Stable URL: http://ancientassociations.ku.dk/assoc/180Download as PDF
Last Updated on 25 Nov 2018

Author: Mario C.D. Paganini

CAPInv. 180: to politeuma ton en Alexandreiai pheromenon stratioton

I. LOCATION

i. Geographical area Egypt
ii. Nome Alexandria (L00)
iii. Site Alexandria

II. NAME

i. Full name (original language) τὸ πολίτευμα τῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι φερομένων στρατιωτῶν (I.Alex. Ptol. 32, ll. 3-7)
ii. Full name (transliterated) to politeuma ton en Alexandreiai pheromenon stratioton

III. DATE

i. Date(s) 112 - 75 BC

IV. NAME AND TERMINOLOGY

ii. Name elements
Geographical:en Alexandreiai
Professional:stratiotai
Status-related:stratiotai
iii. Descriptive terms πολίτευμα, politeuma
Note Politeuma: I.Alex. Ptol. 32, l. 3.

V. SOURCES

i. Source(s) I.Alex. Ptol. 32 (112/1 BC or 76/5 BC)
Note Other editions of the text: SEG 20: 499; SB VIII 9812.
Online Resources SEG 20: 499
TM 5976
AGRW ID 20506
i.a. Source type(s) Epigraphic source(s)
i.b. Document(s) typology & language/script Greek dedication to Zeus and Hera by the politeuma of soldiers.
i.c. Physical format(s) Limestone stele.

VII. ORGANIZATION

ii. Leadership The προστάτης, prostates (ll. 7-8), is Dionysios, son of Kallon.
iii. Members The members of the politeuma defined themselves as κτίσται, ktistai (l. 13), 'founders' of the cult object or shrine which was dedicated to Zeus and Hera.
iv. Officials The politeuma has a γραμματεύς, grammateus (l. 11), Philippos, son of Philippos.

IX. MEMBERSHIP

ii. Gender Men
Note Since the politeuma is made up of soldiers, they were all male.
iii. Age Adults
iv. Status The politeuma gathered the soldiers active in Alexandria (ll. 3-7).
vi. Proper names and physical features Διονύσιος Κάλλωνος προστάτης
Φίλιππος Φιλίππου γραμματεύς

X. ACTIVITIES

iii. Worship The politeuma set up the dedication in honour of Zeus Soter and Hera Teleia.
Deities worshipped Zeus Soter
Hera Teleia

XIII. EVALUATION

i. Private association Certain
Note The group presents all the characteristics (internal organisation, activities, officials etc) of a private association. There are no hints at the fact that this group had larger responsibilities of whatever character, like it is the case for other politeumata (cf. CAPInv. 1370). It therefore seems certain that this politeuma functioned and was a private association of a military character.