may have varied with different locations, different contexts, and different authors. “Hellene” could, of course, mean an ethnic Greek; but over time it could also refer to a native Asian who spoke Greek or otherwise partook of Greek culture. In later Ptolemaic Egypt it could refer essentially to all non- Egyptians. And from the Jewish/Christian perspective it could refer to the whole non-Jewish/non-Christian world.

The survival of Greek culture in the East and West—and the threat to its survival—was a topos in Greek and Latin literature. In the West, Strabo (6.1.2) noted that southern Italy, which was so heavily settled by Greeks that it was called Magna Graecia, was in his time becoming “barbarized.” In Asia Minor before the battle of Magnesia in 189 B.C. the Roman general told his troops (Livy 38.17.11): “The Macedonians who hold Alexandria in Egypt, who hold Seleucia and Babylonia and other colonies scattered throughout the world have degenerated into Syrians, Parthians, Egyptians. . . . Whatever grows in its own soil has greater excellence; transplanted to another soil, its nature being modified to suit that in which it grows, it loses its virtue” (trans. Sage). This is a good prebattle exhortation, but bad history. In fact, elsewhere, the Rhodians (37.54.18) claimed that “the cities which are on the ancient soil are not more Greek than their colonies, which once set out from there for Asia; nor does a change of habitation change race or manners (genus aut mores).” For example, the continued Greek character of Seleukeia on the Tigris attracted the attention of Pliny, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio. Pliny remarked (NH 6.122) that Seleukeia “at the present day . . . is a free and independent city and retains the Macedonian manners” (trans. Rackham). Tacitus (Ann. 6.42) singled out Seleukeia because it was still “faithful to the memory of its founder Seleucus [and] has not degenerated into barbarism” (trans. Jackson). Cassius Dio (40.16) described Seleukeia as a “city in Mesopotamia which even at the present day has a very large Greek population” (trans. Foster). On the other hand, later still, Ammianus Marcellinus (14.8.6) noted that Seleucus “built cities of great strength and abundant wealth; and many of these, although they are now called by the Greek names which were imposed on them by the will of their founder, nevertheless have not lost the old appellations in the Assyrian tongue which the original settlers gave them” (trans. Rolfe).

This concern in antiquity with the survival of Greek culture, particularly in the East, calls to mind a curious fact: except for AIGEAI, toponyms derived from Macedonia and the Greek mainland are not attested in the extant sources for Hellenistic settlements in Asia Minor. These town names become common only when we cross the Tauros Mountains into Syria and Mesopotamia.54 In this regard it is interesting to note, therefore, that the extant literary citations for the term polis Hellenis, when used in connection with Hellenistic settlements, refer to foundations in Syria and points farther east. Of course there were many Hellenistic settlements in Asia Minor. Nevertheless, I have not yet found a reference to any Hellenistic settlement in Asia Minor as a polis Hellenis. This, of course, will not be surprising for Josephus and Isidore of Charax; after all, their primary focus was not Asia Minor. But what about Strabo? In general, when he does choose to characterize a city in Asia Minor he will refer to it as, for example, an “Aeolian city” or an “Ionian city.”⁵⁵ As far as I could find, his only explicit use of polis Hellenis to describe a city in Asia Minor is for Trapezous, which was located north of the Pontic Alps on the Black Sea coast. He does, however, provide extensive information about numerous Hellenistic settlements in Asia Minor. And he specifically refers to two—THYATEIRA in Lydia and STRATON IKEIA in Caria—as “Macedonian settlements.” I have already mentioned that when Strabo mentioned Rhagai, Apameia, and Laodikeia in Media he described them as “Greek cities which were Macedonian foundations.” Interestingly, in the case of Thyateira and Stratonikeia, Strabo did not add the description of them as “Greek cities.” What Strabo’s silence means—if anything—I do not know.

