katoikoi

1 Katoikoi CHRISTELLE FISCHER-BOVET The katoikoi are the “inhabitants” of a place (Arist. Oec. 1352a33), the noun being synonymous with the participial form katoikountes, while a katoikia is a “settlement” or “colony” (village or town) lacking the status or the institutions of a POLIS or “city” (Polyb. 2.32.4; Strabo 7.4.4). In a narrower sense, found in papyri and inscriptions, the term katoikoi refers to military settlers in the Hellenistic armies. For a long time, the nature of katoikoi and katoikiai in the Seleucid and Attalid kingdoms has been reconstructed on the basis of the better documented cleruchic system in Egypt (see CLERUCHS, EGYPT), but some differences are noticeable. In Egypt, the term katoikoi appears only in the second century BCE and refers only to cavalrymen, and katoikia designates the status of katoikoi hippeis (cavalry settlers), not a settlement. In the Seleucid Empire, the katoikoi are both cavalrymen and infantrymen, with land allotments (kleroi), fiscal privileges, and sometimes even billets, according to the earliest epigraphical attestation in Magnesia ad Sipylum (OGIS 229, soon after 242 BCE?), which alludes to allotments already granted by Antiochos I. SMYRNA grants citizenship to the katoikoi living in Magnesia and those encamped nearby, all employed by SELEUKOS II, and to the other inhabitants (oikountes) of Magnesia. As in many cases, the katoikoi’s origin is unknown, but Greco-Macedonian origin is generally assumed. Later writers tend to describe many katoikiai as those of Macedonians (e.g., Thyateira in Strabo 13.4.4; OGIS 211 without the term katoikia) but settlers’ origin was not restricted. There were, for instance, Mysians, Thracians, and Jews in the Seleucid armies, though it is unclear when they had the status of katoikoi (Launey 1949). The Attalid kings used large numbers of mercenaries but also granted land-allotments of various sizes (RC 51), perhaps already in the 260s BCE (RC 16). Katoikoi appear in PERGAMON, where diverse groups of soldiers are registered in the garrison (phrourion) and others in the old city (OGIS 338). An inscription from Daldis published by Hermann and Malay (2007, New documents from Lydia no. 32, after 188 BCE) reveals the term katoikia in the Hellenistic documentation from Asia Minor. Mysian settlers (katoikountes, A l. 3), plausibly soldiers, were transferred to “the settlements of the huntsmen” (katoikiai ton kunegon, B l. 22), whose inhabitants, hunters or some kind of soldiers, according to the editors, are to be assigned new plots. The civilian or military character of the katoikiai in the Seleucid and Attalid kingdoms is still debated (Cohen 1991 contra Bar-Kochva 1976: 22–6), because most sources are Roman and refer to civilian settlements. The evidence rather suggests that katoikoi could be settled anywhere next to civilians and that katoikiai initially grouped both civilian and military settlers. In Egypt, the settlement of soldiers (cleruchs) already started under the first Ptolemies (see CLERUCHY), especially on reclaimed land in the FAYYUM, but the term katoikoi appeared only in the second-century evidence (except Uebel 1968, nos. 4 and 1453) to designate a particular category of cleruchs, namely, the cavalry settlers with plots of land of theoretically one hundred arouras (27.5 ha). Until then they were usually identified as onehundred-aroura men or as cleruchs. Polybius (5.65.10) was the first author to use katoikoi with the sense of military settlers for Thracian and Galatian soldiers in his description of the Battle of Raphia (217 BCE) but he might have borrowed a second-century technical term not yet employed in the Ptolemaic army at the time of the battle. The term katoikia appeared in conjunction with the katoikoi when the cleruchic system was reorganized (Van ’t Dack 1977: 84–90): some policemen who already had a kleros (P.Tebt. I 30.27) and other cleruchs (P.Tebt. I 62.46) could obtain this higher status without automatically receiving one hundred The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 3712–3713. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07051 2 arouras, and some private owners might have bought kleroi and obtained the status (P.Lips. II 124.78; Thompson, forthcoming). In theory, katoikic land still belonged to the king and could be confiscated if the katoikoi did not pay their taxes or fulfill their military obligations. Their kleroi could not be alienated, but only transferred through cessions (parachoreseis) to other katoikoi or later to their descendants. Although the katoikoi were often of Greek origin, there are examples of Egyptian katoikoi, such as Amenrosis, son of Paieus in Thebes (O. Wilcken 701) and Hatres, son of Petephibis in Panopolis, who wrote a Demotic will to bequeath his land to his sons (Thompson, forthcoming, no. 6, 69 BCE). However, since many Egyptians entering the army took Greek names (P.Tebt. I 64a.107), it is difficult to identify them. The katoikoi sometimes defended their group-privileges through petitions to the kings. They paid collectively a fixed amount of tax – established by the dioiketes – on their land into a “cavalry account,” and when some allotments had been confiscated, they complained that they were being overtaxed because of them (P.Lips. II 124, 137 BCE or later). Some royal decrees are probably responses to such petitions to keep these groups loyal. They protect the katoikoi from extra charges or legal prosecutions, confirm that kleroi could be hereditarily transmitted, and acknowledge the cessions to other soldiers (P.Tebt. I 124.23–45, 118 BCE; BGU IV 1185, after 61/60 BCE). In Roman Egypt, the term katoikoi no longer implied military obligations but is found in connection with katoikic land, the name given by the Romans to private land previously in cleruchs’ hands (see LAND AND LANDHOLDING, GRECO-ROMAN EGYPT). It was taxed at the same rate as private land, as indicated by the “one artaba of the katoikoi” still found in the third century CE (SB XVI 12493). However, sales of katoikic land still followed the conventional form of cessions. “The katoikoi from the total of 6,475 Hellenes in the Arsinoite” (SB XII 11012, Fayyum) formed a special group, whose members descended at least partly from the Ptolemaic katoikoi and which remained to some extent exclusive. Like gymnasial groups in other towns, they benefited from a lower poll tax and displayed Greek culture (Nelson 1979: 36–9). SEE ALSO: Antiochos I Soter; Cavalry, Hellenistic; Colonization, Greek; Dioiketes (Egypt); Ethnicity, Egypt; Gymnasium, Classical and Hellenistic times; Hellenes; Magnesia ad Sipylum; Military lands; Phalanx (Macedonian); Raphia, battle of; Seleucids. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bar-Kochva, B. (1976) The Seleucid army: organization and tactics in the great campaigns. Cambridge. Cohen, G. M. (1991) “Katoikiai, Katoikoi and Macedonians in Asia Minor.” Ancient Society 22: 41–50. Cohen, G. M. (1995) The Hellenistic settlements in Europe, the islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley. Launey, M. (1949) Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. Paris. Nelson, C. A. (1979) Status declarations in Roman Egypt. Amsterdam. Thompson, D. J. (forthcoming) “Cleruchic land.” In J. G. Keenan, J. G. Manning, and U. YiftachFiranko, eds., Law and society in Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Egypt. Cambridge. Uebel, F. (1968) Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern. Berlin. Van ’t Dack, E. (1977) “Sur l’évolution des institutions militaires lagides.” In Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique: 77–105. Paris. (reprint in E. Van ’t Dack (1988) Ptolemaica selecta: Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides: 1–46. Leuven).