Ptolemaïs-Named Settlements of Hellenistic Egypt:

A Contextual Approach**
EL-SAYED M. GAD
Tanta University, Egypt

Introduction:
Long before Alexander the Great began his campaigns against the
Persian empire in 334 BC, Greek colonies were known around the coast of
the Mediterranean and in various parts of the ancient Near East. 1 Speaking
specifically about ancient Egypt, the Greek city of Naukratis, for example, was
founded by merchants from Ionia and elsewhere around the middle of the
seventh century BC, or early in the sixth.2 Greek colonization of the ancient
near east took, however, different trends after the fall of the Persian Empire
and its conquest by Alexander. We can speak then about 'floods' of Greek
immigrants who were attracted to the newly conquered lands and, instead of
referring to a few settlements scattered sporadically here and there, we begin
to speak about Greek Hellenistic kingdoms controlling the areas previously
held by the Persian king.3 Alexander himself set an example for his followers
by founding many Greek cities to which he gave his name. From Alexandria
ad Aegyptum in the west to Alexandria eschate in Tadzhikistan in Central Asia,
we can probably count some eighteen known cities connected with him in
name.4 The foundation of these cities was always subject to careful
**
I would like to express my gratitude for professor Willy Clarysse for his knowledgeable
and enjoyable discussions over the two days of the symposium and for sending me a
copy of Katja Mueller's thesis. Professor Dorothy Thompson's authoritative comments
and thorough reading of this paper have saved me from many mistakes and made it
legible. Needless to mention, however, that any remaining mistakes are mine. I also
thank my friend and colleague, professor Al-Amin Abouseada, for introducing me to the
IFAO and for his sincere and enthusiastic assistance. Thanks are due too to Claire
Somaligno, Sylvain Dennin and to the administration of the IFAO in Cairo for their
warm welcome and hospitality.
1
J. BOARDMAN, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, New York, 1980. See
also the classical authoritative studies of A.J. GRAHAM, Colony and Mother City in Ancient
Greece, Manchester, 1999 and idem, Collected Papers on Greek Colonization, Leiden, 2001.
2
P. JAMES, "Naukratis Revisited" Hyperboreus: Studia Classica 9:2, 2003, pp. 235-264.
3
The standard modern studies of these settlements are now: R.A. BILLOWS, Kings and
Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden, 1995; G.M. COHEN, The Seleucid
Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization, Historia Einzelschriften Heft 30,
1978; idem, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor, Oxford, 1995;
idem, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 2006 and K. MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New
Settlements in the Hellenistic World, Studia Hellenistica 43, Leuven, 2006, to which this paper is
particularly endebted.
4
If not more; P.M. FRASER, The Cities of Alexander, Oxford, 1996, pp. 1-2. See also his
reference to the two cities added by Stephanus, and to the ancient testimonia.
 2

considerations of geographic, economic and military conditions.5 But, it also

remains true that they all had the name of their founder as a testimony to his
authority for his contemporaries and subjects, and as a witness to his
achievements for future generations.6 Alexander's model as a founder of cities
was later followed by the rulers of the Hellenistic kingdoms, no less than
other models of his kingship.
This paper aims to study the settlements which were founded by the
Ptolemies and which were given the name of Ptolemaïs. It attempts to explain
the significance of their toponomy and landscape within the context of the
historical developments of the Hellenistic age. It argues that although the
toponomy of each individual Ptolemaïs has its own story, we can generally
distinguish between the settlements lying within the core area of the Ptolemaic
regime and those lying within its sphere of influence.7 The dividing line
between these two spaces might not have always been clear-cut or stable, nor
were the boundaries of each individual landscape the same during the period
under study; but the nature of the power exercised within each realm was
necessarily different. With this contextual approach in mind, I shall begin by
giving brief definitions of the terminology used in this study, followed by an
outline of the history of each settlement. Finally, I will move to discuss the
significance of these foundations as manifestations of Ptolemaic power in the
Hellenistic world.
- Definitions:
As the title of this article indicates, the historical context of this paper is
'Hellenistic' Egypt. In itself, the word 'Hellenistic' needs to be considered,
even if it does not need an actual explanation.8 But the problem of defining
this term becomes clearer, as far as the topic of this paper is concerned, when
we try to substitute the word 'Ptolemaic' for 'Hellenistic'. Then, it becomes
clear that the time span of the two terms can sometimes be identical so much
so that they can be used interchangeably. It also becomes evident that the
term 'Hellenistic' brings with it a whole array of connotations which greatly
exceed the basically political definition implied in the word 'Ptolemaic,' with
its emphasis on the ruling power in Egypt during the last three centuries B.C.9
5
F.W. WALBANK, The Hellenistic World, revised edition, London, 1981, p. 43 and P.
GREEN, Alexander of Macedon 356-323B.C., A Historical Biography, Berkeley, 1991, pp. 337,
350-351.
6
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 19: "The use of this toponym [Alexandria]
was a master stroke of propaganda…."
7
For the space and meaning of these two terms, see the last section of this paper.
8
N. LEWIS, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World,
Oxford, 1986, p. 1-2.
9
Cf. the tendency of the French scholars to refer to the rule of the sons of Lagos as, for
example, J. LESQUIER, Les Institutions Militaires de l'Egypte sous les Lagides, Cisalpino-
Goliardica, 1973.
 3

The meaning of the term 'Hellenistic' is in fact well illustrated by Naphtali

Lewis in his description of the centuries which followed Alexander's
conquests. Geographically, and in addition to Greece proper and to the
Aegean islands, the 'Hellenistic' world encompasses the 'New World' of the
eastern Mediterranean. Politically, it mostly refers to new Greek kingdoms
ruling this new world and, in particular, the world of three main competing
ones, the Antigonid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms. Culturally, it witnessed
a "rush of immigrants" to those areas in which they settled next to their local
inhabitants and an unprecedented royal patronage of arts and sciences. 10 All
these geographical, political and cultural spaces define the term 'Hellenistic' in
this study and draw the background against which 'Ptolemaic' Egypt can be
viewed.11
Then we come to the meaning of 'settlement'. Almost seven years ago,
Katja Mueller entitled her authoritative study of Ptolemaic settlements:
Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundation and New Settlements in the Hellenistic
World.12 In doing so, she was following a new tradition which began towards
the end of the last century. Nothing illustrates this shift in the terminology
used to describe these foundations more vividly than the names of the two
studies made by Getzel Cohen in 1978 and in 1995. While the title of the first
reads: The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization, in
the case of the second, it is: The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and
Asia Minor.13 This new trend obviously represents a departure from the
terminology used by previous scholars in studying similar foundations of the
Greeks in the archaic and classical eras who usually tended to refer to
'colonies' and a movement of 'colonization.'14 Arguing that it is better to
follow the new trend in the context of studying the cities founded by the
Ptolemies, I shall here use the term 'settlements.' The old terminology implies
a whole set of different relationships and interactions both vertically, between
the settlements and their founders, and horizontally between the settlements
themselves and their surroundings.15
But, what do we really mean by 'settlement'? Here again the subtitle of
Mueller's study provides us with an outline for the definition which combines,