It is in connection with Cappadocia that we find reference to Greek cities. In his account of Tigranes, Strabo remarks (11.14.15) that the king filled Tigranoke rta with people gathered from twelve “Greek cities” that he ravaged (ἐρημωθεισῶν). Elsewhere (12.2.9) he says that after Tigranes overran Cappadocia, he forced the inhabitants—including the inhabitants of Mazaka—to migrate to Mesopotamia; furthermore, he adds that the Armenian king populated Tigranokerta with these people. Plutarch (Luc. 21.4, 26.1, 29.2) also refers to Tigranes’s removal and resettlement of “Greeks” from Cilicia and Cappadocia to Tigranokerta. In short, it would appear that Strabo considered Mazaka a “Greek city.” Curiously, it is in connection with Cappadocia that we find another reference to a Greek city in Asia Minor. Philostratus, who lived in the first century A.D., described Tyana as “a Greek city amidst a population of Cappadocians” (Life of Apollonius 1.4, trans. Conybeare). Furthermore, there is evidence for a gymnasium there in this same period (SEG 1:466). Presumably the fact that the native population of Cappadocia was not particularly Hellenized brought into sharper focus the Hellenic character of those cities that were. The same phenomenon may explain Strabo’s characterization of Trapezous in Pontus.

I return to the object of my inquiry: when a Hellenistic settlement is described in the ancient sources as a polis Hellenis what does this tell us about the colony? Many—though not all—of the places described as a “Greek city” originated as a Greek settlement, either in the Hellenistic period or, occasionally, earlier still. A city described as “Greek” would undoubtedly have had some Greek connections, often in contrast with the surrounding population; but precisely what that Greek connection was and how strong remains a matter of speculation. Undoubtedly the resident population included a community of Hellenophones or Hellenophiles. Such persons—if sufficiently numerous and influential—could be expected to press for coinage to be minted with Greek legends, to found a gymnasium, institute “Greek” games, and set up a polis organization. Compare Pausanias’s sarcastic comment about Panopeus in Phocia (10.4.1, trans. Jones): “Panopeus, a city (polis) of the Phocians, if one can give the name of city to those who possess no government offices, no gymnasium, no theater, no market-place, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like mountain cabins, right on a ravine.” Nevertheless, it remains unclear how much—if any—of this would actually have materialized in any particular Hellenistic settlement and how much would have survived down to the first century A.D. and later. In this connection it is important to emphasize that most of the sources that bear on the subject date to the first century A.D. or later, i.e., to the post-Hellenistic period. Furthermore, we do not know why the ancient sources described a particular settlement as a polis Hellenis but omitted the same designation for other foundations. At the very least we can suggest that during the Hellenistic and Roman periods polis Hellenis—when the term was used to describe a Hellenistic settlement—was not used as a technical term in the modern sense. Rather its use and its application apparently rested largely on the context in which the term appeared. In short, therefore, it would appear that the use of the term polis Hellenis to describe a Hellenistic settlement has limited value for determining its precise organization or societal structure. But this, too, has value because it defines the limits available to the researcher in using the expression to help describe a Hellenistic settlement.

1. I am immensely grateful to Mischa Hooker for exemplary research assistance in the preparation of this appendix.

2. On Greek ethnicity see, especially, J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity; id., Hellenicity; Malkin, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity; and A. A. Lund, Historia 54 (2005) 1–17; see also Walbank, Selected Papers 1–19; id., Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World 137–52.

3. See, for example, Toynbee, Some Problems of Greek History 58–63; Trédé in Hellenismos 71–80.

4. Some Problems of Greek History 59–60; see also J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity 44–45.

5. See also Ar. Frogs 1225; Ps.-Plut. On Exile 607B-C; id. Lives of the Ten Orators, Isocrates 837E; [Lucian] Makrob. 23; Tztetzes Comment. on the Frogs 1225 (ed. Koster); and POxy. 2455, frag. 17, col. xix. ( = TrGF 5:2, p. 861). On Kadmos as Phoenician and as Greek see Miller in Cultural Borrowings 79–84. Miller noted that Bachylides (14.41–48) and Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F21) linked Kadmos with Egypt, and Herodotus (2.49.3, 4.147.4, 5.57–61) portrayed him as a Phoenician immigrant with ties to Egypt. On the other hand, Pindar (Ol. 2.23, 78; Pyth. 9.82–83, 3.86–92; Is. 1.30, 7.10; Paian. 9.44; Dithyr. 2.27) saw him as Greek. This might have been—as Miller observed—a result of “Boeotian patriotism.” Miller also pointed out that whereas Kadmos is portrayed as Phoenician in fifth-century literary texts, he is presented as Greek in fifth- and fourth-century iconography (81 and earlier discussions cited in n. 68). On Greeks and barbarians in Euripides see S. Said, Ktema 9 (1984) 27–53.

