The Problem of Hellenistic Syria and the king’s replies, concerning properties owned by Ptolemaeus. The con-
text is immediately after the Seleucid conquest in . All that is clear is that
the dossier speaks ofkōmai(villages) ‘‘of ’’ Ptolemaeus, and that as owner he is
concerned to protect the people (laoi) in his villages from official exactions
and the quartering of troops (epistathmeia). One phrase may imply that some
kōmaihad been inherited by him, and others added by the king’s command.
We can accept that the document embodies the notion of owning villages
and (in some sense) of owning or being responsible for the people who in-
habit them.
Further north, from the hills inland from Aradus, we have the famous in-
scription of the temple of Baetocaece.^58 In response to a report about the
energeia(power) of the god Zeus of Baetocaece, King Antiochus—which one
is uncertain^59 —announces his decision to grant to the god the village of
Baetocaece, which a certain Demetrius formerly ‘‘had’’ (eschen), so that its
revenue (prosodos) may be spent on the sacrifice, and any other steps taken
for the improvement of the shrine by the priest appointed by the god. There
is to be a monthly tax-free fair, the sanctuary is to have the right of asylum,
and the village is on no account to be subject to billetting.
It is clear that the cult of Zeus of Baetocaece already existed. The village
had, up to the moment of the king’s grant of it to the temple, been in private
possession. This may mean no more than that there had previously been a
(revocable) grant of it to a private person by an earlier king; that is to say that
the village belonged in the category ofchōra basilikē, royal land.^60 No such
legal prescription is actually stated in the document, and it is clear from the
king’s decision that some representation had been made to him about the
‘‘power’’ (energeia) of the god. It is, therefore, equally possible that he is ap-
proving the transfer to the sanctuary of land which had previously been in
full private ownership. Exactly what is meant for the status of the inhabi-
tants is uncertain. In inscribing this document in the s.., and also a
little earlier, in the s (IGLSVII ), they describe themselves askatochoi
(subjects) of the god.
The city of Aradus is not involved in this initial transaction, though it was
later, under Augustus. Are we then dealing with royal land (chōra basilikē)
either in the sense of an individual royal property or in the wider sense, com-
.IGLSVII, ; Austin (n. ), no. .
. H. Seyrig, ‘‘Antiquités syriennes, : Arados et Baetocaece,’’Syria (): –;
K. J. Rigsby, ‘‘Seleucid Notes,’’TAPhA (): –; B. Baroni, ‘‘I terrenieiprivilegi
del tempio di Zeus a Baitokaike (IGLSVII ),’’ in B. Virgilio, ed.,StudiellenisticiI (),
–.
. So Baroni (n. ).