10
LEWIS, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 3.
11
It is interesting to note here the tendency of scholars to refer to Greek and Roman
Egypt, and to Roman Egypt, but when it comes specifically to the period following the
conquest of Alexander, there is always the choice between 'Hellenistic Egypt' and
'Ptolemaic Egypt.'
12
See note 3 above.
13
See note 3 above. See also in the same note the full citation to his latest study entitled:
The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, The Red Sea Basin, and North Africa.
14
See note 1 above.
15
Cf. COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 50-51, who traces the question of
definition beginning with Droysen.
 4

in this case, three important elements.16 It includes cities as well as other

forms of foundations which may not have had the traditional institutions of
Greek poleis. In terms of size, they could have been smaller, villages for
example; or larger cities, metropoleis. Typologically, these settlements could
have been completely new, newly refounded, or, as far as our topic is
concerned, simply renamed. The term 'settlement,' therefore, proves to be
more helpful in studying Hellenistic foundations since it encompasses a wide
range of topoi differing in size, form and type. It, furthermore, helps us to
avoid all the connotations associated with the term 'colony'.17
- Settlements of Ptolemaïs:
We have, altogether, nineteen settlements which were named Ptolemaïs
in the Hellenistic age. Eleven of these settlements were located in Egypt, eight
outside it.18 Our information about them does vary geographically and
chronologically. Sometimes, we have only casual references to a settlement
and more often than not we do not know the exact location of a particular
Ptolemaïs. In the following paragraphs I shall give a brief chronological
summary of the available information on these settlements, beginning with the
most ancient city which was, logically enough, in Egypt proper.
After Ptolemy I came to Egypt as a satrap, following Alexander's death
in June 323 B.C., he founded a new city in the upper part of the country. Like
Alexander before him, and according to what was to become a Hellenistic
royal practice, he gave this city the feminine form of his name, Ptolemaïs,
which he also gave to one of his future daughters from his wife Eurydike. 19
Scholars agree that the city had the usual institutions of the Greek polis, from
the date of its foundation. It has been described as a "full Greek city",20 and
Ptolemaïs and Alexandria have together been described as "certainly Greek-
style poleis."21 These modern descriptions are based on ancient testimony.

16
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 55 where she stresses the diversity of settlement
patterns.
17
This is not to say, however, that the imperial implications were always or completely
absent from the seemingly neutral term of settlement. Indeed, the two terms can be
used interchangeably and they do overlap in some cases.
18
I follow here the number given by MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 206-209, who,
however, discards two 'uncertain' settlements. Cf. the list found in:
<www.trismegistos.org>
19
R.A. HAZZARD, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda, Toronto, 2000, p.
102, 181. She was betrothed to Demetrios Poliorketes in 301 and her marriage was
probably consummated in 287 BC.
20
D.J. THOMPSON, "The Ptolemies and Egypt", in Andrew Erskine (ed.), A Companion to
the Hellenistic World, Malden, MA, 2005, p.106. See also G. HÖLBL, A History of the
Ptolemaic Empire, trans. by TINA SAAVEDRA, London, 2001, p. 26: "[Ptolemaïs], from a
legal point of view, was one of the three Greek cities in Hellenistic Egypt."
21
J.G. MANNING, The Last Pharoahs: Egypt Under the Ptolemies 305-30BC, Princeton, 2010, p.
 5

Towards the end of the first century, Strabo (17.1.42) stated that Ptolemaïs
had "a political system corresponding to the Greek manner" and inscriptions
and papyrological evidence confirm the point.22 It has even been suggested
that its citizens, together with the citizens of Alexandria, had the ability to
administer their political life freely.23
While the attribution of this settlement to Ptolemy I is fairly certain, the
date of its foundation seems to be more problematic. Hölbl, 24 Cohen25 and
Ellis26 were content to refer to Ptolemy I as its founder. Earlier, Turner
suggested that it was founded some time before 311 B.C., on the basis of the
earliest Greek marriage contract found at Elephantine.27 The period of the
foundation has, however, been more recently narrowed down by Mueller who
suggested that it took place sometime before Ptolemy transferred his
residence from Memphis, "whilst he was still busy readying Alexandria to
become the capital of his realm."28 The same view is expressed by Manning
who sees the foundation of the city within a larger program of new
settlements and takes it as an expression of Ptolemy's intentions to rule the
country right from the beginning.29 Since the satrap stele, which was set up in
316 B.C., mentions that Ptolemy was then staying in Alexandria, the
foundation of the first city to bear the name of Ptolemaïs could have taken
place, according to Mueller's argument, anytime between 323 and 316 B.C.
Without suggesting any specific year, Manning contends that the foundation
of the city was "an important first step in establishing political authority [of
Ptolemy I] in Upper Egypt."30
In line with these last two views, it may even be suggested that the
foundation of the first city with the name of Ptolemaïs took place just some
years after Ptolemy's arrival in 323 B.C. While it is well beyond our abilities to
determine his intentions in the early stages of his rule, it is quite certain that
Ptolemy showed a determined will to maintain "power and independence" in
the face of attempts to interfere in his internal affairs.31 Power to control

53.
22
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207 #64; MANNING, The Last Pharoahs, p. 106-113;
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 350-352.
23
W. HUSS, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit: 332-30 v. Chr., München, 2001, p. 223-224.
24
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 26.
25
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 350-352.
26
W.M. ELLIS, Ptolemy of Egypt, London, 1994, p. 11, 62..
27
In The Cambridge Ancient History, 7.1, p. 124, 127; where he refers to P. Eleph. 1.
28
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 16.
29
MANNING, The Last Pharoahs, p. 46. See also F. FÈVRE, Ptolémée Ier: Le Pharaon
D'Alexandrie, Paris, 1997, 41: "Ptolémée avait eu la tentation de diriger l'Egypte depuis
Alexandre."
30
MANNING The Last Pharoahs, p. 106. [Emphasis added].
31
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 15.
 6