6. See Trédé in Hellenismos 72. In the fourth century B.C. the term genos could also be used with a nonethnic connotation to indicate “class, sort, kind” (LSJ s.v. “genos V”). Nevertheless, I believe that in the Phrixos B´ passage Euripides was using the term in its meaning of “race” or “descent”; see further Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World 15; J. M. Hall, Hellenicity 214.

7. Interpretations of Panegyricus 50 run the gamut. For example, M. Trédé observed that this is “the first and best statement of a cultural definition of ‘Greek’ ” (in Hellenismos 72). See also A. A. Lund, Historia 54 (2005) 13.

8. In Greek Ethnicity 282; see also Said in Greeks on Greekness 48–55.

9. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays 1:152–53; Usher, Isocrates Panegyricus and To Nicocles 161; Usher in Kuhn, The Birth of the European Identity 131–45; see also J. M. Hall, Hellenicity 209.

10. In Authors 1:49ff.

11. For the distinction between “barbarian” and “Hellene” see, for example, Strabo (6.1.2, 10.3.9, 14.5.25); Josephus (AJ 18.20); Dio Chrysostom (1.14, 38; 14.16; 32.35, 40), Pausanias (1.14.2, 8.25.13, 46.4, 10.32.3); Pliny NH 6.7; Ps.-Scymnus 932–34 (GGM NH 1:335.) On barbarians and Hellenes see E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian 11; Antonaccio and Said in Greek Ethnicity 121, 287; on Macedonians and Hellenes see J. M. Hall in Greek Ethnicity 165–72.

12. Horace refers to Tibur as Argeo positum colono (2.6.5); more detailed accounts make one of the founders, at least, Tiburnus, a descendant of the Argive Amphiaraus. There is also the tradition that Arcadians were involved (Solinus 2.8). Praeneste, according to some stories, was founded by a son or grandson of Odysseus (Solinus 2.8; Stephanos s.v. “Prainestos”). Strabo (5.3.11) says that its former name was Polystephanos; Pliny (NH 3.64) says it was once called “Stephane”: in either case, a Greek name. In the case of both cities, there are also rival stories that involve no Greek connection.

13. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings 1:473; U. Kahrstedt, Hermes 81 (1953) 91–111; Kalleris, Les anciens Macedoniens 593 and 603, n. 3.

14. REG 50 (1937) 218.

15. M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud s.v. “Avtoniot.”

16. On Thessalian and Macedonian Ichnai see Strabo 5.435; Hdt. 7.123; and Papazoglou, Villes 154–56.

17. According to Florus 1.46, Crassus was at Nikephorion when an embassy from Orodes came to him; see further A. Garzetti, Athenaeum (1944) 4 of.; Marshall, Crassus 153.

18. Tacitus (Ann. 6.41) calls Artemita and Halum—which is probably Isidore’s Chala— Parthica oppida.

19. G. Foerster and Y. Tsafrir, INJ 9 [1986–1987] 57; P.-L. Gatier, Syria 67 (1990) 205–206.

20. GBI² 21.

21. See, for example, Tac. Ann. 6.42; Cassius Dio 40.16; Joseph. AJ 18.372–74; and Cohen, Settlements in Europe 71.

22. Smallwood, Jews 108–10.

23. E.g, Tyre: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΤΥΡΙΩΝ (SNG Spaer 1670, 140/39 B.C.); Sidon: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΣΙΔΩ (SNG Spaer 1654, 145/4 B.C.).

24. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia 82 n. 105.

25. IG2 2:960.16 (Theseia), 2314.21 (Panathenaia); IG 11:203A.68 (Delos).

26. Bickerman in Mélanges Dussaud 91–99; Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia 81.

27. F. Millar, PCPS (1983) 55–71.

28. Josephus’s description of the population of Seleukia in AJ 18.372–74 is problematic and has been the subject of much discussion. For example, Oppenheimer claimed (BabJ 221 and n. 52) that at AJ 18.372 Josephus meant by “Greeks” Hellenized natives rather than true, ethnic Greeks, and by “Syrians” non-Hellenized natives. The descendants of the original settlers from Greece and Macedonia, he claimed, were subsumed under the rubric “Macedonian.” Hence, according to Oppenheimer, the major part of the population of Seleukeia was composed of Hellenized Babylonians. However, Josephus says quite explicitly that for a long time there had been bitter antagonism between the Greeks and the Syrians. In Oppenheimer’s interpretation this would presumably mean between the Syrians and the Hellenized Syrians. I confess to being somewhat uncomfortable with Oppenheimer’s suggestion.

In fact, Oppenheimer points out that in his description of Caesarea Maritima Josephus apparently used the terms “Greek” and “Syrian” interchangeably (BabJ 221 n. 52) and that he described various Palestinian—i.e., native—cities (e.g., Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos) as “Greek” cities (AJ 1.144). As regards Seleukeia, Cassius Dio explicitly says that in the midfirst century B.C. Crassus expected that he would easily win over its inhabitants because they were Greeks (προσποιήσεσθαι γάρ σφας ἅτε καὶ ῞Ελληνας ῥᾳδίως ἤλπιζεν, 40.20), and that in his day (late second/early third century A.D.) it still had a mainly Greek population (πλεῖστον τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ νῦν ἔχουσα, 40.16); note, incidentally, the similarity in wording that Cassius Dio (πλεῖστον τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν) and Josephus (πλεῖστοι δὲ ῞Ελληνες) use to describe the community of Greeks in Seleukeia. Furthermore, the distinction between “Greek” and “Macedonian” continued for some time. For example, Isidore of Charax (1), writing at the end of the first century B.C., described Doura as a Macedonian foundation that was called EURO POS by the Greeks (see also Joseph. AJ 12.119). Oppenheimer is also undoubtedly correct when he suggests that by the first century A.D. many Syrians had been assimilated through intermarriage and acculturation into the Greek and Macedonian communities of Seleukeia. Nevertheless, it appears that when Josephus says there were Macedonians, Greeks, and Syrians living in Seleukeia he was making a (primarily) demographic rather than a cultural or linguistic observation; see also T. Spawforth (in Greeks on Greekness 4 and n. 13), who correctly emphasized that in describing the population makeup of Seleukeia, Josephus used the present tense in order to describe the situation in the first century A.D. The difficulty is that Josephus is not always consistent in his application of ethnic terms—a reflection, perhaps, of the common usage at the time (see, again, Spawforth [in Greeks on Greekness 3–4], who correctly noted the difficulty of understanding precisely what Josephus meant by the term “Macedonian” when used in a nonmilitary context). Put another way, Oppenheimer is quite precise in his interpretation of the three population groups articulated by Josephus at AJ 18.372–74; it is not clear, however, if Josephus was equally precise. Finally, I would note, for example, that elsewhere (AJ 1.144) Josephus mentions “the Aramaeans, whom the Greeks term Syrians” (trans. St. J. Thackeray; see Feldman in Josephus Commentary 3:51). There, at least, we see no reference to the degree of Hellenization or non-Hellenization of the population.

In general, see the discussions of Oppenheimer (BabJ 220–21) and D. Goodblatt (JAOS 107 [1987] 605–22) and the literature cited in each, as well as SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, n. 14.

29. See H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus (Cambridge and London, 1978) 4:636–37.

30. The literature on ethnic designations in Ptolemaic Egypt is extensive. See, for example, E. Bickerman, Archiv 8 (1927) 216–39; Méleze-Modrzejewski in Essays Welles 148; id., REG 96 (1983) 241–68; id. in Mneme Petropoulos 1:62; id. in Symposion 1982 241–80; Goudriaan, Ptolemaic Egypt; Bilde et al. in Hellenistic Egypt; Thompson in Greek Ethnicity 301–19.