Egypt could obviously be achieved both materially and symbolically and it was
possible to achieve both goals simultaneously by settling a garrison and some
settlers in a newly founded city which bore the name of the new ruler.32
Moreover, the choice of the location of this Greek settlement close to the
ancient Egyptian city of Thebes, which was necessarily dictated by a practical
consideration of the conditions of Egypt, perhaps lends more weight to the
view of an early date for the foundation.33 The country was traditionally
divided both administratively and geographically into two main regions, and
Ptolemy must have acquired a good knowledge of these conditions and of the
importance of having another Greek city in the south to help him control it.34
The step might have been made essential by the campaigns he intended to
embark on outside Egypt in Cyrene and Syria and could be linked to
Ptolemy's disposal of Cleomenes, which took place around 322/1 B.C.35 In
fact, a date for the foundation of Ptolemaïs might, therefore, be narrowed
down still further to Ptolemy's first two years in Egypt. Its nomenclature was
certainly meant to send a message to the inhabitants of the country, natives
and Greeks alike, and to those outside Egypt. It may thus be considered a sign
of Ptolemy's intentions in the years to follow.
It was probably around this time that another city with the name of
Ptolemaïs was also founded in Cyrene near the ancient city of Barke. 36
Ptolemy's meddling in the area began soon after his arrival to Egypt, when
some members from the Cyrenean aristocracy sought his help, and these
circumstances gave him the chance to pose himself as a patron of the region.
The importance of Cyrene as a western gate for Egypt, as well as its resources,
must already have been made clear to him when his general, Alexander the
Great, had met a delegation from Cyrene bringing expensive gifts at
Paraetonium, together with an offer of a treaty of friendship, during his visit
to Siwa.37 Diodorus (18.21.6-9) tells us that Ptolemy later sent a general
named Ophellas to help the aristocratic party in Cyrene and after Ophellas
had succeeded in his mission he was appointed as governor for the region

32
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 3, where she notes the symbolic value of dynastic
names. See below on the other settlements of Ptolemy I.
33
The city was known as the Ptolemaïs [which lies] in the Thebaid region; see Strabo,
17.1.42: "Then one comes to the city of Ptolemaïs, which is the largest of the cities in the
Thebaid, is no smaller than Memphis, and also has a form of government modeled on
that of the Greeks."
34
ELLIS, Ptolemy of Egypt, p. 62 notes: "Alexandria dominated Lower Egypt. Ptolemais was
created in order to maintain a Macedonian presence in Upper Egypt."
35
ELLIS, Ptolemy of Egypt, pp. 13, 28 and 67 (for the date of Cleomenes' death); FÈVRE,
Ptolémée Ier: Le Pharaon D'Alexandrie, p. 49 where he comments also that he posed himself
then as a traditional Greek tyrant.
36
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, pp. 393-396 with the literature cited.
37
Diodorus, 17.49.2; GREEN, Alexander of Macedon 356-323B.C., p. 274 with note 63 on p.
542.
 7

which then came under Ptolemaic sovereignty (Ptolemaïkê basileia).38

The date of the foundation of this Cyrenean settlement has also been
the subject of discussion. Some scholars attribute it to the first Ptolemy while
others attribute it to the third. Lately, Cohen has gone so far as to suggest
Ptolemy Philadelphus as the founder of the city, observing that he began to
establish political relationships with the ruling powers to the west of the
Mediterranean.39 It is more probable, however, that the founder of the city
was Ptolemy I, as Mueller suggests in her study which, incidentally, came out
in the same year as Cohen's. She observes that Ptolemy I "had a motive and
ambition in founding the city of Ptolemais as early as the end of the fourth
century BC."40 More recently, Manning has noted that the "Constitution of
Cyrene" concerns the formation of a citizen body in the city at an early stage
of the Ptolemaic influence in the region.41 Considering the date of the
inscription which records this constitution (322/1 B.C.),42 it may also be
suggested that the foundation of Ptolemaïs near Barke was within a short
interval after, if not contemporaneous with, the foundation of the first
Ptolemaïs in the Thebaid.
Whether the initiative to found the city and give it the name of
Ptolemaïs came directly from Ophellas or he was simply acting under the
instructions of his general may be difficult to determine, but the significance
of the name as a sign of Ptolemaic authority over the region was more than
clear. The Cyreneans were quick to revolt against the new authority of
Ptolemy who did not hesitate to make his hold perceived much stronger than
before.43 The foundation of this Ptolemaïs near Barke was destined to mark
the western frontiers of Ptolemaic realm in the years to come until the whole
region was bequeathed by Ptolemy Apion to the Romans in 96 B.C. Yet, it is
interesting to note that of all the settlements which carried the name of
Ptolemaïs in the Hellenistic age, the present name of this particular
foundation, Tolmeita, still bears some resemblance to its ancient one.
From the reign of Ptolemy II, we can refer to many Ptolemaic
settlements with the toponym Ptolemaïs, in addition to many others which
had other dynastic names of the female members of the ruling family. 44 It is
38
See also on the events, HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 14; HUSS, Ägypten in
hellenistischer Zeit, pp. 98-99.
39
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 395 n. 5 where he refers to previous
discussions.
40
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 145.
41
MANNING, The Last Pharoahs, p. 110; for the full text of the constitution, see M. M.
AUSTEN, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, 2nd edition, Cambridge,
2006, # 29.
42
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 15.
43
Diodorus, 19.79.1-3. HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 18.
44
Cf., however, MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 141.
 8

also during the reign of this king that the repetition of the name of Ptolemaïs
and some other dynastic names which were given to new (or newly
refounded) settlements made it necessary to distinguish between them by the
addition of some geographical or ethnic signifiers or determinants. 45 Thus, the
settlement of Ptolemaïs which was founded by a certain Eumedes (Strabo,
16.4.7), whom Ptolemy II sent on an expedition to explore the south-western
coast of the Red Sea, was later called: Ptolemaïs tôn Therôn (i.e. Ptolemaïs of the
animals). Although the exact location of this settlement has not yet been
discovered or excavated, the tendency is to place it near modern Aqiq in
Eretrea.46 As such, it represents the most southern area in which the
Ptolemies could establish a settlement. The deliberate choice of the name as a
sign of Ptolemaic sovereignty over the area is well illustrated by the nearly
contemporary evidence of Pithom stele which states that the mission sent by
Ptolemy II "built a great city to the king with the illustrious name of the
king."47 Needless to say this distant settlement did not grow up to become a
city; it mainly served as an emporium and a base for hunting elephants for a
short period of time.48
Moreover, it is important to closely consider the wording of the text of
Pithom stele since it sheds some light on the connotations of the toponym of
the newly founded city, as it was perceived then by the Egyptians.49 The
foundation of a new city bearing the name of Ptolemaïs is taken for granted
here as a sign of the glory of the king who happened in this case to be the
second Ptolemaic king. Since Ptolemy Philadelphus had, however, the same
name as his father, it must have also become clear by then for the Greeks that
the choice of the name was probably meant to have a double entendre, meaning
that it was simultaneously intended to exhibit the authority of the ruling
Ptolemy who was closely connected with the foundation, and to refer to the
authority of the Ptolemaic dynasty as a whole.50