31. Bagnall in Bierbrier, Portraits and Masks 7.

32. C. Ord. Ptol. 53.168–69, 207–20; see also P. Magd. 32.3–4 = P. Ent. 22 (219 B.C.).

33. Galen, De Sanitate tuenda 1.10.17 [VI.51] ( = Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.4.2, ed. Koch), who lived in the second century A.D., divided humanity into barbarians, Greeks, and people who had adopted Greek ways. With the latter category compare P. Col. Zen. 66.21, which records the complaint of a non-Greek (possibly an Arab) in 256 or 255 B.C. that he had been badly treated because he did not know how “to act like a Greek.”

34. E.g., Clarysse in Pap. Cong. XX 193–203 on CPR XIII 4.109–98 (Jews counted as “Hellenes”) and 4.110, 113 (Thracians counted as “Hellenes”); on “tax-Hellenes” see also Thompson in Multi-Cultural Society 326; id. in Hellenistic Constructs 247–48; id. in Greek Ethnicity 310–11. In CPJ 33, which relates to tax collection, Hellenes are opposed to Jews rather than Egyptians, the only extant example of such a distinction; see also Méleze-Modrzejewski, REG 96 (1983) 267 n. 113.

35. E.g., C. Ord. Ptol. 53.207–20.

36. E.g., C. Ord. Ptol. 53.169 = P. Tebt. 5.

37. E.g., P. Amh. 40.7–8 (second century B.C.); see also Méleze-Modrzejewski, REG 96 (1983) 267–68; Thompson in Greek Ethnicity 304–12.

38. See Bagnall in Bierbrier, Portraits and Masks 7–15; cf. Cassius Dio, who says that, when dealing with the cities of Ephesos and Nikaia, Augustus distinguished between the Romans and the “xenoi whom he called Hellenes” (τοῖς δὲ δὴ ξένοις, Ἕλληνάς σφας ἐπικαλέσας, 51.20.7).

39. See H. Windisch in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972) s.v. “Hellen.”

40. See also Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew . . . ”; and 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For by one spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free . . . ”.

41. G. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1990) 9.

42. See the useful discussions of Windisch in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament s.v. “Hellen”; and L. Morris in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia s.v. “Hellenist.”

43. In contrast to the usage of the term in the Jewish/early Christian world of the first century A.D., Strabo appears to mean “ethnic Greek” when he uses the term “Greek” at 6.1.2 and 10.3.9. This is apparently also the meaning at 14.5.25, where he is discussing the tribes of Asia Minor and affirms the old Hellenic dichotomy that the world was made up of Greeks and barbarians. The context—he is discussing the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians— indicates he is using the term “Greek” in the ethnic rather than the cultural sense. I have already mentioned that at 11.13.6 Strabo specifically says that Rhagai, [Herakleia], Apameia, and Laodikeia were “Greek cities founded by the Macedonians.” Does Strabo here mean “Greek” in the ethnic rather than the “cultural” sense?

44. See, for example, J. M. Hall, Hellenicity 224; Said in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity 290.

45. See, for example, 12.27, 33; 32.40; and Bowie in Hellenismos 195–203; Saïd in Greek Ethnicity 286–94; J. M. Hall, Hellenicity 224–26.

46. See, for example, J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity 1–3.

47. See, for example, Spawforth in Greeks on Greekness 3.

48. Soncino ed., trans. L. Jung.

49. For Babylon in Egypt see, for example, Joseph. AJ 2.315; Strabo 17.1.30; Diod. 1.56.3; for additional literary citations and numerous papyrological references see Dizionario s.v. “Babylon” and Supplements; see also G. T. Manley, Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944) 138–46. Note, too, that in the early church “Babylon” was frequently used in a number of different symbolic senses; see, for example, Watson, ABD s.v. “Babylon.”

50. See G. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502–532 (Leeds, 1998) 201 n. 24; H. Elton in Mitchell and Greatrex, Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity 293–307.

51. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 40–42, 86–89, 151–52, 348–49.

52. Cited in Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 25 n. 49 (personal communication to the author).

53. Black Sea 181.

54. Cohen, Settlements in Europe 56.

55. See, for example, “Aeolian”: Strabo 12.3.27; 13.1.6, 46, 49, 58; 3.5, 6; 14.1.39; “Ionian”: 12.3.21; 14.1.27; “Pamphylian”: 12.7.1; “Pisidian”: 13.4.16; see also “Syrian”: 14.5.25; “Thracian”: 14.1.30.