45
FRASER, The Cities of Alexander, p. 46, notes the differences between the Seleucid new
foundations in the east and the Ptolemaic: "Ptolemaic metonomases, largely but not
entirely, confined to the reigns of Philadelphus and Euergetes and to the Aegean and
coastal empire of the Ptolemies…. The new Ptolemaises, Berenikes and Arsinoes, were
metonomasies of old Greek cities…."
46
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 56; MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 208
#70.
47
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 341.
48
AGATHARCHIDES OF CNIDUS, On the Erythraean Sea, translated and edited by STANLEY M.
BURSTEIN, London, 1989, p. 144 n. 2. See also STANLEY M. BURSTEIN, "Elephants for
Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic Policy in Nubia in the Third Century B.C.", in Paul McKechnie
and Philippe Guillaume (ed.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Leiden, 2008, pp. 142,
144.
49
Also quoted in: BURSTEIN, "Elephants for Ptolemy II", p. 142.
50
Cf. A. KINDLER, "Akko, A City of Many Names", ASOR 231, 1978, p. 51: "Antiochus
IV… founded new cities and also refounded certain old cities of importance, all of
 9

This point probably became even more apparent in the case of the city
of Ptolemaïs which was located in Phoenicia. In this case, Ptolemy II gave his
name to an ancient location which formerly had the name of Ake (Akko), 51
but his role was not limited to renaming it. It is evident from the
archaeological remains that he refounded and expanded the settlement which
was previously confined to the Acropolis. The location of Ake must have
attracted the attention of Ptolemy II for various reasons; it was an important
trading center, provided a haven for Ptolemaic ships and a military station to
maintain Ptolemaic control of Coele Syria.52 The value of the new name
which was given to this city, as a symbol of Ptolemaic power, can be best
appreciated by noticing the new toponym which it was granted in the second
century B.C. after it had come under the authority of the Seleucids. The
toponym was then changed to Antiochia to refer to the new ruling power over
the area.53 It is quite difficult to determine how widespread the name
Ptolemaïs was in the following centuries, particularly outside the realm of the
Ptolemies. Ptolemaic sources continued to refer to it as Ptolemaïs.54 Towards
the end of the first century B.C., almost a century and a half after giving it the
name of Antiochia, Strabo (16.2.25) referred to it as Ptolemaïs which was
formerly known as Ake, and the name "survived into the Roman period, at
least to the early 5th century A.D."55 However, the local ancient name of the
city proved to be more persistent than Hellenistic dynastic toponyms, as may
be judged from the present name of city. As is the case with the previous
settlements, no definite date is assigned to the refoundation of Ptolemaïs of
Phoenicia by Ptolemy Philadelphus, but it may be safely assumed that it was
refounded early in his reign and took several years before it became an
important city in the region.
The toponym Ptolemaïs was also given to some cities in Asia Minor
and in Greece itself. Four of these cities were located in Asia Minor and
references to them are rare and postdate their foundation or acquiring the
name. Tracing them from south to north, we first have a Ptolemaïs on the
borders of Pamphylia on the southern shore of the peninsula (Strabo,
14.4.2).56 Very little is known about this settlement other than its name.
Cohen suggests that it was founded by Ptolemy II who was "particularly active
establishing colonies along the southern coast of Asia Minor and on

which he named 'Antiochia' after his father or himself." [Emphasis added]. I prefer to look at
the point differently in the case of the Ptolemies; it was not rather a case of either…or.
The play on the homonym was intended to fuse together the father and the son.
51
KINDLER, "Akko, A City of Many Names", p. 51.
52
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 60.
53
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, p. 213.
54
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207 #61.
55
KINDLER, "Akko, A City of Many Names", p. 51.
56
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207 #60.
 10

Cyprus."57 According to Bagnall, Philadelphus' interest in the area began early

in his reign and the Ptolemaic rule of Pamphylia appears to have included
several other places "at various times."58 Moving further north, we have the
city of Ptolemaïs which was located in Caria. This was first attested late in the
third century B.C.59 As is the case with the previous city, we do not know its
founder nor when it was founded. However, it is tempting also here to follow
Cohen in his suggestion that this settlement too can be attributed to
Philadelphus "inasmuch as [he] was active in the interior of Caria and
elsewhere along the southern shore of Asia Minor."60 This view is further
confirmed by Bagnall who refers to "widespread" conquests in Caria
particularly during the early part of Ptolemy II's reign.61
The third city with the name of Ptolemaïs in Asia Minor was located in
Ionia. Although the evidence for renaming the city mainly comes from
numismatics and inscriptions, it is quite certain that it was not a new
foundation. Rather, it was a well established city known earlier by the name of
Lebedos, and it is likely that it acquired its new name towards the end of the
third century.62 However, the duration of the new name was a short one,63
and the ancient name always coexisted with the new, as may be understood
from the reference in an inscription to the "Ptolemaians who were previously
called Lebedians."64 Again, nothing illustrates better the scarcity of
information on this settlement than Cohen's comments: "There is at present
no extant evidence to pinpoint when the name Ptolemais was first imposed.
Furthermore we do not know when the Ptolemies first got control of Lebedos
nor if possession was continuous until the end of the third century…. And
inasmuch as Ptolemy II Philadelphus lost control of Ionia during the Second
Syrian War, it is probable that Ptolemy Euergetes I, who reconquered
southern Ionia during the Third Syrian War, was the founder rather than his
father."65 We do not need to repeat here that the ambiguity which surrounds
the particular Ptolemy who gave his dynastic name to the Lebedos also
engulfs the duration of Ptolemaic authority over the city as well as the nature
of this authority.66
The last city which had the toponym Ptolemaïs that we know of in Asia

57
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 339.
58
R.S. BAGNALL, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, Leiden, 1976, p. 114.
59
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207 #59.
60
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, pp. 263-264.
61
BAGNALL, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions, p. 94.
62
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 206 #57.
63
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 189.
64
I. Mag. 53, ll. 79-80 (quoted in COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 189).
65
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 189.
66
BAGNALL, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions, p. 169-170.
 11

Minor is Larisa in the Troad region.67 It had the name for a short period of
time in the decades following the Third Syrian War, when the Ptolemies
probably had some control in the Hellespontine region.68 The only reference
to this city is conjectured on the basis of coins, and historical references to
Ptolemaic authority over the area are rather general in nature. 69 The
phenomenon of changing names of cities Greek and Aegean cities with
Ptolemaic dynastic names was closely connected with Ptolemaic military
prominence in the area, as may be also seen during the 260s B.C. when several
cities had their names changed to Arsinoe to commemorate Arsinoe II.70 It is
quite certain, however, that by the reign of Ptolemy IV the Ptolemies had no
influence in the region.71
Finally, we come to the last and farthest city with the toponym
Ptolemaïs, lying to the north of Egypt. It was located in Aetolia in mainland
Greece and the name was also given, in this case, to an already established
city.72 The only reference to the name comes from a Delphic inscription
dating to the end of the third century B.C. which refers to the sacred secretary
(hieromnemon) of Aetolia to the Amphictyonic council with the ethnic attribution
"Ptolemaieus".73 The evidence for the existence of the settlement depends
therefore on inference. But it is supported by other testimonia which indicate
that Ptolemy III allied himself with the Aetolians and the Athenians and
assisted them in their war against Macedonia. 74 In fact, the new name of the
settlement may be understood as a sign of recognition and gratitude on the
part of the Aetolians in view of the help given to them by the Ptolemaic king.
It is also of particular importance since the initiative to rename it came from
the natives themselves and was not imposed on them by any external force.
Around the same time and probably for the same reasons, the Athenians
acted similarly.75
With this reference to Ptolemaïs in Aetolia we complete the group or
circle of these homonymous settlements outside Egypt. As we have seen, our

67
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207 #58.
68
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 157.
69
See the detailed discussion of this point in COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p.
158 n. 2 and 3.
70
L. LEFEBVRE, "Les Arsinoè de la Grèce continentale et insulaire au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.:
Un exemple de Métonomasie", ENIM 5, 2012, p. 10 (on Methana in Argolis).
71
BAGNALL, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions, p. 159-162.
72
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 206 #56. Cf. HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic
Empire, p. 52: "It may be that the city of Ptolemais in Aetolia came into existence at this
time."
73
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 118 with note 1.
74
Polybius, 5.106.6-8.
75
See CHR. HABICHT, "Athens and the Ptolemies", Classical Antiquity 11, 1992, p. 74. The
reference here is clearly to Ptolemy Euergetes I and to his queen Berenike III.
 12

information about them does vary considerably. Still, even in the case of the
settlements about which we know very little, the toponym proves to be of
special significance to our understanding of Ptolemaic authority and control. I
shall come to the point in detail in the final section of the paper, but it is
worthwhile noting three important points here. The first concerns the
geographical location of these settlements: they all define the provincial
borders of Ptolemaic influence and authority. The second is chronological:
they indicate the points of time at which this authority was at its peak. The
third point to observe is that the settlements with the name of Ptolemaïs
represent only one group of Ptolemaic dynastic settlements and any
conclusions about them can be further supported by the other dynastic
settlements bearing names particularly of the female members of the dynasty
or their titles.76
As for the settlements of Ptolemaïs inside Egypt, it may be
remembered that reference has already been made to the earliest and most
important settlement founded by Ptolemy I in the Thebaid. There are
altogether ten more settlements with the dynastic toponym of Ptolemaïs
within the country.77 It lies beyond the scope of this paper to discuss them all
in detail, particularly since full references to them and to previous treatments
of the topic may be found in Mueller's recent study.78 The magisterial
of Trismegistos, furthermore, contains some useful articles on the settlements
which are documented well enough to allow for such attempts. 79 I shall
confine myself here to some observations about these settlements.
I begin with the founder(s) and the dates of foundation of these
settlements. Unlike some other dynastic settlements bearing the names of
Ptolemaic queens, the settlements of Ptolemaïs present us with some difficulty
since all fourteen kings of the Ptolemaic dynasty had the same name of
Ptolemy. Practically, however, most of these settlements belong to the reign

76
See, most recently, LEFEBVRE, "Les Arsinoè de la Grèce continentale et insulaire", p.7-
18.
77
See note 18 above.
78
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 207-209 #63-69, 71-74. Some insightful remarks
may also be found in J.G. MANNING, Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Structure of
Land Tenure 332-30BCE, Cambridge, 2003.
79
Particularly on the villages of Ptolemaïs Arabon and Ptolemaïs Nea (Both were in the
meris of Herakleides in the Fayum region). See also the general article on the Fayum
province by W. CLARYSSE at the same site: <www.trismegistos.org>, and his recent
article W. CLARYSSE, "Toponymy of Fayyum Villages in the Ptolemaic Period," in
MARIO CAPASSO, PAOLA DAVOLI (eds.), New Archaeological and Papyrological Researches on
the Fayyum = Papyrologica Lupiensia, 14/2005, (Galatina, 2007), pp. 67-81. Cf. the
sporadic references to some of these settlements in MICHAEL ROSTOVTZEFF, A Large
Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C.: A Study in Economic History, Madison, 1922, p. 64
on Ptolemaïs Drymou, p. 105 on Ptolemaïs Melissourgon, p. 168 on Ptolemaïs Hormou
and p. 176 on Ptolemaïs in the meris of Themistos.
 13

of the first or the second king. To be more accurate, we need some other
criteria to identify the king who was immediately connected with the
foundation and in most cases these criteria are lacking. Luckily, some of these
settlements were located in the Fayum province which witnessed a huge
reclamation program and became a "new garden province for Egypt" early in
the Hellenistic period.80 Since the province was renamed after Ptolemy
Philadelphus' sister and wife, Arsinoe II, immediately after her death in 270
B.C., and since many villages in the region were also given her name, 81 it may
well be suggested that some of the settlements with the name of Ptolemaïs
were also founded early during his reign. Mueller has even argued that most of
the settlements may be traced to the reign of his father. 82 Her view seems
likely since it was Ptolemy I who first invented the policy of granting land
allotments (kleroi) to his mercenaries to secure their loyalty towards him
(Diod.19.85.4, 20.47.4). However, the point cannot be demonstrated by
numbers. Lately, Jane Rowlandson has stressed that these mercenaries were
mostly established in the countryside where they lived side by side with the
Egyptians.83 Considering that Ptolemy I gave his name to the city which he
founded in the Thebaid early in his reign, we can fairly assume that the name
was similarly given to some at least of the other new settlements further north
late in the fourth or early in the third centuries.84
Then we come to the epithets which were usually added to distinguish
homonymous settlements. These epithets had geographical, professional,
ethnic (or other, inexplicable85) designations.86 Obviously, the phenomenon
had its practical side, especially when several places had the same toponym in
a rather small locality or in a single nome or province. We are better informed
about the settlements of the Arsinoite nome where eight villages with the
name of Ptolemaïs were located. Two of these villages have epithets indicating
that they were founded later than a preceding homonymous village within the
same district. Although the exact date of the foundation of these two

80
THOMPSON, "The Ptolemies and Egypt", p. 108. See also Manning, Land and Power in
Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 139.
81
THOMPSON, "The Ptolemies and Egypt", p. 108-109; on the cities which were named
after her in Greece and the Aegean, LEFEBVRE, "Les Arsinoè de la Grèce continentale et
insulaire au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.", p. 8-14.
82
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 141.
83
J. ROWLANDSON, "Town and Country in Ptolemaic Egypt", in Andrew Erskine (ed.), A
Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden, MA, 2005, p. 251 with the literature cited;
MANNING, Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 227.
84
W. CLARYSSE, <www.trismegistos.org>
85
As is the case with Ptolemaïs Hermeiou which is also the Ptolemaïs founded in Upper
Egypt, on which see R.S. BAGNALL, "Cults and names of Ptolemais in Upper Egypt", in
Willy Clarysse, Antoon Schoors and Harco Willems (ed.), Egyptian religion. The last
thousand years. Part II. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur, Leuven, 1998, p. 1093.
86
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 34.
 14

settlements cannot be determined with certainty, it is possible to confirm on

the basis of this designation alone that Ptolemaïs 'Nea' undoubtedly postdates
any of its namesake settlements in the meris of Herakleides, Ptolemaïs Arabon
or Ptolemaïs Hormou. The same point applies to Ptolemaïs 'Kaine' which was
located in the same meris of Themistos as Ptolemaïs Drymou.87 In addition to
the preceding 'Nea' and 'Kaine' epithets we encounter some others with
geographical or professional overtones. One Ptolemaïs had the epithet of
'Arabon' which indicates that the village was inhabited by some Arabs, and the
documentary evidence proves this assumption.88 Another village had an
epithet showing that it lies close to the city of Pelusium in the fourteenth
nome of Lower Egypt. A third one in the district of Polemon in the Arsinoite
nome had an epithet indicating that a large number of its inhabitants probably
worked as 'beekeepers': Ptolemaïs Melissourgon.89 Since these epithets appear
in formal documents, their addition was probably the work of administrative
officials who felt the need to distinguish between homonymous settlements
since it was under the auspices of the administration that these villages were
given the name of Ptolemaïs in the first place.
Another point to note is the locations of these villages. Of the eleven
settlements with the toponym Ptolemaïs that we know of in Egypt eight
settlements were in Fayum. The ninth was in Pelusium and the tenth was in
the Oxyrhynchite nome. The final one was the city of Ptolemaïs in the
Thebaid. If we are to judge from surviving texts, the earlier Egyptian names
are known for only five of these settlements. The conclusion is unavoidable:
the new Ptolemaïses covered the countryside, where new immigrants settled
next to the natives, as mentioned before. It is also likely that these new
settlements followed in their plans the grid system already known in
Alexandria and elsewhere in the newly founded cities in the Hellenistic
world.90 But what are we to understand from this geographical distribution of
the settlements? Considering that many, if not most of them, were given this
dynastic name during the reign of the founder of the dynasty, we can easily
detect a conscious step to establish his name as a sign of his ruling power and
to make this power perceived all over the country.
Finally, we come to the form of these settlements. Most of them were

87
ROSTOVTZEFF, A Large Estate, p. 105 who refers to P.Teb. 609; see also CLARYSSE,
"Toponymy of Fayyum Villages", p. 77, 79 where he observes that the toponomy of
meris of Themistos is much more Greek than that of the other two parts.
88
W. CLARYSSE, <www.trismegistos.org> Ptolemais Arabon: "On the basis of village name
one expects at least some inhabitants of Arab origin. This is confirmed by P.Teb. III
736."
89
ROSTOVTZEFF, A Large Estate, p. 176.
90
ROWLANDSON, "Town and Country in Ptolemaic Egypt", p. 256; MUELLER, Settlements of
the Ptolemies, p. 109-111. I would like to thank professor Cornelia Romer for bringing this
point to my attention in her comments on the paper.
 15

small villages. In addition to the Ptolemaïs in Upper Egypt already mentioned,

we have only one other city which was given the name. It was the capital of
the Arsinoite nome which was known by the name of Krokodeilopolis. The
date of its renaming is 117/116 B.C.91 Significantly enough, it was given a
double toponomy which had, in addition to the toponym Ptolemaïs, the cult
title of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes. Thus, for the first time in Ptolemaic history,
which happened also to be the latest use of this name, we find a cult epithet
officially added to the dynastic toponym of a Ptolemaïs settlement.92 The
event was obviously meant specifically to commemorate the eighth Ptolemaic
king and his cult title was meant to remove any confusion regarding the
identity of the designated Ptolemy.
It may be concluded from the previous discussion of settlements
which were given the toponym Ptolemaïs that this was given to a wide range
of settlements which were scattered inside and outside Egypt. Generally
speaking, these settlements were not necessarily new foundations and most of
those outside Egypt were either renamed or refounded and were already long
known under more ancient names. In Egypt itself the case was somewhat
different since a large number of these settlements were new foundations and
were for the most part villages, albeit some of these villages may have grown
in time to become major ones. In all cases, however, the toponym invariably
signified Ptolemaic power and prestige, as we shall see in the following
section.
- Ptolemaïs: What is in a Name?
In 224/223 B.C., the Athenians added a thirteenth tribe with the name
of Ptolemaïs, a deme with the name of Berekenidai, established a new festival
with the name of Ptolemaieia, and founded a gymnasium near Athens to which
they gave the name of Ptolemaion.93 Polybius (5.106.6-8) explains that they acted
in this way for fear of the Macedonian king Antigonos Doson and to
acknowledge the help which was given to them by Ptolemy III. The
historian's comment on their actions is not without a touch of irony if not
contempt. His view was that the Athenians "poured themselves out" flattering
the kings and in particular Ptolemy III.94 The honors given by the Athenians

91
THOMPSON, "The Ptolemies and Egypt", p. 109: "Here, as elsewhere, new royal names
were marked upon the landscape of Egypt."
92
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, table 1.3 where she notes that only 2% of Ptolemaic
settlements have toponyms relating to cult titles and that Ptolemais Euergetis was unique
in this regard.
93
HABICHT, "Athens and the Ptolemies", p. 74, with note 47 on page 76 (for the date). See
also HÖLBL, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 52.
94
It may be worthwhile here to note that Polybius compares the Athenians' actions with
that of the Aetolians who satisfied themselves with renaming just one of their cities
Ptolemaïs, as already mentioned.
 16

were not limited to the king as they was also shown to his wife Berenike III,
but hers were somewhat less since she was honored by a deme, whereas he was
honoured with a tribe. The Athenians may have found a precedent in the name
of the tribe of Alexandria which had the same name of Ptolemaïs.95
We can also see the name of Ptolemy in the nomenclature which was
given to the festival of Ptolemaieia, instituted about 280 B.C., of which the
celebration of the Athenian festival was only a revival or a reminiscence.96 In
his reference to this festival in his discussion of the religious life in Alexandria,
Fraser notes that Ptolemy Philadelphus "established in Alexandria an
elaborate festival, the Ptolemaieia, exclusively in honor of his father, and invited
representatives of Greek communities from the mainland and islands to
attend."97 I have already suggested that the name of Ptolemaïs can be taken
during the reign of Philadelphus to refer to him and to his father and, in fact,
one may be justified in doubting that the festival was established to celebrate
the father alone. The Greek naming system was different from the Roman
and Philadelphus had the same royal name as his father and the official name
of "Ptolemy son of Ptolemy" continued to refer to all the kings of the dynasty
who followed them. We can see it on coins and on the other monument they
founded. Moreover, the Ptolemaieia was held in Alexandria, the capital of
Philadelphus who was then still alive. The magnificence and magnitude of the
event was undoubtedly his own, after all. As time went on, the toponym of
Ptolemaïs as well as other nomenclatures derived from Ptolemy, came to
glorify the founder of the dynasty, the ruling Ptolemy and the dynasty as a
whole.98 Huss's description of the festival, as "one of the first ideologically
loaded deeds" of Ptolemy II, accurately defines the connotations of the name
of the festival.99 In the following paragraphs I shall discuss the significance of
the toponym of Ptolemaïs as a manifestation of power.
In his discussion of the sources of the political, administrative and
economic systems of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, Tarn begins with a
reference to the settlements of the Ptolemies, saying: "The Ptolemies were
certain from the first that they could not found a strong state in Egypt on the
basis of the Greek city; and though Ptolemy I would have been no successor of

95
On the tribe of Ptolemaïs in Alexandria, see P.M. FRASER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford,
1972, vol. 1, p. 40 with note 8 p. 113 (vol. II).
96
F.W. WALBANK, "Two Hellenistic Processions: A Matter of Self Definition", Scripta
Classica Israelica 15, 1996, p. 119-130, reprinted in F.W. Walbank (ed.), Polybius: Rome and
the Hellenistic World, Essays and Reflections, Cambridge, 2002, p.79-90.
97
FRASER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, p. 224 (quote, emphasis added), 231. For the full text of
the Decree of the Islanders, see AUSTEN, The Hellenistic World, # 256.
98
One might legitimately ask about the number of people who, while attending the festival
of Ptolemaieia, might have thought of the father who was dead by then, even though the
name of the celebration itself was derived from his name.
99
HUSS, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, p. 320: "eine der ersten ideologiebefrachteten Taten."
 17

Alexander's had he not founded some city, in Egypt he only founded one, Ptolemais
in Upper Egypt, doubtless to counterbalance the centre of priestly influence at
Thebes."100 Tarn goes on to discuss the settlements founded by the Ptolemies,
but his main themes are summarily enumerated in this general observation.
One must, it is clear, make a distinction between Egypt and the areas outside it
with regard to the Ptolemaic attitude towards settlements and this distinction
has been accepted by later scholars.101 Moreover, while the link between
Ptolemy I and Alexander is more than obvious, it is important to note that the
Ptolemies had a consistent attitude towards this issue. Thus, in studying
Ptolemaic settlements, one needs to note their location, their form and at the
same time – as here – their names. The Ptolemies did not found settlements
similar to the classical Greek polis, or even to the Seleucid new foundations,
and even when they did found cities, these were no longer the Greek poleis
known to the classical period.102
Study of Ptolemaic settlements has come a long way since Tarn's
observations with his concentration on the status of the settlements and their
position within the Ptolemaic administration. Summarily stated, discussions
have shifted to the nature of Ptolemaic rule and of the role of settlements in
defining its character. One of the major questions which Céline Marquaille has
recently discussed is the terminology used to describe the Ptolemaic regime.
While questioning the validity of calling it an 'empire,' she differentiates
between the realms where Ptolemaic power was 'exerted' in Egypt and where
it was 'exhibited' in the peripheries. She ends up preferring to call it a
"Ptolemaic space of influence."103 Similarly, Manning has most recently
questioned the validity and the use of modern models in studying the ancient
political economy of the Ptolemies.104 Further, using geographical and
demographical models and statistics, Mueller has stressed the importance of
differences between Ptolemaic settlements both in time and space and
attempted to find an answer to the question: "What was it that the Ptolemies
ruled?" Her approach is to define their realm as a "Ptolemäerreich," that is
"the entirety of Ptolemaic possessions, all territories including Egypt which
were at some stages under Ptolemaic suzerainty in whatever form this
suzerainty was recognized."105 These questions are important for a proper
100
W.W. TARN AND G.T. GRIFFITH, Hellenistic Civilization, 3rd edition, Cleveland and New
York, 1961, p. 179, [emphasis added].
101
See the survey in MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, pp. 2-3.
102
Note TARN's own remark (Hellenistic Civilization, 179 with note 3): "Ptolemais was in
form an autonomous Greek city, but its autonomy was presently limited by the general
of the Thebaid becoming its chief magistrate."
103
C. MARQUAILLE, "The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy", in: PAUL MCKECHNIE and PHILIPPE
GUILLAUME, Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Leiden, 2008, p. 42.
104
MANNING, The Last Pharoahs, pp. 41-45.
105
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 42; see also pp. 43-44 where she asks: "Were
Ptolemaic foundations deliberately used to unify the Ptolemaic Empire?
 18

understanding of Ptolemaic power and the manner in which this power was
manifested.106 Following such discussions, my aim here is to discuss the
toponym of Ptolemaïs as a manifestation of power.
The first point to note is that the toponym, as a dynastic one, cannot be
studied apart from other toponyms referring to other members of the ruling
family.107 Nevertheless, it has its own peculiarities which make it the most
important dynastic toponym ever used by the Ptolemies. It has been pointed
out that Arsinoe and Ptolemaïs were the most common toponyms used by the
Ptolemies.108 However, Ptolemaïs belongs to the golden era and is closely
connected with the founder of the dynasty as well as every individual king.
Besides, it was widely spread outside Egypt and allows us to see it in a wider
context than Arsinoe. Second, in order to have a better understanding of this
toponym as a manifestation of power we need to consider closely the manner
of its acquisition and whether the toponym was imposed from above or it was
willingly adopted from below; thus indicating a 'bottom-up' relationship.109 I
suggest that this binary division provides us with a practical criterion to
distinguish between the two realms of Ptolemaic power and prestige referred
to at the start of this paper: the core area and the wider "sphere of
influence."110 I also suggest that although this division is somewhat old and
seemingly out of fashion, it can still be helpful if we consider that the core
area of the Ptolemaic regime was not necessarily limited to Egypt proper.111
When the Aetolians renamed a city with the toponym of Ptolemaïs,
they were not adopting a Ptolemaic dynastic name for the first time since they
had already earlier named a city after Arsinoe II. 112 Besides, it was almost a
century since the Rhodians sent their ambassadors to Siwa to ask the god if it
was possible for them to honor Ptolemy I as a god (hôs theon timêsai) in
gratitude for the help he had given them during their war with Antigonos and
Demetrius Poliorcetes. As a result of the favorable response of the oracle,
they founded a shrine to the king and called it a Ptolemaion.113 The help which
106
And they need to be asked even though we cannot oftentimes find full satisfactory
answers or all-inclusive definitions for some of them.
107
See the discussion of LEFEBVRE cited above.
108
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, pp. 10-11.
109
As suggested by MUELLER (Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 58) who uses 'reaction' instead of
'relationship'. See also CLARYSSE, "Toponymy of Fayyum Villages", p. 77 observes that
the spread of dynastic names was not accidental and "was organized from Alexandria…
The name giving clearly points to new settlements which received 'en bloc' names of a
single type."
110
It is worthwhile remembering that such a distinction necessarily applies in the case of
other dynastic settlements as well.
111
Cf., for example, the reference to TARN and GRIFFITH above, note 100.
112
COHEN, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, p. 119.
113
Diodorus, 20.100.1-4; ELLIS, Ptolemy of Egypt, pp. 45-46; HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic
Empire, p. 93.
 19

Ptolemy I gave to the Rhodians was clearly considerable and it enabled them
to withstand the siege which was imposed on the island for two years; hence
the magnitude of the reward which provides us with a different form and use
of the dynastic name. Rhodes had never been subject to the Ptolemies, nor to
any other Hellenistic power. The dedication of the shrine and the name given
to it was taken with the free will of the authorities of the island. The same
point applies to Ptolemaïs of Aetolia and it could well have been the case with
Ptolemaïs-Larisa in the Troad which was renamed around the same time. 114
The Athenians also used the name of Ptolemaïs and gave it to a tribe, but the
name of the festival which they celebrated was also derived from the name of
Ptolemy, just as it was a reminiscent of the festival with the same name
originally celebrated in Alexandria early in the century in his honour.
Moreover, the gymnasium which carried the name of Ptolemaion added yet
another variant of the name. We may wonder how all these names sounded in
Athens at the time (even though they were not strictly toponyms); it must
have seemed like a 'banquet of Ptolemaic dynastic names.'115 Polybius was
probably right in considering it a bit too much flattery. Neither Aetolia nor
Athens was ever subject to the Ptolemies any more than were the Rhodians.
All these toponyms and dynastic nomenclature, which were readily
adopted by the Rhodians, Aetolians and Athenians, came in return for help
and support either attained or expected.116 The toponyms in these cases
assume, on the part of the people adopting them, the ability and readiness of
the reigning Ptolemy to give them aid when needed. Therefore, they reflect
the "sphere of influence" of Ptolemaic power to which those allies were
drawn. In other words, the use of such toponyms indicates in these conditions
the area where this power was primarily exhibited and where it was ostensibly
used to help achieve the goals of Ptolemaic allies. I use the word ‘ostensibly’
to stress that Ptolemaic own interests was not wholly absent from the scene.
For example, Ptolemy I himself had a lot at stake when he helped Rhodes. 117
It emerges from the preceding discussion that the use of the toponym
had a different significance in the areas where the Ptolemies were dealing with
subjects rather than allies. The toponym was then used to achieve entirely
different goals in the two areas. In the areas under direct Ptolemaic control
such toponym was imposed by representatives of the royal administration as a
stamp of power on an area indicating that this essentially belonged to the
Ptolemaic regime and not merely attracted to it. In fact, the dividing line

114
During the Third Syrian war, even though we do not have enough evidence to stress the
point.
115
Reminding us of what MARQUAILLE (The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II, p. 58) calls
"Philadelphus' dynastic policy of names."
116
Diodorus, 20.100.2, in his description of the help which Ptolemy I gave to the Rhodians
says that it was greater (meizonos charitos) than what the others gave them.
117
HÖLBL, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 29.
 20

between the two domains may at times seem a little vague, particularly when
we are dealing with the same toponym. Still, it is all the more perceptible;
otherwise, what would be the difference between the most southern Ptolemaïs
tôn therôn in Eretrea, and its namesake city founded by the Aetolians in
mainland Greece half a century later? Also, how can we look at the example
of Krokodeilopolis which was renamed Ptolemaïs Euergetis late in the second
century B.C.?
It has already been mentioned that there were at least eleven
settlements named Ptolemaïs in Egypt and eight outside it. That division of
inside/outside Egypt follows the traditional view expressed by Tarn back in
the middle of the last century. However, I hope to have shown in the
preceding discussion of the toponym, particularly from those cases where it
was imposed, that the 'core area' of Ptolemaic regime extended outside Egypt
itself. Certainly, the regime had its power base there, where the first Ptolemaïs
was founded, and its centre in Alexandria, the seat of the Ptolemaic king.118
But the Ptolemaic kingdom (or empire) also included Cyrene, Cyprus and
Phoenicia. All of these regions remained under Ptolemaic rule for a long
period of time and were subject to immediate Ptolemaic authority. 119 As a
major stamp of Ptolemaic royal power over them, every region needed to
have its own city of Ptolemaïs. The only exception among these three regions
was Cyprus which had another stamp exhibited by three other settlements
with the toponym of Arsinoe,120 the second most important toponym after
Ptolemaïs in the first phase of Ptolemaic rule.121 Since these settlements
belong to the second generation of the dynasty, they show us that Ptolemaic
settlements on the island began extensively during the reign of Ptolemy II
who gave them settlements with the name of his sister and wife. Of the
Ptolemaïses founded within this core area of Ptolemaic power, two cities need
a special mention. The city of Tolmeita in Cyrene, much like Alexandria, is the
only Ptolemaïs settlement which still commemorates the name of its founder,
albeit in a modified form. Ptolemaïs in Phoenicia was lost to the Seleucids in
the last years of the third century, but it continued to keep its old name. Tarn
saw in this phenomenon a proof of the importance of the city.122 In fact, we
may be justified in concluding that the continuation of the name under the
new regime provides us with a chronological terminus whereby the city
moved from the 'core area' of Ptolemaic power to its "sphere of influence."

118
MARQUAILLE, "The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II", p. 51, on the centripetal force of the
city.
119
BAGNALL, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, pp. 11-79, esp. p. 238.
120
MUELLER, Settlements of the Ptolemies, p. 11.
121
As demonstrated by LEFEBVRE, "Les Arsinoè de la Grèce continentale et insulaire",
pp.7-18.
122
TARN AND GRIFFITH, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 245; see also COHEN, The Hellenistic
Settlements in Syria, pp. 214-215.
 21

- Conclusion:

Ptolemaïs was one of the dynastic toponyms which were given to many
Ptolemaic settlements both inside and outside Egypt. The tradition began with
the founder of the dynasty and continued until the age of Cleopatra VII. Most
of the Ptolemaïs-named settlements belong, however, to the reign of the first
two Ptolemies. As a dynastic toponym, Ptolemaïs has acquired over time a
double meaning since it could refer to the founder of the dynasty, any reigning
Ptolemy, and the Ptolemaic dynasty as a whole. The significance of this
toponym as a manifestation of Ptolemaic power and prestige was further
enhanced by several cognate names which were also derived from Ptolemy
such as Ptolemaion or Ptolemaieia. Such nomenclature indeed was the most
conspicuous and persistent sign of Ptolemaic authority. The toponym
Ptolemaïs helps us to distinguish between two realms of Ptolemaic power and
prestige: the "core area" and its "sphere of influence." In the core area, the
toponym was the work of a central administration which 'exerted' its will upon
subjects and used it as a stamp of the royal authority of the Ptolemaic king.
According to the case studies of settlements named Ptolemaïs, this core area
of Ptolemaic regime included Egypt, Cyrene, Phoenicia and Cyprus. Within
the sphere of influence, the toponym was adopted voluntarily and was,
therefore, more of an exhibition of the authority of the king whose power is
thereby commemorated.